Author Topic: Why is sassy still legal?  (Read 2576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pezuzu

  • Guest
Why is sassy still legal?
« on: January 10, 2002, 09:09:00 AM »
I'm just curious:

Does anybody know what political/legal/payola leverage the essential oil and aromatherapy industries are using to keep sassy and brown camphor legal to buy/sell?

PZ

terbium

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2002, 09:12:00 AM »
I would acquire now while the acquiring is still good.

halfapint

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2002, 09:49:00 AM »
It's because the DEA can't make it too public they manipulate the FDA's decisions. (That ain't legal.) The most notable examples are sassafras and tryptophan. In both cases, the medical grounds given by the FDA for trying to suppress public sales are let's say highly dubious, for it might bee rude to say FUCKING PHONY. Happens the FDA cannot stop the herbal distribution of sassafras; it ain't legal. Sassafras was first a medicinal herb, and its oil so used, before its safrole ingredient was declared a precursor. They just muscled the oils distributors by threatening to pull their liability insurance for that item.

http://www.itmonline.org/pdf/asarum.pdf



It's also not legal for them to keep l-tryptophan off the consumer shelves either; the facts have been known nearly a decade, and pure l-tryptophan presents no public health hazard. Nobody has the balls to take them to court over it, is all.

We know, hell we probably could present documented proof, that the DEA is muscling its fellow agency to pretend these substances are public health hazards, just so the DEA can restrict our access to these two beautiful precursors. Unfortunately, our lobby in Washington happens to be a little weak right now.

Note the FDA regulations have to do with its public availability. These do not determine its DEA watch list status. It is conceivable that single-component l-tryptophan as a dietary supplement could be restored to store shelves, for the DEA could say nothing about that. It isn't currently a controlled precursor, nor on any watch list. Sassafras oil is neither a controlled precursor, nor on a watch list per se. We know the DEA watches it like a nearsighted buzzard, though their legal authorization to do so is by no means firmly grounded. Its safrole content is the listed precursor, which is on the watch list.

Sassafras root bark is neither listed nor watched. I expect you can make yourself conspicuous enough, importing thirty tons from China to your third floor apartment, to get yourself noticed, though. The FDA doesn't regulate it, and the DEA doesn't watch it. Customs, though, is very likely alert to it, particularly as a single-component shipment, in large amounts as above. Business recipients, as always, get more slack than peeps do.

Goes for the oils as well: sassafras albidum, ocotea cymbarum, cinnamomum camphora (brown). Domestic oil sales in quantity are not formally watched. In fact, DEA extortion on most of the large domestic suppliers leads to the de facto situation that you'll get snitched out, by some suppliers under some circumstances. That's not strictly a legal situation, it's more of a description of applied State terror. A chemical supplier selling purified safrole is required by law to snitch on its customers to the DEA. An essential oil supplier selling sassafras oil is not legally required to snitch, but likely as not will "voluntarily" do so, after the DEA twists their arm hard enough. Arm twisting is among the specialties of that agency.

turning science fact into <<science fiction>>

foxy2

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2002, 06:52:00 PM »
I don't think tryptophan was the DEA, because honestly its not all that great of a precursor.  And the drug it is a precursor to is not addictive.  And the pigs didn't take the Tryptophan from a well known person who was raided of their other chems, which leads me to believe that they don't give a flying fuck about it.

I think it was the drug companies that caused the demise of Tryptophan.  SSRI's were brand new at the time and tryptophan is an effective cheap antidepressant.

I hate my government, does this mean I'm a terrorist??

goiterjoe

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2002, 01:10:00 AM »
the manufacturers of Prozac probably had a big say in the demise of tryptophan, considering how one appeared on the market around the same time the other disappeared.

If Pacman had influenced us, we'd run around dark rooms eating pills and listen to repetitive music

Vibrating_Lights

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2002, 09:36:00 AM »
Mdma was also taken off the market about the same time as prozac.  prozac is just a highly addictive weak ass pharmacutical bean.  you ever seen someone run out of that shit.

goiterjoe

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2002, 03:27:00 PM »
I don't think MDMA was ever on the market, considering it's been a scheduled substance since the 60's.

If Pacman had influenced us, we'd run around dark rooms eating pills and listen to repetitive music

foxy2

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2002, 06:50:00 PM »
Goiter you better check your facts, They are a little OFF.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_timeline.php3



I hate my government, does this mean I'm a terrorist??

RoundBottom

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2002, 06:59:00 PM »
i believe it was mis-spelt it on the schedule and it was briefly legal in the early '80s.  i believe there was an article in life magazine about it back then, too.

i learned a thing or two from charlie dontcha know.

cis

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2002, 12:02:00 AM »
MDMA made scheduled in '85 I believe(emergency scheduling)Damn Yankees.

halfapint

  • Guest
Re: Why is sassy still legal?
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2002, 01:21:00 AM »
Laws. We know what they are, and what they are worth. Proudhon.

What we oughta do, is walk right over the United States government, and their wannabe regulations.

This is how: dope is redefined as religion, universally and retroactively. If you think retroactive isn't fair, look at law, which does this trick with retroactive. Look at Nuremburg, telling the Nazis no, there wasn't a law against it when you did the nasty, but there should have been, so we're gonna hang you for what you did because we won, but we will pretend there was a universal law pre-existing all the time. So most of US is ready to kill Asama bin Laden with or without a trial or secret military tribunal (which may have taken place virtually and instantaneously and silently while he was in the sighting ring of the robot bomb), well it would be legal here because "everybody" wants to.

Thing is that dope has always been maintained as religion by somebody somewhere, which is enough to keep a religion alive. Never got on so well with law though. If you don't believe in secret mystical orders and suchlike the continuity of this "opinion" can be shown, for at least through Western civilization, which seems the one keeping the mainstream records at this juncture. All of history inclusively records the culturally internal association of drugs and religion, backed by the empirical evidence that all of archaeology inclusively shows the association of drugs and religion in the immediately prehistoric period dating back to not less than the last big ice age.

We got a case. Freedom of religion is a constitutional principle, although the founding patriarchs thoughtfully sought to limit such freedom, to freedom of monotheism and/or deism exclusive of polytheism to restrict the possibility of primitive drug cults. The thing about religions is they don't have to be nice if they're not monotheists.

So yeah, we can prove it. How bad do they want it proved?

(Half-a-Pint found the beer again.)

Sans Marx, sans Jesùs. Daniel Cohn-Bendit