CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
PREV1234NEXT
DEA Announces Kratom to become a Schedule 1 Substance Options
 
SnozzleBerry
#21 Posted : 9/1/2016 6:14:22 PM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
Godsmacker wrote:
Ok; I stand corrected; in this event, which other unscheduled plant species contain mitragynine and 7-HO mitragynine?

The compounds are also getting scheduled, as I understand it, so any "unscheduled" plants will also become sched 1 as a result of their chemical constituents. Hooray for the CSA Thumbs down
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 

STS is a community for people interested in growing, preserving and researching botanical species, particularly those with remarkable therapeutic and/or psychoactive properties.
 
Nathanial.Dread
#22 Posted : 9/1/2016 7:33:11 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2151
Joined: 23-Nov-2012
Last visit: 07-Mar-2017
SnozzleBerry wrote:
Godsmacker wrote:
Ok; I stand corrected; in this event, which other unscheduled plant species contain mitragynine and 7-HO mitragynine?

The compounds are also getting scheduled, as I understand it, so any "unscheduled" plants will also become sched 1 as a result of their chemical constituents. Hooray for the CSA Thumbs down

To be fair, mescaline is also Sched. 1 but no one's come down on San Pedro and Peruvian torch vendors yet.

Blessings
~ND
"There are many paths up the same mountain."

 
Biawak
#23 Posted : 9/1/2016 7:54:27 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 83
Joined: 08-Aug-2008
Last visit: 26-Dec-2019
Location: The Desert
Nathanial.Dread wrote:
SnozzleBerry wrote:
Godsmacker wrote:
Ok; I stand corrected; in this event, which other unscheduled plant species contain mitragynine and 7-HO mitragynine?

The compounds are also getting scheduled, as I understand it, so any "unscheduled" plants will also become sched 1 as a result of their chemical constituents. Hooray for the CSA Thumbs down

To be fair, mescaline is also Sched. 1 but no one's come down on San Pedro and Peruvian torch vendors yet.



A live plant of a different genus should be safe.
"The cost of sanity in this society is a certain level of alienation." - Terence McKenna
 
SnozzleBerry
#24 Posted : 9/1/2016 8:52:39 PM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
Biawak wrote:
Nathanial.Dread wrote:
SnozzleBerry wrote:
Godsmacker wrote:
Ok; I stand corrected; in this event, which other unscheduled plant species contain mitragynine and 7-HO mitragynine?

The compounds are also getting scheduled, as I understand it, so any "unscheduled" plants will also become sched 1 as a result of their chemical constituents. Hooray for the CSA Thumbs down

To be fair, mescaline is also Sched. 1 but no one's come down on San Pedro and Peruvian torch vendors yet.



A live plant of a different genus should be safe.

Technically, it's not, for the reasons already outlined.

Again, I'm not talking about enforcement, only legality, and the two should not be confused.

If you find yourself staring down the barrel of the state's legal apparatus, a defense of "Well, it's generally not enforced" isn't going to do you much good. People on this forum have been busted for cactus chips and had legal fallout as a reason. I just think it's best to understand what the actual legal terrain is regarding these plants, so that people don't assume they're completely safe when they're not.
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 
Biawak
#25 Posted : 9/2/2016 12:19:17 AM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 83
Joined: 08-Aug-2008
Last visit: 26-Dec-2019
Location: The Desert
^^^

I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.

Whatever the case may be, you're surely correct that it would not guarantee complete legal safety and perhaps I could have clarified or worded my post a bit differently.


"The cost of sanity in this society is a certain level of alienation." - Terence McKenna
 
SnozzleBerry
#26 Posted : 9/2/2016 12:50:43 AM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
Biawak wrote:
I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claim Smile

Biawak wrote:
To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.

