How Can "Intent For Human Consumption" Be Established or Proven

[daddysgone]

hey all,
As Im sure many of you know, in the United States, in order for something to fall under the analog act, not only must the substance be considered a chemical analog of a schedule I or II substance, but it must also be proven that it was intended for human use.

So the question becomes, how the hell can it be established or proven that someone intended to use the substance for human consumption?

Obviously if you admitted you planned on taking the drug, or if there was documentation of you talking about taking or, or your plans to take it, then this would indicate your intention, but my guess is that hard evidence like that rarely exists in cases like this.

So, if someone were to simply place an order for a substance that is a chemical analog of a schedule I or II drug, and then was somehow "caught" with this substance (the package was intercepted, authorities found you in possession of it, etc.), how can your intentions be established?

I would imagine that the burden of proof would fall on the prosecutor (meaning that you dont have to prove you WEREN'T going to use the substance for human use, but they have to prove you were). And in a case like this, how could they actually prove your intentions.

It seems like a nearly impossible thing to actually improve. Obviously if an ordinary layman orders some recreational analog, its pretty clear that they intended on using it, but legally, how could they actually prove this?

Anyway, just wondering. Thanks-DG

 

[AChemicalLife]

Circumstantial evidence, powder in bags, caught in the act, not exercising your 5th amendment rights, materials used to ingest said analogues...

Sale is usually a good indicator. If you're selling it to individual users, they will probably be more than likely to tell the police you knew they were going to eat/smoke/snort/inject whatever it is for a probation rather than violating the Analogue Act themselves...

 

[toa$t]

that's a very interesting question, considering that it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. They could almost certainly prove it by drug testing you. But without actually having consumed any of it, I think it would be extremely difficult. If the chemical doesn't have any other known uses, I think that would definitely be raised. Also, say you're dealing with mephedrone, which I understand is often sold as plant fertilizer. The fact that the accused doesn't have any plants or an legitimate use for plant fertilizer would also be relevant.

That said, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish that it was intended for human consumption, as opposed to the defence to establish that it wasn't. Lack of any other use for it would be indicative of guilt, but it certainly would not be conclusive.

I'd be interested to hear some other thoughts on this.

 

[tobala]

This is one provision of the Analogue Act that has the DEA foaming at the mouth. A bag of unscheduled powder sitting in someone's bedroom drawer is a very legally-innocuous thing.

 

[daddysgone]

This is one provision of the Analogue Act that has the DEA foaming at the mouth. A bag of unscheduled powder sitting in someone's bedroom drawer is a very legally-innocuous thing.

Im confused by your post.
You say that this provision has the DEA "foaming at the mouth". Normally when one says someone is "foaming at the mouth", it means they are very excited about something.

However you go on to say that a bag of unscheduled powder sititng in someone's drawer is a very "legaaly-innocuous thing". Since "innocuous" means "harmless, or not likely to give offense", you seem to be saying that possessing a bag of unscheduled powder is NOT legally damning. So why would the DEA be foaming at the mouth about the fact that it would be hard to prove guilt in this situation?-DG

 

[toa$t]

it means angry. as in a rabid dog.

 

[ChemicalSmiles]

Circumstantial evidence, powder in bags, caught in the act, not exercising your 5th amendment rights, materials used to ingest said analogues...

Sale is usually a good indicator. If you're selling it to individual users, they will probably be more than likely to tell the police you knew they were going to eat/smoke/snort/inject whatever it is for a probation rather than violating the Analogue Act themselves...

this ^^if you were ever in this situation, contact private legal defense. Ask around locally find a private lawyer who is a BOSS. Trust me its your life, dont talk to police or cut a deal without having a lawyer present. Even if you have to take out loans to be legally represented... do it.. a charge could prevent you from scholarships, and employment in the future....

 

[tobala]

Im confused by your post.
You say that this provision has the DEA "foaming at the mouth". Normally when one says someone is "foaming at the mouth", it means they are very excited about something.

However you go on to say that a bag of unscheduled powder sititng in someone's drawer is a very "legaaly-innocuous thing". Since "innocuous" means "harmless, or not likely to give offense", you seem to be saying that possessing a bag of unscheduled powder is NOT legally damning. So why would the DEA be foaming at the mouth about the fact that it would be hard to prove guilt in this situation?-DG

What I was trying to say is that the Analogue Act has no legal teeth, the DEA is upset about the fact that a bag of psychoactive (but unscheduled) powder sitting in one's bedroom is not a pragmatically prosecutable event, and is why they are trying (without any apparent success in the last four years) to schedule every molecule to be found in PIHKAL and TIHKAL.

In other words, they are very upset that legal action against analogs which might fall under the Analogue Act are in fact very difficult to successfully prosecute.