The controlled substances act doesn't ..

[resorcinol]

.. even make sense pharmacologically in quite a few instances. Most of us agree the whole deal of having "C-whatever" drugs is total bullshit, but assuming for a sec that we're accepting the existence of this unconstitutional act ...

.... it makes no fucking sense in multiple instances (the scheduling that is).

Examples:
*Why is pure codeine or codeine only tabs with 90 mg or more per tab CII? Codeine is nowhere NEAR as habit forming as the powerful, non-prodrug opioids that populate the opioid part of CII. I thought lower scheduling was called for if a drug causes less severe physical and psychological dependence -- and surely codeine and fentanyl / oxycodone / morphine / levorphanol / etc are two different beasts when it comes to addictive power. Codeine is mild enough an opioid to be OVER THE COUNTER in the VAST majority of countries in the world. Sure, technically preps of codeine in cough syrups with other ingredients that are CV can TECHNICALLY be dispensed in the U.S. without a prescription, but try finding a pharmacist that would be willing ... not gonna happen! Codeine is a very inefficient prodrug and thus one cannot build a CII scheduling worthy habit on it -- the dose ceiling will cap off how high you can go, and it ain't very high. Evidence that the U.S. really has a case of opiophobia.

*GHB. This one is lulz worthy. The damn drug is in TWO DIFFERENT SCHEDULES despite being identical except that one is a street product and the other a pharmaceutical product. Xyrem (sodium oxybate a.k.a. sodium GHB) is CIII while street sodium GHB (or any other GHB salt) is CI. What the fuck is that? It's the SAME FUCKING DRUG. The CSA is supposed to class substances based on potential for dependence, yet it's decided by the DEA that pharma GHB gets to go in the "less addictive than CI-CII" schedule of CIII --- since they're the same goddamn drug, this shit makes no fucking sense ... the have absolutely 100 percent equal recreational / addictive / fun / dependence forming potential (duh!). Even ignoring that ... GHB does NOT deserve CI. GHB is like alcohol but without the feeling of being mildly poisoned, without a hangover, and without the potential to cause multi-organ damage. We should be REPLACING booze with GHB, not putting it in CI. The date rape thing is SO fucking overblown too ... sodium oxybate, magnesium oxybate, and potassium oxybate all have a strongly salty taste that is distinct from the salty taste of sodium chloride. I don't care if you're drunk ... it'd be difficult to NOT taste the GHB in your drink! I can't imagine there have been many actual cases of date rape with GHB due to this fact. I tend to believe that most women and men who thought they were "spiked" with another downer really just drank stronger booze than they thought, making the date rape drug ETHANOL (which remains unscheduled despite high fun potential and high potential for dependence physically).

*Nabilone, dronabinol (d-9-THC pharmaceutical name), and weed scheduling nightmare.
Nabilone is in CII, dronabinol is in CIII ... I see absolutely no evidence that nabilone is more "recreational" or "addictive" than dronabinol, but we have this weird scheduling disparity. To make things worse, cannabis, which derives its effects primarily from dronabinol, is CI while the isolate dronabinol (Marinol) is CIII. Yet from what I hear, getting the dose of pure dronabinol right is harder and bio-a varies a lot, making it harder to use it for cannabinoid therapy than weed, where dose titration is easier due to the more consistent effects of smoking the drug and the quick onset to allow for titration to the right dosage for symptom relief. Another case of same drug (essentially ... the other MJ cannabinoids only seem to color the buzz a little bit while dronabinol is responsible for getting you stoned), two schedules. And why CII for nabilone but CIII for pharma dronabinol? It's weird. It's loony. It's like they play eeny meenie miny moe into this schedule you will go with new drugs. Cannabinoids don't belong in such restrictive schedules anyway .... they should be CIV or CV because they're so safe relative to other psychoactives.

*Tapentadol. It got CII'd. Why? It's IMO gonna be more along the lines of hydrocodone than other CII opioids. Maybe they'll play the multi ingredient game with it also to get different schedules, when a CWE can take care of that APAP no problem.

*The ingredients game with hydrocodone / codeine / dihydrocodeine. It's nonsensical. PURE DHC and codeine should be CIV and pure hydrocodone CIII.

*Heroin (diamorphine) should be CII.

*Lots of psychedelics and MDMA in CI (can never be used medically), but crystal meth in a pill (Desoxyn) is allowed into CII. WTF?

*Benzos. Not super psychologically addictive, but physically addictive worse than opioids. Opioids get CII while benzos get CIV despite this.

*modafinil is in CIV; pregabalin in CV ---- neither should even be scheduled as they are not recreational enough.

*Pyrovalerone is probably more recreational than its CV status gives it credit for (it's a stim similar to MDPV, an DNRI). Same for propylhexedrine, which gives a better-than-adderall (which is CII) high, but isn't scheduled. I'm not complaining of course, I love that it's OTC, but it doesn't make sense. Modafinil = zero fun potential but scheduled, while propylhexedrine is OTC. Even ephedrine is more fun than modafinil and it's not scheduled. Weirdness.

They just seem to put drugs in whatever schedule they feel like putting them in without much thought or soundness to the scheduling at all. I'm sure there are more things I could nitpick about, but that's enough examples for now.

The CSA is unconstitutional bullshit AND it makes no fucking sense whatsoever even by its own supposed rules for classifying. It probably partially comes down to stigma attached to certain drugs along with an aversion to change a drug's schedule once it's been branded. The kinds of folks that populate the DEA are the type of person who probably quakes in fear at the idea of OMG CHANGE.

Edit: This probably should have went in "the piss and moan". IDK why I posted it in the weed forum. I suppose b/c the cannabinoid scheduling is the most ridiculous of all.

[lib.sOCialist]

no fucking joke res, the hypocrisy behind our *idealistic* constitution is fucking astonishing, godamnit Reagen....

[ryan]

Examples:
*Why is pure codeine or codeine only tabs with 90 mg or more per tab CII? Codeine is nowhere NEAR as habit forming as the powerful, non-prodrug opioids that populate the opioid part of CII.

It's bullshit -- that's why codeine is OTC in like every fucking country in the ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD except the united suck of 'murka.
I've always thought that we should have at least ONE GOD DAMN OTC Opiate -- but no.
And I don't mean Loperamide -- I mean something that actually crosses the BBB...
Something we can get when we're sick yanno?
Even if it's regulated, behind the counter like they do in Canada -- whatever, that's fine with me -- but god don't take away even the most harmless opioids and classify them in the same category as fentanyl.
And don't even get me started on GHB...that shit was legal FOREVER until some scum of the earth douche bags decided to use it as a date rape drug.
It's rediculous. Of course it's the drug's fault that people get raped. Drugs rape people every day!
Not to mention theres like a handful of 100% legal drugs (even non-scheduled) that could also be used as a "date rape" drug (how about alcohol itself -- which is in fact the MOST COMMON date rape drug!!!)
It boggles the mind, really.
The CSA is so archaic, but I doubt it will ever be revised in any good way.
The major problem with it is that alot of the scheduling guidelines are subjective -- and alot of the chemicals in C1 don't even have ANY RESEARCH WHATSOEVER to verify the claim that they can never be used medically. How are we supposed to know if a substance has no medical use unless it is properly researched in the first place?!?
How can they say heroin (diamorphine) has no medical use when there's a handful of other "1st world" countries that say it does?
Either it HAS medical use, or it doesn't, and if there's obvious research done stating that it DOES (which there is) how can our government simply ignore that?
It's one big contradiction..
I can remember the good 'ol days in college, buying GBL kits off the net and assorted Tryptamines from research sites..
5-Meo-DIPT was so fun. Funny thing is, I would have never even bothered with it had I not read the DEA's "emergency scheduling report."
They are required to notify the public any time a substance is placed into emergency scheduling and I believe it's a 6 month time period from the notification before it becomes illegal.
I read the report; it talked about visual halucinations, enhanced perception, etc. (they are talked about it like those are bad things? lol!) and I was like shit that sounds cool as fuck so I ordered a bunch.
SWIM still has a few bottles of this chem..Haven't tripped in awhile but this will always be one of my favorite chemicals.

[Dan Steely]

no fucking joke res, the hypocrisy behind our *idealistic* constitution is fucking astonishing, godamnit Reagen....

What's wrong with our constitution? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[duck]

no fucking joke res, the hypocrisy behind our *idealistic* constitution is fucking astonishing, godamnit Reagen....

post of the year

[lib.sOCialist]

yay, toss me some rep duck, i r low on rep :(

who else do you read duck?

heres just a couple i cant get enough of: Noam Chomsky, Aristotle, Epicurus, Michael Albert, Henry Thoreau, Friedrich Nietzsche, Isaac Asimov, Manu Chao, Nicholas Sparks, Socrates, Bryce Seligman, John Locke, Aldous Huxley, DeWitt, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato, René Descartes, Karl Marx, Sidney Sheldon, Steven Hawkings, Michael Parenti, Albert Einstein, Kurt Vonnegut Jr, Hugh Everett, James Lovelock, Heracleitus, Niels Bohr, Naomi Klien, John Archibald Wheeler, Saskea Sassken, Slavoj Zizek, Tzvetan Todorov...

[duck]

I was joking....usually people do not connect right wingers with strict constitutionalists...so to go after both in the same sentence was exciting!

I'm more with DS...what's ur beef with the constitution?

[lib.sOCialist]

i didnt literally mean the u.s. constitution, i meant the legislature and structure of the bodies that qualify a "drug" for being scheduled..namely the U.S. congress, sorry dan, duck, if i came off as some anarchist ass hole that hates the state..

and i am in no friggin way a rightist..im a libertarian socialist.

[Dan Steely]

yay, toss me some rep duck, i r low on rep :(

who else do you read duck?

heres just a couple i cant get enough of: Noam Chomsky, Aristotle, Epicurus, Michael Albert, Henry Thoreau, Friedrich Nietzsche, Isaac Asimov, Manu Chao, Nicholas Sparks, Socrates, Bryce Seligman, John Locke, Aldous Huxley, DeWitt, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato, René Descartes, Karl Marx, Sidney Sheldon, Steven Hawkings, Michael Parenti, Albert Einstein, Kurt Vonnegut Jr, Hugh Everett, James Lovelock, Heracleitus, Niels Bohr, Naomi Klien, John Archibald Wheeler, Saskea Sassken, Slavoj Zizek, Tzvetan Todorov...

Wow dude I guess one could say that you are pretty well read. All I have under my belt are Stephan King and Robert Ludlum.:rolleyes:

Idealy most of the ism's sound great. It's when they are actually put into practice the problems arise. It seems that the short comings of mankind invariably ruin it for us no matter which way we go.

[lib.sOCialist]

Wow dude I guess one could say that you are pretty well read. All I have under my belt are Stephan King and Robert Ludlum.:rolleyes:

Idealy most of the ism's sound great. It's when they are actually put into practice the problems arise. It seems that the short comings of mankind invariably ruin it for us no matter which way we go.

QF fucking truth, from a philosophical standpoint-lib socialism is IMO the most Utopian of societies. but in practice it fails miserably, fuck the invisible hand of self-interest, the hedonistic imperative with there "super happiness" is one of the most interesting concepts to help create the moral backbone for the grounds needed to keep a civilization from tearing itself apart in a libertarian socialism or anarchism.

and mmm i fucking the love the bourne series

[Dan Steely]

Yeah the movies are awesome too. Love that song at the end of them. I gotta step out now. Wish I had a recording of it to drive around with.

[pain-pateint]

If you guys think the CSA is illogical, you should spend some time reading about conspiracy and RICO law and what they do to the Rules of Evidence and the presumption of innocence.

As my favorite, now departed, law school professor, Pat Keenan, used to say, "It's cuckoo law!"

M

[lib.sOCialist]

If you guys think the CSA is illogical, you should spend some time reading about conspiracy and RICO law and what they do to the Rules of Evidence and the presumption of innocence.

As my favorite, now departed, law school professor, Pat Keenan, used to say, "It's cuckoo law!"

M

the RICO laws are fucking insane...guilty by association my ass, i fucking hate capitalism :(

[Papa Verine]

Us Italian Chicagoans don't like the RICO laws either. At least Joe Batters got away...

[Duckfeet]

Yup: I know in my life I saw huge consequences of the RICO act just in N.FL when they started using it against the big bike clubs...and some guys I know are still in prison from that one, now old guys, of course...it changed everything, as it's way too loosely interpreted...but of course, most people were *for* it, as it got a lot of the "bad guys" off the street....one more example of a temporary solution being more a permanent problem than the original problem was...Drug Prohibition, RICO...same same...

[Dan Steely]

the RICO laws are fucking insane...guilty by association my ass, i fucking hate capitalism :(

I fucking love it!

It boggles my mind that some people think they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor and elect some gov't henchmen to confiscate it for them but you don't here me bitchin about it at every conceivable opportunity.

Dial it down a little comrade we can read your user name loud and clear.

[lib.sOCialist]

:( will do

[Restharrow]

I read the Federal Register Notice placeing TAPENTADOL (spelling??) in Schedule II of the CSA, and there were ONLY THREE citizens in the USA who took enough interest in the process to make a public comment. (2 of those commenting were the patent holder and the distributor if my memory is correct).

No one takes any interest in the process.

Think about it. All the complaining we do at OPIOPHILE and only 2 people make a public comment that DEA is required to consider when placing restrictions on drugs.

