| Pages:
1
2
3 |
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Acetone
Magpie, maybe the lawmakers(read WANKERCRATS) in your state are extremely
paranoid about meth. I bought some acetone at Walmart last week and the clerk
didn't even bat an eyelash. If it ever gets that bad for me, I'll just buy some old-fashioned
nail polish remover(provided it still has acetone in it).
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
halogen
Hazard to Others
Posts: 372
Registered: 18-4-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It may very well... The government actually wants meth production etc. to go on. In the same way they dont get rid of sudafed or whatever- It's a
financial thing. The war on drugs may cost a lot, but brings in a lot. Not just money but support from citizens... Governments way of covering
it's ass. Fine line they're waltzing on though because they must take care not to take it too far. The thing about government is that
everything serves 2 or more purposes.
F. de Lalande and M. Prud'homme showed that a mixture of boric oxide and sodium chloride is decomposed in a stream of dry air or oxygen at a red heat
with the evolution of chlorine.
|
|
|
Lotek_
Harmless
Posts: 31
Registered: 20-12-2005
Location: StL Missouri
Member Is Offline
Mood: itchy.
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by hodges
. It came in a box of 3 1-gallon containers and the box clearly stated "Do not open box - to be sold as a unit only!". Cost was around $7 for 3
gallons. |
hah. ditto. i was getting scared beacuse i could nolonger find hcl at home-depot. i asked a guy and he took me outside to the lawn and gardern(wtf)
section. it was in those same boxed. i smiled when i bought it because of how much less suspicious it looked than 3 bottled of hcl seperatly.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Mendeleev
Don't ever be afraid of having a home lab, you could have labeled 95% nitric acid 98% sulfuric acid and toluene, glycerine, and hexamine right next to
eachother and a copy of instructions on how to make explosives on your computer, and the cops can't do shit unless they prove that you've actually
made explosives or that you were conspiring too, knowlede and resources don't make a consiracy in U.S. courts, they make a case dismissal based on
circumstantial evidence, so experiment all you want Magpie, and the feds only watch you if you buy really restricted stuff like acetic anhydride or
methylamine.
[Edited on 20-1-2004 by Mendeleev] |
actualy, with the patriot act(assumeing your in america), you can be arrested on charges of having the chemicals in your possesion. i could be arested
for having a bottle of muriatic and acetone in my garage from when i was painting, and a bottle of h2o2 in my bathroom. its pretty sick... just owning
the chemicals theoreticly used to make an explosive is an arrestable offence. its not very likely but it is legal...
magpie, ive actualy seen a store sell "enhanced heavy duty acetone". the brand sold two kinds. regular and that. upon further inspection, one was
dilute and the other was not... the dilute cost the same as your classic blue and yellow can(that we all love so much) and the "enhanced" was 6$ XD
[Edited on 21-12-2005 by Lotek_]
|
|
|
kABOOM!
Harmless
Posts: 40
Registered: 19-12-2005
Location: Pacific side of Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
All the rules and regulations honestly don't do shit. Hey, I have a great example... many US buisness refuse to deal with foriegn countries including
Canada because of so-called antiterrorist laws.
No small radioactive sources-- no radioactive minerals-- no hazardous goods etc.
!WRONG!
There is no official US policy in place that prohibits crossborder exchanges of hazardous goods. I import all kinds of chemicals, and stuff from the
states-- radioactive check sources for educational use ONLY--- yes, these goods are all legally obtained!
I just bought some german 625 mesh Aluminum powder @ 6.5 kg/ $80 USD and it shipped fine to Canada as a nonrestricted product. It all being used for
legal and legitmate purposes of couse. Skylighter and other US buisness told me shipping such stuff had to be done by special US couriers and I needed
an explosives licence. The Aluminum powder is sent via USPS--- pretty special if you ask me  Oxidizers too can be shipped via the same way...again no licence is needed. Hey, buying US ammunition for firearms is legal too--- you are
limited to 2000 rounds I believe imported into Canada. Just check with the customs guys, and they are usually very understanding if you call ahead and
provide documentation of "restricted" products.
PARANOIA runs free in the USA!
