| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
7 |
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
|
|
Any further posts not specifically relating to the thread topic will be deleted from here on. This applies especially to political discussion.
[Edited on 8-15-2007 by Polverone]
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
tito-o-mac
Hazard to Others
Posts: 117
Registered: 30-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What wil happen if one bought in excessive amount or in bulk, lets say more than 100kg+ any chemicals?
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by tito-o-mac
What wil happen if one bought in excessive amount or in bulk, lets say more than 100kg+ any chemicals? |
I would say it would depend greatly on what you purchased. If you purchased 100kg of a watched chemical and the threshold was less than that, you
should expect a visit in the near future. If you purchased 100kg of an un watched chemical I wouldn't worry much.
Joe
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I would find buying 100+ kg of any chemical, watched or not, suspicious if the buyer is a private person. Only the most benign chemicals like NaHCO3,
KCl, Na2SO4 and so on would not make me suspicious, but otherwise I would have certain thoughts about it. What business has a private person with huge
quantities of a single chemical?
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
unless it was something like Water from your tap, or you were an Industry type, I can`t really think of Any chem that you would need 100+Kg of?
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It largely depends on how you define "private person". My family are farmers and often purchased more than 100kg of chemicals. There are "private
people" and not licensed and purchase from the best, least expensive source. They still do and the ATF or the DEA isn't knocking on their doors.
Now if you purchased 100kg of anything from KNO3.com I suspect you have reason to worry.
Joe
[Edited on 7-9-2007 by joeflsts]
|
|
|
jim20/20
Harmless
Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Crystal meth accused released on bail
Article by David Cowan
video Video report by Daqvid Cowan
A Bo'ness couple who have been accused of fuelling the global production of the drug crystal meth have been released on bail after eight months in
prison. Brian Howes and Kerry Anne Shanks were arrested in January at the request of American law enforcement agencies.
This morning a Scottish judge said they should be freed while their extradition case is dealt with.
Brian Howes and his partner Kerry Anne Shanks have spent 214 days in prison after the Americans requested their extradition. Brian Howes
Mr Howes has been on hunger strike for the last 30 of them - as these pictures from the time of his arrest show, his protest has taken its toll.
The Americans say the couple supplied chemicals to illegal drugs labs in the states, where they were used to manufacture six million pounds worth of
the deadly drug crystal meth. The US agenices have tabled more than 80 charges against them - and they could face massive jail sentences if they're
convicted.
This morning a judge grnated them bail as they continue to fight extradition. They will be Brian Howes when he was arrested reunited with their three
children this evening - and will be back in court in October
http://www.stv.tv/system/modules/com.smg.copland/components/...
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
They are both Dumbasses. It is widely known that Red P is illegal to purchase in the US. They sold it to people int eh US anyway.
Joe
[Edited on 9-9-2007 by joeflsts]
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
The "defense" of ignorance of red P's application to methamphetamine production, falls apart as they had, we are told, information about such
processes in their office.
So much for the "we were selling chemicals for fireworks" idea.
The attempted variation on the "CIA defense" (we were helping to track terrorists") is also lame as all it does is make them self described police
informers.
Obviously, by that logic, they ought to have been ratting their customers out to the DEA station in UK, in which case they would hardly be in this
pickle today - would they?
|
|
|
jim20/20
Harmless
Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by joeflsts
They are both Dumbasses. It is widely known that Red P is illegal to purchase in the US. They sold it to people int eh US anyway.
Joe
[Edited on 9-9-2007 by joeflsts] |
illegal to purchase in the us
as i understand it it can be bought if the buyer has been authorized by the dea to do so
the responsibility lies with the buyer since those trade restrictions are applicable on us soil only
the seller was nevber selling in the us or im sure that would have been mentioned
2sauron
big name chemical companies are expected to rat out their customers
he was trying to look like a pro i guess
it could be argued that the pharmacists could be equally guilty of conspiracy for even selling the cold medications at all
| Quote: | The Arkansas Meth Suit: Meet The Lawyers
August 2nd, 2007 3:06 pm By Ed Silverman
The litigation, which was filed last March against Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Perrigo and others, blames drugmakers for selling too many products
containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. As a result, a bunch of Arkansas counties say the drugmakers should have known their meds were being used to
produce methamphetamine.
“We feel that the pharmaceutical companies were putting more product on the market, than what the market called for,” Independence County Judge
Bill Hicks tells a KAIT reporter. Hicks worked with a group of attorneys and county leaders to come up with a plan of action. “We didn’t just wake
up overnight and say, let’s go after the big money. Let’s go after the big people. We saw a problem and we are trying to fix it.”
You can watch the 4-and-a-half minute report here and meet a couple of the lawyers who have succeeded in getting nearly two dozen Arkansas counties to
work together. Interestingly, the report features a lot of melodramatic music, and doesn’t include any comment from the pharmaceutical industry.
http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/08/the-arkansas-meth-suit-meet... |
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Sorry, you are wrong. Under the various methamphetamine control acts the burden is squarely on the seller to verify that the buyer is legitimate, and
in case of doubt to notify DEA.
For a List One chemical like red P the buyer is required to produce his DEA registration document.
