Author Topic: Legality of prodrugs in US (Read 207 times)

Bardo · « **on:** March 02, 2011, 08:28:26 PM »

I know the US has done a good job of banning pro-hormones but I believe they did this on a case by case basis by specifically banning each pro-hormone as it came up. In other words I don't believe they came up with some huge bs catch-all law which made them illegal (could be wrong though). So that has me thinking about pro-drugs. What would the legality be of say a non-schedule non-chemically related substance that gets metabolized into say MDA or MDMA in the the body. Would that substance be legal?

Usually when trying to skirt the legality of psychoactives you usually always find yourself backed up against the bullshit incredibly vague catch-all Federal Analogue Act. When you interpret the act how the DEA wants to then pretty much everything is illegal that they want it to be which means if a prodrug gave the same results of a scheduled one then the DEA will certainly believe they are on sound legal ground to rape you, however, if you look at the cases that have challenged the Federal Analogue Act you will find that judges have not been inclined to rule that there can be a law that allows the DEA to do whatever the fuck they want to do under an extremely vague and arbitrary catch-all law. Basically the few cases that went before the courts have ruled that the chemical has to be very structurally similar to a scheduled one for the law to be applicable and actually if you are in the state of Colorado the entire act is null and void since it has been ruled to be unconstitutionally vague (but since the ruling wasn't appealed it only applies to CO for now).... Anyways I guess my question on the legality of prodrugs should ignore for now the legally questionable Federal Analogue Act and just focus on all other laws. So anyone aware of any catch-all pro-drug laws besides the Analogue Act?

jon · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2011, 07:12:28 AM »

nope it's all jurisdictional like you say it depends on the leanings of the jugdes.

Bardo · « **Reply #2 on:** March 04, 2011, 08:56:50 PM »

great, we live in a country where you may or may not be doing something highly illegal because the laws are so arbitrary and the jurisdictions so inconsistent.... what a country we live in

lugh · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2011, 12:46:24 AM »

If you would have searched for analog on this web site you would have found these threads:

http://127.0.0.1/talk/index.php/topic,712.0.html

http://127.0.0.1/talk/index.php/topic,549.0.html

which cover the analog act in detail

The legality of prodrugs is yet to be tested in court

Bardo · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2011, 01:06:56 AM »

^^^ Thanks but I specifically asked for answers disregarding the Analogue Act due to its legal ambiguity...... But I doubt the legality of prodrugs has not been tested. Prodrugs in the form of pro-hormones was front and center in the national media for quite some time. I just never paid close enough attention to see where all the laws and cases ended up falling. After all the only difference legally between a pro-hormone and a pro-psychedelic is the difference between a pro-scheduledIII and a pro-scheduledI.

lugh · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2011, 01:30:14 AM »

The attached case acquired using Westlaw covers the law involved

Bardo · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2011, 01:47:58 AM »

"to be convicted of possessing with intent to distribute mixtures containing a controlled substance, it must be shown that
the defendant knew that the substance at issue had a chemical structure substantially similar to that of a controlled
substance, and he or she must either have known that it had similar physiological effects or intended or represented that it
had such effects"

Well if we are going to get sidetracked into the Analog Act it should be noted that the ruling used the word "AND" whereas both the law and DEA use the much more restrictive OR. And this case is for this district. In Colorado's district the Act is null and void because it is too arbitrary and vague and ruled unconstitutional. In the 3rd Judicial Circuit it has been ruled constitutional. So in some parts of the country the Analog Act is binding law and in other parts of the country it is unconstitutional. I have a feeling the DEA will never appeal an unfavorable ruling to the Supremes because they would much rather have a Analog Act that covers most of the country instead of one that gets thrown out by the top court. I don't think they want to risk it.

Vesp · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2011, 01:55:03 AM »

Interesting! So the Analog Act doesn't work in Colorado?*
It seems like it would not be too tricky to fix this problem in a few other states.. I know of one that is real big when it comes to the health supplements and likes to make those laws as favorable to business as possible.

*Obviously since it is federal, it has power over a states deciding, right? So it "really" isn't going to make a huge difference, is it?

geezmeister · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2011, 04:01:06 AM »

The analogue act is void for vagueness in the Tenth and Third circuits?

