Wrong!!!
What does the ; or mean then?
I literally explained that right in the response you quoted. The ; is to link it to the subsection and the ;or is always the last one in a subsection which you can see for yourself by taking the time to read that page or even bother to read the subsection under it. For example:
C) Such term does not includeâ
(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.
(43) The terms âbrokerâ and âtraderâ mean a person that assists in arranging an international transaction in a listed chemical byâ
(A) negotiating contracts;
(B) serving as an agent or intermediary; or
(C) bringing together a buyer and seller, a buyer and transporter, or a seller and transporter.
(25) The term âserious bodily injuryâ means bodily injury which involvesâ
(A) a substantial risk of death;
(B) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or
(C) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
Youre wrong
The Court of appeals knows more then you and has enforced the FAA which you havenât
Youâve still yet to show me a case not involving a pre cursor that was won under the FAA with just structural similarities like you claim
Every case Iâve found has had structural similarities AND effects
1 Like
In United States v. Demott , No. 13-3410 (2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2018) ( Leval , Pooler, Wesley), the Second Circuit vacated two convictions under the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 (the âAnalogue Actâ), 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(32)(A), 813, due to errors in the district courtâs jury instructions relating to the statuteâs knowledge element. The Court also found error in the admission of certain hearsay testimony by a case agent about the underlying investigation. The defendants in Demott were convicted of participating in a conspiracy to distribute two different synthetic âdesigner drugsâ substantially similar to the listed controlled substance MDMA. The defendants were thus prosecuted under the Analogue Act, which functions as a catch-all statute to enable prosecutions of crimes involving drugs that are substantially similar to drugs already listed in the schedule set forth in the Controlled Substances Act (âCSAâ), 21 U.S.C. § 812. See id. §§ 802(32)(A), 813.
After rejecting the defendantsâ contentions that the Analogue Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts here, and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain their convictions, the Second Circuit held that certain of the district courtâs jury instructions regarding the knowledge element of the statute were erroneous and that these errors necessitated a new trial. In so holding, the Court interpreted and applied the Supreme Courtâs recent decision in McFadden v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015), in which the Court held that âthe Government must prove that a defendant knew that the substance with which he was dealing was a âcontrolled substance,â even in prosecutions involving an analogue.â 135 S. Ct. at 2305.
Hereâs something interesting
They have to prove you knew it was a controlled substance
Where is that in the provision? Itâs in that court ruling
1 Like
Yea so you canât just apply the FAA how you say you can. You canât show me any proof of any case proving your point yet hereâs more evidence proving mine
I guess everyone is wrong because you say so
1 Like
https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling
âPlease note that a substance need not be listed as a controlled substance to be treated as a Schedule I substance for criminal prosecution. A controlled substance analogue is a substance which is intended for human consumption and is structurally or pharmacologically substantially similar to or is represented as being similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II substance and is not an approved medication in the United States. (See 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A) for the definition of a controlled substance analogue and 21 U.S.C. §813 for the schedule.)â
McFadden lost his case and ended up doing several years in federal prison, itâs stupidly easy to prove you knew it was an analogue of something scheduled just as it is to prove human consumption.
As that Erowid excerpt goes on to say
In the law that was put on the books federally, there were no connectives between these
And sadly, that is all that matters. In court they will quote the bill, not repostingâs from Erowid.
âŚnot to mention even if something is legal and not covered under the FAA if it isnât allowed as a supplement, food, cosmetic or drug there is no legal regulatory pathway for the product to be sold for consumption in the USA without being declared a misbranded drug which can catch just as much time in prison than a FAA charge can which a lot of people donât know.
