Is it considered that the statutory definitions under H.S.C. section 481.1031 provide the equivalent of an "analog statute" in that they provide, for example, "whether of not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted in the phenyl ring to any extent"?

There's a previous thread on this topic here.

In short- my contention is yes, the list is nonexclusive and if a chemist can testify that the chemical structure is covered by the broad language in the statute, then you're good. Alternatively, if your chemist or a forensic toxicologist is willing to testify that the substance is an analogue of THC, you may be able to prosecute that way. However, I'm not personally aware of any caselaw on those points yet.

Thank you.