Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Purity Of Ebay Nitroethane?

...
The only "intent to manufacture" law in Wisconsin relating to precursors rather than scheduled drugs requires significant amounts of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine on hand,* both of which I avoid even taking as a matter of course

Bully for you.

There are a lot of people actually need pseudoephedrine for chronic conditions, and have it on hand. Should purging your medical cabinet be an essential act so as "not to live in fear"?

Federal law is also relevant here (especially if the DEA is in any way involved).

There are fair number of people in this country now that - under state law - are legal users of medical cannabis. These people can, and have been, successfully prosecuted in Federal court (there have been a couple of hundred such cases brought under the Obama Administration).

Has anything ever been downloaded to your computer that might be alleged to be "child pornography", perhaps by malware? Are you sure?

If you ever get raided all kinds of things can go south if the agency wants to make good on its investment in the original operation.

I think you have rather too much faith in the system operating on your behalf.

Quote:

So, seized, yes. Of course they can take things they personally think are evidence or will be used to commit a crime. But in order to have it actually forfeited in a drug manufacturing case they need to convict you.

Under civil forfeiture they don't have to prove anything - you have to take timely action and prove you are innocent to get your stuff back. This can be significantly difficult when all your assets have already been taken.

Quote:

Now the people making a big fuss over it, writing up lists of which reagents are the most suspicious and how to fake professional credentials and all that, well, they probably should worry because they're actually engaged in drug manufacture.

Whoa there!

Especially that part about "writing up lists of which reagents are the most suspicious" as I did above.

Spoken like a DEA agent.

Quote:

posted on 17-11-2014 at 17:44

On the other hand, I do not know of any cases of people being raided just because they made small purchases (a fraction of the thresholds for regulated transactions - see below) of watched substances.

Does anyone else?

I don't believe it's typical.

I don't think it is typical either. The question is, does it occur at all?

Etaoin Shrdlu

National Hazard

Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline

Mood: Insufferable

No, it shouldn't. The vast majority of drug laws are pointless and stupid and only went into effect because the international community decided it would be fantastic to engage in a pointless and stupid treaty. I'm just telling you why I'm not afraid when you're telling me I should be. There is one, still-contestable, thing they could get me on, and I'm not even touching it.

Federal law is also relevant here (especially if the DEA is in any way involved).

Which they have no reason to be. And federal "intent to manufacture" laws, as far as I can tell, are about as vague as "you're not allowed to have listed chemicals if you intend to make scheduled drugs with them." Figured that out already from the "don't make scheduled drugs" bit. I'd hazard a guess you're not supposed to intend to make scheduled drugs with water, even.

There is zero evidence I intend to make scheduled drugs, and a hell of a lot of evidence I don't (since I'm using the reagents to make things which are not scheduled drugs).

There are fair number of people in this country now that - under state law - are legal users of medical cannabis. These people can, and have been, successfully prosecuted in Federal court (there have been a couple of hundred such cases brought under the Obama Administration).

Wow, stuff prohibited by federal law remains prohibited until the law is repealed? Good thing I'm still not in possession of scheduled drugs. Dodged a real bullet there.

Has anything ever been downloaded to your computer that might be alleged to be "child pornography", perhaps by malware? Are you sure?

Fairly sure, yes. And I'm not terribly worried someone will take the time to argue that I deliberately acquired malware. After all, there's no conspiracy against me here. (Unless you know something I don't?)

If you ever get raided all kinds of things can go south if the agency wants to make good on its investment in the original operation.

Sure. Why would they when I have a strong case on my behalf and they could go after the actual cooks downtown? Most of them do want to catch actual criminals, you know.

I think you have rather too much faith in the system operating on your behalf.

No, I have no faith in the system at all. I have a lot of faith that I've done nothing to run afoul of it.

A drug case would not fall under civil forfeiture.

posted on 23-11-2014 at 16:18

Especially that part about "writing up lists of which reagents are the most suspicious" as I did above.

Spoken like a DEA agent.

