• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Synthetic Cannabinoid Bans Fail, Regulations May be Next

V

villian

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 28, 2003
Messages
2,250
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) May 23, 2011 --
The Retail Compliance Association (RCA) http://www.therca.org, has drafted a document that calls for regulations similar to what New Zealand has put in place to control the growing market around synthetic cannabinoids. This document is in response to rouge police departments raiding small stores, arresting store clerks, and seizing products and money without warrants, or probable cause.

Daniel Francis, the Executive Director of the RCA says "The cannabinoids have been for the most part very safe when compared to many other products like alcohol and even peanuts, unlike bath salts, which are dangerous chemicals, the Cannabinoids have a long history of safety that goes back to the military and their sixty years of research." The RCA does not support the sale of so called "bath salts".

In November the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) moved to ban five compounds, but this was completely ineffective as the potential number of compounds exceeds 1000 at this time. The DEA has recognized that the issues related to these products cannot be controlled by legislation. According to testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Committee International Drug Caucus on April 6th by DEA Deputy Administrator of Diversion Control, Joseph Rannazzisi "There may be in excess of 100 cannabinoid products that have yet to be introduced into the marketplace. Manufacturers and distributors will continue to be one step ahead of any State or Federal drug-specific banning or control action by introducing / repackaging new cannabinoid products that are not controlled".

You can listen to the hearing in full on you tube. It is a very interesting take on the analogue act and the
DEA Special Agent describes well the folly of enforcement under the analogue act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCemR7zjHlc

These statements are a drastic change from the DEA's initial warnings to the industry. Their public message has changed as well. DEA agent Jim Molesa said the other day in an Arizona News Article titled "Spice is Back in Arizona" that the agency hadn't noticed a decrease in either the use or sale of spice since it was made illegal ( important note: spice was not made illegal, just five potential ingredients, and they have been replaced by other legal ingredients in almost all cases)....."If you're trying to legislate this, you're always going to be a day late and a dollar short," Molesa said.

The RCA Executive Director, Daniel Francis, has been on Capitol Hill addressing this issue and Senate Bill 605 which was introduced by Senator Hatch in March to support the DEA's Temporary Ban. The document calls for license fees for manufacturers and distributors, a luxury tax, and specifications for labeling, product manufacturing standards, and product tracking. you can get a copy by emailing Dan Francis, the RCA executive Director at [email protected].

"These compounds are in so many products nowadays it is hard to tell. Perfumes, candies, room air fresheners all have cannabinoid like compounds that enhance their scent and taste along with delivering a mind changing experience. The human body makes over 30 endogenous cannabinoids, so banning them is impossible, that is why we support regulations that provide and avenue of funding so the regulations can be enforced."

Francis went on to say "Rouge prosecutors and Police departments have been making unlawful arrests and violating so many constitutional rights regarding the store owners. I have heard from stores in Wisconsin, Kentucky, Georgia and many other states. I want to caution all prosecutors and law enforcement. The laws target an ingredient, and invisible ingredient that may or may not be on the materials in the sealed package that is being sold as incense or potpourri. The potential compound must be identified before the items can be seized, anything short of that is a hunch and not going to hold up in court. the DEA is cautioning you as well ...."As a result, it is almost impossible outside of a controlled laboratory environment to determine the chemical composition, and the quantity, potency, and type of synthetic ingredients in these substances. It is equally challenging to determine what the potential harmful effects may be due to human consumption" Joesph Rannazzisi, DEA

The RCA continues to push for reasonable laws that do not turn hard working shop owners into felons. To support the RCA, visit http://www.therca.org.
Click to expand...

source @ http://www.free-press-release.com/n...-fail-regulations-may-be-next-1306164067.html
 
Won't H.R. 1254 effectively ban all synthetic cannabinoids though as the wording of the law is to imply anything that acts on CB1 and CB2 receptors?
 
^they've already hindered it to an extent we can't imagine (because we can't go back...)
 
Volcano said:
Won't H.R. 1254 effectively ban all synthetic cannabinoids though as the wording of the law is to imply anything that acts on CB1 and CB2 receptors?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that will work...
There are a lot more than just "synthetic cannabinoids" that hit those receptors.

Using the logic of banning anything acting on those receptors is like saying that there's part of our brain we are not allowed to use. ... You can't exactly make the body's endogenous cannabinoid system illegal...


for instance, Echinacea contains certain alkylamides that affect cb2... does this make otc echinacea blends illegal? what about growing coneflowers in your yard?

http://www.jbc.org/content/281/20/14192.full.pdf
 
what is "rouge police"?

250px-Est%C3%A9e_Lauder_blush.PNG
 
^ LOL @ the sp? pic combo!

It says on the package it is potpourri and not for human consumption! They can't out law everything kids are putting up their nose or trying to smoke. ahhh. But we all know what it is for. I have not tried any of the synthetics. I am more in support of the naturally grown.

I am worried about all the states that have enacted laws allowing dispensaries for medical marijuana. Obama is the only thing standing in the way of the DEA from enforcing federal laws in those states right now. What if he does not get re-elected and a republican takes control of the oval office. I think we would be facing harsher drug laws and enforcement again.

Federally, if they enact legislation against the synthetics, it will set everything back for cannabanoids. Cannabanoids have medicinal uses and is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. I do not know how dangerous the synthetics are. I will see if I can find the interview with the guy whose compounds wound up on K-2. He was shocked at the idea of smoking them and said in no way could he condone or endorse that. I believe in lots of freedom, but if they are harmful, I like a little oversight. Why can't they leave it be till it is proven harmful? What is the best answer?
 
Volcano said:
Won't H.R. 1254 effectively ban all synthetic cannabinoids though as the wording of the law is to imply anything that acts on CB1 and CB2 receptors?
Click to expand...

That bill is likely never to go anywhere. It is way more popular on this site than it is in real life. It is one of many bills out there designed to ban bath salts. I doubt banning cannabinoids like this would even be constitutional. I guess all we can do is wait and see.
 
Volcano said:
Won't H.R. 1254 effectively ban all synthetic cannabinoids though as the wording of the law is to imply anything that acts on CB1 and CB2 receptors?
Click to expand...

If that happens to pass somehow, they don't have tests for 99% of the cannabinoids so they can't prosecute you until they test it and prove it to be a cannabinoid agonist, which would cost many millions of dollars and many years...
 
235360287471352662 said:
Which section of the Constitution addresses cannabinoid receptors?
Click to expand...

Laws can be taken off the books for being "unconstitutionally vague." A law that bans any substance that antagonizes cannabinoid receptors is pretty damn vague. The federal analogue act was declared unconstitutional by the Colorado supreme court for the same reason.
 
you could make the same argument for any and all drugs as you're making for analogues, but it just doesn't really matter :/
 
I sure hope H.R. 1254 doesn't pass, but ever since the Patriot Act was renewed by autopen, I'm not hopeful. About anything freedom-related.
 
we are seeing what the internet helps us do in the middle east and north africa... i'm hopeful that we can turn the tide, and turn the government from its track of trillion dollar wars against us drug users and our god damn dogs too.
 
^ I believe that change is in the works, but that it may take decades or more...

Bob Dylan started singing about this change in the early 60's, and the war on drugs has only gotten crazier and more wasteful of money, time, energy, and people's lives... But I think that things will change as more people are exposed to truthful information.

That is one reason I love Bluelight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top