watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Understanding what U.S.C. Title 21, Chapter 13 says about List I and List II chemicals
Title 21 of the United States Code, Section 13 is titled "Drug Abuse Prevention and Control". It's the section of the U.S. law that defines
controlled substances, their schedules, and also the listed chemicals. If you care about this, go read the law. If you can read chemistry literature,
you can read statute. Reading legal arguments is rather more abstruse, but generally speaking statute is pretty clear reading. 21 U.S.C. 13 is no
exception. As statute goes, it's quite clear. Incidentally, the link is to a site run by Cornell's law school. For those of you too paranoid to read
the drug laws from a government server, you have no excuse now. For those of you who would rather speculate or pontificate than read, you have no
excuse either.
(An aside about case law. If you want to know the "real" law as it would be applied in a court, you need to read relevant case law as well. Yet even
there you have to read the statute first before the case law will make sense. So no excuses that you won't get the "right" information.)
I understand that most folks would rather defer knowledge about law to lawyers. For people on this forum, though, that's the equivalent of deferring
knowledge about chemistry to professional chemists. Now acting as your own lawyer in court is different; I can't recommend that. But when you hire a
lawyer with no knowledge of the law, it's like hiring an auto mechanic without knowing the difference between the engine and the transmission--maybe
you'll get lucky with who you've hired, maybe not.
No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not writing legal opinions nor am I practicing law by talking about what statute says, and neither are you.
So, I've started this thread as a place for folks to come to an understanding about just what's 21 U.S.C. 13 says about the regulation of List I and
List II chemicals. Please keep this thread clear of your opinions and value judgements about this statute. It's lengthy enough to come to an
understanding about what the statute says without clouding the task with a debate about the merits.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Does making Iodine mean I have to register as a manufacturer?
This one's easy, a starter case, as it were. Iodine is on List II, ses section 802(35)(I). Manufacturers of List I chemicals are required to register, section 822(a)(1), but those for List II are not named, and they're not so required. So the answer is no.
Incidentally, section 802 is the definitions section. One of the useful thing about statute is that, in order to be clear, there's generally a
definitions section where you can easily find a defined meaning, insofar as the law is concerned, for terms of art. Don't be fooled, though.
Definitions often contain much of the real substance of the law.
That's not the end of the story, though. If you "manufacture" iodine, you're required to report it annually to the Attorney General, section 830(b)(2). There's a thorny question of law about whether synthesis of iodine from, say, KI, for purely personal research use constitutes
"manufacture", as this hinges on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause and there are Supreme Court cases relevant here.
Personally, I think there's a good opportunity to start a grass-roots "iodine protest" by teaching people how to make gram quantities in a test tube
and how to file with the AG. It might even be considered as a rite of passage for Home Chemistry Pride.
|
|
|
ammonium isocyanate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 124
Registered: 13-7-2009
Location: USA - Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: sick 
|
|
Sorry about the post on your other thread...
I didn't mean to say US laws were as bad as Australia's. I've read about the criminalization of fairly basic chemistry equipment and I agree the US
is not nearly as bad.
I went back to 21 U.S.C 13 and re-read section 1310.05. I'd missed the exception for internal use.
However, in section 1310 (which is the one dealing with listed chemicals), I can't find any requirements for registration simply to handle list 1
chemicals. Yet, on the DEA website, they list contact information for registering to handle list 1 chemicals ("Registrants handling or persons
wanting to handle List 1 chemicals should contact (202) 307-4025 to obtain information.")
This confuses me. I can't find any requirement for registration in the statute, but the website sure makes it sound like there is one. Can somebody
clear this up for me?
Again, sorry about that other post. I didn't do accurate research, and it came across a little stronger than I intended.
Edit: In 2003 Iodine was changed to list 1 status. It was my understanding that this was still the case, as this is what it says on the DEA website.
Has it since changed?
[Edited on 18-7-2009 by ammonium isocyanate]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by ammonium isocyanate  |
Edit: In 2003 Iodine was changed to list 1 status. It was my understanding that this was still the case, as this is what it says on the DEA website.
