Sciencemadness Discussion Board - "controlled substances & "listed" subtances

"controlled substances & "listed" subtances

Magpie - 18-1-2004 at 22:17

Although I know that 21 CFR Parts 1309 and 1310 are laws that only apply to the USA equivalent laws likely exist in the country in which you happen to live. These laws were passed in an effort to stem the manufacturer and use of narcotics. The "Controlled Substances Act" consists of 5 lists of mostly drugs, which I don't care about anyway, but list IV does contain paraldehyde - potentially very useful to the amateur chemist. These are just plain illegal to have. The "Listed Chemicals" are not illegal to have but the handlers and sellers must be "regulated" by the federal govt. On List I ("precursors"

are included anthranilic acid, methylamine, ethylamine, propionic anhydride, hydriodic acid, benzaldehyde, red phosphorus, white phosphorus, and hypophosphorous acid and its salts. List II ("essential" chemicals) contains: acetic anhydride, acetone, benzyl chloride, ethyl ether, KMnO4, MEK, toluene, HCl, H2SO4, MIBK, and iodine. These are all potenitally very useful to the home chemist. There are "threshold" limits on these chemicals. So if you buy 3 liters of toluene at the local hardware store the pimply faced teenager who waited on you may report you to the DEA!

Drug use along with terrorism is making it difficult to pursue our ancient and honorable hobby! And it is making me paranoid about having a home lab.

None of this is likely news to most on this forum. I just brought it up to vent some frustration and see how the rest of you feel. Comments please.

Note: a search on Google will quickly bring you the DEA websites which list these laws.

guaguanco - 18-1-2004 at 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie
Drug use along with terrorism is making it difficult to pursue our ancient and honorable hobby! And it is making me paranoid about having a home lab.
None of this is likely news to most on this forum. I just brought it up to vent some frustration and see how the rest of you feel. Comments please.
Note: a search on Google will quickly bring you the DEA websites which list these laws.

As we have discussed on another thread, I can certainly sympathise.
When I was in high school, both my friend and I had nice chem labs. We had nice reagents. We did lots of interesting chemistry. I synthesized a variety of local anesthetics, heterocyclics, odd organic compounds. It was a really cool hobby
I honestly don't think it is feasable to persue serious, technically advanced amatuer chemistry in the US nowadays; not under terms I could accept. Even if I had nothing but a garage full of legal reagents and glassware, I would assume I would be at risk for arrest, a lengthy legal hassle, and a variety of government agencies circling around like vultures.
It didn't used to be that way, but we live in ignorant and paranoid times. I can't take those risks; I have people depending on me.

[Edited on 19-1-2004 by guaguanco]

Thanks Magpie!

Hermes_Trismegistus - 19-1-2004 at 00:30

(I respect guaguanco and his choice of priorities. But I have no mouths to feed!)

There was a patriot whose words we still teach in our schoolbooks here in Canada. Because it describes a little piece of our national character.

A man once said " I love the Queen of England, and would gladly lay down my life for her in a moment! But if the parliment passed a law tomorrow that forbid any but the royal family to use red ink, I would cheerfully write her a congratulatory letter wishing her a long and happy life. In ink, the brightest shade of crimson I could purchase!"

That other thread had me wondering what 20 chemicals I most wanted.

Now I have a list.Thanx Magpie!

Mendeleev - 19-1-2004 at 10:11

Toluene and HCL are sold in 1 gal. (3.78 liter) cans. I bought several cans the other day and lady just smiled and asked me if I was going to drink all that today. Nobody really gives a shit about stuff like toluene, H2SO4, HCl, or MEK, that stuff is too common, I could walk out the store with ten liters of it and not even blink. I'm right with Hermes, add those to my top 20 list.

[Edited on 19-1-2004 by Mendeleev]

HCl

hodges - 19-1-2004 at 14:14

I looked all over for "muriatic acid". Finally found it at Home Depot. It came in a box of 3 1-gallon containers and the box clearly stated "Do not open box - to be sold as a unit only!". Cost was around $7 for 3 gallons. I didn't get any reactions buying it - although I don't exactly look like a kid either.... Anyone need a couple gallons for free?

Hodges

Mendeleev - 19-1-2004 at 18:31

Don't ever be afraid of having a home lab, you could have labeled 95% nitric acid 98% sulfuric acid and toluene, glycerine, and hexamine right next to eachother and a copy of instructions on how to make explosives on your computer, and the cops can't do shit unless they prove that you've actually made explosives or that you were conspiring too, knowlede and resources don't make a consiracy in U.S. courts, they make a case dismissal based on circumstantial evidence, so experiment all you want Magpie, and the feds only watch you if you buy really restricted stuff like acetic anhydride or methylamine.

[Edited on 20-1-2004 by Mendeleev]

guaguanco - 19-1-2004 at 22:50

Quote:

I admire your faith in the honesty and integrity of American law enforcement agencies. It certainly exceeds mine.

Mendeleev - 12-6-2004 at 14:22

What exactly are the requirments for list 1 and 2 chemicals? I used to think that list 1 chemicals were illegal to own without a license and list 2 required a license only above the threshold. However as an experiment I went onto http://www.sciencelab.com/ which sells to individuals and attempted to see if they would let me buy several list 1 chemicals such as hydriodic acid. Everything was fine and it got all the way up to the credit card part, and then I stopped because I don't really need any hydriodic acid at the moment. This got me confused, maybe list one requires records keeping and list 2 only requires record keeping above the threshold? Does anybody know?

[Edited on 12-6-2004 by Mendeleev]

"controlled substances" vs "listed chemicals"

Magpie - 12-6-2004 at 15:19

If I remember correctly from my reading of the 21 CFR 1300, "controlled substances" consist of 5 lists of drugs for which you have to be licensed to have.

"Listed chemicals" consist of "precursors" and "essential chemicals." They are legal to buy and own, but the handlers and sellers are regulated.

On this subject, don't be surprised to someday see stickers on your retailer's door, and on the shelves near the drain cleaner, that "meth watch" is watching what you buy. There are indications that this will be happening eventually in my community.

atombum - 12-6-2004 at 16:28

Correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but I've read on many occasions that List I chemicals now require a DEA permit to buy and sell.
As far as your purchase experiment, you'd definately receive an inquisitive phone call from the company on this or any suspicious order.
While on the subject of ScienceLab, I think they have a sister company called LabDepot (the graphics and website functionality are almost indentical). One difference is at Depot, just about every controlled substance is for sale and is clickable, just like an average reagent. An idiot trap, perhaps?
Also Mendeleev stated ScienceLab sells to individuals, but the chem section states something to the effect of "supplying businesses, schools, and laboratories", anyone here purchased from them as an individual?

Mendeleev - 12-6-2004 at 17:42

I sent them an e-mail a while back asking if they sold to individuals, I think they said said yes. If list 1 chemicals require a permit how is it you can just check them out of the website, they don't ask for ID or anything.

Polverone - 12-6-2004 at 18:42

I have seen numerous sites selling listed chemicals request some sort of "DEA permit" for sales of those chemicals. However, some while back I read the relevant sections of the CFR, and though transactions of List I chemicals are more stringently regulated than those on List II (or plain unlisted chemicals), there is no legal requirement for an end-user to have any sort of permit. Manufacturers, resellers, and importers seem to have a lot of work to do though.

