There are four lists of which I am aware: LIst I List 2 a "special surveillance" list
and an additional list of chemicals of special interest that I cannot link to on a DEA page because the DEA does not publish it, but uses it
internally for investigations. Nonetheless various 'editions' of this list have reached the public domain over time, here is one.
On these four lists are 268 non-overlapping items, and a couple of dozen of these are for groups of compounds, so covering many more distinct
substances, some of them quite common.
Here is a proposal for a ScienceMadness Wikia section:
Have all of these lists on-line, with linked articles on every one that
a) list all of the known uses for manufacturing controlled substances, and
b) a list of other uses.
Some of the listed items are controlled substances (phosphorus) but only because of their uses in drug manufacturing. The reason for some to
be on the list(s) is puzzling on casual inspection.
I think this is important as a guide on how to stay out of trouble for chemists everywhere. So many controlled substances are really quite simple
chemicals, made by many synthetic routes, that many types of chemistry can inadvertently stray into DEA watched territory.
Remember - the lists of the chemicals you buy can be permanent, and the DEA may review such lists years later and new and changing standards may be
applied, and new "national security" laws can impose restrictions on you without leading to a raid or prosecution. You need to think about not only
what is safe and legal now, but how what you buy today may be treated in the future.
[Edited on 6-10-2014 by careysub]gdflp - 6-10-2014 at 06:04
Some of those on the list on Erowid are juts unrealistic. The DEA is not going to watch a purchase of sodium sulfate, sodium acetate, inositol, iron
filings, or magnesium. There are many others on this list which you could walk down to a grocery store and buy pounds of without getting strange
looks. The first three lists have categories currently, but it would be a good idea to list all of them to. If you are talking about listing illicit
uses, I'm not sure that would be a good idea since people could get the wrong impression. Also, next time I would put this in the wiki thread.careysub - 6-10-2014 at 06:31
Sorry about the thread, I am still getting used to the posting apparatus and its various behaviors. Perhaps it can be moved?
You comment about some of the Erowid list being 'unrealistic' actually touches on why an explanation of each one is needed.
Obviously the DEA cannot watch acetone (which I can buy by the gallon for cash at Home Depot) in the same way it watches ergocristine or safrole, yet
it does indeed use acetone purchases as an 'indicator' in investigations.
The question remains, why are these 'unrealistic' chemicals on a (semi-secret) investigation list at all? A public discussion of this would be very
valuable.
"If you are talking about listing illicit uses, I'm not sure that would be a good idea since people could get the wrong impression."
Not discussing this so as to avoid potentially "giving the wrong impression" is to my mind a very bad, if understandable, idea.
For one thing - it is unilateral disarmament in resisting continually increasing restrictions on chemical availability. How and why the DEA is
classifying chemicals in this way is very important for those actively involve in chemistry to understand
Once a chemical is restricted it is very rarely, if ever, later "unrestricted" (the down-rating of ammonium perchlorate from being classified as an
explosive is the only one I know of, and that is not DEA).
It is long passed time that we began publicly analyzing the decisions that the DEA secretly makes on what we, as free people, can do.
The classification and restrictions on chemicals is a matter of public policy, and as public policy should be discussed in public, and such
discussions require accurate information.
The DEA does not like to consider this public policy, they prefer to be regarded as the "drug papacy" - issuing decretals to be obeyed without
question or discussion, and Congress and the White House usually has allowed them that status, but the public cannot afford to. Someone has to
scrutinize what the DEA does.
A serious examination of the evidence (drug availability and prices) shows no sign of progress by the DEA in the never-ending "drug war" (a terrible
metaphor), but the DEA is becoming ever more secretive (making many of its once public publications "law enforcement only") and restrictive and shows
every sign of continuing on this path.
[As an aside, I am an old hand at dealing with this - I made my "Internet fame", such as it is, by taking this same position and approach when dealing
with nuclear weapons, at a time when analyzing how they worked, and the implications of those facts, were considered off-limits to public discussion.
Most of what you can now find out about the details of these devices was worked out and disseminated by me over the Internet. My experiences over the
years, and my contacts (informal, naturally) with some high level people have validated the usefulness and wisdom of my approach.]
[Edited on 6-10-2014 by careysub]DrMario - 6-10-2014 at 11:17
I actually like this idea... but since I live in Europe, I wonder if there could be a similar list compiled for the European Union?chemrox - 6-10-2014 at 11:29
If you feel you have the nerve, call DEA and ask them what chemicals the really care about. There are many urban legends having to do with so-called
watched chemicals. These proliferate at drug forums. I asked a guy at DEA if LAH was on a list somewhere. "Oh we don't care about that.." Expect
similar answers for a lot of materials you may think are "watched."There are 'lawyer taxes' on some the nastier stuff like thionyl halides and CA has
a list of its own. Companies like Spectrum, who are run by lawyers and are in CA get confused about what's sellable outside the Peoples Republic. They
want a DEA number for everyone.Scr0t - 6-10-2014 at 13:14
However since it's the "special surveillance list" the items on it don't require mandatory record keeping or reporting. It's more of a heads up for
suppliers to keep a lookout for these things due to their potential illegal uses.
It does however warn the suppliers that distribution of these chemicals with "reckless disregard for their illegal uses" might lead to penalties being
imposed on them.
Of course this is just the USA, the priorities of other countries may differ.Brain&Force - 6-10-2014 at 16:31
I think we have a page for this on the Sciencemadness Wiki. If not, I'll make one.zenosx - 6-10-2014 at 16:43
Ouch, I just recently purchased Formic Acid and a few vials of DMF (Dimethylformamide, possibly included since formamide is listed?), plus sodium and
potassium dichromate. Thankfully my LAH was privately obtained. (Going from the third link down, Notices 1999). Some of these seem a bit off the wall.