Has it since changed? |
Damnit. I knew that. So I'm wrong above, because of administrative actions. The
statute says List II, but it also vests the administrator of the law (DEA) to list new substances. So as of today, iodine is List I.
Sorry about that, everybody. Hoist by my own petard.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by ammonium isocyanate | However, in section 1310 (which is the one dealing with listed chemicals), I can't find any requirements for registration simply to handle list 1
chemicals. Yet, on the DEA website, they list contact information for registering to handle list 1 chemicals ("Registrants handling or persons
wanting to handle List 1 chemicals should contact (202) 307-4025 to obtain information.")
This confuses me. I can't find any requirement for registration in the statute, but the website sure makes it sound like there is one. Can somebody
clear this up for me? |
It's in section 822(a)(1), from which: | Quote: | | (1) Every person who manufactures or distributes any controlled substance or list I chemical, or who proposes to engage in the manufacture or
distribution of any controlled substance or list I chemical, shall obtain annually a registration issued by the Attorney General in accordance with
the rules and regulations promulgated by him. |
The problem with reading statute is that you generally need to
read it exhaustively, as it's pretty much impossible to arrange it topically according to every sensible topical organization. Thus said, 21 U.S.C. 13
is overall pretty well organized.
I wish to point on that the word the DEA uses on the site, "handle", is only an approximation to the actual law. Not an unreasonable one for
colloquial use, but not strictly accurate either.
|
|
|
merrlin
Hazard to Others
Posts: 110
Registered: 3-4-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I downloaded Title 42 from the Cornell site some years ago. I found that it was helpful to search the entire document using key words and phrases to
round up the pertinent definitions and sections. You can search the web using the section references to find revisions and/or discussion. If the law
concerning your planned endeavor is ambiguous, contact your congressional representative, explain what it is that you want to do, and request their
assistance in finding someone who can answer your questions. It may take some time, but it's part of their job to help their consituents deal with the
federal government. If they are not of help, at least you are on the record as having made a good faith attempt to understand the legal constraints.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Watson, although you have included appropriate disclaimers regarding your knowledge of the law, you are obvously more cognizant of its intricacies
than many of us here.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of how regulatory discretion plays into all of this. In loose terms, regulatory discretion is a practice
sometimes engaged in by the federal agencies wherein they ignore the strict letter of the law for the greater good, typically when the harm done by
the violation of the law is minor or non-existent and there is no intent to violate the law. Believe it or not, sometimes the regulators just show
good judgement, especially when pursuing a violation is just not worth their effort.
In other words, unless it's a very slow day the DEA has better things to do than go after amateur chemists for no good reason. I think that is the
reason that many of us order questionable supplies in small amounts all the time, get reported by the supplier, but generally do not hear the dreaded
Knock On The Door.
I suspect that an amateur chemist who made a few grams of iodine for his own non-drug use might be exempted under regulatory discretion if it came to
the agency's attention. Your opinion?
|
|
|
chemrox
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
I love the idea of 'manufacturing' a few grams and filing with the AG.
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
Eclectic
National Hazard
Posts: 899
Registered: 14-11-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: Obsessive
|
|
Is it even possible to "manufacture" an element? Short of nuclear synthesis...
In this context, what does "manufacture" mean exactly? Is there along with that a desire, intent, or practice of engaging in commerce?
Is there a quantity threshold?
[Edited on 7-18-2009 by Eclectic]
|
|
|
ammonium isocyanate
Hazard to Others
Posts: 124
Registered: 13-7-2009
Location: USA - Midwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: sick
|
|
If you apply for a registration to handle list 1 chems, it costs money (don't know how much) and is non-refundable. I don't know if there is a fee
for just reporting the quantities manufactured, but if there is I don't think it would be worth bothering with because we'd just be giving them money.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Eclectic | Is it even possible to "manufacture" an element? Short of nuclear synthesis...
In this context, what does "manufacture" mean exactly? Is there along with that a desire, intent, or practice of engaging in commerce?
Is there a quantity threshold?
