RC Reference Standards

[Mr Jones]

We all work for a living.* I get paid to identify research chemical seized by the police, and the synthetic routes/precursors/reagents used in their production.* I've got no problem doing it, the chemistry good, the thrill is sufficient, and I'm pretty good at it.* My issues raised in this forum is bona fide, I simply want to make sure that I understand as much of my chosen field as possible, and also that if I do make an identification on a seized substance, that such an identification is correct and unequivocal.* Which brings me to my topic - certified RC's for use as standards.* Those of you familiar with the work of the forensic chemist will know that we ID stuff using preferably GC-MS, but also FT-IR and if need be NMR.* In using these techniques we strongly rely on proving that an unknown yielded the same analytical data than a know, i.e. a certified reference material.* A practical problem is that conventional commercial suppliers do not supply such materials, and the US site(s) selling it has been closed down.* A recent Google search has revealed sites which do supply things like 2-CT-7, 5-Meo-DMT, 2-CI etc.* Unfortunately they do not ship to the UK, and I'm still figuring out the terms and conditions of the*other sites.* Question: can anyone refer me to possible suppliers of RC's, obviously I'm looking for legal, licenced, above board suppliers that can prepare/supply esoteric reference materials for use is the Forensic Lab?*(e.g. licenced University Research Groups).

PS: Come to think of it maybe SIGMA or ACROSS will be able to help if specifically commisioned?Edited by: nanobrain

[Alfa]

As far as I know there are standards for the substances you name, available in forensic labs. Otherwise various UK producers could not have been taken to court and slammed into jail for producing those substances. (casey Hardison guilty of making drug) Please explain.


Besides standards, which other problems have you encountered with identifying unkown RC's?

[bubaloo]

you will only find addresses of rc suppliers in the sources forum.

[Mr Jones]

I'mvery familiar with the Casey Hardison case, I've just recently attended a seminar where both the I/O and the Forensic Chemist presented it as a case study. There are several forensic science suppliers in the UK, all of which, with the exception of the Scottish DEA (wonder where they got that abbreviation from?), are private service providers. Wrt reference standards I can only speak for the Laboratory for which I work, I know what we've got and what not. The Hardison case was handled by a different supplier.


As I've stated in my initial post, we rely heavily on running standards on the same instruments under the same experimental conditions, and then to identify through comparison of unknowns to knowns. If this option is not available I work from first principles, i.e. collect the proton and C13 NMR, collect the EI and CI Mass spectra (derivitized and straight) and the IR spectrum, and possibly have an elemental analysis done. The resulting data can then be used to deduce the structure of the unknown with great accuracy (given that the structures are fairly simple/uninvolved compared to e.g. proteins). the elegance of having the reference standard is that it less hassle and a simple GC-MS run of the known and unknown would be sufficient to do an ID, i.e. we're looking at lets say 20 minutes vs. a day or two (or more)when working from first principles.


Incidently at my previous employers we were at liberty to actually synthesize the suspected compound, and then run the synthesized product as a check standard.


The biggest single problem besides standards, in my opinion, with identifying RC's is actually missing a compound completely, i.e. making a 'no controlled drugs detected' call because these substances are relatively few and far between and on a typical day the less observant analyst may writecase out as negative simply because it did not yield one of the 'know'compounds.


Legislation in the UK makes the task fairly easy once you have a standard, it is not a legal requirement to determine the specific salt form or the stereochemistry, all salts and all isomers (of controlled substances)are controlled.

[elbow]

I'm not trying to be hostile towards your chosen profession, but I do
believe that you are using your knowledge for an evil purpose, in
choosing to be employed by the police in this manner. I'm sorry if this
makes me seem ignorant. Unlike many people you will find on the
internet who participate in drug-related message boards I do not
simplistically think that "cops are bad" and that the law exists merely
to cause problems for users. I recognize the need for an organized
society based on a social contract and mutual respect between people.



I would claim that the vast majority of RC users do not constitute what
I would call a serious problem for society (such as violent behavior,
destruction of property, neglect of children, living on the dole, etc)
and therefore I believe that the institutionalized repression of people
who chose to explore their own consciousness cannot be claimed to serve
any beneficial purpose for society. The only way that I would consider
myself as a failure or danger to society is in my drug use, which takes
place in my own, child-free home which I pay for out of the money I
make working in a country that I by and large believe is a decent
place.



As you have said in your above post:



"The biggest single problem besides standards, in my opinion, with
identifying RC's is actually missing a compound completely, i.e. making
a 'no controlled drugs detected' call because these substances are
relatively few and far between and on a typical day the less observant
analyst may writecase out as negative simply because it did not yield
one of the 'know'compounds."



I am sure that you can see how, from the perspective of a user of these
substances, it is in my best interest to leave you unable to discover
the exact nature of unknown compounds found at a "crime scene."



Actually: I guess I do feel some hostility towards your profession



If the laws are so strict that they won't even let you synth the
compounds in order to make your own, and their, jobs more effective
then doesn't this all seem to be a bit ridiculous?














Edited by: elbow

[nanobrain]

Mr Jones, read the forum rules, forensic chemists are not exempt.

your problem in aquiring reference samps is a real one - but alas easily overcome if your work is sanctioned and granted sufficient clearence to obtain forensic standards, which should be available for most research chemicals from some of the biggest chem supply houses.

[Alfa]

Does this in any way have to do with an appeal in the Casey Hardison case?

[Mr Jones]

Thanks for all the candid responses, and possibly also for not being too 'hostile' towards my profession. In turn I can assure you I'm not hostile towards anyone who - driven by his/her fascination with chemistry and the effects of different chemicals on the human mind - prepare and use 'research chemicals'. Indeed the more accomplished chemists that I know has had at some stage been involved in the preparation of these compounds. That said, one of them is currently in jailserving a ten year sentence, based on my evidenceand interpretation of what he was cooking in his spare bedroom. I still respect his knowledge and his motivation though. At least I came to the forum openly and announced, and not masquarading as something/someone else. And for what it's worth, my laboratory perform both prosecution and defence work, although prosecution work is our cash cow.


Sorry for breaking any rules nanobrain, trust me the acquisition of suitablereference materials of the more esoteric compoundsis a problem - otherwise I would not have brought up the issue.As I've also said in my first post I will be approaching SIGMA-ALDRICH and see if I can commission them to prepare the standards.


I can unequivocally state that this exercise has nothing to do with the Hardison case - neither I nor my Laboratory (which employs me) is in any way involved in the Hardison case. I've heard the case is up for appeal, wrt synthesis I presume their is no one more competent to represent the appellant than he himself, wrt the forensic investigation/challenging the forensic results - I have no idea if Hardisonintends to challenge it on appeal, an dif he intends to involve any 'defence expert' in the matter.If I was involved in any way I would not have discussed any aspect of the case on this or any forum - client confidentiality!


I will post a direct reply to the topic getting around GC/MS, FT-IR & NMR.