Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Your opinion on this chemical structure

German - 3-6-2011 at 10:45

From a chemists standpoint would you consider the following chemical to be "substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II"? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, thank you.


UKnowNotWatUDo - 3-6-2011 at 11:13

The problem with this molecule isn't its direct similarity to illegal drugs but its use as an obvious precursor. Mescaline, 3,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine, 3,4,5-trimethoxymethamphetamine as well as other analogs could be made from this (but I am certain you already know that). I will say that I appreciate you not SWIMming this time though. Thank you.

German - 3-6-2011 at 12:36

This post has nothing to do with any possible synthesis whatsoever. I have never seen any writeups starting with this chemical for the synthesis of anything let alone a schedule 1 or 2. I actually present this question because I want to stay on the right side of the law not because I'm trying to circumvent it. This chemical would be bought, stored, and bioassayed but not be used in any way to modify itself or other chemicals. So from the perspective of buying, storing, and experimental bioassaying to multiple individuals I am trying to determine if I could run into problems with this chemical. Since I am in the US and this chemical is not scheduled per say I then just have to worry about whether or not this chemical is "substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II". I do not SWIM thank you very much. I tried that once and drowned, hence my interest in abiding by the law.

[Edited on 3-6-2011 by German]

turd - 3-6-2011 at 12:57

Do not eat this - propenyl/allyl-benzenes are toxic.
Quote:
have never seen any writeups starting with this chemical for the synthesis of anything let alone a schedule 1 or 2.

One doesn't need a lot of imagination to see how this could be turned into mescaline or 3,4,5-trimethoxyamphetamine. If you live in one of those crazy countries were you're guilty until proven innocent, lack of a writeup will not help you. If you live in a country with sane legislation you probably wouldn't have asked in the first place. :P
Quote:

From a chemists standpoint would you consider the following chemical to be "substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II"?

The standpoint of a chemist is unfortunately not terribly relevant.

German - 3-6-2011 at 13:09

Quote: Originally posted by turd  
Do not eat this - propenyl/allyl-benzenes are toxic.


Depends on how much you take. Everything has a toxicity level. Including water.
Quote: Originally posted by turd  
The standpoint of a chemist is unfortunately not terribly relevant.


I understands this. There is the chemist's standpoint and then there is the lawyer's standpoint. I understand that the lawyer's standpoint is much more vague, encompassing, and over-reaching (especially when they are government lawyers), which is why I am first starting with the chemist's standpoint before I inquire into the lawyers. According to the lawyers Tylenol is probably considered chemically similar to amphetamine. However, there was a federal case where AET was NOT considered chemically similar to DMT solely because one was a primary amine and the other a tertiary. So despite lawyers' vagueness there actually can be lines drawn. And for this chemical I am trying to determine which side of the line it would be on. For the purpose of this thread I would ask that only the chemical itself be considered and no possible synthesis from it be speculated on since I genuinely have no interest in that. If not discussing a synthesis makes this thread more appropriate for the legal forum then by all means move it.


[Edited on 3-6-2011 by German]

UKnowNotWatUDo - 3-6-2011 at 14:02

We're not trying to insult you. You didn't use the word swim once here. Which I mentioned in my post. I even said thank you. That's why we're giving you serious answers for your question. You wanted to know if there are any problems with buying this chemical and storing it for a purpose OTHER than as a precursor. Several answers have been supplied. The compound in question is toxic. Using the defense "all things are toxic even water" is not a viable reason to ignore the possible dangers of ingesting something. I personally have no idea what a sub-toxic vs. toxic dose of this would be. I doubt you do either. So it's worth looking into at least. I also told you that this chemical is an obvious precursor. And although you claim you have never seen a synthesis using this molecule to make an illegal molecule, that wouldn't matter in a court of law. My point is that in your attempt to avoid legal problems (which is smart) you will still run into them. The authorities could/would find purchasing this compound suspicious. They might even raid your house. Conspiracy to manufacture charge are relatively easy to bring on these days and anything on your computer, in writing, and reagents like this one could very easily damn you. And when you tell them you simply planned on ingesting it (and/or selling it to other people to possibly ingest) you will not help your case in the slightest.

In short: This compound will bring you trouble. Law enforcement, possible health issues, jail, etc no matter what you planned on doing with it. Unless you want to roll the dice and pray to lady luck I would abandon your idea, whatever it may be. Once again, this response is not meant to be read in a sarcastic or demeaning tone. You posed a question which is acceptable to this forum and so you are getting answers. Good luck.

