Charged for using GBL?

A

anon1001

Greenlighter
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
3
So, after a friend overdosed on GBL, it was confiscated by the police department. After the detective continues to tell me things are fine because GBL is legal, he calls me up recently and tells me that they are going to go ahead and charge me with a Class H Felony (North Carolina) because taking the GBL converts it to GHB inside of the body.

This just sounds really screwed up. Isn't there a percentage who cannot have it converted to GHB inside of them because of lack of lactonase enzymes or something?

Can anyone else think of something else out there that is legal, but if used becomes illegal inside of the body?
 
this should be in legal discussion.

you'd get far more help there for this.
 
holy shit thats fuckd up man. that should be illegal to charge u like that. u consumed a legal substance and now some dude is telling u its illegal because it metabolizes into a different drug in ur body. what the point of gbl being legal? by the way im located in wilming nc and we got some piggys around here that will fuck ur life up.
 
prescription vyvanse - lisdexamfetamine turns into dextroamphetamine when metabolized through the liver. if you snort the shit, it doesnt do anything... I'm guessing it's similar?
 
These cases have precedent.

Look at the ALD-52 vs LSD cases. Analogue Act. Heroin charges for showing up positive in a UA. etc.

I'm not a lawyer and not giving you legal advice.
 
Tell them there's GHB in wine and red meat. What can they do about that? Charge wine makers and butchers?
 
Theres no intent in the case of naturally occuring GHB in food. Enforcement of poppy straw laws in the US is similar. Guilt follows intent.
 
That is fucked up. I'd be so, so furious.

Legally, it's tricky. You're being charged with "possession" of GHB, I guess - But do you really "possess" it if it's inside your body? Do I "possess" all the blood inside me right now, or the oxygen in my lungs?

It can't have to do with intent, as was earlier suggested, in my opinion. It doesn't matter if you INTEND on getting high on poppy pod tea, you can still wave the poppy pods around in front of the police and they won't arrest you for it. It doesn't become morphine until it's inside you.

If the laws were based around INTENT, it'd be perfectly legal to carry cocaine with you as long as you INTENDED to use it as an analgesic and not as a method for getting high. The act of getting high isn't illegal in our legal system, it's the possession part that is.

It's legal to get high, but you can't get high without "possessing" the drug first. Unless you possess a different, legal drug, and your body converts it. But yeah, is that really possession?
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous is you ask me.. Maybe some ADA wants a nice case on his resume and thinks you'll plead guilty, I don't know. Doesn't sound like they'd stand a chance, I'm not a lawyer though.

Can anyone else think of something else out there that is legal, but if used becomes illegal inside of the body?
Click to expand...

This would be called a prodrug of a scheduled substance. And no, if it's not scheduled it is simply not scheduled. Unless the analog act applies but this is a schedule III substance so no worries with that one. Again I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even live in the states.
 
JoshuaV said:
It can't have to do with intent, as was earlier suggested, in my opinion. It doesn't matter if you INTEND on getting high on poppy pod tea, you can still wave the poppy pods around in front of the police and they won't arrest you for it. It doesn't become morphine until it's inside you.
Click to expand...

Your opinion doesn't really affect the wording of the law. From the Federal Analogue Act-

A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.
Click to expand...

The term "RESEARCH CHEMICAL" came into use when internet vendors tried to circumvent the intent clause by saying they were for scientific research and not human consumption.

JoshuaV said:
If the laws were based around INTENT, it'd be perfectly legal to carry cocaine with you as long as you INTENDED to use it as an analgesic and not as a method for getting high. The act of getting high isn't illegal in our legal system, it's the possession part that is.
Click to expand...

Cocaine is a controlled substance so ALL possession is illegal. Intent comes into play when we're talking about presently legal substances that can be used to get high and are structurally similar enough to illegal ones.
 
I think a defense should revolve around the fact that GBL has uses other than human consumption and somewhere down the line (not now, but once you've got a lawyer), a statement that your friend was not authorized by you to ingest the GBL.

Since GHB is Schedule I at the Federal level, in theory the Analogue Act could be invoked, but it's pretty weak legislation that prosecutors often have a hard time with if things go to trial.

I don't know if your friend has said anything to the police himself, but once you retain a lawyer his first action should be to discover what was said and you'll both have a better idea of how to proceed from there. You, of course, should say nothing further at this point.
 
^excellent points.

I think the major point is that it will be exorbitantly expensive for them to sufficiently make the case and that ultimately they will decide its not worth it.

If you possessed/were moving large quantities, if your friend had died or if they were other more serious factors it might be worth it, but I doubt any ADA is going to put that much energy into this.

I would consult some legal counsel and stick to your guns that this is presently legal.
 
GHB is also listed as schedule III under the prescription name Xyrem.

Else, it is schedule I (all other distributions of GHB).

Probably theoretical in nature, as I don't think one could use this in their defense (unless they had previously been diagnosed with narcolepsy...)

To answer your question in the last line of OP, I'm sure there are quite a few drugs that are like that, can't think of too many off the top of my head, Psychedelic mushrooms are like that in some countries (and the USA prior to 1971...but more notably spain, canada, etc)...the UN single convention only covers Psilocin and Psilocybin, not the mushrooms themselves. (IIRC.)

Poppies.

Almost certainly some RC's, though the analogue act's use in the future will determine how that plays out.

Best of luck. Make no deals without an attorney present, admit to nothing, keep a notion of legality about you at all times regarding your activities, even under pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top