I live in minnesota and according to this bill (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=53&doctype=chapter&year=2011&type=0), both 2c-e and 2c-i are now banned in this state. My main question is, does this include say 2c-c? I am really interested in ordering some for research, but I don't want to do that if it is illegal. Can anyone help me clarify, please?
-
PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe |
2c's legal status in the states
- Thread starter Tromps
- Start date
I NUK3D U
Bluelighter
These probably mean it's illegal imo.
Probably? or actually? Why does the beginning only specify 2c-e and 2c-i?
So from that passage, does that mean ALL 2c's are illegal now?
edit: If all of that's true, how come the erowid vaults and wiki pages only report that the 2c's that are illegal are the obvious 2c-b and now 2c-e (minus the 2c-t's)? All the other ones I have looked though (2c-d and 2c-c for example) don't list anything for them being illegal in minnesota. It's been months now since that bill has been in effect, yet both erowid and wiki haven't updated by now? I'm just trying to give myself hope here haha. Someones got to know for sure.
So from that passage, does that mean ALL 2c's are illegal now?
edit: If all of that's true, how come the erowid vaults and wiki pages only report that the 2c's that are illegal are the obvious 2c-b and now 2c-e (minus the 2c-t's)? All the other ones I have looked though (2c-d and 2c-c for example) don't list anything for them being illegal in minnesota. It's been months now since that bill has been in effect, yet both erowid and wiki haven't updated by now? I'm just trying to give myself hope here haha. Someones got to know for sure.
Last edited:
Wait hold on though, thinking about it, If that's saying " any analog" of a schedule 1 or 2 chemical is illegal, wouldn't that mean a good chunk of rc's are illegal? Many rc's are simply analogs of already illegal chems, right? I really don't understand someone please explain it, or is this just a bunch of gray area?
Last edited:
RobotRipping
Bluelighter
^ yes, the analog act has been in effect for a while, stuff like 4-aco-dmt certainly fall under it but it's not used very often to prosecute people and even then it must be shown that the chemical was intended for human consumption. Not sure how this all applies to your states laws explicitly banning the 2c's, AFAIK they were already analogs but since they are explicitly prohibited I think the difference is that proof that it was intended for human consumption is no longer necessary to prosecute someone. Really not sure though as I live in Canada :D
the probably vs actually is the grey area, as in whether you actually get prosecuted depends on the case. I don't see anyone getting busted for 4-aco-dmt in the states but it's clearly an analog, but then again there have been busts for cathinone related substances recently and then webtryp back in the day, so there's some ambiguity on how the law is applied. Again, i'm not 100% on this but this is how I understand it at least.
'substantially similar' is open to interpretation.
the probably vs actually is the grey area, as in whether you actually get prosecuted depends on the case. I don't see anyone getting busted for 4-aco-dmt in the states but it's clearly an analog, but then again there have been busts for cathinone related substances recently and then webtryp back in the day, so there's some ambiguity on how the law is applied. Again, i'm not 100% on this but this is how I understand it at least.
'substantially similar' is open to interpretation.
any major dude
Bluelight Crew
the substantially similar phrase is the kicker. Some would argue 2c-c is similar to 2c-i, as they're both halogenated 2 carbon pea's. However, those experienced with 2c-x's would probably argue that they are substantially different experientially. Also, given that 2c-c is less potent by weight than 2c-i, the "greater than" bit would not apply. However, the substantially similar chemical structure phrase looks as if it would include 2c-c by any logic i can conjure.
So while it may well be illegal, it isn't specifically illegal
well "analog" doesn't denote any specific structural conformation, so there's a lot of wiggle room there. I wouldn't consider things like 2c-x's & various tryptamines analogs of already illegal chemicals per se, but more so logical extrapolations of naturally occurring centrally active substances. They weren't designed to skirt controlled substance laws. Also, the Federal Analog Act is federal law & has to be enforced by the federal government, not state governments. Also the scale of the crime is something to be considered as well. Generally they aren't going to fly in a U.S. Attorney & prosecute someone in federal court for a simple possession case. If you're doing large scale distribution, that's a different matter entirely. See operation Web Tryp.
i agree with that interpretation. In your state, there is no requirement to establish intent to consume, only possession, to prosecute. However, in the case of 2c-c, they would have to establish the "chemical structure substantially similar" bit in front of a jury, and its anyone's guess how that would play out. If one were caught with 2c-c or 2c-d, and the police recognized it as a drug, the very least that would happen would be getting taken to jail, having your stash seized, & having to pay bail. I'd imagine whether or not they'd pursue a case would deal with the amount in question. But they could just decide to make an example of someone even if it was <100mg. Law enforcement officials are sometimes irrational & unpredictable. Don't expect to encounter a lot of logic & reason in that dept.
Take all this with an appropriate amount of salt though, as i'm neither a lawyer or a Minnesotan.