Drug Policy Discussion, Research Papers, New Laws, Misc.

US is slowly pushing , and trying somewhat covertly from my opinion, to tighten the war on drugs.

one concern
"13 opioids and opioid-like substances"
i'm near certain lettuce opium is included.
ah the land of the free.

DEA is increasing operations against synthetic drugs and opiates. (sort of a good and bad thing i guess)
I know they're working on trying to infiltrate heroin/prescription opiate trafficking from the midwest region
and they recently seized a huge synthetic cache in D.C
 
Tightening prescription opiate trafficking is within the realm of the plausible, and really they've already accomplished that. It's plausible because the fact that those substances are legal gives some level of state control over their distribution. Heroin, however, is completely illegal in the United States and that's more plentiful/cheap than ever, with a boom of poppy production in Mexico, so I don't know how they're going to tighten up that trade.

I don't think that this new synthetic RC boogeyman is really any more popular than the traditional illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, and when they're made illegal the market for them dries up while those other aforementioned drugs have had staying power that's lasted decades (well, with perhaps a couple exceptions like mephedrone, which has stuck around in the UK even after it was made illegal)
 
Etizolam and MXE hurts. The designer Triptamines and phenthylmaines will survive on the black market as will the RC cannabinoids that are worth a shit
 
From the new bill:

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 102(32)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(32)(A)) are amended by striking ‘‘substantially’’ each place it appears.
(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Section 102(32)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 82(32)(A)) shall not be construed to require that a substance satisfy more than one of the clauses listed in such section 102(32)(A) to meet the definition of a controlled substance analogue.
Click to expand...

This is 102(32)(A) as it currently stands:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ''controlled substance analogue'' means a substance -
(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.
Click to expand...

Huh... depending on the interpretation of "similar," that could cover literally every psychoactive substance in existence.
 
JessFR said:
Isn't that what the UK did? Make it so all drugs not otherwise made legal in law automatically illegal
Click to expand...

It's as if drug czars from both met and hatched a plan to essentially do the same thing (but spread apart and written differently so as to not make it obvious). I'm no conspiracy theorist nut, but it honestly seems like a 'made in USA' plan - "You go first, I'll follow!"

Edit - There may be no such thing as a UK or British drug czar (to whom it may concern if not), but I digress.
 
Notice it says "importing" these research chemicals is punishable. That contradicts another statement saying they aren't going after the end users. Anytime we order a RC from overseas (and almost all the vendors are not domestic), then that makes us "importers" even if we only get 1 gram amounts!
 
ro4eva said:
It's as if drug czars from both met and hatched a plan to essentially do the same thing (but spread apart and written differently so as to not make it obvious). I'm no conspiracy theorist nut, but it honestly seems like a 'made in USA' plan - "You go first, I'll follow!"

Edit - There may be no such thing as a UK or British drug czar (to whom it may concern if not), but I digress.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't surprise me at all. Even if there was no agreement it seems obvious this law was inspired by the British.
 
there goes quite a bit more of my tax dollars. Honestly I would rather see that money burned, because at least someone that is cold could get a little warmth from it.

The only thing that prohibition has solved is the wide unavailability of intoxicating chemicals. Now they are more prevalent and way more potent. It has also solved the problem of cartels having too little money and influence.
 
I hope this is one of those " stupidly broad" bills which is not going to pass due to the nature of the wording and the ridiculous amount of ambiguity left so they can straight up fuck anyone who wants to order designer/research Chems. It better not pass or I may have to pass myself to another country and say FUCK the USA.
 
This is so fucked! If it passes, I'm effectively tapping out of the RC scene. Things only get more bleak from here. People are all "But think of the new chems that will hit the market!" and I'm like "I ain't Shulgin, bitch." My health and sanity are too important to be testing new chems on myself like a lab rat. The current batch of RC's is risky enough, but at least there's some human data even if it's just subjective trip reports.

Here's hoping/praying/pleading it doesn't pass.
 
DPT has been legal forever that's sad. Etizolam being banned would fuck up a lot of people's lives. Lucky my favorite legal drug isn't on there, I am not even naming it. Hopefully stays under radar until I can buy a sheet.
Some of those drugs are sketchy like bromo dragonfly or PMA but some seem pretty safe like 4-AcO-DMT. 26 tryptamines being banned though, that's terrible. It's not based on anything either, not harm that's for sure. Not popularity either, some of those are pretty obscure. Reminds me to stock up on anything legal.
 
I would love to see a comeback of the classics....like high quality quaaludes and whatnot. Heroin that isn't cut with fentanyl, and maybe some decent coke.

I am a reformed addict, but I feel those drugs are much safer than what we have going around markets these days. The first batch of research chems were decent. I tried quite a few and found the tryptamines to be amazing. However the further we reach the less is known....I would feel safer if addicts and users had access to classic plant based chemicals, and DMT and its derivatives.
 
