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

Phil Stovell phil at stovell.org.uk
Mon Jul 21 12:31:55 EST 2003


On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:52:14 GMT in uk.community.policing, Jasbird
<jasbird#deletethis#@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 10:54:38 +0100, "Joe Kelleher"
><jfk at bitREMOVE-THESE-CAPITAL-LETTERSsmart.com> 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
>chemistry.

Jas,

The word "health" seems singularly absent from your recent messages. I
understood from Claude et al that substances such as these were banned to
protect people's health, not to fund barristers' piss-ups.

Why don't you mention the adverse health factors driving the criminalising of
these (possibly non existent) substances?

Cheers,
Phil.
-- 
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list