Sciencemadness Discussion Board - its TEXAS law, partner

its TEXAS law, partner

roamingnome - 6-1-2007 at 09:41

While "window" shopping at my favorite lab supply site

i saw a nice soxhlet glass piece...
then i saw

BUYERS IN TEXAS MUST HAVE "PERMIT FOR PRECURSOR CHEMICALS AND/OR LABORATORY APPARATUS".

while a soxhlet device is somewhat complex to just make yourself, what really defines laboratory apparatus?

i mean we all know its the same old song and dance, more regulation, registration leads to easier confication, its a NRA issue as well..... i hope this doesnt spread to far

EllisDTripp - 6-1-2007 at 15:45

The Texas glassware law is pure drug war fascism, being worded in such a way that practically ANYONE can be busted at any time at the discretion of the local cops. A list of what is considered "laboratory apparatus" is available here:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcot...

I particularly love item "K" from that list. "A Transformer". Anyone living in a house with an electric doorbell is subject to arrest whenever the local pigs feel like it!

pantone159 - 6-1-2007 at 17:08

My favorite is item N, "adaptor tube". That's nice and unambiguous. (not)

neutrino - 6-1-2007 at 17:42

In texas, jam jars are illegal because they can be used as beakers. Yep, pure BS.

pantone159 - 6-1-2007 at 19:05

But beakers aren't on the forbidden list, so they are ok.

Although flasks are forbidden, flask-shaped-beakers aka fleakers, aren't on the forbidden list either, so they are ok too. Handy thing, those fleakers.

evil_lurker - 6-1-2007 at 19:32

I was about to say coffee pots are illegal too, because they contain a pyrex beaker, heating mantle, and filtration funnel.

neutrino - 7-1-2007 at 14:14

I remember some discussion at RS concluding that Texas's chem regulations could apply to beakers (and therefore jars) as well. This was a year or two ago, so they might have changed their rediculous legislation since then.

In the end, it proably matters more how expensive your lawyer is. Stupid country.

mrjeffy321 - 7-1-2007 at 14:43

One of my favorite (or rather, least favorite) direct quotes right out of Texas law is:

Quote:

(b)For purposes of this section, an intent to unlawfully
manufacture the controlled substance methamphetamine is presumed
if the actor possesses or transports:
(1) anhydrous ammonia in a container or receptacle
that is not designed and manufactured to lawfully hold or transport
anhydrous ammonia;
(2) lithium metal removed from a battery and immersed
in kerosene, mineral spirits, or similar liquid that prevents or
retards hydration; or
(3) in one container, vehicle, or building,
phenylacetic acid, or more than nine grams, three containers
packaged for retail sale, or 300 tablets or capsules of a product
containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, and:
(A) anhydrous ammonia;
(B) at least three of the following categories of
substances commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine:
(i) lithium or sodium metal or red
phosphorus, iodine, or iodine crystals;
(ii) lye, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid,
or muriatic acid;
(iii) an organic solvent, including ethyl
ether, alcohol, or acetone;
(iv) a petroleum distillate, including
naphtha, paint thinner, or charcoal lighter fluid; or
(v) aquarium, rock, or table salt; or

[... and so on ...]

But the part which lists off glassware is:

Quote:

(53) "Chemical laboratory apparatus" means any item of
equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled
substance or a controlled substance analogue, including:
(A) a condenser;
(B) a distilling apparatus;
(C) a vacuum drier;
(D) a three-neck or distilling flask;
(E) a tableting machine;
(F) an encapsulating machine;
(G) a filter, Buchner, or separatory funnel;
(H) an Erlenmeyer, two-neck, or single-neck
flask;
(I) a round-bottom, Florence, thermometer, or
filtering flask;
(J) a Soxhlet extractor;
(K) a transformer;
(L) a flask heater;
(M) a heating mantel; or
(N) an adaptor tube.

pantone159 - 7-1-2007 at 15:02

Yeah, the part about 'presuming intent to manufacture meth' is especially lame. Element collectors - Don't open batteries to try and get Li metal. You are then *officially* a meth-cook.

I repeat my claim, though, that beakers are a-ok.

evil_lurker - 7-1-2007 at 17:09

Or if you do open batteries, pack them under argon.

pantone159 - 7-1-2007 at 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by mrjeffy321
direct quotes right out of Texas law

Do you have a link to the current law? I had one but it went bad.

It's a pain in the ass to have to read it anyways, besides being idiotic and annoying, it is written in Legalese rather than English so reading it is torture. The law also fundamentally gives more rights to businesses than to people, which philosophically pisses me off too.

However, I don't think beakers were ever on the list, at least not in the last 5 years or so, perhaps before that. Phosphorus is the only recent change I noticed.

