4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 809
Certainly - one needs to be careful with AMT and particularly 7-methyl AMT. Upjohn's research revealed that the addition of that 7-methyl increases it's monoamine release and reuptake activity by an order of magnitude.
Did you know that in the late 1980s when MDMA was finally brought under legal control in the US, someone spotted that AET was still legal AND commercially available? The individual in question actually sold AET AS MDMA and by all accounts, nobody realized he had misrepresented the product. After his eventual arrest, he was able to fight his case in court and be found not guilty. Not deterred he went straight back out and carried on. Arrested again he was informed by the judge that IF he was ever caught selling AET again, he WOULD be convicted of several civil offences.
But the irony is that the makers had noted how unexpectedly popular AET was with a handful of customers (the guy using multiple names/bank accounts) and the put the price up x10!
I LOVE the fact that the guy had managed to find a loophole. I'm all for loopholes rather than breaking the law.
Now here is the thing. The CsA laws instituted in the US deal with SPECIFICALLY the indole nucleus and use Markush descriptions to make all derivatives of tryptamine automatically illegal. BUT that doesn't cover modifications to the indole. Now I certainly wouldn't want to test that in a court but the CsA laws also specifiy that an analogue mus possess 'similar or more potent' activity than a NAMED drug.
So here is my question. If you synthesize a compound that is chemically related to hallucinogens BUT is an entactogen, is it controlled by the CsA laws? Again, not one I would wish to test but I didn't write the laws and clearly whoever did.... wasn't expert in the field.
Remember when someone was selling the benzofuran analogue of 5-MeO DMT? I forget the name they used and reports weren't great but to the best of my knowledge, it was never actually controlled.
Most nations use caselaw so if someone is found not guilty, defence councils can cite the case as part of the defence. My guess is that is why VERY FEW people have ever gone to court if they were accused of breaking the UK's PSA laws. Sadly nobody repoerted on the cases but it's my impression that the CPS has decided to offer defendants extremely leanient sentencing to avoid it winding up in a court room. Because the moment one person is found not guilty, that opens the door to a defence.
I don't KNOW the above, it's just my impression. IF anyone knows more, I would love to hear about it.
Did you know that in the late 1980s when MDMA was finally brought under legal control in the US, someone spotted that AET was still legal AND commercially available? The individual in question actually sold AET AS MDMA and by all accounts, nobody realized he had misrepresented the product. After his eventual arrest, he was able to fight his case in court and be found not guilty. Not deterred he went straight back out and carried on. Arrested again he was informed by the judge that IF he was ever caught selling AET again, he WOULD be convicted of several civil offences.
But the irony is that the makers had noted how unexpectedly popular AET was with a handful of customers (the guy using multiple names/bank accounts) and the put the price up x10!
I LOVE the fact that the guy had managed to find a loophole. I'm all for loopholes rather than breaking the law.
Now here is the thing. The CsA laws instituted in the US deal with SPECIFICALLY the indole nucleus and use Markush descriptions to make all derivatives of tryptamine automatically illegal. BUT that doesn't cover modifications to the indole. Now I certainly wouldn't want to test that in a court but the CsA laws also specifiy that an analogue mus possess 'similar or more potent' activity than a NAMED drug.
So here is my question. If you synthesize a compound that is chemically related to hallucinogens BUT is an entactogen, is it controlled by the CsA laws? Again, not one I would wish to test but I didn't write the laws and clearly whoever did.... wasn't expert in the field.
Remember when someone was selling the benzofuran analogue of 5-MeO DMT? I forget the name they used and reports weren't great but to the best of my knowledge, it was never actually controlled.
Most nations use caselaw so if someone is found not guilty, defence councils can cite the case as part of the defence. My guess is that is why VERY FEW people have ever gone to court if they were accused of breaking the UK's PSA laws. Sadly nobody repoerted on the cases but it's my impression that the CPS has decided to offer defendants extremely leanient sentencing to avoid it winding up in a court room. Because the moment one person is found not guilty, that opens the door to a defence.
I don't KNOW the above, it's just my impression. IF anyone knows more, I would love to hear about it.
Last edited: