|
Anonymous #1
|
“Not For Human Consumption”
#25291786 - 06/25/18 08:57 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
When it comes to things in the grey area that aren’t necessarily illegal to possess but are illegal to consume what are they ways they could prove you were going to ingest it and where is the line between them overreaching and what will hold up in court?
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,851
Last seen: 8 seconds
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #1] 1
#25292506 - 06/26/18 06:50 AM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Luck, probably.
I used to use technically legal RCs as a "test" sale. In one case I sold some to someone I strongly suspected of being an undercover/controlled buy. I emphasized the "Legal, for research purposes only" disclaimer, and I most definitely did not refer to them as "acid", but by the exact names. Thankfully I cleaned house beforehand, because my dorm was tossed an hour later. No charges, but they took the money I made. I also had a short interview where they claimed they "had proof I was selling acid" to which I did not reply.
The RCs I had access to were scheduled in my state less than four months later.
|
Anonymous #2
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Kryptos] 1
#25292516 - 06/26/18 07:01 AM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Do you have other drugs in the house? Then they can use the fact that you use drugs and intended to use that substance like a drug. If your house is clean as a whistle with nothing more than some alcohol, then you have a better case to make.
I say you have a case to make because you can, and likely will, be arrested and charged with something depending on the amounts, the jurisdiction, and the particular attitude of the LEO that day. Especially if it reagent tests as something illegal. All the "Not for Human Consumption" does is protect legitimate researchers (a hard case to make when its at your house, and a harder case to make if their are drugs in your house, and an even harder case to make if they have any inkling of you selling it) and companies that sell the substance. Granted that label may save your ass and the charges will likely eventually get dropped, but not after a very tumultuous time in your life on pins and needles while waiting for the crime lab tests to come back (which takes fucking months to a year) and a hefty bail.
Speaking from experience in the USA. That label will most likely not protect you.
|
LIBERTYNY
Stranger

Registered: 04/07/16
Posts: 210
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #2] 1
#25293956 - 06/26/18 10:25 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
From the cops point of view, they realy dont have to prove much at all besides the actual possession,
' Tell it to the judge'
You can try talking yourself out of trouble with them but thats exactly what they want as they know you are highly likely to say something stupid that can be misconstrued to mean something else.
Most lawyers will charge at least 5k+ just to plead guilty, Trial will be 100k + with prices like that their is only one real option for most people.
|
Anonymous #3
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: LIBERTYNY]
#25296092 - 06/27/18 11:41 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Hopefully anyone facing troops be will be able to talk their way out of it but Bottom line if charges are brought against someone for selling something "not for human consumption" the DA and judge still win even if they don't get a confictiction. Because the costs of getting a good attorney is going to finically damage the defendant. It's a shame but justice has a cost. I used to be naive about the situation. Thinking hey if you explain what you have is being sold for laboratory studies and strictly not for human consumption you can't get arrested. But what you say doesn't really matter. With analogue laws and the fact that selling counterfeit substances potentially carries the same punishment as real substances. All the cops would have to say is you sold 1p lsd as lsd.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #1] 1
#25296240 - 06/28/18 03:08 AM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #1 said: When it comes to things in the grey area that aren’t necessarily illegal to possess but are illegal to consume what are they ways they could prove you were going to ingest it and where is the line between them overreaching and what will hold up in court?
When the police confiscate drugs they send it to a crime lab to be tested via GCMS or LCMS. If the tests come back negative for controlled substances they drop the charges unless there are extenuating circumstances. If it's just possession they usually just drop them - if it's selling they look at what you said and other evidence to see if they can convict you anyway.
If you sell a legal chemical and say it's like acid, even if it's sugar, you'll get convicted, with the same legal penalty as selling acid.
Evidence on your phone or computer could definitely be used.
The loophole "not for human consumption" really does get a lot of people off of charges. Especially mail order, since there isn't as much evidence that the customer intended to consume in such cases.