I'm not PhD, but how is Freon or R113 controlled or watched? You can purchase it by the pound at Wally-World...
Anywho. I keep very good logs, inventory, safety supplies, a rudimentary eye-wash station (for my safety), and follow to the best of my amateur
ability chemical storage guidelines. I do not personally want authorities in my lab, but I think I would come out OK on the other end of a court
issue.
I have spent around 4 years building up my lab, and have over time learned a lot and purchased from what could be construed as questionable or watched
sellers (One on the list is United Nuclear). So far, no men in black coats have raided me yet, and if that ever happens, I hope my meticulous logging,
inventory and safety guidelines will help me in a court of law.Brain&Force - 6-10-2014 at 20:53
Surprised to see sulphuric acid on the list. That's rather trivial to acquire, as "battery acid". In fact, it seems the easiest of the Big Three
(sulphuric, nitric, hydrochloric) to get ahold of.
Also, I don't see nitric acid on the list, though it's practically impossible to get. Chemosynthesis - 10-10-2014 at 07:54
The problem with using secret lists is the inability to weed out false positives. No way are estrogens watched in any way, yet there they are on the
unconfirmed special list. It doesn't make sense synthetically, biochemically, investagatorially, etc. as they cannot reasonably be converted to
androgenic anabolics, they have no use in conjunction with illicit anabolic administration, they are specifically exempted from schedule IIIa status
the DEA petitioned Congress in creating, they are available over the counter, and are used by both menopausal women and those on birth control.
Additionally, I just asked around and no one in a handful of people I spoke with, all of whom can order schedule I and II narcotics for research, have
heard about it either.
LAH? Okay, I can see that potentially being used in an investigation initiated by other purchases/activity, or mentioned to retailers as potentially
suspicious so they perform their due diligence. Estrogens? No. Anyone have an inventive explanation to change my mind? Plenty of DEA and even more
DOJ chemists, so simple mistake doesn't seem valid either. And I could even argue for aspirin if toy take into account picrates, but I can't think of
any energetic and bioterrorism uses for estrogen, unless attempting to feminize a region's population is really so concerning.
Edit: anyone see something I missed?
[Edited on 10-10-2014 by Chemosynthesis]careysub - 10-10-2014 at 09:38
The "Psychedelic Chemistry" list (see link) is one of the oldest and best know, and lacks the more obvious clinkers.
Back when the DEA (and before it the FBI BNDD) published information about their investigative activities some insight was available on what role
those odd watched chemicals might have. When a suspected lab was flagged based on more sensitive chemicals, they then looked at other purchases to
determine whether they were "cooking".
It is useful to have resource for home chemists to consult about what inference might be making about their purchases - it is particularly valuable to
people who haveNOT paid any attention to drug lab chemistry.
For example, to the element collector it is useful to know that purchases of elemental iodine, lithium and phosphorus are all precursors to
methamphetamine (I didn't realize about the lithium when I bought 50 g on eBay). Apparently sodium and magnesium are considered possible precursors as
well.
If an investigator finds a bunch of empty freon containers outside a domicile, they might conclude that there is a drug lab inside.Chemosynthesis - 10-10-2014 at 10:16
Quote:
It is useful to have resource for home chemists to consult about what inference might be making about their purchases - it is particularly valuable
to people who haveNOT paid any attention to drug lab chemistry.
Feel free, but given Appendix A and the
Regulated Chemicals List and worksheet (DHS), I think any hobby chemist should be aware that between DEA and DHS, any organic solvent, reducing agent,
oxidizer, strong acid or base, or basically any chemistry materials may place you under suspicion if you order a CWC precursor or DEA listed chemical.
I don't think a list could be comprehensive or even particularly helpful given how dynamic synthesis is. If you have a listed chemical, or a chemical
weapon precursor, and look like you do any chemistry, you may be investigated. I am sure whatever the contemporary caseload at the agency of the month
looks like influences it too.careysub - 10-10-2014 at 13:19
Throw in the DHS list, and you've got a point. It is even more extensive than all of the DEA lists combined.
Still, a single reference resource on the listed/watched chemicals and who is listing/watching and why them seems to me a good idea - though more work
than I had originally imagined.
It is true we could throw up out hands and declare "It is all suspicious!" but that seems somehow unsatisfactory.Chemosynthesis - 10-10-2014 at 15:21
Fair enough.S.C. Wack - 10-10-2014 at 18:04
The USA's special surveillance list is published but the UN/INCB's isn't AFAIK, except for an older version. The 2006 Precursors and Chemicals
Frequently Used in the Illicit Manufacture & et c. said ...of which 23 were substances already included on the special surveillance list, 35
were on the reserve list and a further 29 substances met the criteria established by the Board for selecting substances for inclusion in the list.
Those 87 substances were reviewed, which led to 36 substances being identified for inclusion in the limited international special surveillance
list.
PS "watched" can mean that records are kept, by law, for example in California (a) Any manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, or other person or
entity in this state that sells to any person or entity in this state or any other state any quantity of sodium cyanide, potassium cyanide,
cyclohexanone, bromobenzene, magnesium turnings, mercuric chloride, sodium metal, lead acetate, palladium black, iodine, hydrogen chloride gas,
trichlorofluoromethane (fluorotrichloromethane), dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1,2 trichloro-1,2,2,-trifluorethane (trichlortrifluoroethane),
sodium acetate, or acetic anhydride...
[Edited on 11-10-2014 by S.C. Wack]careysub - 11-10-2014 at 08:57