I think the "prior knowledge must be proven" statement (mens rea would be the legal issue, afaik) is irrelevant given that this discussion is among people using illegal drugs and growing plants for the purpose of manufacturing/securing illegal drugs. And really, it's an issue that highlights selective enforcement more than any relevant legal loophole pertaining to live plants, as the CSA makes no distinction and simply states that any amount of material containing any amount of a scheduled compound is illegal.

Seeing as that's the case, the distinction between live plants and plant material isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, imo. Especially given that people have been charged with cultivating plants for their schedule I compounds. No one here could honestly plead ignorance.
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 
concombres
#27 Posted : 9/2/2016 3:29:42 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1304
Joined: 29-Feb-2012
Last visit: 04-Apr-2021
Meanwhile, U47700 remains relatively un-noticed by legislation & causes about a thousand times more damage with zero medical benefit & a growing userbase. Thumbs down

The U.S. government is a bunch of freakin clowns.
 
Godsmacker
#28 Posted : 9/2/2016 4:09:34 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 587
Joined: 02-May-2013
Last visit: 16-Apr-2018
Godsmacker wrote:
Ok; I stand corrected; in this event, which other unscheduled plant species contain mitragynine and 7-HO mitragynine?


http://www.neurosoup.com...07/kratom-murple-NS.pdf

Whelp, here's the answer to my question (it's not on the front page, but many examples of mitragynine "analogue" species are included in this document.

Enjoy,
-Godsmacker
'"ALAS,"said the mouse, "the world is growing smaller every day. At the
beginning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept running and running, and I was glad
when at last I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have
narrowed so quickly that I am in the last chamber already, and there in the corner
stands the trap that I must run into." "You only need to change your direction," said
the cat, and ate it up.' --Franz Kafka
 
Biawak
#29 Posted : 9/2/2016 9:23:01 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 83
Joined: 08-Aug-2008
Last visit: 26-Dec-2019
Location: The Desert
SnozzleBerry wrote:
Biawak wrote:
I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claim Smile



As you're probably aware, no such case law pertaining to Trichocereus cacti exists. However, there haven't been any convictions based on simple possession of whole cacti, and the convictions thus far have been dried material, afaik.

The following excerpt from an Erowid article (that we've probably all read before) sums up the legal implications of dried chips vs. live cactus.


Erowid wrote:
They can be purchased at mega-chains such as Target and Home Depot and are cultivated on government properties and in arboretums. Because of this, simple possession with no intent to ingest is de facto legal. Cutting a propagable section (over 5 inches or 12 cm) off of a live cactus would generally not count as preparation. However, slices, blended or boiled cactus material, pulp, extraction equipment, or any process of extraction could be considered preparation and immediately turns the plant material into a "container" for a Schedule I substance.

"The cost of sanity in this society is a certain level of alienation." - Terence McKenna
 
SnozzleBerry
#30 Posted : 9/2/2016 9:53:38 PM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
Biawak wrote:
SnozzleBerry wrote:
Biawak wrote:
I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claim Smile



As you're probably aware, no such case law pertaining to Trichocereus cacti exists. However, there haven't been any convictions based on simple possession of whole cacti, and the convictions thus far have been dried material, afaik.

Are we discussing convictions? I certainly wasn't. From my perspective, at the point where you are arrested, that's "too far" imo. People have been arrested and charged for live plants (including cacti). For me, that, combined with the fact that no one involved in this discussion can honestly plead ignorance is pretty much the end of the discussion.

Live plants have been treated as "any material containing a scheduled substance" by the DEA before. Arguing that there is a legal loophole pertaining to live plants or that the CSA doesn't apply to the folks involved in this discussion (who know damn well that they are growing drugs) strikes me as the usual cutesy assertions that people make to pretend they're not engaged in criminal activity.

Simply put, growing live plants that contain scheduled compounds is neither safe nor explicitly legal. Issues around mens rea and prior knowledge are moot for the purposes of this discussion given that we are on a drugs forum and all of us have something that implicates us beyond our live plants (even if it's just an internet search history). From a harm reduction standpoint, arguing counter to this makes no sense, as there is greater risk from pretending that your actions are legal than understanding the risk associated with growing plants that contain scheduled compounds.