-------------------------------------------
In Canada there is no official limit on buying solvents like MEK or Acetone, however...more pressure is being put on those areas where Meth
manufacture is at a high. The concept that Terrorism can be curbed by cracking down on chemical sales and backyard chemists is laughable at best. You
cannot combat terrorism by turning your country into a Fascist police state. It won't work... Terrorism can only be combated through education. More
fighting/warefare = more terrorism --- one mans terrorist is another mans hero. Its just a point of view in the end that is the deciding factor.
[Edited on 31-12-2005 by kABOOM!]
play safe, play hard...get your lumps...pick yourself up and try again. It will only make you stronger.
|
|
|
chromium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
I too think that true problem in US is not bad laws but too eager citizens who want to do everything twice as well as its required by law.
[Edited on 1-1-2006 by chromium]
|
|
|
kABOOM!
Harmless
Posts: 40
Registered: 19-12-2005
Location: Pacific side of Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
people misread the laws to suit there own paranoid agendas. I've been told that KNO3 is a licenced material and so is NH4NO3...no such regulation
exists. I usually buy both chemicals in 50 lbs bags from special fertillizer places without a licence. Of course you need to have good reason to
purchase it... I just show my iD/ work ID and I am processed instantly. No questions.
Same goes with proDrain cleaners 94%-96% H2SO4--- again, no licence needed. But chemical supply houses often restrict the sales of such chemicals
because they are under the impression that one needs a licence to handle such material. Again, this is based on false information.
Bottom line: common sense...99% of the people on this board I believe understand the risks involved in experimenting with toxic, flammable, corrosive,
and energetic materials. No need to restrict the sale of good ol' fashioned chemicals...and curbing a little "energetic" fun now and then with threats
of jail time or big fines. 
play safe, play hard...get your lumps...pick yourself up and try again. It will only make you stronger.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
Saw this and thought that it could be mentioned here. Some suppliers have gotten into some hot water selling HI, I, P, Freon, and "equipment".
from http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/sanfran010606p.html
Mr. and Ms. Conkey were convicted for operating Alpha Chemical Supply, which from 1992 to 2001, distributed thousands of pounds of hydriodic acid, red
phosphorous, and iodine. The jury found that Mr. and Ms. Conkey knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the chemicals would be used to
manufacture methamphetamine.
“ Unfortunately, the ingredients required to make methamphetamine is not a secret. Regrettably, these individuals knew the ingredients and sold them
to drug dealers, who in return used them to a make a toxic drug which has proven to be deadly. Their role in this horrible cycle cannot be denied, and
today justice was served,” stated DEA Special Agent in Charge Javier F. Peña.
This conviction is one in a series of civil and criminal charges brought against chemical supply companies in Northern California for selling
chemicals and/or equipment knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the items would be used to manufacture controlled substances. The other
companies include Custom Laboratory Supply, CFRI (Chemicals for Research and Industry), and All Discount Laboratory Supply. Custom Laboratory Supply
was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California, and the defendants received sentences between ten and twenty
four years. The defendants associated with All Discount Laboratory Supply were convicted for possessing and distributing chemicals and equipment that
they had reasonable cause to believe would be used to manufacture over 80 tons of methamphetamine.
indictment: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/assets/applets/2005_03_2...
An article on the arrests from the 4/26/04 Contra Costa Times:
[Edited on 12-1-2006 by S.C. Wack]
Attachment: article.txt (22kB)
This file has been downloaded 1201 times
|
|
|
Nidias91
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 18-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by guaguanco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Mendeleev
Don't ever be afraid of having a home lab, you could have labeled 95% nitric acid 98% sulfuric acid and toluene, glycerine, and hexamine right next to
eachother and a copy of instructions on how to make explosives on your computer, and the cops can't do shit unless they prove that you've actually
made explosives or that you were conspiring too,
[Edited on 20-1-2004 by Mendeleev] |
I admire your faith in the honesty and integrity of American law enforcement agencies. It certainly exceeds mine. |
I agree totally. Whether it is illegal to have that stuff or not.. whatever the law says DOES NOT MATTER. If they want to convict you of synthing
drugs, explosives, etc. THEY WILL. They can and will faster than you can say innocent until proven guilty.