Bullshit.

The Tenth Circuit has held that the jury instructions for the offense must read that the compound the defendant is charged with must have a chemical structure similar to a prohibited or controlled drug AND must be manufactured, distributed or dispensed as having the same or similar effect to a controlled substance. Not one or the other, but both.

That was the only ambiguity found in the statute.

Prodrugs sold on the street would fall into the classification of controlled substance analogue as they have substantial chemical similarities to controlled drugs and if sold on the street would be sold as having the same or similar effect as the controlled substance. Prodrugs clearly fall within the analogue act, and there is no ambiguity or room for construction of the statute or of its application.

The analogue act is federal law. State courts do not handle its enforcement. Federal courts handle its enforcement. The Tenth Circuit, which includes Colorado had not held the controlled substances analogue act unconstitutional nor has it held it was void for vagueness.
It has required a conjunctive rather than disjunctive jury instruction, i.e., that the proof must show both elements of the offense rather than one or the other. I assure you there are current prosecutions for the violation of the act in every jurisdiction covered by the Tenth Circuit, and to suggest the act has been held in abeyance by that circuit misreads decisional authority from that court.

I suggest that before you start posting that some jurisdiction has held part of the controlled dangerous substance act unconstitutional you provide a citation to the case for us. I ran the last one hundred tenth circuit decisions discussing anything having to do with the constitutionality of the controlled substances analogue act and turned up nothing other than the discussion on the conjunctive jury instruction. That was settled a long time ago by precedential standards.

I' d love to be wrong.

Why not post that 10th Circuit case and that 3rd Circuit case for us and make a fool of me?

Bardo · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2011, 09:47:12 PM »

^^^ First of all why don't you try reading the whole short post before going off on it. I specifically said that the 3rd Circuit has ruled it to be constitutional and then you wrote a big long post about how I'm wrong about it being unconstitutional. As for the federal district of Colorado the case would be this one:

USA v. Damon S. Forbes et al. (1992) 806 F.Supp. 232

And I don't think you understand how federal laws work. Yes a federal law affects an entire nation until that law is taken to court and thrown out. Then it is null and void. And when you have some districts that declare it constitutional and others declaring it unconstitutional that leaves the law active in some districts and void in others until the Supremes rule one way or another. But it will never get to the Supremes if the losing side does not appeal it to them. This is way the DEA probably does not appeal unfavorable decisions on this law like the one in USA v Forbes because they are afraid the Supremes will decide it is unconstitutional and hence void out the law in districts where they have gotten favorable rulings.

You are a fool yet?.... I'd still like insight into possible specific pro-drug laws.

lugh · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2011, 10:39:13 PM »

Quote

USA v. Damon S. Forbes et al. (1992) 806 F.Supp. 232

And I don't think you understand how federal laws work. Yes a federal law affects an entire nation until that law is taken to court and thrown out. Then it is null and void. And when you have some districts that declare it constitutional and others declaring it unconstitutional that leaves the law active in some districts and void in others until the Supremes rule one way or another. But it will never get to the Supremes if the losing side does not appeal it to them. This is way the DEA probably does not appeal unfavorable decisions on this law like the one in USA v Forbes because they are afraid the Supremes will decide it is unconstitutional and hence void out the law in districts where they have gotten favorable rulings.

You are a fool yet?.... I'd still like insight into possible specific pro-drug laws.

That's the case that geezmeister quoted in:

http://127.0.0.1/talk/index.php/topic,549.msg6403.html#msg6403

on October 19, 2009

Clearly you never bothered to read the thread link that was posted

There are no specific prodrug laws yet, but if such compounds are marketed then the laws will follow

You'll need to work a lot harder to get to the level the counselor has been for many years, all you're doing is making a fool of yourself

Perhaps you should go back to class

Bardo · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2011, 06:31:16 AM »

^^^^ What are you talking about? Now you need to reread the post. He argues that the 3rd district ruled that it is constitutional which is the exact same thing I said (so he's making an argument where there isn't one), then you disregard my case I cited because it was cited a year ago. Whether he has cited it before or someone else has does not make the case any less relevant. If anything it makes it even worse that he clearly forgot about a case that he was citing in the past which concluded in the entire Federal Analog Act being declared null and void by the Colorado federal district. Perhaps YOU should go back to class.... reading class.

java · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2011, 03:27:28 PM »

.Bardo.....there are law forums where you can have your answers http://forms.findlaw.com/forum is an ideal place to pose your doubts and concerns.....you have exceeded the patience of this fine people trying to answer your questions for which you are trying to get everyone to do your research.....if you really want to get the correct answers retain a research attorney.....enough said,......java

lugh · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2011, 03:43:18 PM »

Quote

What are you talking about? Now you need to reread the post. He argues that the 3rd district ruled that it is constitutional which is the exact same thing I said (so he's making an argument where there isn't one), then you disregard my case I cited because it was cited a year ago. Whether he has cited it before or someone else has does not make the case any less relevant. If anything it makes it even worse that he clearly forgot about a case that he was citing in the past which concluded in the entire Federal Analog Act being declared null and void by the Colorado federal district. Perhaps YOU should go back to class.... reading class

In what case was the Federal Analogue Act declared null and void ? As mentioned by the counselor the instructions to the jury have been changed slightly but that certainly doesn't mean it's not still the law of the land

Your question could have been answered by simply searching various sites on the internet for the information you seek:

h**p://washlaw.edu/

or by posting a thread in one of the many internet forums frequented by attorneys such as the one posted above

You're not going to get what you want by name calling, that's for sure

Bardo · « **Reply #14 on:** March 07, 2011, 05:32:09 AM »

I never called any names and I was not the one who turned this thread into an argument. I also thought this forum is entitled "Law and Security" yet you say if I want to discuss law do so on another site? What good would arriving at a solid conclusion do for the members of this site if the conclusion is reached at some law forum they are not reading?

lugh · « **Reply #15 on:** March 07, 2011, 01:00:12 PM »

Quote

I know the US has done a good job of banning pro-hormones but I believe they did this on a case by case basis by specifically banning each pro-hormone as it came up. In other words I don't believe they came up with some huge bs catch-all law which made them illegal (could be wrong though). So that has me thinking about pro-drugs. What would the legality be of say a non-schedule non-chemically related substance that gets metabolized into say MDA or MDMA in the the body. Would that substance be legal?

Usually when trying to skirt the legality of psychoactives you usually always find yourself backed up against the bullshit incredibly vague catch-all Federal Analogue Act. When you interpret the act how the DEA wants to then pretty much everything is illegal that they want it to be which means if a prodrug gave the same results of a scheduled one then the DEA will certainly believe they are on sound legal ground to rape you, however, if you look at the cases that have challenged the Federal Analogue Act you will find that judges have not been inclined to rule that there can be a law that allows the DEA to do whatever the fuck they want to do under an extremely vague and arbitrary catch-all law. Basically the few cases that went before the courts have ruled that the chemical has to be very structurally similar to a scheduled one for the law to be applicable and actually if you are in the state of Colorado the entire act is null and void since it has been ruled to be unconstitutionally vague (but since the ruling wasn't appealed it only applies to CO for now).... Anyways I guess my question on the legality of prodrugs should ignore for now the legally questionable Federal Analogue Act and just focus on all other laws. So anyone aware of any catch-all pro-drug laws besides the Analogue Act?

Most of these wise words from:

http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/clandchemfaq.txt

are still rather accurate and it seems these words need to reposted on a monthly basis:

Trade Secrets, Or "Where Can I get Oil of Sassafras?", "How Do I ------------- Extract Codeine From Tylenol #1's?", "Can You Isomerize Dextromethorphan to the Narcotic Levo Form?"

Just because you ask a question on the Net, does not mean anyone's going to answer it. Or in particular on alt.drugs --a newsgroup dominated by drug burn-outs, trollers, poseurs, and wannabes -- answer it correctly.

You may get an answer to your question, but you can't realistically expect it when it amounts to a trade secret. Someone who poses such a question obviously has a recipe for making MDMA, aka E. The recipe requires oil of sassafras, or another source of safrole. Needless to say, the government is aware of this too, and it's somewhat difficult, though not impossible, to get.