German - 3-6-2011 at 14:44

^^^ Thanks for your advice UKnow. The toxicity level will be looked at. There would however be clear concrete documentation and irrefutable evidence as to my purpose with this chemical before, during, and after possessing it so my main concern is the chemical itself. Thanks for your concern and replies.

UKnowNotWatUDo - 3-6-2011 at 15:10

That's what I'm trying to tell you. These days it wouldn't matter if you had evidence of planning to ingest it, all that is needed is possession of the chemical itself and any evidence at all that you might do something else with it. This can be something as small as owning a small amount of glassware to having any websites on your computer related to drugs. Not to mention I'm not completely sure that buying it to ingest, even by yourself, is legal. The cops can pull some strange strings when they want you :\

MagicJigPipe - 3-6-2011 at 17:38

UKnowNotWatUDo has some great points. I would heed his words if I were you.

All it takes nowadays is the fact that you COULD do something illegal with it. Also, like he said, if they found out you purchased this chemical--even if it's purchase and/or use is not overtly illegal--they could find SOMETHING to bust you with. The U.S. Code (for example) has 50 titles, each containing around 30 chapters, each containing up to 100+ subchapters each containing up to 100s of laws and/or definitions. This comes out to something like 5,000 federal crimes alone (and that's a low estimate I'm sure as it depends on what you consider a separate "law"). It's safe to say that it is likely that any person, at any given time, is breaking at least one of them. That, sir, is how you make anyone a criminal and therefore potentially prosecutable. (add to that the state and local laws!)

I'm not saying this is right. It's just the way it is. Very unfortunate.

If you are going to do this, do not take notes and wipe your hard drive every day (being careful to delete any history that has anything to do with chemistry or even science in general). There are programs. Look. If you wish to take notes, encrypt them with AES or something similar. After experimentation, clean all glassware thoroughly.

I don't recommend it but I realize curiosity can be a strong force. Good luck either way.

P.S. Don't be irresponsible and give/sell this to people! It's one thing to sell a drug whose effects are known by the user but it is quite another to give/sell an "experimental" drug to others. That would be illegal for sure (not to mention the moral implications). If you're going to risk getting caught for "selling drugs" (trust me, governments will see no difference) you might as well just sell the relatively safe kind. But really, don't do that either. It's not worth the risk.

Nicodem - 4-6-2011 at 01:49

Since this question is about legal aspects and does not have much to do organic chemistry, much less so on synthesis, I'm moving it to Legal and Societal Issues so that it gets a more general public.

As for the question of "substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II", elemicin is isosteric to mescaline, so it is undoubtedly "substantially similar to the chemical structure" of mescaline (for some obscure reason, mescaline is scheduled in most UN directive conformed countries). It is however neither substantially similar in physical, chemical or pharmacological properties of mescaline. So, if the law is supposed to "protect the public" from unscheduled drugs with pharmacological activity similar to the scheduled ones, the answer is that it would be very hard to apply such a law in this case. Elemicin certainly has no pharmacological activity similar to mescaline, TMA or any other potentially scheduled psychedelic. Utmost, there are anecdotal reports that it might be a sedative and even these reports are based only on its presence in a known sedative (nutmeg), but have never been proven.
Everything can be done in courtrooms with some will and malpractice. In short, read the pertaining law, as we don't even know in what jurisdiction you live, much less so are we familiar with this law you talk about.
Quote: Originally posted by German  
This chemical would be bought, stored, and bioassayed but not be used in any way to modify itself or other chemicals.

How about a literature search before doing something as dumb? The sedative effects of nutmeg were never demonstrated to be connected with its elemicin or myristicin content: https://www.sciencemadness.org/whisper/viewthread.php?tid=79...

unionised - 4-6-2011 at 06:44

I have news for some of you.
I plan to purchase and eat this chemical.

You are probably in the same situation, but don't apprently know it.

German - 4-6-2011 at 07:52

Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  
Elemicin certainly has no pharmacological activity similar to mescaline, TMA or any other potentially scheduled psychedelic.


Thats not what numerous reports say. Described as light dose to LSD, close to mescaline with some X.
Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  
In short, read the pertaining law, as we don't even know in what jurisdiction you live, much less so are we familiar with this law you talk about.


If you don't know what jurisdiction I am in then you obviously have not read the whole thread.
Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  
Quote: Originally posted by German  
This chemical would be bought, stored, and bioassayed but not be used in any way to modify itself or other chemicals.

How about a literature search before doing something as dumb? tid=7954


What is so stupid about consuming something that is approved by the FDA as a food additive?

[Edited on 4-6-2011 by German]

[Edited on 4-6-2011 by German]

turd - 4-6-2011 at 08:47

Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
I have news for some of you.
I plan to purchase and eat this chemical.

