# Drug Policy Discussion, Research Papers, New Laws, Misc.



## erosion

Government agencies, think tanks, institutes and individuals regularly produce drug-policy reports that are much more in depth in terms of quality, scope and (hopefully) objectivity than regular news items or editorials.

This is the place to discuss drug policy on a deeper level, post links to research papers, supplementary coverage to articles, book reviews, essays, or anything else that you would like to post but don't have a home for. New and proposed laws, as well as important court cases, can also be posted here. It will be very helpful to have a wealth of information in one place.

When posting, please give the name of the paper, description, author, and link. No need to try to paste the report into the thread if its too long.


----------



## erosion

The World Bank and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime issued a report titled "Afghanistan's Drug Industry: Structure, Functioning, Dynamics, and Implications for Counter-Narcotics Policy" 

This is an extensive in depth review of the Afghan drug market, and its implications concerning its local and foreign policy, terrorism, and how a country functions when a full third of its GDP is from Opium.

Nov 2006 - Afghanistan's Drug Industry


----------



## m885

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise, Milton Friedman

This isn't actually a research paper, but it was adapted from a speech given by Friedman in 1991. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm


----------



## phr

International Narcotics Control Strategy Report


----------



## erosion

Prohibition and the Economists - Ludwig Von Mises Institute

Quote: 

"Since economists have been leading the battle against drug prohibition, most people would be surprised to learn that they played an important role in establishing and defending the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. It is still an open question whether economists set public opinion or mirror it, but the relationship between economists and prohibition provides interesting insights into the economics profession, the origins of Prohibition, and the current debate over drug legalization. In recent years economists have led the fight to legalize — actually, to relegalize — drugs. "

This was an enlightening read, and gives a whole new dimension to the War on Drugs , demonstrating comprehensive evidence for an open market in drugs.

Particularly interesting though is the historical data. It demonstates the irrefutable similarities between the prohibition of alcohol, and now drugs with evidence and statistics stretching back before 1910. 

Link

Related Reading:
Economics of Prohibition - Book


----------



## phr

I'm sure everyone knows about these, but for those who don't:

DEA Microgram Bulletins


----------



## Tronica

*Establishing the International Network of People Who Use Drugs*

I just joined the International Harm Reduction Association, and they had the following info in their newsletter... which could be of interest to Bluelighters. 

Mods, please work out where to put this, I have no idea!



> Establishing the International Network of People Who Use Drugs
> 
> It has been an extremely busy few months for the developing International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), under the stewardship of Stijn Goossens, a drug user activist from Belgium.
> 
> An international drug user activist movement has been developing alongside IHRA’s annual conferences for a number of years, and the efforts culminated in the 1st International Congress of People Who Use Drugs - a satellite event in conjunction with the 17th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm (Vancouver, Canada; April 2006). This event was attended by over 100 people from around the world. In the Congress, the group wrote and released a declaration describing the prejudice they faced around the world, and their collective goals to overcome this prejudice. This “Vancouver Declaration” has since been translated into 17 different languages (Bahasa-Indonesian, Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, Farsi, French, German, Macedonian, Nepali, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish).
> 
> To view the declaration, please visit http://hardcoreharmreducer.be/VancouverDeclaration.html
> You can also print out the accompanying petition and gather support and signatures.
> 
> In December 2006, IHRA secured funding from the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) for a broad programme of work which includes helping the international drug user network develop into a legal entity. To achieve this, INPUD have formed a Working Group, including representatives from Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania. The group - to be facilitated by Grant McNally from the UK with technical assistance from Stijn Goossens - will discuss and undertake the necessary steps to take INPUD to the next level as an organisation. A place in this group has been reserved for any drug user representatives from Africa or the Middle East who wish to take part, and work is underway to identify people from these regions.
> 
> Work is also underway to develop and launch an INPUD website, to enable the network to communicate, recruit, organise and advocate more effectively. A working group has been set up to help build and maintain this resource - and anyone with relevant skills and experience who would like to help should contact Stijn Goossens (see below).
> 
> Ahead of the 18th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm (Warsaw, Poland; 13th – 17th May 2007), plans are well underway for the 2nd International Congress of People Who Use Drugs. This will be held on Sunday 13th May 2006 (prior to the opening of the conference), funded by IHRA. There will also be two “Users Choice” major sessions in the main conference programme (“Hepatitis C: Prevention, Treatment and Living With Hep C” and “Policies and Ideologies Against People Who Use Drugs: What About Harm Reduction?”) and some training and skills building sessions for drug users. There has also been an unprecedented level of support available for drug user activists to attend this conference (and Congress), courtesy of further DFID grants to IHRA, and the International Harm Reduction Development Programme (IHRD).
> 
> For more information on any of the above, or to enquire about INPUD and how to get involved, please visit www.hardcoreharmreducer.be or email Stijn Goossens.



IHRA Website link


----------



## TheLoveBandit

Well, tbh, I'm not sure either, so we're going to send this HOMELESS to DITM and perhaps those mods will either host the discussion or send it to a more appropriate home.  Right now, I'm tired and a wee bit delirious, so I don't trust my judgement on finding a good forum for it right now. 

DITM mods, my apologies if they're due.


----------



## erosion

*Afghan opium cultivation shows divergent north-south trends in 2007, UNODC survey shows*

UN drugs chief urges more rapid disbursement of aid for farmers 

VIENNA, 5 March 2007 (UNODC) - Divergent trends characterize opium cultivation in Afghanistan this year, with a pronounced divide between the troubled south of the country and the more stable centre-north, according to a survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Afghanistan's Ministry of Counter Narcotics.

UNODC's Afghanistan Opium Winter Assessment suggests that cultivation is likely to decrease in seven of the country's 34 provinces, with no change expected in six.  Another six provinces are opium-free and likely to remain so.  In the remaining 15 provinces - mainly in the south, east and west - increases are expected. 

On balance, the increase in the south may be greater than the decline elsewhere, causing a possible further rise in Afghanistan's aggregate drug supply this year.  However, a strong eradication campaign is underway and this could have an impact on the situation in some provinces, including in the south of the country.   

"The trend towards more and more provinces in Afghanistan cultivating opium may be broken," UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said. "We are witnessing divergent trends. This is a moderately good sign."

"There is evidence that Afghanistan's opium economy is becoming segmented, with farmers' attitudes, supply conditions and price trends moving in opposite directions in the north and the south of the country," he added.  "This market segmentation is likely to be reinforced by what appears to be a more vigorous opium eradication campaign than seen in recent years."

The Survey, conducted in December and January, shows a clear link between poor security conditions and opium poppy cultivation in the southern provinces. While only 20 percent of farmers in areas with good security grow opium, 80 percent do so in areas where security is poor.

"In the south, the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorism and terrorists supporting drug traffickers is stronger than ever," Mr Costa said.  "In other words, opium cultivation in the south of the country is less a narcotic issue and more a matter of insurgency,  so it is vital to fight them both together."

Significant decreases in opium cultivation are expected in the centre and the north of the country, thanks to initiatives aimed at providing farmers and local leaders with incentives to switch to licit livelihoods. Only six percent of villages which have received external assistance such as medical care, schools, roads, electricity or irrigation this year are engaged in opium cultivation.

"Farmers are speaking loud and clear.  They respond to real incentives to stop growing opium," the UNODC Executive Director said.  "Targeted, increased and sustained development assistance leads to tangible improvements in their lives and in return they demonstrate a desire to return to legality."

A Good Performance Initiative  was recently established to reward provinces that are opium-free and those that demonstrate significant progress towards becoming opium-free. The goal for 2007 is to double the number of opium-free provinces from six to twelve, with further improvements expected in the following years.

"Targeted assistance may help create an opium-free belt across the middle of the country, from the border with Pakistan in the south-east to the border with Turkmenistan in the north-west, allowing the government and the international community to concentrate efforts to combat crime and insurgency in the south," Mr Costa said.

"It is possible to claw Afghanistan back into legality province by province, as was done in Thailand, Laos and Myanmar, all of which were once characterized by large scale opium cultivation.''

Mr Costa expressed concern that only around one percent of the total of $100 million available through the Good Performance Initiative and the Counter-Narcotics Trust Fund had so far been disbursed . "This money is vital for the future of Afghanistan. I appeal to both the national and international bureaucracies to get it moving."

Afghanistan's fertile but highly unstable southern provinces accounted for the bulk of all opium cultivated in Afghanistan last year. A record 165,000 hectares were under opium poppy cultivation in 2006, an increase of 59 per cent compared to 2005.

This was mainly due to large-scale cultivation in the southern province of Helmand.  Further increases in Helmand, as well as in Uruzgan and Kandahar provinces, are likely this year.  In all cases, permanent Taliban settlements have provided sanctuary for drug cultivation, heroin processing and trafficking into Pakistan and Iran. The  revenue received in return is used to fund Taliban activities.

The Survey shows that 80 percent of farmers in poppy-growing areas in the south are involved in opium cultivation. Nationally, the proportion is only 13 percent.

The high sale price of opium is the main reason given by farmers for growing opium, especially when there is little risk of their crops being eradicated.

''At the moment, none of Afghanistan's legitimate agricultural products can match the income available from opium poppy, which is estimated at US$ 4,900 per hectare -- about ten times the income from licit crops.  We need to change the risk/reward balance for farmers, increasing both the attractiveness of licit activity and the retribution for not complying with the law,'' Mr Costa added.

He also called on the international community to support a recently launched initiative to strengthen joint border controls and improve cross-border intelligence-sharing on the trafficking of drugs and their chemical precursors between Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.

Link


----------



## tambourine-man

*RSA Findings on UK drug laws and their effects*

Original thread and discussion found here: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=295607

PDF report can be found here:
http://www.rsa.org.uk/acrobat/rsa_drugs_report.pdf


----------



## kisps

Strainbase is the first serious and comprehensive attempt to document the heritage of commercial cannabis strains.


01 - Intro to StrainBase and New World (Americas, Hawaii, the Carribean)
02 - European Strains
03 - Asian Strains
04 - African Strains


----------



## erosion

DRCNET Review:

The academic discipline of international relations pays little heed to crime control and the academic discipline of criminal justice pays little heed to international politics, note Peter Andreas and Ethan Nadelmann early in "Policing the Globe." That has left a lacunae they have nicely filled in their study of the rise of international cooperation in policing -- and where it might go from here.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/policingtheglobe.jpg
You couldn't come up with a better pair to tackle this subject than Andreas and Nadelmann. Andreas, a professor of political science and international relations at Brown University, has done extensive work on the US-Mexico border. And I assume most readers are familiar with Nadelmann as head of the Drug Policy Alliance, where he serves as the country's most prominent drug reform advocate. But in addition to being an activist, Nadelmann is an academic with a long interest in the internationalization of crime control. In fact, he laid much of the groundwork for "Policing the Globe" with his 1993 "Cops Across Borders," published by Penn State University Press.

As an academic work, "Policing the Globe," while eminently readable (unlike some academic prose), is likely to be mostly read by serious researchers and students of its subject matter. That's a shame, for Andreas and Nadelmann shed considerable light on the evolution of the ever-more-integrated international police apparatus. Given the acceleration of that integration since the attacks of September 2001 and the technological advances leading us ever closer to an Orwellian surveillance society, it might behoove us to pay some attention.

While "Policing the Globe" is not indecipherable academic-speak, it is dense. But it is also chewy. It's the kind of writing where you start out underlining the really important parts, but quickly find you have to switch to quick slash-marks on the page margins because otherwise you're going to underline half the damn book.

The rise of international cooperation in crime control is because of the rise of international crime, right? Seems reasonable, but as Andreas and Nadelmann explain, it's not quite that simple. It has instead been a process lasting hundreds of years, beginning with efforts to eradicate piracy and slavery, and moving through the attempt by European states to suppress political opponents, the crusade against international prostitution, the war on drugs, and now, the war on terror.

And the liberal model of a police response to a crime problem doesn't explain it. In fact, it begs the question: What is a criminal activity and why? The most vivid examples of international police cooperation and global prohibition regimes revolve around activities that weren't even crimes a century ago: drug trafficking and use, money laundering, the traffic in migrant humans, and political violence (or terrorism, which presents its own sticky definitional and political problems).

To really explain the rise of international crime control, argue Andreas and Nadelmann, one must also incorporate some realpolitik and some social constructivism into the mix. In realpolitik, stronger states impose their wills on weaker ones, and the pair show how that has been the case here. At the beginning, cooperation among European states paved the way, but in the past century, and especially since World War II, the United States, as the most powerful state actor, has been largely able to impose its criminal justice preferences on the rest of the world. To the extent it has been able to do that, it has made international criminal law more homogenous, more in line with that of its own.

But American preferences are determined not just by economics, politics, or national security, but also by appeals to morality and the fight against evil. Indeed, what the authors call "transnational moral entrepreneurs" have played a key role in the creation of the global slavery, white slavery, and drug prohibition regimes. If we want to understand global criminality, we have to understand how it is created.

Andreas and Nadelmann spend the middle section of "Policing the Globe" carefully describing the evolution of international crime control. In sometimes exhausting detail, they note the rise of international cooperation against European anarchist assassins and other political "criminals," and their gradual displacement as the primary creators of the international crime consensus by the Americans. Now, the DEA and the FBI have offices in dozens of countries across the world.

And where will we go from here? Global drug prohibition is likely to hang around despite its failures and collateral damage, the pair predict. "The failure of a global prohibition regime does not necessarily signal its future demise," they write. Instead, its "symbolic allure" as a means of moral disapproval is likely to ensure that it continues. "Open defection from the regime is highly unlikely any time soon."

But they do point to some nibbling around the edges. The global consensus on marijuana is crumbling, they note, and the rise of coca-friendly Evo Morales to the Bolivian presidency could lead to erosion of the UN Single Convention prohibition on the coca plant, or even a direct challenge to the convention itself.

But "Policing the Globe" is larger than the drug war, and it raises serious concerns about the broader implications of what could be the coming global police state (my words, not theirs). All in all, Andreas and Nadelmann have produced an important work, one that should be essential for anyone interested in global policing. Given some of the trends the pair identify, however, this book should probably be required reading for anyone interested in the preservation of freedom in the 21st Century.

Link


----------



## erosion

Drug prohibition — lost liberty, money
Stephen Kershnar, The Observer
April 9, 2007

As the Iraq War drags into its fifth year, there is a far more destructive policy that has been going on for decades, drug prohibition. This prohibition is offensive in at least in part because of its utter contempt for liberty.



In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill put forth the harm principle which should be a basic tenet in a free society: state coercion is permissible only when it is necessary to prevent harm to others. The idea is that the state shouldn’t tell persons how to lead their lives. It shouldn’t mandate what people believe, what religion they practice, what they eat, etc. This seems to capture why alcohol prohibition was such a bad idea. It was wrong because it involved a nanny-state government telling adults what harmless activities they may and may not engage in. However, unlike drug-nannies, the alcohol-nannies had some respect for American citizens. While the Eighteenth Amendment banned sale and production of alcohol, it didn’t ban personal consumption.

Some nanny-types argue that drug use isn’t harmless because persons harm others through impaired driving, stealing to support their habit, drug-fueled violence, etc. There are a couple things to note about this argument. First, these activities are already illegal and can be combated by directly targeting them. In fact, the massive resources used to track down drugs might end up diverting resources needed to prevent violent crime. For example, according to anthropologist Michael P. Ghiglieri, citing Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the 90’s, only about 38% of murderers were sentenced to prison. Second, if this argument warrants drug prohibition, it provides an even stronger case for alcohol probation. It’s hard to imagine anyone who isn’t a blood enemy of liberty wanting to criminalize alcohol again. Third, if we allow the criminal law to protect against externalities, that is, when one person’s conduct imposes costs on others, the state could mandate jogging, body weight, sexual practices, etc. The harm principle (when narrowed to focus on direct harm to others) is a bulwark against such an invasion of liberty. For example, whether persons should be allowed to engage in gay male sex shouldn’t depend on whether sodomy burdens the state-subsidized medical system.

Even if drug prohibition didn’t involve a dizzying lack of respect for liberty, it probably doesn’t pass a simple cost-benefit analysis. A corollary to the harm principle is something like the following: before you restrict liberty, you should have convincing evidence that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs.

The incarceration costs are staggering. A little background is helpful here. In 2005, the U.S. has 2.2 million people in prison. This gives the U.S. the pride of being the world leader in both per capita imprisonment and total imprisonment. The U.S. has one quarter of the world’s prisoners. A good deal of the problem is drug prohibition. Data from a 2005 Bureau of Justice study indicates that in 2003 roughly 22% of prisoners were there for drug crimes (20% of state prisoners, 55% of federal ones). Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the state and federal incarceration costs. The product of 484,000 prisoners (2005 estimate) and $45,000 per prisoner (incarceration costs plus lost income – note I made this number up) is $22 billion per year. The pain-and-suffering cost brought about when you lock half a million men in cages and separate them from their friends and families doesn’t go into this number despite the fact that it’s huge. There are also massive law-enforcement costs. The federal drug control budget in 2006 was $12.5 billion. Since numerous state and local agencies also spend vast amounts of time and energy pursuing marijuana and other threats to the free world, one can imagine that the costs here are considerably greater than my low-end estimate of $34.5 billion.

Worthy of special contempt is the Drug Abuse Resistance Program (DARE) program. According to a 1998 study by Professors Ronsenbaum and Hanson of the University of Illinois at Chicago, DARE has no impact on the long-term rate of drug use by children who go through it. Other sources claim that this is the same result found in all major research into DARE’s effectiveness. Despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness, in 1996 it was administered in 70% of the nation’s school districts, reaching 25 million students. That year 44 foreign countries also used it. The costs for this program include not just wasted taxpayer money but also the lost education time.

Another significant cost is the shredding of the Constitution in pursuit of recreational drugs. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and allows warrants only when there is probable cause. Steven Duke of the CATO Institute points out that in the context of drug prohibition, the Constitution has been read to allow police to use the lower reasonable-suspicion standard to search our bodies. He notes that the Constitution has also been read to allow police to search mobile homes, closed containers within cars, and cars without a warrant. It allows them to search open fields and garbage cans and to conduct close helicopter surveillance of persons’ homes and backyards without warrant or cause. In pursuit of drugs, he notes, the Constitution “now” allows people to be searched in their cars or in airports, trains or buses, and submitted to questioning and dog sniffs.

Drug prohibition likely decreases the frequency of addiction and some of the horrible results (violence, theft, and abandonment) that accompany addiction. At the same time, it eliminates some of the good times people would have by using drugs. The same factors are present with alcohol. In the absence of convincing evidence that the benefits of prohibition outweigh its costs, it’s better to err on the side of liberty.

Locally, the costs are substantial. In Fredonia, the town picks up part of the costs of a police officer for the DARE program and the salary of an officer to participate in the Southern Tier Regional Drug Task Force. There is also a drug court in Dunkirk. On Fredonia’s campus, there are administrative attempts to suspend students for possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana, although to be fair these don’t always involve a first-campus offense. There is an unsubstantiated rumor that local police offered to waive a marijuana arrest if the arrestee participated in drug-sting operations. If true, someone should be fired.

Like alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition tramples on liberty and doesn’t clearly past the cost-benefit test. Sadly, it’s probably here to stay anyway.