There are always people who seem to want to argue the point, but let me ask you this. At the point where someone believes your assertion that this doesn't apply to live plants and gets charged with possession or manufacture as a result of their live plants, are you going to cover their legal expenditures?
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 
Biawak
#31 Posted : 9/2/2016 10:52:36 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 83
Joined: 08-Aug-2008
Last visit: 26-Dec-2019
Location: The Desert
Point taken. I'll go ahead and shut up now Smile
"The cost of sanity in this society is a certain level of alienation." - Terence McKenna
 
dragonrider
#32 Posted : 9/3/2016 4:14:08 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Moderator

Posts: 2279
Joined: 09-Jul-2016
Last visit: 15-May-2021
Location: spacetime
Muskogee Herbman wrote:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance

http://www.forbes.com/si...-benefits/#7a0ea89c7924
Quote:
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has filed a notice of intent (PDF) to place the southeast Asian plant called kratom to the most restrictive classification of the Controlled Substances Act. The plant, Mitragyna speciosa, and its two primary constituents, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, will be temporarily placed onto Schedule I on September 30, according to a filing by the DEA at 8:45 am Eastern time today. The full announcement is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, August 31


I know some people may not like kratom but no plant deserves to be murdered by humans. Defend the standing silent nation

I'm a european, so maybe there's something i don't understand here, but can the DEA decide over the legal status of plants and substances? Doesn't that go straigh against the whole separation of powers/trias politica idea? Isn't legislative power CONSTITUTIONALLY prohibited to congress, and congress only?
 
Valmar
#33 Posted : 9/3/2016 4:41:39 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 260
Joined: 20-Jun-2015
Last visit: 07-Dec-2020
Location: Dao
So true:

"This is and always has been about money and power. The DEA is the government arm of Big Pharma. They're not helping anyone by existing other than the monied interests in the pharmaceutical industry."
~ https://www.reddit.com/r...rug_please_sign/d75hv4j

From reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r...dule_i_drug_please_sign/
“The dao that can be expressed is not the eternal Dao.”
~ Lǎozǐ

“One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
~ Carl Jung
 
Psilociraptor
#34 Posted : 9/3/2016 5:20:21 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 273
Joined: 21-Jan-2016
Last visit: 03-Nov-2017
dragonrider wrote:
Muskogee Herbman wrote:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance

http://www.forbes.com/si...-benefits/#7a0ea89c7924
Quote:
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has filed a notice of intent (PDF) to place the southeast Asian plant called kratom to the most restrictive classification of the Controlled Substances Act. The plant, Mitragyna speciosa, and its two primary constituents, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, will be temporarily placed onto Schedule I on September 30, according to a filing by the DEA at 8:45 am Eastern time today. The full announcement is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, August 31


I know some people may not like kratom but no plant deserves to be murdered by humans. Defend the standing silent nation

I'm a european, so maybe there's something i don't understand here, but can the DEA decide over the legal status of plants and substances? Doesn't that go straigh against the whole separation of powers/trias politica idea? Isn't legislative power CONSTITUTIONALLY prohibited to congress, and congress only?


I don't know the exact details but it's a temporary ban. Basically an "emergency" ban that doesn't have to go through all the hoops. What happens is they nearly always temp ban something and then work on getting it banned for real. Usually when it's temp banned there's no coming back.

REMOVED peeps, what are we going to do? This is maddening... I don't use it a whole lot any more but it's gotten me through some of the worst parts of my lyme disease
 
Ulim
#35 Posted : 9/4/2016 12:52:37 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1023
Joined: 19-Mar-2016
Last visit: 04-Jun-2021
Confused Confused Pfft and soon they ban mint plants and pepper.

But dont touch big pharmas fentanyl or tobacco.