Broadcasting to the world, via UseNet, where to get it, is a good way to get the government to clamp down on that source of supply. Why on earth would you expect anyone to tell you how to get rich (illegally) anyway? Figure it out yourself, idiot!

The codeine extraction question is another good one, commonly asked on alt.drugs. Tylenol #1's are OTC in Canada, Australia, and elsewhere. Someone was selling such a recipe for thousands of dollars in New Zealand a few years back. So why would someone give it to you for free? Your grasp of philanthropy is deeply flawed, pal.

More importantly, to do that brings us the issue Number 2:

Killing the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg
------------------------------------------

I guarantee that if a simple recipe was posted for something such as extracting codeine from OTC medications, within the year, codeine would be prescription-only everywhere.

But then dopers -- being the narcissistic morons that they are -- have never been particularly known for foresight.

Ditto for isomerizing dextromethorphan, the OTC cough medicine. Out of chemical interest, I've wondered that myself in the past.
But I don't know the answer, never having been interested enough to explore the matter.

The fact of the matter, however, is that widely publicizing certain things -- and the Net is as wide as it gets -- inevitably results in their negation through government action. I don't say this to stifle people from posting information, but there is such a thing as discretion, ya know.

[I'm reminded of Abbie Hoffman's omission in his 1970 classic, "Steal This Book", of the "dead baby birth certificate" method for obtaining false ID. Hoffman feared that widespread publicity would spur government action to close what he viewed as an escape hatch for fugitive radicals. Indeed, by early 1974, Hoffman was himself on the lam from a cocaine trafficking beef.

Hoffman's self-censorship only delayed the inevitable however -- the scam was out only a year later in Frederick Forsyth's 1971 best-selling thriller, "Day of the Jackal", and a more detailed underground how-to version, "The Paper Trip" by Barry Reid (Eden Press).

Interestingly, a quarter century later, this latter volume is still available -- along with a host of sequels and imitators trying to cash in on the corrupt and the gullible -- even though the method is more-or-less defunct.]

Coming in a close second, are those individuals who request simple high-yield recipes requiring a minimum of trouble". Get serious, dudes! TANSTAAFL. More importantly, why would anyone tell it to you for free?

"Please e-mail me the Answer to my [Stupid] Question"
----------------------------------------------------

...Because I'm such a lazy putz that I can't be bothered to stick around long enough to wade through the regular traffic.

Along with "tell me everything about <Insert_subject_here>" because you have a homework assignment due tomorrow and are too dumb or lazy to use the library, this probably ranks as one of my biggest net.peeves.

"Why Didn't Anyone Answer my [Stupid] Question?"
-----------------------------------------------

No, we're not too lazy or too arrogant. Er, well, maybe we are, but dammit, we're not sitting here waiting around to respond to
whatever minuscule thought percolates through your tiny, 1/4 watt cerebrum. That's Lamont's job.

Ever hear of a library? It's an amazing place. Medicinal chemistry is around RM315 if you've graduated past the Dewey Decimal System.

I started posting to the Net on the premise that I should put back in, for what I've gotten out of the Net. Inspired by the venerable Bill Nelson, who presides over in rec.pyrotechnics, I began posting to alt.drugs primarily safety information, and corrections to inaccurate posts. Other than that, if a post interests me, time-permitting, I *may* respond. If it doesn't, I don't. _C'est la vie_.

You're a lot more likely to get a response if you show you've done your homework -- made some sort of preliminary effort to investigate the question yourself. I think I first got fed up with the intellectual parasites that infest alt.drugs (and much of the rest of the net) when during a lengthy thread on petroleum ether, some nitwit posted the very same question we had just finished discussing.

Yes, indeed. A fool's thoughts: the briny well that never runs dry.

Is the DEA on the Net?
----------------------

The Internet is what the government-constructed and owned ARPANET has evolved into.

Of course they're on the Net, fool!

This was definitively confirmed in December 1994 by Lamont. No surprise here, except among the drug-addled.

Of course, it is also the height of narcissism to think that the DEA gives a hoot whether you are a dope-smokin' degenerate. Believe me, they have more important things to worry about. State and local criminal investigators might, however, be a different matter.