Also remember that the analogue act only applies to Schedule I and II drugs - analogues of schedule III, IV and V drugs are not prohibited.
|
Anonymous #3
|
|
Very interesting. I'm confused as to have ald-52 and 1p-lsd are legal. Are they considered an analogue of lsd which is schedule 1 correct?
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,392
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #3]
#25313818 - 07/07/18 05:21 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #3 said: Very interesting. I'm confused as to have ald-52 and 1p-lsd are legal. Are they considered an analogue of lsd which is schedule 1 correct?
The analogue act only applies if the chemicals are intended for human consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
|
Anonymous #4
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #3]
#25318206 - 07/10/18 09:43 AM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #3 said: Very interesting. I'm confused as to have ald-52 and 1p-lsd are legal. Are they considered an analogue of lsd which is schedule 1 correct?
The analog act is not an a priori classification. It requires expert testimony, that is, professional scientists will have to testify in court that a particular substance is "similar" to something else. It's extremely time and resource sensitive, so its not pursued except in higher profile cases.
|
Kryptos
Stranger

Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,851
Last seen: 8 seconds
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #4]
#25319093 - 07/10/18 05:54 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #4 said:
Quote:
Anonymous #3 said: Very interesting. I'm confused as to have ald-52 and 1p-lsd are legal. Are they considered an analogue of lsd which is schedule 1 correct?
The analog act is not an a priori classification. It requires expert testimony, that is, professional scientists will have to testify in court that a particular substance is "similar" to something else. It's extremely time and resource sensitive, so its not pursued except in higher profile cases.
However, from what I understand based on prior history, the government is more than happy to shop around until they find a scientist that agrees it's an analogue. Probably where the cost comes from.
|
Anonymous #4
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Kryptos] 1
#25320070 - 07/11/18 07:59 AM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kryptos said:
However, from what I understand based on prior history, the government is more than happy to shop around until they find a scientist that agrees it's an analogue. Probably where the cost comes from.
This is true. However, the defense will also find scientists to say otherwise, and I'd say the majority of academic scientists are left-leaning and don't support criminalization. I think the costs come from the long, drawn out litigation process. I was consulted to testify in a similar case, and it would have taken years, and months of time training to take the stand.
|
Anonymous #5
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #4 said:
Quote:
Anonymous #3 said: Very interesting. I'm confused as to have ald-52 and 1p-lsd are legal. Are they considered an analogue of lsd which is schedule 1 correct?
The analog act is not an a priori classification. It requires expert testimony, that is, professional scientists will have to testify in court that a particular substance is "similar" to something else. It's extremely time and resource sensitive, so its not pursued except in higher profile cases.
This is incorrect. This changed in the past few years and the courts have ruled that for the basis of search warrants, arrests, and seizures LE and lay people are capable of determining substantial similarity on the basis of 2D molecular structure alone. There are several precedential rulings to this effect.
|
Anonymous #4
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #5 said:
This is incorrect. This changed in the past few years and the courts have ruled that for the basis of search warrants, arrests, and seizures LE and lay people are capable of determining substantial similarity on the basis of 2D molecular structure alone. There are several precedential rulings to this effect.
Can you link me to the law?
I find it hard to believe that an uneducated LE without any formal chemistry training can decide one molecular structure is similar to another.
|
Anonymous #5
|
|
It's bullshit, but that's what the courts have decided in the US. They were tired of the battle of the experts scenario you describe.
From US v. Brown (2003):
Quote:
Likewise, in United States v. McKinney, 79 F.3d 105 (8th Cir.1996) overruled on other grounds by 520 U.S. 1226, 117 S.Ct. 1816, 137 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1997), the defendant argued that the Analogue Act was unconstitutionally vague because there was no scientific consensus that the chemicals at issue were controlled substance analogues. McKinney, 79 F.3d at 108. The defendant asserted that "if experts disagree as to whether the chemical structure of one drug is substantially similar to a controlled substance, then the statute is unconstitutionally vague as to that drug." Id. The Eighth Circuit rejected the defendant's argument and instead focused on how a reasonable layperson would have examined the two chemical structures. Id.