Link


----------



## erosion

United Kingdom Drug Policy Review 2007 (Prohibition is a failure)

Link


----------



## erosion

Editorial: Ignorance Leading to Suffering, Injustice and Death
David Borden, Drug War Chronicle
April 20, 2007

When discussing the idea of drug legalization with those who are unfamiliar with the issue, I am commonly asked, "Wouldn't more people use drugs if they were legal?" or "Wouldn't all the problems increase if drugs were legal?"

The reaction is a simplistic one. It's possible -- not a given -- that drug use will increase after prohibition is ended. But that's the bare beginning of the analysis, not the conclusion of it. Whatever happens to drug use rates, the many devastating harms rising from prohibition will end -- the violence and public disorder of the illegal drug trade, the poisonings and the overdoses from uncertain purity, the desperate straits of addicts who can't afford high street prices, just to name a few. Richard Dennis, a famed financial trader who was an early major supporter of this movement, wrote that addiction rates could double with legalization but the total harm still decrease. I don't know what the math is or if there is any good math on the subject. But even if we knew what would happen with drug use rates or drug addiction rates -- which we don't -- to make that the only measure of the policy, much less the primary one, does not do justice to the complexity or the importance of drug policy.

My prediction is that experimental or casual use of certain drugs would increase, but would mostly involve lower potency forms of the drugs than are widely available now, and would be counter-balanced by decreased use of other currently legal drugs like alcohol (the "substitution" effect). But that's just a guess, albeit an educated one.

Brian Bennett, publisher of the "truth: the Anti-drugwar" web site, featuring extensive compilations and charting of drug war data, pointed out in an e-mail this morning that in 1979, the year when drug use is said to have peaked, there were 7,101 recorded deaths from all illegal drugs combined. In 2004, the latest year for which data is available (and for which Bennett just uploaded a presentation), the total was up to 30,711, more than four times as many. Clearly, there's a lot more to things than mere usage rates.

The stinging report of the UK Drug Policy Commission released this week provides some insight, even if tentative, to the question of whether huge numbers of people would become drug users who are not users now if drugs were legalized. According to the report, which was coauthored by a prominent American academic, Peter Reuter, and a prominent British academic, Alex Stevens, "There is little evidence from the UK, or any other country, that drug policy influences either the number of drug users or the share of users who are dependent." Other factors -- cultural and social, the report cites -- appear to play a more important determining role than laws and policies.

Reuter and Stevens presumably had analyzed the differences only between different prohibitionist systems, since there are no extant legalization systems with which to compare the data. To switch to a legalization system is a more fundamental change than to switch between one prohibition system and another, even between a harsher one like ours and a more tolerant one such as the policies in the Netherlands or Switzerland. Still, at a minimum such a finding calls into question the assumption that drug use would skyrocket following legalization -- it's just not obvious at all that that would happen.

Reuter and Stevens also point out that governments can make a difference in "reducing the levels of drug-related harms… through the expansion of and innovation in treatment and harm reduction services." That is to say, drug-related deaths need not have more than quadrupled in the US during a quarter-century in which the drug-using percentage of the population has decreased, if only policymakers would be a little more thoughtful about what they are doing. That last sentence is my interpretation; I don't want to put words in the authors' mouths. But I think it follows from their own words pretty straightforwardly.

It is understandable for a rank-and-file citizen who hasn't studied drug policy to not immediately show the same degree of sophistication in the issue as a scholar or advocate. After all, many of drug policy reform's basic tenets are counterintuitive -- it did not occur to me that drug legalization could reduce crime until I read about the idea, for example.

But for policymakers to continue to base policies that affect large numbers of people on the most simplistic reactions or slogans is downright irresponsible -- as Bennett's numbers prove. The consequence of ignorance or politicization in drug policy is suffering, injustice and death. Shame on our "leaders" who have willfully allowed it happen.

Link


----------



## tambourine-man

"What the science shows, and what we should do about it"

http://www.drinkanddrugs.net/features/april0407/background_briefing.pdf


----------



## erosion

Great weekly drug war roundup:

http://thehim.dailykos.com/


----------



## erosion

Hotties of Harm reduction: 2007 nude calender

nsfw:
http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/hottiesofharmreductioncalendar2007


----------



## phr

Who's Who in Drug Prohibition, courtesy of the Drug WarRant
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2007/10/30/whosWhoInDrugPolicy.html


----------



## phr

Drug War calculator:
http://aleftindependent.blogspot.com/search/label/calculator

and

http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm


----------



## phr

2008 HDTA:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs25/25921/25921p.pdf


----------



## phr

*ACLU* - Unnecessary Evil: Blind trust and unchecked abuse in America's informant system


----------



## AndroidsDreamofBTC

*UN Report on Afganistan's Opium Business*

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Afghanistan/Afghan_Opium_Trade_2009_web.pdf

Check it out! It has lot's of interesting info on opium/heroin distribution. It's kind of long (100+ pages), but has some interesting information. 

Highlights:
-100,000 deaths/year due to heroin/opiates 
-30,000-40,000 Russians die due to opiate related issues
-Russia + Europe make about 34% of the opiate market (!)
-Total value of opiate market is around $67 Billion
-11.3 million heroin users spend $56 billion on H in a year
-1.2 million H users in the US
-US market is worth $7.8 Billion with $2.5 going on Latin America based products (tar?) and $5.3 on Afghan based products
-1 Kilo of H in Pakistan is worth around $3200 (!!!)
-Iran intercepts around 20% of the opiates that go through the country

Source: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/publications-by-date.html


----------



## Cane2theLeft

This is pretty interesting but not really od material... Seems more appropriate for the DitM forum.


----------



## Abbath

I could go for that $3200 a kilo price.


----------



## Captain.Heroin

Cane2theLeft said:


> This is pretty interesting but not really od material... Seems more appropriate for the DitM forum.


I agree. OD -> DitM

Very interesting btw.  $3.2 per gram sounds pretty sweet.


----------



## Abbath

Captain.Heroin said:


> I agree. OD -> DitM
> 
> Very interesting btw.  $3.2 per gram sounds pretty sweet.


I think if I was near a place like that I'd end up as a case study on opiate tolerance.


----------



## Mora Fiend

1 Flight to Pakistan....2800$
1 Kilo of Heroin...........3200$
Not giving a shit about the next year or so of your life...Priceless.


----------



## phr

Merged.


----------



## phr

HISTORY OF DRUG USE AND DRUG USERS IN THE UNITED STATES


----------



## djep

*Report on The war on Drugs*

Not sure if this has been posted, I did a search but found nothing on Bluelight.

Here's a link to the report, I'll also be forwarding this on to a few Australian MP's and senators.

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report


----------



## MemphisX3

re-post x 4 or 5


----------



## phr

Merged.


----------



## 23536

2011 National Drug Threat Assessment (US)

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p.pdf

(57-page PDF)


----------



## 23536

This is a neat little document detailing some of the new chemicals the DEA may be looking at:

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/mtgs/drug_chemical/2011/boos.pdf

It was a presentation given at a DEA conference and was described thus:



> Terrence Boos, Chemist, Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section, DEA HQ, gave a presentation on drug scheduling actions.  Dr. Boos discussed the types of scheduling actions and illustrated a general scheduling flowchart.  He reviewed scheduling actions in process and petitions for scheduling currently under evaluation.  He also explained concerns and availability of designer drug products.  He spoke of the dangers of synthetic cannabinoid use as well as the emergency scheduling of these products by DEA.  Dr. Boos gave a comprehensive overview of the abuse of synthetic cathinones “bath salts,” including the administration and adverse health effects as well as case reports of overdoses and deaths involving these products.


----------



## 23536

*Improving community health and safety in Canada through evidence-based policies on illegal drugs*

EVAN WOOD, MOIRA MCKINNON, ROBERT STRANG, PERRY R KENDALL

*Evan Wood, MD, PhD, ABIM, FRCPC*, is Co-Director of the Urban Health Research Initiative at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. He is also a Professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of AIDS, at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. *Moira McKinnon, MD, MBBS, FAFPHM*, is the Chief Medical Health Officer for Saskatchewan. *Robert Strang, MD, FRCPC*, is the Chief Medical Health Officer for Nova Scotia. *Perry R. Kendall, OBC, MBBS, MSc, FRCPC*, is the Chief Medical Health Officer for British Columbia and a Clinical Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

The use of illegal drugs remains a serious threat to community health.1 However, despite the substantial social costs attributable to illegal drugs, a well-described discordance between scientific evidence and policy exists in this area,2 such that most resources go to drug law enforcement activities that have not been well evaluated.3,4 When the Office of the Auditor General of Canada last reviewed the country’s drug strategy, in 2001, it estimated that of the $454 million spent annually on efforts to control illicit drugs, $426 million (93.8%) was devoted to law enforcement.5 The report further concluded, “Of particular concern is the almost complete absence of basic management information on spending of resources, on expectations, and on results of an activity that accounts for almost $500 million each year.”5

Despite the long-standing emphasis on drug law enforcement, the federal government has recently further prioritized this approach by developing legislation requiring mandatory minimum prison sentences for minor drug law offences.6 This article reviews the impact of conventional drug policies employed internationally and describes evidence-based steps to reduce the health and social costs attributable to drug policies in Canada.

html full text: http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/501/455


----------



## lalalaa

*EMCDDA annual report 2012*

Not quite sure if this fits here, feel free to edit.


> The report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe presents
> the EMCDDA's yearly overview of the drug phenomenon.
> This is an essential reference book for policymakers,
> specialists and practitioners in the drugs field or indeed anyone
> seeking the latest findings on drugs in Europe. Published every autumn, the
> report contains non-confidential data supported by an extensive range of figures.



http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2012


----------



## 23536

*DEA places 3 NBOMes on Schedule I*

This is copy-pasted from the DEA website.  Should be the top link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q="to+temporarily+schedule+three+synthetic+phenethylamines"



> SUMMARY: The Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule three synthetic phenethylamines into the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The substances are 2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25I-NBOMe; 2C-I-NBOMe; 25I; Cimbi-5), 2-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25C-NBOMe; 2C-C-NBOMe; 25C; Cimbi-82), and 2-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25B-NBOMe; 2C-B-NBOMe; 25B; Cimbi-36) [hereinafter 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe]. This action is based on a finding by the Deputy Administrator that the placement of these synthetic phenethylamines into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Any final order will be published in the Federal Register and may not be issued prior to November 12, 2013. Any final order will impose the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions and regulatory controls applicable to Schedule I substances under the CSA on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities of these synthetic phenethylamines.
> 
> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth A. Carter, Chief, Policy Evaluation and Analysis Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone (202) 598-6812.
> 
> SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
> 
> Background
> 
> Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).
> 
> Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 355, for the substance. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated his authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA, who in turn has delegated her authority to the Deputy Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100, 0.104.
> 
> Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Deputy Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA.\1\ As 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe are not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, the DEA believes that the conditions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) have been satisfied. Any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary in response to this notification shall be taken into consideration before a final order is published. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4).
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> \1\ Because the Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations, for purposes of this Notice of Intent, all subsequent references to "Secretary" have been replaced with "Assistant Secretary." As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), FDA acts as the lead agency within HHS in carrying out the Assistant Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> To make a finding that placing a substance temporarily into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Deputy Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(c)(4)-(6). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
> 
> A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in Schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in Schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1). Available data and information for 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe indicate that these three synthetic phenethylamines have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.
> 
> Synthetic Phenethylamines
> 
> The 2-methoxybenzyl series of 2C phenethylamine substances, such as 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe, has been developed over the last 10 years for use in mapping and investigating the serotonin receptors in the mammalian brain. 25I-NBOMe and 25B-NBOMe were first described by legitimate research laboratories in 2003. Subsequent studies involving these two substances appeared in the scientific literature starting in 2006. 25C-NBOMe first appeared in the scientific literature in 2011. No approved medical use has been identified for these synthetic phenethylamines, nor have they been approved by the FDA for human consumption. Synthetic 2C phenethylamine substances, of which 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe are representative, are so-termed for the two-carbon ethylene
> 
> [[Page 61992]]
> 
> group between the phenyl ring and the amino group of the phenethylamine and are substituted with methoxy groups at the 2 and 5 positions of the phenyl ring. Numerous blotter papers and food items have been analyzed, and combinations of one or more of 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe have been identified as adulterants. Bulk quantities of these substances have been encountered as powders and liquid solutions.
> 
> From November 2011 through June 2013, according to the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence \2\ (STRIDE) data, there are 54 exhibits involving 27 cases for 25I-NBOMe; 27 exhibits involving 12 cases for 25C-NBOMe; and 3 exhibits involving 3 cases for 25B-NBOMe. From June 2011 through March 2013, the National Forensic Laboratory Information System \3\ (NFLIS) registered 689 reports containing these synthetic phenethylamines (25I-NBOMe-582 reports; 25C-NBOMe-94 reports; 25B-NBOMe-13 reports) across 33 states. No instances involving 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, or 25B-NBOMe were reported in NFLIS prior to June 2011.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> \2\ STRIDE includes data on analyzed samples from DEA laboratories.
> 
> \3\ NFLIS is a database that collects scientifically verified data on analyzed samples in state and local forensic laboratories.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Factor 4. History and Current Pattern of Abuse
> 
> One or more 2-methoxybenzyl analogues of the 2C compounds described here have been available over the Internet since 2010. The first identified domestic law enforcement encounter with 25I-NBOMe occurred in June 2011 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
> 
> Information from published studies and law enforcement reports, supplemented with discussions on Internet Web sites and personal communications, document abuse of 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe by nasal insufflation of powders, intravenous injection or nasal absorption of liquid solutions, sublingual or buccal administration of blotter papers, and consumption of food items laced with these substances. These sources also report that 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe are often purported to be Schedule I hallucinogens like lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). Reports document that the abuse of these substances can cause severe toxic reactions, including death.
> 
> According to United States Customs and Border Protection data, bulk quantities of powdered 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe have been seized from shipments originating overseas, particularly from Asia. Given the relatively small quantity of these substances predicted to produce a hallucinogenic effect in humans, single seizures of these substances are capable of producing hundreds of thousands to millions of dosage units. Large seizures of these substances prepared on blotter papers have also been reported. Abuse of 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe has been characterized with acute public health and safety issues domestically and abroad. In response, a number of states and foreign governments have controlled these substances.
> 
> Factor 5. Scope, Duration and Significance of Abuse
> 
> According to forensic laboratory reports, the first law enforcement encounter with 25I-NBOMe in the United States occurred in June 2011. According to NFLIS, 689 exhibits involving 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe were submitted to forensic laboratories between June 2011 and March 2013 from a number of states including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The number of reports submitted to NFLIS involving 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe has increased in each of the last five quarters where data is available. According to STRIDE, there are 84 records that identify 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe in evidence submitted to DEA laboratories between November 2011 and June 2013.
> 
> Factor 6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to the Public Health
> 
> In 2012 and 2013, emergency department physicians and toxicologists published and presented numerous case reports of patients treated for exposure to 25I-NBOMe. The adverse health effects reported include tachycardia, hypertension, agitation, aggression, visual and auditory hallucinations, seizures, hyperpyrexia, clonus, elevated white cell count, elevated creatine kinase, metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, and acute kidney injury.
> 
> Medical examiner and postmortem toxicology reports from 11 states implicate some combination of 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe in the death of at least 14 individuals. These reports suggest that 11 individuals died of acute toxicity, and 3 individuals died of unpredictable or violent behavior due to 25I-NBOMe toxicity. 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe have each been detected in postmortem blood toxicology for cases of acute toxicity.
> 
> Since abusers obtain these drugs through unknown sources, the identity, purity, and quantity of these substances is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to users. There are no recognized therapeutic uses of these substances in the United States and possible deadly drug interactions between 25I-NBOMe and FDA approved medications have been noted.
> 
> Finding of Necessity of Schedule I Placement To Avoid Imminent Hazard to Public Safety
> 
> Based on the above data and information, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, and abuse of 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for these synthetic phenethylamines in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in Schedule I. Substances in Schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe indicate that these three synthetic phenethylamines have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Deputy Administrator through a letter dated September 3, 2013, notified the Assistant Secretary of the intention to temporarily place these three synthetic phenethylamines in Schedule I.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> This notice of intent initiates an expedited temporary scheduling action and provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Deputy Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is
> 
> [[Page 61993]]
> 
> necessary to temporarily schedule three synthetic phenethylamines, 2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25I-NBOMe; 2C-I-NBOMe; 25I; Cimbi-5), 2-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25C-NBOMe; 2C-C-NBOMe; 25C; Cimbi-82) and 2-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25B-NBOMe; 2C-B-NBOMe; 25B; Cimbi-36), in Schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of these synthetic phenethylamines into Schedule I of the CSA is warranted in order to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
> 
> Because the Deputy Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place these synthetic phenethylamines into Schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, any subsequent final order temporarily scheduling these substances will be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register, and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the permanent or regular scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2). It is the intention of the Deputy Administrator to issue such a final order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe will then be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities of a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA.
> 
> The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done "on the record after opportunity for a hearing" conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
> 
> Regulatory Matters
> 
> Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in Schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of a proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary of HHS. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).
> 
> Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Deputy Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
> 
> Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Deputy Administrator will be taking into consideration any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary with regard to the proposed temporary scheduling order.
> 
> Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a "rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
> 
> Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
> 
> This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
> 
> List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308
> 
> Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
> 
> Under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), and delegated to the Deputy Administrator of the DEA by Department of Justice regulations (28 CFR 0.100, Appendix to Subpart R), the Deputy Administrator hereby intends to order that 21 CFR Part 1308 be amended as follows:
> 
> PART 1308--SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
> 
> 1. The authority citation for Part 1308 continues to read as follows:
> 
> Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
> 2. Section 1308.11 is amended by adding new paragraphs (h)(12), (13), and (14) to read as follows:
> Sec. 1308.11 Schedule I.
> 
> * * * * *
> 
> (h) * * *
> 
> (12) 2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers--7538 (Other names: 25I-NBOMe; 2C-I-NBOMe; 25I; Cimbi-5)
> 
> (13) 2-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers--7537 (Other names: 25C-NBOMe; 2C-C-NBOMe; 25C; Cimbi-82)
> 
> (14) 2-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers--7536 (Other names: 25B-NBOMe; 2C-B-NBOMe; 25B; Cimbi-36)
> 
> Dated: October 4, 2013.
> 
> Thomas M. Harrigan,
> Deputy Administrator.
> 
> [FR Doc. 2013-24432 Filed 10-9-13; 8:45 am]
> 
> BILLING CODE 4410-09-P



http://lmgtfy.com/?q="to+temporarily+schedule+three+synthetic+phenethylamines"


----------



## f33lg00d

As long as lsd is illegal, I'd like to see these illegal too. Maybe now the market won't be over saturated with this crap.


----------



## bloodshed344

Shame, I never got to try 25B!


----------



## Flynnal

Considering that these are significantly more dangerous than LSD, at least according to my own research on these compounds, it doesn't surprise me that they should end up being prohibited drugs. I concur with f33lg00d, if LSD is prohibited then the nBOMes ought to be illegal too. I tried 25I-nBOMe and it was not nice, very unpleasant trip overall, nice at the beginning but then got really ugly with paranoia and hyperexcitation and agitation, and for what it's worth I could have easily killed someone in a psychotic rage had I been at the wrong place at the wrong time. Dangerous stuff and I'd advise anyone thinking about tinkering with these to be extremely careful with dosing/setting if they are going to do it or better still avoid them altogether. Maybe LSD will make a comeback since these synthetic hallucinogens are now banned as the case may be. nBOMes make LSD look comparatively benign in terms of toxicity and the characteristics of the trips experienced when using them.


