New Georgia Law takes effect tomorrow

[Moon Cowboy]

I think it does matter what members of this board think, especially if they have advanced knowledge. No court case could arise without being backed by a chemist expert witness. That's why I don't think a lawyer would even be advantageous, he would ask for a defense chemist or give a hell of a cross- exam.

They would have to go after incense through law enforcement, then determine what's in it, then determine whether the compounds are related. Sounds expensive especially with Federal bills in the pipeline doing the exact same thing.

I think this is a very important topic as most states have deficient wording just like this, allowing technicalities. That's what the RC market thrives on after all.

 

[23536]

lol I don't know why this is so interesting to me I don't even live in GA

You can forget about "functional isomer" or "functional homologue" because neither phrase is in the legislation, and Georgia law explicitly says that "isomer" does not mean functional isomer.

So then, it forbids homologues, geometric isomers, optical isomers and positional isomers. All of these categories are perfectly unambiguous.

No court case could arise without being backed by a chemist expert witness.

But see this post.

 

[Moon Cowboy]

So do you agree that there are no provisions that would include these compounds?

This is interesting stuff, these are the next wave of technicalities for the RC market. There was a federal hole, and now there's a state one for many states still.

i read the link, harrowing material though there are facts of that case that wouldn't quite apply. I see the relation, but isn't 2c-c a direct derivative of 2c-b and therefore of course you would be charged with the precursor it takes to make it? I may be wrong on that, but the acid gurus of yesteryear were charged with LSD from ALD, because it was proven that at some point in the process LSD existed to make ALD.

 

[23536]

So do you agree that there are no provisions that would include these compounds?

not AM-2201, because the N-alkyl chain terminates in a flouride.

not JWH-122 because of the methyl moiety on the naphthyl.

isn't 2c-c a direct derivative of 2c-b and therefore of course you would be charged with the precursor it takes to make it? I may be wrong on that, but the acid gurus of yesteryear were charged with LSD from ALD, because it was proven that at some point in the process LSD existed to make ALD.

those fuckers

2C-H is the precursor to both, but 2C-C is not a derivative of 2C-B

 

[atara]

Theyb are homologues because they both are potent CB1/2 agonists.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homologous_series

 

[pofacedhoe]

. No court case could arise without being backed by a chemist expert witness. .

i think thats a little idealistic. we're talking about american drug policy...

what people here have to say is interesting. would it hold sway in a courtroom? you take the risk, not me

 

[Moon Cowboy]

It's a damn shame that basic integrity has slipped into the scope of idealism. If you want to ban this entire series, ban it with comprehensive wording. The DEA is well aware of the shortcomings of this wording, but they have little power in banning 300+ chemicals federally at the same time. States can apparently do this more easily. It's hardly as if anyone was surprised when incense blends switched to analogs and it was business as usual.

As for risk, this is more novel and curiosity at this point. I just hate being told what I can and can't do, and have only recently starting making my own blends (non-commercial) which is something I don't really want to give up.

Thanks for the clarification on 2c-c. Without knowing all the facts of that case though I'm not sure what to glean from it.

 

[23536]

(I don't know why they pass laws on the optical isomers of compounds that have no stereocenters)

the naphthoylindoles are still obvious analogues of JWH-018, in case somebody wanted to make a federal case out of this

 

[Moon Cowboy]

Of course they could, if they prove human consumption was intended. They would need state assistance for this I would think. I think the majority of us now agree that these elements are no explicitly controlled in GA, but who know what can be construed in court.