-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
2C-E: One Dead and ten hospitalized.
- Thread starter Kid Cozy
- Start date
it's a shame in general, this whole thing is tragic all around. Tragic for the families, an innocent child, and what looks like the scene in general.
it's ridiculously easy to find vendors. after a long hiatus, I was amazed how easy it was to get started again. I've felt a sense of urgency over the last year to collect what I could, because I've always thought the scene would more or less come to end some day. The number of vendors has exploded recently, so that's contributed to my paranoia (sorry if I'm bordering on source discussion).
Anything that is legal somewhere in the world will always be available. 2Cs have been illegal in the UK for 30-odd years but they're still available outside the UK. The US is just one market amongst many - there really are other countries out there with different laws, dontcha know 
You can also buy outright illegal drugs online so I doubt grey-area stuff like 2Cs will be going anywhere anytime soon.
You can also buy outright illegal drugs online so I doubt grey-area stuff like 2Cs will be going anywhere anytime soon.
Anything that is legal somewhere in the world will always be available. 2Cs have been illegal in the UK for 30-odd years but they're still available outside the UK. The US is just one market amongst many - there really are other countries out there with different laws, dontcha know
You can also buy outright illegal drugs online so I doubt grey-area stuff like 2Cs will be going anywhere anytime soon.
They won't go away completely, but it will likely become more difficult, and more risky to obtain them. You can understand that as a US citizen without the means to move to another country at the moment, I don't much care about laws outside my borders on this particular matter, at this point in time. I guess I'm spoiled, I'm accustomed to being able to order mind blowing drugs online easily and technically within the law. I don't much like the idea of that privilege being taken from me.
But prohibition in general makes my blood boil. It's a ridiculous policy.
yep, if you want it, it's to be found no doubt.
My obvious criticism of this whole ordeal is, how in the holy fuck do you snort that much 2c-e. Jesus any time snort and 2c-e are mentioned all people do is complain. How the fuck did this guy do this? I call bullshit because as soon as you snort it hits you pretty much and as soon as you snort it burns like glass up your nose.
nuke
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,190
No, there is no human consumption clause in that portion of the law. It is outright illegal because this circumvents the analogue act. This is an explicit declaration that it is as illegal as DOM is illegal.
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm
Last edited:
if you're cutting up lines like they supposedly were, you could get a few hundred milligrams in one shot. Whether or not that's enough to kill is anybody's guess, depending on individual tolerance and other drugs involved.
It's all speculation at this point.
No DOM = teh sux
Unfortunately I agree with you, but using that logic removes many many valuable research tools.
All of Shulgin's Ten Classic Ladies become off limits.
https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/pihkaltour/index.html#ladies
And it doesn't stop there. For example, 4C-DOM and 2C-P are also geometric isomers, although fortunately neither is scheduled. But it raises the point that vast swathes of RCs can be made illegal with a few restrictions.
**
EDIT: I'm wrong about the 10 ladies. They are produced by replacing a hydrogen of DOM with a methyl group, so they are not positional isomers and thus are not subject to the restrictions at issue here. Sorry for the hullabaloo, nothing to see here... Please move along.
Unfortunately I agree with you, but using that logic removes many many valuable research tools.
All of Shulgin's Ten Classic Ladies become off limits.
https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/pihkaltour/index.html#ladies
And it doesn't stop there. For example, 4C-DOM and 2C-P are also geometric isomers, although fortunately neither is scheduled. But it raises the point that vast swathes of RCs can be made illegal with a few restrictions.
**
EDIT: I'm wrong about the 10 ladies. They are produced by replacing a hydrogen of DOM with a methyl group, so they are not positional isomers and thus are not subject to the restrictions at issue here. Sorry for the hullabaloo, nothing to see here... Please move along.
Last edited:
Survived Abortion
Bluelighter
Well I care about laws outside my borders because I'm a compassionate human being who cares for the liberty of all of my brethren worldwide. It's worth remembering that the USA is not the world; importation and exportaion of drugs will not stop simply because America bans it.
I just don't buy it I mean shit, you have to have someone who feels it burn, nobody snorts huge lines of this at once and if they do, they most likely throw up and are noticeably experiencing abnormal symptoms. This had to be something else unless they were drinking or doing something else that lapsed their judgement.
I wish these could all just be legalized and mildly regulated and made to be big profit generators so that everyone would be happy.
deficiT
Bluelight Crew
NOOOO this definitely sucks. I feel like it might have been cut with something, or maybe something else completely if someone died from it, due to all the people taking massive amounts of 2c-e and not dying or anything
Totally understand. I'm not arguing that fact at all. I was trying to illustrate my admittedly selfish reasons for being concerned on the matter. I generally do care about the world outside my borders, the point I was trying to make is that this particular matter does affect me and those in the US, it doesn't by default affect the rest of the world, I get that.
The world doesn't start and stop by our watch. That being said, I suspect the US does make up a pretty large portion of the market share, so it may have some effect outside our borders.
