Many Research Chem Companys raided, Customer Lists Taken, Now What?

Here's an example:

Let's say that an individual (who was not a scientist) purchased one of these compounds to determine if they would be effective at roach control. We'll label this person as a non-technical, private inventor. There are no regulations in such a case that this person follow normal lab practises (i.e., keeping experiment notes and journals). And their experiment could be as simple as mixing the compound with water and spraying it on roaches to see if it kills them.

Since the person did not keep notes, and just relied on observation, there is no journal evidence of their experiments.

How could an enforcement agency refute their spoken statement that they were doing their own roach control experiments as a private inventor?
 
Juries are allowed to infer intent. They can infer it from all kinds of various facts -- e.g. you had a freebase pipe, or you had a journal of trip reports.

Juries are also allowed to use common sense. Nobody is going to believe that you spent hundreds of dollars on an exotic chemical to do roach control.

As far as arresting you, all they need is probable cause. They don't have to worry about intent that much at that phase. It's more relevant to whether you get convicted.

Please don't double-post, there's no need to have two different threads with the exact same posts on this.
 
so do u think 2c-i and 2c-e and all those RC's will be emergency scheduled soon, because of this crackdown?
 
CousinNick650 said:
so do u think 2c-i and 2c-e and all those RC's will be emergency scheduled soon, because of this crackdown?
Click to expand...

Who knows... I don't.
 
As per the American Chemical Supply(dotcom) user agreement you agreed that "They are not to be used as food additives cosmetics, pesticides, household chemicals, explosives or any use other than research and development."

Therefore the argument that you were using it to research it as a pasticide would violate the useragreement.

Am i wrong?
 
^^^ That would be irelevant to criminal liability. The only question is whether you intended to consume.
 
Well all i know is that all the RCs that came into my FOAF's posession were fed to rodents to test toxicity levels, that is there story and they'd be happy to share it with any judge or other form of lawmaker who'd question such possessions

All i would like to know is what happened to
A) The pursuit of Happines
B) Innocence until proven guilty

it seems the legal system violates our rights horridly these days.

I am really curious to how the DEA had the grounds to raid the chemical vendors, as everywhere there are flags that say not for human consumption. I know the vial labels a friend of mine saw had not for human consumption on them. so what gives?
 
DigDug said:
Well all i know is that all the RCs that came into my FOAF's posession were fed to rodents to test toxicity levels, that is there story and they'd be happy to share it with any judge or other form of lawmaker who'd question such possessions
Click to expand...

If I were you, and I was questioned/busted/interrorated by ANY law enforcement types, I keep my mouth shut and let my lawyer figure out what to say, if anything:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114373&r=10

PLEASE people, do NOT try to talk your way out of this kind of thing.

DigDug said:
I am really curious to how the DEA had the grounds to raid the chemical vendors, as everywhere there are flags that say not for human consumption. I know the vial labels a friend of mine saw had not for human consumption on them. so what gives?
Click to expand...

The prosecutor will try to show that the supplier knew it was being consumed by customers regardless of these disclaimers.

Disclaimers aren't magic words aganst criminal liability. If I give Joe Schmo a gun, knowing full well that he plans to off his wife with it, would it make it legal if I put a label on the gun that says, "Not intended for shooting your wife"?
 
I've tried searching for this, but is there a good central location that lists what states have Analog Laws and what the definition(s) of those laws are?

And would the state-level analog law apply to the buyer if his state did not have such a law, but the seller did?

just a little confused - I understand the law at the Federal Level - lots of info on that, but is the state-level Analog law the same, therefore allowing the Feds to kick it down to the state level if they don't want to deal with it?

Thanks
rg
 
redgiant I've looked but never found a central repository for such information. I believe many states do not have an analog drug law, though. If you live in a state without one, they can't charge you with anything for purchasing chemicals from someone in a state where there are analog drug laws. As a citizen of a state where analogs are perfectly legal, it doesn't matter what other people do to make/distribute them in other states, if the DEA/FBI/DOJ don't charge you federally.

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/law/law_state.shtml

To find out which states have analog drug laws, you'll have to search for 'analog' in all of their legal codes separately.
 
redgiant said:
And would the state-level analog law apply to the buyer if his state did not have such a law, but the seller did?
Click to expand...

Potentially, yes, but unlikely. The prosecution would have to originate in the seller's state (the buyer's state's prosecutors can only prosecute under their own state's laws), and it would probably have to be for something like conspiracy.

redgiant said:
just a little confused - I understand the law at the Federal Level - lots of info on that, but is the state-level Analog law the same, therefore allowing the Feds to kick it down to the state level if they don't want to deal with it?
Click to expand...

Where the state has analog laws, you have to look at that state's laws specifically. Here in California, there is an analog statute which is nearly (exactly?) identical to the federal statute, so there'd be no problem with the feds handing off cases to the local prosecutors.

In other jurisdictions, I don't know, it depends on the exact law/facts in question.

But if the state doesn't have analog laws, then state prosecutors can't file charges (i.e. they can't use the federal statute, and they can't use other states' statutes).
 
Mahan Atma said:
If I were you, and I was questioned/busted/interrorated by ANY law enforcement types, I keep my mouth shut and let my lawyer figure out what to say, if anything:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114373&r=10

PLEASE people, do NOT try to talk your way out of this kind of thing.



The prosecutor will try to show that the supplier knew it was being consumed by customers regardless of these disclaimers.

Disclaimers aren't magic words aganst criminal liability. If I give Joe Schmo a gun, knowing full well that he plans to off his wife with it, would it make it legal if I put a label on the gun that says, "Not intended for shooting your wife"?
Click to expand...

Yeah I would of course seek legal consultation, the fifth amendment is of course one to exercise the most you can in any situation of these sorts.

I Know RAC is going to fry then because when any customer ordered the propper amount there was pieces of evidence that were shipped which may be enough to give a legal sway against their favor
 
are all RC's automatically illegal as an analogue? IF so, it would seem they wouldn't have t schedule each one separately..

Or does this have to be evaluated RC by RC? IF so, then there must be a statement somewhere that it is so??

How has this been decided (legally) in the past? Any similar cases???
 
Last edited:
Anyone have an update on the status of these RC busts and what has happened to the individuals arrested? Cases scheduled? etc/??
 
So, since alcohol is a depressant just like marijuana, doesn't that make it illegal under the analogue act? I know for a fact that it is made specifically for consumption. And I know that I have been stoned and felt similar to being drunk.
 
Or perhaps nicotine an illegal stimulant (wouldn't this make salvia illegal too)? I wonder how the courts would react if you tried to bring up those arguments...
 
The whole Analogue Act is really unprincipled law -- lots of quite legal things have chemical similarities and physiological effects similar to highly illegal drugs, and often much more dangerous.

Then there's the bizarre contradictions, like punishing parents for not giving their children Ritalin but punishing the same people for possession of amphetamine or cocaine.
 
"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."

Yea thats what I did, play dumb and the cop turned a 2c-i capsule into a cocaine charge.

Which I later got out of due to an illegal search he gave me.
 
If you've got the sort of background to be able to carry it off, you can always go for 'compiling a list of the reaction of a whole load of test reagents to all the RC's, for identification purposes' or 'compiling a list of the physical chemistry characteristics of RC's' (things like water, alcohol etc solubility - there's very little of that info available).

Of course, if it happens in the UK, you're fucked, regardless of what you've got them for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top