Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Controlled substances/grandfathered?

Globey - 14-4-2009 at 09:00

What if a party bought a listed/controlled product many years before it became controlled, and now still possess such product without license. How does the law interpret this sort of scenario.

So, if one bougt morphine cough syrup years ago, when it was still OTC. Can the feds bust my granny for posessing this without Rx, even though she purchased legally? What (according to law), is she supposed to do with it?

What if it is a chemical which can't legally be dumped?

hissingnoise - 14-4-2009 at 09:35

I'm in the process of developing a time-machine to address this very issue. . . (wink)

Globey - 14-4-2009 at 10:47

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
I'm in the process of developing a time-machine to address this very issue. . . (wink)


Well I bet there's a future market for such a device!

hissingnoise - 14-4-2009 at 11:05

I'd be torn between past and future sales. . .
Going back to nip chemophobia in the bud might be useful, but one of the first things would be to mount a smear campaign that would stop a certain Harry Anslinger in his tracks; after that, a visit to a German medical man called Henning to let him know how useful his newly synthesised compound would become. . .er, sorry, I've totally lost the thread. . .

IrC - 14-4-2009 at 19:44

Yes they could and if they knew about it they would.

Sedit - 14-4-2009 at 22:12

I think your best bet would be to just look back and see how it was written when it was scheduled. I cant see them suddenly making criminals from the people of the time that just bought some cough medicine a few days prior. Chances are a quick look at past laws and you will find any grandfather clause you want to know about. They also may have told the people to bring it back to the pharmacy or else.

chief - 15-4-2009 at 02:34

Thats whatfor there are judges: The judge will look at the case and try to tell, if the old label and bottle were just meant to be juristical disguises for some probably fresh-made drugs ...

chemrox - 15-4-2009 at 22:54

I discussed this issue with a couple of DEA enforcement people and they suggested storing the listed materials very securely. No hint of attacking me for having them.

Elawr - 16-4-2009 at 07:34

If you have documentation showing you acquired the substance prior to it being scheduled, and are not trying to sell the stuff, then you should be ok.

a_bab - 23-4-2009 at 00:29

Think about dynamite.
Some 80 years ago (maybe less) it was possible to buy it with no licence in the states. Nowadays, just speaking about the stuff means big trouble unless properly licenced/having storing facilities.

If you could buy some stuff long ago, and it becomes illegal to posses you should refer to the authorities and THEY are in charge in getting you rid of the "dangerously toxic/explosive/mankind threatening chemical substances" (and as the things are going, even lye could become higly illegal to "posses, obtain or manufacture")

The thing is, if you are raided and they discover the grandpa goodies you could be accused of not obeying the law, regardless what an DEA agend may say.

chemrox - 24-4-2009 at 00:05

dynamite is not an apt analogy. the hard rights in this country justified torture on the basis of terrorism and link dynamite and anything enrgetic to that... its much worse than the war on drugs bullshit

[Edited on 24-4-2009 by chemrox]

Sauron - 24-4-2009 at 03:14

Well mark me down as hard right then.

Waterboarding is to torture what a wet noodle is to a bullwhip.

Personally I'd be happy to see vivisection used on those AQ assholes if it means saving US lives.

Obama is doing a Jimmy Carter imitation, I sau he can take his "moral compass" and shove it.

chemrox, my friend, po;litics is a nono on this forum, and this is why.

brightwonder - 24-4-2009 at 06:07

Sauron you would certainly change your tune if you were to experience waterboarding yourself. For one so eloquent in matters of chemistry, you make yourself ridiculous with this anaology.

watson.fawkes - 24-4-2009 at 06:39

Quote: Originally posted by Sauron  
[...] politics is a nono on this forum, and this is why.
Yes, Sauron, politics is a no-no, both yours and the original poster's. Their failure to keep politics out does not justify your failure to keep politics out. Two wrongs do not make a right. Please do not let your inconsistency in this affair rise to the level of overt hypocrisy.

Sauron - 24-4-2009 at 13:44

Yes, nanny.

quicksilver - 15-5-2009 at 09:35

It sounds like this discussion is moving in the direction of the authorities being aware of your possession of chemicals "listed" as drug manufacturing materials. IF you are going about your business & your interests lie elsewhere than manufacturing drugs, the likelihood of "being raided" is rather non-existent. By itself, it's just not that damn important!

This was one reason why I despised the series "Breaking Bad". Not because the main character was a fucking selfish asshole who thought so little about the welfare of his family that money mattered more than loving communication at the possible close of his life; that money would somehow make everything all right. But that it put the dynamics of chemistry (if not science in general) in the light of an exploitative milieu, used by those with a nefarious agenda. It's a damn public commercial repeating "chemicals are for one thing: breaking the law!"
In fact I would say that Breaking Bad had done more harm to home chemistry, science, etc than any one single recent event. The jerk writer even interjected mercury fulminate (let's not forget energetic chemistry) in one episode...

With all the problems that face industrialized nations economically, etc - I deeply doubt that anyone would go the extra mile to arrest someone for a collection of nitrates or whatever. UNLESS that person is doing something damn stupid.