Thats the reason that I try to get as much plants as possible in case they get banned for the luls and big pharma.
 
entheogenic-gnosis
#36 Posted : 9/9/2016 2:27:09 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2889
Joined: 31-Oct-2014
Last visit: 03-Nov-2018
Why was kratom scheduled in Thailand?
Quote:
Seething within the underbelly of this political turmoil was the ever-present black market. Not surprisingly, one of the largest black market trades was the opium trade. Knowing how profitable it was, the Thai government passed a series of laws that levied duties and taxes from every aspect of the opium trade that they could; from the grower, to the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the shop owner and even the end consumer. It was a “cash cow” for the government.
With this boom in opium consumption, there was also a boom in opium addicts, opium-related deaths,and general public health concerns that come with any drug, licit or illicit. The government was clearly in the opium trade, as it was profiting heavily from it. With the amount of money that was generated from their taxes and levies, this was an aspect of money generation that was worth protecting.

A member of the House of Representatives from Lampang in a special meeting on 7 January 1943 (Police Major General Pin Amornwisaisoradej) said this: “Taxes for opium are high while kratom is currently not being taxed. With the increase of those taxes, people are starting to use kratom instead and this has had a visible impact on our government’s income.”

http://entheology.com/ne...was-banned-in-thailand/


What this basically says it that kratom was scheduled in Thailand because the Thai government was taxing and profiting every aspect of the opium trade, and that kratom use was cutting into government profits.

kratom was also an aide to addicts in withdrawal, who used the plant to quit heroin, which again was bad for the Thai governments interest in the heroin trade.

-eg

 
tregar
#37 Posted : 9/9/2016 11:43:36 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 562
Joined: 20-Nov-2009
Last visit: 31-May-2021
It's all about money and for the agency to justify their existence.

There were 14,000 deaths reported with prescription painkillers in the year 2014 alone the news reported today, compare that with the 15 total deaths reported with natural kratom (and these were reported to have been with combinations of kratom with other drugs, many research chems). You tell me which is safer.

The news also reported that addicts can go to their doctor and get buprenorphine prescribed or methadone prescribed and stay on those drugs for a lifetime, think about how much $$$ the prescription drug pushers make! and the doctors! Kratom cannot be patented as it is natural, no money to be made.
 
1ce
#38 Posted : 9/10/2016 6:25:18 AM

Communications-Security Analyst


Posts: 1280
Joined: 17-Aug-2014
Last visit: 19-Dec-2019
Location: Nirvana
Biawak wrote:
^^^

I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.

Whatever the case may be, you're surely correct that it would not guarantee complete legal safety and perhaps I could have clarified or worded my post a bit differently.




yes and no. Cactus chips are a bit easier to argue intent. It'd be pretty hard to put someone in jail for a cactus that could be found at home depot (or very similar) amongst many other non schedualed desert plants when all they can prove is that you think the flowers look pretty.

The cactus chips I've seen at least, were marketed toward human consumption.

they can charge you for anything, but it's the conviction that matters.
 
entheogenic-gnosis
#39 Posted : 9/10/2016 2:48:53 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2889
Joined: 31-Oct-2014
Last visit: 03-Nov-2018
SnozzleBerry wrote:
Godsmacker wrote:
Seeing as the DEA is not scheduling M. Speciosa itself, but instead only two of its chemical constituents, I couldn't help but see why this would stop the kratom industry at all; So as long as they stamp a great big "NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" label all over their products and plants, it would be just about as legal as it always was before this BS ban goes into effect (hell, just take a look at the san pedro cactus, poppyseed and psychotria shrub/leaf cutting markets as they are; so as long as human consumption isn't an intended use, it's perfectly fine to possess and grow as long as they can't prove you are intending to consume it!)

Technically, you're incorrect.

