Benzos Analog Act

[smokeymcpot42088]

Me either bromazolam not a favorte; this all strctly hypothetia. Ok so are puttin he mazepm carton of mazolams. What do you think Flunitrazolam would? Gotta assume squre i the illegal i th us.

I am not worried about something being seized *as i ran out* but I am concerned about a law not awhole lot people uderstand. I am concerned in obeying the law at this current point.

shugena (sp --- do you are saying that if I get busted with a legal fentanyl analogue with poof of consumptiion it will be treated a sched 2 analogue.. ef

dude-- i definitely don't smoke meth or blow it in babies faces Suzzy

Now SHUGENA- YOU SEEM TO HAVE S STRONG OPINION.. Does flubremazepam have a Benzene right, AS ALL BENZOs (minus the listed sche 4) COULD BE CHARGED AS "ETIZOLAM OR CLONZAOM" benzene ring. PLEASE TELL ME I AM WRONG AND SITE A precidence or somehin!

 

[Fertile]

No, that doesn't matter, legally.

What matters is that alprazolam is currently schedule IV.

If it wasn't it would be an analog too, based on the scheduling of flualprazolam.

That's how the analog law works, not the other way around.

Since the RC vendors are not 'discovering' these benzos but rather looking at patents from the 1960s and 1970s, that might crimp their placement in Schedule 1.

And without proper research - who can say what the action actually is?

Pynazolam is a serotonin reuptake inhibitor as well as GABA ligand, it's like methaqualone.
Pyeyzolam is an alcohol mimic that Professor Nutt bought off me, so clearly it IS a research compound.

 

[Jabberwocky]

It is amazing that on the clear net these RC benzos have been sold over the years and lets face it, the analog law existed all this time. Makes me wonder if some vendors contacted some lawyers. Who knows. But the last decade all those benzos could probably be considered analog yet were sold.

I thought it was 1/23/2023 they became illegal. But all I have is Reddit for that and we all know how that goes.

Thanks for the clarity Shenuga.

You completely misunderstand the statute.

Currently there are no benzodiazepines in schedule 1 or schedule 2.

Therefore the Analog Act does not apply to any benzodiazepines in the United States. (Meaning there has never been a benzodiazepine subject to the analog act since the inception of the law)

Every unscheduled benzodiazepine is completely legal for consumption in the United States because the analog act does not apply to benzodiazepines because no benzodiazepines are in schedule 1 or schedule 2.

Your observation that RC vendors have provided benzodiazepines for years even though the analog act has been in force is not applicable, BECAUSE NO BENZODIAZEPINES HAVE BEEN ON SCHEDULE ONE OR SCHEDULE 2 SO THE ANALOG ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO BENZODIAZEPINES.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Lobbyists abound.
Follow the money.

And I have nothing else to contribute to bromazolam inre technically legal or not.

It has nothing to do with lobbyists and money.

It has everything to do with the fact that there are no schedule one or schedule two benzodiazepines.

Therefore, the federal analog act does not apply to benzodiazepines at all.

 

[JackARoe]

It has everything to do with the fact that there are no schedule one or schedule two benzodiazepines.

Therefore, the federal analog act does not apply to benzodiazepines at all.

Totally get what you are saying Shenuga and are correct in most ways. I was just having a conversation about this with my cousin who owns his own law practice in Oregon. He first did criminal law and now does corporate. He gave me about a 15 minute scenario on what would happen if he had a client charged. This type of stuff can go in circles and for good reason. We can look at analogs anyway we want. Bromazolam is similar to alprazolam schedule iV. So alprazolam would be considered an analog regardless if it is already Sched IV. (or at least is open to an argument in court) So Bromazolam also seen as an analog of a schedule 1 flubromazolam. Which one is it? Making one of these new benzos schedule 1 is not a clear cut indicator just because no benzodiazepines are in schedule 1 yet.

