Quote:

January 13, 2011 Small Business news in San Francisco,California, United States of America

The DEA published retractions in the Federal Register to statements made in their Notice to Temporarily Control five synthetic cannabinoids. These retractions may cause the DEA some real problems.



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
San Francisco, California, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) January 13, 2011 -- The DEA's attempt to ban five synthetic cannabinoids has been further delayed by legal challenges.

On January 7th 2011 the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published in the Federal Register a statement that strikes from their Notice of Intent to Temporarily Control five synthetic cannabinoids any reference's to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Congressional Review Act. The newly added correction to the original notice filed on November 24th 2010, states that the DEA recanted these claims "Due to an administrative error" and then stated "The provisions of the RFA have no application to temporary scheduling orders issued under 21 U.S.C. 811(h) or to notices of intention to issue such orders.".........Therefore, I hereby order that this paragraph ..... be stricken." the order is signed Michele Leonhart, Administrator.

"They have no basis for this claim" states Dan Francis, the Executive Director of the newly formed Retail Compliance Association (www.therca.org) a group of retailers that have banned together to fight the DEA efforts. "They have to have some sort of support to make a statement like this and they have cited none, not one thing that says the DEA has its own set of rules and is above all due process"

The notice addressed the Congressional Review Act as well. Stating "The DEA also inadvertently included in its Notice of Intent a certification relating to the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act only applies
to ‘‘final’’ rules. ... inclusion of the paragraph relating to the Congressional Review Act in the Notice of Intent was premature......Therefore, I hereby order that this paragraph......also be stricken."

"They need to stop hurting the small businesses that sell these products, and at least have a grip on the basics of the laws that govern their actions" says Francis. "These rule do apply to them, they can't just declare that they don't and have it that way, we are a country of laws, passed by congress, not dictated by the DEA"

The RCA has filed legal papers on the DEA effort to ban these compounds. They include a Freedom of Information Act request for documents that support the claims made in their Initial Notice of Intent To temporarily Control the compounds. And claims of protection for small business under the acts the DEA says it is not governed by. The retracting of the initial statements is a direct result to the RCA's actions.
To learn more about the RCA go to www.therca.org.

---

badchad said:

Not at all.

This was an administrative error and memorandum.  It has no bearing on the intent to emergency scheduling. 

---

badchad said:

Not at all.

This was an administrative error and memorandum.  It has no bearing on the intent to emergency scheduling. 

---

badchad said:

From the actual FR notice:

Due to an administrative error, DEA included in that notice a paragraph addressing the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in the ``Regulatory Certifications'' section of that document. The provisions of the RFA have no application to temporary scheduling orders issued under 21 U.S.C. 811(h) or to notices of intention to issue such orders. Accordingly, DEA certification under the RFA is not legally required for this temporary scheduling order.

LongStrangeTrip said:

They may still INTEND to schedule them, but until then, the 5 chems are not banned. I cannot post them but I know of many vendors who are already selling 018 and 073 again.

---

This is true.  The FR notice is simply citing an administrative error.  Effectively, it changes nothing about the original notice.

---

AnastomosisJihad said:

Quote:

The DEA did not expect such a strong reaction from this start-up industry. One economic analyst stated that the industry may represent more than 1 billion in economic impact, if true, this will preclude the ban from ever taking effect as the emergency order is governed by Executive Order 12991 which states that emergency bans cannot be implemented in the cases where a 100 million dollar or greater economic impact will be imposed.

---

---

trip forever said:

They're so in control of what's going on.

---

trip forever said:

They're so in control of what's going on.

---

they're just protecting us clueless citizens