----------



## juno nightmare

Ive been out of the hallucinogen RC community for a while and only recently got back into researching and reading about the new compounds. When I first heard about the NBome's a few years ago, a fellow psychonaut actually brought some to my place so he could safely measure doses and mix up some liquid doses. I was completely blown away that these chemicals were active at sub milligram ranges. He offered me a few doses for free but i didnt accept. I have never tried any or owned any and im kinda glad I avoided them as they mostly sound like dangerous drugs. I am all for research and experimentation but this stuff is just too potent to be floating around and getting into the hands of uninformed people. With lsd if you take too much it can be bad but unless you do something stupid the drug its self wont really hurt you. However, it sounds like these drugs can be toxic and even fatal if too much is ingested.

 But that's what happens when you make new drugs illegal, they made all the 2C-X drugs illegal so people sought new drugs and found these super potent analogues. If the 2C-X drugs were still legal i dont think many people would go for these. It's all about what can be imported and distributed "legally" even if its not really legal people can get away with it until it is definitely illegal. I just worry about what is gonna be next now that they are going after these drugs. Im not a chemist so i dont know if you can further modify these chemicals to create a new analogues. But if not then someone will surely find something to peddle. Sure wish we could end the drug war and just treat people like humans instead of cattle.


----------



## bennyZA

If I was into scheduling and making drugs illegal, Nbome's would def be on that list.  I hear so many glowing reports, and my experience wasn't terrible, but I also hear so many horror stories.  I don't know why, but it seems that some Nbome's make people psychotic.


----------



## bloodshed344

bennyZA said:


> If I was into scheduling and making drugs illegal, Nbome's would def be on that list.  I hear so many glowing reports, and my experience wasn't terrible, but I also hear so many horror stories.  I don't know why, but it seems that some Nbome's make people psychotic.



ALL psychedelics can make people psychotic and no one should ever argue in favor of drug prohibition laws.


----------



## juno nightmare

I agree with bloodshed, prohibition only hurts people. If these drugs were legal and had a regulated distribution pattern and age restrictions the deaths and over doses could be mitigated or prevented. However, this stuff being passed off as LSD and sold to people with no knowledge of the dangers these chemicals pose, therefore people are being hurt or killed. If people do their homework, have proper equipment to measure out doses, and follow safety procedures then they should be allowed to take the risk of experimenting with these compounds. People who have no understanding of the nature of research chemical experimentation should not have access to these chemicals. Regulation could save so many lives where as prohibition creates the environment we see where unscrupulous people lie about what they are distributing and sell to the underage. 

I think the way it should work is that there should be a licensing system for selling and taking drugs. You could get a license from an organization to sell the chemicals but you could only sell them to people with a license to use them. You could go to the same organization and get a license to ingest drugs. A potential applicant would have to learn about the drug they want to take. Learn dosage, safety, method of administration, and any other relevant information related to the drug. After passing a test based on this knowledge a person could get a certificate that grants them the right to legally possess and use the drug. However, they cant sell unless they have a sellers license. It would basically be the same way alcohol is regulated except for having an extra step for the end user. I think it could work if the organization running this system was honest with people and dealt with the issue in a medical fashion rather than criminal. There could still be criminal penalties for unlicensed sale and providing to minors or unlicensed individuals. Additionally, the cost of getting a license could fund treatment programs for people that are truly addicted and are having problems functioning. If these drugs were available legally with medical grade purity and reasonable prices then being addicted would not be so damaging to a person. If their use got out of hand and they caused problems for other people then sure they could face criminal penalties but I think this system could really solve most of the problems with the drug situation. 

Drugs are never going to go away, you can never stop demand and you can never stop supply. Regulation will save lives. The taxes collected from legal drug sales could reduce national debt or be used to fund social programs to deal with the causes and symptoms of drug abuse. It really could be a self sustaining system if people would let it happen. Hell the Silk Road apparently made something like a billion dollars, think of all the good that money could do if even a portion was being invested in helping people instead of going to drug lords and corrupt police and politicians.


----------



## Folley

I'd say this would be good, but it's only going to push people onto NBOHMBMD/other analogues 


hopefully people will take the hint and shift focus to other, less dangerous, psychedelics.


----------



## 'medicine cabinet'

Wow who didnt see this coming hah..


----------



## my3rdeye

f33lg00d said:


> As long as lsd is illegal, I'd like to see these illegal too. Maybe now the market won't be over saturated with this crap.



The bath salts that got banned just ended up in pressed molly pills. I have no reason to believe the nbomes being banned will be destroyed either and we will see them ending up in one place, the LSD supply. This law and the demise of SR means there is alot of Nbomes out there looking for a market.


----------



## HCL

Folley said:


> I'd say this would be good, but it's only going to push people onto NBOHMBMD/other analogues
> 
> 
> hopefully people will take the hint and shift focus to other, less dangerous, psychedelics.


Hopefully the DEA will take the hint and legalize LSD.


----------



## RoomforJello

f33lg00d said:


> As long as lsd is illegal, I'd like to see these illegal too. Maybe now the market won't be over saturated with this crap.


Whenever chemicals are banned they tend to be sold at a much lower price to get rid of stock, I'm sure someone has the idea to stock up and sell it as LSD. If you do this your a dick but as an example I bought 10 tabs at a reduced just before the UK ban and got 15 free. I wonder how much I would have got if I got 100 or more. Sorry if this is considered pricing but this could be even worse for the acid scene at least short term. Now would be the time to buy some test kits if you like LSD.

Hopefully this ban pushes people to using AL-LAD/LSZ if thats your thing as these seem at least a little safer than the NBOMes, but then again this doesn't cover the other NBOMes, 25N/25E/25P(not sure if the last ones available but would make sense if it follows the 2C family). These are probably covered by the analogue act come to think about it but not specifically scheduled, US law is not my strong point so maybe wrong, couldn't you still sell them(25N/E) if they are not specifically scheduled?



bloodshed344 said:


> Shame, I never got to try 25B!


25B was my favorite of the ones I tried, but I'm not really sad to see it "go", theres better and safer trips.



HCL said:


> Hopefully the DEA will take the hint and legalize LSD.


DEA, legalize, anything, you must be joking how else would they make a living arrest people for growing a plant? oh wait.


----------



## f33lg00d

Sure these NBOMes are really cheap right now due to the eminent ban, but once those last batches of tabs get distributed I don't see anybody illicitly producing them. They seem to be some of the most disliked of rc psychedelics and are one of the few that can be fatal - why risk producing it when other illegal psys are in higher demand and demand higher prices. I'm sure that NBOHs will replace their niche (cheap grey legality drugs evil assholes sell as acid) as much as I'd prefer al-lad or lsz too. I always test LSD before I buy it anyways. Now I'm not one to endorse prohibition, I think all drugs should be legalized, but in our messed up system with LSD illegal I don't want super cheap dangerous drugs available to profiteering scum.


----------



## RoomforJello

f33lg00d said:


> Sure these NBOMes are really cheap right now due to the eminent ban, but once those last batches of tabs get distributed I don't see anybody illicitly producing them. They seem to be some of the most disliked of rc psychedelics and are one of the few that can be fatal - why risk producing it when other illegal psys are in higher demand and demand higher prices. I'm sure that NBOHs will replace their niche (cheap grey legality drugs evil assholes sell as acid) as much as I'd prefer al-lad or lsz too. I always test LSD before I buy it anyways. Now I'm not one to endorse prohibition, I think all drugs should be legalized, but in our messed up system with LSD illegal I don't want super cheap dangerous drugs available to profiteering scum.



Well NBOMes are pretty cheap in general which is probably why its sold as acid in the first place, but what I was try to say is that if someone has bulk storage of NBOMes they could be around for a while especially if they are cheap I mean 1kg is like 1,000,000 doses. Also NBOMes are legal in a lot of places outside of the US. This means they could still be produced somewhere else and shipped to anywhere in the world and with its low dosage and high profits when sold as acid could see just that. Also I'm not sure but I imagine dogs aren't trained to sniff out nbome chemicals either.

From what I've seen most of the horror stories with the NBOMes seem to be black market, sold to people who don't know what they are doing or taking, this ban is just gonna make things worse, not to mention the next series of chems coming onto the market. At least when it was legal you could get a tab that said how much nbome you where taking now you have to just trust a dealer and hope he knows how to lay blotters properly or the powder you got isn't active under 1mg, whether you looking for LSD or NBOMe or any drug(white powder) really this is just bad for drug users.

Really governments just need to stop banning everything under the sun, we wouldn't even use the NBOMes if the 2C series was still legal, hell we probably wouldn't even use those if LSD, shrooms etc. where legal in the first place.


----------



## freehugs

Everyone buy a test kit.  I'm seeing a lot of fake acid in the next years.


----------



## daswede420

America is in troUble....it only will get worse Untill they end war on drUgs.


----------



## PurpleKush1

Great. Not being sarcastic seriously its the first time in my life i approve of somethinmg the dea does and this is it, fuck NBOMES


----------



## nuke

Happy to hear about this as well, these are not safe.


----------



## shimazu

my first reaction

"ok"

there wasn't a second one


----------



## RoomforJello

nuke said:


> Happy to hear about this as well, these are not safe.





PurpleKush1 said:


> Great. Not being sarcastic seriously its the first time in my life i approve of somethinmg the dea does and this is it, fuck NBOMES



Yeah NBOMes are not really safe drugs, but how does banning them/putting them into the black market solve anything?


----------



## PurpleKush1

RoomforJello said:


> Yeah NBOMes are not really safe drugs, but how does banning them/putting them into the black market solve anything?



Just fuck htem, they shouldnt exist. Worst psychdelic ever. BAnning mite discourage seeling it as a cid to sell real cid or something less harmful at least


----------



## nuke

RoomforJello said:


> Yeah NBOMes are not really safe drugs, but how does banning them/putting them into the black market solve anything?



It will at least pave the way for people to instead import probably less dangerous ultrapotent psychedelics from China, eg LAD derivatives, for fear of prosecution

Even DOx drugs appear quite a bit safer than these, and I hate those with a passion.

I think the ideal situation is that the DEA would legalize most psychedelics except the NBOMe's.  I believe the point of the government should be to try and protect people when it makes reasonable sense, e.g. to restrict the sale of Uncle Jimmy's 10% methanol bathtub gin while allowing the sale of less toxic ethanol only spirits.


----------



## RoomforJello

PurpleKush1 said:


> Just fuck htem, they shouldnt exist. Worst psychdelic ever.


Tell me that when you taking 25X-NBOSH and 2P-4DD. My point is that another chemical which could be even more dangerous now has a market.
I kinda doubt they will stop selling them as acid simply because they are illegal, at least some vendors did a standard blotter print to try and deter it. I'm not defending NBOMEs(personally I found them alright) its just not reasonable to just keep banning shit without legalizing safer, better drugs and educating people more.

^Well I think people would just stay away from NBOMes if they had 2C-X, which is now banned and like I said earlier these probably wouldn't even be used if we could get pure LSD, mushrooms, DMT etc legally. 
Yeah they may change the drugs they are buying from china but that doesn't mean they will be safer than the NBOMes, if anything RC's just keep getting worse the more bans that are imposed.


----------



## Captain.Heroin

f33lg00d said:


> As long as lsd is illegal, I'd like to see these illegal too. Maybe now the market won't be over saturated with this crap.



I never tried the 25x series. DMT is where it's at. If you're brae enough to use RC's instead - you're just not quite there yet and have this ideology that cops are lawyers. They're not.


----------



## f33lg00d

I assume you mean brave, I only took them when I first got into tripping and was sold it as LSD; I was poor and not about to throw away drugs. My hallucinogen sof choice is LSD and dxm, I'm trying dmt next month. 

I don't comprehend the second part of you're post. If I'm brave enough to use rcs then i think cops are lawyers? Non sequitur.

Yes it may limit libirtys but I haven't seen a large demand for NBOMes and largely seen them purported as a safe understood drug. I don't think this will elongate the drug war but it will promote the sale of legitimate lsd. Classic safe substances (ie weed are being legalized) are or are Gain legalization support. I don't think it will be long till all drugs are legal.


----------



## 23536

HCL said:


> Hopefully the DEA will take the hint and legalize LSD.



Me too.  I also hope to marry Scarlett Johanson tomorrow.  Wish me luck!


----------



## Arsenic_X

Does this ban also cover NBOH/NBMD/NBF compounds as analogues or  not?


----------



## neversickanymore

*shit.. dont even think about it 23536.. i will fight to the death.. really I know I throw some sarcasm.. but fk it i'm not playing on this one.. nope,  not even playing 23536*


*NSFW*: 











On the Nbomb thing.. I dont know, some of me says good move another part is realistic and wonders given the amazing fail of the dea.. how much good will be done.. and people need to make their own decisions. so I guess end prohibition on Psilocybin. 


*NSFW*: 













Sure you can buy allot of different plane tickets.. some go to Flint MI some to Kauai - HA.. just because you can take a trip doesn't mean you will like where you end up..


*NSFW*: 










*^FLINT*


*IMO why go out for chichen when you can have lobster*


*NSFW*: 












BUT as always.. it your descion, your life, and ultimately your responsibility.

ahh scarlett and boomers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2VX5wQYQg


----------



## Foreigner

Not in favour of criminalization by any means, but NOMBes should be scheduled if others are. After GHB, NBOMes have caused the biggest problems in the HR work I've done at festivals.


----------



## PurpleKush1

RoomforJello said:


> Tell me that when you taking 25X-NBOSH and 2P-4DD. My point is that another chemical which could be even more dangerous now has a market.
> I kinda doubt they will stop selling them as acid simply because they are illegal, at least some vendors did a standard blotter print to try and deter it. I'm not defending NBOMEs(personally I found them alright) its just not reasonable to just keep banning shit without legalizing safer, better drugs and educating people more.
> 
> ^Well I think people would just stay away from NBOMes if they had 2C-X, which is now banned and like I said earlier these probably wouldn't even be used if we could get pure LSD, mushrooms, DMT etc legally.
> Yeah they may change the drugs they are buying from china but that doesn't mean they will be safer than the NBOMes, if anything RC's just keep getting worse the more bans that are imposed.


IMO they shouldnt exist point. I see what you mean man. But baniing them mite people start making real acid,or mtie not. Gamgble


Foreigner said:


> Not in favour of criminalization by any means, but NOMBes should be scheduled if others are. After GHB, NBOMes have caused the biggest problems in the HR work I've done at festivals.


If it was at least sold as nbomes people would know what he fuc kare they taking


----------



## ShamanKS

So, all you pro- and anti- schedulers, calm down a minute... The original post from the DEA website says, 

" It is the intention of the Deputy Administrator to issue such a final order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe will then be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities of a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA." 

...Doesn't that mean that there is a 'hurry and finish up your business dealings before 30 days are up' grace period?!?


----------



## ShamanKS

So, all you pro- and anti- schedulers, calm down a minute... The original post from the DEA website says, 

" It is the intention of the Deputy Administrator to issue such a final order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25B-NBOMe will then be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities of a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA." 

...Doesn't that mean that there is a 'hurry and finish up your business dealings before 30 days are up' grace period?!?


----------



## 23536

*FDA proposes raising hydrocodone to schedule II*

article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/b...scriptions-for-class-of-painkillers.html?_r=0

FDA's statement:



> *Statement on Proposed Hydrocodone Reclassification from Janet Woodcock, M.D., Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research*
> 
> [10-24-2013] Over the past several years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been carefully evaluating and weighing the appropriate use of opioid analgesic drug products. For the millions of American patients experiencing an acute medical need or living with chronic pain, opioids, when prescribed appropriately, can allow patients to manage their pain as well as significantly improve their quality of life.
> 
> However, in recent years, the FDA has become increasingly concerned about the abuse and misuse of opioid products, which have sadly reached epidemic proportions in certain parts of the United States. While the value of and access to these drugs has been a consistent source of public debate, the FDA has been challenged with determining how to balance the need to ensure continued access to those patients who rely on continuous pain relief while addressing the ongoing concerns about abuse and misuse.
> 
> In 2009, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for a recommendation regarding whether to change the schedule for hydrocodone combination products, such as Vicodin. The proposed change was from Schedule III to Schedule II, which would increase the controls on these products.  Due to the unique history of this issue and the tremendous amount of public interest, we are announcing the agency’s intent to recommend to HHS that hydrocodone combination products should be reclassified to a different and more restrictive schedule. This determination comes after a thorough and careful analysis of extensive scientific literature, review of hundreds of public comments on the issue, and several public meetings, during which we received input from a wide range of stakeholders, including patients, health care providers, outside experts, and other government entities.
> 
> By early December, FDA plans to submit our formal recommendation package to HHS to reclassify hydrocodone combination products into Schedule II.  We anticipate that the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) will concur with our recommendation. This will begin a process that will lead to a final decision by the DEA on the appropriate scheduling of these products.
> 
> Going forward, the agency will continue working with professional organizations, consumer and patient groups, and industry to ensure that prescriber and patient education tools are readily available so that these products are properly prescribed and appropriately used by the patients who need them most.


----------



## 23536

Does anybody know how many people die from hydrocodone ODs per year?  I've never been able to find the answer.

I mean in places where it's usually mixed with Tylenol.


----------



## Psychedelic Jay

This will only make everyone and I do mean everyone look like drug addicts...

There will be more DEA crackdowns now... Even a smaller population of doctors will prescribe them now.

Once again, for absolutely nothing...


----------



## HCL

These people never learn.


----------



## phenethylo J

Yea great idea moving hydrocodone to schedule II because everybody knows how many lives have been saved by having oxycodone, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, morphine, and fentanyl in schedule II. 8)

God I hate how all these copycat news stories never mention how many of these deaths are a result of the apap, how many of those people were taking massive doses, and how many were mixing it with a cocktail of other respiratory depressants like benzos, alcohol, ect. These laws do nothing to deter abuse. People either boy them off the street and jacked up prices or switch to heroin which can be allot more dangerous due to the unknown purity and possibility of it being cut with fent. and just made like even harder for people suffering from chronic health issues. Even if your doctor is compassionate and trusts you 100% you may still have to suffer due the bullies over at the DEA threatening to take their license away.


----------



## juno nightmare

This will only make it harder to get a legitimate prescription when one is in pain. The diversion of medication is not going to stop.

Doctor visits are VERY expensive with or without insurance. This means people with chronic pain will have to visit the doctor twice as often, basically doubling the cost for the people that need the drug for pain. Additionally, the people who can prescribe hydrocodone products will be limited. So if you get you meds from a non-doctor source you will now have to see a doctor in addition to you normal care provider, again increasing the cost greatly. I imagine dentists will not be able to give you something for pain now, you will have to go to a doctor just to get a few vicodin for a wisdom tooth extraction. Pure bullshit. 

I know that many people are dying from pain killers, however as phenethylo J said most of the deaths from prescription meds are due to unsafe combinations of pain killers and other drugs, usually alcohol. But we would never put stricter rules on alcohol even though it is one of the most dangerous and destructive drugs that exist. Alcohol kills more than all other drugs combined and yet its legal and cheap. IMO alcohol is the worst drug there is, maybe a few super obscure chemicals are more toxic or cause worse effects, but alcohol is so prevalent and so toxic to health and society it is baffling that its still legal. Im not for prohibition of any substance but if you're only going to have a couple legals ones tobacco and alcohol would be at the bottom of a long list. 