It is a crime to sell chemicals to someone if you have a reasonable idea that they will be used for illegal purposes. I imagine this is why many sites go above and beyond what the law requires when it comes to selling listed chemicals, so that their own asses are well-covered. In the same vein, individual transactions in List I chemicals have to be reported only if the same purchaser purchases more than a threshold amount per month, but I wouldn't be surprised if some chemical sellers just sent records for all List I sales to the government, not bothering to weed out those transactions too small to demand reporting. Of course I can just as easily imagine sellers not wanting to deal with the reporting hassle and simply refusing to engage in regulated-quantity transactions with most customers. In this case records must be kept for a certain number of years, but they don't have to be shown to anybody until/unless the government wants to see them.

I don't know how such records are actually delivered to the government and reviewed. I don't recall if that was even covered in the section of the CFR I was reading, or if it was in another section.

[Edited on 6-13-2004 by Polverone]

Mendeleev - 12-6-2004 at 19:24

What if you order lots of chemicals as an individual in large quantities, like 200 L and 600 lbs, but none of them are listed. Stuff like formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, ammoniun chloride, and calcium hypochlorite. Would the DEA get on you for that?

The_Davster - 12-6-2004 at 19:40

Or opposed to large ammounts of unregulated chems how about very small(1-4 oz)amounts of listed reagents. How much are these watched?

Mendeleev: are you speaking from a theoretical standpoint or do you actually plan to order these ammounts?

Mendeleev - 12-6-2004 at 19:56

I have not decided, but I am seriously considering ordering some these large amounts, 2 30 kg bags of ammoniun chloride, 480 lbs of formaldehyde, 100 lbs of calcium hypochlorite, 750 lbs of sulfuric acid (hey its only $115.00), and I haven't found acetaldehyde in large quantities for cheap yet. It may be one of these mass orders or all or none, I am not sure yet.

[Edited on 13-6-2004 by Mendeleev]

Cyrus - 12-6-2004 at 21:30

Mendeleev, I would be more than slightly hesitant to order that much stuff.

It seems that the all-knowing all-loving nanny government is watching every move anyone makes now and days, but you can't really be sure what is being watched unless you are the one watching.

Don't get mad, guys. The government cares deeply for you, and wants to protect you from yourself. Be encouraged that your friendly big brother is watching out over you, ready to lend a helping hand and sock you whenever he feels like it. :mad:

They know when you are sleeping, they know when you're awake. They know if you've been good or bad, so no chemicals for goodness sake!

America the Land of the Free...

Well, at least I live in Persia.

Sorry for the rant.
I doubt they care if the stuff isn't expedient towards bomb/terr. activities.

Mendeleev - 12-6-2004 at 22:15

Well, the chemicals may or may not be watched, but they are not listed, which means I could order 8 tons of ammonium chloride to be dumped in my back yard, and if the feds object I have the right to tell them to kiss my ass because it's not one of the listed chemicals. My question is, will they object at all since the chemicals are not listed?

Eliteforum - 13-6-2004 at 10:21

"They" might not arrest you for ordering such large amounts of an unwatched chemical. But I can bet they will charge/fine you for improper storage!

hodges - 13-6-2004 at 13:00

Why would anyone need large quantities for mad science use? The reagent I use the most commonly is probably NaOH. Yet I doubt I have used much more than 0.5kg in the past 6 months. The smallest amount of HCl I could buy was 2 gallons - and I have used a small fraction of the first gallon bottle. The smallest amount of powdered Al I could get was 1 pound. I've done lots of thermite experiments but still have probably 80% of this left. I have done about a dozen different experiments with iodine compounds and still have over half the 4oz of KI I bought left. I've done silvering, made a silver tree, and made at least three types of silver explosives (some multiple times) but am still on the original 1oz bottle of AgNO3.

I really don't see why someone would need large quantities of chemicals for mad science use. For pyro I can understand it - as there are consumables and size does matter for shows. But for mad science? I just don't see the need.

Mendeleev - 13-6-2004 at 14:07

See, the difference in our thinking is you are conducting analytical experiments, I am producing substances for a purpose. The reason is, I doubt any one of us here is doing anything new, there isn't too much we can discover by experimenting in jam jars in back yards. Those days are past, so what we are basically doing is finding ways to reinvent the wheel, how to synthesize substances which have already been synthesized for 50 years or more, so making something which has already been made to death is useless in small quantities. In large quantities it can be used to make explosive charges or sold for lots of money depending on what you're making.

Bulk prices are better.

Polverone - 13-6-2004 at 14:27

It might cost you $20 to buy 500 g of NaNO2 from an online lab supplier. It might cost you $50 to buy 25 kg of NaNO2 from a supplier who deals in larger quantities. If you have the space, the money, and think you might ever use more than ~1.25 kg of NaNO2, the larger unit size is obviously the better deal.

If you have more time than money - as many of us seem to - you could also recoup your costs by reselling smaller units on eBay at a markup.

Cyrus - 13-6-2004 at 20:04

Or he could be really nice and sell some to his fellow experimenters for no/very little markup.

And I don't think THEY will notice.

Does anyone know how much this board itself is watched? If I say certain key words, will I be placed on a LIST?
OH NO!

The_Davster - 14-6-2004 at 14:43

We most likely are being watched but probally with less concern than other forums like E&W or the drug ones.

Johnny - 17-7-2004 at 09:03

There is no question that all discussions of a certain nature are not only watched but recorded. There are vertually no limits to what the US Goverment is doing in response to terrorism. Remember folks; that was a higher loss of lives & material than Pearl Harbor. When they say "War" they mean war. The only saving grace is that perhaps they employ people who weed through the stuff and make a human determination of what would, justifiably, need to be further investigated. The "drug" issue is non-existent on this board. That would not be the focus of the inquiry. But someone using the thing to further their "bomb-making" ability may be. I have a small company and I do some metal plating. I buy chemicals frequently and have had the chemical companies themselves verify that I am legit. I don't get mad I simply offer the need documentation. ---It happens.

JohnWW - 3-8-2004 at 03:02

I am fairly sure that, these days, most if not all suppliers of chemicals, both analytical-grade for laboratories, and technical-grade for large-scale chemical manufacturing or agriculture or similar, keep permanent records of the names and addresses of customers, and probably in many cases demand proof of identity of purchasers.

It is certain that they would do this in the cases of purchases of nitrate compounds (e.g. ammonium or potassium nitrate) ostensibly for use as fertilizers, perchlorates which can also be used as explosives, nitric acid which is the most important ingredient for making organic nitro-explosives, and chemicals which can be used for or as precursors in making drugs (e.g. ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, acetic anhydride).

Because the latter group are used exclusively in organic synthesis, not in analytical testing of substances or products, relatively few commercial or institutional laboratories order them. You would certainly have to set up some sort of quasi-legitimate organization in order to be safe ordering them.

The same would also apply to deadly poisons like cyanides and cyanates, strychnine/brucine, atropine, and possibly compounds of uranium, arsenic, antimony, and thallium.