UnintentionalChaos - 7-1-2007 at 18:58

So, if you gut a battery for lithium for an element collection, put it under vacuum and heat it...its melting point is pretty low. I should think (wouldn't know) that the thin sheet (high surface area) in the battery would be ideal for whatever use in making meth it plays. A little glob would be 1:impossible to track to battery extraction, and 2:probably poorly suited to meth production.

They could (and probably would) still give you hell about it, but you'd have a better argument.

Or ampoule it and argue that it would be ludacris to go through all that trouble if it was intended to be used for meth

[Edited on 1-8-07 by UnintentionalChaos]

mrjeffy321 - 7-1-2007 at 20:40

Here is a link to the law,
"Texas Controlled Substances Act",
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/pdf/hs....
It is a very lengthy read, but you should be able to search through with certain key words to get to the good parts.

That part about presuming intent to manufacture meth really shocked me when I first read it...all it takes is for someone to have some drain cleaner (NaOH), nail polish remover (acetone), and paint thinner, and boom you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.

UnintentionalChaos - 7-1-2007 at 20:55

If it is accurate as quoted before, then,

"(3) in one container, vehicle, or building,
phenylacetic acid, or more than nine grams, three containers
packaged for retail sale, or 300 tablets or capsules of a product
containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, and:
(A) anhydrous ammonia;
(B) at least three of the following categories of
substances commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine:
(i) lithium or sodium metal or red
phosphorus, iodine, or iodine crystals;
(ii) lye, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid,
or muriatic acid;
(iii) an organic solvent, including ethyl
ether, alcohol, or acetone;
(iv) a petroleum distillate, including
naphtha, paint thinner, or charcoal lighter fluid; or
(v) aquarium, rock, or table salt; or

[... and so on ...]"

It sounds like you need a lot of phenylacetic acid, ephedrine, or pseudoephedrine as well as anhydrous ammonia and some of the more common materials. Then again, the anhydrous ammonia (in a non-approved container) and battery lithium are "definite" indicators by themselves. Any house would probably contain the VERY suspicious table salt and alchohol (vodka). Also, any drain cleaner other than organic acids will probably have lye, HCl, or H2SO4 in them.

pantone159 - 8-1-2007 at 11:35

I think you are ok (legally) as far as the assumed-meth-cookery if you can manage the following:
1 - No anhydrous NH3.
2 - No Li cut from batteries. Li metal from other sources is ok. (My element collection is happy about that part.)
3 - No more than 3 boxes of relevant cold medicine.

I can abide by those without much trouble. The main one being the cold medicine, I could easily see accidentally going over that limit. (But now I know.) Anhydrous NH3 could surely be used for some legit experiments (and the dissolving alkali metal thing sounds interesting by itself), but I can live without it.

The glassware restrictions are by far the biggest issue.

pantone159 - 8-1-2007 at 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by mrjeffy321
Here is a link to the law,
"Texas Controlled Substances Act",
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/pdf/hs....

Thanks. Some comments from reading this...

The definition of "Chemical precursor" in 481.002, number 51, does NOT include phosphorus or the related hypophosphorus (or whatever) acid. RP does appear on the list that EllisDTripp listed, but it isn't in that PDF.

The language regarding what is *assumed* to be anhydrous NH3 in 481.124 (p. 39) is interesting. Paraphrasing, since I couldn't figure out how to select and copy...

A substance is presumed to be anh NH3 if it is in a container that is:
1 - Designed to hold anh NH3, or
2 - Not designed to hold NH3, if
A - (skipped)
B - A water solution of the substance tests positive for ammonia.

Note that any aqueous solution of NH3 would be considered 'anhydrous NH3' by this test, as an aqueous solution (of the already aqueous solution) would test positive.

Also, it isn't clear to me what restrictions there are on *synthesizing* anything on the chemical precursor list, as there would not be any transfer of the material to anybody.

UnintentionalChaos - 8-1-2007 at 13:03

Lawyers wrote this, not chemists. I think it would be thrown out of court if they tried to bring up household ammonia as evidence.

roamingnome - 9-1-2007 at 12:30

After reading the exserpts of the LAW

its appears that it is the INTENT of the ACTOR thats the issue.

if you intend to use the lithium too solvate electrons in ammonia you best not have any organic molecules around....

Its unforntunitate becuase that sodium ammonia phenomenon is one of the coolest in chemsistry... theres things to discover there...

how does it respond to magnetic fields....thats my question...

pantone159 - 9-1-2007 at 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by roamingnome
its appears that it is the INTENT of the ACTOR thats the issue.

But, there is a specific section, that lists certain items, which if you possess, you are AUTOMATICALLY considered to have INTENT to manufacture meth. Regarding those sections, whether or not you ACTUALLY have intent is irrelevant.

vulture - 9-1-2007 at 13:24

Quote:

I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds so bizarre to me. Does the possession of gasoline and matches automatically mean you will start a fire?

What happened to means, opportunity and MOTIVE? Innocent till proven guilty?

It would be interesting to look at precedents, eg is there anyone who has been convicted solely because of the possession of certain materials?

As for TX, what is it with that state that it has such an insane concentration of nutjobs?

[Edited on 9-1-2007 by vulture]

joeflsts - 9-1-2007 at 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture

Quote:

Texas is a large state, in fact one of the largest in the US. It has huge problem with illegal drug manufacture. Assholes that make and sell illegal drugs caused these stupid laws to get written. Of course that also holds true for the buyers as well. As long as we allow drugs to remain illegal we will see this only get worse.

Joe

[Edited on 10-1-2007 by joeflsts]

mrjeffy321 - 9-1-2007 at 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by vulture
It would be interesting to look at precedents, eg is there anyone who has been convicted solely because of the possession of certain materials?

Also, what about the innocent people who might get arrested and have to spend a night in jail (and a day in court) trying to explain why they had those seemingly innocuous materials in their car on the way home from the store.
Even if they are ultimately not convicted, there is still a lot of hassle to go through to prove yourself innocent when you are assumed guilty.

The_Davster - 9-1-2007 at 19:09

Seems like a law that can be used to screw over anyone the gov wants...

Its strange which liberties in texas people have and don't have. All the guns you want, but no flasks.

Edit: Spelled 'which' wrong

[Edited on 10-1-2007 by The_Davster]

pantone159 - 9-1-2007 at 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Davster
All the guns you want, but no flasks.

Yep, what a shame.

Theoretically, you are supposed to be able to get a permit for all this stuff, but the process is really burdensome. You would have to apply for a new permit each and every time you'd buy any of the restricted items, and then wait like a month for the permit. Not to mention explicitly giving the cops permission to search you at any 'reasonable time'.

Magpie - 9-1-2007 at 19:57

It does indeed look this law gives the Texas LE the right to arrest anyone they suspect of making meth (or don't like) no matter how circumstantial the evidence.

What I'm wondering is how hospitals, universities, businesses, etc, can possibly function if they have to apply for a permit every time they need to buy some glassware.

[Edited on 10-1-2007 by Magpie]

pantone159 - 9-1-2007 at 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Magpie
What I'm wondering is how hospitals, universities, businesses, etc, can possibly function if they have to apply for a permit every time they need to buy some glassware.

Institutions etc. can get a single permit and be done with it. (Maybe with some incidental reporting, not sure.) INDIVIDUALS must get one-time permits for each and every purchase.

mrjeffy321 - 10-1-2007 at 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by pantone159
Not to mention explicitly giving the cops permission to search you at any 'reasonable time'.

I have long heard about this requirement, but I have never seen it anywhere official in writing. Do you know where this is set down? Is it in the same "Texas Controlled Substances Act" that lists the glassware, or is it somewhere else?

pantone159 - 10-1-2007 at 15:55

Upon further review, I may have exaggerated just a little...

481.080 (l) (2) - Specifies that the cops can search at 'any reasonable time'. However, after reading this closely, it sounds like it would not apply to holders of the one-time permits, which is what individuals have to get. Rather, it would apply to the institutions with the broad permits.

481.081 (e) - To apply for an apparatus permit, you must give written consent to inspect. It is possible this phrasing means you only have to allow an inspection once, not the more broad 'at any reasonable time'.

These are both on p. 25 of the pdf.

asilentbob - 11-1-2007 at 02:52

The "reasonable time" thing is also with owning and operating distilling equiptment of such and such capacity for blank use. IIRC.

Edit: I'm just happy that they did not and have not stopped me from getting any equiptment or chemicals thus far.

[Edited on 11-1-2007 by asilentbob]

unionised - 6-2-2007 at 09:04

I hope that people will forgive me for reawakening an old thread, but I hadn't noticed this one before.
I note that the Texas Authorities consider you a meth cook if you have methylamine.
Are they taking the piss, or has nobody told them it's a normal costituent of urine?
(And you thought the bit about transformers was stupid).
http://www.seibertron.com/toys/gallery.php?id=494&size=0...

pantone159 - 6-2-2007 at 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by unionised
I note that the Texas Authorities consider you a meth cook if you have methylamine.
Are they taking the piss, or has nobody told them it's a normal costituent of urine?

I'm not sure that is true, at least it is not explicitly stated in the law. OTOH, having 4 boxes of cold pills + chemicals that most of us probably have DOES equal 'Meth Cook', explicitly.

