acyclic ring was found to be better than a heterocyclic ring, with a cyclohexane ring being optimal. In addition, the size and the position of the substituent on the cyclic ring is important to maintenance of CB1 affinity...position of double bonds within the cyclohexane ring effect activity. For example, moving the double bond of Δ9-THC to position 8 (as in Δ8-THC) decreases CB1affinity.
methyl (less likely to hydrogen bond) ethyl etc generally kills short side chains kill activity, 4-6 is best, branched chain increases activity.. increasing ring size to say heptane increases activity of both, conversion to a pyran cuts cb2 .adding oxy, hydroxy ketones increase cb2 .a sulfur substitution anywhere ruins it.
oxy in the phenyl ring increases cb1 can't substitute the phenol or alter placement as I was mentioning about delta 8, serious alterations ruin it
, degree of saturation as well as the position of the double bond in the cyclohexane ring effects cb1
I could literally carry on for a whole page.. why cant anyone just listen.
you can't just attach crap to thc.. it relies on the 3 things mentioned in my post above with slight variations drastically altering binding affinity and huge changes kill it. what your suggesting is worthless.. and I mean worthless as in inactive.