A good lawyer could shred this stuff. My cousin commented that the reality is if a DA wanted to pursue someone possessing a new schedule 1 benzodiazepine a good lawyer would make it hard. And then the DA instead of going to court and waste time and money (which is what drives all of this) would plea it down to nothing. Someone like him would love to have this in court but he said it would never make it based on how wishy washy this stuff is. He would argue that alprazolam is an analog of flubromazolam or something and let us arrest all alprazolam users and around it goes to spin a judges head. My cousin is annoying and a judge would look at them and say make a damn plea.. I guess the future will tell. I will revisit this thread in 2 years. lol

Yes it is true we do not have schedule 1 benzos yet. Once we do other can be considered analogs. Unless they are analogs of already schedule IV drugs and around and around it goes.

Saying all that i think we all agree the drugs laws are dumb. Kief Richards is correct too. We already have a DE A that deals with legalized cannabis, psychedelics (enough to even back off making more illegal) and even backed off of kratom. (an opioid). Stuff like this would be a headache too. No bad drugs anymore. I think the whole drug war is winding down.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Totally get what you are saying Shenuga and are correct in most ways. I was just having a conversation about this with my cousin who owns his own law practice in Oregon. He first did criminal law and now does corporate. He gave me about a 15 minute scenario on what would happen if he had a client charged. This type of stuff can go in circles and for good reason. We can look at analogs anyway we want. Bromazolam is similar to alprazolam schedule iV. So would be considered an analog. So Bromazolam also seen as an analog of a schedule 1 flubromazolam. Which one is it? Making one of these new benzos schedule 1 is not a clear cut indicator just because no benzodiazepines are in schedule 1 yet.

A good lawyer could shred this stuff. My cousin commented that the reality is if a DA wanted to pursue someone possessing a new schedule 1 benzodiazepine a good lawyer would make it hard. And then the DA instead of going to court and waste time and money (which is what drives all of this) would plea it down to nothing. Someone like him would love to have this in court but he said it would never make it based on how wishy washy this stuff is. He would argue that alprazolam is an analog of flubromazolam or something and let us arrest all alprazolam users and around it goes to spin a judges head. My cousin is annoying and a judge would look at them and say make a damn plea.. I guess the future will tell. I will revisit this thread in 2 years. lol

Yes it is true we do not have schedule 1 benzos yet. Once we do other can be considered analogs. Unless they are analogs of already schedule IV drugs and around and around it goes.

Saying all that i think we all agree the drugs laws are dumb. Kief Richards is correct too. We already have a DE A that deals with legalized cannabis, psychedelics (enough to even back off making more illegal) and even backed off of kratom. (an opioid). Stuff like this would be a headache too. No bad drugs anymore. I think the whole drug war is winding down.

No you're completely wrong.

It doesn't matter if it's an analog of a schedule IV drug or not. That doesn't protect you.

Once the DEA schedules flualp etc. , if there's a schedule I benzodiazepine that has an unscheduled benzodiazepine analog, it is illegal to possess or use the analog for human consumption.

The DEA does not deal with legal cannabis. If you are charged federally for marijuana sale or distribution, you are going to jail. You are going to jail.

 

[JackARoe]

Yeah ok Shenuga. I said you were correct and you still said I was wrong. lol (maybe you just like to argue as some people find it endearing)

Stuff on paper and valid legal arguments can be two different things. We would not have court without that.

And I guess the DE A will arrests anyone on federal marijuana laws? They still have the ability on paper yet don't.

 

[Fertile]

It has nothing to do with lobbyists and money.

It has everything to do with the fact that there are no schedule one or schedule two benzodiazepines.

Therefore, the federal analog act does not apply to benzodiazepines at all.

But I guess the question is why they haven't been added. Usually the DEA isn't shy about adding stuff. I'm guessing it's because the class IS used in so much research and is so commonly found in medical settings so it would be costly and difficult.