Laughing my ass off. It should have been damn clear that I wasn't referring to anything like what you wrote. I'm referring, in fact, to writeups such as this (which actually fit the criteria I stated): https://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/buychem.igo...

"Be able to spout off your SSN, driver's license number, street address, business name/phone/address, birth date, etc., immediately upon being asked. And don't just make them up on the spot. [...] If you're picking up in person, print up some business cards and take them along with your PO and fake ID."

Yeah, that guy should have just as little to worry about as I do. He wasn't cooking drugs at all. I'm just an overly paranoid DEA agent with too much vegetable oil and sodium hydroxide.

zed

International Hazard

Posts: 2277
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord

Ummmm. This has become a long-winded political debate. Which is OK, but it isn't Chemistry.
Seems like there is another section for stuff like this.

Chemosynthesis

International Hazard

Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 23-11-2014 at 18:17

posted on 23-11-2014 at 20:02

Wow, stuff prohibited by federal law remains prohibited until the law is repealed?

Federal law supersedes state law, with plenty of legal precedent deriving from interpretation of the Supremacy Clause. Not to be degrading, but it's pretty basic civics.

Quote:

A drug case would not fall under civil forfeiture.

It certainly well may, and has since the 1980's. I could name names in history, but please look into it yourself. You will find that there is a long history of both civil and criminal forfeiture laws applying to drug cases, or suspected drug cases, and all that stemmed from it (money laundering, etc.). Carey is 100% correct.

I second the motion for politics to be discussed in Legal and Societal Matters or Whimsy, though.

Etaoin Shrdlu

National Hazard

Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline

Mood: Insufferable

Wow, stuff prohibited by federal law remains prohibited until the law is repealed?

Federal law supersedes state law, with plenty of legal precedent deriving from interpretation of the Supremacy Clause. Not to be degrading, but it's pretty basic civics.

That was pretty basic sarcasm. I'm not actually surprised that laws generally remain valid until they're repealed.

posted on 24-11-2014 at 04:41

Quote:

A drug case would not fall under civil forfeiture.

With respect, are you telling me I could be accused of illegally manufacturing drugs but not of criminal activity? If so I am fascinated and would like to know more as I have never run across this. I know property can be taken under civil forfeiture if they can show it was used for something criminal and the owner isn't being charged (and can't or won't prove their own innocence of what was going on), or if the owner just doesn't contest, but I would be very clear that I was the only one making use of my glassware, reagents, etcetera, and it seems to me that if they insisted that said use was illegal drug manufacture that it would all fall directly into a criminal case.

Agree this should probably be in Whimsy, but of course this is at the discretion of the mods and I'd rather keep things to this thread until it's split instead of randomly posting elsewhere.

Chemosynthesis

International Hazard

Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 24-11-2014 at 11:45

Charges levied against you are irrelevant; you can be indicted, acquitted, convicted, or never charged and still face civil forfeiture because under the civil forfeiture, your property is challenged rather than you (legally.) You could even be in jail without bond while your window to exonerate your property closes. Wisconsin has a better preponderance of evidence than most (reasonable doubt), but that doesn't mean federal law won't apply (state and federal charges don't preclude one another via double jeopardy... so you could face both.) It isn't merely the prosecution demonstrating illicit use/acquisition... it's you having to substantiate the negative. The property being on trial, as a civil case with lower preponderances of evidence, is a technicality that allows the presumption of innocence not to apply. Property has no rights, and you theoretically suffer no criminal penalties of confiscation. This also allows civil forfeiture to avoid any double jeopardy with criminal prosecution, so you can face civil and criminal forfeiture if one were evaded.

However... if your assets were taken and then you were charged with any crime whatsoever, you would have a hard time attaining legal counsel of your choice (only provided for criminal charges, with zero inherent interest in your civil case), and then if you were held without bail (could even theoretically be done as a favor to you since you'd likely be destitute and homeless in the interim period), you would have a hard time substantiating your assets were obtained through legal means (assuming you saved receipts, have witnesses of sale, etc.) Or you could be charged, a case dismissed, and then face civil forfeiture anyway out of spite or retribution.