John W.

chemoleo - 3-8-2004 at 04:50

I certainly wouldnt say most companies do that. Unless you order strychnine straight at sigma, that is as a private individual.
I once ordered chemicals at a certain company, and after 6 months they didnt have my records anymore. Despite the potential illicit uses of some of the chems.
Anyway, but the trend is definitely there.
More and more is restricted, and more and more is monitored/recorded. I wonder when this trend will stop

Chemicals

MadHatter - 3-8-2004 at 09:05

It's really strange that something like KMnO4 is on the DEA's
list yet I can buy it at Sears. IIRC, the reporting quantity on this
is 55 KG. I was in Ace Hardware the other day and noticed
they no longer had toluene on their shelves. You can bet your
ass that any site dealing with chemistry is watched by the DEA and
BATFE. Any site about making drugs is probably the most
watched because drugs are a bigger problem than explosives in
the U.S.. Anything dealing with explosives is the 2nd most watched
although I think pure pyrotechnics would not be a major concern.

chemoleo - 3-8-2004 at 09:32

Yes but you may have noticed that I didn't take the perspective of being IN the US, but being OUTSIDE it ..
But then... I think regarding chemicals the US is a lot more lax than other countries... surprising really considering they tend to overregulate other things to the extreme (such as smoking/drinking, while not giving a shit about the poor

)

Controls

MadHatter - 6-8-2004 at 23:43

One of things I've noticed in places like Walmart and Dollar General
- a sign that informs purchasers of limits on OTC diet pills and cold
medicines. IIRC, it's labeled "The Methamphetamine Control Act".
Big Brother must really be paranoid, and Chemoleo, your right -
they're more concerned with controlling our lives instead of caring
about our poorest citizens.

Mendeleev - 7-8-2004 at 07:56

While browsing chemical suppliers I sort of had a thought, possibly obvious to most, but this is the first time it has formulated in my mind: there are list two chemicals, and there are LIST II CHEMICALS. I think the DEA watches several of the List II Substance much much more despite the alleged 150 L thresholds, namely acetic anhydride, benzyl chloride, ether, and iodine.

The difference being, when I order multi-kilos of potassium permanganate or sulfuric acid or toluene, I feel perfectly fine, but when I even hit the search button for ether of acetic anhydride, I get the willies, like the big brotherly eyes of the DEA are burning a whole in the back of my skull. I think this is because despite the potential usefulness of acetic anhydride and the others, they are more useful in the industry and not so much at home. Thus when an individual orders them it sets of more alarms than potassium permanganate which has more legit purposes for the individual. I for example don't know anything I would use acetic anhydride for at home besides in an experiment or synthesis, certainly not cleaning my water. I would even go so far as to say that acetic anhydride and ether would be list one chemicals if it wasn't for their extreme usefullness in the lab and industry.

I think that if I order 20 L of sulfuric acid or 5 kg of KMnO4 that the DEA will go "meh". But if I order 1 L of ether they say something more along the lines of "meth lab alert, kill this fucker". In fact I wish they would ban sudafed all together. It hardly works anyway, and it would put a stop to all those rednecks who can mix iodine and red phosphorus with ephedrine, thus loosening the restriction on these chemicals as well as greatly reducing national meth production and taking the suspicion of amateur experimenters.

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Mendeleev]

[Edited on 7-8-2004 by Mendeleev]

Sudafed

Magpie - 7-8-2004 at 09:27

That's an excellent suggestion about removing psuedoephedrine OTCs from the market. I've had the same thought myself. It just shows you what a stranglehold the big drug companies have on the federal government (i.e., money). As I have stated before, the government bans what is convenient for them to ban. They really don't have the backbone to do what is right.

Ether

MadHatter - 7-8-2004 at 09:30

If necessary, for ether, I'll just go with plain old "starting fluid" unless
there's a lot of other shit mixed in. Really depends on the application.
Acetic Anhydride is another matter entirely.

Senjoro Nie - 31-8-2004 at 07:55

IIRC, starting fluid has a large amount of heptane or similar added in. I suppose the ether could be distilled out, but I'd be worried about any peroxides that might be present. Especially considering the notorious (im)purity of OTC chemicals.

Mendeleev - 11-12-2004 at 19:48

I had a few questions about several chemicals, none of them listed, but some are "watched" I think. I would like to know the risk I run by ordering the following, not necesarrily together:

ethyl acetate
sodium/potassium cyanide
sodium/potassium iodide
iodobenzene
bromobenzene
benzene
dmso
dmf

Quanity-wise I was thinking between 2.5-12.5 kg for the solids and 4-16 L for the solvents/liquids.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Mendeleev]

The_Davster - 11-12-2004 at 22:38

I think benzene would be fine to get, it is too common a reagent to be under much suspicion because it has so many uses.

I do not have the knowledge to comment on the rest of the goodies you want to get. But from my limited readings on rhodium they all seem to be drug precursors. (Correct me if I am wrong here)

You really like large ammounts of chems don't you?

Mendeleev - 12-12-2004 at 11:17

Yeah, the solvents require large volumes for relatively small reactions, that's why I'm looking in the 4 L range. I haven't seen DMF mentioned as suspicious but I remember reading something about how it's become less easily available, I guess because the druggies have used it too much and now the DEA is onto them. DMSO is supposedly watched, but not listed, same for bromobenzene, sodium iodide, and sodium cyanide. But wait, you said all but benzene are drug precursors, even ethyl acetate is watched? I have never heard any mention of ethyl acetate being watched or listed, are you sure?

The_Davster - 12-12-2004 at 12:23

No, I am not sure. Out of all the reagents you listed I am the least sure of how much ethyl acetate is watched. How I usually determine if something would be not good to order is to search on rhodium, if it is mentioned lots and is not a very common chem like NaOH, it goes into my head as something not wise to order.

Similar type of question as Mendeleev's: Ordering 1L of 98% nitric? Someone on this forum (he can come forward if he wishes) ordered some from a Canadian supplier and he is in the states, however I am in Canada and wish to order the nitric from the same supplier. It is actaully cheaper fro me to buy the acid than it is to distill my own. Is it to risky to order some 98% nitric from a supplier in your own country?

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by rogue chemist]

Mendeleev - 12-12-2004 at 15:56

I wouldn't think so. As long as you're not ordering a 600 pound drum, I wouldn't worry. Besides you could always say you wanted to make aqua regia or something. Great aqua regia party trick: make someone's watch dissapear, and promptly leave before they realize it's not coming back

. I personally have no qualms about ordering nitric acid, it seems like the authorities care a lot more about drug precursors than they do about bomb precursors. This is actually quite sad considering explosives are much more dangerous than drugs. Just goes to show you what a bunch of power and money hungry bastards the DEA and the government are. They worry more about someone having a little chemically induced fun than they do about things which can blow people's limbs off and destroy buildings.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Mendeleev]

Oxydro - 12-12-2004 at 19:23

The difference is, explosives are not as massive a market as are drugs. A fair fraction of the population uses drugs, and they pay a lot for them. However, there aren't really that many people interested in the sort of explosives (not to mention poisons etc) that would concern the powers that be.

There are (relatively) so few dangerous people out there in the explosives side of things, therefore attempts to detect them will have little success. But drugs, so many people are making and selling them, that someone buying something suspicious is moderately likely to be making drugs.

