dragonfly NDPSC

[Thelema]

Schedule 9 - New entry

1-(8-BROMOBENZO[1,2-B;4,5-B]DIFURAN-4-YL)-2-AMINOPROPANE

*(Bromo-Dragonfly)

SUSDP 25 index – New entry

BROMO-DRAGONFLY

See 1-(8-bromobenzo[1,2-b;4,5-b]difuran-4-yl)-2-aminopropane

not sure when this becomes law, sometimes 6 months, sometimes immediately.

[muffinz]

Would it be covered by the analogue law regardless of the new entry?

It has a PEA 'backbone'. So if you start with the closest PEA, (2C-B if has its own entry) and modify from there it could already be covered. Maybe not, since they've made the effort of a new entry.

Here is the list showing the limits of modification. very broad:

(iv) a structural modification notionally obtained in one or more of the following ways:

(A) by the replacement of up to 2 carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures with different carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures;

(B ) by the addition of hydrogen atoms to one or more unsaturated bonds;

(C ) by the addition of one or more of the following groups:

(1) alkoxy, cyclic diether, acyl, acyloxy, mono-amino and dialkylamino groups with up to 6 carbon atoms in any alkyl residue;

(2) alkyl, alkenyl and alkynyl groups with up to 6 carbon atoms in the group, where the group is attached to oxygen (for example, an ester or an ether group), nitrogen, suplhur or carbon; and

(3) halogen, hydroxy, nitro and amino groups;

(D) by the replacement of one or more of the groups specified in subparagraph (C ) with another such group or groups; or

(E) by the conversion of a carboxyl or an ester group into an amide group; or

(v) otherwise an homologue, analogue, chemical derivative or substance substantially similar in chemical structure,

however manufactured or actually obtained, except where the drug analogue -

(vi) is a dangerous drug; or

(vii) is specified in a Schedule to the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act .

[apothecary]

Most likely it was added as an explicitly scheduled substance (rather than implicitly through the analogues clause), due to this paper which was published in late Dec 2008.

http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-07...0429-5/fulltext

This paper reports a fatal overdose case involving the potent hallucinogenic drug Bromo-Dragonfly (1-(8-bromobenzo[1,2-b; 4,5-b']difuran-4-yl)-2-aminopropane). In the present case, an 18-year-old woman was found dead after ingestion of a hallucinogenic liquid. A medico-legal autopsy was performed on the deceased, during which liver, blood, urine and vitreous humour were submitted for toxicological examination. Bromo-Dragonfly was identified in the liver blood using UPLC-TOFMS, and was subsequently quantified in femoral blood (0.0047 mg/kg), urine (0.033 mg/kg) and vitreous humour (0.0005 mg/kg) using LC-MS/MS. Calibration standards were prepared from Bromo-Dragonfly isolated from a bottle found next to the deceased. The structure and purity of the isolated compound were unambiguously determined from analysis of UPLC-TOFMS, GC-MS, HPLC-DAD, (1)H and (13)C NMR data and by comparison to literature data. The autopsy findings were non-specific for acute poisoning. However, based on the toxicological findings, the cause of death was determined to be a fatal overdose of Bromo-Dragonfly, as no ethanol and no therapeutics or other drugs of abuse besides Bromo-Dragonfly were detected in the liver, blood or urine samples from the deceased. To our knowledge, this is the first report of quantification of Bromo-Dragonfly in a biological specimen from a deceased person. This case caused the drug to be classified as an illegal drug in Denmark on 5th December 2007.

Edited April 10, 2009 by apothecary

[platypii]

Would it be covered by the analogue law regardless of the new entry?

It has a PEA 'backbone'. So if you start with the closest PEA, (2C-B if has its own entry) and modify from there it could already be covered. Maybe not, since they've made the effort of a new entry.

Here is the list showing the limits of modification. very broad:

Bromo-dragonfly is more closesly related to DOB then 2C-B. It is the "dragonfly" analogue of DOB. Lets wait for the so called hemi-flies; ready for week long tripping anyone? :D

[Torsten]

alkonost, you are mixing up different piecs of legislation. the TGA's SUSDP does not have an analogs clause.

Thelema, the activation date for the various sections is usually provided in the header of the gazettal notice.

[MindExpansion]

Wait wait, so is it covered or not, can you actually buy it here or do the analogue laws of the state cover it?

Peace

[Torsten]

It is covered under the federal analogs law in the criminal code act, which would prohibit import and possession.

It is also covered in each state under the state drug acts' analogs clauses. Whether it is a closer analog to 2CB or DOM is irrelevant as it is an analog of amphetamine.

Now, if those wings had 7 carbons in the ring then at least some of the states would not cover it. Mind you the federal crimincal code act goes much further than all the states.

The TGA, federal govvy, and state govvies like to schedule things specifically as it leaves less wiggle room in court. Mind you, the judges always err on the side of 'caution' [ie guilty] and do not care about exact chemistry semantics. To them if it looks like a drug, feels like a drug, and quacks like a drug then it IS a drug.

[MindExpansion]

To them if it looks like a drug, feels like a drug, and quacks like a drug then it IS a drug.

Figured as much. All good and well knowing your 'legally' in the right...but the judge still has to agree

Thanks, Peace

[ergoamide]

When reading the record of reasons it stated one of the reasons for scheduling was that it may not have been covered by the analogue laws. also interesting is the scheduling of n-phenethyl-piperidone only the 4th i think precursor to be scheduled in s9 along with lysergic acid, methdone intermediate and moramide intermediate.

[Torsten]

When reading the record of reasons it stated one of the reasons for scheduling was that it may not have been covered by the analogue laws.

The SUSDP doesn't really have an analogs clause. What it does have are a few broad terms of compound groups. These terms are really quite narrow in their definition [in comparison to analogs clauses], so it is no surprise that dragonfly is not covered by them.

However, i wasn't referring to the 'braod terms' in the SUSDP. The USDP schedules are automatically implemented into the state schedules in several states. In these cases the state analogs clause then applies to the items transferred from the SUSDP schedules.

In any case, the federal criminal code act covers just about anytihng you can think of.