- Joined
- Jun 30, 2015
- Messages
- 1,596
In today's episode of incomprehensible bat-shittery from the DEA, here are a list of tryptamines they have determined have no medical /research value and which pose a substantial public health risk.
- 4-Hydroxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine (4-OH-DiPT),
- 5-Methoxy-alphamethyltryptamine (5-MeO-AMT),
- N-Isopropyl-5-Methoxy-N-Methyltryptamine (5-MeO-MiPT),
- N,N-Diethyl-5-methoxytryptamine (5-MeO-DET), and
- N,N-Diisopropyltryptamine (DiPT).
Shush!Oddly they failed to target compounds that are actually commonly abused (liked 4-HO-MET for instance) but it looks like they are going the analog route. If they wanted to do damage they'd go for 4-AcO-DMTs
I'm quite surprised to see 5-MeO-DET on that list. Besides that and 5-MeO-AMT, I'll be very sad to see them go. Suck my dick DEAIn today's episode of incomprehensible bat-shittery from the DEA, here are a list of tryptamines they have determined have no medical /research value and which pose a substantial public health risk.
That's the saddest part of the whole thing. These legislators/bureaus are too stupid to realize how pervasive the serotonin signaling system is, how much we stand to gain from understanding it better, and how little will be gained from banning these compounds.Pathetic, the DEA must be on the menopause. Although I am not a resident of the Americas, this is still deeply infuriating. DiPT is the most important neurochemical probe out there, I feel bad for any researchers wanting to use it. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic!
Look at how they define "abuse":
following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: [2]
a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or
b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or
c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or
d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.
c. so if you think about putting anything in your body that we don't tell you to... ABUSE
fucking crooks man
Let’s see if Tron will weigh in on this. @TronicaLook at how they define "abuse":
following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: [2]
a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or
b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or
c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or
d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.
c. so if you think about putting anything in your body that we don't tell you to... ABUSE
fucking crooks man
yep exactly they already are medicalising resistance to their attempts to override individual autonomy by casting the label of 'mentally unstable' upon anyone whomst dares think for themselves, soon anyone who is not a model minion of the doublespeak variant will have their figurative tongues cut out - mark my wordsLook at how they define "abuse":
following four prongs in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse: [2]
a. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community; or
b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or other substance from legitimate drug channels; or
c. Individuals are taking the drug or other substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs; or
d. The drug is so related in its action to a drug or other substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.
c. so if you think about putting anything in your body that we don't tell you to... ABUSE
fucking crooks man
Drugs: *laughs in fentanyl* "your cute bans have no effect on me."In today's episode of incomprehensible bat-shittery from the DEA, here are a list of tryptamines they have determined have no medical /research value and which pose a substantial public health risk.