USA - Legal status of 2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine

[Psilo-somatic]

All of my research on the legal status of 2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine has turned up nothing. Does anyone have any idea whether this 2C-B precursor (2C-H) is illegal/watched? Any help would be greatly appretiated

Psilo-somatic added 3 Minutes and 30 Seconds later...

My mistake. This would be in regard to US drug law.

[RaverHippie]

Definitely, HIGHLY watched. Considering it's one step away from many schedule 1 drugs. Common sense

[Psilo-somatic]

Could you please provide documentation? Not all (or even most) close precursors are not specifically watched (unless purchased in bulk). I have not been able to find it on watched chems lists.

[Psilo-somatic]

shouldnt be chemically close enough for the analogue act. plus, its not psychoactive by itself (broken down by the hydrochloric acid in the gut).

Psilo-somatic added 2 Minutes and 47 Seconds later...

haha. you really have not idea the diversity of the chemical world. even so, there is no reason to stoop to insults my friend.

Reputation Comments on this post:

arrogant and confrontational...

[fiveleggedrat]

Does not matter whether it is actually active. Perhaps you are thinking the Analogue Act.

If someone even remotely thinks it is watched, DON'T.

[cosmicruler]

um,also,doesnt the US have a lil something called the ANALOGUE ACT?

[RaverHippie]

Wow..... If you really don't realize how idiotic that statement was then order at your own risk. I'll be back with a link to the watched chem list here.

[RaverHippie]

if a chemical is one step chemically from being a schedule one substance, it ought to be a no-brainer that it would be watched. Otherwise I would lose all respect for any sort of drug enforcement out there.

Reputation Comments on this post:

wrong. also, define "watched"

[Synesthesiac]

Originally Posted by RaverHippie

Otherwise I would lose all respect for any sort of drug enforcement out there.

You have respect for drug enforcement?

Anyway, surely there is a well defined list of watched drugs? or dont they make it that easy?

[turborunner]

I don't think you would be able to find 2C-H for sale and if you did its not going to be for civilians. You would have better luck with 2,5-dimethoxybenzaldehyde which is still going to be watched too.

Reputation Comments on this post:

neither of those are watched or illegal chemicals

[duncdunc68]

Well shouldn't all kitchen herbs be classed the same. Most are a simple chemo reaction from MDMA etc!

[Alfa]

This should do it: analog act

Any 2c-x is schedule I in the USA. Likely any analog of 2c-X is schedule I in the USA. Possibly anything with the same pharmacological effect as an 2c-x may be schedule 1 in the USA (according to at least one DEA spokes person).

[Shampoo]

However, from my understanding, the analogue act does not apply to compounds which have no psychoactivity.

"(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
"(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulent, sic depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
"(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.

2C-H only falls under part 1, and thus is not considered an analogue. This does not make it any less watched though.

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me as I would be very interested to know how this act really stretches the boundaries of a "schedule I" substance.

Reputation Comments on this post:

i concur with his interpretation of the analog act

[Synesthesiac]

Originally Posted by Shampoo

However, from my understanding, the analogue act does not apply to compounds which have no psychoactivity.2C-H only falls under part 1, and thus is not considered an analogue. This does not make it any less watched though.

If this is incorrect, someone please correct me as I would be very interested to know how this act really stretches the boundaries of a "schedule I" substance.

I would like to know the answer to this. For UK law. I've got a feeling that all the drugs mentioned in Pihkal and Tihkal were made scheduled substances in the UK.

Anyone?

[Toma]

Originally Posted by Synesthesiac

I would like to know the answer to this. For UK law. I've got a feeling that all the drugs mentioned in Pihkal and Tihkal were made scheduled substances in the UK.

Anyone?

UK: The Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001

(d) any compound (not being methoxyphenamine or a compound for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (a) above) structurally derived from phenethylamine, an N-alkylphenethylamine, -methylphenethylamine, an N-alkyl--methylphenethylamine, -ethylphenethylamine, or an N-alkyl--ethylphenethylamine by substitution in the ring to any extent with alkyl, alkoxy, alkylenedioxy or halide substitutents, whether or not further substituted in the ring by one or more other univalent substituents;

In short, 2C-H is illegal, together with most PEA's known to be psychoactive. Nevertheless, FLY, DFLY, NBOMe (N-(2-methoxybenzyl)-) PEA's and A's should be legal. But some of them may contain traces of illegal substances as an artifact of synthesis or as a result of degradation.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reputation Comments on this post:

backed up with a good reference

[mictihtoya]

2C-H is neither a Scheduled compound, nor a List I or List II chemical. My opinion is that the Analog Act does not apply at all either.