See: the CSA


Quote:
(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another
schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which
contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances,
or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers
whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers
is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(1) 3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(2) 5-methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(3) 3,4,5-trimethoxy amphetamine.
(4) Bufotenine.
(5) Diethyltryptamine.
(6) Dimethyltryptamine.
(7) 4-methyl-2,5-diamethoxyamphetamine.
(8) Ibogaine.
(9) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
(10) Marihuana.
(11) Mescaline.
(12) Peyote.
(13) N-ethyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(14) N-methyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(15) Psilocybin.
(16) Psilocyn.
(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.



To emphasize: "any material... which contains any quantity" of a schedule I drug is itself a schedule I drug under the law.

Human consumption has nothing to do with it. It's a question of selective enforcement and they can enforce whenever and against whomever they wish.

And to be clear, the numerous plants you listed as "legal" in your post are not actually legal in the US. They are illegal, but rarely enforced. An important distinction, imo.


I wanted to clear up the whole "not for human consumption" thing...

I'll start with an excerpt from TIHKAL where shulgin briefly elucidates the stipulations of the federal analogue act of 1986:

Quote:
This legislation is called 'the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986' and is part of Public Law 99-570. It was signed into law on October 27, 1986, just days before the national elections, and the news and ramifications of it have been largely lost in the noise and drama of the political events of the time. I personally believe that this law presents a shameful barrier to a very important segment of scientific research.

Let me dissect this law into its two major parts. What is an analogue? And what is the behaviour, involving an analogue, that is criminal?

According to this law, a drug is an analogue if it meets any one of the following criteria:

First, the chemical structure of the drug is considered. The compound is an analogue if its structure is substantially similar to the structure of any listed Schedule I or II drug. Just what are the structures of the drugs that are contained in these two schedules? You can find a complete spectrum of functional groups. All four types of amines are present; primary amines, secondary amines, tertiary amines, and quarternary ammonum salts. All three types of alcohols are present; primary alcohols, secondary alcohols, and tertiary alcohols. There are acids, esters, ethers, amids, ketones, and nitriles.

There are examples of all the most common heterocyclic ring systems, such as pyridines, piperidines, pyrrolidines, indoles, imidazoles, morpholines, thiophenes, furans, pyrans, quinazolines, dioxoles, oxazolines, pyrimidines, and purines. And of course, there are simple benzene-ring aromatic compounds and there are simple non-benzene-ring aliphatic compounds including cyclopropyl rings, cyclobutyl rings, cyclopentyl rings, and cyclohexyl rings. One would be hard put to find a structure of any drug, anywhere, which could not be argued by some person, somewhere, as being in some way structurally related to a Schedule I or a Schedule II drug.

And what was the reason for the use of the intentionally vague phrase "substantially similar"? There is a term in rhetoric knows as a disclaimer, a word introduced as a hedge or a qualification, a word chosen to allow a certain freedom of interpretation. Words or phrases such as almost, probably, approximately, in a few days, in two weeks at the latest, are disclaimers. There is a measured ambiguity in the phrase "similar to" and there is a measured ambiguity in the phrase "substantially the same as." But what is to be inferred from "substantially similar"? Suddenly, the exactness, the precision of the original Controlled Substances Act, with its explicitly named drug targets, had been totally compromised.

A second, independent definition of an analogue deals with its pharmacological action. A drug is to legally considered as an analogue if it has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic action that is substantially similar to that of a Schedule I or Schedule II drug. In short, any drug which affects the CNS (central nervous system) in any of these ways, or in ways that could be construed as being "substantially similar" to those evoked by a scheduled drug, becomes an analogue within this legal definition. Again, the vague double disclaimer "substantially similar" must be reckoned with as part of the description.

A third definition is an extension of this, and involves the way a drug is represented. If a material is intentionally represented as having a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic action that is substantially similar to that of a Schedule I or Schedule II drug, it becomes an analogue.

