Next victim of the War on Drugs: 7% Iodine - Drugs Forum
Drugs-Forum  
News Groups Blog Forum Chat Video Audio Images Documents Wiki Home
Go Back   Drugs Forum > VARIOUS DRUG RELATED TOPICS > Law and order
Register Tags Mark Forums Read

Notices

Law and order Drug law, arrests, court cases, law enforcement & the legal situation of drugs.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-09-2006, 04:52
swimmer swimmer is nu online
Silver Member
 
Join Date: 20-07-2006
Location: In a tree on Pluto
Posts: 14
swimmer is a decent SWIMmer.
Points: 273, Level: 2 Points: 273, Level: 2 Points: 273, Level: 2
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Next victim of the War on Drugs: 7% Iodine

The following text is an excerpt from the Federal Register, dated Aug 11, 2006. (The official document's date, however, is July 6, 2006.) Basically, the DEA wants to change the regulations for iodine and tincture. It's a very long document. SWIS copied some of the most interesting points, and made some common abbreviations, I2 for iodine; labs for laboratories, etc. SWIY can read the entire text at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...6/E6-12353.htm

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1310

[Docket No. DEA-257P]
RIN 1117-AA93

Changes in the Regulation of I2 Crystals and Chemical Mixtures Containing Over 2.2 Percent I2

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes changes in he regulation of the listed chemical iodine pursuant to the chemical regulatory provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) believes that this action is necessary in order to remove deficiencies in the current regulatory controls, which are being exploited by drug traffickers who divert iodine (in the form of I2 crystals and I2 tincture) for the illicit production of methamphetamine in clandestine drug labs. This NPRM proposes (1) the movement of I2 from List II to List I; (2)a reduction in the I2 threshold from 0.4 kilograms to zero kilograms; (3) the addition of import and export regulatory controls; and (4) the control of chemical mixtures containing greater than 2.2 % I2.

This NPRM proposes regulatory controls that will apply to I2 crystals and I2 chemical mixtures that contain greater than 2.2 % I2. This regulation will therefore control I2 crystals and strong I2 tinctures/solutions (e.g., 7 % I2) that do not have common household uses and instead have limited application in livestock, horses and for disinfection of equipment. Household products such as 2 % I2 tincture/solution and household disinfectants containing I2 complexes will not be adversely impacted by this regulation.

If finalized as proposed, persons conducting regulated transactions involving I2 would need to be registered with the DEA, would be subject to import/ export notification requirements of the CSA, and would be required to maintain records of all regulated transactions involving I2, regardless of size.

DATES: Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments must be sent on or before October 10, 2006.

I2 2% tincture and solution U.S.P. are sold at a wide variety of retail outlets and have household application as antiseptic and antimicrobial products. These products will not become regulated under the proposed regulation. In contrast, however, I2 crystals and iodine chemical mixtures containing over 2.2 % I2 have no household use and are available only from specialty retailers. I2 solutions (in excess of 2.2 % I2) are used as an antiseptic in the care of livestock and horses and as disinfectants for equipment and areas where livestock are kept. Some I2 solutions are used in saltwater aquariums, to test for the presence of starch, and as stains in some laboratory tests. This NPRM proposes regulating these chemical mixtures, but provides for the possibility of exemption as discussed later in this rule.

The Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 required that handlers of List I chemicals be registered. This increased regulatory control and made it more difficult for traffickers to acquire hydriodic acid. Faced with this difficulty, traffickers began to substitute I2 for hydriodic acid for the illicit production of methamphetamine and amphetamine.

I2 is commonly used with the List I chemicals phosphorus or hypophosphorous acid and ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to manufacture methamphetamine, which is now the most prevalent method used by traffickers. The List I chemicals phenylpropanolamine or norpseudoephedrine can be made into amphetamine by the same method.

Current Regulatory Controls on I2 and Need for Increased Regulation

Although I2 became subject to CSA chemical regulatory controls, traffickers have exploited certain deficiencies in these controls to divert I2. Only certain domestic distributions are regulated transactions, and distributions below the 0.4 kilogram cumulative threshold (about one pound), within a calendar month, are not regarded as regulated transactions. Import and export transactions of I2 are not regulated, regardless of the quantity distributed. Additionally, because I2 is a List II chemical, handlers of I2 are not required to register with DEA. These loopholes have been exploited by drug traffickers and the businesses that supply them.

