|
 
Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! Please  login or  register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
|
 poke smot!
cognitive consonance
 
Registered: 01/08/03
Posts: 4,276
|
 Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA]
#8323780 - 04/24/08 04:38 PM (5 months, 10 days ago) |
|
|
In the US, harmaline and harmine are not controlled substances. (I'm using these as an example). They are compounds contained in B. caapi vine (ayahuasca) and P. harmala ("syrian rue"), among other things.
It's legal to sell this stuff as incense, but it is illegal to sell it as a drug. If my understanding is correct this is because any substance cannot be represented as a drug or food item without the FDA's approval.
I am wondering what the legality is of synthetic harmaline. I've bought this on more than one occasion, and consumed it myself. This is legal, correct? (isn't getting high on anything illegal unless it's alcohol or a side-effect of prescription medication?)
I've seen harmaline for sale at domestic chemical warehouses, but I am fairly certain they would not sell this compound to an individual. Why? It would be easier, and cheaper, to get it from a domestic source.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 6,352
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: poke smot!]
#8324169 - 04/24/08 06:38 PM (5 months, 10 days ago) |
|
|
just cuz something is intended to be consumed, doesn't make it a drug.
I believe these substances are legal in the US, and are probably considered supplements. I'm not sure if synthetics can be supplements, however.
The only way I could see it being illegal is if it were covered by a generic abuse of drugs statute or there was a scheduled substance similar in structure
If you were using these substances along w/ a controlled substance, or analogue, however; it would be drug paraphanalia and would be illegla. In this case the government would have to prove you were using it along w/ some drug to facilitate the taking or use of that drug, such as w/ dmt
|
 ethnoguy
E to the G
Registered: 10/03/07
Posts: 813
Loc: your momma's house
Last seen: 6 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: johnm214]
#8325352 - 04/24/08 11:09 PM (5 months, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Besides the FDA, by labeling it as "incense and not for human consumption" hopefully will keep your family from suing them if you die or something to that effect. Wholesellers will not provide vendors with products if they won't follow the above labeling (from the ones I have looked at).
I really don't mind how its labeled. It is irresponsible when people label Kratom as an opium sub. That kind of language is the beginning of the end if all the vendors act take that approach.
EG
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 16,163
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 5 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: ethnoguy]
#8325782 - 04/25/08 02:02 AM (5 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
> I am wondering what the legality is of synthetic harmaline.
From the "Federal Analogue Act" (1 U.S.C. § 813):
Quote:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 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 stimulant, 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.
|
poke smot!
cognitive consonance
Registered: 01/08/03
Posts: 4,276
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: Seuss]
#8326273 - 04/25/08 08:45 AM (5 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Heh, there's my answer. So it is illegal to get high on anything! (unless a doctor prescribes it of course) I suppose that makes sugar illegal if you can get a buzz from eating enough of it.
But that is open to interpretation.
Caffeine has a stimulant effect on the CNS, but is legal. So is nicotine. I didn't bother looking up the schedule of these, so maybe the law explicitly states what is legal here.
Harmaline isn't hallucinogenic in the sense that it makes you trip. Yes, in sufficient quantities it has an effect which could be interpreted as stimulating.
Harmaline and other harmala alkaloids exist all around us- in tobacco, raisins, regular foods. Hell, a related b-Carboline called 'pinoline' has been detected in us. Then again, DMT has also 
I suppose this would be hard to prosecute since, "they" would have to prove that the harmaline was consumed to get high. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution to show evidence that it was. I'm guessing, proving that someone got high on an otherwise legal substance, would be difficult and would never really happen unless "they" were looking to bust you on something else, or if you were causing a disturbance as a result of your getting high.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 6,352
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: poke smot!]
#8326873 - 04/25/08 12:26 PM (5 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
maybe , the bolded section is so broad it includes everything in the world.
I've heard speculation that that part of the law may be unconstitutional as a result, broad and vague.
I don't think anyone's been prosecuted under that section alone yet.
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 378
Last seen: 6 hours, 38 minutes
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: poke smot!]
#8327377 - 04/25/08 03:22 PM (5 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
poke smot! said:
Heh, there's my answer. So it is illegal to get high on anything! (unless a doctor prescribes it of course) I suppose that makes sugar illegal if you can get a buzz from eating enough of it.
But that is open to interpretation.
Caffeine has a stimulant effect on the CNS, but is legal. So is nicotine. I didn't bother looking up the schedule of these, so maybe the law explicitly states what is legal here.
Harmaline isn't hallucinogenic in the sense that it makes you trip. Yes, in sufficient quantities it has an effect which could be interpreted as stimulating.
Harmaline and other harmala alkaloids exist all around us- in tobacco, raisins, regular foods. Hell, a related b-Carboline called 'pinoline' has been detected in us. Then again, DMT has also
I suppose this would be hard to prosecute since, "they" would have to prove that the harmaline was consumed to get high. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution to show evidence that it was. I'm guessing, proving that someone got high on an otherwise legal substance, would be difficult and would never really happen unless "they" were looking to bust you on something else, or if you were causing a disturbance as a result of your getting high.
Re-read the law quoted. It has to be structurally similar and the effect has to be similar to a controlled substance. AFAIK, no drug that's chemically or physiologically similar to harmaline is scheduled, so it wouldn't fall under the law. That's also why Salvia is currently legal under federal law. If we were talking about 2ci, though, it's chemically similar to 2cb which is scheduled, and produces a similar effect so it would be scheduled by extension.
|
poke smot!
cognitive consonance
Registered: 01/08/03
Posts: 4,276
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: Yossarian22]
#8327503 - 04/25/08 03:56 PM (5 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yossarian22 said:
Re-read the law quoted.
Quote:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 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 stimulant, 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.
Note bolded "or". I believe this means, anything that satisfies one of the three conditions. Pretty absurd if you ask me.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 6,352
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Legality of consumption of uncontrolled substances [USA] [Re: poke smot!]
#8327553 - 04/25/08 04:13 PM (5 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Re-read the law quoted. It has to be structurally similar and the effect has to be similar to a controlled substance. AFAIK, no drug that's chemically or physiologically similar to harmaline is scheduled, so it wouldn't fall under the law. That's also why Salvia is currently legal under federal law. If we were talking about 2ci, though, it's chemically similar to 2cb which is scheduled, and produces a similar effect so it would be scheduled by extension.
This is another example of congress passing slopy laws and legislating in an area they don't understand, leading to vague wording.
The present interpretation is that both i and either ii or iii need be found for the law to apply.
The actual grammer would says otherwise, but the courts have construed the law such that it makes some fucking sense, when otherwise it wouldn't.
So this is another example of congress fucking things up, and the courts rewritting the language to mean something else, which congress may have intended. Since this is the only interpretation that would likely be constitutional, the courts probably have an obligation to interpret the law this way, as it would otherwise be struck down as applied to people only violating i or ii or iii. In this case, things like tryptamine or gallic acid would be illegal, which would be absurd.
| |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