They are the law. They make the law. There is no balance, because EVERYTHING now teaches americas children that the government is ALWAYS right.
Everyone has so much tolerance.
It seems to me like 1984 without the Thought Police. But then again, things like that don't seem too far off.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
The Most Extreme
Simply because chemicals can be purchased via OTC sources there exists a much greater issue that the confining of purchases from F T Baker, Fisher,
& other large or small companies...
The most extreme issue in this discussion can be the legislation to ban or prosecute chemistry INFORMATION on the internet or in print. Many people
here know what I am referring to (the Feinstein ammendment in the Senate & others).
We are very close now to legislation that would make this board a federal Felony. It is NOT a question of posting, per se' but of dessemination of
information regarding energetic materials. Some people believe this all started with K3wLs making little web sites and with teenybomber books. - I
question that. It has been in the making a long time and is basically a "vote-getter" just like "gun control" but tampers with the 1st ammnd.
Below is a copy of the annoted legislation and the individual cases wherein it was ruled on. It makes for most frightening reading.
Could one be arrested for posting? I actually doubt it at this period in time but if some significant terroristic event should occur and someone in
the House or Senate wants easy votes for re-election; that would be one method; to legislate that "bombmaking" information is a threat to the security
of our country and what constitutes bombmaking information becomes a broad spectrum, we have a problem. A simple energetic material is not a bomb.***
That has been established in court but from there it's a short leap to what consitutes legal experimentation and a threat to society. When simple
information becomes a focal point; watch out!
DON'T EVER MAKE THE MISTAKE That one politcal party or another has your best interests at heart!
*** By that concept basic lead picrate or ETN is not a bomb, put it in an enclosure or "plasticize" it & you have a problem. Below are some high
court rulings.
[Edited on 20-1-2006 by quicksilver]
Attachment: bomb-makinga-leg-002.zip (57kB)
This file has been downloaded 687 times
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
Government trends toward intrusion and the curbing of freedoms are indeed disturbing. One important victory for freedom (for now): Google just told
the Feds to stuff their subpoena for access to searches.
Feinstein's amendment is just more misdirected paranoia. What is the "doctrine of prior restraint"?
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Magpie
Feinstein's amendment is just more misdirected paranoia. What is the "doctrine of prior restraint"? |
I asked my sister in law who is a lawyer and she didn't know.....she's not that good. In context I believe it relates to prior first ammendment
issues as preceeding case law adjudications. That is, if previously, there existed caselaw to quell an action then it may not be applicable in the
light of new found contextual issues (terrorsm, the war on terror, the Partriot Act). - We had restrained an action before but now there are new needs
which superceed old caselaw; so we can go ahead and have a new ruling. It's Feinstien's way of saying "just because we did this before doesn't mean we
have to keep doing it in light of our present circumstances". - Like maintaining Constitutional protections for free speech, etc.
Here are some interesting commentary on the PASSING of the Bill..... (YES, it did pass)
Attachment: chemical-legislation.zip (7kB)
This file has been downloaded 710 times
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"doctrine of prior restraint"
"The Doctrine of Prior Restraint
"[L]iberty of the press, historically considered and taken up by the Federal Constitution, has meant, principally although not exclusively, immunity
from previous restraints or censorship."43
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."44 Government "thus
carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint."45 Under the English licensing system, which expired in 1695,
all printing presses and printers were licensed and nothing could be published without prior approval of the state or church authorities. The great
struggle for liberty of the press was for the right to publish without a license that which for a long time could be published only with a license.46
The United States Supreme Court's first encounter with a law imposing a prior restraint came in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson,47 in which a
five-to-four majority voided a law authorizing the permanent enjoining of future violations by any newspaper or periodical once found to have
published or circulated an "obscene, lewd and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" issue. An injunction had been issued after the
newspaper in question had printed a series of articles tying local officials to gangsters. While the dissenters maintained that the injunction
constituted no prior restraint, inasmuch as that doctrine applied to prohibitions of publication without advance approval of an executive official,48
the majority deemed the difference of no consequence, since in order to avoid a contempt citation the newspaper would have to clear future
publications in advance with the judge.49 Liberty of the press to scrutinize closely the conduct of public affairs was essential, said Chief Justice
Hughes for the Court.
"[T]he administration of government has become more complex, the opportunities for malfeasance and corruption have multiplied, crime has grown to most
serious proportions, and the danger of its protection by unfaithful officials and of the impairment of the fundamental security of life and property
by criminal alliances and official neglect, emphasizes the primary need of a vigilant and courageous press, especially in great cities. The fact that
the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less necessary the immunity of the press from previous
restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate remedy, consistent with
constitutional privilege."50
The Court did not undertake to explore the kinds of restrictions to which the term "prior restraint" would apply nor to do more than assert that only
in "exceptional circumstances" would prior restraint be permissible.51 Nor did subsequent cases substantially illuminate the murky interior of the
doctrine. The doctrine of prior restraint was called upon by the Court as it struck down a series of loosely drawn statutes and ordinances requiring
licenses to hold meetings and parades and to distribute literature, with uncontrolled discretion in the licensor whether or not to issue them, and as
it voided other restrictions on First Amendment rights.52 The doctrine that generally emerged was that permit systems--prior licensing, if you
will--were constitutionally valid so long as the discretion of the issuing official was limited to questions of times, places, and manners.53 The most
recent Court encounter with the doctrine in the national security area occurred when the Government attempted to enjoin
press publication of classified documents pertaining to the Vietnam War54 and, although the Court rejected the effort, at least five and perhaps six
Justices concurred on principle that in some circumstances prior restraint of publication would be constitutional.55 But no cohesive doctrine relating
to the subject, its applications, and its exceptions has yet emerged.
Injunctions and the Press in Fair Trial Cases.--Confronting a claimed conflict between free press and fair trial guarantees, the Court unanimously set
aside a state court injunction barring the publication of information that might prejudice the subsequent trial of a criminal defendant.56 Though
agreed on result, the Justices were divided with respect to whether "gag orders" were ever permissible and if so what the standards for imposing them
were. The opinion of the Court utilized the Learned Hand formulation of the "clear and present danger" test57 and considered as factors in any
decision on the imposition of a restraint upon press reporters (a) the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage, (b) whether other measures were
likely to mitigate the harm, and (c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger.58 One seeking a restraining
order would have a heavy burden to meet to justify such an action, a burden that could be satisfied only on a showing that with
a prior restraint a fair trial would be denied, but the Chief Justice refused to rule out the possibility of showing the kind of threat that would
possess the degree of certainty to justify restraints.59 Justice Brennan's major concurring opinion flatly took the position that such restraining
orders were never permissible. Commentary and reporting on the criminal justice system is at the core of First Amendment values, he would hold, and
secrecy can do so much harm "that there can be no prohibition on the publication by the press of any information pertaining to pending judicial
proceedings or the operation of the criminal justice system, no matter how shabby the means by which the information is obtained."60 The extremely
narrow exceptions under which prior restraints might be permissible relate to probable national harm resulting from publication, the Justice
continued; because the trial court could adequately protect a defendant's right to a fair trial through other means even if there were conflict of
constitutional rights the possibility of damage to the fair trail right would be so speculative that the burden of justification could not be met.61
While the result does not foreclose the possibility of future "gag orders," it does lessen the number to be expected and shifts the focus to other
alternatives for protecting trial rights.62 On a different level, however, are orders restraining the press as a party to litigation in the
dissemination of information obtained through pretrial discovery. In Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart,63 the Court determined that such orders
protecting parties from abuses of discovery require "no heightened First Amendment scrutiny."64
Obscenity and Prior Restraint.--Only in the obscenity area has there emerged a substantial consideration of the doctrine of prior restraint and the
doctrine's use there may be based upon the proposition that obscenity is not a protected form of expression.65 In Kingsley Books v. Brown,66 the Court
upheld a state statute which, while it embodied some features of prior restraint, was seen as having little more restraining effect than an ordinary
criminal statute; that is, the law's penalties applied only after publication. But in Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago,67 a divided Court
specifically affirmed that, at least in the case of motion pictures, the First Amendment did not proscribe a licensing system under which a board of
censors could refuse to license for public exhibition films which it found to be obscene. Books and periodicals may also be subjected to some forms of
prior restraint,68 but the thrust of the Court's opinions in this area with regard to all forms of communication has been to establish strict
standards of procedural protections to ensure that the censoring agency bears the burden of proof on obscenity, that only a judicial order can
restrain exhibition, and that a prompt final judicial decision is assured.69
Footnotes
Footnote 43: Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931).
Footnote 44: Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 70 (1963).
Footnote 45: Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971).
Footnote 46: Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713-14 (1931): Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938).
Footnote 47: 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
Footnote 48: Id. at 723, 733-36 (Justice Butler dissenting).
Footnote 49: Id. at 712-13.
Footnote 50: Id. at 719-20.
Footnote 51: Id. at 715-16.
Footnote 52: E.g., Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951);
Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958). For other applications, see Grosjean v. American Press Co.,
297 U.S. 233 (1936); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944).
Footnote 53: Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941); Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395 (1953). In Carroll v. President & Comm'rs of
Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968), the Court held invalid the issuance of an ex parte injunction to restrain the holding of a protest meeting,
holding that usually notice must be given the parties to be restrained and an opportunity for them to rebut the contentions presented to justify the
sought-for restraint. In Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), the Court held invalid as a prior restraint an injunction
preventing the petitioners from distributing 18,000 pamphlets attacking respondent's alleged "blockbusting" real estate activities; he was held not to
have borne the "heavy burden" of justifying the restraint.
"No prior decisions support the claim that the interest of an individual in being free from public criticism of his business practices in pamphlets or
leaflets warrants use of the injunctive power of a court. Designating the conduct as an invasion of privacy . . . is not sufficient to support an
injunction against peaceful distribution of informational literature of the nature revealed by this record." Id. at 419-20. See also City of Lakewood
v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) (ordinance vesting in the mayor unbridled discretion to grant or deny annual permit for location
of newsracks on public property is facially invalid as prior restraint). The necessity of immediate appellate review of orders restraining the
exercise of First Amendment rights was strongly emphasized in National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), and seems to explain
the Court's action in Philadelphia Newspapers v. Jerome, 434 U.S. 241 (1978). But see Moreland v. Sprecher, 443 U.S. 709 (1979) (partycan relinquish
right to expedited review through failure to properly request it).
Footnote 54: New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The vote was six to three, with Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart,
White, and Marshall in the majority and Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harlan and Blackmun in the minority. Each Justice issued an opinion.
Footnote 55: The three dissenters thought such restraint appropriate in this case. Id. at 748, 752, 759. Justice Stewart thought restraint would be
proper if disclosure "will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people," id. at 730, while Justice White
did not endorse any specific phrasing of a standard. Id. at 730-733. Justice Brennan would preclude even interim restraint except upon "governmental
allegation and proof that publication must inevitably, directly, and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of
a transport already at sea." Id. at 712-13. The same issues were raised in United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D.Wis. 1979), in
which the United States obtained an injunction prohibiting publication of an article it claimed would reveal information about nuclear weapons, thus
increasing the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The injunction was lifted when the same information was published elsewhere and
thus no appellate review was had of the order. With respect to the right of the Central Intelligence Agency to prepublication review of the writings
of former agents and its enforcement through contractual relationships, see Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980); Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. v.
Colby, 509 F.2d 1362 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 992 (1975); United States v. Marchetti, 446 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063
(1972).
Footnote 56: Nebraska Press Ass'n. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
Footnote 57: Id. at 562, quoting Dennis v. United States, 183 F.2d 201, 212 (2d Cir. 1950), aff'd., 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951).
Footnote 58: Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 562 (1976) (opinion of Chief Justice Burger, concurred in by Justices Blackmun and
Rehnquist, and, also writing brief concurrences, Justices White and Powell). Applying the tests, the Chief Justice agreed that (a) there was intense
and pervasive pretrial publicity and more could be expected, but that (b) the lower courts had made little effort to assess the prospects of other
methods of preventing or mitigating the effects of such publicity and that (c) in any event the restraining order was unlikely to have the desired
effect of protecting the defendant's rights. Id. at 562-67.
Footnote 59: The Court differentiated between two kinds of information, however: (1) reporting on judicial proceedings held in public, which has
"special" protection and requires a much higher justification than (2) reporting of information gained from other sources as to which the burden of
justifying restraint is still high. Id. at 567-68, 570. See also Oklahoma Pub. Co. v. District Court, 430 U.S. 308 (1977) (setting aside injunction
restraining news media from publishing name of juvenile involved in pending proceeding when name has been learned at open detention hearing that could
have been closed but was not); Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 433 U.S. 97 (1979).
Footnote 60: Id. at 572, 588. Justices Stewart and Marshall joined this opinion and Justice Stevens noted his general agreement except that he
reserved decision in particularly egregious situations, even though stating that he might well agree with Justice Brennan there also. Id. at 617.
Justice White, while joining the opinion of the Court, noted that he had grave doubts that "gag orders" could ever be justified but he would refrain
from so declaring in the Court's first case on the issue. Id. at 570.
Footnote 61: Id. at 588-95.
Footnote 62: One such alternative is the banning of communication with the press on trial issues by prosecution and defense attorneys, police
officials, and court officers. This, of course, also raises First Amendment issues. See, e.g., Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F. 2d 242 (7th
Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 912 (1976).
Footnote 63: 467 U.S. 20 (1984).
Footnote 64: 467 U.S. at 36. The decision was unanimous, all other Justices joining Justice Powell's opinion for the Court, but with Justices Brennan
and Marshall noting additionally that under the facts of the case important interests in privacy and religious freedom were being protected. Id. at
37, 38.
Footnote 65: Infra, pp.1149-59.
Footnote 66: 354 U.S. 436 (1957). See also Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).
Footnote 67: 365 U.S. 43 (1961). See also Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976) (zoning ordinance prescribing distances adult theaters
may be located from residential areas and other theaters is not an impermissible prior restraint).
Footnote 68: Cf. Kingsley Books v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957).
Footnote 69: Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965); Teitel Film Corp. v. Cusack, 390 U.S. 139 (1968); Interstate Circuit v. City of Dallas, 390
U.S. 676 (1968); Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971); United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 367-375 (1971); Southeastern
Promotions v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975); Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990)
(ordinance requiring licensing of "sexually oriented business" places no time limit on approval by inspection agencies and fails to provide an avenue
for prompt judicial review); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989) (seizure of books and films based on ex parte probable cause
hearing under state RICO law's forfeiture procedures constitutes invalid prior restraint; instead, there must be a determination in an adversarial
proceeding that the materials are obscene or that a RICO violation has occurred)."
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
I found it interesting that a well-known US site is requiring a "DEA buyers form" for all purchases of p-benzoquinone, HCl, H2SO4, NaOH, I, K2Cr2O7,
and KMnO4. Even for 10 grams of NaOH.
p-benzoquinone and NaOH are not on any list, and domestic sales of HCl and H2SO4 are not currently regulated. They sell acetone, just as much List II
as KMnO4 or H2SO4, without needing the form. Alkali dichromates are on the "watched" list.
It should be noted that while by law there are thresholds for actual reporting requirements for listed chemicals, I am unaware of any suppliers of
listed chemicals who use these.
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by S.C. Wack
I found it interesting that a well-known US site is requiring a "DEA buyers form" for all purchases of p-benzoquinone, HCl, H2SO4, NaOH, I, K2Cr2O7,
and KMnO4. Even for 10 grams of NaOH. |
I'm familiar with the site you are referring to. I think it has been that way for a couple of years now. I wonder if it is actually an enforced
requirement or just something they put on their site to chase away undesirable customers. Is it even possible to obtain a "DEA buyer's form" for
things that the DEA does not regulate? If I ask the DEA for a permit so I can buy sodium hydroxide or fruit juice, what could I possibly get? For that
matter, even if there is somehow a form that can be obtained, I don't know why the supplier would even offer to sell materials that they require that
form for. I can't imagine that even 10% of their potential customers would have such a form.