[Edited on 24-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

MrBlank1

Hazard to Self

Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?

above : +1

Generally speaking, is universally applicable. I have it on fairly good authority this is true

Protip : Keep a duplicate copy of your sales records off-site. Comes in handy if the originals become evidence ( and yes, they check the paper receipts for prints too )

[Edited on 24-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 24-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse

careysub

International Hazard

Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline

Mood: Lowest quantum state

posted on 24-11-2014 at 12:59

To return the matter to the problems of home chemistry:

I posted on this thread trying to develop information for assessing the actual hazards of bringing law enforcement attention from purchases of modest amounts of chemicals.

The canard "if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" has never been true, nor is it ever likely to be.

Any attention at all from law enforcement is hazardous to one's well being, since even groundless, meritless cases can be extremely expensive - in many ways.

The reporting quantities for listed chemicals (generally kilograms [e.g. nitroethane] or even hundreds of kilograms [e.g acetic anhydride], depending) in DEA regulations is clearly focused on actual drug manufacturers who must turn out a lot of product to make it an actual business or to supply the market in a significant way.

A home lab, using these reagents for experiments, consumes much smaller amounts - perhaps 1/10 to as little as 1/1000 the reporting quantity. Is there any evidence that there is actual jeopardy in doing this?

I can avoid buying anything on List 1 easily enough. But List 2, and special surveillance list include common reagents that are difficult to replace or prepare on one's own.

NB:
Making explicit risk assessments of things is something I do routinely - as everything one does in life has risks, which must be balanced against the expected benefits.

One can argue, if you are concerned about legal jeopardy, then you shouldn't do it at all. Certainly that is the safest course to take, but the argument is fundamentally invalid. Anything you do in life entails risks of different kinds.

Going out to see a movie entails a calculable chance of death from car accident for a frivolous activity, but I doubt anyone would counsel that going to see movies should be avoided due to the hazard to life. If the movie requires a 10 mile round-trip, the chance of death is something like one in ten million.

A lot of people engage in hobbies that are far riskier than that - skydiving and hang gliding both come in at around 1 per 100,000 events (BASE jumping is truly extreme at 1 in 2500). A lot of sports incur fatality rates around 1 in 100,000 or higher per year of participation.

However to assess risks you need to develop data. So far I haven't heard of anyone being raided in the U.S. on account of small chemical purchases, which suggests the risk is very low - or simply that law enforcement does not publicize this fact. (A lot of raids are due to "anonymous tips" - which could easily be used as cover.)

Etaoin Shrdlu

National Hazard

Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline

Mood: Insufferable

posted on 24-11-2014 at 13:29

This is true. However, people tend to take the option of either simply allowing the forfeiture to go through, or of playing the innocent owner ("if my property was used for illegal activity, I was not aware"). This is further complicated by the fact that a lot of these seizure cases have genuinely illegal things going on related to them, including civil matters like hazards caused by improper storage where the owner of the property really was innocent of manufacturing drugs.

I would not take either of these options. I would make it explicitly clear that I keep control over my chemicals and glassware, thus that anything going on with my property was my doing, and if they chose to declare my property forfeit for something criminal I would subsequently argue that they had determined my guilt without a proper trial. Whether or not they chose to try to have me locked up would have no bearing on this. You're entitled to a trial whether or not sentence is followed through with, unless you waive that right yourself.

Now, sure, they could attempt to keep the case of me and my property separate, but I'm going to say a civil verdict of "well, fairies must have been illegally manufacturing drugs while you were at work" would be pretty easy for me to challenge later.

I don't think there's a legal precedent for staying in civil court when someone is actively insisting that the hypothetical criminal activity in question is their own hypothetical criminal activity, but I will try to check later. (Once you get a suspect, aren't you supposed to actually charge them instead of saying they did something illegal but pretending you're talking about someone else? Why would they even do this?)

