cleavage or hydrolosis of methoxy groups

cleavage or hydrolosis of methoxy groups

hard to believe there isn't an enzyme that has this function. but going thru the research on enzymes could take a hundred years

Re safrole

P.S. The molecular structure of trans-safrole is attached here:

I'm only going to do this once

I find it distatsteful and annoying when complex issues are simplified and then the simplified version is treated as if it is all that it exists.

Rhodium's page on "Watched and Listed Chemicals in the US" states that safrole is a DEA List I chemical. It also states that "List I Chemicals (a.k.a. Schedule I Chemicals, a.k.a. Precursor Chemicals) are all illegal to own or buy in any quantity without a DEA or State Permit."

This is incorrect. Some months back, I did a few hours of research to find out what the law actually said about List I chemicals (all the relevant federal laws can be found online). My recollection is that a permit is required to import or resell such chemicals, but no permit is required to purchase or possess such chemicals as an end user. Of course the law doesn't come out and say "no permit is required of an end user," but importers/exporters and resellers were the only ones I can recall who needed permits. Transactions over threshold quantities, even to end users, must be reported, and records must be kept for all List I transactions (IIRC), but the burden is on the seller/importer/exporter, not the buyer.

Now it may well be the case that chemical suppliers want some sort of authentication before they will sell you List I chemicals, even as an end user. But this seems to be a voluntary (if widespread) industry practice, just like many video stores won't rent R-rated movies to people under 17. In both cases there seems to be a very popular misconception that this widespread practice is actually a LAW. It isn't. Individual states may criminalize possession of List I chemicals without a permit (I haven't tried to do state by state research), but I am reasonably certain that federal law does not. Proof by example: benzaldehyde ("artificial oil of bitter almonds" is a List I chemical and a widely used flavor and fragrance material. It is available for purchase from a variety of Internet businesses and in person from many well-stocked cooking or craft stores. A couple of months ago I bought a small quantity of it at a local candy and cake shop. It was no more difficult than buying vanilla or lemon flavoring.

I raised the issue of the misleading statements about List I chemicals on the Hive's Law and Order forum, but nobody seemed willing to take the time to verify my research or acknowledge that there was a flaw on the Watched and Listed Chemicals page. Maybe the goal is more to scare would-be drug chemists away from buying certain chemicals than it is to accurately report the law in the US. "Better safe than sorry, even if we have to fib" ELL OH ELL.

Or maybe the page is written the way it is because every US citizen the author ever knew, who was caught with List I chemicals, did face some sort of legal penalty. The possession of listed chemicals could be a significant piece of evidence in prosecuting someone for the manufacture of controlled substances, after all. Whatever the reasoning, the page is wrong as currently worded. "Possession with intent to manufacture [controlled substances]" is different from plain possession.

In some instances, prosecutors may build a case for intent to manufacture with flimsy evidence (including mere possession of certain chemicals with no evidence of controlled end products ever being created), but plain-and-simple possession of safrole or any other List I chemical is not a crime.

Further, even for people convicted of manufacturing controlled substances, 30-40 years is at the upper end of sentences imposed. It is very wrong to imply that someone will be imprisoned for 40 years because they have a liter of safrole stored between the rhodamine 6g and the tetrabutylammonium bromide.

[Edited on 9-15-2004 by Polverone]