KaelitioN
Greenlighter
Some are, some are not. Of the 21 cocaine analogs listed on the CDSA 6 are Schedule 1 while the remainder are unscheduled. Contrary to rumor, 4-fluorococaine is Schedule 1 since 2010. So while it wasn't controlled when this thread was started, it is now. Those places based in Canada that used to have it have either removed it from the "menu" or grayed out the item.
This supposed CDSA 'extension' contains compounds like camphor oil, eugenol and a host of other compounds that are available anywhere for a variety of legitimate purposes. I believe the bulk of the compounds listed here are 'controlled' only so far as license requirements and documents in order to sell them through regular commercial channels, the same way every alcohol vendor needs to be licensed regardless of the fact that alcohol itself is perfectly legal. The true CDSA as it appears here states where and when analogs of controlled substances are considered controlled substances themselves and this is what the majority of Canadian RC vendors refer to when distinguishing the commercial legality of the compounds they offer.
I understand it's all still a grey zone and I understand Health Canada *believes* they can write anything into the CDSA without it actually being listed as scheduled in the CDSA itself, but I have no idea how any actual prosecution would proceed and would definitely consult a legal team before openly selling it. Personally however I think they try to use this 'secret' list more as scare tactics than anything else to shut down the operations of vendors when it's politically/socially convenient. Notice how the vendor in question in the link got off with just a small fine so long as he effectively closed shop and stopped selling his blends. We just recently had BZP, TFMPP, MDPV and analogs specifically scheduled because of bunk ecstacy pills in circulation as well as a precaution due to the bath salts scare in the US. It was a reactionary measure and the CDSA in Canada tends to schedule and control as problems emerge. I doubt that list is really valid and if it is, there appears to be an incredible amount of leniency towards actually enforcing it. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. We'd have to talk to a lawyer about it since they would probably be the best source for interpreting this conflicting information.
Last edited:
