Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Posting pictures of purified safrole?

conducter - 12-4-2007 at 20:20

so AFOAF has obtained quite a bit of Sassafras oil (real not synthetik) and he was thinking of posting pictures here for discussion of freeze-purifying the safrole from sassafras oil. He was wondering if that would cause any legal problems for this site?

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 00:30

Your friend of a friend wants to make carcinogenic root beer?

Or just MDA?

conducter - 13-4-2007 at 01:26

Actually safrole is a sacred oil for my friend and his girlfriend, as it is a part of their religion and the oil is considered sacred. The husband happens to love chemistry tho so he thought he would have some fun with it.

not_important - 13-4-2007 at 01:51

Ah, getting cancer is a statement of religion, as well as fun. They could get well paid by the tobacco industry, at least until they were getting chemo.

Levi - 13-4-2007 at 02:30

I'd be interested in seeing the pictures. It would not cause any legal problems for the site itself but safrole is schedule I so it may cause legal problems for any identifiable person appearing in the photographs. As safrole isn't a drug in its own right, a discussion would not be inappropriate here unless the discussion turned into a practical discussion of the synthesis of ecstasy. Regardless, it may still be frowned upon by some members.

[Edited on 13-4-2007 by Levi]

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 02:44

If this guy is asking PERMISSION about whether or not it is appropriate then the only person who can answer that is Polverone, who is after all the forum proprietor.

Anyone else's frowns or smiles are largely irrelevent. Including my own.

Schedule One controlled substance, whether or not is a drug, is highly illegal to manufacture or possess. AFAIK oil of sassafras is not, but as soon as the putative friend of a friend isolates safrole he has crossed the line.

Somehow I doubt the whole religious argument, sounds like a newage crock of shit to me. Tell it to the judge.

[Edited on 13-4-2007 by Sauron]

Levi - 13-4-2007 at 03:10

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
Somehow I doubt the whole religious argument, sounds like a newage crock of shit to me. Tell it to the judge.


I think it's probably a Native American tradition. Of course, just about every plant is sacred to a Native American so this is a rather broad argument indeed. None the less, there are government exceptions in the US for such things (like peyote) and as long as the discussion remained theoretical in nature there would be nothing to prosecute. Should the discussion turn practical, though, I'm sure it will quickly find its way into the detritus section. The great Polverone will strike it down with his flaming sword of forum justice and cast it into detritus where it will be forever tormented by the relentless beaked horror (vulture).

[Edited on 13-4-2007 by Levi]

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 03:23

What pray tell is theoretical about posting PHOTOS of the PROCESS of fractional crystallization of SAFROLE from the allegerdly sacred oil?

Or is safrole supposedly sacred too?

Nothing theoretical about it and it's not a discussion he's proposing to post but a graphical tutorial on How to Isolate Safrole.

Crime on a government reservation (tribal land) is FBI jurisdiction isn't it? The FBI Computer Crime shop in Atlanta knows its war around the Internet. Anyway conducter said nada about native americas, my best bet is that he's talking some wiccan bullshit and my next best bet is that he made up the whole thing as a smokescreen to see if we would all run for cover.

I know peyote is exempted for tribal ritual among certain tribes. I am quite sure that the exemption does not apply to psilocybin or psilocin, the active components, if isolated.

So, I dount that sassafras oil is exempted under the law (if it is controlled at all) but I REALLY doubt that any such dubious exemption would extend to safrole.

Because employing modern technology to isolate safrole is most definitely not part of anyone's traditional religious practices, now, is it?



[Edited on 13-4-2007 by Sauron]

conducter - 13-4-2007 at 03:28

The religion i speak of is Wiccan where the sassafras is very sacred.

The isolation of safrole, which is used in Root beer, although its supposedly carcinogenic.

Hell, diet soda is still on the market and it contains Aspartame, a carcinogen.

The safrole is not for illegal use, nor intended to look like that.

But will await polverones thoughts

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 03:36

Told you so, Levi. I don't believe wicca has ANY exemptions under DEA regs and I seriously doubt that it has ANY officially recognized standing as a religion (like IRS exemption) and thus no constitutional protection.

I mean less than the Scientology lunatics.

New Age sewage.

Levi - 13-4-2007 at 03:40

I find all religions laughable but Wiccans don't go door to door trying to save souls so they're all right as far as I'm concerned. You are correct, though, that they probably shouldn't expect to have any constitutional protection in their affairs. There is no reason, however, that this substance can't be discussed here as we already discuss a wide variety of illegal substances on this board (see the energetics section). Such discussions are constitutionally protected and even encouraged as long as they are informative and nonpractical in nature.

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 03:48

Theoretical photos?

Come now. Pics of doing it are the essence of practice. No "discussion" New you'll have someone posting photos of extracting cocaine from coca, or converting morphine base to heroin in the Golden Triangle.

Levi - 13-4-2007 at 03:50

I meant nonpractical as in this thread must refrain from becoming a howto thread. Anyhow, I agree that this is treading on thin ice but I fail to see how it is any different from the threads in the energetic materials section which are full of pictures.

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 04:07

Major difference. A lot of "energetics" are analytical reagents and as long as they are stored wet are cool even with the DOT. This applies to picric acid, TNT, TNB off the top of my head. Making 50 g of RDX is not the same as manufacturing C4.

Show me the comparable situation for a Sch I controlled substance. There isn't one. No DEA license, gotcha! Even with a DEA license, maybe Gotcha! as Shulgin discovered.

Safrole is a bona fide Gotcha. By federal law, there's no (unlicensed) noncriminal use for safrole, regardless of how much the Friend of Wiccan Friends wants to hem and haw.

BTW aspartame, a dipeptide, meaning a pair of nuclein acids (aspartic and L-Phenylalanine if I recall) is not carcinogenic. You might be thinking of saccharin, but that is off the market for decades. Meanwhile safrole is a carcinogen and FDA banned its use in root beer. Or anything else.

evil_lurker - 13-4-2007 at 04:14

AFA posting controlled substances, cycloknight has posted pictures of benzaldehyde, and the process of making benzaldehyde so who knows. Others have posted pictures of manufacturing phosphorus. Both are List I controlled substances.

I can't speak for admin, but I would imagine that posting a picture should be fine, as long as it is timeless and contains no personally identifying information, such as labels, backgrounds etc.

There is no reasonable suspicion that YOU took the picture of YOUR safrole other actually, other than YOU asking the question if its OK.

Hell who knows where you could have gotten that picture.

Eclectic - 13-4-2007 at 04:17

Could someone please quote chapter and verse what law makes safrole illegal to possess? AFAIK it is only a WATCHED substance, with restrictions and reporting requirements relating to SALE.

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 04:23

It was described in this thread as Schedule One. That is not same as List One. Schedule One controlled substances include cocaine and heroin and so on as well as some precursors. LIST One is just one of the two watch lists. Benzaldehyde is NOT a controlled substance but is a watched one, and benzaldehyde is a fundamental chemical building block with a kazillion legitimate uses. Snore. I would never criticize anyone for making benzaldehyde, or buying it, or discussing it.

Quite a few immediate precursors are now Schedule One (P2P for example) so safrole could very well be as well.

My comments assumed the veracity ofthe member who said it was Schedule One.

Indeed someone ought to go find out. I could give a toss about watched chemicals.


[Edited on 13-4-2007 by Sauron]

Levi - 13-4-2007 at 04:33

I could find no authoritative source of information but wikipedia does indeed list safrole as a List I and not a schedule I. The DEA homepage doesn't feel the need to make these lists readily available... nor does any other .gov webpage that I could find :mad:

conducter - 13-4-2007 at 04:39

benzaldehyde is also list 1 and openly discussed here. with pictures. how is that different? they are both LIST 1.

joeflsts - 13-4-2007 at 05:27

Quote:
Originally posted by conducter
so AFOAF has obtained quite a bit of Sassafras oil (real not synthetik) and he was thinking of posting pictures here for discussion of freeze-purifying the safrole from sassafras oil. He was wondering if that would cause any legal problems for this site?


I think your AFOAF should post the pictures, his procedure, his SSN, and his address. Then he should call the local PD and invite them over for a "ritual" dinner.

Joe

not_important - 13-4-2007 at 05:56

Quote:

Told you so, Levi. I don't believe wicca has ANY exemptions under DEA regs and I seriously doubt that it has ANY officially recognized standing as a religion (like IRS exemption) and thus no constitutional protection.

I mean less than the Scientology lunatics.

New Age sewage.



Aquarian Tabernacle Church
Quote:
the first Wiccan church with full legal status and recognition by the governments of three nations...The ATC now has many affiliated groups sharing the benefits and protections of the ATC recognition "umbrella" through its unique group exemption from the U.S. Treasury.

http://www.aquatabch.org/

A Druid Fellowship (ADF) is an international fellowship devoted to creating a public tradition of Neopagan Druidry.
Quote:
We are registered in the state of Delaware as a Nonprofit Corporation and have received recognition of our tax-exempt status from the IRS.

http://www.adf.org/about/qa.html

So, tax status - yes, DEA exemption - not likely except as a joke to set someone up for having their door kicked down.
Quote:
The DEA homepage doesn't feel the need to make these lists readily available... nor does any other .gov webpage that I could find

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

http://www.ntis.gov/products/types/dea/dea-list1chemicals.as...

List I & II
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/802.htm

[Edited on 13-4-2007 by not_important]

Levi - 13-4-2007 at 06:52

Quote:
Originally posted by not_important
Quote:
The DEA homepage doesn't feel the need to make these lists readily available... nor does any other .gov webpage that I could find

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

http://www.ntis.gov/products/types/dea/dea-list1chemicals.as...

List I & II
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/802.htm


Thanks for the link not_important. I had already visited that site prior to posting but I dismissed it as meaningless rhetoric. I have trouble believing that there are only 25 List I and 9 List II chemicals but perhaps this is just a misconception I have. For those that don't feel like wading through 5 pages of legal jargon to find the nugget of information I'll post the lists below.

List I:
A) Anthranilic acid, its esters, and its salts.
(B) Benzyl cyanide.
(C) Ephedrine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
(D) Ergonovine and its salts.
(E) Ergotamine and its salts.
(F) N-Acetylanthranilic acid, its esters, and its salts.
(G) Norpseudoephedrine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
(H) Phenylacetic acid, its esters, and its salts.
(I) Phenylpropanolamine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
(J) Piperidine and its salts.
(K) Pseudoephedrine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
(L) 3,4-Methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone.
(M) Methylamine.
(N) Ethylamine.
(O) Propionic anhydride.
(P) Isosafrole.
(Q) Safrole.
(R) Piperonal.
(S) N-Methylephedrine.
(T) N-methylpseudoephedrine.
(U) Hydriodic acid.
(V) Benzaldehyde.
(W) Nitroethane.
(X) Gamma butyrolactone.
(Y) Any salt, optical isomer, or salt of an optical isomer of the chemicals listed in subparagraphs (M) through (U) of this paragraph.

List II:
(A) Acetic anhydride.
(B) Acetone.
(C) Benzyl chloride.
(D) Ethyl ether.
(E) Repealed. Pub. L. 101-647, title XXIII, Sec. 2301(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4858.
(F) Potassium permanganate.
(G) 2-Butanone (or Methyl Ethyl Ketone).
(H) Toluene.
(I) Iodine.
(J) Hydrochloric gas.

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 08:54

As it appears that safrole is NOT a Schedule One controlled substance or any sort of controlled substance, but merely a List 1 watched chemical, I have no objection to any postings about it nwhatsoever.

@Levi was the one who characterized safrole above as Schedule One controlled substance, thereby causing all the ruckus.

As to wiccan tax status, I think any discussion of wicca on a forum devoted to SCIENCE is seriously misplaced. I repeat my earlier remark. New Age sewage.

Magpie - 13-4-2007 at 08:59

Here's List II from the substances being regulated and watched by the govt:

List II:
(A) Acetic anhydride.
(B) Acetone.
(C) Benzyl chloride.
(D) Ethyl ether.
(E) Repealed. Pub. L. 101-647, title XXIII, Sec. 2301(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4858.
(F) Potassium permanganate.
(G) 2-Butanone (or Methyl Ethyl Ketone).
(H) Toluene.
(I) Iodine.
(J) Hydrochloric gas.

Look at item (E). I find this incredible! The govt actually removed something, ie, snooped on the public less! All I can say is this must have been due to pressure from a lobby with a lot of money. I'm sure it wasn't due to any complaints of amateur chemists.

Eclectic - 13-4-2007 at 09:00

Could we make it clear to any LEO's and Barney Fife types looking in, as well as paranoid druggies, that just HAVING list I and list II chemicals, is NOT a crime? USEING them to make a SCHEDULED substance IS.

[Edited on 4-13-2007 by Eclectic]

Magpie - 13-4-2007 at 09:21

evil_lurker says:
Quote:

Others have posted pictures of manufacturing phosphorus. Both are List I controlled substances


I don't see phosphorus on either List I or List II. Am I missing something?

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 09:40

That's an important distinction.

But one lost all too often in the night and fog.

As far as I am concerned requiring someone to have an ID card/roster of purchases and reporting purchases of listed chemicals to DEA 9by seller and or buyer) is a Fifth Amendment violation (against self incrimination) because of the presumption that so much of this and so much of that adds up to drug making activity.

pantone159 - 13-4-2007 at 09:56

Phosphorus is probably missing as the List is a little out of date, it was only added about 6 years ago. (Along with hypophosphite.) Otherwise, the lists look about as I remember them. (There is also a separate, explicit list of 'watched' chems, which includes e.g. HgCl2, formic acid, pyridine, Et2HN.)

My understanding of the USA laws regarding List I chems: (please correct me if I am wrong, I really do want to understand this part!)

Not in any way illegal to possess, or even to purchase. However, the seller must keep detailed records of all sales of such materials, to be turned over to DEA. In practice, a hobby chemist will have no real chance of getting a List I substance, nobody that sells them will sell to *you*, and posession would be extremely suspicious (and might well trigger 'conspiracy to manufacture ...' charges.)

Even in Texas, posession of similar materials (TX has its own list of restricted chems which is approximately List I), is ok, however, recieving them from another is not (without a permit) so purchasing is not legal here, but this is state law, not federal.

List II chems have similar restrictions as List I, but only when purchased in amounts over some threshhold (e.g. 200 L drums) which won't affect hobby chemists.

Now, forgetting law, and returning to chemistry, which is much more interesting...

I am interested to see photos of safrole. It is a chemical substance, the Merck index has an entry for it, I fail to see what is wrong with descriptions (e.g. images) of its physical properties. Really, I want to smell some of it, but I don't think you can post smells with today's technology (sigh).

Nicodem - 13-4-2007 at 10:22

Quote:
Originally posted by pantone159
I am interested to see photos of safrole. It is a chemical substance, the Merck index has an entry for it, I fail to see what is wrong with descriptions (e.g. images) of its physical properties. Really, I want to smell some of it, but I don't think you can post smells with today's technology (sigh).

Why the hell would anybody be interested in seeing photos of a colorless oily liquid?
I suspect Conducter is only trying to annoy you all with his 'request for permission', which you all failed to notice.

pantone159 - 13-4-2007 at 10:27

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
You might be thinking of saccharin, but that is off the market for decades. Meanwhile safrole is a carcinogen and FDA banned its use in root beer. Or anything else.