I think the world would be a much better place if marijuana was legal and we had a opium based liquid drink similar to laudanum instead of alcohol. It would be just as addictive as alcohol but could be very weak and thus less toxic and harder to overdose. Just imagine going to the store and getting a 500ml bottle of laudanum and a couple grams of some fine ass kush to get your friday night started. Alcohol makes people fat and stupid and violent and promiscuous.


----------



## Foreigner

You can just smell the corporate bullshit behind this one.

More addicts will just have less supply, which means a thriving black market, and more people going to jail for violating Schedule II. It will also give big pharma a chance to release a new opiate under a patent and charge way more for it to all those desperate addicts. It's win win for everyone who makes money on the war on drugs. 

Totally sickening. The U.S. government is just corporate administration at this point.


----------



## 23536

juno nightmare said:


> I imagine dentists will not be able to give you something for pain now, you will have to go to a doctor just to get a few vicodin for a wisdom tooth extraction. Pure bullshit.



Nah they'll still be able to prescribe ibuprofen


----------



## Vaya

*Notice of Intent: 10 More Synthetic Cathinones To Be Placed Into Schedule I*

_Source:_ *US Department of Justice: Diversion Control Center*



> SUMMARY: The Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule 10 synthetic cathinones into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The 10 substances are: (1) 4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone ("4-MEC"); (2) 4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone ("4-MePPP"); (3) alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone ("[alpha]-PVP"); (4) 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one ("butylone"); (5) 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one ("pentedrone"); (6) 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one ("pentylone"); (7) 4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone ("4-FMC"); (8) 3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone ("3-FMC"); (9) 1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one ("naphyrone"); and (10) alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone ("[alpha]-PBP"). This action is based on a finding by the Deputy Administrator that the placement of these synthetic cathinones into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Any final order will be published in the Federal Register and may not be effective prior to February 27, 2014. Any final order will impose the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions and regulatory controls applicable to schedule I substances under the CSA on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities of these synthetic cathinones.



*Pictoral Chart of Targeted Cathinones*


----------



## Vaya

*Notice of Intent: Four More Synthetic Cannabinoids to be Placed Into Schedule 1*

_Source_: *US Department of Justice: Diversion Control Center*



> SUMMARY: The Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule four synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The substances are: quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB- 22; QUPIC); quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22); N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4- fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA); and N-(1-amino- 3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB- PINACA). This action is based on a finding by the Deputy Administrator that the placement of these synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Any final order will impose the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions and regulatory controls applicable to Schedule I substances under the CSA on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities of these synthetic cannabinoids.



*Pictoral Chart of Targeted Cannabinoids*


----------



## TheRapperGoneBad

And so continues the cat and mouse game of scheduling and creation of new substances in this truely pointless never ending war on society.


----------



## MagickalKat777

Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.


----------



## Vaya

*ding ding!*

And now folks, our winner - with 883 posts and a sense of rationality- *TheRapperGoneBad*!


----------



## Vaya

Ive seen people _seriously_ lose it after experiencing these strong partial and/or full CB1/2 agonists... It can be quite unnerving. However, i think that their temporary scheduling provides quite an impetus for clandestine chemists to devise even newer, and even more novel, families of synthetic cannabinoids whose effects may be MORE dangerous and LESS predictable.

Although, as if that werent going to happen regardless 8)


----------



## spacejunk

^ ya mean cathinones? 
Confusing, this alphabet soup business.
And so it goes on...lets see what toxic sludge gets peddled next.
Seems like the USA was a little slow on the uptake with this one, I'm guessing it was more state-by-state legislation?
Does make me wonder how catch-all these analogue laws are in a court of law if so many are being specifically scheduled.
Too complicated for law enforcement?


----------



## juno nightmare

the next generation will be out later this year and be even more dangerous and untested.


----------



## ComfortablyNumb95

^^^ yeah, it's funny how they keep on banning drugs with at least a tiny bit of a safety profile so that new, possibly more dangerous and virtually unknown drugs can be released to the public 

once again good work war on drugs for keeping us helpless citizens safe and away from the dangers of the evil drugs :/


----------



## MagickalKat777

^ Its much easier to ban something than to make a federal case on the analog act and have it stick here.

The individual states did ban the cannabinoids one by one but the cathinones were scheduled in far fewer states before they were banned.

I miss methylone though. Really sucks that mephedrone took that one down with it. The rest of them. Meh, no loss.


----------



## MagickalKat777

The government can't possibly keep up. I guarantee you these labs have a whole line of new chemicals waiting in the lurch. These chemists may be shady but they're not stupid.


----------



## change-jug

I was just talking to my girlfriend today about the first time I ordered methylone. I didn`t really know what to expect but I was excited when I got that golden envelope with a half gram from some german company. 
After being totally blown away that I could buy this online I must have bought it 5 more times before my GF finally gave it a shot. 
We ended up doing methylone exclusively and gave up on mdma after being ripped off too many times on bunk gear. For us methylone was a great couples drug. Other than the shorter duration compared to mdma we were very happy with it.
How could we have known 5 -6 years later it would gain so much attention that it would be banned?
I guess all good things must come to an end.....booooo.

You guys are right though,banning won`t solve anything. We will just be offered less tested,more randomly invented chemicals to fill the void. Then people will suffer the end results.


----------



## plmar

MagickalKat777 said:


> The government can't possibly keep up. I guarantee you these labs have a whole line of new chemicals waiting in the lurch. These chemists may be shady but they're not stupid.



This lol


It's actually fun to watch these idiots play cat n mouse like someone above said. For every chem they ban probably 2 new ones are invented and ready to go.


----------



## spacejunk

MagickalKat777 said:


> ^ Its much easier to ban something than to make a federal case on the analog act and have it stick here.



Same story here (Australia).


----------



## neversickanymore

MagickalKat777 said:


> Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.


  yep


----------



## Viṣakaṇṭha

I guess unlike most others I've always been a big fan of the synthetic cathinones...I've tried 6 out of the 10 listed and enjoyed majority of them, although certainly not as much as the mephedrone/methylone days. I gave up on mdma at the time as well in favor of methylone. Im glad I caught this on the forum...Im usually not much of an RC person, so I often don't notice these kinda things, but the β-ketones were always my favorite and generally the only RC's I put effort into obtaining. At least it doesn't look like its taking effect for a few weeks.


----------



## ComfortablyNumb95

as I said in a thread about the ban of synthetic cannabinoids..


> it's funny how they keep on banning drugs with at least a tiny bit of a safety profile so that new, possibly more dangerous and virtually unknown drugs can be released to the public
> 
> once again good work war on drugs for keeping us helpless citizens safe and away from the dangers of the evil drugs :/


----------



## S.J.B.

*Methamphetamine trafficking increases, new psychoactive substances flood markets*

Methamphetamine trafficking increases, new psychoactive substances flood markets, according to new UNODC report
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
May 20th, 2014



> Synthetic drugs are taking an ever-greater share of the illicit drugs market, according to a new report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).  New psychoactive substances (NPS) are also flooding a market for synthetic drugs long dominated by amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS), such as ecstasy and methamphetamine, which are more widely used than cocaine, opium or heroin.
> 
> "There is a dynamic and unprecedented global expansion of the synthetic drugs market both in scope and variety", said Jean-Luc Lemahieu, Director for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs at UNODC. "New substances are quickly created and marketed, challenging law enforcement efforts to keep up with the traffickers and curb public health risks."
> 
> Rates of methamphetamine seizures are higher than ever across the world, largely driven by the rise in seizures in East and South-East Asia as well as in North America, according to the 2014 Global Synthetic Drugs Assessment .  Methamphetamine, which can seriously harm users, continues to spread in Asia, posing a growing challenge to health care providers and drug control authorities dealing with large youthful populations. Methamphetamine supply grew rapidly in Asia, already the largest market for ATS, between 2008 and 2012 when methamphetamine seizures tripled to 36 tons.
> 
> New international supply channels are linking formerly regional ATS markets. Supply routes to Asia, the largest market for ATS and ecstasy worldwide, have emerged from West Africa and the Americas, supplementing methamphetamine manufacture in Asia. West Africa seems to be becoming a trans-shipment point for methamphetamine trafficked to East and South-East Asia via South Africa or Europe. Since 2009, about 86 per cent of ATS originating from West Africa seized at Western European and Japanese airports were destined mainly for Japan as well as Malaysia.  Turkey may also be emerging as a transit point for methamphetamine smuggled from Western Asia to East and South-East Asia.
> 
> The report confirmed signs of an expansion of the use and manufacture of ATS in Europe already observed in 2011.  Methamphetamine seems to be replacing amphetamine, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.  Amphetamine continues to be the main ATS used in the Middle East.



Read the full report here.


----------



## nsauce

*Hydrocodone soon to be Schedule II in the U.S.*

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2014/fr0822.htm

SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposes to reschedule hydrocodone combination products from schedule III to schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. This proposed action is based on a rescheduling recommendation from the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services and an evaluation of all other relevant data by the DEA. If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule II controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, dispense, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities, or possess) or propose to handle hydrocodone combination products.

This rule is effective October 6, 2014.


----------



## szuko000

This is great exactly what the US needs; more demonization of opiates which actually help people with legit pain. What an awesome progressive step.

Now maybe these people will realize they are not in pain and were always just junkies.


----------



## 421

szuko000 said:


> This is great exactly what the US needs; more demonization of opiates which actually help people with legit pain. What an awesome progressive step.
> 
> Now maybe these people will realize they are not in pain and were always just junkies.



Junkies have given opiates a bad name...


----------



## nsauce

421 said:


> Junkies have given opiates a bad name...


In a sense, i suppose your statement is correct. But aren't those who have information broadcast upon the otherwise uninvolved majority of people more at fault for opiates "bad name"?
 Now, however, the establishment is making every hydrocodone user fall into the same category as users of cocaine and methamphetamine. This "demonizes" the legal, justified consumer of the (arguably) weakest opiod, hydrocodone, and places further stigma upon the legal, justified user of hydrocodone. What are dentists going to give you now when you get a root canal? Ibuprofen? Awesome.


----------



## panic_the_digital

It seems that if we are going to continue stigmatizing drug users via controlled drug scheduling, the system needs to be seriously revamped. According to a pain medication expert I've spoke with, the addiction liablity with 6-keto opioids (hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone) is substantially higher than with other opiates (morphine most notably). So, schedule III morphine maybe?


----------



## 421

nsauce said:


> In a sense, i suppose your statement is correct. But aren't those who have information broadcast upon the otherwise uninvolved majority of people more at fault for opiates "bad name"?
> Now, however, the establishment is making every hydrocodone user fall into the same category as users of cocaine and methamphetamine. This "demonizes" the legal, justified consumer of the (arguably) weakest opiod, hydrocodone, and places further stigma upon the legal, justified user of hydrocodone. What are dentists going to give you now when you get a root canal? Ibuprofen? Awesome.



It probably has something to do with the "heroin epidemic" and some kind of gateway theory. 

And can't dentists prescribe schedule II drugs? I'm quite sure I've heard people say they got prescribed codeine by a dentist. Of course they might not prescribe it because of the scheduling even if they can. For example I got prescribed diclofenac, I guess because I looked like a junkie or something. Didn't take any just smoked some weed, the pain was still there or maybe even worse but I didn't care about it anymore. And I would have done that anyway no matter what I was prescribed. So no biggie for me, but hey I could have traded the codeine/hydrocodone for some weed. :D


----------



## panic_the_digital

^Tylenol #3 is CIII, only codeine phosphate is CII. I suppose prescriptive authority may vary by state, but CII's can be prescribed if the malady warrants it.


----------



## szuko000

I received 15 7.5/500mg Percocet from my dentist for my wisdom teeth. Back then it was a fair trade indeed.


----------



## Burnt Offerings

Dentists do continue to prescribe schedule 2 drugs, like codeine or Demerol IIRC


----------



## ...

I can't believe you guys are comfortable linking to the DEA website.


----------



## szuko000

... said:


> I can't believe you guys are comfortable linking to the DEA website.



They should already know bluelight exists. Not just because it is the best harm reduction website and Everyone should know/use it, but also because its been in articles both supporting and condemning it.


----------



## S.J.B.

... said:


> I can't believe you guys are comfortable linking to the DEA website.



The DEA is supplied with signals intelligence from the NSA that it uses to illegally convict defendants using parallel construction.  I don't think that Bluelight linking to this website is giving or showing the DEA anything that it isn't already aware of.


----------



## S.J.B.

*Canada - The Protection Of Communities From The Evolving Dangerous Drug Trade Act*

Key Features Of The Protection Of Communities From The Evolving Dangerous Drug Trade Act
Government of Canada
June 11th, 2015



> As part of the Government of Canada's comprehensive approach to addressing illicit drug production, distribution and use, a series of amendments have been proposed to update the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), which originally came into force in 1997 as Canada?€™s federal drug control statute. Key features include:
> 
> New Temporary Scheduling Authority
> 
> The Minister of Health would be able to quickly address potentially dangerous new drugs, including new psychoactive substances that are increasingly being seen on the illicit market. Substances would be added to a new Schedule to the CDSA, which would prohibit their import, export, production and distribution for up to one year, with a possible extension for a second year. This process would be faster than the normal regulatory process and allow for a quick response to emerging drugs.
> 
> For example, new designer drugs such as synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones such as methylone and analogues of fentanyl are being found frequently on Canadian streets.
> 
> New Criminal Offences
> 
> The existing offence for the illegal possession, production or sale of anything (e.g. chemicals or equipment) intended to be used in the production of methamphetamine would be expanded to apply to things intended for use in the production of any controlled substance. The broader offence would provide law enforcement with a wider choice of charges to lay in situations when individuals are found with large volumes of drug production material and yet have no legitimate purpose for possessing those materials.
> 
> Streamlined Disposition Schemes
> 
> The current rules related to the handling and disposition of controlled substances, precursors and other property related to the commission of drug-related offences when they are seized by law enforcement officials are cumbersome and complex. Among other changes, the proposed amendments would introduce a new expedited process for the disposal of seized controlled substances, precursors and chemical offence-related property whose storage or handling pose a risk to health and safety. This new process would reduce the burden on courts, government agencies and law enforcement agencies.
> 
> For example, law enforcement could dispose of hazardous chemicals, contaminated lab equipment and drugs whose storage or handling poses a risk to health and safety without seeking a court order and would not be required to seek Health Canada authorization prior to disposal.
> 
> Improved Inspection Authorities
> 
> Currently, Health Canada inspectors are only able to inspect sites where authorized activities with controlled substances and precursors are taking place; they cannot inspect places that are not licensed such as ports of entry or where activities related to controlled substances or precursors are only suspected to be taking place. The proposed amendments would broaden the range of places Health Canada inspectors could go, thus ensuring that inspectors can more effectively carry out compliance promotion and verification.
> 
> For example, Health Canada would be able to inspect vehicles used to transport controlled substances and carry pre-license inspections.
> 
> New Administrative Monetary Penalties Scheme
> 
> The proposed amendments would provide the Minister with the authority to impose fines in instances of non-compliance without resorting to a criminal prosecution. This would improve Health Canada?€™s ability to encourage compliance and address non-compliance more quickly; since current measures such as warning letters are not always effective and harsher sanctions such as licence suspension are not always necessary. The maximum penalty for a violation would be $30,000 per day.
> 
> For example, regulated parties could be liable to pay fines in instances of non-compliance with security or record-keeping requirements.
> 
> Tamper Resistance
> 
> The authority to put in place a regulation that would require certain drugs at high risk of abuse to have tamper-resistant properties currently exists. However, the proposed amendments will provide broader authority to regulate in this area. As previously announced by the Minister of Health, Health Canada is also moving forward with regulations.



Read the press release here.

Let's hope they can't get this passed by October.


----------



## ro4eva

I shudder thinking what Rona Ambrose would do if she's still Health Minister after this year's October elections (and Steven Harper remains our Prime Minister).  This woman is hellbent on using her distorted, twisted moral compass to punish non-violent, otherwise law-abiding Canadians for being in possession of parts of a plant, powder, etc.

And if this Bill passes and is implemented... all I can say is fuck Harper, Ambrose, and their two-faced conservatard ideoloigy.


----------



## my3rdeye

I have been saying for the last five years they would go the health canada route rather than try and keep up with the criminal ban hammer. I knew they would do this. It takes like 3 plus years to get stuff banned, and that only happens when there is some media hysteria. Chinese labs have long since stopped making stuff before it even gets banned here.
It was funny to see the bath salts hysteria of to or three summers ago. America banned shit right away, Canada was like well our politicians are on va-cay so it's just going to have to wait 3 months.
Scary how our country is going.

"This process would be faster than the normal regulatory process and allow for a quick response to emerging drugs"

Doublespeak: Allowing debate amongst elected officials about your freedoms is taking too long so now an unelected body will just force laws on you as they see fit, isn't this better? 
The writing is on the wall for RC vendors in this country. All the etizolam addicted people are going to be fucked.


----------



## Jabberwocky

I still almost lived in Canada, well, in Vancouver I mean... Now, well, shit's starting to scare me away from wanting to live up there now. Seems like they've been moving in this more draconian direction in all aspects of Canadian law for a long time, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me, but still. It's just sickening.


----------



## [éS]Infinite

If the drug trade is "evolving", shouldn't we too "evolve" how we approach drugs and drug trade? Instead of using the same recycled plan of dissolving citizens' rights and freedoms, should we not develop a new approach, one that is actually effective, perhaps?


----------



## thujone

typical bureaucratic overreach, courts will dismiss it and cops will disgregard it and we'll just go back to being Canadian as always.


----------



## [éS]Infinite

thujone said:


> courts will dismiss it


I thought the same about Bill C-51.


----------



## S.J.B.

[éS]Infinite said:


> I thought the same about Bill C-51.



The Supreme Court can't strike down a bill before it's even been passed into law.


----------



## [éS]Infinite

S.J.P. said:


> The Supreme Court can't strike down a bill before it's even been passed into law.


Damned legal jargon, I just tried to read the differences between an act and a bill and I still don't get it. So can the bill be thrown out by the Supreme Court even if the Senate has passed it? Who needs to pass a proposed act before it becomes a law, and can the Supreme Court strike down an act once it is passed?


----------



## S.J.B.

[éS]Infinite said:


> Damned legal jargon, I just tried to read the differences between an act and a bill and I still don't get it. So can the bill be thrown out by the Supreme Court even if the Senate has passed it? Who needs to pass a proposed act before it becomes a law, and can the Supreme Court strike down an act once it is passed?



A bill and an act are interchangeable terms.  The Supreme Court can't throw out acts/bills per se, but it can strike down laws, and bills are made up of multiple laws.  The laws within a bill become Canadian law once they are passed by the House and the Senate (and technically, the Governor General, although this is simply a formality).  Once these laws are in place, the Supreme Court cannot immediately strike any of them down.  A challenge to the law must first make its way through a series of lower courts.  This generally takes a few years.


----------



## [éS]Infinite

Thanks for the info SJP! That's sort of what I thought was the case from what I've seen in the past, but then I tried to read the technicalities behind it all and got horribly lost. 
I'm also not quite understanding the "Improved Inspection Authorities" section. How would Health Canada determine that a vehicle has been used to transport controlled substances? HC would also be able to search any place determined to be "suspicious" but what are the criteria that deem an area/property suspicious? Seems pretty vague.