More importantly, the fact that you posted a message to alt.drugs such as, "I'm really baked!" [You're such a clever lad, aren't you?]
may not concern you now. However you may wish to consider the fact that it's quite probable that someone somewhere is archiving *all* net traffic, and that in ten or twenty years when you do care, it may come back to haunt you.

Such is the price of a dissipated youth.

Can I Rely on Net.answers to my Questions?
------------------------------------------

No. Next question, please.

The Net is a whore that takes on all customers. This is its bane, as well as its beauty. The nature of alt.drugs makes it particularly vulnerable to inaccurate, incomplete, and downright erroneous answers from an assortment of flakes: poseurs trying to elbow their way to the front of the intellectual line, wannabe-criminals trying to attract sponsorship by exaggerating their expertise, and pseudo-experts trying to pump up their flagging egos by marking a corner of the Inner Circle.

After all, the One-eyed Man is King in the Land of the Blind. Such misguided and/or maladapted individuals are most dangerous when they provide partially correct answers or answers lacking the appropriate caveats.

Elevating irascibility to an art-form, I've made it a personal crusade to flame such net.idiots on general principles alone.

On the other hand, past and present alt.drugs Hall-of-Famers such as J<rest of name deleted by request>, [St.] Anthony Ankrom, and
Lamont Granquist (with an honorable mention to Steve Dyer, Eric Snyder, Howard Black, Pierre St. Hilaire, Malcolm, and Eli Brandt),
can usually be counted on to provide interesting, useful, and accurate chemical information.

Their selfless dedication to, and pursuit of the Truth is truly the Net at its best, and should be an inspiration to all.

Unfortunately, everyone but Lamont and Steve withdrew from posting, or post only infrequently. Make of that what you will.

But the bottom line, after all, is that you get what you pay for. If you rely on net.information at face value without independent
confirmation from a reliable source, you do so at your own peril.

'Nuf said.

------------------------------

Subject: 8. The Law: Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200,000

"Ain't got no picture postcards,
Ain't got no souvenirs,
My baby, she don't know me,
When I'm thinkin' 'bout those years."

-- "New Orleans is Sinking"
The Tragically Hip (1989)

Not surprisingly, it is a serious crime everywhere to make and distribute drugs. Even less surprisingly, this has failed to make much of a dent in the manufacture and traffick in such substances.

Since the U.S. is at the forefront of the War on Drugs, I will concentrate on U.S. statutes only. I no longer follow U.S. law particularly closely, so some of this information may be out of date.

The U.S. Federal criminal statutes are found in the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), located in any North American law library. The USC may be found in a collection of volumes ("Titles") called the U.S. Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.).

The drug statutes (possession, conspiracy, and sale), including Schedules I to V of the Controlled Substances Act (listing all banned and federally regulated drugs and precursors) are in Title 21, Sections 800-900 (21 USC 800-900).

(Interestingly, first offense drug possession is a misdemeanor in the U.S. under Federal law. Unfortunately, minor offenders are typically prosecuted under State Law, which usually makes drug possession a felony.)

Other related Federal criminal statutes are CCE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise, 21 USC 848), RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 USC 1962), and the Controlled Substance Analog Enforcement Act (21 USC 802.32).

RICO and CCE are the legal bludgeons the Feds use against drug rings that achieve any sort of success. They are quite draconian in both scope and harshness.

State law is an entirely different and separate affair from Federal law and jurisdiction. Each of the fifty states has its own body of laws, and you can be prosecuted under _both_ federal and state statutes, double jeopardy notwithstanding.

California and Texas are two states which, in tandem with thelevel of local lab activity, have a fairly well developed body of statutes in this area. In particular, state precursor control laws preceded that of the Feds by well over a decade.

For California State Law (the Health and Safety Code covers drug-related laws), see:

<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>

The long-predicted (Maclean & Pournelle, unpublished (1972) & Brecher, supra)) rise of synthetic heroin analogues precipitated the passing in 1986 of the federal Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act. This closed what had become a major loophole in
prior legislation, the so-called "designer" drugs (pharmacologi-cally similar, minor chemical variants of banned drugs). Analogues,
however, were not a recent problem. The first open source mention was Gunn et al. (1970, supra) (cf. Baum (1985), supra).