Edit:
| Quote: | | It should be noted that while by law there are thresholds for actual reporting requirements for listed chemicals, I am unaware of any suppliers of
listed chemicals who use these. |
What do you mean by this? Suppliers report every transaction of listed chemicals even if it's below the threshold?
[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Polverone]
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
What the suppliers are doing with the information and why unlisted chemicals are involved, I wouldn't know.
What I do know is that the law-abiding supplier must report "suspicious orders". The criteria given to businesses that the public (me) is aware of:
"All Levels / All Chemicals (* indicates that criterion may not apply to all retail settings) New customer or unfamiliar representative or established
customer who begins ordering listed chemicals.* Customers who don't seem to know industry practice or who fail to provide reasons for an order at
variance with accepted legitimate industry practice. Customer whose communications are not prepared or conducted in a professional business manner.*
Customer who provides evasive responses to any questions or is unable to supply information as to whether chemicals are for domestic use or for
export. Customer who has difficulty pronouncing chemical names. New customers who don't seem to know Federal or state government regulations.*
Customer whose stated use of listed chemicals is incompatible with destination country's commercial activities or consignee's line of business.*
Customers who want predominantly or only regulated chemicals. Customers who want multiple regulated or surveillance list (see Appendix G for Special
Surveillance List) products, particularly if in contrast to customary use and practice. Customer who is vague or resists providing information about
firm's address, telephone number, and reason for seeking that chemical.* Customer who provides false or suspicious addresses, telephone numbers or
references. Customer who is vague or will not furnish references for credit purposes.* Customer who refuses or is reluctant to establish a credit
account or provide purchase order information.* Customer who prefers to pay by cashiers check, postal money order, etc. Customer who desires to pay
cash.* Customer who wants to pick up the chemicals outside of normal practice in the supplier's experience. Customer with little or no business
background available.* An established customer who deviates from previous orders or ordering methods. Customers who want airfreight or express
delivery. Customers who want chemicals shipped to a PO Box or an address other than usual business address. (e.g., residence address) Customer using a
freight forwarder as ultimate consignee. Customer who requests unusual methods of delivery or routes of shipment. Customer who provides unusual
shipping, labeling, or packaging instructions. Customer who requests the use of intermediate consignees whose location or business is incompatible
with the purported end user's nature of business or location. Above threshold hydrochloride gas or iodine sales to a non-commercial customer."...
My threshold comment was on the fact that all of the suppliers that I am familiar with require the DEA-required information to be given to them, if
not more, for any amount of a list 1 chemical, even though they are not required by law to do so AFAIK. What they do with it, what the DEA does with
it if they get it, does the DEA revoke licenses, etc. in retribution against rogues, who knows.
|
|
|
nachra
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 6-1-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I am planning to do work with propiophenone and its derivitives one of which being 4-methylpropiophenone in the near future. I dont want to give too
much info away, but i would like to orchestrate an in depth analysis on a double bond's ability to absorb uv rays based on distance from different
aromatic and substituted aromatic rings. I could not concieve of any forseable obstructions of my work until recently. While scanning through
different many differents scholarly sources in an attempt to gather as much prelimenary information as possible, i stumble across a few very troubling
articles. Originally thinking propiophenone was as benign a chemical as possible in terms of its potential to be abused for the clandestine manufacter
of drugs, i was suprised to learn that it has recently come under the DEA`s scrutiny for its potential to produce both a drug known as methcathinone
and perhaps more importantly its potential to synthesis ephedrine, a chemical as you all know which is heavily regulated. I also had many different
plans on potential substitutions to the aromatic ring of propiophenone but one very basic addition has caught my attention. 4methylpropiophenone is
apparently a common precursure to a drug known as mephedrone, a drug I have only apon conducting my prelimenary research become aware of. I have no
wish to manufacture drugs and even less desire to provoke harassment from the powers that be. In light of this new informarion I am having serious
hesitation on whether it would be wise to proceed with my planned experiments. Can anyone shed light on this subjects? Has anyone else ever ordered
these chemicals? Would they perhaps warrant unwanted attention? And are there any other substitutions. Besides the 4-methyl that I should be wary of?
Thx in advance.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
