www.lesswrong.com/posts/9dgbhEg8QRfRo6r3j/certain-exotic-neurotransmitters-as-sm...

The post uses the term "synthetic neurotransmitters" for compounds like 2C-D and related 2C analogs. That is not chemically or biologically accurate.

Authoritative neurobiology references define neurotransmitters as endogenous chemicals that neurons use to communicate with each other by releasing them from presynaptic cells into synapses. Examples include glutamate, GABA, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin.

By contrast, the 2C compounds discussed here are described in the medical literature as ring-substituted phenethylamines / designer drugs with hallucinogenic or psychedelic effects. Reviews of the 2C class note that these compounds have affinity for 5-HT2 and alpha-adrenergic receptors and may act as agonists or antagonists at those receptors. In other words, they are exogenous psychoactive drugs acting on neurotransmitter systems, not neurotransmitters themselves.

A compound can be structurally related to a neurotransmitter system without being a neurotransmitter. Calling these substances "synthetic neurotransmitters" overstates what they are and may mislead readers about their pharmacology.

This sentence is incorrect because the law did provide a definition.

The Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 added a definition of "controlled substance analogue" to the federal Controlled Substances Act. In 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(A), Congress defined the term as a substance whose chemical structure is substantially similar to a Schedule I or II drug and that either has, or is represented/intended to have, substantially similar stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effects on the central nervous system.

Reasonable people can certainly argue that the definition is broad or vague in practice. But saying the statute "did not specify what an analog exactly was" is false: the law explicitly included a definition section describing what counts as a controlled substance analogue.