• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Lysergamides LSM-775 Legality

^ Me too. I recently had a blotter that was by effects exactly like LSD, except that all activity was gone by 6 hours...
 
Coolio said:
However, in the mail or in a place of business or school it would be perfectly legal. LSM-775 has a damn morpholine ring added where there isn't one on any Schedule I/II ergolines. It couldn't be considered substantially similar in chemical structure to anything.
Click to expand...
But am I not right in thinking that if it is ALSO pharmacologically similar then it can be argued that it is "analogous" i.e. an analogue.

So if its effects are very similar to LSD, but only of shorter duration, then it's possible that a case could be made (a very tenuous case, but hey, that's what the DEA are about isn't it?). And if it ever caught on, and was being produced in any significant amounts, you Americans can kiss your constitutional freedoms goodbye - as always.
 
^^^yeah LOL the dea can not "test for effects" ie, the dea is not going to dose up.
 
Sounds like an improvement over DOC, DOB, DOI, or DOM blotter anyway.
 
EntheoDjinn said:
But am I not right in thinking that if it is ALSO pharmacologically similar then it can be argued that it is "analogous" i.e. an analogue.

So if its effects are very similar to LSD, but only of shorter duration, then it's possible that a case could be made (a very tenuous case, but hey, that's what the DEA are about isn't it?). And if it ever caught on, and was being produced in any significant amounts, you Americans can kiss your constitutional freedoms goodbye - as always.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how the legislation is written and that's not how any case precedent has gone.

The DEA doesn't even consider alpha-ethyltryptamine to be an analog of N,N-diethyltryptamine or N,N-dimethyltryptamine.
 
Gandalf- said:
Yeah the UK doesn't have an analogue act, it does however had a tryptamine and phenethylamine act in which most psychedelic substances fall into. I'm uncertain to whether LSM-775 falls into it.

You can view it here:

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/countries/uk/uk_misuse_phen_4.shtml
Click to expand...

I was more under the impression that the UK simply had a blanket ban on everything contained within PiHKAL and TiHKAL rather than Phenethylamine and Tryptamine acts?

I may be mistaken.
 
They've pretty much banned everything in PiHKAL and TiHKAL, AMT is still legal and I think 5-MeO-AMT is. LSM-775 is only briefly mentioned in TiHKAL.
 
Coolio said:
No, that's not how the legislation is written and that's not how any case precedent has gone.

The DEA doesn't even consider alpha-ethyltryptamine to be an analog of N,N-diethyltryptamine or N,N-dimethyltryptamine.
Click to expand...
I understand how bizarre it seems. I was only referring to something I read many years ago which seemed to contradict natural justice. Here's a quote from Erowid (2002):

The Federal Analogue Act defines an analog as a substance which is 'substantially similar' to a scheduled substance and has either an effect 'similar to or greater than' a controlled substance or is thought to have such an effect. The law fails to define what 'substantially similar' means, nor does it try to clarify what would constitute a 'similar or greater' effect.

The full page can be found at:

HTML: 
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/analog/analog_info1.shtml

Here's another tasty morsel form the same page:

The US Federal Analague Act has 3 parts:

'chemical substantially similar'
AND EITHER
effects similar to substance in Schedule I or II OR
someone represents it as having the effect of a controlled substance
In the law that was put on the books federally, there were no connectives between these, but the only published case law on this topic courts have ruled that what Congress -meant- was : 1 AND either 2 or 3. So the substance must have an 'analog' structure to count. Unfortunately, to repeat, the law does not define what they mean by 'substantially similar

I'm not saying it's accurate, simply that other people have interpretations of the analogue law that differ from what has been said here

E
 
Last edited:
of LSM-775 and analogs

I'm thinking you'd definitely get nailed for a structural analog on this substance. Its just a variant on the amidic N. The only real difference is the oxygen that cyclizes the ethyl groups to ethylenes. The formula is only different by -2H, +1O. If they can nail you for only changes in N-subs on other tryptamines, they'll certainly get you for this.
 
I think it might be a good idea to start closing all "Is substance xyz illegal?" threads and redirecting users to erowid or the constitution or the penal code or an attorney's office or something.

This type of thread has been a recurring problem for some time now here, and most of the people who keep asking this same question (over and over) honestly just don't seem to get the answer.
 
LabRatNW said:
I'm thinking you'd definitely get nailed for a structural analog on this substance. Its just a variant on the amidic N. The only real difference is the oxygen that cyclizes the ethyl groups to ethylenes. The formula is only different by -2H, +1O. If they can nail you for only changes in N-subs on other tryptamines, they'll certainly get you for this.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea that they can 'nail you' for changes in N-subs on other tryptamines? Has anyone ever been convicted of possession of an analog of a Schedule I tryptamine? Link?

AET isn't an analog of DMT or DET as interpreted in Federal court, and DPT is uncontrolled and currently an analog of nothing as evidenced by a complete lack of conviction in any case involving DPT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top