I don't think that cocaine is ever really going to make a comeback. It just can't compete with synthetic stimulants, which can be made basically anywhere, not just one relatively small area of the globe, & last a hell of a lot longer than cocaine does. It's a shame because cocaine is a good drug that's relatively safe if used sparingly by a someone of sound mind & body. William Burroughs cited cocaine as one of the more enjoyable/useful drug experiences he ever had, and that guy did lots of drugs apparently.

I think that this is a pretty good era to be a heroin user, actually. It seems to be EVERYWHERE and the level of quality seems pretty good overall.
 
Burnt Offerings said:
I don't think that cocaine is ever really going to make a comeback. It just can't compete with synthetic stimulants, which can be made basically anywhere, not just one relatively small area of the globe, & last a hell of a lot longer than cocaine does. It's a shame because cocaine is a good drug that's relatively safe if used sparingly by a someone of sound mind & body. William Burroughs cited cocaine as one of the more enjoyable/useful drug experiences he ever had, and that guy did lots of drugs apparently.

I think that this is a pretty good era to be a heroin user, actually. It seems to be EVERYWHERE and the level of quality seems pretty good overall.
Click to expand...

Cocaine isn't going to make a comeback? Maybe if this doesn't pass if you mean only amongst the RC user community, but at large people using synthetic stimulants is maybe a percent of the people using Cocaine. Sure this isn't the 80s anymore, but Cocaine is still way more common.

If this passes all this does is support the cartels and other organized crime. At least currently some people are able to get their drugs via independent sourcing, now everyone is forced to go through the cartels for everything they could ever want.

"Substantially Similar" was the wording of the previous analog act, and that was what was unconstitutionally vague, because both 'substantially' and 'similar' are subjective terms, so with a little bit of creativity you could argue that Apple Juice is substantially similar to Heroin. Hope you're not selling Apple Juice.

So if this passes, does this mean everything that they feel like calling an analog will be illegal? Or does it mean just the chemicals on that list? If not, what the hell is the point of the list? If it's basically just to change it from the "substantially similar" wording to a list of defined chemicals then this is nothing new, but it seems like it aims to basically prevent anything that could be argued as an analog. How many additions/substitutions do you have to do before it's not an analog? Technically with enough substitutions/additions couldn't you turn any chemical A into chemical B? Making every chemical an analog of every other chemical? Just seems like the people introducing this bill have no idea of what chemistry is at all. And unfortunately that doesn't matter, Congress doesn't even have regular consultations from scientific experts anymore, so they just go off what sounds right to them. Constitutionally this bill shouldn't stand a chance, but I don't think a bill being constitutional really matters anymore as long as it puts more drug users in jail.
 
Check out how many substances they banned in October in China.
Think it was over 120 RC substances.
 
I think it was 116 in China, this is about 300.

I have some good news at least:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3537

According to their algorithm, which is pretty reliable in general, originally it had a 4% chance to get past committee and a 1% chance of being enacted. Now it has a 18% chance of getting past committee and a 4% chance of being enacted.

It is increasing, but at least it's still low. With only 4% chance I don't think this is cause for alarm... Yet...
 
studiouspadawan said:
Cocaine isn't going to make a comeback? Maybe if this doesn't pass if you mean only amongst the RC user community, but at large people using synthetic stimulants is maybe a percent of the people using Cocaine. Sure this isn't the 80s anymore, but Cocaine is still way more common.

If this passes all this does is support the cartels and other organized crime. At least currently some people are able to get their drugs via independent sourcing, now everyone is forced to go through the cartels for everything they could ever want.

"Substantially Similar" was the wording of the previous analog act, and that was what was unconstitutionally vague, because both 'substantially' and 'similar' are subjective terms, so with a little bit of creativity you could argue that Apple Juice is substantially similar to Heroin. Hope you're not selling Apple Juice.

So if this passes, does this mean everything that they feel like calling an analog will be illegal? Or does it mean just the chemicals on that list? If not, what the hell is the point of the list? If it's basically just to change it from the "substantially similar" wording to a list of defined chemicals then this is nothing new, but it seems like it aims to basically prevent anything that could be argued as an analog. How many additions/substitutions do you have to do before it's not an analog? Technically with enough substitutions/additions couldn't you turn any chemical A into chemical B? Making every chemical an analog of every other chemical? Just seems like the people introducing this bill have no idea of what chemistry is at all. And unfortunately that doesn't matter, Congress doesn't even have regular consultations from scientific experts anymore, so they just go off what sounds right to them. Constitutionally this bill shouldn't stand a chance, but I don't think a bill being constitutional really matters anymore as long as it puts more drug users in jail.
Click to expand...

The number of people who use MDMA a year is very comparable to the number of people who use cocaine a year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top