It is generally accepted that if two of these three definitions are met then the chemical or drug in question becomes a controlled substance analogue. The law explicitly states that there are four criteria, any of which will exclude it from becoming an analogue; if it is already a controlled substance, if it has an approved drug application, if a particular person has an exemption allowing him investigational use of that drug in question, or it is not intended for human consumption - Alexander shulgin; TIHKAL


Again, here shulgin lists the criteria for exemption from being legally an analogue substance:

Quote:
The law explicitly states that there are four criteria, any of which will exclude it from becoming an analogue; if it is already a controlled substance, if it has an approved drug application, if a particular person has an exemption allowing him investigational use of that drug in question, or it is not intended for human consumption -shulgin; TIHKAL


"Not for human consumption" is the best defense research chemical enthusiasts have...and thank God we at least have that, or all these compounds would automatically fall victim to the drug war.

However, this is a concern for unscheduled research chemicals which would be considered analogues, and thus illegal, if this "loop-hole" was not in place.

Here is a section of the analogue act itself:

Quote:

Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986
P.L. 99-570. Subtitle E, Title I.
SEC. 1202. TREATMENT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES
Part B of the Controlled Substances Act is amended by adding at the end of the following new section:

"TREATMENT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES"
"SEC 203. A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of this title [Title I; "Enforcement"] and title III ["Interdiction"] as a controlled substance in schedule I."

SEC 1203. DEFINITION.
Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(32)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term `controlled substance analogue' means a substance ---
"(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
"(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulent, [sic] depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
"(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.


"(B) Such term does not include ---
"(i) a controlled substance;
"(ii) any substance for which there is an approved new drug application;
"(iii) with respect to a particular person any substance, if an exemption is in effect for investigational use, for that person, under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) to the extent conduct with respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption; or
"(iv) any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance.".


This is also an American issue, other countries have their own unique laws and loop-holes.

Kratom, as its now scheduled, is not an analogue, it's a scheduled substance, meaning analogue loop-holes can not apply here.

-eg
 
entheogenic-gnosis
#40 Posted : 9/10/2016 3:15:54 PM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 2889
Joined: 31-Oct-2014
Last visit: 03-Nov-2018
SnozzleBerry wrote:
Biawak wrote:
I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claim Smile

Biawak wrote:
To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.

I think the "prior knowledge must be proven" statement (mens rea would be the legal issue, afaik) is irrelevant given that this discussion is among people using illegal drugs and growing plants for the purpose of manufacturing/securing illegal drugs. And really, it's an issue that highlights selective enforcement more than any relevant legal loophole pertaining to live plants, as the CSA makes no distinction and simply states that any amount of material containing any amount of a scheduled compound is illegal.

Seeing as that's the case, the distinction between live plants and plant material isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, imo. Especially given that people have been charged with cultivating plants for their schedule I compounds. No one here could honestly plead ignorance.


I've always been curious about something:

Stropharia cubensis is not mentioned anywhere in the drug laws, but psilocybin and psilocin are, the mushrooms themselves are not illegal, but are viewed as a "container" for a scheduled substance...meaning so long as they contain psilocin they are scheduled.

However, as DMT is endogenous, would this mean that all humans are legally "containers" for a controlled substance?

It's all worthless nonsense if you ask me...

Part of freedom is accepting personal responsibility...which nobody in this country wants to do...

Do you want to be "protected" by your government or do you want to be free?

you must accept any potential risks and dangers involved, and say, "it's my job to be safe, educated, and responsible, and if something happens to me, it was my fault"

the risks are the price you pay for the freedom.

Quote:
You see, the hidden issue, and it need not be hidden among us...the government always tries to paint itself as the mother hen, concerned about her errant chicks. And so, to keep you from crashing into other people on the freeway, to keep you from leaping out of buildings or committing suicide, we have to control these drugs. As a matter of fact, you know, this is absurd. More people die because of alcohol than all illegal drugs combined in a given year. The government is not your friend on this issue. The government is very concerned to control the mass mind.
-terence mckenna


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKu9ZdJsbx0
Terence mckenna - you can not have a free society and a drug free society

-eg

 
PREV1234NEXT
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.116 seconds.