Question: New Zealand drug law and 2ci,2cb,2cc etc
I was looking up NZ drug law regarding 2C-B and the rest of 2C-x family, (with a view to find the legality of 2C-i, 2C-e etc.).
NZ seems to have, at best, weak laws on psychoactive phenethylamines. Infact the closest related analog chemicals I can find specificly mentioned as illegal are Mescaline and DOB (Class A). There is no specific mention of 2C-B. However, DOB is, and 2C-B can also be known as alpha-desmethyl DOB. A first question: Would the law see it that way?
My first assumption is that the law wouldn't consider these chemicals closely related enough to make 2C-I for example class A in a court of law. 2C-I is phenethylamine based and DOB is it's ampthetamine based counterpart with the idoine atom substitution also.
In the U.S. any chemical having similar effects or represented as a scheduled drug could invoke the analog laws. NZ doesn't have analog laws in the same way (I'm still looking through the law texts), except that in the act, the NZ shedules refer to the listed chemical and it's esters, ethers, isomers and esters/ethers of isomers. Also in some cases a family of chemicals is broadly covered.
My guess is that the law would not see 2C-x as not specificly class A nor a analog of a class A chemical.
So can anyone tell me if i'm right or wrong or have any comments?
(for the noobs: I'm not suggesting to anyone it's 100% legal or moral to go ahead use/sell these chemicals in NZ, you'd still get done over by the law but I think a conviction would be difficult)
(edit: sorry, question makes more sense now)
I was looking up NZ drug law regarding 2C-B and the rest of 2C-x family, (with a view to find the legality of 2C-i, 2C-e etc.).
NZ seems to have, at best, weak laws on psychoactive phenethylamines. Infact the closest related analog chemicals I can find specificly mentioned as illegal are Mescaline and DOB (Class A). There is no specific mention of 2C-B. However, DOB is, and 2C-B can also be known as alpha-desmethyl DOB. A first question: Would the law see it that way?
My first assumption is that the law wouldn't consider these chemicals closely related enough to make 2C-I for example class A in a court of law. 2C-I is phenethylamine based and DOB is it's ampthetamine based counterpart with the idoine atom substitution also.
In the U.S. any chemical having similar effects or represented as a scheduled drug could invoke the analog laws. NZ doesn't have analog laws in the same way (I'm still looking through the law texts), except that in the act, the NZ shedules refer to the listed chemical and it's esters, ethers, isomers and esters/ethers of isomers. Also in some cases a family of chemicals is broadly covered.
My guess is that the law would not see 2C-x as not specificly class A nor a analog of a class A chemical.
So can anyone tell me if i'm right or wrong or have any comments?
(for the noobs: I'm not suggesting to anyone it's 100% legal or moral to go ahead use/sell these chemicals in NZ, you'd still get done over by the law but I think a conviction would be difficult)
(edit: sorry, question makes more sense now)
Last edited: