Yes, why?
Because it’s intended for human consumption AND its as potent or more potent then it’s counter part on schedule 1 or 2
Once again, it’s either or, it does not have to be all 3 just 1 of the definitions, that is how the bill is written and that is how the bill is enforced. Pretending it’s not won’t help you in court and that’s what I’m trying to make clear to anyone reading this. And quoting the 3 same cases from the 1990s where a judges personal opinion said the FAA is too vague isn’t going to save you in court if charged either.
I think the professional thing to do at this point is agree to disagree my friend, we are not getting any progress going back and forth if you won’t read things. I just wanted to help inform you and answer the question you asked which I believe you only posted to get false assurance from other vendors who believe the same misinformation 3Chi popularized into the mainstream. Anyone who cares can read the link to the FAA bill and be properly informed so they can take the proper precautions to protect themselves legally.
Incorrect again read the following sentence
The Court held that “the Government must prove that a defendant knew that the substance with which he was dealing was ‘a controlled substance,’ even in prosecutions involving an analogue.”
The Supreme Court over turned the lower courts ruling that you only needed to prove it was for human consumption to be considered an analogue
That right there proves you need more then just structural relationship
I’ve posted 3 different links proving I’m right, idgaf what you say you’re not reading the FAA correctly
My Court case uploads prove that
This is from the DOJ
A controlled substance analogue is a substance which is intended for human consumption, is structurally substantially similar to a schedule I or schedule II substance, is pharmacologically substantially similar to a schedule I or schedule II substance, or is represented as being similar to a schedule I or schedule II substance and is not an approved medication in the United States.
It has to
1 intended for human consumption
2 structurally substantially similar to a schedule I or
schedule II substance
3 is pharmacologically substantially similar to a
schedule I or schedule II substance
OR
4 is represented as being similar to a schedule I or
schedule II substance and is not an approved
medication in the United States.
3 of those have to be met (1 and 2 have to be with either 3 or 4 making the determination)
You cant argue with the DOJ man
So an Analogue is anything meant for human consumption then?
Because that must be met to qualify for the Analogue act and according to you you only need 1 of the “seperate definitions”
I guess cbd can be considered an analogue then?
The way this reads you need several of these not just 1
Now I’m kind of suspicious of your intent because you keep posting the same misinformation that I have already explained to you. It’s clear you have some type of financial gain in spreading this misinformation. In that first picture I have already told you that is the individual breakdowns of the (i) and (ii) definitions, in the second picture I pointed out the clear commas indicating the definitions (i) and (ii) and (iii) are separate from each other and in the 3rd picture I explained that it appears written that way because of your bias, if you read it with the commas it is mean to separate the definitions, not to imply all needed to be at once. Similar to your misconception with what a semicolon means in regard to grouping definitions into a subgroup of a bill.
Or if we just bother to read the actual bill they will quote in court as to how they are legally charging you that may simplify things. I actually believe you understand the FAA and are purposely spreading this misinformation for your own financial gain.
1 Like
Spreading mis information?
That’s what you’re doing
I’ve done nothing but upload court documents documents and you refute them with “youre not reading that right”
I’m sorry you’ve got your head so far up your ass you can’t get it out
Here’s where the DEA gives the definition of a Fentanyl ANALOGUE and say it includes structure AND effects
Here’s directly from the DOJ WHERE IT LISTS the requirements for a substance to be considered an Analogue
Here it is in a COURT RULING THAT STRUCTURE AND EFFECTS MUST BOTH BE PRESENT! (why would you want to schedule something thats not a direct pre cursor if it didn’t get you fucked up?! You wouldn’t…)
You can keep believing you’re right but you’re wrong
No under the FAA to be charged with an analogue it would of had to be intended for human consumption.
It’s sad that the information got lost in all of his re-postings of things I already pointed out as being incorrect but years ago the FDA allowed hemp stalk and seed to be GRAS as a supplement and food component. This was 4 or 5 years before the hemp bill was passed and it legalized phytochemicals found in hemp stalk/seed, manufactures went on to claim they isolated CBD/hemp extract itself from hemp stalk/seed that it was legal due to the FDAs ruling, the FDA tried to show evidence it was impossible to extract CBD or enough cannabinoids from stalk and then the industry responded back with actual proof it can and so the FDA responded by saying well ok then we’re going to ban CBD in supplements/food to get around that fact. It was because of that specific stalk/seed law that gave birth to the CBD industry years before the hemp bill ever became a thing.
That’s not how it actually read, he is not quoting the bill he is quoting a mashup of it in a separate case that is easily to misinterpret, you can read the actual FAA bill here:
Your not quoting the bill either youre quoting Cornell University…
Atleast he’s quoting the DOJ…
I believe the DOJ over Cornell…
1 Like
You’re misinterpreting it because it’s smashed together.
(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]
again, the semicolons are what link it to subparagraph A, not the definitions to each other .
Source: [21 USC § 802(32)]
It’s the bill copy and pasted onto Cornells law site which provides open access and easily linking of subsections so you can quickly navigate them. What is on the Cornell site is the bill copy and pasted, not edited by Cornell in ayway.
Bahahaha this is your bill?! Gtfo!
Atleast I quote the DOJ
3 out of the 4 provisions in the FAA must be met to be considered an analogue thats outlined in 3 different places where I posted it
You saying I’m reading it wrong doesn’t invalidate it you can’t refute it.
, = and simple as that
That is the bill. That is literally the bill copy and pasted and hosted by the Cornells Information Institute. It’s not edited or written by the Cornell institute in anyway. Kinda weird you don’t know what it is.
Source: [21 USC § 802(32)]
I love how you’re just taking anything you can get and running with it though. Again I think you understand the FAA quite clearly and are purposely spreading this misinformation for your own financial benefit.
The difference between me and you is youre not posting any proof of anything you say where I post 5 different things proving all the same thing
Here’s another STRUCTURD AND EFFECT
Why would you want to schedule a substance if it didn’t get you high?! You wouldn’t unless it’s a pre cursor.
Here is a link from the DOJ which shows exactly the same thing as I just said
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/802.htm
Same website bro
The way Mines listed proves my point since it includes human consumption where as yours doesn’t
That case you just quoted, (U.S. vs. Demott) all 4 sentenced to federal prison under the FAA. You’re literally linking a page showing your own defense fail. I mean you’re highlighting random defense claims from court cases that failed, you’re not even reading your posting, once again.
No actually you’re link is misleading because it groups it altogether which one can easily misinterpet. I think this is the 3rd time you posted that photo and I have told you the same, please read the actual bill which is copied and pasted here on the DOJ website:
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/802.htm
(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.
And just so we don’t repeat anymore false claims, the semicolon implies to link the definition to the subgroup, not the definitions to each other itself as easily shown in subsection ( C ) which is directly below this subsection at that link, that is also why it says ;or in the very last one as all of the last ones in a subsection will do.
WHY DID THEY GO TO PRISON?! BECAUSE THEY COULD PROVE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY AND EFFECT
“Controlled substance analogues” are statutorily defined (as further discussed below) as substances that are “substantially similar” to Schedule I or II controlled substances—both in their chemical structure and in their actual, intended, or represented effect on the central nervous system (or “pharmacological effect”).
Show me a Court case where they were able to convict someone based on human consumption and structural similarities that DOESNT INVOLVE A PRE CURSOR
I’ll wait because I know you won’t find one you’ll ignore this and continue your BS about how to read a bill whic is wrong! (And I’ve proven now 4 times)