I was doing a little reading this morning on the Federal Analog act and I was rather surprised at what I found.

Looking over the wiki located HERE I found two example cases.

The first, and likely the most interesting to this community, is the case of USA v. Damon S. Forbes. In this case a Colorado judge ruled that AET was not an analog of DMT because of it's primary amine...even though both molecules are clearly tryptamine and have far more in common than not.

Furthermore the judge ruling over the case had this to say:



Now it would seem to me that if AET (which is a tryptamine) is not an analog of DMT then for the most part people are going to be pretty safe with research chemicals as long as they aren't trying to sell them.

So this post was really more to generate some discussion around this. For the obvious reasons no one should even remotely consider this thread legal advice. You are foolish if you do. With that said, I'm actually pretty curious what others think about this.

Just wanted to add...that after the above case AET was added to the list of controlled substances...it is now in fact very illegal to posses it.

It always takes me a good 15 minutes to find Entropymancer's thread when I need it. None of key words seem to get picked up by the search function. Anyway, finally found it and posting it here as reference. I'm sure you've read it, joedirt, but others might also find it useful on this subject.

On the Legal Status of DMT Source Plants in the US (with a discussion of the religious use defense)