In our case, a reasonable layperson could, for example, have examined a chemical chart and intelligently decided for himself or herself, by comparing their chemical diagrams, whether the chemical structure of two substances were substantially similar. At trial, two experts testified that aminorex and phenethylamine were analogues under the statute, and one expert apparently drew diagrams of phenethylamine and methamphetamine for the jury's comparison. We have examined the charts that appellant has submitted and believe that they would have put a reasonable person on notice that the substances in question were substantially similar within the meaning of the statute.
Id. Therefore, it is apparent to the court that the phrase "substantially similar," as contained in the Analogue Act, does not hinge on how a scientist would interpret the term, but how ordinary people use the language.
|
Anonymous #4
|
|
In no way does that court case support your assertion that random LEOs and those without chemistry knowledge can make the final determination of whether something is an analog.
If this were the case, there would be no need for scheduling drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. LEO would simply say: "I think everything is an analog."
|
Anonymous #5
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #4] 2
#25386854 - 08/13/18 11:28 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Don't twist my words, bro.
I didn't say that they can make the final determination. I said that the courts in fact do not read substantially similar to have any scientific basis that requires expert knowledge or a chemistry degree but instead take it to mean what a reasonable lay person would determine.
In other words courts have in fact said that LEOs without chemistry knowledge can get valid warrants and seize assets on their own suspicions about what constitutes an analog.
United States v. Fedida, 942 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2013)
Quote:
While Defendant posits several technical and detailed reasons why the substitutions present in these compounds are substantial changes to their chemical structures as compared to JWH-18, the Government need not overcome the critical eye of chemists and other experts.6 Rather, it must merely show that ordinary people would be able to determine whether UR-144 and XLR-11 are proscribed analogues of JWH-18. See United States v. Carlson, 87 F.3d 440, 443-44 (11th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Brown, 279 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1241 (S.D.Ala.2003). The substances at issue in this case share the same core chemical structure with JWH-18. The only meaningful difference between these compounds is a replacement found within the 3-position substituent. (See, e.g., Doc. 40-2, Harris Aff. ¶¶ 8, 10.) A reasonable layperson who examines the two-dimensional drawings of the chemical structures of UR-144, XLR-11, and JWH-18 could plausibly conclude that such substances are substantially similar. This is all that is required.
Also of note is Hummel v. US - hxxps://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.284141/gov.uscourts.flmd.284141.30.0.pdf
Unless you want to pay me a few hundred bucks per hour, cover the LexiNexis fees, and PACER fees, I am not doing a deep dive to track down the other cases for you.
You're capable of using Google. Look into cases citing US v. Brown and that US v. Brown cites. The most relevant cases are all related to synthetic cannabinoids from between about 2010-2016, but the earlier ones back to about 1991 are interesting too. Look into the cases that lead up to McFadden especially.
|
Anonymous #5
|
Re: “Not For Human Consumption” [Re: Anonymous #5] 2
#25386879 - 08/13/18 11:52 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Things have changed dramatically in the last several years. At the state level for small amounts charges might be dropped, but the Feds will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law if you are making any good money or if you are dealing with dangerous substances they consider a scourage like cathinones, cannbinoids, and especially synthetic opioids.
Tides are changing even at the state level with many states adopting very broad structurally based statutes aimed at analogues and specifically removing language about "human consumption" to prevent that defense even though they don't need to. Some states are even changing their analogue statues to include drugs in Schedules III, IV, and V.
|
Anonymous #6
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #5 said: Some states are even changing their analogue statues to include drugs in Schedules III, IV, and V.
Evidence please. This is the first I am hearing of these changes. Thank you!
Edited by Anonymous (09/06/18 05:54 PM)
|
|