You are probably in the same situation, but don't apprently know it.

In the context of "bioassay" to eat means to consume quantities that produce psychotropic effects.
Quote:
Thats not what numerous reports say. Described as light dose to LSD, close to mescaline with some X.

"Trip reports" on the internet must be one of the worst sources of information ever. :(

[Edited on 4-6-2011 by turd]

Nicodem - 4-6-2011 at 09:16

Quote: Originally posted by German  
Thats not what numerous reports say. Described as light dose to LSD, close to mescaline with some X.

Please give the reference. I can't see how this could be true. If that was the case, then nutmeg itself would also have at least some psychedelic activity, which is obviously not the case to all of those that ever got "high" using it. Though nutmeg has some faint hallucinogenic activity, it has zero psychedelic-like activity. It is furthermore a relatively strong sedative and causes slight cognitive impairment (this is relatively well documented, see the writings of R. E. Schultes on this topic). Sedative side effects from psychedelics are extremely rare and they cause cognitive impairment only at near-dissociative doses (otherwise they are better known for their cognitive enhancement at low dosage). I admit that there could be some remote chance that the pharmacological activity of elimicin present in nutmeg is masked by some other(s), stronger and also active component(s). If that is your hypothesis, then I agree that it could be (dis)proven by ingestion of pure elimicin.
Quote:
If you don't know what jurisdiction I am in then you obviously have not read the whole thread.

I apologize.
Though, I'm still not familiar with this law and I'm fairly sure there is less than one member here that is knowledgeable enough in regard to this law, to give you a reliable answer. Also, don't you have various levels of jurisdiction in the USA? Like federal, state and local? This could make a big difference if you would ever get caught with such an obvious precursor to TMA. Intent to whatever illegal would be very easily constructed, based on any other circumstance (glassware, other chemicals, literature). I would expect the prosecution would act quite differently if you would get in troubles either in New York or somewhere in Texas, for example.
Quote:
What is so stupid about consuming something that is approved by the FDA as a food additive?

I don't think that is true. Though the FDA lists nutmeg and mace as a food additives, it does not lists elimicin in its "listing of food additive status". Strict reading could only indicate elimicin as a chemical is not allowed to be added to food. It can only be introduced to food indirectly from nutmeg or mace. Besides, epichlorohydrin is also listed there, but only to be regulated (you don't want the industry to put carcinogenic stuff in the food!). So, even if the presence of something is approved, it can also be because it needs to be regulated to bellow certain levels.
I admit that elemicin could be safely bioassayed up to certain levels, but it is neither wise nor needed. Why would you want to get acute poisoning from a compound that can potentially cause liver damage? Just because there is some present in nutmeg, it does not mean that it is non-toxic. On the contrary, from its structure I would expect liver toxicity and potentially carcinogenic metabolites, things that would only show up at acute toxicity levels, but not at all in the submilligram range normally consumed. I know people tend to do dumb things and I did my fair share, but have you considered if it is even worth it? All the literature that I know of, says it is not.

The WiZard is In - 4-6-2011 at 10:28

Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem  

Please give the reference. I can't see how this could be true. If that was the case, then nutmeg itself would also have at least some psychedelic activity, which is obviously not the case to all of those that ever got "high" using it. Though nutmeg has some faint hallucinogenic activity, it has zero psychedelic-like activity. It is furthermore a relatively strong sedative and causes slight cognitive impairment (this is relatively well documented, see the writings of R. E. Schultes on this topic).


AT Weil
Nutmeg as a Psychoactive Drug

AT Shulgin, T Sargent, C Naranjo
The Chemistry and Psychopharmacology of Nutmeg an of Several
Related Phentylisopropylamines

AT Shulgin, T Sargnet, C Naranjo
The Chemistry and Psychopharmacology of Nutmeg and Several
Related Phenylisopropylamines.


In: —
Efron, Homestedt, Kkline Eds.
Ethnolpharacologic Search for Psychoative Drugs
Faven Press 1979

P. 223 Discussion

Chairman Dr. Truitt : We might begin with a comment. One of
the guests found that there is a whole state in our fifty in the
Union that has a reputation for nutmeg, and perhaps he would
like to make his comment again, which was quite interesting : that
of a psychotogenic substance identifying a state.

Dr. Phillips (from the floor) : I am a psychiatrist. I understand
that Connecticut is know as the Nutmeg State, and I remember
when I was in college about twenty years ago there was some
reference to the fact that people in Connecticut acted awfully
crazy, because they ate so much nutmeg.

Mr. Weil : I am afraid the origin of Connecticut's nickname is
somewhat less romantic..........