The statute addresses chemical structure and pharmacological effect in separate provisions. Clause (i), the provision referring to chemical structure instructs that the chemical structure of the substance must be substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II. Clauses (ii) and (iii) relate to pharmacological effectâthe stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect of the substance on the central nervous system. They state that the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system, either actual, or as intended or represented, must be 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. Nothing in the language of the Act suggests that the drug listed in Schedule I or II that is substantially similar in chemical structure to the analogue must be the same listed drug that is substantially similar to the analogue in pharmacological effect. Accord United States v. Carlson, 810 F.3d 544, 553 (8th Cir. 2016) (âWhile an analogue substance must have a similar chemical structure as a controlled substance, its physiological effects may be similar to a different controlled substance.â
They have to have similar or greater effect to be accepted as an analogue with intention for human consumption and structural similarities
Further down it gives Shulgins interpretation and he says
It is generally accepted that if two of these three definitions are met then the chemical or drug in question becomes a controlled substance analogue. The law explicitly states that there are four criteria, any of which will exclude it from becoming an analogue; if it is already a controlled substance, if it has an approved drug application, if a particular person has an exemption allowing him investigational use of that drug in question, or it is not intended for human consumption
Thanks for quoting that case cause you asked for one where a guy was arrested for structure similarity alone. This is kinda why I keep telling you to actually read stuff before you post them. Idk how you think any of that supports your case but the reality of United States v. Carlson is this:
âOn one of the forms prepared by Haugen, Carlson had written âAmphed+ MDâ to describe the composition of the chemicals ordered. The jury could therefore infer that Haugen was familiar with the chemical structures of the-8- products she sold. Finally, the jury could also find that Haugen knew their structural similarities because she could have either heard or been willfully blind to Carlsonâs public statements about the substantial structural similarities between the drugs sold at his store and scheduled controlled substances.â
"and the jury could then infer that the defendants knew facts that the substances had a chemical structure similar to controlled substances; as a result, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendants knowingly violated the Act;no error in permitting the governmentâs expert to testify regarding the similar chemical structures of the analogues and controlled substances; no error in the jury instructions on defendantsâ Food Drug and Cosmetic Act counts; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Gellermanâs conviction for violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Carlsonâs conviction for violating the Controlled Substances Act;"
You literally, just proved yourself wrong. Over 4 times now using your own information. When you go to court their not going to ask Shulginâs legal opinion on the matter or quote Erowid they are going to quote the Federal Analogue Act bill itself and pay an expert with fancy degrees to come in and explain in scientific detail why they are analogues and show evidence you wouldânt think of that you knew it was an analogue of something illegal, just as they did in Carlsonâs case that you quoted.
2 Likes
Holy shit, if nothing else this thread will be a gold mine for @TheFeds in proving that KotK definitely was informed and aware that what he was doing was illegal as hell.
9 Likes
I think a lot of us see the writing on the wall. Some people are just blinded by greed and will eventually be the demise of those individuals.
I just donât understand how people so smart canât figure out how to make legal money in this industry and have to play with the grey lines. There is literally money growing from trees in this industry but some people want to learn the hard way. Prison/jail food sucks. Taking showers with other men sucks. Having another man shitting and pissing feet from your bed sucks. Losing your freedoms sucks.
Some people I guess donât like to take our words for it.
11 Likes
Not only will it be the demise of the individuals, it will be the demise of the industry as we currently know it! All we need is some 3 letter government organization to step in and regulate the fuck out of cannabis under the guise of âprotecting the childrenâ and bam, itâs all done and pharma and tobacco industry Chadâs will have the keys to the kingdom.
2 Likes
Good luck with that
WRONG AGAIN!
Hereâs the court case you sited
Notice they proved structure and effect similarities?
Once again you must have STRUCTURE AND EFFECT
Still waiting for a court case where they were convicted solely on structure
United States VS Carlson
Notice structure AND effect
Btw can you prove d8 is a controlled substance?
Because itâs not synthetic when hemp derived
Your entire defence leans on the word âderivedâ. Wouldnât surprise me if you got a good whipping in court
3 Likes
Iâm really not worried about it as the definition of hemp includes all cannabinoids, isomers, and derivatives under .3% d9
If nothing else I thought this was a very interesting back and forth and I appreciate the dialogue.
2 Likes
KOK reality will break if he ever gets in trouble for d8âŚ
4 Likes
lol pot will be legal federally and in all 50 states and this thread will still be going
3 Likes