Only certain compounds are included in that legislation. Basically synthetic "weed" is more appropriately referred to as synethetic cannabanoids, as these are compounds unrelated to THC which act upon cannabanoid receptors in the brain. These compounds continue to be synthesized and modified to create a psychoactive effect similar to marijuana, while being chemically distinct enough to remain legal under the letter of the law. This allows smoke shops and internet vendors to sell these substances, though not for human consumption.
Like most people who use this stuff, he was likely trying to avoid drug testing requirements. Some people actually prefer some of these synthetics to tried and true marijuana. Why, I have no idea. I've heard so many terrifying stories from users that I've worked with.
That's just what they want the Sheeple to believe. Just remember what dcmissile said:
The whole point of the 2012 legislation was to stop playing that kind of legislative whack-a-mole. It doesn't attempt to exhaustively enumerate specific compounds, rather it bans broadly any cannabinoid receptor agonist in a broad umbrella of structural classes, including "any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers".
This is true on a federal level, however, it doesn't mean local police will enforce this law. Local police certainly won't enforce it for a high-profile celebrity that lives within walking distance.
Read the ambien experiences people have shared in this thread. What's surprising (if indeed this is ambien related) is that it wasn't way weirder.
Anecdotes aren't enough to establish that such reactions are common occurrences.
Well played. Perhaps I should call myself something else. Don’t want to intrude.
He was at home, may have gotten scared and went searching for help without bothering to get properly dressed first.
The next added paragraph after the sentence you quoted then indicates what a cannabimimetic agent is, and outlines certain chemical backbones. In response, manufacturers are simply moving on to differently structured agents. Wired wrote an article back in 2012 which examines how the law was obsolete when it was signed d/t agents already available at that time which were not impacted.
Good on PFT (Michael David Smith, not Florio, but still) for calling Carter out for speculating without any evidence whatsoever .
Well, he's got a long personal history, all right. My quick Google search on "Cris Carter drugs" found 183K hits...
I was not really trying to suggest that this is true so much as point out the specious logic Carter employs.
I think publishing these comments makes Carter look worse than Jones to be honest. While he made a mistake, Jones ultimately did the responsible thing. Every word out of Carters mouth here is irresponsible. Love the summary by smith.
Well, that and the fact that prohibition doesn't work in general even with stable compounds (see: alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin).
If you get a chance, the book Chasing the Scream is a pretty good read and addresses a lot of these ideas. I'm really into drug policy so this stuff is my bread and butter.