You could even be in jail without bond while your window to exonerate your property closes.

If I'm in jail without bond, this is a criminal case, not a civil one. Also, they are required to give the owner the chance to respond in court.

Wisconsin has a better preponderance of evidence than most (reasonable doubt), but that doesn't mean federal law won't apply (state and federal charges don't preclude one another via double jeopardy... so you could face both.)

Yes, because federal governments and state governments have "dual sovereignty," so you can be prosecuted under both state and federal law for the same thing. There was a case in 2013 called Roach vs. Missouri which would have brought the issue up for reexamination, but the Supreme Court declined. Frankly, I can see arguments for both sides here. One one hand, you don't want someone getting doubly punished for the same offense, but on the other hand, you don't want the federal court to be unable to touch someone after they've been tried in state court, otherwise states could effectively nullify federal regulations by specifying minimal or nonexistent penalties for the same crimes.

I'm already not worried about being prosecuted, I'm even less worried about being doubly prosecuted after one exoneration. Hey, it could happen, but I could also get mugged walking out of the local supermarket, a scenario which is probably more likely and which leaves me similarly unconcerned. The odds are too slim to fret over.

This also allows civil forfeiture to avoid any double jeopardy with criminal prosecution, so you can face civil and criminal forfeiture if one were evaded.

I am fairly certain that if you're cleared of criminal activity in a case, they can't then go after your property for the same case (in the same jurisdiction, anyway). At the very least, the evidence that showed you were innocent of criminal activity is still applicable to your property the second time around. How would they argue the drugs were made once I had already been legally cleared? I don't think I'd want to be the person who tried to overturn a jury trial in civil court.

However... if your assets were taken and then you were charged with any crime whatsoever, you would have a hard time attaining legal counsel of your choice (only provided for criminal charges, with zero inherent interest in your civil case)

I'm quite happy with my options in legal counsel as it stands now, and I would despite that as quickly as possible turn any civil case into a criminal one.

you would have a hard time substantiating your assets were obtained through legal means (assuming you saved receipts, have witnesses of sale, etc.)

I do save receipts. Uninvolved witnesses of sale? No. People who can substantiate that I bought things from them and a very clear paper trail for anything that would be under question? Yes. Really, though, if it comes down to someone arguing I might have obtained my sodium hydroxide illegally, they have no case. (As for my money, it all comes from sources which are patently obviously legal.)

Or you could be charged, a case dismissed, and then face civil forfeiture anyway out of spite or retribution.

Sure. If I was high profile or there was a massive conspiracy against me. But I'm not and there isn't.

posted on 24-11-2014 at 15:50

One can argue, if you are concerned about legal jeopardy, then you shouldn't do it at all. Certainly that is the safest course to take, but the argument is fundamentally invalid. Anything you do in life entails risks of different kinds.

Going out to see a movie entails a calculable chance of death from car accident for a frivolous activity, but I doubt anyone would counsel that going to see movies should be avoided due to the hazard to life. If the movie requires a 10 mile round-trip, the chance of death is something like one in ten million.

This is my stance exactly. Not "If I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about," but "I'm not doing anything wrong, and I have plenty of things I could worry about. Car crashes! Lightning! Random muggings! The DEA kicking down my door! Most of them aren't worth dwelling on." I spend far more time making sure my home lab is safe and clean than I do taking precautions just in case someone's slowly ticking down their watch list and it's only a matter of time until they get to me. Not that imagining how things might hypothetically go wrong isn't fun.

I'm sorry, I know of no cases personally where (legitimate) home chemists got into serious legal trouble just for ordering small quantities of watched chemicals. It's usually the distributors who get nailed, or the people setting off bombs/storing outlandish quantities of fairly hazardous chemicals (though I think the response is rarely reasonable in the latter case).

Chemosynthesis

International Hazard

Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

Post not entirely relevant to chemistry, so possibly ignore.

