US - Making a Substance Illegal Not an Easy Process

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
St Charles Patch

26 July 2011

With reader comments

http://stcharles-il.patch.com/articles/making-a-substance-illegal-not-an-easy-process

By tweaking the chemical composition of the recipe, overseas manufacturers of synthetic marijuana try to stay a step ahead of drug control regulations.

The process of declaring a drug a controlled substance—something that is generally illegal to possess—is anything but easy.

For an item to make its way into Schedule I of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Controlled Substances Act, which includes drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, the substance needs to meet multiple criteria. These include: an imminent hazard to public safety, a potential for abuse and no accepted medical use In March, the DEA added five of the chemicals sprayed on synthetic marijuana to the emergency control list after proving the substances met the criteria. "It can take about a year to go through that process," said Special Agent Will Taylor, a spokesman for the U.S. DEA's Chicago division.

Meanwhile, the creators of these drugs, which are primarily manufactured overseas in countries such as China and India, avoid the controlled substance list by creating new recipes that will give customers the same high, from other chemical compounds not specifically banned by authorities. The newer product formulas are likely variants of what was outlawed, under the same family of compounds. "The chemists tweaked one atom within the molecules of the chemical compound, so the chemical structure is not the same," Taylor said. Adding a substance permanently to the Controlled Substances Act is even more difficult. Aside from getting a study done from the Department of Health and Human Services, the government must also prove that the substances are intended for human consumption. And since most synthetic marijuana products are labeled as incense, that can be a tough argument to make. Taylor said the DEA, as a federal agency, is often too tied up with wholesale drug traffickers to make that argument. So law enforcement's hope is that legislation comes through. "A lot of states can move forward much more quickly than we can," he said.

New Drugs, New Laws

A new law in Wisconsin went into effect this month prohibiting synthetic cannabinoids and their analogs, or slightly different substances similar in chemical makeup. Taylor said this type of law is effective in its ability to blanket synthetic cannabinoids and close loopholes for drug developers. Last Friday, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a new law banning MDPV, the active ingredient in a different class of drugs: synthetic MDMA and cocaine products known as "bath salts." Illinois has also banned K2 and other synthetic marijuana substances, but not their variants. Taylor said federal legislation is in the works too. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced a bill outlawing bath salts, but the bill remains at the committee level. The Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011 also remains in committee. Drug enforcement officials also hope to target more of the synthetic marijuana distributors by pursuing any drugs being sold with compounds similar to those already outlawed. These variant products are known as analogs, or analogues. The DEA is able to regulate any analogs of drugs in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Taylor said sweeping legislation banning both substances and their analogs may be the best solution to deter users from substances that may have led to the death of Max Dobner in Batavia Township last month. "We do need more of a broad legislative move," he said. "Unfortunately, trying to stay ahead of it and identify as many new compounds as possible is very difficult ... the real answer is better legislation."

Reader comment
Dave Klein

7:00am on Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Don't you think we have enough of a Nanny state??? Why aren't the news sources reporting that thousands and thousands of people use this substances and don't have any bad reactions and nobody has directly died as a result from the drug itself? Why aren't you pushing for legalization of Cannabis which will get rid of this stuff for good instead of instigating the politicians to push for more destructive legislation that will fuel the drug cartels, organized crime and fill more prisons with non violent offenders?
 
Why aren't the news sources reporting that thousands and thousands of people use [these] substances and don't have any bad reactions and nobody has directly died as a result from the drug itself?

That would indeed be a trailblazing news story:

Denver man uses new synthetic drug and enjoys it; lives to tell the tale!
 
It shouldn't be easy to make a substance illegal. :| Especially those that haven't resulted in any/few deaths.

Anyone in another country wanna marry me?
 
By tweaking the chemical composition of the recipe [...]

Ugh, journalists.... :X Its chemistry motherfuckers -- there are no "recipes", molecules aren't pastries. Do they not teach chemistry anymore in high schools or something, because it seems that an abhorrently large number of people don't even have a basic understanding of its principles. They think you make a drug by just mixing a bunch of shit together according to some "recipe", its positively delusional. I remember a long time ago I was at a party and someone told me that "meth is just bleach and kitty litter mixed together".

I LOL'd. :D
 
Oh man, I hear it all too much and it's never too long in between when I hear it. Drug myths are rampant around here and it's straight urban legends compounded by idiot journalists like this.

Chemistry is taught in high school here, BUT it's not compulsory; you only take it if you want to. It's fine if journalists aren't into chemistry, what's not fine is that as a journalist it's their duty to be accurate in their reporting. If they want to write articles about something chemistry related, they should be required to learn a little chemistry.
 
^ Even dangerous chemicals like PMA shouldnt be illegal. Maybe the act of GIVING THE CHEMICAL TO SOMEBODY FOR INGESTION should be, but not the chemical itself. The whole controlled substances act is set up to prosecute POSSESSION. It's bullshit because possessing a drug never killed anybody.

People should be educated enough to know not to ingest dangerous chemicals (i.e. Poison). We don't need laws to tell us not to drink shit from under the sink.

Drug laws are nothing more than politics. If they were to "make the world safe", then they would focus on prosecuting the (AB)USE of the drugs, not the simple possession. But it's not about "safety", it's all about fucking dollar bills, from the top to the bottom in this country.

