New tough laws on synthetics in the USA

[Torsten]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1254rfs/pdf/BILLS-112hr1254rfs.pdf

I thought Qld was taking it to extremes in their new legislation on synthetics, but that pales in comparison to what has just passed the house of reps in the USA..

[Rabaelthazar]

Do the US have an existing analogues clause? Section 6(a) seems to be heading in that direction in regard to cannabinoids but section 6( just has a whole lot of specific compounds listed as additions.

[naja naja]

[Torsten]

in the USA the analogues clause only applies if the product is use for human consumption. hence the deceptive labelling on many products. using an analogue to fertilise your plants is legal.

[at0m]

in the USA the analogues clause only applies if the product is use for human consumption. hence the deceptive labelling on many products. using an analogue to fertilise your plants is legal.

 

By the looks of what's around the web, that seems massively exploitable.

[Torsten]

well, it has been, which is why the new laws are so different.

[Foo]

Surely the guy who killed the goat was not actualy taking "bath salts".

Ive seen alot of this terminology makes it to aus too. A friend of mine received some meow back in the day labled as some kind of cleaner.

[Rabaelthazar]

in the USA the analogues clause only applies if the product is use for human consumption. hence the deceptive labelling on many products. using an analogue to fertilise your plants is legal.

So why bother scheduling more specific chemicals instead of just altering the analogue clause? Not that I actually agree with tough drug legislation, but for the people writing it wouldn't it make more sense to close up the loopholes rather than pinpoint particular compounds but still have the loopholes open? Surely more untested variations will pop up to fill the legal highs gap?

[amanito]

if they wanna fuck you in the ass, they will, plant supplement or not. This is all sad, but it's a matter of a few years until it's gonna be like that in the whole wide world, jippieeeee

[Torsten]

So why bother scheduling more specific chemicals instead of just altering the analogue clause?

A more restrictive analogues clause [such as the one in australia] is extremely limiting in legitimate scientific research. If australian researchers knew just what was illegal there would be many that would stop their research. As it is, many already go overseas to work there for that reason.

[LikeAshesWeFade]

As most chemists will say.. they will ALWAYS stay one step ahead of the law. ALWAYS! If they are going to continue just listing certain compounds instead of fixing the loopholes.. then ofcourse there is going to be new (legal) substances made and released. I know of hundreds that have not even had the compound name (jwh etc.) listed yet!

[Pedro Williams]

Educate, legislate, regulate ♀