HNO3 - 13-12-2004 at 18:06

According to this, we only need to be afraid of Schedule VI, Section 1 Schedule VI, Section 2 which regulates
(1) Acetone
(2) Ethyl ether
(3) Hydrochloric acid
(4) Methyl ethyl ketone
(5) Sulphuric acid
(6) Toluene

Schedule VI, Section 1 also regulates potassium permanganate and acetic anhydride. Yes, one time I went to Menards, and bought $69.~ of chemicals, including 3.78 L of toluol, 2.2 kilos of KMnO4, and 3.78 L of acetone. :cool:

Related or not, several months later, the big boss took my picture with a disposable camera. I calmly posed for the picture...it throws them of track, since drug dealers *wouldn't* want their pictures taken. When he took my picture it was like my second time in there in the week to by boards for shelving, and I may have mentioned that I was going to use them to store chemicals

. I think he took a picture of my car, too, but this has been at least 4 months ago, no phone call and no jackbooted thugs. *whew*
PS It also hurts when you live in one of the worst areas for making meth

in the US

Polverone - 13-12-2004 at 18:23

If you live in the US, why do you think that Canadian regulations are all you have to worry about? There are some funny things in that Act, like scheduling barbituric acid above isosafrole, and scheduling sulfuric and hydrochloric acids while ignoring hydriodic, but not so funny I'd actually laugh aloud.

The_Davster - 13-12-2004 at 20:41

Polverone: Was your post directed at me? If I was not clear in my post I am in Canada.

HNO3 - 3-1-2005 at 18:54

I got 99% DMSO at a local farming store, no questions asked. Pretty cheap, too. There was a disclaimer on the back that told of all the evils of getting DMSO on your skin as its a strong solvent and the chemicals dissolved in it will go right through your skin and kill you dead instantly, or something like that.

Be careful...

Mickhael - 4-1-2005 at 04:16

Quote:

Originally posted by HNO3
Related or not, several months later, the big boss took my picture with a disposable camera. I calmly posed for the picture...it throws them of track, since drug dealers *wouldn't* want their pictures taken. When he took my picture it was like my second time in there in the week to by boards for shelving, and I may have mentioned that I was going to use them to store chemicals

. I think he took a picture of my car, too, but this has been at least 4 months ago, no phone call and no jackbooted thugs. *whew*

I wouldn't stop worrying just yet, or being extra careful, seeing as alot of advance recon by the powers that be is taken in a 6 month period...which they then use as evidence that you were doing whatever it is seriously and over the long term...makes for a stronger case against you.

Ps: I'm not overly impressed that they are now even clamping down on MEK and Acetone...for gods sake our last few low key invaluable chemicals, being messed with!

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Mickhael]

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by Mickhael]

HNO3 - 4-1-2005 at 04:32

Aww, shucks. I never have made drugs, and don't plan to for at least another millinia...

I keep a database of all my chemicals, store mildly toxic (CuCl2, NaBr, p-formaldahyde) in a locked cabinet, and have so many more chemicals than could possibly be used for drug manufacture, and have a warning sign on the outside of my lab (which is locked up whenever I'm not around anyway).

sorry for long post, but...

Pyridinium - 1-6-2005 at 19:42

I know this might sound naive, but I want to continue hoping the police and DEA can / will try to sort the real bad guys from the amateur chemists who have no interest in manufacturing drugs, exp**s*ves, etc.

I've often said that nearly anyone with a science background is capable of doing a great deal of damage. What I mean by that is, if you really open your eyes, you have to realize that danger could come from people in government labs, industry, universities, everywhere- not just some eccentric guy whom the neighbors fear because they spotted him going to and from the shed carrying colored liquids in oddly-shaped vessels. I'm WAY more worried about a disgruntled government employee stealing a self-replicating "material" (I think you know what I mean) than I am about mad scientists who just love chemicals and want to own some acetic anhydride.

I was going to buy some anthranilic acid until I found it was on DEA List I. (It didn't even occur to me this compound might be used in drug manufacture!!). Then I saw the threshold quantity as something like 30 kg. I just wanted 50 or 100 g of the stuff for honest experiments.

Mendeleev had said in this thread that the days of discovery by amateur chemists are over. I disagree, for the most part. There is a lot of great science that has been passed over as not commercially important (or whatever other reason it may be), or else it's buried back in a journal from 1854 (which nobody can seem to get, so the information is for all purposes unknown.) There are still some very interesting and even complex results you can produce with jam-jar chemistry. Some things like the properties of certain compounds are not all that well documented, at least in the modern literature. This is especially true on the Internet, which has huge gaps in the available knowledge (that is, the knowledge you can get without paying exorbitant sums for online journal / database access).

Besides, amateur chem is part of what I consider life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm not interested in drugs or explosives (had a brief interest in pyro for a bit though), but I am interested in scientific experimentation and research, which may use some of the same chemicals that raise eyebrows.

I believe amateur scientists should have the right to own, say, 10 g of phosphorus, if they can store and handle it without hurting anyone. I find it upsetting that we should be restricted because of what drug traffickers have done.

Anyway, drug traffickers have underworld connections and can get things the amateur scientist can't, yet who gets the suspicous glances when going to the store and asking for 4L of toluene?

Looking at rights the wrong way

Polverone - 1-6-2005 at 20:39

Historically, in the US, the government had only the powers very clearly granted to it by law within the bounds of the Constitution. If state, local, or federal laws did not explicitly prohibit something, it was permitted, and there were many laws that the federal government would never be permitted to enact/enforce because of Constitutional limits on federal power. This situation turned topsy-turvy after the American Civil War, and even more so later. Now, Constitutional objections all-too-rarely forestall the expansion of federal powers, and if the government wants to prohibit something, it doesn't even necessarily need to pass a new law: it will just use a creative interpretation of one of the innumberable laws already in existence, and most times judges and juries (in the rare case that there is a jury trial) will play along. Regardless of this reality, I think the idea of explicitly enumerating the powers of government and forbidding it to do anything outside those boundaries is a very good idea. Floating ideas like "law-abiding amateur chemists should be permitted to own 10 g of phosphorus" is entirely the wrong approach: it puts innocent people on the defensive. It shouldn't be up to citizens to preemptively justify their actions. In reality, our musings here don't matter to anyone with real political power, so let's keep to liberty-loving fantasies instead of liberty-curtailing ones. The government should be left to FOAD when it comes to your lab and chemicals unless it can convince a jury of your peers (12 people with the background to understand your case) that you were violating a law and that the law itself is needed and just.

It seems that the bulk of illegal synthetic drugs are made by competent chemists or at least experienced "cooks" in a relatively small number of high-capacity labs. However, in the US, there are thousands of drug "labs" discovered and shut down each year. The bulk of these operations are small-scale drug producers making methamphetamine from OTC cold pills and other chemicals. This may be one reason you get scrutinized when buying toluene (another reason is that dumb kids enjoy inhaling it).

Many states are now making it much harder to buy certain OTC medications in quantity and anonymously, and there may be federal legislation to do the same thing in a few years. I suspect that most small-scale producers will not make the transition to the post-pills era, because they aren't interested in or capable of coping with fancier chemistry. I further suspect that the pill crackdown will not greatly hinder overall methamphetamine traffic in the long run, but when you're doing something as futile and stupid as waging War on Drugs, you've got to milk pseudo-victories for all they're worth. On the bright side, when the meth menace is eliminated (i.e. the small producers are mostly gone and it's time to find easier targets), amateur chemists may undergo reduced scrutiny.