----------



## thujone

^ that would be the overreach part.  it's not clear why on earth Health Canada would need such authority and guaranteed that if it's granted they will overstep and be challenged in court.

this is just another example of the current gov't pushing vaguely-worded legislation that the courts will look at and go "how the fuck do you expect us to interpret this?" then they will naturally fall back on the charter of rights which doesn't have such idiotic ambiguities.


----------



## S.J.B.

*Canada - Order Amending Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act*

Order Amending Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Synthetic Cannabinoids)
Canada Gazette
Government of Canada
July 29th, 2015



> P.C. 2015-1082 July 16, 2015
> 
> His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, pursuant to section 60 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (see footnote a), deeming that it is necessary in the public interest, makes the annexed Order Amending Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Synthetic Cannabinoids).
> 
> ORDER AMENDING SCHEDULE II TO THE CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT (SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS)
> 
> AMENDMENTS
> 
> 1. (1) The portion of item 1 of Schedule II to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (see footnote 1) before subitem (1) is replaced by the following:
> 
> 1.	Cannabis, its preparations and derivatives, including
> 
> (2) Subitems 1(5), (6) and (7.1) of Schedule II to the Act are repealed.
> 
> 2. Schedule II to the Act is amended by adding the following after item 1:
> 
> 2.	Synthetic cannabinoid receptor type 1 agonists, their salts, derivatives, isomers, and salts of derivatives and isomers — with the exception of ((3S)-2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl)-1-naphthalenyl-methanone (WIN 55,212-3) and its salts — including those that fall within the following core chemical structure classes:
> 
> (1)	Any substance that has a 2-(cyclohexyl)phenol structure with substitution at the 1-position of the benzene ring by a hydroxy, ether or ester group and further substituted at the 5-position of the benzene ring, whether or not further substituted on the benzene ring to any extent, and substituted at the 3’-position of the cyclohexyl ring by an alkyl, carbonyl, hydroxyl, ether or ester, and whether or not further substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	Nabilone ((±)-trans-3-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-6,6a,7,8,10,10a-hexahydro-1-hydroxy-6,6-dimethyl-9H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-9-one)
> (ii)	Parahexyl (3-hexyl-6,6,9-trimethyl-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol)
> (iii)	3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)
> (iv)	5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-(5-hydroxy-2-(3-hydroxypropyl)cyclohexyl)phenol (CP 55,940)
> (v)	5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol (CP 47,497)
> 
> (2)	Any substance that has a 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 )
> (ii)	1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073)
> (iii)	1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122)
> (iv)	1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019)
> (v)	1-(4-pentenyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-022)
> (vi)	1-butyl-3-(4-methoxy-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-080)
> (vii)	1-pentyl-3-(4-methoxy-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-081)
> (viii)	1-(2-morpholin-4-ylethyl)-3-(1naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200)
> (ix)	1-pentyl-3-(4-ethyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-210)
> (x)	1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxy-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-267)
> (xi) 1-[(N-methylpiperidin-2-yl)methyl]-3(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM-1220)
> (xii)	1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM-2201)
> (xiii)	1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (MAM-2201)
> (xiv)	1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(4-ethyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (EAM-2201)
> (xv) ((3R)-2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl)-1-naphthalenyl-methanone (WIN 55,212-2)
> 
> (3)	Any substance that has a 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further substituted on the pyrrole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	1-pentyl-5-(2-fluorophenyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole (JWH-307)
> 
> (4)	Any substance that has a 3-phenylacetylindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250)
> (ii)	1-pentyl-3-(2-methylphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-251)
> (iii)	1-pentyl-3-(3-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-302)
> 
> (5)	Any substance that has a 3-benzoylindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	1-(1-methylpiperidin-2-ylmethyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM-2233)
> 
> (6)	Any substance that has a 3-methanone(cyclopropyl)indole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the cyclopropyl ring to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	(1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)-methanone (UR-144)
> (ii)	(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)-methanone (5F-UR-144)
> (iii)	(1-(2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)-methanone (A-796,260)
> 
> (7)	Any substance that has a quinolin-8-yl 1H-indole-3-carboxylate structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted on the quinolin-8-yl ring to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	1-pentyl-8-quinolinyl ester-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid (PB-22)
> (ii)	1-(5-fluoropentyl)-8-quinolinyl ester-1H-indole-3-carboxylic acid (5F-PB-22)
> 
> (8 )	Any substance that has a 3-carboxamideindazole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indazole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indazole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted at the carboxamide group to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AKB48 )
> (ii)	N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (5F-AKB48 )
> (iii)	N-(1-(aminocarbonyl)-2-methylpropyl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA)
> (iv)	N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-PINACA)
> 
> (9)	Any substance that has a 3-carboxamideindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted at the carboxamide group to any extent, including
> 
> (i)	N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-fluoropentylindole-3-carboxamide (STS-135)
> (ii) N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-pentylindole-3-carboxamide (APICA)
> 
> COMING INTO FORCE
> 
> 3. This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered.



Holy shit... it looks like they decided to go the U.K. route and attempt to ban an entire class of compounds.  This is unprecedented here.  And worrying.


----------



## paranoid android

WTF! Now they are adding whole classes of fucking drugs? I saw somewhere the other day that they are also apparently making Salvia a controlled substance in Canada now as well. Yes because those Salvia addicts really take up a burden on the health care system in this country compared to all the morbidly obese people we have currently clogging up the ER's. 

 This one i didn't see and again how can we call Canada anything resembling a Democracy when some goddamn stuck up bureaucrat in Ottawa who probably doesn't even know anyone personally who has actually taken one of the drugs they are trying to ban (then again they probably lack friends altogether) can decide what is good for a entire nation. Hopefully when the election comes up Canadian voters will remember just how badly things have sucked under our dickless führer Mr.Stevie. A NDP win federally would be the best outcome as i would not trust that slimy prick Trudeau as far as id throw him after he signed that bullshit anti-terrorist legislation.  

 How they are planning on going about enforcing any of this is another thing altogether. This may very well end up as just another law that has no teeth.


----------



## psyfiend

*Canada -  to add 2C-phenethylamines and their salts, derivatives, and isomers ....*

24 Jul 2015 Notice C. Gaz. 2015.I.2158: Proposed order amending Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act … to add 2C-phenethylamines and their salts, derivatives, and isomers and the salts of their derivatives and isomers.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
Notice to interested parties — Proposed order amending Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and regulations amending the schedule to Part J of the Food and Drug Regulations to add 2C-phenethylamines and their salts, derivatives, and isomers and the salts of their derivatives and isomers
In March 2015, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted in favour of scheduling three 2C-phenethylamine derivatives, 25B-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25I-NBOMe, under Schedule I to the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 (1971 Convention). As a signatory to the 1971 Convention, Canada has an obligation to impose controls on these substances and their salts.

Given that there are many substances related to these three that also have psychoactive effects, Health Canada is seeking input to determine whether scheduling the entire 2C-phenethylamines class is warranted. To this end, this notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on Health Canada’s proposal to add 2C-phenethylamines and their salts, derivatives, and isomers, and the salts of their derivatives and isomers to Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and to the Schedule to Part J of the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR).

As potent synthetic drugs, 2C-phenethylamines have both stimulant and hallucinogenic properties. Considered “designer drugs,” they are emerging in the market at a rapid pace. These designer drugs are readily available for sale on the Internet as “research chemicals” and at raves, nightclubs and head shops.

The majority of the risks to the health and safety of Canadians from 2C-phenethylamines are associated with recreational exposure causing unknown toxicological short-and long-term effects that may cause bodily harm, injury, illness or death. These designer drugs are available in tablet, powder, or liquid form. Their route of administration may be sublingual, buccal, nasal, oral, injection, or rectal and they may be consumed through smoking. Only a small amount of the substance is enough to cause hallucinogenic effects. As use of these substances may lead to paranoia, violent behaviour, intense hallucinations, and impairment of hand-eye coordination, they pose significant risks to the health and safety of not only the user but also the general public. Risks are further heightened by virtue of the fact that users are unlikely to be aware of the exact dose or substance being consumed.

Health Canada is not aware of any legitimate therapeutic or industrial uses and is aware of only limited scientific and research uses of 2C-phenethylamines. In North America and across Europe, their trafficking and recreational abuse have been on the rise over the past decade. Since 2008, Health Canada’s Drug Analysis Service (DAS) identified over a thousand exhibits of evidence containing 2C-phenethylamines. Moreover, there is a shifting market of a particular 2C-phenethylamine substance being abused. In 2012, the majority of the exhibits contained 2C-E, whereas since 2013, there has been a growing trend in the use of 25B-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and 25I-NBOMe. The number of 2C-phenethylamine exhibits in 2014 was 88, 70 of which contained 25B-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, or 25I-NBOMe.

Continued at http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2015/2015-08-01/html/notice-avis-eng.php#nb4


----------



## [éS]Infinite

Health Canada has been dropping the ban hammer quite a bit lately. First salvia, then cannabinoids, and now the 2C-phenethylamines. I'm a bit confused though; they've already scheduled the main NBOMe compounds, of which there were 70 exhibits in 2014, but there were only 18 exhibits of the other 2C-phenethylamine that year. Seems like a big waste of time and resources.


----------



## S.J.B.

This is very bad...     



[éS]Infinite said:


> I'm a bit confused though; they've already scheduled the main NBOMe compounds, of which there were 70 exhibits in 2014, but there were only 18 exhibits of the other 2C-phenethylamine that year. Seems like a big waste of time and resources.



Canada actually hasn't scheduled the NBOMe compounds yet.  They have been scheduled internationally, but that does not affect national laws.  As for all the other 2Cs, Health Canada banning them for the same reason they ban everything:  because they are drugs that people like to take to get high.  That is sufficient reason to ban a substance according to most of the world, unfortunately.


----------



## ro4eva

paranoid android said:


> WTF! Now they are adding whole classes of fucking drugs? I saw somewhere the other day that they are also apparently making Salvia a controlled substance in Canada now as well. Yes because those Salvia addicts really take up a burden on the health care system in this country compared to all the morbidly obese people we have currently clogging up the ER's.
> 
> This one i didn't see and again how can we call Canada anything resembling a Democracy when some goddamn stuck up bureaucrat in Ottawa who probably doesn't even know anyone personally who has actually taken one of the drugs they are trying to ban (then again they probably lack friends altogether) can decide what is good for a entire nation. Hopefully when the election comes up Canadian voters will remember just how badly things have sucked under our dickless führer Mr.Stevie. A NDP win federally would be the best outcome as i would not trust that slimy prick Trudeau as far as id throw him after he signed that bullshit anti-terrorist legislation.
> 
> How they are planning on going about enforcing any of this is another thing altogether. This may very well end up as just another law that has no teeth.



I completely share your concerns, frustration and anger regarding Mr. Harper and his fellow cons, and their scientifically contradicted views which are based on religious beliefs based on a flawed interpretation of a really, really old book (the Bible) which was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek by at least 40 different authors over the course of ~1,500 years from roughly 1,500 B.C. to 50 A.D.

As for Mr. Trudeau, by doing a 180 and choosing to vote yes for Bill C-51, he has lost a ton of support, and as a result, his stupidity will almost assuredly result in him and his party losing the election.

Regardless, I'll be extremely happy to see this fucking sociopath and goon of a Prime Minister kicked out of Ottawa for good.  And I will also be delighted to see our current Health Minister Rona Ambrose fade into obscurity, because together, she and our con PM Harper have not only cock-blocked progressive, scientifically backed policies with respect to controlled substances, but they have actually managed to run the clock backwards by way of counter-productive and frankly ridiculous amendments such as the one noted up above.

P.S. - With respect to the NDP, admittedly I'm not sure how they fare in terms  of their political compass.  Are they far-left, or, be they more so  center-left?  I honestly don't know (would you know?)


----------



## S.J.B.

ro4eva said:


> P.S. - With respect to the NDP, admittedly I'm not sure how they fare in terms  of their political compass.  Are they far-left, or, be they more so  center-left?  I honestly don't know (would you know?)



I would say centre-left.


----------



## hopps_a

Also working on AH-7921 & MT-45

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT

Notice to interested parties — Proposal regarding the scheduling of AH-7921 and MT-45 under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Narcotic Control Regulations

This notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to provide comments on Health Canada’s proposal to add AH-7921 (1-(3,4-dichlorobenzamidomethyl)cyclohexyldimethyamine), its salts, isomers and salts of isomers and MT-45 (1-cyclohexyl-4-(1,2-diphenylethyl)piperazine), its salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues to Schedule I to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and to the Schedule to the Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR).

AH-7921 is a synthetic opioid developed in 1974 as a potential analgesic by Allen & Hanburys, a pharmaceutical company based in the United Kingdom, but it was never marketed commercially. AH-7921 does not have any recorded therapeutic applications or industrial use. In 2012, AH-7921 began to be marketed by internet retailers as a “research chemical.” In March 2015, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs voted in favour of controlling AH-7921 under Schedule I of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (1961 Convention). As a signatory, Canada has an obligation to adopt the controls required by the 1961 Convention. The CDSA is the statutory instrument through which the Government of Canada fulfills its international obligations under the UN drug control conventions. As substances that are structurally related to AH-7921 are also known to have abuse potential and are included in the Convention, the salts, isomers and salts of isomers of AH-7921 will also be scheduled along with the parent substance.

MT-45 is a synthetic opioid with potential health risks similar to those of other controlled opioids. Although MT-45 is not currently controlled under the UN drug control conventions, the European Union (EU) Council adopted the decision to control MT-45 across the EU in December 2014, in part as a result of 28 deaths associated with MT-45 in Sweden. To date, there is no known evidence demonstrating that MT-45 has actual or potential uses apart from scientific research. In order to capture substances that are structurally related to MT-45 and have psychoactive effects, it is also proposed that the salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues of MT-45 and the salts of these substances be scheduled along with the parent substance.

These proposed amendments would prohibit, among other activities, the possession, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, importation, exportation, possession for the purpose of exportation, and production of the above substances, except as authorized under the NCR or via an exemption under section 56 of the CDSA.

SOURCE: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2015/2015-08-01/html/notice-avis-eng.php


----------



## thujone

looks like they've got all the common synthetics covered.

also, be wary of the Mulcair's centrist rhetoric.  Much of the NDP is extremely socialist and we'll end up with a serious case of voter's remorse if they're put in power.  Remember that you aren't voting for the figurehead, you're voting for your local candidate and by extension for the party's policies.  We know the Cons need to take a break, but Liberals are the best choice overall for not-crazy leadership even if they are twaddling around the bush like always.  This will be an important election so go and vote, but don't just throw your vote in for the dark horse just because you like their colour.


----------



## S.J.B.

The Liberals lost my vote when they voted for C-51.


----------



## Venrak

Fuck nuuuuu....!

Must secure funds for extreme price slash by domestic vendors asap...


----------



## jammin83

*Synthetic Drug Control Act 2015 (USA)*




> Last week, several congressional representatives announced the introduction ofH.R. 3537, the “Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2015.”  If enacted, the Synthetic Drug Control Act would strengthen existing federal law (specifically, the Controlled Substances Analogue Enforcement Act) (“Analogue Act”), which provides that any compound that is chemically or pharmacologically similar to a controlled substance in Schedule I or II under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) must be treated as if it is controlled in that same schedule.





> The significant limitation found in the Analogue Act, which the legislators hope to address with passage of the proposed legislation, is that the Analogue Act currently addresses substances that are substantially structurally and pharmacologically similar to a controlled substance as long as they are intended for human consumption.  (21 U.S.C. § 816 (a “controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in Schedule I.”))  Schedule I substances have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. and there is a lack of accepted safety for their use under medical supervision.  21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1).  The use of newly derived analogues, which crop up on a very regular basis and include “flakka” and “molly,” are often sold legally in colorful, readily identifiable, and branded packaging. These drugs are distributed by convenience stores, head shops, or online, and, importantly, they typically bear the legal fig leaf ‘not for human consumption’ to avoid regulation by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
> The legislation intends to facilitate the prosecution of synthetic drug manufacturers and distributors and make Analogue Act law a more useful tool for law enforcement.  It adds to the end of 21 U.S.C. § 813, which currently states “A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I” the following language: “for purposes of prohibitions, restrictions, and other requirements with respect to manufacture, importation, distribution, and sale.” The bill also removes all references of the term “substantially” from the definition of a controlled substance analogue (21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(A), so that substances may be more readily classified as an analogue without having to show that they have a substantial similarity to their alleged counterpart.  Finally, it adds a detailed and long list of known synthetic drugs identified by the DEA into schedule I, thus bypassing the need for DEA to temporarily place substances in Schedule I on an emergency basis and await scheduling by DEA.  Note that at least one court has noted that the Analogue Act as applied is unconstitutionally vague.  See United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232, 234 (D. Colo. 1992).
> To ensure that the legislation targets manufacturers and distributors rather than end users, the Synthetic Drug Control Act narrows the Analogue Act to provide that it should apply to the sale, manufacture, import, and distribution of drugs – not simple possession.  A concern likely remains here, however, because the legislation does not address another loophole in the Analogue Act – the fact that synthetic compounds often are not sold as drugs or “for human consumption,” but are instead sold as non-food products (i.e., bath salts) not intended for human consumption and thus elude a clear FDA regulatory status.  Whether the supplier of the product or substance is a manufacturer, distributor, or end user, the fact that the Analogue Act applies to products for human consumption (and the burden is on law enforcement to demonstrate that the suspect product is intended for human consumption) will likely still be an availing loophole throughout the distribution chain.  One other way to close this loophole is to remove the requirement “intended for human consumption” from Section 813.
> Congressman Jim Himes (CT) made the following statement concerning the importance of this legislation:
> Synthetic drugs are being marketed in convenience stores and other markets as a safe, legal alternative to controlled substances . . . . This is far from the truth. Without any serious regulation or enforcement, the manufacturers of these drugs are exploiting a legal loophole to put untested, potentially dangerous drugs on the street, where the people buying them have no idea what sort of effect they’re going to have. The side effects can include aggression, disorientation and hallucination, which can lead to harm for the user and others. We need them off the street.​




http://www.fdalawblog.net/fda_law_b...&utm_campaign=Feed:+FdaLawBlog+(FDA+Law+Blog)


----------



## Jabberwocky

As long as they don't touch Kratom and useful plants, well, I guess I don't so much care. Although I'm never happy to see another law more tightly controlling drug use with criminal sanctions...


----------



## Boognish

There's a staggering number of tryptamines that ain't ever hurt nobody mang! Seriously though, Im glad they've left some things alone.... For now I guess! 
Wtf, why would zopiclone be on there, and why would they move etizolam to sch 1 when benzos are sch 4? Stupid fucks! Weird things like that make me question if this'll pass.