Careysub: Very well stated in your last post. I would be surprised if law enforcement actually collates data with this false positive raid statistic, as it serves no funding benefit (kindof similar to how DHS can cite statistics that aren't always according to UCR standards) and I have actually discussed this with sworn investigators at local and federal levels on DEA task forces. They (one with a graduate background in chemistry) have thusfar appeared perplexed at even receiving the question.

To give some context, though, one had said he "had no interest in hobbyists" despite this not addressing the legitimate concern of mistakenly investigating one, potentially wasting both police and citizens' resources.

Etaoin Shrdlu: I wasn't addressing your specific situation, but rather the general risk. I'm aware of Roach, but as you said... it's not relevant. Ursery v. United States is what I recommend be looked at instead for stare decesis. Despite your contention that evidence used in a criminal trial is available for subsequent civil forfeiture cases, this isn't taking into account the lower burden of proof or jury's ability to use taking the Fifth against you in federal (and most states) civil asset forfeitures, or the sheer inconvenience of potentially having assets seized.

And even if one were found not guilty of drug manufacture, civil court could require substantiation of not distilling alcohol without paying proper ATF taxes, or getting DEA paperwork for scheduled precursors (something many of this forum appear to do) or similar. I have heard of ridiculous things prosecutors have done, such as using Church of Scientology v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9 (1987) to attempt to prevent NFA tax forms from being released to defense attorneys in at least one instance (this ATF case not relevant to the chemistry, and I never kept up with how that turned out, but even an attempt at something this blatant demonstrates, at best... needless and expensive inconvenience).

One reason many (no stats) of the forfeiture cases are not fought is that legal expenses often outweigh the value of seized assets. The opportunity cost of continuing on with life, if possible, and not hiring a lawyer can obviously outweigh the expenses of getting a car, lab equipment, petty cash, reagents, etc. back. This can skew statistics, and serves to provide police agencies with low risk income.

"If I'm in jail without bond, this is a criminal case, not a civil one. Also, they are required to give the owner the chance to respond in court." I'm aware... however, my statement is meant to convey IF you are facing both a criminal indictment AND have had property confiscated due to civil asset forfeiture. This was the case at the very inception of civil forfeiture's use preceding drug cases; during Operation Jackpot's court cases, prosecutor McMaster used federal civil asset forfeiture laws to go after marijuana smugglers prior to initiating a criminal proceeding. This diminished defendents' ability to flee, but also their ability to live everyday life, hire attorneys, etc. (McMaster is now an elected lieutenant governor after rising to the prominence of attorney general due partially to this very technique).

I am glad you are happy with your available counsel. I am with mine as well, but would prefer never to have to use it in the future. Not everyone has a lawyer on retainer, in a family, etc., and some occupations require detailed notification of every law enforcement encounter one has. Even acquittals can pose problems in security clearance screening or exclusive private sector background checks, or can disclose personal finances to the public if the proceedings weren't sealed by a judge.

Just because inconvenience is unlikely to happen to some of us, doesn't mean that the question of risk isn't worth posing. The City of Philadelphia just recently had a class action suit against them (Sourvolis et al.) specifically because the city is seen to use civil forfeiture to take property that is unlikely to be defended in order to pad their budgets at no real risk to themselves. As far as conspiracies against someone, all one needs to do is consider how Mike Nifong or William Ryan (against Nicholas Yarris, even attempting to retry him 90 days after exoneration) acted in the light of facts.

zed

International Hazard

Posts: 2277
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord

posted on 24-11-2014 at 19:15

"I am fairly certain that if you're cleared of criminal activity in a case, they can't then go after your property for the same case (in the same jurisdiction, anyway). At the very least, the evidence that showed you were innocent of criminal activity is still applicable to your property the second time around. How would they argue the drugs were made once I had already been legally cleared? I don't think I'd want to be the person who tried to overturn a jury trial in civil court."

Depends on individual State, or Federal Law.

You will remember that OJ Simpson was acquited in criminal court, for the murder of his wife......and then, convicted in civil court....for her wrongful death. The judgement was in the millions. The standard of evidence in criminal cases and civil cases, is different.