DwayneHoover
Bluelighter
Wrong. Intent for "Human consumption" HAS been ruled a required condition for analogue scheduled status. But not by the supreme court, though the ruling was never challenged... probably why it is only rarely used anymore... vendors are most all VERY careful to require disclamers against human use be agreed to, ship only in bulk, and are careful to be totally shielded from all commentary implying intent of human use.
The highest level US court ruling at the present time is that in fact there is an IMPLICIT requirement of analogues as specified to have an "intent for human consumption" in order to automatically qualify as being on the same schedule of that which they are derived from / analogue of. It documented at Erowid... something to do with the order and placement of words "or" and "and" etc in the way the law was written.
Here http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/analog/analog_info1.shtml (a long page with lots of interesting info including views on the law/issues by Shulgin himself) the final sentence says:
An important federal case which established that there was an implicit "and" in the federal analogue act can be found here: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/cases/federal/federal_analog1.shtml
Which concludes with the case against the defendant being dismissed and the law declared unconstitutionally vague... a result that has yet to be challenged in any way:
Perhaps more importantly in this case, the analogue definition as applied to AET [*239] is so vague as to permit arbitrary enforcement. In 1990, the DEA investigated defendant Forbes for allegedly distributing AET, but the U.S. attorneys' office declined to prosecute, citing DEA chemist Roger Ely's conclusion that AET is not substantially similar to DMT or DET. Now, in 1992, Forbes is prosecuted by the same office for the same alleged offense. Nothing changed in the intervening two years except the personalities of the government prosecutors and their hand-picked DEA chemists.
This prosecution illustrates precisely the evils attending delegation of basic policy decisions for ad hoc, subjective resolution by those who wield prosecutorial power. Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109. The government has not scheduled AET as a controlled substance over the last 30 years and it has not prosecuted the chemical company that manufactured the substance and sold it to these defendants. The government presents no non-arbitrary reason why it has now decided [**23] to bring the full weight of the criminal process to bear on these defendants. Moreover, the statute has no specific standards channeling prosecutorial discretion, thus distinguishing this case from the drug paraphernalia cases. See, e.g., United States v. 3250 Brighton Blvd., 785 F.Supp. 141 (D.Colo. 1992).
Although I recognize the strong presumption favoring constitutionality of statutes and requiring courts to construe statutes in a constitutional manner, there is no construction possible here that would satisfy due process without re-writing the statute. See, Murphy, supra, at 6. Thus, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that defendants have clearly and convincingly rebutted the presumption of constitutionality in this case.
I hold that the definition of controlled substance analogue as applied to AET under the unique facts here is unconstitutionally vague. Without doubt, it provides neither fair warning nor effective safeguards against arbitrary enforcement.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and,
(2) This action shall be DISMISSED.
This prosecution illustrates precisely the evils attending delegation of basic policy decisions for ad hoc, subjective resolution by those who wield prosecutorial power. Grayned, 408 U.S. at 109. The government has not scheduled AET as a controlled substance over the last 30 years and it has not prosecuted the chemical company that manufactured the substance and sold it to these defendants. The government presents no non-arbitrary reason why it has now decided [**23] to bring the full weight of the criminal process to bear on these defendants. Moreover, the statute has no specific standards channeling prosecutorial discretion, thus distinguishing this case from the drug paraphernalia cases. See, e.g., United States v. 3250 Brighton Blvd., 785 F.Supp. 141 (D.Colo. 1992).
Although I recognize the strong presumption favoring constitutionality of statutes and requiring courts to construe statutes in a constitutional manner, there is no construction possible here that would satisfy due process without re-writing the statute. See, Murphy, supra, at 6. Thus, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that defendants have clearly and convincingly rebutted the presumption of constitutionality in this case.
I hold that the definition of controlled substance analogue as applied to AET under the unique facts here is unconstitutionally vague. Without doubt, it provides neither fair warning nor effective safeguards against arbitrary enforcement.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and,
(2) This action shall be DISMISSED.
Also:
A list of published cases which are useful for interpreting the Analogue Act can be found at: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/cases/federal/federal_analog2.shtml
"Controlled substance analogue"
In prosecution pursuant to 21 USCS §§ 802(32) and 813--under which "controlled substance analogue" is treated as controlled substance to extent it is intended for human consumption--witness' testimony that "cat" was sold at house while defendant was staying there and performing experiments with precursor chemicals was admissible, since testimony was highly probative as showing purpose to which precursor chemicals were likely put. United States v Hofstatter (1993, CA6 Mich) 8 F3d 316, 39 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1006, cert den (1994) 510 US 1131, 127 L Ed 2d 413, 114 S Ct 1101.
In prosecution pursuant to 21 USCS §§ 802(32) and 813--under which "controlled substance analogue" is treated as controlled substance to extent it is intended for human consumption--witness' testimony that "cat" was sold at house while defendant was staying there and performing experiments with precursor chemicals was admissible, since testimony was highly probative as showing purpose to which precursor chemicals were likely put. United States v Hofstatter (1993, CA6 Mich) 8 F3d 316, 39 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1006, cert den (1994) 510 US 1131, 127 L Ed 2d 413, 114 S Ct 1101.
Last edited: