Mahan Atma
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 4,522
The Legal Status of RESEARCH CHEMS in the U.S.
People frequently ask questions about the legality of unscheduled “research chemicals”, like those listed in Shulgin’s PiKHAL and TiKHAL books. Common examples are 5-meo-dmt, 2C-I, and so on. Most are phenethylamines or tryptamines. I will simply refer to them as “research chems” (RCs); although some people object to this term, it’s the simplest, most common term to use.
Here is the low-down on the legality of RCs in the U.S.:
Many RCs are not scheduled, meaning they are not explicitly listed in the schedules of illegal substances created by federal and state drug laws. Some people think this means they are legal. This is incorrect.
Under federal law, unscheduled RCs may be illegal to sell or possess with the intent to consume them. The federal statute is the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, whose text is supplied here:
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/law_fed_analog_act.shtml
Many states have an identical or similar statute. I will refer to these generally as “the analogue laws”.
Here is a simplified explanation of the analogue laws.(See the text of the given statute for the details). Under the analogue laws, an “analogue” is any unscheduled substance that fits all three of these criteria:
1) It has a chemical structure “substantially similar” to a controlled substance;
2) It has a similar stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect as a controlled substance;
3) It is intended by the defendant to have a similar stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect as a controlled substance.
Now, there are a couple of qualifications:
1) If you do not intend to consume the substance, then technically it is legal to possess it. HOWEVER, this does not mean that you don’t have to worry about being prosecuted for possessing an RC. A jury is allowed to infer intent based on indirect evidence. For example, if the cops find gel caps, a milligram scale, trip reports, or other such evidence, the judge or jury could infer that you intended to consume the drug. Although technically the burden is on the prosecution to prove intent, you may effectively be in the position of having to prove that you didn’t consume the drug. That could be very hard to do, given that the judge or jury will view you as a “drug user” and your credibility will be drawn into question.
2) The circumstances under which it is legal to distribute RCs are not totally clear, because it is not clear how the “intent to consume” element applies to the act of selling. If you sold an RC while telling people to consume it, or explaining to them how to consume it, you are most certainly guilty. If you sell an RC while telling people NOT to consume it, but knowing full well that they would, it is not clear whether you would be guilty. If past case law is any guide, a person would most likely be found guilty if they reasonably should have known that the person buying the drug intended to consume it. In any case, be aware that if you sell RCs, you are taking a big chance. Again, you will effectively be in the position of having to prove your innocence, because judges and juries generally do not like drug sellers.
3) The issue of whether a given RC has a chemical structure that is “substantially similar” to a scheduled substance is somewhat ambiguous. If you got busted, you could pay an expert witness like Shulgin to testify that the RC is NOT substantially similar to a scheduled substance. The prosecution will present their expert witness, who will say it IS substantially similar. Which side the judge or jury believes is up to them. Again, the burden may effectively be on you to prove your innocence, because judges and juries generally do not like drug users.
In essence, to be on the safe side, you should consider RCs to be just as illegal as any scheduled substance. Although your chances of getting prosecuted are lower than for scheduled substances, it can and does happen.
IMPORTANT: If you are busted with RCs, do NOT tell the police what the substance is. I have heard of cases where people got busted with an RC, and they told the police what the substance was, trying to explain that the substance was legal. This is a BIG MISTAKE. First of all, the police aren’t going to believe you when you claim it is legal. Second, you are making it easier for them to figure out what the substance is. THEREFORE DO NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL, AND SIMPLY ASK FOR A LAWYER.
There is a decent chance that the police will not know what the drug is, and will not go to great lengths to figure it out. They may do presumptive tests for cocaine, meth, heroin or other scheduled drugs, and when they realize it isn’t a scheduled substance, they may decide not to pursue charges. It takes money and resources to do something like MS/GC analysis, and they may not bother to go this far. Even then, they may not be able to figure out or prove what the drug is; they will have to bring in expert witnesses to testify about it, and so on.
SO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND FORCE THEM TO FIGURE IT OUT. You’re most likely not going to talk your way out of it, so don’t even try.
People frequently ask questions about the legality of unscheduled “research chemicals”, like those listed in Shulgin’s PiKHAL and TiKHAL books. Common examples are 5-meo-dmt, 2C-I, and so on. Most are phenethylamines or tryptamines. I will simply refer to them as “research chems” (RCs); although some people object to this term, it’s the simplest, most common term to use.
Here is the low-down on the legality of RCs in the U.S.:
Many RCs are not scheduled, meaning they are not explicitly listed in the schedules of illegal substances created by federal and state drug laws. Some people think this means they are legal. This is incorrect.
Under federal law, unscheduled RCs may be illegal to sell or possess with the intent to consume them. The federal statute is the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, whose text is supplied here:
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/law/law_fed_analog_act.shtml
Many states have an identical or similar statute. I will refer to these generally as “the analogue laws”.
Here is a simplified explanation of the analogue laws.(See the text of the given statute for the details). Under the analogue laws, an “analogue” is any unscheduled substance that fits all three of these criteria:
1) It has a chemical structure “substantially similar” to a controlled substance;
2) It has a similar stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect as a controlled substance;
3) It is intended by the defendant to have a similar stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect as a controlled substance.
Now, there are a couple of qualifications:
1) If you do not intend to consume the substance, then technically it is legal to possess it. HOWEVER, this does not mean that you don’t have to worry about being prosecuted for possessing an RC. A jury is allowed to infer intent based on indirect evidence. For example, if the cops find gel caps, a milligram scale, trip reports, or other such evidence, the judge or jury could infer that you intended to consume the drug. Although technically the burden is on the prosecution to prove intent, you may effectively be in the position of having to prove that you didn’t consume the drug. That could be very hard to do, given that the judge or jury will view you as a “drug user” and your credibility will be drawn into question.
2) The circumstances under which it is legal to distribute RCs are not totally clear, because it is not clear how the “intent to consume” element applies to the act of selling. If you sold an RC while telling people to consume it, or explaining to them how to consume it, you are most certainly guilty. If you sell an RC while telling people NOT to consume it, but knowing full well that they would, it is not clear whether you would be guilty. If past case law is any guide, a person would most likely be found guilty if they reasonably should have known that the person buying the drug intended to consume it. In any case, be aware that if you sell RCs, you are taking a big chance. Again, you will effectively be in the position of having to prove your innocence, because judges and juries generally do not like drug sellers.
3) The issue of whether a given RC has a chemical structure that is “substantially similar” to a scheduled substance is somewhat ambiguous. If you got busted, you could pay an expert witness like Shulgin to testify that the RC is NOT substantially similar to a scheduled substance. The prosecution will present their expert witness, who will say it IS substantially similar. Which side the judge or jury believes is up to them. Again, the burden may effectively be on you to prove your innocence, because judges and juries generally do not like drug users.
In essence, to be on the safe side, you should consider RCs to be just as illegal as any scheduled substance. Although your chances of getting prosecuted are lower than for scheduled substances, it can and does happen.
IMPORTANT: If you are busted with RCs, do NOT tell the police what the substance is. I have heard of cases where people got busted with an RC, and they told the police what the substance was, trying to explain that the substance was legal. This is a BIG MISTAKE. First of all, the police aren’t going to believe you when you claim it is legal. Second, you are making it easier for them to figure out what the substance is. THEREFORE DO NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL, AND SIMPLY ASK FOR A LAWYER.
There is a decent chance that the police will not know what the drug is, and will not go to great lengths to figure it out. They may do presumptive tests for cocaine, meth, heroin or other scheduled drugs, and when they realize it isn’t a scheduled substance, they may decide not to pursue charges. It takes money and resources to do something like MS/GC analysis, and they may not bother to go this far. Even then, they may not be able to figure out or prove what the drug is; they will have to bring in expert witnesses to testify about it, and so on.
SO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND FORCE THEM TO FIGURE IT OUT. You’re most likely not going to talk your way out of it, so don’t even try.
Last edited:
I doubt any of the 2Cs could ever take the place of 2C-T-7 in my heart. It used to be the exotic psychedelic that everyone talked about at Bluelight. Then it was made illegal in most countries. The overdosages associated with it gave it an (unfair in my view) bad name. But these were associated with taking too much, often unknown dosages, by insufflation.