RaverHippie if you think it's "watched" please back it up with some documentation. The only "watched" chemicals are those with reporting requirements due to their status as List I or List II precursors. If it's not in one of those two lists, then chemical suppliers don't have to submit anything about your purchases to the DEA. It's also COMPLETELY LEGAL to purchase things which are on the "watched" lists. The only stipulation is that the supplier is legally obligated to mail/fax the DEA a receipt and other proper documentation about the sale. You as a purchaser of a List I or List II chemical are not legally obligated to report anything to the DEA, nor give the DEA any end use declaration.


There are a LOT of unscheduled, unlisted precursors for illegal drugs out there.

2C-H in particular has been sold within the US by chemical suppliers without any end use declaration / proof of credentials for over a decade and none of these sales has ever led to an arrest that I know of.

[RaverHippie]

@mictihtoya, Considering the structural similarities to various Schedule I substances, I will still agree with all the other opinions on this thread that this chemical would be regarded as a schedule I substance in a court of law. That being said, there would have to be an incident in order to reach that court of law and I'm sure people going after this chemical would be smart enough to avoid any incidences which would land them in court.

[mictihtoya]

Structural similarity is not the metric by which a chemical becomes an analog of a Schedule I substance under the Analog Act.

It requires:

* structural similarity
AND
* substantially similar stimulant, hallucinogenic, depressant, or narcotic effect
AND
* evidence proving that the defendant had intent to use the chemical for human consumption


Since 2C-H isn't even considered pharmacologically active, it would not meet the last two requirements to be an analog.

[RaverHippie]

Originally Posted by mictihtoya

Structural similarity is not the metric by which a chemical becomes an analog of a Schedule I substance under the Analog Act.

It requires:

* structural similarity
AND
* substantially similar stimulant, hallucinogenic, depressant, or narcotic effect
AND
* evidence proving that the defendant had intent to use the chemical for human consumption


Since 2C-H isn't even considered pharmacologically active, it would not meet the last two requirements to be an analog.

Check it for yourself. There is now an "or" between parts two and three indicating that a substance in question must fulfill only one portion of these qualifications. So far it's only been interpreted in cases where the substances meets parts 1 and 2 together, but there's nothing stopping the feds from pursuing a case against something that only fulfills part 1.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Originally there was no conjunction joining the three conditions of subparagraph (A), but later the word "or" was added to part A(ii), indicating that a substance can qualify as an analogue either by fulfilling part A(iii), or by fulfilling parts A(i) and/or A(ii). Because there is no word such as "and" or "or" at the end of subparagraph A(i), the meaning of this part remains ambiguous, as it is unclear whether a substance can be considered an analogue merely by fulfilling one of parts A(i) or A(ii), or alternatively if both parts A(i) and A(ii) need to be fulfilled.


This is an important distinction, as if only part A(i) needs to be fulfilled, then a compound with a substantially similar structure to a controlled drug but with no pharmacological effect, or completely different effects, could nevertheless be considered an analogue of that controlled drug despite having no abuse potential. Further difficulties arise from the simple fact that the human brain contains chemicals remarkably similar to those that are scheduled (see right). Similarly if only part A(ii) needs to be fulfilled then a substance which produces substantially similar effects to a controlled drug despite having a completely different structure, could be considered an analogue of that controlled drug.


Based on the case law it would appear that this section has so far been interpreted to mean that a substance must fulfill both parts A(i) and A(ii), i.e. it must have a structure substantially similar to that of a controlled drug, and produce pharmacological effects substantially similar to those of the controlled drug with which it is being compared, in order to be considered a controlled substance analogue. However this has not been conclusively decided and it is possible that the DEA might attempt a prosecution based on only one of these parts if they felt that it was appropriate, for instance if a new drug started being sold which had effects similar to an existing drug of abuse but which had no structural resemblance to any controlled drug.

[mictihtoya]

It's still a requirement that there be proof of intent for human consumption. Since 2C-H is known to be pharmacologically inactive, there's no way anyone would possess 2C-H for human consumption.

It's therefore an unwatched, legal precursor.

Get caught with elemental bromine in the same room and it becomes evidence for a 'Conspiracy to Manufacture' charge.

Get caught receiving it in the mail, and you haven't done anything wrong.


Additionally, when I say 'unwatched', I mean there is no legally sanctioned monitoring program in place by the DEA which anyone records sales with like there are with List I and II chemicals. Obviously if you order 2C-H from the wrong chemical supplier and they don't trust you, DEA intelligence officers may receive a tip from an employee at said supplier. This may lead to whatever further surveillance is possible without a warrant, until they have enough evidence to get a warrant.

But if you want 2C-H from overseas, it's not illegal to import it without a DEA license. If you want 2C-H domestically, you're free to buy it on the 'grey market' instead of from an established chemical supplier who has a good relationship with law enforcement. Nobody can do anything to stop you.