Pyridinium - 2-6-2005 at 07:25

That's the problem... innocent people do find themselves on the defensive.

The doctrine of "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden" is extremely dangerous, but if nobody speaks up, it looks like that's the way we're headed.

Like you said, I think most the so-called "drug labs" that are busted each year are small fry. Lawmakers think, as usual, that more laws are the answer. They never are, unless you count a totalitarian state as "the answer". Funny thing about that, even a totalitarian state has hardened criminals, but by definition nobody is a law-abiding citizen anymore...

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by Pyridinium]

Edit: I thought of something else.

You know, every time I see a photo, diagram, write-up, or some other bit of knowledge offered up by an amateur scientist (especially chemist), it makes me happy.

I ask myself, how could it possibly be righteous or just to take away the ability of these people to do one of the few things in life that gives them joy, when they are hurting nobody? The answer is, it isn't righteous or just. So I guess I pretty much agree with you Polverone.

I think of the damage done to our great hobby by K3w1s and druggies. *sigh*.

[Edited on 3-6-2005 by Pyridinium]

Magpie - 16-11-2005 at 13:20

I have some more discouraging news:

Today I was shopping for acetone. I bought the 1st quart (~ liter) at one hardware store for $3.50 with the usual ease. To spread the wealth I bought the second at Ace Hardware. After jumping the clerk (figuratively) for false advertising she admitted it was her fault and we both had a good laugh. Then she said, "Oh, I'll need to log your name and driver's license number for that" (also true for toluene and xylene.) I asked "what's this all about?" She said "to prevent making meth" or some such. This quart cost me $5.50! So I got fucked 2 ways.

So what are the police doing with this list (there were about 8 entries so far). Is it just for intimidation, or are they going to check my record to see if I'm a criminal (I'm not - have squeaky clean record with only a few traffic infractions) and possibly follow up. This crap is just depressing.

Here's a picture of the 2 quarts so you can see the false advertising:

regular & extra strength acetone.JPG - 113kB

Polverone - 16-11-2005 at 21:45

I had to do the same to buy toluene at a paint store in Washington state. Never had that trouble in Oregon. Never heard a peep from anyone afterward, though I was using an OR driver's license to make the WA purchase.

Acetone

MadHatter - 17-11-2005 at 01:41

Magpie, maybe the lawmakers(read WANKERCRATS) in your state are extremely
paranoid about meth. I bought some acetone at Walmart last week and the clerk
didn't even bat an eyelash. If it ever gets that bad for me, I'll just buy some old-fashioned
nail polish remover(provided it still has acetone in it).

halogen - 26-11-2005 at 03:19

It may very well... The government actually wants meth production etc. to go on. In the same way they dont get rid of sudafed or whatever- It's a financial thing. The war on drugs may cost a lot, but brings in a lot. Not just money but support from citizens... Governments way of covering it's ass. Fine line they're waltzing on though because they must take care not to take it too far. The thing about government is that everything serves 2 or more purposes.

Lotek_ - 21-12-2005 at 07:30

Quote:

Originally posted by hodges
. It came in a box of 3 1-gallon containers and the box clearly stated "Do not open box - to be sold as a unit only!". Cost was around $7 for 3 gallons.

hah. ditto. i was getting scared beacuse i could nolonger find hcl at home-depot. i asked a guy and he took me outside to the lawn and gardern(wtf) section. it was in those same boxed. i smiled when i bought it because of how much less suspicious it looked than 3 bottled of hcl seperatly.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mendeleev
Don't ever be afraid of having a home lab, you could have labeled 95% nitric acid 98% sulfuric acid and toluene, glycerine, and hexamine right next to eachother and a copy of instructions on how to make explosives on your computer, and the cops can't do shit unless they prove that you've actually made explosives or that you were conspiring too, knowlede and resources don't make a consiracy in U.S. courts, they make a case dismissal based on circumstantial evidence, so experiment all you want Magpie, and the feds only watch you if you buy really restricted stuff like acetic anhydride or methylamine.

[Edited on 20-1-2004 by Mendeleev]

actualy, with the patriot act(assumeing your in america), you can be arrested on charges of having the chemicals in your possesion. i could be arested for having a bottle of muriatic and acetone in my garage from when i was painting, and a bottle of h2o2 in my bathroom. its pretty sick... just owning the chemicals theoreticly used to make an explosive is an arrestable offence. its not very likely but it is legal...

magpie, ive actualy seen a store sell "enhanced heavy duty acetone". the brand sold two kinds. regular and that. upon further inspection, one was dilute and the other was not... the dilute cost the same as your classic blue and yellow can(that we all love so much) and the "enhanced" was 6$ XD

[Edited on 21-12-2005 by Lotek_]

kABOOM! - 31-12-2005 at 15:09

All the rules and regulations honestly don't do shit. Hey, I have a great example... many US buisness refuse to deal with foriegn countries including Canada because of so-called antiterrorist laws.
No small radioactive sources-- no radioactive minerals-- no hazardous goods etc.

!WRONG!

There is no official US policy in place that prohibits crossborder exchanges of hazardous goods. I import all kinds of chemicals, and stuff from the states-- radioactive check sources for educational use ONLY--- yes, these goods are all legally obtained!
I just bought some german 625 mesh Aluminum powder @ 6.5 kg/ $80 USD and it shipped fine to Canada as a nonrestricted product. It all being used for legal and legitmate purposes of couse. Skylighter and other US buisness told me shipping such stuff had to be done by special US couriers and I needed an explosives licence. The Aluminum powder is sent via USPS--- pretty special if you ask me

Oxidizers too can be shipped via the same way...again no licence is needed. Hey, buying US ammunition for firearms is legal too--- you are limited to 2000 rounds I believe imported into Canada. Just check with the customs guys, and they are usually very understanding if you call ahead and provide documentation of "restricted" products.

PARANOIA runs free in the USA!
-------------------------------------------
In Canada there is no official limit on buying solvents like MEK or Acetone, however...more pressure is being put on those areas where Meth manufacture is at a high. The concept that Terrorism can be curbed by cracking down on chemical sales and backyard chemists is laughable at best. You cannot combat terrorism by turning your country into a Fascist police state. It won't work... Terrorism can only be combated through education. More fighting/warefare = more terrorism --- one mans terrorist is another mans hero. Its just a point of view in the end that is the deciding factor.

[Edited on 31-12-2005 by kABOOM!]

chromium - 31-12-2005 at 16:20

I too think that true problem in US is not bad laws but too eager citizens who want to do everything twice as well as its required by law.

[Edited on 1-1-2006 by chromium]

kABOOM! - 2-1-2006 at 00:40

people misread the laws to suit there own paranoid agendas. I've been told that KNO3 is a licenced material and so is NH4NO3...no such regulation exists. I usually buy both chemicals in 50 lbs bags from special fertillizer places without a licence. Of course you need to have good reason to purchase it... I just show my iD/ work ID and I am processed instantly. No questions.
Same goes with proDrain cleaners 94%-96% H2SO4--- again, no licence needed. But chemical supply houses often restrict the sales of such chemicals because they are under the impression that one needs a licence to handle such material. Again, this is based on false information.

