[DrCMS]

In order for the chemical to be considered a controlled substance, intent for consumption must be established.

No a chemical is a controlled substance due to what it is not because of what you plan to do with it

I would also like to point out that it's not controlled in the UK either.

As a phenylethylamine derivative it IS a controlled substance in the UK.  You might not be chemically savvy enough to know that but the regulators do know it.

There is no doubt that there are similarities here, I know this. What I don't know, from a chemist's perspective is, are they SUBSTANTIALLY similar? To me it looks like there are substantial differences!!!

How many chemists will it take telling you the they are similar before you believe us?

[sdfghguy11452]

I absolutely agree that they are very similar.  Libraries of compounds are routinely screened in bioactivity studies, and I would very much expect these two compounds to be members of the same library.

There is no explicit definition for "substantially similar":  the terms "similar" and "explicit" are pretty much mutually exclusive.  Such questions are necessarily answered on a case-by-case basis, hopefully by people who are sufficiently educated and motivated to pass judgment in an appropriate manner.  People who hold the simplistic view that the DEA is simply a group of goons out to ruin the fun of self-proclaimed hedonists would do well to read the recent news story of the young woman who is now in a vegetative state after smoking "synthetic marijuana".

I'll step off my podium now . . .

Your comment pretty much shows that the DEA is a group of goons. If they didn't have such a hard-on for a natural plant, there wouldn't be a society looking to get high off a synthetic drug, they would use the natural ones god gave us.

The drug war is an epic failure, at the hands of the DEA!

I'll step off my podium now...

[sdfghguy11452]

In order for the chemical to be considered a controlled substance, intent for consumption must be established.

No a chemical is a controlled substance due to what it is not because of what you plan to do with it

I would also like to point out that it's not controlled in the UK either.

As a phenylethylamine derivative it IS a controlled substance in the UK.  You might not be chemically savvy enough to know that but the regulators do know it.

There is no doubt that there are similarities here, I know this. What I don't know, from a chemist's perspective is, are they SUBSTANTIALLY similar? To me it looks like there are substantial differences!!!

How many chemists will it take telling you the they are similar before you believe us?

I'm sorry, what I meant to say is... In order for a chemical to be considered an analogue of a controlled substance, it must produce a similar effect in humans and/or be sold for consumption.

See the US code 802 (32)

(32)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term "controlled substance analogue" means a substance--

    (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;

    (ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or

    (iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.

    (B) The designation of gamma butyrolactone or any other chemical as a listed chemical pursuant to paragraph (34) or (35) does not preclude a finding pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph that the chemical is a controlled substance analogue.

    (C) Such term does not include--

    (i) a controlled substance;

    (ii) any substance for which there is an approved new drug application;

    (iii) with respect to a particular person any substance, if an exemption is in effect for investigational use, for that person, under section 355 of this title to the extent conduct with respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption; or

    (iv) any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance.

[discodermolide]

So exactly what are you saying with that last post?

[sdfghguy11452]

DrCMS said...a chemical is a controlled substance due to what it is not because of what you plan to do with it.

What I am saying is that a chemical is not controlled because of what it is, intent for consumption is paramount in determining if it is controlled or not.

You can't know if there is an effect in the human body without someone consuming the substance. Please read the law carefully. I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, know anything about chemistry, but I do know the law.

[discodermolide]

I might venture to suggest that the medicinal chemist would expect a pharmacological effect of some kind with this analogue. This being analogous to other controlled substances containing this pharmacophore.

[sdfghguy11452]

A person might need to prove that to a jury... Reasonable doubt is a interesting animal in litigation.

I do thank you all for your replies.

[Borek]

Whatever had to be said, was said.

Locked.

[sdfghguy11452]

I was still waiting for a few more replies to my questions, but whatever.

Thanks again.