Exposing your neighbors to a fire hazard is damn stupid.
Making loud noise & alarming people is damn stupid.
Placing one's family at risk of poisoning is damn stupid.
The manufacturing of drugs is damn stupid because making money off the misery or weaknesses of others is akin to practicing usury. ....And loan-sharks are not popular folks.
{NOTE: I happen NOT to be an "anti-drug" zealot but drug dealers are not models of public service-mined individuals.}

Barring the above, who cares about someone's home lab or element collection?
In fact I feel so confident of this that even IF Kiefer Sutherland & the whole gang in "24" knew about someone having a bottle of lead nitrate, that the idea of using resources for such a thing would not be in the cards.... :-)

grndpndr - 16-5-2009 at 10:13

Thats a very asytute analisys IMHO.I hadnt looked at the show in that light.Noncommunicative, perceptive of you or shows me in a poor light.But did you see the size of those Fulminate of Mercury crystals!The'd detonate just by thier sheer size,internal stresses,wieght.

Im not a big fan of most mind altering substances but what you ingest is clearly you concern and personal decision.So sayeth the Constitution Of these United States.Unfortrunately the supreme court and clever lawyers have manuevered thier way around the supreme law of the land and your god (or higher powers)given right to get f-ed
up at will.:o Of course I think its constitutional to restrict what you do when under the influence as then you are infringing on anothers right to safely drive the hyways and byways etc.Which reminds me back in the late 70s a pharmacy which had been in buisiness before all the restrictions on coke and opiates the lasyt surviving pharmacist passed away apparently leaving behind enough heroin, morphine and cocaine to make speed balls for the county.LOL

more to the point however unless its say just the empty, CLLECTIBLE container or pipe etc. Possesion is likely possesion and you will be arrested and court is where you'll have to attempt to convince a judge its a collectible
and even if he might be convinced its still possesion in the eyes of the law and at a minimum the contents should have been cleaned out long ago.You mayb have noticed mild opiate anjd even class2 must be used within a year of the script date or tossed outn under penalty of law.
[Edited on 16-5-2009 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 16-5-2009 by grndpndr]

quicksilver - 17-5-2009 at 07:06

YES! That was pretty damn funny! They were sugar crystals I believe because they were the size of a man's thumb & clear, non-delineated irregular shapes & I just can't think of anything available for the Prop-man to use other than that. They appeared to be grown similar to a 4th grade student project......

Frankly I don't stay up on the law regarding prescriptions, but tossing out a prescription at the end of a year seems wasteful. Should such a thing be printed on the prescription bottle?

[Edited on 17-5-2009 by quicksilver]

koopatroopa023 - 23-5-2009 at 07:01

Depending on where you live will determine the outcome of the hypothetical situation you present. In the United States, ex post facto laws are protected against in the constitution, however that may or may not stop law enforcement from trying to get you for it. In your morphine example, granny wouldn't be in any legal trouble for possessing it after the laws have changed. However they may be able to land her for something for using the morphine. As for the chemical that can't be legally dumped, possession of it shouldn't lead to trouble if you can prove that you had it before laws changed, and if disposal was needed then I probably would not worry about legal repercussions from trying to dispose of it safely.

grndpndr - 29-7-2009 at 20:10

The 'expiration' date is exactly 1 year from the date of filling, actually the day after.If filled on 5-7-09 expiration is on 5-8-10.Expiration meaning dispose off and in this state its clearly marked.I cannot vouch for this but an individual claimed his of age daughter was busted(Colo.) for having a class 3 in her possesion after the exp date.It was found during a search warrant and as nothing else was found allegedly the expired codiene had to be used to justify the search.I have my doubts about many elements of the story but expiration dates are clearly marked and the meds supposed to be dumped.of course half the pop. would be jailed if prosecuted for leftover toothache meds etc.IIRC I also asked the pharmacist here about that and the answer was in the affirmative concerning disposal.However if a jury excercised common sense they would excercise thier right to jury nullification as i would bet several jurists would also be in violation.#2 any states attorney wasting the publics money and time should be fired IMHO.

donlaszlow - 4-8-2009 at 09:32

This is nonsense, since if someone wants to make drugs does not need too much training to do so. Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on the drug precursors, so people who make up these policies might not know any Chemistry whatsoever. We have an oath before we receive a diploma. Most people don't know about that. Most chemists do research for the good of mankind. :mad:

grndpndr - 11-8-2009 at 03:42

Well as were becoming more aware of, often new bills /laws arent even read by those charged wth reresenting their constituents.My take was that representatives of the people IE congress and the like were supposed to rep the majority of the constituents wishes.Clearly BS as Im finding out at the tender age of 50+.I dont believe I never noticed I believe the increasing arrogance of reperesentatives and ego is responsible.And far to many voters memorys are to short to recall thier being betrayed /ignored by thier sworn to uphld and defend the constitution/bill of rights representatives

grndpndr - 3-9-2009 at 21:24

Quote: Originally posted by donlaszlow  
This is nonsense, since if someone wants to make drugs does not need too much training to do so. Criminals will always find a way to get their hands on the drug precursors, so people who make up these policies might not know any Chemistry whatsoever. We have an oath before we receive a diploma. Most people don't know about that. Most chemists do research for the good of mankind. :mad:


Thier is much nonsense in DC lawmaking if you hadnt noticed and of course I believe the great majority of chemists the furthest thing from thier mind is tossing a hard earned diploma for a drugmaking career!
Besides the moral/legal aspects of the activity.Of course I believe chemist have the best interests of the public at heart and no i wasnt aware of the oath. Regards and best of luck with the indespensable career.