MeNH2 is listed as a precursor, and you must have a permit to buy any. (Along with 15 or so other chems, approximately the DEA List I.) My reading of the law says this doesn't apply if you make it yourself (and thus it is never transferred from anybody else to you) which implies that if you make some in your own urine, that's ok.

Now, if somebody else gives there urine to you, that's another matter.

The_Davster - 6-2-2007 at 18:03

Wow! Do public restrooms have to have licenses now? After all, you never know where its going...

Sauron - 6-2-2007 at 23:15

I concurr with joefists. These draconian laws are a response to the drug cooks. I can remember when there was no DEA, when there was no BNDD before it, there was only the tiny Federal Bureau of Narcotics chasing smack smugglers and dealers.

Then the FDA got in on the act to go after knockoff drugs (basically as a hit squad for the pharm industry), that was called BDAC Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. They merged with FBN amd became BNDD and as bureaucracies will, it grew like Topsy.

The architect of much of that was Chuck Coulson of Watergate notoriety.

Anyway, without the meth labs, and to a far lesser extent the LSD labs (few) and the rest, all these chemical-control stupidities simply would not exist. So, let's place the blame squarely on those among society who pervert our science to make a fast dirty buck and who do not give a damn for the consequences. We are reaping the consequences of forty years of their nonsense.

Don't misunderstand, the government is also wrong to overreact and to compromise civil liberties. But it's the clandestine drug labs that have provoked this reaction.

quicksilver - 7-2-2007 at 07:35

The majority of the BIG drug labs & successfull are accross the boarder in Mexico as I am awair. Thus the boarder problem makes this have even more impact than it does already.
YES, they have perverted chemisrty to anti-social ends in a sense but the choice of law enforcemnt to go after US based individuals is in response to lack of action from our neighbor. The palm is greased in that country in every activity from driver's liciences to taxes. Prohibition in any activity has always lead to crime where none existed previously. But I doubt there is any easy answer to this. Mind altering substances are a complicated subject to address as those who would indulge make themselves both socially unawair and are dysfuntional as well: irrational in every respect. Treating drug abuse as a public health issue as opposed to a law enforcement issue would entail a massive public education / advertising plan.
Thus far the public has been treated to an agenda of hysteria aided by the media that has been very successful. This is due to the everyday facts of social dysfuntion as a direct result of mind altering elements (kids being neglected, labs blowing up, people being killed for drug profits, etc). Someone would need to gamble their political career on any change in that direction as well as engage the entrenched law enforcement elements who's careers depend on those same laws. Remember that the FBN (FBN&DD) and Harray Anslinger tried to wrench power from J Edgar Hover (and lost). The DEA byproduct was given a more flexable mandate than simple interdiction. The DEA is both an intelligence arm and an LE agency of the gov't. We won't easily give up that intel agency and it's cash flow just for a little social reform.

[Edited on 7-2-2007 by quicksilver]

agorot - 3-3-2010 at 17:12

Say I live in texas for hypothetical purposes (I don't).

If I were to get the permit, and honestly have absolutely no interest whatsoever in manufacturing drugs, what reasoning could I use that they would allow me to purchase the apparatus? Say I put "I will manufacture cobalt chloride by reacting the pure metal with liquid chlorine gas" on the reasoning, do you think they would let me do it? I highly doubt they would allow me the permit if I said "I want to manufacture sulfur trioxide by the catalytic conversion of SO2 to SO3 over a vandium pentoxide catalyst."
2)If I were to apply for the permit (found here: ftp://ftp.txdps.state.tx.us/forms/nar-120a.pdf) and already had some of the prohibited stuff on the list and they searched me, what do you think would happen? Would there a way I could register glassware I already had and not get in trouble for it?

Remember, I don't live in Texas, and this the purpose of this thread is only to discuss the law itself.

But if I did live in Texas, I would be in constant fear of police knocking on my door with a search warrant, especially if I had glassware/chemicals already and had absolutely no interest in manufacturing drugs. I would be scared that a supplier I had ordered from would give my name, address, and current glassware inventory to the state of Texas. I would also be scared that they were tracking my internet connection and were taking note of all the things I was looking at online.

entropy51 - 3-3-2010 at 17:34

Quote: Originally posted by agorot

Say I live in texas for hypothetical purposes (I don't).

Remember, I don't live in Texas, and this the purpose of this thread is only to discuss the law itself.

But if I did live in Texas

I bet you're wearing a cowboy hat and boots with spurs right this minute

agorot - 3-3-2010 at 17:50

[Edited on 4-3-2010 by agorot]

agorot - 3-3-2010 at 18:03

[Edited on 4-3-2010 by agorot]