Finally, the 1988 Chemical Diversion Trafficking Act (21 USC 802.33 -802.40) placed mandatory import/export/sales reporting requirements on a slew of precursor chemicals.

Other legal manifestations of the politics of contraband include laws making money-laundering (18 USC 1956, including failing to
report large cash transactions), and the transportation of dangerous chemicals on airplanes Federal felonies, as well as civil forfeiture (21 USC 853 & 881), allowing for the summary confiscation of a suspected drug dealer's assets with or without any related criminal conviction.

Income tax evasion, and using the phone (or the Net) to violate the drug laws are also Federal crimes.

However much you think that drugs are plentiful and peachy-keen, you would be well-advised to note that manufacture and organized trafficking are not looked upon kindly. Prosecution is vigorous and aggressive, and these people don't fool around.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Additionally, the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights was gutted by the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in _U.S. v. Salerno_ (1987)), to allow for pre-trial detention on the basis of "being a danger to the community", against the previous legal standard of mandatory bail except when there was "risk of flight".

The USC is net.available:

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode>
<http://www.pls.com:8001/his/usc.html>
<http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/gpo/>

or as gzip compressed files (by Title):

<ftp://etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Politics/Conspiracy/AJTeel/USC/>

Additions to the list of contraband drugs are announced in the "Federal Register", a U.S. Government periodical found in any U.S. or Canadian law library, as well as any U.S. "Federal depository" public library, or on-line:

<http://thorplus.lib.purdue.edu/gpo/>

Updated schedules and ancillary drug regulations may be found in Title 21 of the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations.

A current list of proscribed drugs may also be obtained by writing:

Drug Enforcement Administration
Attn: Drug Control Section
1405 "I" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20537

------------------------------

Subject: 9. Morality & Ethics

"And in between the moon and you,
The angels get a better view,
Of the crumbling difference,
Between wrong and right."

-- "Round Here"
Counting Crows (1993)

I've always been fascinated by the subject of outlaw chemistry. But radical chic aside, the more I've seen of things, the less and less happy I've become with the morality of it all.

I've even begun to question the value of that relatively benign class of substances known as the psychedelics. (What was it that Ram Dass once said? "Psychedelics have a message to give, but once you get the message: hang up.")

With the rest, however, -- narcotics, ups, and downs -- the answer is quite clear. And it ain't a good one.

For no matter how delightful you find the chemistry or the prospect of easy money and free dope, the fact of the matter is that the drug business is a sordid, tawdry, and immoral one.

Driven almost entirely by greed, it comes with its own grim toll of dead, destroyed, addicted, imprisoned, or impoverished humans: a constellation of suffering and misery which no decent man should ever want to add to.

I'm not a particularly religious man, but to put it simply: can you imagine Jesus Christ giving his blessing to your crank lab?

No matter how you rationalize it, there is no way to escape the cruel reality that drugs are about two things: money and power. Amassed through the corrupt exploitation of human weakness.

And if they catch you -- and the odds are very much in favor of that -- you can expect no sympathy at all.

Rank amateur or not, they *will* crucify your sorry ass.

It's a looking glass world, with the dealers and chemists on one side, and an array of shameless, moral cowards: the demagogic Republican slime politicians, crooked and brutal cops, sleazy parasite lawyers, and hypocritical judges on the other.

And they *all* profit to the detriment of society.

Now, don't get me wrong: criminal sanctions against drug *users* are clearly not just wrong-headed, but more importantly, counter-productive. It is fairly obvious, as the Dutch and Swiss governments, and the highly respected "Economist" magazine see it, that drug use is a social problem and public health issue that should be dealt with as such.

Unfortunately, too many have too much invested in the status quo.

Sound public policy is built not through the cynical manipulations of politicians and two dollar moralists, but through a careful balancing of harm minimization to the individual, _as well as_ society at large.

Until society comes to grips with that, the non-medical use of drugs will remain an intractable scourge that distorts entire economies, corrupts our institutions to the core, and frays the social fabric.

However, the base hypocrisy of society cannot and does not provide moral justification for the manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs for personal profit.

Sorry.

