[sdfghguy11452]

Hello everyone! My name is Charles.

I'm not sure if I should be posting in this forum or not but I have a question about a chemical compound that has seen illicit usage in my area called 25i-NBOMe (2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine).

It was synthesized by David Nichols and Ralf Heim to test human 5-HT2A receptor binding affinity in vetro. When used in humans it produces effects similar to mescaline or LSD.

See link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe

Now, for some information about the federal analogue act. It states that for a chemical to be considered a controlled substance analogue, it must have a chemical structure that is "substantially similar" to a controlled substance. Problem is that they give no definition for "substantially similar"

See link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_act

Now for my question;

Do you think these two compounds could be considered "substantially similar"?
The DEA chemist says that they are.

2c-B (4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine)
Schedule I controlled substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-B


25I-NBOMe (2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine)
Unscheduled and uncontrolled substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe



Thanks for your input and again, I'm sorry if this conversation is inappropriate for your forum.
 

Charles

[Arkcon]

Yes, this topic is inappropriate for this forum, as specified in the rules, posted in red, at the top of each page.  Since the DEA considers the two molecules analogues, for legal purposes, I don't know what the question is.  If you want to debate their "sameness" or how to address the topic legally, you might as well take the topic to a forum dedicated to debating legal topics, or government law topics.

[sdfghguy11452]

I'm not asking about illicit drug synthesis. I would like to have an intellectual discussion about the opinion of one chemist vs. another. The DEA chemist gave his opinion, now I would like some others.

If your going to lock my thread and and cite a violation of a rule, could you cite an applicable rule please?!?

The rules;
Black Violations:A single violation will result in a ban.

0. Discussions on illicit drug synthesis are strictly forbidden as well as discussions on synthesizing explosives. Although intellectual discussions on the chemical physical properties of such explosives and drugs are allowed. Violators will have their topic deleted and banned.


So I ask again,

I'm not sure if I should be posting in this forum or not but I have a question about a chemical compound that has seen illicit usage in my area called 25i-NBOMe (2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine).

It was synthesized by David Nichols and Ralf Heim to test human 5-HT2A receptor binding affinity in vetro. When used in humans it produces effects similar to mescaline or LSD.

See link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe

Now, for some information about the federal analogue act. It states that for a chemical to be considered a controlled substance analogue, it must have a chemical structure that is "substantially similar" to a controlled substance. Problem is that they give no definition for "substantially similar"

See link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_act

Now for my question;

Do you think these two compounds could be considered "substantially similar"?
A DEA chemist says that they are.

2c-B (4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine)
Schedule I controlled substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-B



25I-NBOMe (2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine)
Unscheduled and uncontrolled substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25I-NBOMe




Thanks for your input and again, I'm sorry if this conversation is inappropriate for your forum.
 

Charles

[Arkcon]

Thanks for your input and again, I'm sorry if this conversation is inappropriate for your forum.
 

Charles

Do you really mean this?  You've written it twice tonight, but you're not acting like it.  You post something a moderator says isn't appropriate.  Your thread is locked.  You immediately post again, and decide to play "rules lawyer".  You don't act like someone who wants to have a discussion.  You act like someone with an agenda to push.  As for me :x

[discodermolide]

You are obviously not a chemist. These two molecules are similar the DEA chemist is correct in his assessment.

[Borek]

Even the wiki page you linked to suggests what is analogous about these molecules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-B#N-substituted_derivatives

[curiouscat]

And as a testament to the liberality of the forum you haven't been locked so far!

[curiouscat]

In any case, say we told you they aren't similar.

What then?

When the men in black come busting your doors you scream n cry that some random dude on the Internets told you it was OK? 

[DrCMS]

They are structurally similar and as Borek has pointed out in many countries both are banned explicitly.  In the UK any and all phenylethylamines are controlled substances.  In the USA any substance the DEA considers to be similar to a banned substance is also controlled.  Any chemist will tell you these are similar and the DEA has made its decision so if you've been caught with some you are going to prison.

[IsotopeBill]

I absolutely agree that they are very similar.  Libraries of compounds are routinely screened in bioactivity studies, and I would very much expect these two compounds to be members of the same library.

There is no explicit definition for "substantially similar":  the terms "similar" and "explicit" are pretty much mutually exclusive.  Such questions are necessarily answered on a case-by-case basis, hopefully by people who are sufficiently educated and motivated to pass judgment in an appropriate manner.  People who hold the simplistic view that the DEA is simply a group of goons out to ruin the fun of self-proclaimed hedonists would do well to read the recent news story of the young woman who is now in a vegetative state after smoking "synthetic marijuana".

I'll step off my podium now . . .

[discodermolide]

You just need to look at the link Borek posted, not surprisingly the N-Benzyl derivatives are very active compounds.

[sdfghguy11452]

Even the wiki page you linked to suggests what is analogous about these molecules:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-B#N-substituted_derivatives

I must point out that it's saying "25B-NBOMe is analogous to 2c-B. My question was if 25I-NBOMe could be considered "substantially similar". Please note the difference, bromine and iodine.


Excerpt from wiki;

N-substituted derivatives

A variety of N-substituted derivatives of 2CB have been tested, including N-methyl-2CB, N,N-dimethyl-2CB, N-ethyl-2CB and N-benzyl-2CB. Most simple alkyl derivatives were considerably less potent than 2CB, with N-ethyl-2CB for instance having around 40x lower affinity at the 5-HT2A receptor. The N-benzyl derivative however was found to have higher binding affinity than 2CB itself, with N-(4-bromobenzyl)-2CB binding even more tightly again.[18] This initial research did not include functional assays of activity, but later led to the development of potent substituted N-benzyl derivatives such as 25B-NBOMe.[19]

[sdfghguy11452]

They are structurally similar and as Borek has pointed out in many countries both are banned explicitly.  In the UK any and all phenylethylamines are controlled substances.  In the USA any substance the DEA considers to be similar to a banned substance is also controlled.  Any chemist will tell you these are similar and the DEA has made its decision so if you've been caught with some you are going to prison.

In order for the chemical to be considered a controlled substance, intent for consumption must be established. Possession doesn't equate to a prison sentence in the USA. I would also like to point out that it's not controlled in the UK either.

Please note that wiki states that it could be considered an analogue of 2c-I, not 2c-B.

So I'm still standing by my original question.

Excerpt from wiki;

Legal status

25I-NBOMe is unscheduled under United States federal law.[19] However, it could possibly be considered an analog of 2C-I (a Schedule I controlled substance) under the Federal Analogue Act. In this case, sale or possession of 25I-NBOMe with the intent of human consumption would be illegal. Virginia,[20] Louisiana,[21] and Florida[22] have specifically scheduled 25I-NBOMe as a Schedule I controlled substance.

All NBOMe substituted phenethylamines are controlled in Russia.[23]

[sdfghguy11452]

You are obviously not a chemist. These two molecules are similar the DEA chemist is correct in his assessment.

I am not a chemist, that's why I'm asking your opinion.

There is no doubt that there are similarities here, I know this. What I don't know, from a chemist's perspective is, are they SUBSTANTIALLY similar? To me it looks like there are substantial differences!!!

[discodermolide]

The difference between bromine and iodine is, in this case, probably negligible perhaps making it more lipophillic allowing better blood-brain barrier penetration. The pharmacophore is the phenylethylamine or it's N-aryl substituted analogues.