Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in McFadden v. United States, that the federal government cannot prosecute the distributor of a substance that mimics the effects of forbidden drugs if that substance was not in fact a forbidden drug. This ruling ... apparently stemming from a bath salts incident ... would appear to have an impact on the RC world. McFadden vs. United States backgroundWHOA!
|
|
|
WOOHOOOO! That's great news. Every day I am thankful that I was introduced to psychedelic drugs.
|
|
|
If only the ruling had come when shulgin was still alive and frisky
|
|
|
I'm not 100% sure I agree with your interpretation. I read the opinion, which can be found here, and have quoted what seems to be the most salient part. SCOTUS wrote: ...the Government must prove that a defendant knew that the substance he was distributing was “a controlled substance,” even in prosecutions dealing with analogues. That knowledge requirement can be established in two ways: by evidence that a defendant knew that the substance he was distributing is controlled under the CSA or AnalogueAct, regardless of whether he knew the substance’s identity; or by evidence that the defendant knew the specific analogue he was distributing, even if he did not know its legal status as a controlled substance analogue Blessings ~ND "There are many paths up the same mountain."
|
|
|
Quote:...the Government must prove that a defendant knew that the substance he was distributing was “a controlled substance,” even in prosecutions dealing with analogues. That knowledge requirement can be established in two ways: by evidence that a defendant knew that the substance he was distributing is controlled under the CSA or AnalogueAct, regardless of whether he knew the substance’s identity; or by evidence that the defendant knew the specific analogue he was distributing, even if he did not know its legal status as a controlled substance analogue Well that's disturbing. Even if you didn't know what you were selling you can be charged, and if you knew what you were selling you will certainly be charged, even if you didn't know it was an analogue of an illegal drug. (paraphrasing) You pretty much have to sell RCs as something other than what they really are. Ironically, you're still protected if you sell an RC as "pool cleaner" with no information on how to consume it safely. What a screwed up system. Every day I am thankful that I was introduced to psychedelic drugs.
|
|
|
hixidom wrote:Quote:...the Government must prove that a defendant knew that the substance he was distributing was “a controlled substance,” even in prosecutions dealing with analogues. That knowledge requirement can be established in two ways: by evidence that a defendant knew that the substance he was distributing is controlled under the CSA or AnalogueAct, regardless of whether he knew the substance’s identity; or by evidence that the defendant knew the specific analogue he was distributing, even if he did not know its legal status as a controlled substance analogue Well that's disturbing. Even if you didn't know what you were selling you can be charged, and if you knew what you were selling you will certainly be charged, even if you didn't know it was an analogue of an illegal drug. (paraphrasing) You pretty much have to sell RCs as something other than what they really are. Ironically, you're still protected if you sell an RC as "pool cleaner" with no information on how to consume it safely. What a screwed up system. Yeah, it's not as great news as it seems, when you did into the details :/ So far, enforcement of the FAA seems somewhat...limited (it is still possible to by drugs like 4-AcO online, at the moment). I'm hoping that with the new head of the DEA coming in, and opinion turning against the WoD that maybe dawn in breaking? Could the worst be behind us? Blessings ~ND "There are many paths up the same mountain."
|