If one is a resident of the United States, there's undoubtedly a law library open to the public nearby

Additionally the statutes are online, and can be downloaded if one has enough space on their hard drive

You haven't provided an iota of evidence that the Analogue Act has been over ruled anywhere, and clearly you're never going to be able to do so

What you have done is wasted some members' valuable time, so it's unlikely you're ever going to get any of your questions answered as long as you're using the same nym

Good luck with your quest for knowledge

geezmeister · « **Reply #16 on:** March 07, 2011, 04:10:25 PM »

Quote

and actually if you are in the state of Colorado the entire act is null and void since it has been ruled to be unconstitutionally vague (but since the ruling wasn't appealed it only applies to CO for now)...

The quoted comment was the comment you made,to which I had reference. And this is the comment which is not only bullshit, but is dangerously misinforming to the membership here, who, if they took you at your word, might think Colorado a haven for those intent on having close brushes with the analogue act.

Quote

And I don't think you understand how federal laws work.

Odd. I was defending prosecutions under that act in that circuit most likely before you were born. When did you hang your Juris Doctorate on the wall? I can read the case and comprehend its contents, recognize its holding, and understand its application. I can do so without misinforming others.

My objection to your comment is that it is incorrect, misinforms, and is misleading.

Bardo · « **Reply #17 on:** March 07, 2011, 09:21:30 PM »

"Two cases of note have examined the interpretation of the Federal Analog Act in the USA. Firstly, the case of USA v. Damon S. Forbes et al. (1992) 806 F.Supp. 232, a district court decision for the district of Colorado, considered the question of whether the drug alphaethyltryptamine (AET) was a controlled substance analogue in the USA. The controlled drugs to which it was alleged that AET was substantially similar were the tryptamine analogues dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and diethyltryptamine (DET).

In this case, the court ruled that AET was not substantially similar to DMT or DET, on the grounds that (i) AET is a primary amine while DMT and DET are tertiary amines, (ii) AET cannot be synthesized from either DMT or DET, and (iii) the hallucinogenic or stimulant effects of AET are not substantially similar to the effects of DMT or DET. Furthermore the court ruled that the definition of controlled substance analogue given in the Federal Analog Act was unconstitutionally vague, in that

“Because the definition of "analogue" as applied here provides neither fair warning nor effective safeguards against arbitrary enforcement, it is void for vagueness.”

The common law principle that the people should have the right to know what the law is, means that the wording of laws should be sufficiently clear and precise that it is possible to give a definitive answer as to whether a particular course of action is legal or illegal. However despite this ruling the Federal Analog Act was not revised, and instead AET was specifically scheduled to avoid any future discrepancies.

Nonetheless, as a district court decision, the force of precedent for this case is limited to the federal district of Colorado."

Edit by Vesp: No Flaming or personal attacks. This is clearly stated in the rules which is linked in my signature and is a sticky in Site Matters.

Quote

# Ignore posts that are of low quality, by trolls, or that have not been extensively researched.

# Do not participate in trolling, heated discussions, or make personal insults. Contact Vesp if this is seen on the forum.

java · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2011, 11:55:47 PM »

Quote

What good would arriving at a solid conclusion do for the members of this site if the conclusion is reached at some law forum they are not reading?

......you can report your findings to the membership, since, you insist on having members agree with your interpretation and conclusions.......java

lugh · « **Reply #19 on:** March 08, 2011, 01:08:24 AM »

The attached American Law Reports article is cited as ALR Fed 325; it covers the case law involving the Analogue Act in great detail

The 10th District Court held that since the defendants weren't chemists, that they couldn't be held to the same standard as someone who was

There's a vast difference between a holding and dicta that's usually not evident to non-lawyers

h**p://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htm

The case applies to AET, not any other compound

Anyone who thinks otherwise is indulging in wishful thinking

Author Topic: Legality of prodrugs in US (Read 207 times)

Bardo

Legality of prodrugs in US

jon

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Bardo

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

lugh

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Bardo

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

lugh

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Bardo

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Vesp

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

geezmeister

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Bardo

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

lugh

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Bardo

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

java

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

lugh

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Bardo

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

lugh

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

geezmeister

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

Bardo

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

java

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US

lugh

Re: Legality of prodrugs in US