 

[Jabberwocky]

But I guess the question is why they haven't been added. Usually the DEA isn't shy about adding stuff. I'm guessing it's because the class IS used in so much research and is so commonly found in medical settings so it would be costly and difficult.

They weren't scary enough yet.

The ones that are proposed for being added to schedule I, some of them are active in the few hundred microgram range.

And there really hasn't been a problem with counterfeit benzos until the last few years.

People have just gotten greedy and the DEA is going to shut them down.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Yeah ok Shenuga. I said you were correct and you still said I was wrong. lol (maybe you just like to argue as some people find it endearing)

Stuff on paper and valid legal arguments can be two different things. We would not have court without that.

And I guess the DE A will arrests anyone on federal marijuana laws? They still have the ability on paper yet don't.

Yes they actually do.

Like I said sale and distribution.

Here's a conviction from January 6th 2023:

Brooklyn, New York man convicted in cross country marijuana distribution conspiracy

Seattle – A 54-year-old Brooklyn, New York resident was convicted today in U.S. District Court in Seattle of conspiracy to distribute more than 1,000 kilos of processed marijuana, announced U.S. Attorney Nick Brown.

www.justice.gov

 

[Fertile]

They weren't scary enough yet.

The ones that are proposed for being added to schedule I, some of them are active in the few hundred microgram range.

And there really hasn't been a problem with counterfeit benzos until the last few years.

People have just gotten greedy and the DEA is going to shut them down.

I wonder if the RC vendors have access to specialists who can come up with compounds with the same effects that are not controlled?
There is an 'under the radar' route to methaqualone. In essence their is an intermediate (uncontrolled) that one simply heats until dehydration (abstraction of water) occurs. It's usable for making methaqualone and all of it's homologues (including methanitroqualone which is x5 more potent).
But the chemical itself is inactive.

I see RC morphing into 'precursor supply' So MANY actives can be made by simply heating (maybe with an acid or base( to make the active.

Then of course their are dual-use compounds. Oxalinic acid is used as an antibiotic for fish... but it's also a DRI and so one can simply sell it.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I wonder if the RC vendors have access to specialists who can come up with compounds with the same effects that are not controlled?
There is an 'under the radar' route to methaqualone. In essence their is an intermediate (uncontrolled) that one simply heats until dehydration (abstraction of water) occurs. It's usable for making methaqualone and all of it's homologues (including methanitroqualone which is x5 more potent).
But the chemical itself is inactive.

I see RC morphing into 'precursor supply' So MANY actives can be made by simply heating (maybe with an acid or base( to make the active.

Then of course their are dual-use compounds. Oxalinic acid is used as an antibiotic for fish... but it's also a DRI and so one can simply sell it.

I agree. The future trend will be to identify new precursors and synths.

Much like many chemists now taking the plunge and starting at benzaldehyde, using yeast to convert it to L-PAC, and then it's a simple reduction to pseudoephedrine.

No worries about importation.

 

[Fertile]

I agree. The future trend will be to identify new precursors and synths.

Much like many chemists now taking the plunge and starting at benzaldehyde, using yeast to convert it to L-PAC, and then it's a simple reduction to pseudoephedrine.

No worries about importation.

Whoever finds a direct route from L-PAC to 4-methylaminorex will make a fortune. As it is, I think it's possible to go from L-PAC to methamphetamine in a single reaction vessel i.e. reductive amination and then reduction of benzylic -OH.

FYI the unwatched intermediate to methaqualone:

1 hosted at ImgBB

Image 1 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

Note that the -CH3 in read is the 2-methyl that makes it methaqualone. Swap for a -Cl to get mecloqualone or indeed any of the analogues. I don't think it's a common compound but you just heat it with acetyl acetone and you get methaqualone.

Of course, someone HAS come up with a totally different compound that is almost identical in effect to methaqualone but is about x10 more potent so 20mg is a good dose.

 

[smokeymcpot42088]

You completely misunderstand the statute.

