The chemical name as given in the legislation is silent about the configuration of the two stereogenic centres. The diagram at left depicts the (1R,6R) stereoisomer.
The CDSA is silent about which regio- and stereoisomers (ca. 12) of Tetrahydrocannabinol are encompassed by this entry. The (6aR) Δ9 isomer is depicted at left.
Non-viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives
Effective 12 Mar 1998, SOR/98-157 replacement for:
Non-viable Cannabis seed
There is much confusion about the legality of Cannabis seed. Some believe that because the seeds contain no Tetrahydrocannabinol (or any other controlled substance) they are beyond the reach of the CDSA, but that is not the case.
While it is true that Cannabis seed is not explicitly listed in the CDSA as a controlled material, the Cannabis plant is controlled by the CDSA, and Cannabis seed is considered part of the Cannabis plant.
Furthermore, since the CDSA explicitly excludes “non-viable Cannabis seed” (i.e. a seed that cannot germinate and grow into a Cannabis plant) the courts have made the reasonable inference that the CDSA includes viable Cannabis seed.
The fact that police have been less than rigorous in laying charges for this offence, or that the punishment meted out is often trifling, does not nullify the law.
Synthetic cannabinoid receptor type 1 agonists, their salts, derivatives, isomers, and salts of derivatives and isomers—with the exception of ((3S)-2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl)-1-naphthalenyl-methanone (WIN 55,212-3) and its salts—including those that fall within the following core chemical structure classes:
Any substance that has a 2-(Cyclohexyl)phenol structure with substitution at the 1-position of the benzene ring by a hydroxy, ether or ester group and further substituted at the 5-position of the benzene ring, whether or not further substituted on the benzene ring to any extent, and substituted at the 3′-position of the cyclohexyl ring by an alkyl, carbonyl, hydroxyl, ether or ester, and whether or not further substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any extent, including
Any substance that has a 3-(1-Naphthoyl)indole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent, including
Any substance that has a 3-(1-Naphthoyl)pyrrole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further substituted on the pyrrole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent, including
Any substance that has a 3-Phenylacetylindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent, including
Any substance that has a 3-Benzoylindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent, including
Any substance that has a 3-Methanone(cyclopropyl)indole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the cyclopropyl ring to any extent, including
The Open Parser for Systematic IUPAC nomenclature (OPSIN), a superlative work of software design and engineering in my view, quite properly says “3-methanone(cyclopropyl)indole” circumvents the rules and offends the language of chemistry: “3-methanone(cyclopropyl)indole has no tokens unknown to OPSIN but does not conform to its grammar. From left to right it is unparsable due to the following being uninterpretable:(cyclopropyl)indole”
Any substance that has a Quinolin-8-yl 1H-indole-3-carboxylate structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the quinolin-8-yl ring to any extent, including
The Open Parser for Systematic IUPAC nomenclature (OPSIN), a superlative work of software design and engineering in my view, quite properly says “1-Pentyl-8-quinolinyl ester-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid” circumvents the rules and offends the language of chemistry: “1-Pentyl-8-quinolinyl ester-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid could be parsed but OPSIN was unsure of the meaning of the words. This error will occur, by default, if a name is just a substituent”
The Open Parser for Systematic IUPAC nomenclature (OPSIN), a superlative work of software design and engineering in my view, quite properly says “1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-8-quinolinyl ester-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid” circumvents the rules and offends the language of chemistry: “1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-8-quinolinyl ester-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid could be parsed but OPSIN was unsure of the meaning of the words. This error will occur, by default, if a name is just a substituent”
Any substance that has a 3-Carboxamideindazole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indazole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indazole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted at the carboxamide group to any extent, including
The Open Parser for Systematic IUPAC nomenclature (OPSIN), a superlative work of software design and engineering in my view, quite properly says “3-Carboxamideindazole” circumvents the rules and offends the language of chemistry: “3-Carboxamideindazole was uninterpretable due to the following section of the name: 3-Carboxamide The following was not understandable in the context it was used: oxamide”
Any substance that has a 3-Carboxamideindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted at the carboxamide group to any extent, including
The Open Parser for Systematic IUPAC nomenclature (OPSIN), a superlative work of software design and engineering in my view, quite properly says “3-carboxamideindole” circumvents the rules and offends the language of chemistry: “3-carboxamideindole was uninterpretable due to the following section of the name: 3-carboxamide The following was not understandable in the context it was used: oxamide”