[Edited on 4-9-2009 by grndpndr]

[Edited on 4-9-2009 by grndpndr]

DDTea - 19-10-2009 at 10:06

I recently dealt with a situation similar to this, where a group had come into possession of several nitrates and fine grain aluminum powder. These are now on the state department list of regulated chemicals, and an institution, like a University, must report *exactly* how much, e.g. Ammonium Nitrate it has in its inventory to the government. The particular chemicals I came across had been used in demonstrations by a student group and stored away in there general storage closet for >10 yrs. There was a bottle of Hydrochloric Acid I found that was completely dried up (and needless to say, the metal storage cabinet was rather corroded...).

Being an upstanding citizen, I asked the authorities (chemistry department) how I should go about disposing of these materials. With the help of the department and the University Dept. of Environmental Services, we were able to sort out the mess in a way that was favorable to all parties--no trouble, just a quick, mostly painless solution that mostly entailed disposal of the chemicals (unless they were legitimately being used for future demonstrations; even then, though, there was too much hassle involved in keeping things like Ammonium Nitrate).

My guess then is that in such situations of grandfathered materials, the law is generally on your side so long as you are forthcoming and cooperative. It's not as if you committed a crime.

NeutralIon - 20-10-2009 at 12:32

Quote: Originally posted by DDTea  

no trouble, just a quick, mostly painless solution that mostly entailed disposal of the chemicals (unless they were legitimately being used for future demonstrations; even then, though, there was too much hassle involved in keeping things like Ammonium Nitrate).


What's the big deal about disposing of Ammonium Nitrate? Just dump it in a bucket of water and pour it on the lawn.

grndpndr - 21-11-2009 at 02:53



What's the big deal about disposing of Ammonium Nitrate? Just dump it in a bucket of water and pour it on the lawn.[/rquote]

#1! calling leo in a ituation like that(possesion of some unwanted AN/ nitrates,acids etc) is unnescessary and a potential legal liability.Unless it were a toxic chemical able to poison water treatment plants/discharge I would handle it personaly keeping the MSDS in mind.A University/home lab is apple and oranges leo would have a whole different attitude
towards the home chemist no matter how legit.Caution would be a healthy watchword if you intended to maintain your 'freedom'.

quicksilver - 1-12-2009 at 14:08

I absolutely agree.

Calling any authorities invites trouble as MANY individuals are very illiterate when it comes to chemicals & their uses.
No matter what various pyrotechnic outlets have dealt with regarding the CPSA & their civil/legal complications, powdered metals are NOT illegal. They are commonly used in metallic paints and inks. Do a search for ECKART (the company that manufactures 5413H & 10890 "pyro aluminum powder") and you will note they are very much in business as an ink company. The powdered metals are not called "pyro", of course.

The stipulation deals with "kits" to manufacture illegal fireworks ( the quintessential M80) and the profiteering on materials that actually cost about 50-75% of what they had sold for.
YET, there are now new companies that have taken over for Skylighter and Firefox, skirting the "Kit issue" by large banners proclaiming none such shall be sold and asking for various licenses form the ATF. The reason (most likely) is that the real money these companies make are from large scale professional pyrotechnic display companies that are often involved in high dollar performances, have licenses, insurance, & very well trained folks that are aware of the dangers. However these companies spend thousands of dollars at a shot (no pun intended) setting up for a serious display.

The level of danger from an FAE exists just as viciously from a grain tower as it does from fine metallic particulate. But placing a large firecracker in the hands of a child has cost too many fingers & eyes for it not to have been acted upon by the authorities. Thus the stipulation that "Thou shalt not make M80's" but non-explosive uses remain.

Actually there are some damn interesting stories as to how & why certain companies got a lot of negative attention while others did not. Just like many potentially dangerous hobbies, chemistry must be approached with maturity.

DDTea - 6-9-2010 at 00:43

Quote: Originally posted by NeutralIon  
Quote: Originally posted by DDTea  

no trouble, just a quick, mostly painless solution that mostly entailed disposal of the chemicals (unless they were legitimately being used for future demonstrations; even then, though, there was too much hassle involved in keeping things like Ammonium Nitrate).


What's the big deal about disposing of Ammonium Nitrate? Just dump it in a bucket of water and pour it on the lawn.


Universities don't like when you pour chemicals on their grass.

Also, the issue was that after 9/11, almost ALL Nitrates were added to some state department list. Universities are allowed to have them, but they must declare exactly how much they have in their possession at any time and where it is located. They didn't like that there was Ammonium Nitrate around that they didn't know about.