----------



## Boognish

Here ya go... Copy & pasted (not my deciphering)
121 phenylalkylamines
α-PVT
α-PVP (?!)
α-PHP
PV-8
4-F-α-PVP
4-MeO-α-PBP
4-F-α-PBP
4-Ethyl-α-PBP
2-FA
2-FMA
3-FA
3-FMA
3C-E
4-FA
4-FMA
5-APB
5-APDB
5-IAI
5-MAPB
6-APB
6-APDB
Bromo-DragonFLY
Butylone
DOC
Ethylone
MDAI
MDDMA
NM-2-AI
Pentylone
Phenethylamine
β-Methylphenethylamine
PMA
PCA
Some NBxx
117 cannabimimetics
Sorry guys, I'm not that crazy. There's thousands of possible cannabinoids so it doesn't matter.
16 arylcyclohexamines
2-Chloro-2'-Oxo-PCE
2-MeO-2'-Oxo-PCM
3-HO-PCP
3-MeO-PCP
3-MeO-PCPr
4-Me-PCP
4-MeO-PCP
4-MeO-PCPr
MXE
PCPr
26 tryptamines
4-AcO-DET
4-AcO-DMiPT
4-AcO-DMT
4-AcO-DPT
4-AcO-EiPT
4-AcO-MET
4-AcO-MiPT
4-HO-DET
4-HO-DiPT
4-HO-DPT
4-HO-MET
4-HO-MiPT
4-MeO-DMT
5-AcO-DMT
5-HO-DMT
5-MeO-DET
5-MeO-DMT
5-MeO-DPT
5-MeO-MET
5-MeO-MPT
5-MeO-αMT
DPT
MET
MiPT
8 benzylpiperidines
3,4-Dichloromethylphenidate
3-Chloromethylphenidate
4-Fluoromethylphenidate
4-Methylmethylphenidate
D2PM
Desoxy-D2PM
Desoxypipradrol
Ethylphenidate
5 benzodiazepines
Etizolam
Zopiclone
3 benzos that have never appeared on the RC market or anywhere else.
13 opioids and opioid-like substances
AH-7921
Butyrfentanyl
Salvinorin A (this would likely ban Salvia Divinorum)
O-Desmethyltramadol
Acetylfentanyl
8 piperazines
2-Methoxyphenylpiperazine
2C-B-BZP
3-Methylphenylpiperazine
4-Chlorophenylpiperazine
4-Fluorophenylpiperazine
4-Methoxyphenylpiperazine
Dibenzylpiperazine
Methylbenzylpiperazine
2 tropane alkaloids
3-(p-Fluorobenzoyloxy)tropane
WIN 35428


----------



## Jabberwocky

Okay now I'm angery... Thanks for posting that excerpt. Leave it to the DEA


----------



## Felonious Monk

This is like the Fugitive Slave Act of drug prohibition.  The last disgusting creation of a dying beast.


----------



## JackARoe

^ LOL, so true.

Yeah, good luck law makers with expanding prohibition .  That is a dying beast.  Also some of those like DPT are exempt for the church in NY (Temple Of The True Inner Light).  Some others are valid medications that are used and all the others may get some interest from science.

Also there was some concern of a massive law last Spring in England that was getting some feedback because it was so expansive.  I haven't heard anything with that in a while so I have to check that out.  These huge bills have so many problems I am not seeing it. (too vague, too many lawyers ready to pounce for people's rights, etc...) What I can see is prevention from publicly selling them in stores and making them over 18.  I can agree with that though.  Laws can be smart and fair to everyone with a little intelligence.


----------



## juno nightmare

well this ruined my day


----------



## Burnt Offerings

Oh boy, more laws! 8)


----------



## neversickanymore

^ yep.. ban them.. that will do the trick


----------



## oreocub

US is slowly pushing , and trying somewhat covertly from my opinion, to tighten the war on drugs.

one concern
"13 opioids and opioid-like substances"
i'm near certain lettuce opium is included.
ah the land of the free.

DEA is increasing operations against synthetic drugs and opiates. (sort of a good and bad thing i guess)
I know they're working on trying to infiltrate heroin/prescription opiate trafficking from the midwest region
and they recently seized a huge synthetic cache in D.C


----------



## Burnt Offerings

Tightening prescription opiate trafficking is within the realm of the plausible, and really they've already accomplished that. It's plausible because the fact that those substances are legal gives some level of state control over their distribution. Heroin, however, is completely illegal in the United States and that's more plentiful/cheap than ever, with a boom of poppy production in Mexico, so I don't know how they're going to tighten up that trade.

I don't think that this new synthetic RC boogeyman is really any more popular than the traditional illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine, and when they're made illegal the market for them dries up while those other aforementioned drugs have had staying power that's lasted decades (well, with perhaps a couple exceptions like mephedrone, which has stuck around in the UK even after it was made illegal)


----------



## cj

Etizolam and MXE hurts. The designer Triptamines and phenthylmaines will survive on the black market as will the RC cannabinoids that are worth a shit


----------



## S.J.B.

From the new bill:



> (a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION.—
> (1) IN GENERAL.—Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 102(32)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(32)(A)) are amended by striking ‘‘substantially’’ each place it appears.
> (2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Section 102(32)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 82(32)(A)) shall not be construed to require that a substance satisfy more than one of the clauses listed in such section 102(32)(A) to meet the definition of a controlled substance analogue.



This is 102(32)(A) as it currently stands:



> (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 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.



Huh... depending on the interpretation of "similar," that could cover literally every psychoactive substance in existence.


----------



## JessFR

Isn't that what the UK did? Make it so all drugs not otherwise made legal in law automatically illegal


----------



## ro4eva

JessFR said:


> Isn't that what the UK did? Make it so all drugs not otherwise made legal in law automatically illegal



It's as if drug czars from both met and hatched a plan to essentially do the same thing (but spread apart and written differently so as to not make it obvious).  I'm no conspiracy theorist nut, but it honestly seems like a 'made in USA' plan - "You go first, I'll follow!"

Edit - There may be no such thing as a UK or British drug czar (to whom it may concern if not), but I digress.


----------



## Dresden

Notice it says "importing" these research chemicals is punishable.  That contradicts another statement saying they aren't going after the end users.  Anytime we order a RC from overseas (and almost all the vendors are not domestic), then that makes us "importers" even if we only get 1 gram amounts!


----------



## cj

ro4eva said:


> It's as if drug czars from both met and hatched a plan to essentially do the same thing (but spread apart and written differently so as to not make it obvious).  I'm no conspiracy theorist nut, but it honestly seems like a 'made in USA' plan - "You go first, I'll follow!"
> 
> Edit - There may be no such thing as a UK or British drug czar (to whom it may concern if not), but I digress.


It wouldn't surprise me at all. Even if there was no agreement it seems obvious this law was inspired by the British.


----------



## manboychef

there goes quite a bit more of my tax dollars. Honestly I would rather see that money burned, because at least someone that is cold could get a little warmth from it.

The only thing that prohibition has solved is the wide unavailability of intoxicating chemicals. Now they are more prevalent and way more potent. It has also solved the problem of cartels having too little money and influence.


----------



## Hiltoniano

I hope this is one of those " stupidly broad" bills which is not going to pass due to the nature of the wording and the ridiculous amount of ambiguity left so they can straight up fuck anyone who wants to order designer/research Chems. It better not pass or I may have to pass myself to another country and say FUCK the USA.


----------



## Lady Codone

This is so fucked!  If it passes, I'm effectively tapping out of the RC scene.  Things only get more bleak from here.  People are all "But think of the new chems that will hit the market!" and I'm like "I ain't Shulgin, bitch."  My health and sanity are too important to be testing new chems on myself like a lab rat.  The current batch of RC's is risky enough, but at least there's _some _human data even if it's just subjective trip reports.  

Here's hoping/praying/pleading it doesn't pass.


----------



## Hiltoniano

Anyone know how close this bullshit bill is to actually becoming a new law?


----------



## my3rdeye

DPT has been legal forever that's sad. Etizolam being banned would fuck up a lot of people's lives. Lucky my favorite legal drug isn't on there, I am not even naming it. Hopefully stays under radar until I can buy a sheet. 
Some of those drugs are sketchy like bromo dragonfly or PMA but some seem pretty safe like 4-AcO-DMT. 26 tryptamines being banned though, that's terrible. It's not based on anything either, not harm that's for sure. Not popularity either, some of those are pretty obscure. Reminds me to stock up on anything legal.


----------



## manboychef

I would love to see a comeback of the classics....like high quality quaaludes and whatnot. Heroin that isn't cut with fentanyl, and maybe some decent coke.

I am a reformed addict, but I feel those drugs are much safer than what we have going around markets these days. The first batch of research chems were decent. I tried quite a few and found the tryptamines to be amazing. However the further we reach the less is known....I would feel safer if addicts and users had access to classic plant based chemicals, and DMT and its derivatives.


----------



## Burnt Offerings

I don't think that cocaine is ever really going to make a comeback. It just can't compete with synthetic stimulants, which can be made basically anywhere, not just one relatively small area of the globe, & last a hell of a lot longer than cocaine does. It's a shame because cocaine is a good drug that's relatively safe if used sparingly by a someone of sound mind & body. William Burroughs cited cocaine as one of the more enjoyable/useful drug experiences he ever had, and that guy did lots of drugs apparently.

I think that this is a pretty good era to be a heroin user, actually. It seems to be EVERYWHERE and the level of quality seems pretty good overall.


----------



## studiouspadawan

Burnt Offerings said:


> I don't think that cocaine is ever really going to make a comeback. It just can't compete with synthetic stimulants, which can be made basically anywhere, not just one relatively small area of the globe, & last a hell of a lot longer than cocaine does. It's a shame because cocaine is a good drug that's relatively safe if used sparingly by a someone of sound mind & body. William Burroughs cited cocaine as one of the more enjoyable/useful drug experiences he ever had, and that guy did lots of drugs apparently.
> 
> I think that this is a pretty good era to be a heroin user, actually. It seems to be EVERYWHERE and the level of quality seems pretty good overall.



Cocaine isn't going to make a comeback? Maybe if this doesn't pass if you mean only amongst the RC user community, but at large people using synthetic stimulants is maybe a percent of the people using Cocaine. Sure this isn't the 80s anymore, but Cocaine is still way more common.

If this passes all this does is support the cartels and other organized crime. At least currently some people are able to get their drugs via independent sourcing, now everyone is forced to go through the cartels for everything they could ever want. 

"Substantially Similar" was the wording of the previous analog act, and that was what was unconstitutionally vague, because both 'substantially' and 'similar' are subjective terms, so with a little bit of creativity you could argue that Apple Juice is substantially similar to Heroin. Hope you're not selling Apple Juice.

So if this passes, does this mean everything that they feel like calling an analog will be illegal? Or does it mean just the chemicals on that list? If not, what the hell is the point of the list? If it's basically just to change it from the "substantially similar" wording to a list of defined chemicals then this is nothing new, but it seems like it aims to basically prevent anything that could be argued as an analog. How many additions/substitutions do you have to do before it's not an analog? Technically with enough substitutions/additions couldn't you turn any chemical A into chemical B? Making every chemical an analog of every other chemical? Just seems like the people introducing this bill have no idea of what chemistry is at all. And unfortunately that doesn't matter, Congress doesn't even have regular consultations from scientific experts anymore, so they just go off what sounds right to them. Constitutionally this bill shouldn't stand a chance, but I don't think a bill being constitutional really matters anymore as long as it puts more drug users in jail.


----------



## LifeIsStrange

Check out how many substances they banned in October in China.
Think it was over 120 RC substances.


----------



## studiouspadawan

I think it was 116 in China, this is about 300.

I have some good news at least:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3537

According to their algorithm, which is pretty reliable in general, originally it had a 4% chance to get past committee and a 1% chance of being enacted. Now it has a 18% chance of getting past committee and a 4% chance of being enacted. 

It is increasing, but at least it's still low. With only 4% chance I don't think this is cause for alarm... Yet...


----------



## Burnt Offerings

studiouspadawan said:


> Cocaine isn't going to make a comeback? Maybe if this doesn't pass if you mean only amongst the RC user community, but at large people using synthetic stimulants is maybe a percent of the people using Cocaine. Sure this isn't the 80s anymore, but Cocaine is still way more common.
> 
> If this passes all this does is support the cartels and other organized crime. At least currently some people are able to get their drugs via independent sourcing, now everyone is forced to go through the cartels for everything they could ever want.
> 
> "Substantially Similar" was the wording of the previous analog act, and that was what was unconstitutionally vague, because both 'substantially' and 'similar' are subjective terms, so with a little bit of creativity you could argue that Apple Juice is substantially similar to Heroin. Hope you're not selling Apple Juice.
> 
> So if this passes, does this mean everything that they feel like calling an analog will be illegal? Or does it mean just the chemicals on that list? If not, what the hell is the point of the list? If it's basically just to change it from the "substantially similar" wording to a list of defined chemicals then this is nothing new, but it seems like it aims to basically prevent anything that could be argued as an analog. How many additions/substitutions do you have to do before it's not an analog? Technically with enough substitutions/additions couldn't you turn any chemical A into chemical B? Making every chemical an analog of every other chemical? Just seems like the people introducing this bill have no idea of what chemistry is at all. And unfortunately that doesn't matter, Congress doesn't even have regular consultations from scientific experts anymore, so they just go off what sounds right to them. Constitutionally this bill shouldn't stand a chance, but I don't think a bill being constitutional really matters anymore as long as it puts more drug users in jail.



The number of people who use MDMA a year is very comparable to the number of people who use cocaine a year.


----------



## studiouspadawan

Yeah I definitely agree, but I don't think I quite get what you're trying to say. Mdma isn't a replacement for cocaine, other than just being a party drug, and it's also not an RC. And they're both already schedule I

Cocaine use is definitely not as common as it used to be, like I said, it's not the 80s anymore, but my point was that RCs (which is what I thought you meant by synthetic stimulants such as 4-fa) still aren't more popular than cocaine.


----------



## sekio

*AH-7921 placed in DEA Schedule I*

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22023-22025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08566]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Part 1308
[Docket No. DEA-432]
Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of AH-7921 Into Schedule I
AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final order.

SUMMARY: With the issuance of this final order, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration places the substance AH-7921 (Systematic IUPAC Name: *3,4-dichloro-N-[(1dimethylamino)cyclohexylmethyl]benzamide), including its isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers*, into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This scheduling action is pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act and is required in order for the United States to discharge its obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. This action imposes the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, import, export, engage in research or conduct instructional activities with, or possess), or propose to handle, AH-7921.

DATES: Effective May 16, 2016.

http://deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2016/fr0414_4.htm


This means that U-47700 is also likely to be controlled, as it's a simple isomer of AH7921 - which is now schedule I.





DEA come to ruin everyone's fun again.


----------



## 'medicine cabinet'

U47700 is pretty strong right? Are doses like single digit mgs like fent? I saw on edata a few submissions one was purported oxy but was u47700. Plus since a few ppl od'd off these rcs its no wonder they are CI now....I've heard IV u47700 is pretty good, very heroin like. But as we all know it's subjective to the user.


----------



## jammin83

'medicine cabinet' said:


> U47700 is pretty strong right? Are doses like single digit mgs like fent? I saw on edata a few submissions one was purported oxy but was u47700. Plus since a few ppl od'd off these rcs its no wonder they are CI now....I've heard IV u47700 is pretty good, very heroin like. But as we all know it's subjective to the user.



yeah i think it was higher than fent but maybe single digits, it wasn't totally unreasonable though. i think it was one of the better legal opis prob but never tried it. def better than fent and mt 45 and stuff like that.


----------



## THE_REAL_OBLIVION

*Banning of all nbomes and 2c-X in Canada on October 13th 2016*

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-05-04/html/sor-dors73-eng.php

That's a downer. Canadian vendors have sold 2c-x materials since there was Canadian RC vendors. 2c-B was banned in 1994 and it never left the streets, got a bit more rare than in the late 90's early '00s where every weed dealer had "Nexus" also to sell.

No vendor has made any communiqué about this. Anybody good enough can figure out if this includes mescaline analogues (proscaline, escaline, allylescaline, methallylescaline) ?

I am sad face upon learning about this, this rainy sunday morning. I wonder why now. Harper didn't give a shit about RC's, he was focused on already illegal drugs (kinda, you know they don't care really). Fucking Trudeau, the NDP as opposition and Layton heir Mulcair made one one hell of a job making Harper look like a dipshit in parliament (hence why he would prorogue it as often as possible). NDP and Libs often work with each other, like when an NDP MP lays down a bill, Libs will go with it most of the time, as they consider the fact they were illegally prevented from making a coaliation government in a previous election where Harper was going insane and doing a bunch of unconstitutional manoeuvres to prevent it from happening. We never had a Coalition government, unlike pretty much all other Commonwealth country, but we can, it's in the Constitution/Law. I can't believe they bother with banning 2c-x. Maybe they were targetting nbomes most of all, and I think that's kind of fair game since that series was misrepresented as LSD all the time and people who would take multiple hits of L and who got a linear reaction to it, did not with nbome, those things are exponential when dosed heavily. But 2c?s most people never heard of em. This is bullshit. I bet if somebody wants some from another country they will be able to, easily. But for Canadian vendors, 2cs are some of their largest sellers, classics like 2c-E, 2c-c, 2c-I have all proven to be pretty much harmless, people don't go on toxic psychosis on these unless they take ridiculous amounts.

They say the ban is after 180 days starting the day after this was published. So april 16 + 180 days = 13 october 2016.

edit: I was thinking that maybe this would be more appropriate for another forum, if so, other mods, move it. To me it would be a front page worthy even. But I don't make those decisions.

I'll be stocking as much 2c-E as I can for sure. Maybe 2c-t-7 if I can even find it, I know nobody up here sells it, well I know, more like afaik. It's a shame 2c-x are blanketed by this attack that's mostly on nbomes. I wonder if this affect bk-2c-b, 2c-B-FLY and bromodragonfly (if that's something different from 2C-B-FLY, I'm not sure, I was in a no more psychedelics mindset when those showed up, I had enough LSD that it wasn't showing me anything anymore. It was pretty much like : You were shown the path to get out of your negative patterns in life and was filled with joy for life...you guys know how psychedelics often give you hindsights that are so seemingly obvious and that the change you looked for was possible...until you forgot about it/got lazy again and going back into negative patterns and constant anger and anxiety,that I was only expressing through anger for most of my life, not always, but I guess it was a defense mechanism). Benzo therapy (Bipolar I here, can't take SSRI's/SNRI's, the only antidepressant I can take is Manerix (moclobemide), it's only in Canada, UK and Australia, it's a reversible MAOI so you do not need any diet where eating cheese and eating a bowl of cereal could kill you like the first synthetic antidepressant MAOI's). But the happiness it makes you feel, feels so fake, I mean, I was like a pure child, walking in the sunset was a wonderful experience, I would think about my problems and it would not start to give me anxiety (moclobemide makes benzos stronger for sure). But this isn't about me, so in small character this goes.


----------



## S.J.B.

This is very unfortunate, but not surprising - these drugs were recently scheduled by the UNODC, so all member states are required to schedule them as well.  On the bright side, all of the mescaline analogues you mentioned are not affected, as they are not substituted at the 2' position.


----------



## What 23

25D-NBOMe was the first drug that I was _for_ banning. 

But perhaps the way to do it is to not ban the ones that don't hurt us in the first place.


----------



## alexvolume2

This just passed the House of Representatives and has yet to go through the Senate.  Bye bye 4 sub tryptamines.  I think a lot of people forgot about this bill or weren't even aware of it.  It sure has been a hard month for cognitive liberty and self determination in the U.S.!  Just wanted to make you guys aware.


----------



## consumer

I noticed none of the new lysergimides are listed.