Bottom line: common sense...99% of the people on this board I believe understand the risks involved in experimenting with toxic, flammable, corrosive, and energetic materials. No need to restrict the sale of good ol' fashioned chemicals...and curbing a little "energetic" fun now and then with threats of jail time or big fines.

S.C. Wack - 12-1-2006 at 01:23

Saw this and thought that it could be mentioned here. Some suppliers have gotten into some hot water selling HI, I, P, Freon, and "equipment".

from http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/sanfran010606p.html

Mr. and Ms. Conkey were convicted for operating Alpha Chemical Supply, which from 1992 to 2001, distributed thousands of pounds of hydriodic acid, red phosphorous, and iodine. The jury found that Mr. and Ms. Conkey knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the chemicals would be used to manufacture methamphetamine.

“ Unfortunately, the ingredients required to make methamphetamine is not a secret. Regrettably, these individuals knew the ingredients and sold them to drug dealers, who in return used them to a make a toxic drug which has proven to be deadly. Their role in this horrible cycle cannot be denied, and today justice was served,” stated DEA Special Agent in Charge Javier F. Peña.

This conviction is one in a series of civil and criminal charges brought against chemical supply companies in Northern California for selling chemicals and/or equipment knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the items would be used to manufacture controlled substances. The other companies include Custom Laboratory Supply, CFRI (Chemicals for Research and Industry), and All Discount Laboratory Supply. Custom Laboratory Supply was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, and the defendants received sentences between ten and twenty four years. The defendants associated with All Discount Laboratory Supply were convicted for possessing and distributing chemicals and equipment that they had reasonable cause to believe would be used to manufacture over 80 tons of methamphetamine.

indictment: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/assets/applets/2005_03_2...

An article on the arrests from the 4/26/04 Contra Costa Times:

[Edited on 12-1-2006 by S.C. Wack]

Attachment: article.txt (22kB)
This file has been downloaded 1288 times

Nidias91 - 18-1-2006 at 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by guaguanco

Quote:

I admire your faith in the honesty and integrity of American law enforcement agencies. It certainly exceeds mine.

I agree totally. Whether it is illegal to have that stuff or not.. whatever the law says DOES NOT MATTER. If they want to convict you of synthing drugs, explosives, etc. THEY WILL. They can and will faster than you can say innocent until proven guilty.

They are the law. They make the law. There is no balance, because EVERYTHING now teaches americas children that the government is ALWAYS right. Everyone has so much tolerance.

It seems to me like 1984 without the Thought Police. But then again, things like that don't seem too far off.

The Most Extreme

quicksilver - 20-1-2006 at 07:06

Simply because chemicals can be purchased via OTC sources there exists a much greater issue that the confining of purchases from F T Baker, Fisher, & other large or small companies...

The most extreme issue in this discussion can be the legislation to ban or prosecute chemistry INFORMATION on the internet or in print. Many people here know what I am referring to (the Feinstein ammendment in the Senate & others).
We are very close now to legislation that would make this board a federal Felony. It is NOT a question of posting, per se' but of dessemination of information regarding energetic materials. Some people believe this all started with K3wLs making little web sites and with teenybomber books. - I question that. It has been in the making a long time and is basically a "vote-getter" just like "gun control" but tampers with the 1st ammnd.
Below is a copy of the annoted legislation and the individual cases wherein it was ruled on. It makes for most frightening reading.

Could one be arrested for posting? I actually doubt it at this period in time but if some significant terroristic event should occur and someone in the House or Senate wants easy votes for re-election; that would be one method; to legislate that "bombmaking" information is a threat to the security of our country and what constitutes bombmaking information becomes a broad spectrum, we have a problem. A simple energetic material is not a bomb.*** That has been established in court but from there it's a short leap to what consitutes legal experimentation and a threat to society. When simple information becomes a focal point; watch out!

DON'T EVER MAKE THE MISTAKE That one politcal party or another has your best interests at heart!

*** By that concept basic lead picrate or ETN is not a bomb, put it in an enclosure or "plasticize" it & you have a problem. Below are some high court rulings.

[Edited on 20-1-2006 by quicksilver]

Attachment: bomb-makinga-leg-002.zip (57kB)
This file has been downloaded 768 times

Magpie - 20-1-2006 at 10:01

Government trends toward intrusion and the curbing of freedoms are indeed disturbing. One important victory for freedom (for now): Google just told the Feds to stuff their subpoena for access to searches.

Feinstein's amendment is just more misdirected paranoia. What is the "doctrine of prior restraint"?

quicksilver - 21-1-2006 at 07:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie
Feinstein's amendment is just more misdirected paranoia. What is the "doctrine of prior restraint"?

I asked my sister in law who is a lawyer and she didn't know.....she's not that good. In context I believe it relates to prior first ammendment issues as preceeding case law adjudications. That is, if previously, there existed caselaw to quell an action then it may not be applicable in the light of new found contextual issues (terrorsm, the war on terror, the Partriot Act). - We had restrained an action before but now there are new needs which superceed old caselaw; so we can go ahead and have a new ruling. It's Feinstien's way of saying "just because we did this before doesn't mean we have to keep doing it in light of our present circumstances". - Like maintaining Constitutional protections for free speech, etc.

Here are some interesting commentary on the PASSING of the Bill..... (YES, it did pass)

Attachment: chemical-legislation.zip (7kB)
This file has been downloaded 785 times

IrC - 22-1-2006 at 11:57

"doctrine of prior restraint"

"The Doctrine of Prior Restraint

"[L]iberty of the press, historically considered and taken up by the Federal Constitution, has meant, principally although not exclusively, immunity from previous restraints or censorship."43

"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."44 Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint."45 Under the English licensing system, which expired in 1695, all printing presses and printers were licensed and nothing could be published without prior approval of the state or church authorities. The great struggle for liberty of the press was for the right to publish without a license that which for a long time could be published only with a license.46

The United States Supreme Court's first encounter with a law imposing a prior restraint came in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson,47 in which a five-to-four majority voided a law authorizing the permanent enjoining of future violations by any newspaper or periodical once found to have published or circulated an "obscene, lewd and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" issue. An injunction had been issued after the newspaper in question had printed a series of articles tying local officials to gangsters. While the dissenters maintained that the injunction constituted no prior restraint, inasmuch as that doctrine applied to prohibitions of publication without advance approval of an executive official,48 the majority deemed the difference of no consequence, since in order to avoid a contempt citation the newspaper would have to clear future publications in advance with the judge.49 Liberty of the press to scrutinize closely the conduct of public affairs was essential, said Chief Justice Hughes for the Court.

"[T]he administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and property by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege."50

The Court did not undertake to explore the kinds of restrictions to which the term "prior restraint" would apply nor to do more than assert that only in "exceptional circumstances" would prior restraint be permissible.51 Nor did subsequent cases substantially illuminate the murky interior of the doctrine. The doctrine of prior restraint was called upon by the Court as it struck down a series of loosely drawn statutes and ordinances requiring licenses to hold meetings and parades and to distribute literature, with uncontrolled discretion in the licensor whether or not to issue them, and as it voided other restrictions on First Amendment rights.52 The doctrine that generally emerged was that permit systems--prior licensing, if you will--were constitutionally valid so long as the discretion of the issuing official was limited to questions of times, places, and manners.53 The most recent Court encounter with the doctrine in the national security area occurred when the Government attempted to enjoin
press publication of classified documents pertaining to the Vietnam War54 and, although the Court rejected the effort, at least five and perhaps six Justices concurred on principle that in some circumstances prior restraint of publication would be constitutional.55 But no cohesive doctrine relating to the subject, its applications, and its exceptions has yet emerged.

Injunctions and the Press in Fair Trial Cases.--Confronting a claimed conflict between free press and fair trial guarantees, the Court unanimously set aside a state court injunction barring the publication of information that might prejudice the subsequent trial of a criminal defendant.56 Though agreed on result, the Justices were divided with respect to whether "gag orders" were ever permissible and if so what the standards for imposing them were. The opinion of the Court utilized the Learned Hand formulation of the "clear and present danger" test57 and considered as factors in any decision on the imposition of a restraint upon press reporters (a) the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage, (b) whether other measures were likely to mitigate the harm, and (c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger.58 One seeking a restraining order would have a heavy burden to meet to justify such an action, a burden that could be satisfied only on a showing that with
a prior restraint a fair trial would be denied, but the Chief Justice refused to rule out the possibility of showing the kind of threat that would possess the degree of certainty to justify restraints.59 Justice Brennan's major concurring opinion flatly took the position that such restraining orders were never permissible. Commentary and reporting on the criminal justice system is at the core of First Amendment values, he would hold, and secrecy can do so much harm "that there can be no prohibition on the publication by the press of any information pertaining to pending judicial proceedings or the operation of the criminal justice system, no matter how shabby the means by which the information is obtained."60 The extremely narrow exceptions under which prior restraints might be permissible relate to probable national harm resulting from publication, the Justice continued; because the trial court could adequately protect a defendant's right to a fair trial through other means even if there were conflict of
constitutional rights the possibility of damage to the fair trail right would be so speculative that the burden of justification could not be met.61 While the result does not foreclose the possibility of future "gag orders," it does lessen the number to be expected and shifts the focus to other alternatives for protecting trial rights.62 On a different level, however, are orders restraining the press as a party to litigation in the dissemination of information obtained through pretrial discovery. In Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,63 the Court determined that such orders protecting parties from abuses of discovery require "no heightened First Amendment scrutiny."64

Obscenity and Prior Restraint.--Only in the obscenity area has there emerged a substantial consideration of the doctrine of prior restraint and the doctrine's use there may be based upon the proposition that obscenity is not a protected form of expression.65 In Kingsley Books v. Brown,66 the Court upheld a state statute which, while it embodied some features of prior restraint, was seen as having little more restraining effect than an ordinary criminal statute; that is, the law's penalties applied only after publication. But in Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago,67 a divided Court specifically affirmed that, at least in the case of motion pictures, the First Amendment did not proscribe a licensing system under which a board of censors could refuse to license for public exhibition films which it found to be obscene. Books and periodicals may also be subjected to some forms of prior restraint,68 but the thrust of the Court's opinions in this area with regard to all forms of communication has been to establish strict standards of procedural protections to ensure that the censoring agency bears the burden of proof on obscenity, that only a judicial order can restrain exhibition, and that a prompt final judicial decision is assured.69

Footnotes

Footnote 43: Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931).
Footnote 44: Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963).
Footnote 45: Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).
Footnote 46: Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713-14 (1931): Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938).

Footnote 47: 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
Footnote 48: Id. at 723, 733-36 (Justice Butler dissenting).
Footnote 49: Id. at 712-13.
Footnote 50: Id. at 719-20.
Footnote 51: Id. at 715-16.

Footnote 52: E.g., Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951); Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958). For other applications, see Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944).
Footnote 53: Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953). In Carroll v. President & Comm'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968), the Court held invalid the issuance of an ex parte injunction to restrain the holding of a protest meeting, holding that usually notice must be given the parties to be restrained and an opportunity for them to rebut the contentions presented to justify the sought-for restraint. In Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), the Court held invalid as a prior restraint an injunction preventing the petitioners from distributing 18,000 pamphlets attacking respondent's alleged "blockbusting" real estate activities; he was held not to have borne the "heavy burden" of justifying the restraint.

"No prior decisions support the claim that the interest of an individual in being free from public criticism of his business practices in pamphlets or leaflets warrants use of the injunctive power of a court. Designating the conduct as an invasion of privacy . . . is not sufficient to support an injunction against peaceful distribution of informational literature of the nature revealed by this record." Id. at 419-20. See also City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) (ordinance vesting in the mayor unbridled discretion to grant or deny annual permit for location of newsracks on public property is facially invalid as prior restraint). The necessity of immediate appellate review of orders restraining the exercise of First Amendment rights was strongly emphasized in National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), and seems to explain the Court's action in Philadelphia Newspapers v. Jerome, 434 U.S. 241 (1978). But see Moreland v. Sprecher, 443 U.S. 709 (1979) (partycan relinquish right to expedited review through failure to properly request it).

Footnote 54: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The vote was six to three, with Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, and Marshall in the majority and Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harlan and Blackmun in the minority. Each Justice issued an opinion.
Footnote 55: The three dissenters thought such restraint appropriate in this case. Id. at 748, 752, 759. Justice Stewart thought restraint would be proper if disclosure "will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people," id. at 730, while Justice White did not endorse any specific phrasing of a standard. Id. at 730-733. Justice Brennan would preclude even interim restraint except upon "governmental allegation and proof that publication must inevitably, directly, and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea." Id. at 712-13. The same issues were raised in United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D.Wis. 1979), in which the United States obtained an injunction prohibiting publication of an article it claimed would reveal information about nuclear weapons, thus increasing the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The injunction was lifted when the same information was published elsewhere and
thus no appellate review was had of the order. With respect to the right of the Central Intelligence Agency to prepublication review of the writings of former agents and its enforcement through contractual relationships, see Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980); Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. v. Colby, 509 F.2d 1362 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 992 (1975); United States v. Marchetti, 446 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063 (1972).
Footnote 56: Nebraska Press Ass'n. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
Footnote 57: Id. at 562, quoting Dennis v. United States, 183 F.2d 201, 212 (2d Cir. 1950), aff'd., 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951).

Footnote 58: Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 562 (1976) (opinion of Chief Justice Burger, concurred in by Justices Blackmun and Rehnquist, and, also writing brief concurrences, Justices White and Powell). Applying the tests, the Chief Justice agreed that (a) there was intense and pervasive pretrial publicity and more could be expected, but that (b) the lower courts had made little effort to assess the prospects of other methods of preventing or mitigating the effects of such publicity and that (c) in any event the restraining order was unlikely to have the desired effect of protecting the defendant's rights. Id. at 562-67.
Footnote 59: The Court differentiated between two kinds of information, however: (1) reporting on judicial proceedings held in public, which has "special" protection and requires a much higher justification than (2) reporting of information gained from other sources as to which the burden of justifying restraint is still high. Id. at 567-68, 570. See also Oklahoma Pub. Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977) (setting aside injunction restraining news media from publishing name of juvenile involved in pending proceeding when name has been learned at open detention hearing that could have been closed but was not); Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 433 U.S. 97 (1979).
Footnote 60: Id. at 572, 588. Justices Stewart and Marshall joined this opinion and Justice Stevens noted his general agreement except that he reserved decision in particularly egregious situations, even though stating that he might well agree with Justice Brennan there also. Id. at 617. Justice White, while joining the opinion of the Court, noted that he had grave doubts that "gag orders" could ever be justified but he would refrain from so declaring in the Court's first case on the issue. Id. at 570.
Footnote 61: Id. at 588-95.
Footnote 62: One such alternative is the banning of communication with the press on trial issues by prosecution and defense attorneys, police officials, and court officers. This, of course, also raises First Amendment issues. See, e.g., Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F. 2d 242 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976).

Footnote 63: 467 U.S. 20 (1984).
Footnote 64: 467 U.S. at 36. The decision was unanimous, all other Justices joining Justice Powell's opinion for the Court, but with Justices Brennan and Marshall noting additionally that under the facts of the case important interests in privacy and religious freedom were being protected. Id. at 37, 38.
Footnote 65: Infra, pp.1149-59.
Footnote 66: 354 U.S. 436 (1957). See also Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).
Footnote 67: 365 U.S. 43 (1961). See also Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976) (zoning ordinance prescribing distances adult theaters may be located from residential areas and other theaters is not an impermissible prior restraint).

Footnote 68: Cf. Kingsley Books v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957).
Footnote 69: Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 (1968); Interstate Circuit v. City of Dallas, 390 U.S. 676 (1968); Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971); United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 367-375 (1971); Southeastern Promotions v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975); Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) (ordinance requiring licensing of "sexually oriented business" places no time limit on approval by inspection agencies and fails to provide an avenue for prompt judicial review); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989) (seizure of books and films based on ex parte probable cause hearing under state RICO law's forfeiture procedures constitutes invalid prior restraint; instead, there must be a determination in an adversarial proceeding that the materials are obscene or that a RICO violation has occurred)."

S.C. Wack - 9-3-2006 at 16:04

I found it interesting that a well-known US site is requiring a "DEA buyers form" for all purchases of p-benzoquinone, HCl, H2SO4, NaOH, I, K2Cr2O7, and KMnO4. Even for 10 grams of NaOH.

p-benzoquinone and NaOH are not on any list, and domestic sales of HCl and H2SO4 are not currently regulated. They sell acetone, just as much List II as KMnO4 or H2SO4, without needing the form. Alkali dichromates are on the "watched" list.

It should be noted that while by law there are thresholds for actual reporting requirements for listed chemicals, I am unaware of any suppliers of listed chemicals who use these.

Polverone - 9-3-2006 at 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by S.C. Wack
I found it interesting that a well-known US site is requiring a "DEA buyers form" for all purchases of p-benzoquinone, HCl, H2SO4, NaOH, I, K2Cr2O7, and KMnO4. Even for 10 grams of NaOH.

I'm familiar with the site you are referring to. I think it has been that way for a couple of years now. I wonder if it is actually an enforced requirement or just something they put on their site to chase away undesirable customers. Is it even possible to obtain a "DEA buyer's form" for things that the DEA does not regulate? If I ask the DEA for a permit so I can buy sodium hydroxide or fruit juice, what could I possibly get? For that matter, even if there is somehow a form that can be obtained, I don't know why the supplier would even offer to sell materials that they require that form for. I can't imagine that even 10% of their potential customers would have such a form.

Edit:

Quote:

It should be noted that while by law there are thresholds for actual reporting requirements for listed chemicals, I am unaware of any suppliers of listed chemicals who use these.

What do you mean by this? Suppliers report every transaction of listed chemicals even if it's below the threshold?

[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Polverone]

S.C. Wack - 10-3-2006 at 03:27

What the suppliers are doing with the information and why unlisted chemicals are involved, I wouldn't know.

What I do know is that the law-abiding supplier must report "suspicious orders". The criteria given to businesses that the public (me) is aware of:

"All Levels / All Chemicals (* indicates that criterion may not apply to all retail settings) New customer or unfamiliar representative or established customer who begins ordering listed chemicals.* Customers who don't seem to know industry practice or who fail to provide reasons for an order at variance with accepted legitimate industry practice. Customer whose communications are not prepared or conducted in a professional business manner.* Customer who provides evasive responses to any questions or is unable to supply information as to whether chemicals are for domestic use or for export. Customer who has difficulty pronouncing chemical names. New customers who don't seem to know Federal or state government regulations.* Customer whose stated use of listed chemicals is incompatible with destination country's commercial activities or consignee's line of business.* Customers who want predominantly or only regulated chemicals. Customers who want multiple regulated or surveillance list (see Appendix G for Special Surveillance List) products, particularly if in contrast to customary use and practice. Customer who is vague or resists providing information about firm's address, telephone number, and reason for seeking that chemical.* Customer who provides false or suspicious addresses, telephone numbers or references. Customer who is vague or will not furnish references for credit purposes.* Customer who refuses or is reluctant to establish a credit account or provide purchase order information.* Customer who prefers to pay by cashiers check, postal money order, etc. Customer who desires to pay cash.* Customer who wants to pick up the chemicals outside of normal practice in the supplier's experience. Customer with little or no business background available.* An established customer who deviates from previous orders or ordering methods. Customers who want airfreight or express delivery. Customers who want chemicals shipped to a PO Box or an address other than usual business address. (e.g., residence address) Customer using a freight forwarder as ultimate consignee. Customer who requests unusual methods of delivery or routes of shipment. Customer who provides unusual shipping, labeling, or packaging instructions. Customer who requests the use of intermediate consignees whose location or business is incompatible with the purported end user's nature of business or location. Above threshold hydrochloride gas or iodine sales to a non-commercial customer."...

My threshold comment was on the fact that all of the suppliers that I am familiar with require the DEA-required information to be given to them, if not more, for any amount of a list 1 chemical, even though they are not required by law to do so AFAIK. What they do with it, what the DEA does with it if they get it, does the DEA revoke licenses, etc. in retribution against rogues, who knows.

nachra - 7-1-2013 at 17:27

I am planning to do work with propiophenone and its derivitives one of which being 4-methylpropiophenone in the near future. I dont want to give too much info away, but i would like to orchestrate an in depth analysis on a double bond's ability to absorb uv rays based on distance from different aromatic and substituted aromatic rings. I could not concieve of any forseable obstructions of my work until recently. While scanning through different many differents scholarly sources in an attempt to gather as much prelimenary information as possible, i stumble across a few very troubling articles. Originally thinking propiophenone was as benign a chemical as possible in terms of its potential to be abused for the clandestine manufacter of drugs, i was suprised to learn that it has recently come under the DEA`s scrutiny for its potential to produce both a drug known as methcathinone and perhaps more importantly its potential to synthesis ephedrine, a chemical as you all know which is heavily regulated. I also had many different plans on potential substitutions to the aromatic ring of propiophenone but one very basic addition has caught my attention. 4methylpropiophenone is apparently a common precursure to a drug known as mephedrone, a drug I have only apon conducting my prelimenary research become aware of. I have no wish to manufacture drugs and even less desire to provoke harassment from the powers that be. In light of this new informarion I am having serious hesitation on whether it would be wise to proceed with my planned experiments. Can anyone shed light on this subjects? Has anyone else ever ordered these chemicals? Would they perhaps warrant unwanted attention? And are there any other substitutions. Besides the 4-methyl that I should be wary of? Thx in advance.