Currently there are no benzodiazepines in schedule 1 or schedule 2.

Therefore the Analog Act does not apply to any benzodiazepines in the United States. (Meaning there has never been a benzodiazepine subject to the analog act since the inception of the law)

Every unscheduled benzodiazepine is completely legal for consumption in the United States because the analog act does not apply to benzodiazepines because no benzodiazepines are in schedule 1 or schedule 2.

Your observation that RC vendors have provided benzodiazepines for years even though the analog act has been in force is not applicable, BECAUSE NO BENZODIAZEPINES HAVE BEEN ON SCHEDULE ONE OR SCHEDULE 2 SO THE ANALOG ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO BENZODIAZEPINES.

Oh ish my apologies to the class. (puts dunce cap on and wanders to corner). FTR though I could give an ish less about alp being grabbed up at the border I just chose it because I figured most people know it is sched 4 already. I was under the impression that clonazolam etizolam frubromazolam and i wanna say fluaprazolam were thrown into the schedule one pile. Than you could see how I would have concerns about the analogue status. I thought i read it like a lot of times too.

I apologize

 

[smokeymcpot42088]

In general there is less and less caring every day regarding drug laws.

If this were a decade ago when I was a teenager, we would live in constant fear of the police smelling our weed, finding us, interrogating us, making us name names and then existing with a criminal record.

Nowadays, at least here in New England, you have to go pretty far or do something pretty fucked up like blow your Meth smoke into a baby's face to be arrested for an isolated offense of recreational drug usage. It is totally different. People are advertising kits for how to grow Psychedelic Fungi advertised on Facebook. Psychedelic drugs have been legalized in a few jurisdictions, yes, but that's a far cry from an established enterprise selling kits on the internet. Hell, remember when Tommy Chong became a convicted felon for selling bongs over the internet?

I'm not sure if you're worried about something being seized or if you're worried about your freedom. At this stage in our country's politics, I would find it unlikely that they would do anything beyond destroying the Benzodiazepines if identified.

I was also of the understanding that the Federal Analog Act only applied to Schedules 1 and 2 and Benzodiazepines are typically in schedule 4.

My concern is simply to have a correct understanding of the law regarding non listed benzo analogues . As your last sentence highlights the difference between sched 1 and 4 is rather significant. I would hate for anyone to think they didn't break any laws by ordering something when really they might as well have ordered heroin. (from a legal perspective).

 

[Fertile]

They weren't scary enough yet.

The ones that are proposed for being added to schedule I, some of them are active in the few hundred microgram range.

And there really hasn't been a problem with counterfeit benzos until the last few years.

People have just gotten greedy and the DEA is going to shut them down.

I don't think potency itself is an explicit danger - it's the toxicity displayed after an overdose. Now I've read of cases where people consumed over 4 grams of diazepam and recovered, but then I note that the nitrobenzodiazepines (nitrazepam, nimetazepam, flunitrazepam, clonazepam) are very dangerous in overdose. I couldn't tell you the exact TI but in Sweden 70% of intentional overdoses resulting in death were nitrobenzodiazepines alone.

I'm guessing serotonin syndrome is going to be an issue and possibly some of the metabolites are cardiotoxic.

 

[Wavey gravy]

But I guess the question is why they haven't been added. Usually the DEA isn't shy about adding stuff. I'm guessing it's because the class IS used in so much research and is so commonly found in medical settings so it would be costly and difficult.

I believe it's coming, the insurance companies are starting to try and regulate mine, had to find a M.D. in my HMO that has some common sense and epiphany that took time to look at my charts to over ride the insurance company (Dr, consultant or whatever these practitioner's are)
Experimenting with the Amanita Muscaria in micro dosing. I do not recommend this for anyone, they're poisonous if not prepared correctly but not deadly if identified by qualified person or vendor. Helped me get through 4-5 days of hell. I lean towards the medicinal fungi and plants, they have saved my life so far.

