I've got multiple cases involving a substance identified by the lab as UR-144. It fits the definition of a synthetic cannibinoid under PG2-A but it is not specifically listed. I considered charging under the "controlled substance analogue" section but PG 2-A is not listed. Any suggestions

Let me give you two suggestions. Each option is going to be heavily dependent on listening closely to your testifying chemist and determining what they feel comfortable with testifying. Although 2-A isn't listed as part of the analogue section, it doesn't NEED to be because 2-A is not an exclusive list the way that PG 1 is. So here's two options:

1) Talk with your chemist and determine if UR-144 is a "synthetic chemical compound that is a cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannibinoids." THAT is what PG2-A outlaws. All of what follows are simply examples of those substances or ways in which they can be chemically structured. Notice the difference in the way that PG 1 lists the drugs- "Penalty Group 1 consists of:" That makes PG 1 an exclusive list. However, PG 2-A ends with the word "includes." That is a non exclusive list. If UR-144 meets the definition of a synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist, then it's included in 2-A even if not specifically named.

2) For that matter, PG 2-A wasn't strictly necessary to outlaw these substances. It's nothing more than a specific listing of compounds that were already analogues to tetrahydrocannabinols, a substance listed in PG 2. You can combine the listing of tetrahydrocannabinols in 481.103 with the analogue language of 481.106 and reach ANY of the substances in PG 2-A. They are all "specifically designed to produce an effect substantially similar to" tetrahydrocannibinols.

If your testing chemist is confortable, form a scientific standpoint, with calling UR-144 a "synthetic chemical compound that is a cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannibinoids" OR a chemical analogue to Tetrahydrocannibinol, then you can proceed with prosecution.

Though the attached paper is tailored to proving these cases in federal court, I thought the research work was excellent and my good friends in TDCAA might find it to be useful.

This was really helpful. Thank you!

On a related note, Texas Senate Bill 263 is currently pending that would specifically list UR-144 in PG2-A, expand the analogue statute to cover 2-A, and to clarify that all of the listed substances are part of a "such as" list, not an exclusive list.

It looks like the Department of Justice has issued notice of intent to schedule UR-144, XLR11 and AKB48 into Schedule 1 of the CSA. I've attached the article for anyone interested.