If we prosecuted people for use, more people would get off for lack of evidence. It's easier to prove a drug case with the drugs in hand. But they don't want people to get off, this would mean less corporate wage slaves in privately owned corrections facilities working for $1/day.

Plus, going after the substances themselves decreases supplies, making the drugs sold on the streets more profitable. It allows for money laundering banks to come out the winners.

The world is run by bankers..
 
^*by money :P The world is definitely controlled by greed and nothing else. I've been looked in the eye and told myths about psychedelics as if they were fact. Its hilarious to me, having taken LSD around 30 times, that someone would tell me, "if you take it more 7 times you'll be considered legally insane" and "it gets stuck in your spine." Mushroom myths are equally bad, "they work by poisoning your body and that causes the nausea." All of these things frustrate me because nobody wants to learn the truth, they just want to hear the bullshit. The war on drugs isn't a war on crime, its a war on the american people and nobody fucking understands that harmless people are added to the system all of the time because they fucking have a chemical. Not because they drove drunk or hit someone in the face but because they have something on them, which wouldn't have been known in many cases if cops didn't look for drugs in every scenario possible.
 
I call bullshit. Wanna know how MDMA became illegal?

Step 1) Alcohol companies noticed people could have metric shit tons of fun without alcohol, and be safer. People would drink water at clubs instead of liquor if it were legal.

Step 2) Corporate lobbyists swoop in on current Congress while others make donations to pay for campaigns to get legislation passed to ban the drug

Step 3) Crack open a beer and enjoy as MDMA users go to prison for a chemical that presents a fraction of the danger of alcohol when used responsibly
 
I'm not advocating driving while intoxicated by any means but I have done a 35 minute drive home from a certain venue several times while rolling FACE. I'm talking eye wiggles, lovey-dovey everything. However, I have never driven while drunk. Reasoning behind this:how many people have MDMA intoxication related accidents versus how many people drive drunk and end up ruining lives-even lives besides their own? It often surprises me that alcohol isn't illegal while pot (mdma, lsd, etc.) are demonized...
 
funny how alcohol and tobacco fit all the descriptions of being able to be made illegal

and how most illicits dont
 
I'm not advocating driving while intoxicated by any means but I have done a 35 minute drive home from a certain venue several times while rolling FACE. I'm talking eye wiggles, lovey-dovey everything. However, I have never driven while drunk. Reasoning behind this:how many people have MDMA intoxication related accidents versus how many people drive drunk and end up ruining lives-even lives besides their own? It often surprises me that alcohol isn't illegal while pot (mdma, lsd, etc.) are demonized...

I won't deny that everyone is different, but the nuttiest drives I've had came when I was a teenager and drove on MDMA. Never again. Cars kept materializing from thin air and I wanted to bump them to test their reality. The longest distances between two points were straight lines. Very bizarre.
 
Ya I wouldn't drive on drugs period. Even driving on weed is risky because if an ACCIDENT happens you might give drugs a bad name. They call them accidents because you never know when one will happen and you don't need to be on anything for one to happen (I wasn't when I had one..)

Just my .02 if you are going to do drugs (besides maybe stimulants like meth and coke maybe?), you should get somebody else to drive until you're straight.. Last thing I wanna read is a story about guy on weed killing somebody in an accident that would have happened sober :\
 
Ugh, journalists.... :X Its chemistry motherfuckers -- there are no "recipes", molecules aren't pastries. Do they not teach chemistry anymore in high schools or something, because it seems that an abhorrently large number of people don't even have a basic understanding of its principles. They think you make a drug by just mixing a bunch of shit together according to some "recipe", its positively delusional. I remember a long time ago I was at a party and someone told me that "meth is just bleach and kitty litter mixed together".

I LOL'd. :D
I took chem.
But a lot of people didnt. But a lot do. and like socks said, you dont have to.
 
For an item to make its way into Schedule I of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Controlled Substances Act, which includes drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, the substance needs to meet multiple criteria. These include: an imminent hazard to public safety, a potential for abuse and no accepted medical use

Does anyone out there really believe that mary jane is an imminent hazard to public safety?
The only ones who aren't accepting its utility medically are pro-tobacco and pro-alcohol politicians, and pro-pharm doctors. Anybody with even close to an objective perspective will have to admit that it has many medical uses.

As for potential for abuse, essentially everything has that potential. My ex-girlfriend's mother was addicted to carrots. She ate them continuously for hours, until all her skin turned orange. 8o
 
I am sure that many people on other countries would be happy to marry you.
Are you no more particular than that?

If the idea is to emigrate to a country with less draconian drug laws then I'd vote for New Zealand. It's the only country that is bringing in "enabling" regulation for legal highs instead of blanket prohibition like everywhere else. Definitely avoid UE and Saudi. That would be a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire"!
 
If the idea is to emigrate to a country with less draconian drug laws then I'd vote for New Zealand. It's the only country that is bringing in "enabling" regulation for legal highs instead of blanket prohibition like everywhere else. Definitely avoid UE and Saudi. That would be a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire"!


As a competitive sporting shooter I'd move to NZ no problem :)

They seem to just be less reactionary in several ways.
 
Top