From review of the bill, it effectively controls the older generations of cannabinoids such as naphthoylindoles (JWH-018, AM-2201, etc.), naphthoylmethylindoles (JWH-175, JWH-184, etc.), naphthoylpyrroles (JWH-307), naphthylideneindenes (JWH-176), benzoylindoles (RCS-4, AM694, etc.), cyclohexylphenols (CP47,497 and variants), phenylacetylindoles (JWH-203, JWH-250, etc.), adamantoylindoles (AB-001, AM-1248, etc.), and tetramethylcyclopropanoylindoles (UR-144, XLR-11, etc.). It also includes some of the newest generation compounds, such as the indole carboxamides (AB-001, STS-135, etc.) and indole carboxylates (PB-22, 5F-PB-22, etc.).
Interesting note on the indole carboxamide classification is that the indazole carboxamides are included, but I don’t see how they fit under this umbrella. These indazole carboxamides include STS-135, ABk48 and its fluorinated derivative, AB-PINACA and its fluorinated derivative, ADB-PINACA and its fluorinated derivative, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-FUBINACA. Semantics matters here. An indole group is not the same thing as an indazole group.
Also listed on Page 24, section M is something curious…
“Any other compound, not specifically listed in these schedules or approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, that is identified by chemical, medical, or pharmacological means as a cannabinoid receptor agonist which mimics or is intended to mimic the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids.”
Hmmmm…so, if any substance not scheduled in the CSA can be shown to be a “cannabinoid receptor agonist”, then it will be considered a controlled substance.
Now, here is where it gets curiouser…
In the updated legislation, “cannabinoid receptor agonist” is explicitly defined as:
“…any chemical compound or substance that, according to scientific or medical research, study, testing, or analysis, demonstrates the presence of binding activity at one or more of the CB1 or CB2 cell membranes receptors located within the human body.”
The definition “cannabinoid receptor agonist” has nothing to do with actual activity at the binding site. As it is written, it has everything to do with binding affinity at the receptor. So, if a substance can be shown to bind to either cannabinoid receptor 1 or cannabinoid receptor 2, then it is considered a controlled substance.
Also noteworthy from the pending legislation…
“Imitation controlled substance shall mean a substance which is not a controlled substance or controlled substance analogue but which, by way of express or implied representations and consideration of other relevant factors including those specified in section 28-445, would lead a reasonable person to believe the substance is a controlled substance or controlled substance analogue.”
After review of this bill, we can easily see that Nebraska government and law enforcement intends to cover these drug substances in many ways. As always, other states will follow suit. I already know of one state that has the imitation controlled substance language.