http://tiny.cc/TeQTN

and more here:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebo ... thing-else

This is good and bad. Simple possession of very small amounts means, one won't go to jail or be charged with a crime. But, read this -

In Mejico, you better Bogart that joint!

I don't think this move will make for more draconian measures in Mexico against "suppliers" who pass a joint to another person.

I also doubt the punishment for selling drugs has increased post-decrim.

lw

I saw this posted on DRC net a few days ago, and it got me wondering.... It mentioned that small amounts (5 grms pot-1/5 gr coke-.035 grams LSD) would be considered exempt as a personal possession amount. Soooooo, where's a math wizard when 'ya need 'em.... Just how many doses of Hoffmans delight does that equate to???? Am I correct that this would mean three or four 'hits'???? Addendum: Our friends at the DEA have just issued a statement of intent to have 5-MEO DMT added to the schedule 1 drug list. Anyone wishing to send letter of protest has until the 21st of Sep to enter their objection to such a ruling....

Thanks for the information. Do you have a link?

In a bizarre way this could be considered not so bad news (sorry to be a Pollyanna!) in that I wonder if this means our DEA friends don't think the analog laws are particularly effective in a legal sense. One could assume (and the evidence of "Operation Pipe Dream" confirms, if I remember correctly) that the DEA would have already considered it Schedule 1.

By the way, I found the official link.

Comment if you want, but it's a done deal.

Reading through that hodgepodge of scheduling info, I could not help but note that The Feds state that if a person feels unjustly "aggieved" by the proposed placement of 5-meo; he or she is welcome to submit a written protest --- Years ago; I had oppurtunity to give 17-20mg of 5-meo a trial toke: (report at Erowid).. I did not care for it, although it certainly was potent!!! Still and all, senor is tuly "aggieved" in priciple

I will break ranks here, perhaps, and opine that submitting comment is an exercise in futility.

The fact of the matter is that the scheduling criteria are not only interpreted by the DEA: they are defined by them. The deck is stacked.

If we look at how 5-Meo-DMT stacks up against their criteria:

No known medical use

This one is pretty much a no-brainer. 5-Meo-DMT is not patentable and is already legally problematic, so of course no real clinical studies have been carried out on it, so it follows that of course no known medical use is know.

This is complicated by the fact that 5-Meo-DMT's effects (as a hallucinogen) are defined as abuse. The government, structurally, dose not accept that a psychedelic can be "used." If it is taken, it is an abuse. The term "dangerous hallucinogen" is redundant in the vocabulary of the government regulators, for the hallucinogenic effects are defined as dangerous in and of themselves.

High potential for abuse

First, all use is abuse (see above). What's more, if you look at the paperwork submitted, the data they have gathered demonstrates abuse in their mind. A reasonable person could claim that the numbers are small (when compared to other substances). A reasonable person could also point to the lack of emergency room data to show that no widespread abuse is taking place. But this would be a failed attempt, because all of this is only demonstrating (to a reasonable person) that abuse isn't taking place. It doesn't negate the potential for abuse, and given a) they can show that it is being used, and b) all use is defined as abuse, they have proven a "potential" for abuse, ipso facto.

Lack of accepted safety for using the drug under medical supervision

This is just a restatement of "no know medical use." If no studies are carried out (and won't, because there is limited potential profit and legal complications), there can be no accepted standards.

The fact that they're wrong on all three counts is of little consequence, because they write the rules and enforce them.

In a sane world:

Medical use: Psychedelics have been shown to have medical and therapeutic uses, so 5-Meo-DMT, as a member of that class would be granted access to a class with provisional use. What's more, valid uses would not be confined to medical use only.

Abuse: A non-issue. It isn't used much, has a relatively safe toxicology profile, and if use wasn't defined as abuse, it would not meet this criteria.

Accepted safety standards: In a sane world these would be relatively easy to establish.

But all of this matters naught, for we don't live in a sane world.

Yep, I do agree that registering opposition to scheduling is an exercise in futility.. That said, I can not help but wonder if there won't be those , of say, the Santo Daime American Branch or others practicing ther ritual usage, that will point out that their sacrament happens to contain minute quantities of 5-meo, and that they have already gained federal protection under RRFA.... A technical point to be sure, but possibly a small vioce calling for a slowing of the reckless slide down the proverbial slippery slope....

I don't think this is the case. The Santo Daime and UdV both use chacruna in the preparation of their sacraments, and I believe that plant to be free of 5-Meo-DMT. Chaliponga has trace amounts and is used occasionally in traditional and mestizo curandismo, but it is not used by these syncretic groups.

I could be wrong about the profile of chacruna. My memory tells me it is 5-Meo-DMT free, but I haven't looked at the literature recently.

I've never seen a chem analysis of Pv that included 5meo.