|
Anonymous #1
|
How would one get around the "Federal Analog Act"?
#12886836 - 07/12/10 11:49 AM (13 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I was looking on wikipedia and didnt really understand the two last exemptions to the analog act.
Quote:
(C) 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 355 of this title 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.
so for "iii" i dont really understand "for investigational use" means...
And for "iv" i would reckon that if you were caught with some research chemicals and said it wasnt for human consumption you would have to prove or at very least come up with a reasonable reason/excuse. What could that possibly be if you just have a small quantity(500mg to 3 grams) and for larger quantities(10 grams to 200 grams) if you dont have a degree in pharmacology or any degree or actual legitimate job in chemistry....well i think you got the picture.
Specifically in terms of 2c-i and 2c-e.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: How would one get around the "Federal Analog Act"? [Re: Anonymous #1]
#12887728 - 07/12/10 03:10 PM (13 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Looks like some really high 5th graders wrote that law. There ought to be a "coherency clause" where incoherent rubbish laws like this are automatically thrown out if something like 20% or more people can't understand what the fuck it's saying.
Investigational use means scientific research.
iv. is really a sentence fragment. The way I read it, it should be combined together with 3.
It looks to me that they were trying to say that you can have the substance as long as it's not for human consumption UNTIL an exemption takes effect.
I guess there's a number of ways you could read that. Either they're saying scientists can buy and possess the substance while they're waiting for their exemption to take effect as long as they don't consume it. OR As soon as there is an exemption for someone the drug becomes de facto scheduled for everyone else.
Maybe some other people can chime in about how they read this law.
-FF
|
Anonymous #2
|
Re: How would one get around the "Federal Analog Act"? [Re: fastfred]
#12888399 - 07/12/10 04:56 PM (13 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
From what I've understood iv. is the most important thing they need to nail you with. Find RC with a journal with "scientific research" (not involving consumption), and they have no case. Find an RC in pills that you are selling to people with texts that say "gonna make you trip super hard!!" then you're fucked.
Some people say the burden of proof is on you to prove you weren't going to consume, but I would say that goes against the innocent until proven guilty thing. I say the burden of proof would be on a prosecutor to PROVE it was for human consumption. I could be wrong. This is why people RARELY get prosecuted under this law, because it is so vague. They'll take your shit, but can't really charge you with it.
However, vendors have to be extremely careful, because if they get caught advertising that it makes you trip or whatever, then they can't be prosecuted with distributing a controlled substance.
My 2 cents.
|
Anonymous #1
|
Re: How would one get around the "Federal Analog Act"? [Re: Anonymous #2]
#12905872 - 07/16/10 05:37 AM (13 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous said: From what I've understood iv. is the most important thing they need to nail you with. Find RC with a journal with "scientific research" (not involving consumption), and they have no case. Find an RC in pills that you are selling to people with texts that say "gonna make you trip super hard!!" then you're fucked.
Some people say the burden of proof is on you to prove you weren't going to consume, but I would say that goes against the innocent until proven guilty thing. I say the burden of proof would be on a prosecutor to PROVE it was for human consumption. I could be wrong. This is why people RARELY get prosecuted under this law, because it is so vague. They'll take your shit, but can't really charge you with it.
However, vendors have to be extremely careful, because if they get caught advertising that it makes you trip or whatever, then they can't be prosecuted with distributing a controlled substance.
My 2 cents.
as well if the research chemical was just in a baggie in your pocket i think that would be enough to get a conviction in most courts....
|
|