But am I not right in thinking that if it is ALSO pharmacologically similar then it can be argued that it is "analogous" i.e. an analogue.However, in the mail or in a place of business or school it would be perfectly legal. LSM-775 has a damn morpholine ring added where there isn't one on any Schedule I/II ergolines. It couldn't be considered substantially similar in chemical structure to anything.
But am I not right in thinking that if it is ALSO pharmacologically similar then it can be argued that it is "analogous" i.e. an analogue.
So if its effects are very similar to LSD, but only of shorter duration, then it's possible that a case could be made (a very tenuous case, but hey, that's what the DEA are about isn't it?). And if it ever caught on, and was being produced in any significant amounts, you Americans can kiss your constitutional freedoms goodbye - as always.
^shit really? why is that?
Yeah the UK doesn't have an analogue act, it does however had a tryptamine and phenethylamine act in which most psychedelic substances fall into. I'm uncertain to whether LSM-775 falls into it.
You can view it here:
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/countries/uk/uk_misuse_phen_4.shtml
I understand how bizarre it seems. I was only referring to something I read many years ago which seemed to contradict natural justice. Here's a quote from Erowid (2002):No, that's not how the legislation is written and that's not how any case precedent has gone.
The DEA doesn't even consider alpha-ethyltryptamine to be an analog of N,N-diethyltryptamine or N,N-dimethyltryptamine.
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/analog/analog_info1.shtml
I'm thinking you'd definitely get nailed for a structural analog on this substance. Its just a variant on the amidic N. The only real difference is the oxygen that cyclizes the ethyl groups to ethylenes. The formula is only different by -2H, +1O. If they can nail you for only changes in N-subs on other tryptamines, they'll certainly get you for this.