In criminal cases, the standard is " proven beyond a reasonable doubt". In California civil cases, the standard is " proven by the preponderance of the evidence".

Mush

National Hazard

Posts: 632
Registered: 27-12-2008
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 28-1-2015 at 14:00

Desperately need nitroethane?
Here you go!

Ethylformiat, Nitroethan
http://www.acrifix.com/sites/dc/Downloadcenter/Evonik/Produc...

Ethylformiat 109-94-4 F, Xn 11-20/22-36/37 15,0-40,0
Nitroethan 79-24-3 Xn 10-20/22 15,0-40,0%
2-Phenoxyethanol 122-99-6 Xn 22-36 3,0-7,0 %
Ethylacetat 141-78-6 F,Xi 11-36-66-67 3.0-7,0%
Butan-1-ol 71-36-3 Xn 10-22-37/38-41-67 1,0-5.0%
http://www.maagtechnic.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Da...

Jules

Harmless

Posts: 11
Registered: 26-12-2016
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

posted on 29-12-2016 at 16:50

Nitroethane on eBay

The nitroethane sold as tip blender on eBay from the German site is a complete con it's actually acetone. I complained and got a refund but obviously this has been going on for sometime and nothing has been done about it despite the fact that in my opinion this is fraud and a criminal offense. How many people have been sold this cheap product at a hugely inflated price is probably impossible to discover accurately but I'm sure other people have complained too. I'm considering making an official complaint to the German authorities, has anyone here tried doing this? We have to put a stop to con merchants such as this and it's disturbing to find that eBay haven't removed this crooked operator from their site.

Corrosive Joeseph

National Hazard

Posts: 915
Registered: 17-5-2015
Location: The Other Place
Member Is Offline

Mood: Cyclic

posted on 29-12-2016 at 17:02

Quote: Originally posted by Jules

The nitroethane sold as tip blender on eBay from the German site is a complete con it's actually acetone. I complained and got a refund but obviously this has been going on for sometime and nothing has been done about it despite the fact that in my opinion this is fraud and a criminal offense. How many people have been sold this cheap product at a hugely inflated price is probably impossible to discover accurately but I'm sure other people have complained too. I'm considering making an official complaint to the German authorities, has anyone here tried doing this? We have to put a stop to con merchants such as this and it's disturbing to find that eBay haven't removed this crooked operator from their site.

You want to complain to the 'authorities' that you were ripped off trying to buy a major precursor for speed..................?

Well, good luck with that..................

/CJ

Edit - Please don't take my post the wrong way in these troubled, chemophobic times. Nitroethane is not illegal in Europe but I'm sure its acquisition raises a few eyebrows. There is probably no need to complain to the German authorities because (thanks to eBay selling out their users) I'm sure they already know you have purchased it, or at least tried to. It isn't easy being a home chemist these days and I am all against any kind of restrictions and censorship.

Complaining will just bring attention to you and if you are okay with that, well then, you are okay with that. Just saying. Be safe.................

/CJ

[Edited on 30-12-2016 by Corrosive Joeseph]

Being well adjusted to a sick society is no measure of one's mental health

Tsjerk

International Hazard

Posts: 3022
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mood

posted on 29-12-2016 at 22:40

Pretty ballsy ordering that stuff in Germany nowadays, they are not only looking for drug cooks but also potential bomb manufacturers more than ever. I don't know what you have laying around but in the past German police did raids for ordering CuSO4. Remember that if they want they can frame you for having precursors for explosives with just nitroethane and NaOH.

German government gives 1000's of euro fines for illegally downloading a movie, and police likes to get away with shooting unarmed minors in the back.

[Edited on 30-12-2016 by Tsjerk]

Dan Vizine

National Hazard

Posts: 628
Registered: 4-4-2014
Location: Tonawanda, New York
Member Is Offline

Mood: High Resistance

posted on 30-12-2016 at 07:45