----------



## Hiltoniano

So are we fuckdd or what


----------



## iamthesuck

The "awesome" (not awesome) part is this will be one of the few bills that actually gets passed with bipartisan support. And it only furthers a failed drug war and will force users (because they surely won't stop using) to go for illegal drugs or for newer, more dangerous substance that replace them.


----------



## Satrallite

Did anybody notice that the bill that just passed the House is MUCH different than the original bill that was proposed last year? The bill that just passed only adds a few synthetic cannabinoids, three fentanyl analogs, and 7 psychedelic RCs that are pretty well-known in the RC world (bromo-dragonfly, DOC, MDAI, etc) to Schedule 1. It's much different from the original bill that would have added dozens and dozens of substances to Schedule 1.  So it's still bad, but not quite as bad as the original proposal.


----------



## speedballs_over

Yes, I noticed thanks to a different forum.

This is the bill as it was passed _into_ NOT BY the senate: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3537/text . It is in a senate committee at the moment. But it's in a high level committee (Justice) one not known as a bill killer.

I do not know law that well, but I believe lobbyists and others will try to change some of the text and pass a "senate" version, if it gets out of the committees (by vote - or no vote, etc...). Then a reckoning of the two passed bills will be needed, then another round of passage by both chambers of the rectified bill will be needed to get the exact same language onto the president's desk. Could be Obama's last veto, but I feel this is not likely to get passed until early next year. IF AT ALL.

A lot depends on continued media attention to opioid ODs and the Bedford-Stuyvesant / Bushwickorder area in Brooklyn (synth cannabinoid OD alley). Plus social media accounts of kids getting harmed or dying from bad mixtures, misinformation, mislabeled substances, cuts, etc... you all know what I mean here. All those types of coverage help drive these bills past lobbyists best attempts to kill them.

The media attention, as usual, I think is unbalanced and unfair to users, but in general is warranted. With the epidemics in progress to not cover it in the news would be simply wrong. That stated, the coverage could be more balanced, truthful and suggest better treatment and demand reduction techniques. MAT/ORT and other medical interventions get shorted by the AA / 12-step recovery mega industrial complex. Methadone doesn't have nearly the allies on K street like those in the abstinent treatment industry, bupe more so. I feel both modalities should be equally available, abusers wanting help need better info on the options w/o local and national health personnel continuing to push one over the other.

I do not believe that the pill mills and Purdue Pharma are as responsible for the opioid epidemic as the press makes it out to have been, but I became a IV coke user first, then started with IV heroin for "comedowns", then speedballs and when my veins got shot to hell I went straight dope. So I never was big on pharma opioids. I'm not alone, but probably more in the minority than I believe myself to be.

There appears to be no threat to RC benzos (or any CV - CIII analogs) in the house bill, those were stripped out b/f House passage, in my understanding and others analyses. 

My asshole puckered up so loud my cat jumped out the window when I first read someone's misinterpretation - "No more RC Benzos!" - it was in an initial draft. My guess - big pharma fought to keep this law focused on substances that they likely will not try to further develop. Things like ambien and lunesta could maybe have been affected by the benzo prohibition proposed initially and so it got struck. Just my conjecture. Or maybe benzos are believed to be benign enough on the "hill" to not warrant inclusion, but the treatment industry knows otherwise and cynically is trying to ensure a new stream of people needing serious treatment.

All conjecture / my interpretations except the link I provided.


EDIT: FWIW, I strongly believe and have since I was underage that all drugs should be legal. Then we'd have a lot of Shulgin's (sp?) stuff and the traditional drugs that we had in 1900. Those were safer, more tested and better candidates for those who wish to partake. Look at the shit we have now... When for many it is easier to get fent analogs than real dope we have a problem. This does nothing to help! Cat's out of the bag. Fent analogs are not going to go away any more than heroin. It does bother me that kids can get this stuff easily on the 'Net, another reason to legalize. Cannabis legal states have seen a drop in teenage usage of marijuana (at least CO has...)


----------



## psyfiend

So this^ just happened...


----------



## THE_REAL_OBLIVION

It's actually on Halloween, October 31st.

I'm getting the 2c-E and 2c-b-fly I can right now. I don't know about 2c-c or 2c-D, people never really raved about them, but I'm sad I can't find 2c-t-2 anywhere. But yeah, fucking nbomes caused this, or rather, people selling nbomes as LSD. I don't know if the law touches bk-2cb, but I can't source this one at all when I used to see it everywhere. I took for granted that 2c-x's would be available forever, they've been there since the very beginning and unlike nbomes, barely ever directly killed some, 2c-t-7 did, because its a VERY strong psychedelic and also a MAOI...and snorting it quadruples its potency. And then there is DOx...DOM and DOB already being banned, again, I don't care for DOB, which is the most common "fake acid" or "bad acid", or at least was for a long time in the 90's and up to the mid 00's up here, cops were warning about this fake acid causing 30 hour trips that were not very pleasant at all, they turned out to be right when sold one hit of what I expected to be LSD, but was definitely DOB, 27 hours of hell. But I'm against the banning of the others, DOC and DOI, just on principle, criminal organizations do not peddle them. They do peddle 2c-B though, which was banned in 1994 and is still readily available in most of Canada.


----------



## LucidSDreamr

What 23 said:


> 25D-NBOMe was the first drug that I was _for_ banning.
> 
> But perhaps the way to do it is to not ban the ones that don't hurt us in the first place.



i find it to be the cleanest feeling nbome


----------



## S.J.B.

*Canada - New fentanyl precursor regulations*



> Regulations Amending the Precursor Control Regulations (Fentanyl Precursors)
> 
> P.C. 2016-982 November 18, 2016
> 
> His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, pursuant to subsection 55(1) (see footnote a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (see footnote b), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Precursor Control Regulations (Fentanyl Precursors).
> 
> Regulations Amending the Precursor Control Regulations (Fentanyl Precursors)
> 
> Amendment
> 
> 1 The schedule to the Precursor Control Regulations (see footnote 1) is amended by adding the following after item 25:
> 
> Item / Precursor set out in Part 1 of Schedule VI to the Act / Maximum Quantity (expressed as an absolute amount or per package)
> 
> 26 / Propionyl chloride / 0
> 
> 27 / 1-Phenethyl-4-piperidone and its salts / 0
> 
> 28 / 4-Piperidone and its salts / 0
> 
> 29 / Norfentanyl (N-phenyl-N-piperidin-4-ylpropanamide) and its salts / 0
> 
> 30 / 1-Phenethylpiperidin-4-ylidenephenylamine and its salts / 0
> 
> 31 / N-Phenyl-4-piperidinamine and its salts / 0
> 
> Coming into Force
> 
> 2 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
> 
> REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
> (This statement is not part of the Regulations or the Order.)
> 
> Issues
> 
> Canada is experiencing an increasing number of opioid overdoses and deaths across the country. Fentanyl is being implicated in a growing number of these deaths. According to the Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use, between 2009 and 2014 there were at least 655 deaths in Canada where the opioid fentanyl was determined to be the cause or a contributing cause. (see footnote 2) In April 2016, British Columbia declared a public health emergency because of over 200 overdose deaths in the first three months of the year, one third of which were associated with fentanyl. Furthermore, for the period from January through July 2016, there were 264 illicit drug overdose deaths with fentanyl detected in British Columbia. (see footnote 3) In addition, deaths involving fentanyl in a number of other provinces have also increased markedly. For example, in Alberta there were 274 fentanyl-related overdose deaths in 2015 compared to 120 in 2014, (see footnote 4) and in Ontario, there were 154 fentanyl-implicated deaths in 2014 and 120 in 2013. (see footnote 5)
> 
> Law enforcement agencies have noted the presence of illicit fentanyl production in Canada. Yet, many of the chemicals required to produce fentanyl are not controlled in Canada. This means that the ingredients used to make fentanyl can be legally imported into Canada in any amount. This results in Canadian border services officers and law enforcement officials not being able to stop these shipments; they can only take action after the illicit fentanyl is produced.
> 
> Background
> 
> Fentanyl and its misuse in Canada
> 
> Fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid analgesic, is a controlled substance listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and regulated under the Narcotic Control Regulations. Therapeutic products containing fentanyl are approved in Canada as analgesics for the treatment of severe pain. As an opioid, fentanyl’s euphoric effects and addictive properties make it prone to misuse. Licit fentanyl for pharmaceuticals is produced in other countries and imported into Canada in its finished form.
> 
> Due to fentanyl’s potency, it is very toxic and dangerous when misused. Use of fentanyl in the illicit drug market poses significant risks to public health as it is often mixed in an unknown quantity with other drugs, such as oxycodone and heroin, and users are not always aware that they are taking fentanyl. As a result, drug overdoses and deaths in Canada involving fentanyl have increased markedly.
> 
> According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), fentanyl is finding its way to Canada’s illicit drug market in three ways: diversion of pharmaceutical fentanyl products, mainly skin patches; smuggling from abroad; and, more recently, from production in clandestine laboratories in Canada using precursor chemicals. For example, between 2011 and 2015, six clandestine labs were identified in Canada where illicit fentanyl production occurred or was intended to occur. The illicit fentanyl is used to prepare products for distribution and sale by being pressed into pills and marketed as fentanyl or another substance (e.g. oxycodone), or mixed into other illicit drugs such as heroin.
> 
> Senate public bill S-225
> 
> In June 2016, a Senate public bill, S-225, An Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (substances used in the production of fentanyl), was passed by the Senate with amendments. The bill proposes to address the growing fentanyl crisis by adding the following six precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl to Schedule VI to the CDSA:
> 
> Propionyl chloride;
> 1-Phenethyl-4-piperidone and its salts;
> 4-Piperidone and its salts;
> Norfentanyl (N-phenyl-N-piperidin-4-ylpropanamide) and its salts;
> 1-Phenethylpiperidin-4-ylidenephenylamine and its salts; and
> N-Phenyl-4-piperidinamine and its salts.
> 
> Bill S-225 is currently awaiting introduction in the House of Commons.
> 
> Legitimate use and international controls
> 
> Of the six chemicals proposed in Bill S-225, four have no known legitimate industrial or commercial uses in Canada. Propionyl chloride is used by pharmaceutical companies and the research community as a solvent in the synthesis of chemicals and 4-piperidone is used for research and development purposes.
> 
> Of the six chemicals proposed, only one (1-phenethyl-4-piperidone) is controlled in other countries, specifically the United States and Australia.
> 
> Legislative framework for controlled substances and precursors
> 
> The CDSA provides for the control of substances that can alter mental processes and that may produce harm to health and the society when diverted or misused, as well as precursors that can be used in the production of controlled substances. Except as authorized by regulations or exempted in accordance with the CDSA, activities (i.e. possession, production, trafficking, importation and exportation) with controlled substances and precursors are prohibited. The CDSA also specifies the offences and penalties associated with the conduct of illegal activities with controlled substances and precursors. Furthermore, the Act authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations and to amend the schedules to the CDSA by order. Substances listed in Schedules I to V to the CDSA are defined as controlled substances, while substances listed in Schedule VI to the CDSA are defined as precursors.
> 
> Developed under the CDSA in 2002, the Precursor Control Regulations (PCR) set out a framework within which activities with precursors are regulated. Under the PCR, a licence is required for any person to produce, package, sell, provide, import, export, and possess for the purpose of exporting Class A precursors, and a registration is required for any person to produce for the purpose of sale, import and export Class B precursors. The PCR also specify requirements for record-keeping, security and reporting that licensed or registered dealers must comply with.
> 
> The schedule to the PCR includes specified thresholds in absolute quantities or package size for each Class A precursor. More specifically, the PCR allow retailers who meet the criteria specified in section 5 to sell or provide Class A precursors without a licence. For example, retailers must sell more than just chemicals or chemicals and equipment used in the chemical industry. In addition, they can only sell Class A precursors in amounts not exceeding those set out in the schedule. In addition, particular record-keeping requirements must be met if a licensed dealer, a pharmacist, a practitioner or a person in charge of a hospital sells or provides a Class A precursor above the maximum quantity set out in the schedule. Furthermore, additional documentation must be attached to any shipment of Class A precursors that exceeds the maximum quantity set out in the schedule.
> 
> Objective
> 
> The objective of this scheduling amendment is to help protect the health and safety of Canadians and to address the growing opioid crisis by adding regulatory controls on six chemicals used in the illicit production of fentanyl while still permitting access to the chemicals for legitimate purposes.
> 
> Description
> 
> The Order amends Schedule VI to the CDSA by adding the following six chemicals that can be used in the production of fentanyl to the list of Class A precursors:
> 
> Propionyl chloride;
> 1-Phenethyl-4-piperidone and its salts;
> 4-Piperidone and its salts;
> Norfentanyl (N-phenyl-N-piperidin-4-ylpropanamide) and its salts;
> 1-Phenethylpiperidin-4-ylidenephenylamine and its salts; and
> N-Phenyl-4-piperidinamine and its salts.
> 
> The regulatory amendment adds these chemicals to Column 1 of the schedule to the PCR and sets out in column 2 a maximum quantity of “0” for these chemicals. This means that an end-use declaration must be obtained by the licensed dealer for all transactions of any of these precursor chemicals to a person who is not a licensed dealer and that shipments of any of these precursor chemicals must be accompanied by additional documentation as required by the PCR.
> 
> With these amendments, any person who is not authorized to import, export or possess for the purpose of exporting these precursor chemicals will be subject to the offences and penalties set out in section 6 of the CDSA. Any person who produces, sells, provides, imports, exports, and possesses for the purpose of export these precursor chemicals will have to be in compliance with the PCR.
> 
> “One-for-One” Rule
> 
> These amendments will result in administrative burden costs to eight Canadian businesses should they wish to continue selling, importing and/or exporting any of these precursor chemicals. Six of these companies are already licensed under the PCR and would need to apply for an amendment to their existing licence (one hour to complete); two of these companies are unlicensed and would need to apply for a licence (approximately three hours to complete). All eight businesses may also incur additional administrative costs associated with submitting permit applications (30 minutes per application) if they decide to import or export these chemicals. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that businesses may require up to as many as 10 permits per year. The administrative costs for all of these activities are calculated using an average cost of $41.60 per hour, based on the assumption that an employee in the natural and applied sciences field would be completing these forms.
> 
> In accordance with the Red Tape Reduction Regulations, the administrative burden to businesses, assuming they will have activities with these chemicals, was calculated over 10 years and discounted using a rate of 7%. The present value (2012) of the total annualized incremental administrative costs to these businesses is estimated to be $3,675 or approximately $460 per business.
> 
> Since these amendments will result in administrative burden, the “One-for-One” Rule applies and it is considered an “IN” under the Rule. The estimated cost will be offset by an equivalent reduction in the administrative credits available within the health portfolio.
> 
> Small business lens
> 
> Eight Canadian companies have been identified as selling, importing and/or exporting one or more of these precursor chemicals, none of which is a small business. Therefore, the small business lens does not apply to these amendments.
> 
> Consultation
> 
> On September 3, 2016, Health Canada published a notice to interested parties in the Canada Gazette, Part I, to notify stakeholders and the general public about this regulatory amendment. The consultation closed on October 2, 2016. Three comments were received in response to the notice, all of which were from pharmaceutical companies with operations in Canada. The first had questions regarding end-user requirements under the PCR. The second had questions about the legitimate and illegitimate uses of the proposed chemicals and whether they were controlled in other countries. The third comment included a statement that these amendments would impact them and other pharmaceutical companies should they need to access these chemicals for manufacturing and/or for research and development purposes. No comments of opposition were received.
> 
> A World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade notification was also posted in September 2016. The consultation closed on October 8, 2016. No comments were received as a result of this notification.
> 
> Rationale
> 
> Fentanyl is very toxic and dangerous when misused. Exposure to fentanyl both from voluntary misuse of fentanyl products or from involuntary misuse of products laced with the substance has led to increasing numbers of drug overdoses and deaths being reported nationwide with an unprecedented number of cases in British Columbia in 2016. Placing controls on the production, sale, provision, import, export and possession for the purpose of exporting of fentanyl precursor chemicals will help to curb the illicit manufacture of fentanyl in Canada. This action is intended to result in a reduction in the availability of illicit fentanyl products.
> 
> Scheduling these six precursor chemicals to the schedule to the PCR means that they are controlled like other Class A precursors under the CDSA and provides law enforcement agencies with the authority to take action against activities with these chemicals that are not in accordance with the CDSA.
> 
> These amendments achieve the objectives of Senate Public Bill S-225 in an expeditious fashion. They also complement Health Canada’s Action Plan on Opioid Misuse, announced by the Minister of Health in June 2016, by enhancing law enforcement’s ability to address the supply side of illicit opioids.
> 
> Costs
> 
> These regulatory amendments will result in cost to businesses. Companies supplying, importing or exporting any of these six precursor chemicals will incur costs to comply with this amendment. Eight businesses were identified as dealing with at least one of the six scheduled precursor chemicals. Six of these businesses are already licensed dealers under the PCR and will incur costs to have their licences amended should they want to continue to conduct business with the scheduled precursor chemicals. The two unlicensed companies would have to apply to become licensed dealers and renew their licences and incur associated costs to continue to conduct activities with any of these precursor chemicals. There will also be additional on-going administrative costs to all businesses to prepare and submit import and/or export permit applications if they intend to import and/or export any of these chemicals, as well as costs associated with record-keeping activities. The present value of the total cost to businesses over a 10-year period, using a 7% discount rate, is estimated to be $58,760, or an annualized cost of $8,365.
> 
> Researchers in Canada will incur a negligible administrative cost, as they will need to complete an end-use declaration in order to purchase any of these chemicals from a licensed dealer. Should a researcher wish to import any of these precursor chemicals for research purposes, they can request that Health Canada import the precursor chemicals on their behalf. Again, the researcher would incur a negligible administrative cost, as they would need to complete a form. Being negligible, these costs are not accounted for in the estimates.
> 
> No cost is expected for the Government. Given that Health Canada already has a licensing system in place for precursor chemicals, the provision of licences, authorizations, and permits would be conducted as part of normal activity and no additional resources would be required. Costs associated with compliance and enforcement activities would also be absorbed by existing programs.
> 
> Benefits
> 
> These regulatory amendments are expected to result in benefits to Canadians. The misuse of fentanyl has led to an increasing number of drug overdoses and deaths. Controlling activities with the precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl will help mitigate the risk of their availability and subsequent use in the illicit production of fentanyl, thereby protecting the health and safety of Canadians.
> 
> Implementation, enforcement and service standards
> 
> Due to the urgent nature of the growing opioid crisis in Canada, these regulatory amendments come into force on the day of publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II. As part of the implementation of these amendments, Health Canada will notify stakeholders of the changes and provide additional information on the Department’s website.
> 
> Health Canada is responsible for authorizing activities (through licences, permits, and exemptions) with substances scheduled under the CDSA and its regulations and for monitoring compliance with regulatory requirements. Law enforcement agencies and the Canada Border Services Agency are responsible for taking enforcement action in response to contraventions of the CDSA. Under the CDSA, a range of penalties applies to the offences associated with the precursor chemicals covered by these regulatory amendments. The maximum penalty for indictable offences with respect to substances in Schedule VI to the CDSA is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
> 
> There are no additional service standards other than those that already exist for issuing licences and permits under the CDSA.
> 
> Contact
> 
> Anna Wheeler
> Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
> Health Canada
> Main Statistics Canada Building
> 150 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway
> Ottawa, Ontario
> K1A 0T6
> Email: OCS_regulatorypolicy-BSC_ politiquereglementaire@hc-sc.gc.ca
> 
> Footnote a
> S.C. 2015, c. 22, s. 4(1)
> 
> Footnote b
> S.C. 1996, c. 19
> 
> Footnote 1
> SOR/2002-359
> 
> Footnote 2
> Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (CCENDU) Bulletin: Deaths Involving Fentanyl in Canada, 2009-2014. August 2015. (http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource Library/CCSA-CCENDU-Fentanyl-Deaths-Canada-Bulletin-2015-en.pdf)
> 
> Footnote 3
> British Columbia Coroners Service. Fentanyl-Detected Illicit Drug Overdose Deaths January 1, 2012 to July 31, 2016. August 13, 2016. (http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/pu...on/statistical/fentanyl-detected-overdose.pdf)
> 
> Footnote 4
> Alberta Health. Fentanyl and the take-home naloxone program. (http://www.health.alberta.ca/health-info/AMH-Naloxone-Take-home.html)
> 
> Footnote 5
> Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario. Report for the Years 2012 – 2015. (http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/engl...r/Publicationsreports/OCCAnualReport2014.html)