While the regulatory controls placed on I2 apply to I2 crystals, they have not pertained to I2 tinctures (which are considered chemical mixtures). Drug traffickers are currently circumventing CSA regulatory controls via the diversion of I2 tinctures. Traffickers have learned that the tinctures can serve as a ready source of I2 crystals when the tincture is subjected to the appropriate chemical reaction.

Existing regulations pertaining to I2 have proved to be inadequate to prevent diversion. Traffickers have been able to make undocumented purchases of I2 crystals (up to the existing threshold of 0.4 kilograms), make unlimited purchases of I2 tincture, and make undocumented import and export shipments of I2. Additionally, because I2 is a List II chemical and distributors are not registered, it is difficult for DEA to identify all handlers of regulated material.

This NPRM proposes changes to the regulatory control of I2 in an effort to prevent the diversion of I2 for the illicit production of methamphetamine and amphetamine.

The DEA is proposing to remove I2 from List II and to place it in List I because, based on the information provided above, I2 is a chemical that is important to the manufacture of the controlled substances ethamphetamine and amphetamine. If placed in List I, 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(1) requires that persons who distribute I2 must be registered with DEA. Based on its experience with hydriodic acid and other List I chemicals, DEA believes that List I regulatory controls for I2 will help curtail its widespread use in the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine and amphetamine. List I regulatory controls would dictate that handlers of I2, including persons who manufacture, import, export, or distribute I2, would be required to register with DEA. Retail and wholesale outlets that sell I2 crystals and covered tinctures/solutions would also be required to register.

Prior to receiving a DEA chemical registration, handlers are subject to a pre-registration investigation by DEA in order to determine the legitimacy of the business per criteria specified under 21 U.S.C. 823(h). Registration also provides the DEA with the identity of all businesses that handle List I chemicals.

A business that sells a List I chemical in violation of the law or regulations can have its registration revoked and be prevented from handling List I chemicals. The registration requirement is a disincentive to casual handlers of I2, who might be used unwittingly by methamphetamine cooks.

Elimination of the Iodine Threshold

Transactions involving listed chemicals--including cumulative transactions in a single calendar month--below a quantity threshold are excluded from the definition of "regulated transaction." Currently, the threshold for I2 is 400 grams (0.4 kilograms). Thresholds denote a quantity below which regulation is not necessary for law enforcement purposes.

However, DEA has determined that the regulation of all transactions of regulated I2 products is necessary in order to prevent diversion. Thus, DEA is proposing to remove the threshold for I2. Therefore, all transactions of regulated I2 products would be considered regulated transactions regardless, of size.

Household uses for the regulated I2 products proposed to be controlled as List I chemicals by this NPRM are very limited. These regulated I2 materials (i.e. I2 crystals and tinctures and solution of greater than 2.2 % I2) are used in specialized applications, such as antiseptics in the care of large animals, sanitation for dairies, chemical lab tests, and as a source of I2 in saltwater aquariums. For some of the uses, 2 oz can last several months.

DEA considered adjusting the threshold to exclude transactions of 2 oz or below from regulatory control. However, the most common smaller size iodine container that DEA identified in clandestine labs is two oz, which contains 56 grams of I2. DEA estimates that 56 grams of I2 can produce over 50 grams of pure methamphetamine. Therefore, DEA determined that a 2 oz quantity is useful to traffickers and should be regulated.
~~~~~~~
The document from which SWIS copied and pasted, as stated, is much longer and covers every dang aspect of the iodine/meth connection that SWIY could possibly find interesting, and a few SWIY, can't. If the moderators can edit the material into a shorter form, SWIS is all for it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USA - home searched due to mail orders TazBeBad Law and order 138 28-11-2009 22:22
USA - "Smartest Drug Story of the Year": How America Lost the War on Drugs Heretic.Ape. Politics (News) 10 26-09-2009 04:02
USA - The Drug War vs. American Civilization Heretic.Ape. Drug Policy Reform & Narco Politics 1 21-09-2009 03:07
Interesting scholarly drug facts rxbandit Pharmacology 17 30-10-2008 06:53
Tekst van het drugsdebat 6-3-08; verbod growshops, paddo's, wietbeurs, BZP, etc... Alfa Politiek (Nieuws) 0 07-03-2008 11:58


Sitelinks: Site Functions:

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:33.


Copyright: Substance Information Network 2003 - 2009, All rights reserved