My point is no one takes any interest in the legal process unless they have a direct financial interest in the outcome.

Good post Resourcinol!

Will

[ryan]

I read the Federal Register Notice placeing TAPENTADOL (spelling??) in Schedule II of the CSA, and there were ONLY THREE citizens in the USA who took enough interest in the process to make a public comment. (2 of those commenting were the patent holder and the distributor if my memory is correct).

No one takes any interest in the process.

Think about it. All the complaining we do at OPIOPHILE and only 2 people make a public comment that DEA is required to consider when placing restrictions on drugs.

My point is no one takes any interest in the legal process unless they have a direct financial interest in the outcome.

Good post Resourcinol!

Will

You make a good point...but the solution is not to keep our mouths shut and just give up..
Fact is most people don't care about drug policy unless it affects them in some way, even indirectly (family member or distant relative). What we have going for us (which DF has talked about in prior threads) is that eventually, addiction to opiates is going to hit enough rich white families that something gets done about it...could take like 200 years though, but it'll happen :) I'm not sure if it's just that people really think drugs are evil or they just have bigger problems to worry about.

And that RICO shit IS insane...I love watching the biker gang \ mafia specials on the history channel...basically it was the gov getting pissed off because they could never make any serious charges stick people in organized crime ... so -- they call it a criminal enterprise \ conspiracy, and arrest everyone!Sounds like a logical conclusion to me (rofl). Drug conspiracy laws are even worse...I believe that the US is one of the only countries in the world where the penalty for conspiring to commit a crime is worse than the penalty for actually commiting the crime..

[Duckfeet]

True, and worse, the *money* in RICO triples too, if I'm not mistaken, so trial lawyers jump at any chance to sue corporations or people, w/money, under RICO statutes...

And as was stated, if we did get together, and started making public statements, it would probably be seen like if the Mafia went public with arguments against RICO...most non-addicts think that it's just "tuff shit" when we get hammered legally....and the reason alcohol prohibition failed, IMO, is mostly because so many people liked to drink...of course, as was pointed out...more and more people like opiates, and that's hopeful...maybe...but often it just breeds bland "solutions" like buprenorphene, rather than simply declaring it unconstitutional to say what a person can put in their own body...one of the main reasons I don't see the "newer" policy of seeing us as "sick" will be any improvement, and just gives the gov't more control over our lives, in the long run...I don't have a disease, myself...I've got serious problems w/my heroin addiction...but to me, that's different...

good thread...

[resorcinol]

I agree with the sentiment that the U.S. constitution is a sound, fair document. The problem is ... the U.S. gov't doesn't give a crap about it and walks all over it if they want to, and then makes up lame ass reasons as to why it's OK.

If you guys think the CSA is illogical, you should spend some time reading about conspiracy and RICO law and what they do to the Rules of Evidence and the presumption of innocence.

As my favorite, now departed, law school professor, Pat Keenan, used to say, "It's cuckoo law!"

M

Oh I totally agree ... RICO is right up there on the ridiculous levels of bullshit scale with the CSA.

[lib.sOCialist]

hey res im taking organic chemistry along with computational chem in the fall, you think ill be able to take both along with psychology without having to lose sleep? or should i just take the chems?

[resorcinol]

hey res im taking organic chemistry along with computational chem in the fall, you think ill be able to take both along with psychology without having to lose sleep? or should i just take the chems?

Any additional classes besides those? It's doable. The difficulty will depend on what kind of psych course you're taking. I think it's possible without loosing sleep and taking stimulants though (though taking adderall or ritalin etc can get ya out of a bind regardless of major and class load... we all get behind on work from time to time).

You already know organic chem is a tough course, so how tough taking psych with the others will be depends on how difficult the psych class is IMO. Computational chem is nowhere near as difficult as orgo IMO so I wouldn't worry about that one.

[lib.sOCialist]

just physics and some bullshit sociology course along with those listed, but i feel like i have a niche for org. chem. so i think ill do just fine, and god.. i abuse my fair share of amphetamines when im going fulltime (spring & fall). and im not sure which exact course the psych is, itll be my 2nd or 3rd psych course so it will probably be a little more complex than what ive already studied. and have you taken anatomy and physiology by chance?

[resorcinol]

I haven't taken either of those yet. The only bio-related courses I've taken so far are intro bio 1 and 2 and human evolution (which is a mixed bio/anthropology course).

[hydrocronik]

i didnt literally mean the u.s. constitution, i meant the legislature and structure of the bodies that qualify a "drug" for being scheduled..namely the U.S. congress, sorry dan, duck, if i came off as some anarchist ass hole that hates the state..

and i am in no friggin way a rightist..im a libertarian socialist.

