[thousandautumns]

There was a Times article several years ago about the rise of synthetic cannabis and they said legislators can't keep up with new chemical formulations. They take several months to study and ban one chemical, and the manufacturers turn around and tweak it slightly and it's a "new" drug that hasn't been made illegal yet.

[vis52]

Yup.

From what I could tell that's almost exactly what's happening in Europe as well. One difference though is that it takes even longer since each member state bans these individually.

From what I saw there are RC variants of many drugs I've never heard of but I saw RC-LSD, RC synthetic cannabis, RC-ecstasy, angel dust...

[freeflight]

It is very much a European thing, not as popular in the US due to easier access to cannabis and it was synthetic Cannabis (Spice) that started the whole craze a couple of years ago, followed by "bath salts" which then extended to the whole RC line of drugs.

Tbh the government reactions to this, banning specific substances cannabinoids in particular, have made this situation just that much worse.

This stuff booming like that should have told them the whole story: That there's a very real demand for legalization. Instead, they continue prohibition practices even further, forcing manufacturers to use other (much more dangerous) substances, a game they've now played so long that by now most of these synthetic Cannabis variants have nothing at all do anymore with the "natural stuff" and instead have become extremely destructive and addictive substances [0]

By insisting on the prohibition stance the regulators literally made "weed" lethal.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-43600584

[cc439]

>Instead, they continue prohibition practices even further, forcing manufacturers to use other (much more dangerous) substances

The inherent danger in iterative research chemicals is a lesson I had to learn firsthand. I had tried the initial formulations for "spice" a few times and found it to be a pleasant analogue to marijuana. I decided to pick some up several years later, and well, the effects were closer to that of a hardcore disassociative than anything resembling THC. Don't fuck around with products you can't be 100% confident in.

[gowld]

That's not quite right. Legislators certainly can keep up; all they need to do pass a broad ban on chemicals with the undesired empirical properties.

[rhizome]

You can't legislate a state of mind, and people have different reactions to different substances, so I'm a little confused as to what form this "broad ban" would take.

[soundwave106]

The United States has a "broad ban" in place called the Federal Analogue Act -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act

The definition is "not 100% exact" in its nature, but dealers have been prosecuted and sent to prison for violating this.

It's also possible to apply broad bans to Markush structures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_scheduling_of_synth...), which is how I understand some places attempt to regulate synthetic cannabinoids and other broad classes of chemicals.

(Keep in mind these laws do not apply to fentanyl -- in the United States, fentanyl is schedule II and is available as prescription medicine. Illicit fentanyl is more "illegal drug market" than "research chemicals"; cocaine is in the same boat in the US as well, a schedule II drug that's available on the illicit market. The above might apply to any fentanyl analogues though.)

[DanBC]

Here: The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/contents/enacted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...

But also the UK has rapid powers to add a substance to the schedule in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Here's a recent list: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlled-drugs-...

Here's schedule 2. I don't know how often this gets updated: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/schedule/2

> You can't legislate a state of mind,

You can legislate "intoxication", although the methods for doing so are pretty crude at the moment.

[toomanybeersies]

Well here's one: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0053/latest/D...

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 was introduced in NZ after its failed experiment with legalising synthetic highs. I don't necessarily agree with the act, but it basically is a "broad ban" of new recreational drugs.

[maxerickson]

Just ban chemicals that interact with certain receptors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_receptor_agonist#5-H...

[sannee]

That's extremely non-selective - for instance [1] is a random paper discussing ethanol interacting with the 5-HT2A receptors (at least if you are a male rat that is).

It would likely also lead to unforeseen consequences. For example, the Czech government attempted to ban growing Phalaris, but had to backpedal as it's a common unassuming weed.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9347073

[chris_va]

You could always ban the chemical scaffold.