> Order Amending Schedule VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Fentanyl Precursors)
> 
> P.C. 2016-983 November 18, 2016
> 
> His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, pursuant to section 60 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (see footnote a), deeming that it is necessary in the public interest, makes the annexed Order Amending Schedule VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Fentanyl Precursors).
> 
> Order Amending Schedule VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Fentanyl Precursors)
> 
> Amendment
> 
> 1 Part 1 of Schedule VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (see footnote 1) is amended by adding the following after item 24:
> 
> 25	Propionyl chloride
> 26	1-Phenethyl-4-piperidone and its salts
> 27	4-Piperidone and its salts
> 28	Norfentanyl (N-phenyl-N-piperidin-4-ylpropanamide) and its salts
> 29	1-Phenethylpiperidin-4-ylidenephenylamine and its salts
> 30	N-Phenyl-4-piperidinamine and its salts
> 
> Coming into Force
> 
> 2 This Order comes into force on the day on which it is published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
> 
> N.B.	The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for this Order appears following SOR/2016-294, Regulations Amending the Precursor Control Regulations (Fentanyl Precursors).
> 
> Footnote a
> S.C. 1996, c. 19
> 
> Footnote 1
> S.C. 1996, c. 19



Original source:

Regulations Amending the Precursor Control Regulations (Fentanyl Precursors)

Order Amending Schedule VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Fentanyl Precursors)


----------



## S.J.B.

*Canada - Methylphenidate analogues banned*



> Order Amending Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Methylphenidate)
> 
> P.C. 2017-255 March 24, 2017
> 
> His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, pursuant to section 60 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (see footnote a), deeming that it is necessary in the public interest, makes the annexed Order Amending Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Methylphenidate).
> 
> Order Amending Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Methylphenidate)
> 
> Amendment
> 
> 1 Item 2 of Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (see footnote 1) is replaced by the following:
> 
> 2	Methylphenidate (methyl 2-phenyl-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate), its salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues, including
> (1)	Ethylphenidate (ethyl 2-phenyl-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate)
> (2)	Isopropylphenidate (isopropyl 2-phenyl-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate)
> (3)	Propylphenidate (propyl 2-phenyl-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate)
> (4)	3,4-Dichloromethylphenidate (methyl 2-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-(piperidin2-yl)acetate)
> (5)	4-Methylmethylphenidate (methyl 2-(4-methylphenyl)-2-(piperidin2-yl)acetate)
> (6)	4-Fluoromethylphenidate (methyl 2-(4-fluorophenyl)-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate)
> (7)	Methylnaphthidate (methyl 2-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate)
> (8 )	Ethylnaphthidate (ethyl 2-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(piperidin-2-yl)acetate)
> 
> Coming into Force
> 
> 2 This Order comes into force on the 30th day after the day on which it is published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
> 
> N.B.	The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for this Order appears following SOR/2017-43, Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Part G — Methylphenidate).
> 
> Footnote a
> S.C. 1996, c. 19
> 
> Footnote 1
> S.C. 1996, c. 19



Originally published here.  Follow the link in the quote above for Health Canada's rationale and other details.


----------



## S.J.B.

*Canada - Menthol cigarettes banned*



> Order Amending the Schedule to the Tobacco Act (Menthol)
> 
> P.C. 2017-256 March 24, 2017
> 
> His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, pursuant to subsection 7.1(1) (see footnote a) of the Tobacco Act (see footnote b), makes the annexed Order Amending the Schedule to the Tobacco Act (Menthol).
> 
> Order Amending the Schedule to the Tobacco Act (Menthol)
> 
> Amendment
> 
> 1 The portion of item 1 of the schedule to the Tobacco Act (see footnote 1) in column 1 is replaced by the following:
> 
> 1
> 
> Additives that have flavouring properties or that enhance flavour, including
> 
> — additives identified as flavouring agents by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives in the Committee’s evaluations, as published from time to time in the WHO Technical Report Series
> 
> — additives identified as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) flavouring substances by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) Expert Panel in its lists of GRAS substances referred to as "GRAS 3" to "GRAS 24" and subsequent lists of GRAS substances, as published from time to time, if any
> 
> The following additives are excluded:
> 
> — benzoic acid (CAS 65-85-0) and its salts
> 
> — butylated hydroxytoluene (CAS 128-37-0)
> 
> — carboxymethyl cellulose (CAS 9000-11-7)
> 
> — citric acid (CAS 77-92-9) and its salts
> 
> — ethanol (CAS 64-17-5)
> 
> — polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate (CAS 9005-64-5)
> 
> — fumaric acid (CAS 110-17-8 )
> 
> — glycerol (CAS 56-81-5)
> 
> — guar gum (CAS 9000-30-0)
> 
> — n-propyl acetate (CAS 109-60-4)
> 
> — paraffin wax (CAS 8002-74-2)
> 
> — propylene glycol (CAS 57-55-6)
> 
> — glycerol esters of wood rosin (CAS 8050-31-5)
> 
> — sodium acetate anhydrous (CAS 127-09-3)
> 
> — sodium alginate (CAS 9005-38-3)
> 
> — sorbic acid (CAS 110-44-1) and its salts
> 
> — triacetin (CAS 102-76-1)
> 
> — tributyl acetylcitrate (CAS 77-90-7)
> 
> Coming into Force
> 
> 2 This Order comes into force on the 180th day after the day on which it is published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
> 
> Footnote a
> S.C. 2009, c. 27, s. 9
> 
> Footnote b
> S.C. 1997, c. 13
> 
> Footnote 1
> S.C. 1997, c. 13



Read the full details here.

In brief, they are banning menthol flavouring in cigarettes, small cigars, and blunt wraps.


----------



## gh0stmAn

lol this is just going to force people to order their menthol cigs off the internet.. this is so stupid


----------



## Jabberwocky

They're supposedly legalising weed but banning menthol cigarettes?


----------



## tremours

i have a very reliable hook-up 7-11 sells me as much menthol smokes as i can carry


----------



## tacodude

*New set of emergency scheduling of many fentanyl a an*

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2851/text/ih?overview=closed&format=txt

Just came across this doozey... About to read through it, but it looks bad. 

If anyone is ordering these new analogs be aware if they are going to be banned as you will be too stock up to ween off when you are cut off. There's no promise they will always have another useful analog to make. In seriously wondering what happens when they run out do they just sell illegal stuff out in the open? I can't help to wonder.

Edit : most of it is legal language that sounds pretty intense changes in the analog act saying anything considered stronger than a schedule I-V drug in any stimulant, depressive, or psychedelic effect essentially banning everything, but deliriant type drugs as there anti inflammatory drugs and anti biotics exist in that category so... Unless I'm mistaken anything compared to those would be a schedule A drug punishable by law enforced jail time.... Imagine that for sniffing caffeine pills or huffing dust off. Dehuminization of drug users indeed
     ``(1) 4-fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl.
            ``(2) Valeryl fentanyl.
            ``(3) 4-methoxybutyryl fentanyl.
            ``(4) 4-methylphenethyl acetyl fentanyl.
            ``(5) 3-furanyl fentanyl.
            ``(6) Ortho-fluorofentanyl.
            ``(7) Tetrahydrofuranyl fentanyl.
            ``(8) Ocfentanil.
            ``(9) 4-fluorobutyryl fentanyl.
            ``(10) Methoxyacetyl fentanyl.
            ``(11) Meta-fluorofentanyl.
            ``(12) Isobutyryl fentanyl.
            ``(13) Acryl fentanyl.''.


----------



## Jabberwocky

OD->ditm


----------



## starting_over

How many more analogues could they come up with? Seems like there is a new one every week. I guess if they do run out, they'll just illegally sell whatever is the most profitable.


----------



## S.J.B.

This law essentially allows the attorney general to schedule drugs as he sees fit as long as it has a similar structure to any scheduled drug and is at least potentially psychoactive.  This could be a huge blow to the legal NPS market if it is used extensively.  It remains to be seen whether or not Sessions will use this to schedule huge swathes of drugs or just those that are getting a lot of media attention.


----------



## 'medicine cabinet'

Jesus...I wonder how many of those analogs are going around..iirc those fake perc tens that killed a bunch of ppl had cyclopropylfent? I know it was one I've never heard of before. I've had acetyl fent and furanyl fent, these others tho sound like chemistry experiments..


----------



## cj

I have doubts that they will ever put the analog cat bag in the bag. Most of these are just so cheap to make that I think they will eventually replace heroin. It's much more difficult to track down a lab then it is to track down a giant field of poppies


----------



## tacodude

S.J.P. said:


> This law essentially allows the attorney general to schedule drugs as he sees fit as long as it has a similar structure to any scheduled drug and is at least potentially psychoactive.  This could be a huge blow to the legal NPS market if it is used extensively.  It remains to be seen whether or not Sessions will use this to schedule huge swathes of drugs or just those that are getting a lot of media attention.


So I was right that they can essentially name anything more psychoactive than say tryptophan surprisingly schedule 4 making any tryptamine a analog of at least a schedule 4 if it's far enough from any of the more regular compounds that are not common in structure to dmt


----------



## S.J.B.

The Canadian government has scheduled all analogues of aminorex, including 4,4'-dimethylaminorex:



> Order Amending Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Aminorex)
> 
> Amendments
> 
> 1 Item 18 of Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is repealed.
> 
> 2 Item 27 of Schedule III to the Act is replaced by the following:
> 
> 27 Aminorex (5-phenyl-4,5-dihydro-1,3-oxazol-2-amine), its salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues, including
> 
> (1) 4-Methylaminorex (4-methyl-5-phenyl-4,5- dihydro-1,3-oxazol-2-amine)
> 
> (2) 4,4'-Dimethylaminorex (4-methyl-5-(4- methylphenyl)-4,5-dihydro-1,3-oxazol-2-amine)
> 
> Coming into Force
> 
> 3 This Order comes into force on the day on which it is published in the Canada Gazette, Part II [December 13th, 2017].



Read the full document here.


----------



## S.J.B.

The Canadian government has scheduled U-47700 and its analogues, along with a precursor to U-47700:



> 1 Schedule I to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is amended by adding the following after item 25:
> 
> 26 U-47700 (3,4-dichloro-N-(2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl)-N-methylbenzamide), its salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues, and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues, including
> 
> (1)	Bromadoline (4-bromo-N-(2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl)benzamide)
> 
> (2)	U-47109 (3,4-dichloro-N-(2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl)benzamide)
> 
> (3)	U-48520 (4-chloro-N-(2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl)-N-methylbenzamide)
> 
> (4)	U-50211 (N-(2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl)-4-hydroxy-N-methylbenzamide)
> 
> (5)	U-77891 (3,4-dibromo-N-methyl-N-(1-methyl-1-azaspiro[4.5]decan-6-yl)benzamide)
> 
> 2 Part 1 of Schedule VI to the Act is amended by adding the following after item 30:
> 
> 31 N1,N1,N2-trimethylcyclohexane-1,2-diamine and its salts
> 
> Coming into Force
> 
> 3 This Order comes into force on the day on which it is published in the Canada Gazette, Part II [December 27th, 2017].



Read the full document here.


----------



## ro4eva

I would give an arm and a leg to render the DEA null and void.  Heck, I'd even throw in an ear.


----------



## S.J.B.

The Canadian government is proposing to schedule a series of precursors and a fentanyl analogue:



			
				Government of Canada said:
			
		

> DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
> 
> CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
> 
> Notice to interested parties -- Proposed Governor in Council Order amending schedules I and VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and proposed regulations amending the schedules to the Narcotic Control Regulations and the Precursor Control Regulations to capture additional substances used in the production of fentanyls and amphetamines
> 
> This notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to provide comments on Health Canada's intent to amend the following schedules to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and its relevant regulations.
> 
> Schedule I to the CDSA
> 
> - Adding "4-Anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (ANPP) (N-phenyl-1-(2-phenylethyl)piperidine-4-amine), its salts, derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues" as subitem (14) under item 16
> 
> Schedule VI to the CDSA
> 
> - Expanding item 9, Part 1, to include "and its derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues, including:
> 
> (1) methyl 3-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-methyloxirane-2-carboxylate (MMDMG)"
> 
> - Expanding item 11, Part 1, to include "and its derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues, including:
> 
> (1) methyl 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylate (BMK methyl glycidate)
> (2) 3-oxo-2-phenylbutanamide (alpha-phenylacetoacetamide-APAA)"
> 
> - Expanding item 28, Part 1, to include "and its derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues"
> 
> - Adding "Benzylfentanyl (N-(1-benzylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylpropionamide), its salts, derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues" as a new item in Part 1
> 
> Schedule to the Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR)
> 
> - Adding "4-Anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (ANPP) (N-phenyl-1-(2-phenylethyl)piperidine-4-amine), its salts, derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues" as subitem (14) under item 15
> 
> Schedule to the Precursor Control Regulations (PCR)
> 
> - Expanding item 10 to include "and its derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues, including:
> 
> (1) methyl 3-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-methyloxirane-2-carboxylate (MMDMG)"
> 
> - Expanding item 13 to include "and its derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues, including:
> 
> (1) methyl 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylate (BMK methyl glycidate)
> (2) 3-oxo-2-phenylbutanamide (α-phenylacetoacetamide-APAA)
> 
> - Expanding item 29 in Column 1 to include "and its derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues"
> 
> - Adding "Benzylfentanyl (N-(1-benzylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylpropionamide), its salts, derivatives, and analogues and salts of derivatives and analogues" as a new item in Column 1 and indicating "0" in Column 2



See the original document (with background) here.

Wow, this is really ambitious.  They are trying to add an analogue provisions to the following precursors:  3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone (MDP2P), 1-phenyl-2-propanone (P2P), norfentanyl, and benzylfentanyl.  This is not something I have ever seen attempted before in any jurisdiction.  Canada already has some of the most nebulous analogue laws and this has got to be the worst of it yet.  The case of P2P is the most troublesome.  They list methyl 2-methyl-3-phenyloxirane-2-carboxylate (BMK methyl glycidate) and 3-oxo-2-phenylbutanamide (APAA) as analogues of P2P.  The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act defines an analogue as a compound that "has a substantially similar chemical structure" to a controlled substance.  How many compounds are out there, in use by academic and industrial chemists, that have more structural similarity to P2P than BMK methyl glycidate or APAA do?  Likely thousands.  If this law is instituted, those compounds would then all technically be controlled precursors, regardless of whether they have any potential to be used to produce illicit drugs or their analogues in a clandestine manner.  What a mess.  The one bright side is that this law would probably never be used to actually convict someone of an offence for having sold an "analogue" of a controlled precursor without the proper licensing.  Prosecutors likely know that the analogue provisions are highly vulnerable to being declared "void for vagueness" and struck down in court.  However, it would likely be used to justify the arbitrary seizure of chemicals at the border whenever Health Canada feels like it, as this is what the current analogue provisions tend to be used for.


----------



## S.J.B.

A notice came out today from Health Canada, proposing the scheduling of tramadol, O-desmethyltramadol, and N,O-didesmethyltramadol:




> *Amendment*





> *1 Schedule I to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act* *is amended by adding the following after item 26:*
> 
> 27    Tramadol (2-[(dimethylamino)methyl]-1-(3-methoxyphenyl)cyclohexanol), its salts, isomers and salts of isomers and the following derivatives of tramadol and the salts, isomers and salts of isomers of these derivatives:
> (1) O-desmethyltramadol (3-[2[(dimethylamino)methyl]-1-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol)
> (2) N,O-didesmethyltramadol (3-[1-hydroxy-2-[(methylamino)methyl]cyclohexyl]-phenol)



Currently, tramadol is prescription-only but it completely unscheduled, so, for instance, "research chemical" vendors can sell the bulk powder legally.

This has been kicked around for many years and they've backed out on scheduling it in the past, so it's still not a sure thing.


----------



## cj

Sucks for people in pain


----------



## LucidSDreamr

And this is going to stop people from trying heroin?


----------



## cj

LucidSDreamr said:


> And this is going to stop people from trying heroin?


The opposite. It will push desperate people to heroin


----------



## LucidSDreamr

i want to go out on the street like those crazy jesus people do at town squares yelling at everyone about how fucked our drug policy is


----------



## sekio

Schedule 1?????? I've never seen tramadol abuse as being a problem. Any of the hard core opioid users in my hood prefer oxycodone, hydromorphone, morphine, or "WCP" (a little jpke, West Coast Powder heroin, aka a mixture of fentanyl, heroin, and caffeine, 1-10% fentanyl, 5-25% heroin, and the balance caffeine - sometimes with no heroin at all...). Even the lowly Tylenol 3 is prefered among users. You'd have a hard time _giving tramadol away for free_.

Now, O-desmethyl-tramadol, that's at least an abusable/"strong" opioid... but it's expensive and not neccesarily abundant on the streets. And N,O-didesmethyl-tramadol isn't even an active opioid when taken I.V. (see US20020032239A1) so the only reason it's gonna get scheduled is to prevent people converting it to O-DT with a 1-step reaction. (give yourself a pat on the back and 5 Sekio Points if you know which one)

And making a stink about 7 hospital cases a year, across the whole ~35 million people in Canada - talk about mountains out of molehills.


			
				Da Law said:
			
		

> Between 2006 and 2017, tramadol is suspected to have contributed to 71 adverse events related to problematic use, dependence or withdrawal reported in Canada,



What a joke. If this is supposed to be an effort to stop the opioid crisis it's going to have the opposite effect. What do you think all the people prescribed tram are going to do? How about the people who abuse tram? They certainly aren't going to just drop it and deal with the pain/withdrawal. You'll only see more people either switching Rx's to classic opiates like codeine and more abuse of the fentanyl-laced heroin and more demand for diverted oxycodone and hydromorphone. (Another victory for prohibition.)

And what about veterinary use? i know it's fairly popular to stop pain in pets and livestock.

I should write my MLA or whoever. You should too, if you're reading this as a Canadian resident.


----------



## phenethylo J

Maybe Canada should do something about all those online pharmacies selling counterfeit meds made in China instead of trying to ban a medicine that isn't a problem. I guess there'll be more fake oxys filled with fent going around.


----------