No, you're an idiot if you classify yourself as one thing and make judgments according to what "party" you belong to. Think for yourself. This is why I hate religion too. Everyone just wants to be apart of something, wether it makes sense or not. Your judgement gets clouded this way.

[pain-pateint]

The craziest part about the RICO laws, IMHO, is what they do to the rules of evidense. Hearsay -- usually inadmissible -- becomes admissible automatically without even the need for a "hearsay exception" if it's a statement by an ALLEGED co-conspirator, even an unnamed one (i.e., he or she is not indicted but noted just to get in his or her out of court statements).

In essense, the RICO and other conspiracy laws conflate or even invert the relationship between being charged and presumed innocent. Once you're in the conspiracy, it's like your presumption of innocence is lost. And, to circumvent the laws of evidence of presumption of innocence, the prostitutor must only make a prima facie showing of the lilkely existence of the conspiracy to hold everyone in it responsible for the acts of everyone else.

It MIGHT be fair IF the prosecutors were required to keep and show the jurrors ALL of the "CHARTS" of the conspiracy that they have used/drawn since the case started -- you know, those pyramid looking thing with the names of little minions on the bottom and "Mr. Big" at the top? In most cases I had like this in federal court, those diagrams/charts were so often collapsing, or were just "flipped over" depending on who pled out and when, that the series of charts usually shows that someone who at the beginning of the case is little minion does, in fact by the time the jury hears the case, become the new "Mr. Big". I think if jurrors saw how prosecutors manipulate these organizational charts over time, they would see the BS involved.

One other reform I would urge? Any officer who acted undercover should have his her testimony noted in the jury instructions as testimony from someone who misreporesents himself or herself for a LIVING, and that the jurros may take that into account when assessing credibility of such witness.

That won't make it quite fair, but it would be a lot fairer than it is now.

[pain-pateint]

The craziest part about the RICO laws, IMHO, is what they do to the rules of evidense. Hearsay -- usually inadmissible -- becomes admissible automatically without even the need for a "hearsay exception" if it's a statement by an ALLEGED co-conspirator, even an unnamed one (i.e., he or she is not indicted but noted just to get in his or her out of court statements).

In essense, the RICO and other conspiracy laws conflate or even invert the relationship between being charged and presumed innocent. Once you're in the conspiracy, it's like your presumption of innocence is lost. And, to circumvent the laws of evidence of presumption of innocence, the prostitutor must only make a prima facie showing of the lilkely existence of the conspiracy to hold everyone in it responsible for the acts of everyone else.

It MIGHT be fair IF the prosecutors were required to keep and show the jurrors ALL of the "CHARTS" of the conspiracy that they have used/drawn since the case started -- you know, those pyramid looking thing with the names of little minions on the bottom and "Mr. Big" at the top? In most cases I had like this in federal court, those diagrams/charts were so often collapsing, or were just "flipped over" depending on who pled out and when, that the series of charts usually shows that someone who at the beginning of the case is little minion does, in fact by the time the jury hears the case, become the new "Mr. Big". I think if jurrors saw how prosecutors manipulate these organizational charts over time, they would see the BS involved.

One other reform I would urge? Any officer who acted undercover should have his her testimony noted in the jury instructions as testimony from someone who misreporesents himself or herself for a LIVING, and that the jurros may take that into account when assessing credibility of such witness.

That won't make it quite fair, but it would be a lot fairer than it is now.

[LeChuck]

Why the fuck are etorphine and carfentanil CII? They have no clinical use for humans as far as I know which should make them CI.

And why is ketamine CIII? No doctor is going to write a script for that, ever. Should be CII.

Benzos should be CIII.

[jacky]

yep, the contradictory, unscientific nature of the american drug scheduling should be infuriating to more than just drug addicts...

its such a sloppy set up.

we have had some preperation of cannabis allowed as a medicinal, however limited for the entire last century...shit, in my text book of pharmacognosy from the 40's...I see that even peyote was an accepted medicine.......

good point about methamphetamine being profited off of by the pharm industry, and also demonized by the same forces.
nevermind they get to make money by selling the precursor to meth that eventually ends up on the street in the form of crank...
they also get to make money selling methamphetamine legally.

I think all natural compounds should be legalized for possession...the partial synthetic/synthetic compounds should be controlled to the degree that people are only allowed a limited supply for personal use.
but what do I know?

I am a pushover nice guy that ends up getting fucked over more than I am helped out.
l