 

[Jabberwocky]

My concern is simply to have a correct understanding of the law regarding non listed benzo analogues . As your last sentence highlights the difference between sched 1 and 4 is rather significant. I would hate for anyone to think they didn't break any laws by ordering something when really they might as well have ordered heroin. (from a legal perspective).

Once

Etizolam, Flualprazolam, Clonazolam, Flubromazolam, and Diclazepam​

Are placed into schedule I, all analogs that are not already in schedule 4 will become illegal.

For example alprazolam & diazepam are OK because they are already in schedule 4.

Bromazolam will become illegal because it is not currently scheduled.

Pretty much all Triazolobenzodiazepines that are NOT CURRENTLY SCHEDULED will become illegal under the act.

So will metizolam and deschloroetizolam.

 

[Fertile]

Yes - I note they have all been temporarily been placed in schedule 1 of the Federal Schedule of Controlled Substances. But would diclazepam be covered since it doesn't have a triazolo ring and therefore is significantly chemically different? I think it's binding properties are also somewhat different so it might be hard to make the case that diclazepam is an analog of bromazolam (for example).

If not, their is a pretty potent compound that is 1 step from a commercially available precursor that can be made in almost quantitative yields. OK 1mg is a dose... but given that the cost of synthesis will be a fraction of that involved in the synthesis of triazolo derivatives, I would imagine it would be just as profitable.

But if diclazepam IS covered, right now someone needs to come up with a compound that is significantly different structurally, possessing similar active and with a facile synthetic pathway.

Well, I've already listed a few... but I didn't give any synthesis as this is not allowed. The 2 keys seem to be high potency i.e. 1Kg will make 2 or 3 million doses AND that the Chinese company asked to synthesize it are provided with 2 reasonable routes. I note that NONE of the RC benzos (apart from Pyrazolam which the Chinese NEVER worked out how to make) take more than 4 steps from commercially available precursors.

I have not dealt with the Chinese for years but I KNOW if you can supply a route, you can also add a written estimate of materials and time costs. This puts the buyer in a much more powerful position. But their are so many dodgy suppliers in China - having a business relationship with one is difficult. Of course, their are alternatives to China... but one has to know the right people.

I'm GUESSING that some vendors will simply invent false names BUT sooner or later the DEA will test and said vendor will get a knock.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Yes - I note they have all been temporarily been placed in schedule 1 of the Federal Schedule of Controlled Substances. But would diclazepam be covered since it doesn't have a triazolo ring and therefore is significantly chemically different? I think it's binding properties are also somewhat different so it might be hard to make the case that diclazepam is an analog of bromazolam (for example).

If not, their is a pretty potent compound that is 1 step from a commercially available precursor that can be made in almost quantitative yields. OK 1mg is a dose... but given that the cost of synthesis will be a fraction of that involved in the synthesis of triazolo derivatives, I would imagine it would be just as profitable.

But if diclazepam IS covered, right now someone needs to come up with a compound that is significantly different structurally, possessing similar active and with a facile synthetic pathway.

Well, I've already listed a few... but I didn't give any synthesis as this is not allowed. The 2 keys seem to be high potency i.e. 1Kg will make 2 or 3 million doses AND that the Chinese company asked to synthesize it are provided with 2 reasonable routes. I note that NONE of the RC benzos (apart from Pyrazolam which the Chinese NEVER worked out how to make) take more than 4 steps from commercially available precursors.

I have not dealt with the Chinese for years but I KNOW if you can supply a route, you can also add a written estimate of materials and time costs. This puts the buyer in a much more powerful position. But their are so many dodgy suppliers in China - having a business relationship with one is difficult. Of course, their are alternatives to China... but one has to know the right people.

I'm GUESSING that some vendors will simply invent false names BUT sooner or later the DEA will test and said vendor will get a knock.

Diclazepam is explicitly going to be placed in schedule 1.

That makes whether diclazepam is related to other scheduled drugs moot