[Edited on 7-18-2009 by Eclectic] |
I think Watson was encouraging people to read the regs, but they define manufacturing:
The term “manufacture” means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug or other substance, either directly or
indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and
chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of such substance or labeling or relabeling of its container; except that such term does
not include the preparation, compounding, packaging, or labeling of a drug or other substance in conformity with applicable State or local law by a
practitioner as an incident to his administration or dispensing of such drug or substance in the course of his professional practice. The term
“manufacturer” means a person who manufactures a drug or other substance. "
Intent figures prominently elsewhere in the regs; possession is (I think) only criminal when combined with intent to manufacture controlled
substances. But read the regs, Watson has given a compelling argument for doing so.
I don't see threshold amounts listed, but they are definitely listed in the Sentencing Guidelines that SC Wack posted elsewhere. More stuff = longer
sentence, of course.
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
Now I understand that this is supposed to be a technical discution, but the entire gist of the thing can be condensed quite nicely.
The law serves three primary functions:
1.To generate a papertrail from the manufacturer to the end user on every single transaction of any list I precursor chemical.
2.To allow for personal inspection of any facilities at any time for any reason without a search warrant.
3.To "trump up" and boost the federal penalties for manufacturing controlled substances and to ensure complicance with the statutes.
The law is written as to cast a very large net. Compliance can be also be summed up quite nicely:
1.Hand them over your constitutional right to privacy and pay them thousands of dollars *per substance* and *maybe* you will get permission,or;
2.For the private individuals, do what you gotta do, but don't ever attempt to purchase or import any list I chemicals since there will be a
papertrail created at some point.
3.And for those that do aquire list I chemicals be it self manufacture, or by means of diversion other than purchase, pray you never get caught cause
the feds will gladly put you in prison for a loooong time.
Remember kiddies, the DEA is sitting quite nicely now that Obama gave them a couple extra billion dollars in the last round of economic stimulus.
[Edited on 18-7-2009 by evil_lurker]
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in
beer.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by evil_lurker | | Now I understand that this is supposed to be a technical discution, but the entire gist of the thing can be condensed quite nicely.
|
Yes, it is, and since some of what you wrote sure looks like opinion, I would appreciate if you were to
start a new thread for it.
I'll also acknowledge that what you've said also includes objective statements about what the law says. The nice thing about statute is that you can
very easily back up your argument with citation. So, would you please provide the citation for the assertion that the List I registration fee is "per
substance"? My understanding is otherwise.
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes | | Quote: Originally posted by evil_lurker | | Now I understand that this is supposed to be a technical discution, but the entire gist of the thing can be condensed quite nicely.
|
Yes, it is, and since some of what you wrote sure looks like opinion, I would appreciate if you were to
start a new thread for it.
I'll also acknowledge that what you've said also includes objective statements about what the law says. The nice thing about statute is that you can
very easily back up your argument with citation. So, would you please provide the citation for the assertion that the List I registration fee is "per
substance"? My understanding is otherwise. |
My bad.
I meant to say that the registration fee is per activity... be it importer, manufacturer, or distributor.
Source: DEA form 510.
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in
beer.
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2284
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
The Chemical Handlers Manual has undergone many changes, and is not now available from the DEA website. It is currently under review.
My understanding of the former regulations, was that innocent possession or manufacture, of small amounts of listed materials, was not illegal. And
did not require registration.
Provided that those materials were not used for some illegal process, and they were not sold, or transferred......Technically, there was no problem.
Manufacturing for sale, or selling of listed materials did require registration.
Specifically exempted from regulation was the use of, and consumption of listed materials in manufacturing processes.
If you were to use I2 to produce Silver Iodide which you then incorporated into photographic paper.....No problem. If, you wished to produce your
own I2 from KI, and then use that I2 to produce Silver Iodide.....That would also be no problem.
The use, or production of I2, which was consumed in the manufacture of your products did not require registration.
You could also sell the Silver Iodide, or the Photographic paper......and you would not need to be registered. Exempt!
However, selling any amount of the free I2 you made, WOULD require registration. And, according to current regulations, reporting of all
transactions, regardless of quantity.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
