Attn half_pint: MDMA, the MDA and recreational drugs - was: "The Reluctant Thief"

Jasbird jasbird#deletethis# at
Fri Jul 18 03:52:14 EST 2003

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:54:38 +0100, "Joe Kelleher"
<jfk at> wrote:

>Jasbird wrote:
>> But better than this, in the UK any
>> judge can arbitrarily define a substance as an illegal drug even when
>> that substance does not fall under the current written definitions in
>> the MDA - The judge simply states that the new substance is a class A
>> drug because, in his opinion, it should be - in the 'spirit' of the
>> MDA.  Judgements such as this have already been made in UK law
>> (regarding the N-hydroxy analog of MDMA).
>Have you got any further details of such judgements? I've not heard of
>this before. Isn't N-hydroxy MDMA now properly listed?

It was quite a story at the time. An ex-student had a fair amount of
lab gear and chemicals at his parents home and had been touting his
wares on the internet.

I could find out about it but it would be quite a bit of research. I
can't remember the time - (1996 to 1998 ?) - but it was certainly
before all those other class A drugs were listed (in 1999?).  It was
also before the Guardian started putting their archives online. The
trial transcripts are available to those who know where to look but I
lost the original news story ages ago.

Here's what I have on it. Apologies - I got the details wrong.  This
is what an anonymous poster said about it and this was my source.
	__________	__________	__________	__________

I took a close interest in that case, the case revolved around
N-hydroxy 2cb versus 2cb and n-hydroxy DOB versus DOB. the defence
case was that the defendant was making n-oh 2cb (which wasn't and
still isn't illegal despite the trial judges numerous attempt to rule
that it was) and if the substance was in fact 2cb containing then this
was either accidentally created by a botched synthesis or was an
artifact of analysis. the prosecution case was based on dubious
assumptions regarding the stability of n-oh 2cb particularily to heat.
however the jury were so stupid that they couldn't follow the
complexities of the chemistry and convicted anyway simply because the
simplistic prosecution case was easier to understand than the defence
case. it has since been shown that the product of the synthesis is
indeed almost pure n-oh 2cb which decomposes during the final workup
used into 2cb and an oxime. further more there remains no trace of the
oxime in the accidentally made 2cb (this was vital to the prosecution
assumption that the product was deliberately synthesised 2cb and not
accidentally synthesised from n-oh 2cb). Basically science was
bloodied and abused in that court room. The noble art of chemistry was
dragged down. from waht i have heard the chemist involved was so
disillusioned with British 'justice' that he has no intention of
appealing and has turned his back on the field of psychedelic

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list