I believe that saccharain is still on the market in the USA. I personally avoid any and all artificial sweeteners, so I am not positive.

Anyways, I hardly count the FDA's imprimateur as my sole judgement as to what is safe to eat.

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 10:54

There are a variety of governmental and non-governmental, international groups who do carcinogenicity studies, safrole has long been recognized as a carcinogen or do you dispute this?

That aside, now that it has been demonstrated that Levi misled us all about safrole being a "controlled substance" which it is NOT, there is absolutely no reason why it can't or shouldn't be freely discussed here or anywhere else.

Eclectic - 13-4-2007 at 10:57

Let's all be as "Suspicious" as possible, while being rigorously adherent to the law. Maybe wear star of David armbands as well.

Pantone159: You have sassafrass trees in Tx, don't you? Just smell some of the root. Also, there is an ornamental plant related to star anise with very fragrant leaves from the safrole content.

http://www.floridata.com/ref/I/illi_par.cfm

(Illicium. Go figure...)

[Edited on 4-13-2007 by Eclectic]

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 11:06

That remark is in rather poor taste, @eclectic.

Levi - 13-4-2007 at 11:12

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
That aside, now that it has been demonstrated that Levi misled us all [. . .]


Yes, that's right and I'd do it again, too!

*Levi puts on his horns and runs around laughing hysterically*

What's with the finger pointing? I don't dispute the fact that I posted the word "schedule" in place of the word "list" but you make it sound like an intentional act.

[Edited on 13-4-2007 by Levi]

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 11:16

I never said you did so intentionally, nevertheless you did so, with resulting train wreck of a thread, much ado about nothing.

Of course, the primary culprit is still conducter.

Eclectic - 13-4-2007 at 12:37

@Sauron: I was alluding to the legend of King Christian of Denmark having EVERYONE wear armbands when the NAZI's said the Jews had to. 'Twas ment as an anti Fascist sentiment. Apologies to anyone who thought it was anti Semetic...

Cancer from sassafras?

dedalus - 13-4-2007 at 12:57

Horsepuckey.

I drank sassafras tea for some years. Maybe if you drank nothing else, even water, for 30 years.

It's only regarded as such because of the Delaney clause. You can't add it to things. You can still buy gumbo file, and that has sassafras in it.

dedalus - 13-4-2007 at 13:02

Quote:
Originally posted by Sauron
There are a variety of governmental and non-governmental, international groups who do carcinogenicity studies, safrole has long been recognized as a carcinogen or do you dispute this?

That aside, now that it has been demonstrated that Levi misled us all about safrole being a "controlled substance" which it is NOT, there is absolutely no reason why it can't or shouldn't be freely discussed here or anywhere else.



Really? But, there are carcinogens, and then there are carcinogens. It's not like a nitrosamine, or bis-dichloromethyl ether.

I posted what I did before seeing what you'd written. I don't wish to be rude. But, I have a feeling you'd find it in lots of essential oils, as well as many other organic compounds with the same level of carcinogenicity.

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 14:07

@dedalus So? Your point is?

@eclectic, that's a slight improvement, but in that case, just who are you calling a fascist?

Eclectic - 13-4-2007 at 14:16

Jack booted drug and terror warriors who care nothing for individual rights and civil liberties. Proponents of suspicion equals guilt if there is even a 1% chance, and those who believe that any one who CAN violate the law WILL. Those whose only tool is a hammer, and therefore see every problem as a nail...

Sauron - 13-4-2007 at 14:23

I look around and see none of those present. So I guess you are just venting.

Eclectic - 13-4-2007 at 14:35

Yeah. Don't like the idea that an interest in chemistry or technology is "Suspicious" or illegal. Damn jack booted bureaucratic ignorant twits...


(the thread is already a train wreck...) :P

Polverone - 13-4-2007 at 14:36

You don't need permission to post any pictures of purified chemical substances here. Sucrose, tetanospasmin, safrole, plutonium, whatever -- all are fine. The risk is all to the poster.