The penalties imposed on US lab suppliers for failing to be diligent are draconian. ENORMOUS fines and jail sentences.
Sellers outside of the US are not bound to the reporting requirements but they most certainly are prohibited from selling into the US as this
prosecution amply demonstrates.
Furthermore, according to published information these sellers possessed details of red P's use in reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine to
amphetamines and allegedly discussed same with customers. I suspect this speaks to the conspiracy charges. Those are crimes in UK as well as US and
thus enable extradition.
This is not a case of an innocent seller of pyrotechnic materials, but a profiteering repack shop that knew what red P was being used for and sold
large quantities at enormous profit anyway. I say, fuck 'em. I hope the same happens to all who aid, abet, support and supply drug cooks, and I trust
this has sent a strong signal to chemical sellers outside of the US not to sell restricted chemicals into the US and think they can scoff at US laws
from their safe havens. There are NO safe havens.
I'm sad I can't buy red phosphorus for my own legitimate chemical work but, I blame the drug cooks for that state of affairs.
[Edited on 18-9-2007 by Sauron]
|
|
|
Slimz
Hazard to Others
Posts: 123
Registered: 18-9-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
there are ways to get red P
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, son.
|
|
|
jim20/20
Harmless
Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
you are comparing apples with oranges
they were in the uk not the us
the methamphetamine control acts are not part of uk law
they are still in the uk
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
Sellers outside of the US are not bound to the reporting requirements but they most certainly are prohibited from selling into the US as this
prosecution amply demonstrates. |
this prosecution demonstrates nothing of the sort
and they are still suspects at this stage
| Quote: | | Furthermore, according to published information these sellers possessed details of red P's use in reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine to
amphetamines |
so it was said in a press report
assuming thats accurate you don't know how it got there any more than i
| Quote: | | and allegedly discussed same with customers. |
first ive heard of it
whats your source
| Quote: | I suspect this speaks to the conspiracy charges. Those are crimes in UK as well as US and thus enable extradition.
|
the 2003 us-uk extradition treaty no longer requires the us authorities to make a prima facie case in order to have suspects removed to the us
its seems to me the conspiracy charge is an effective bypass of due process
apparently none of the other 81 counts are extraditable
the scottish judge should take a stand and tell the us authorities to go fuck themselves for abusing a treaty that was supposedly amended to counter
the threat from terrorism
maybe even invoke the human rights act
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Easy to tell what side of this controversy jim20/20 is on
Regurgitating my own statements with qualifications that I made myself is not responding to those staements.
@jim20/20 everything I "know" about this case I read in this thread or in press accounts linked to from this thread. I have no othe "sources".
|
|
|
jim20/20
Harmless
Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
Easy to tell what side of this controversy jim20/20 is on
|
im not on the side of the abuse of due process
im not on the side of the us authorities having free rein
to deprive someone in another country of their liberty on the
basis of an accusation and without providing any evidence
in relation to the thread i started now in detritus
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
I agree with chromium. This is a non-topic. No one is discomfitted by this reg except perhaps a few tweakers in UK. Certainly no amateur chemists.
Good call, Dayster! |
the policy of the uk authorities to control the precursor rather than the reagents most commonly used in meth production is of direct importance to uk
amateur chemists since they will probably continue to be able to acquire chemicals denied to you
|
|
|
chromium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by jim20/20
the policy of the uk authorities to control the precursor rather than the reagents most commonly used in meth production is of direct importance to uk
amateur chemists since they will probably continue to be able to acquire chemicals denied to you |
Unfortunately there have been cases in UK where homes are raided for buying RP and iodine and In US, its not that hard to buy RP as this KNO3 case
clearly shows. Problem is the same in both countries - you can get into big trouble if you buy it. I do not see any reason to belive that after
controlling ephedrine controlls on phosphorus and iodine are relaxed.
When all think alike, then no one is thinking. - Walter Lippmann
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Laws
There are no U.S. federal laws prohibiting the possession of List I or List II chemicals that
I can find in CFR 21(as of April 1, 2007). There are laws requiring the recording of the
transaction above the threshold amounts. BTW, there are no threshold amounts for:
(i) Ephedrine, its salts, optical isomers and salts of optical isomers
(ii) Red phosphorus
(iii) White phosphorus (Other names: Yellow Phosphorus)
(iv) Hypophosphorous acid and its salts
(v) gamma-Butyrolactone (Other names include: GBL; Dihydro-2(3H)-
furanone; 1,2-Butanolide; 1,4-Butanolide; 4-Hydroxybutanoic acid
lactone; gamma-hydroxybutyric acid lactone)
I wonder how black phosphorus fits into the requirements ?
Now some states make the possession of some, or any, precursors illegal. That we know.
As for going after the drug companies, that Arkansas lawsuit is trying to use the "sue the 3rd
party" standard that was tried with gun makers. The suit might have about as much luck
because most of the gun lawsuits were thrown out of court.
[Edited on 2007/9/19 by MadHatter]
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
@jim20/20, I know of a lot of US citizens who have been for decades harassed, indicted, prosecuted and convicted in the US at the behest of the UK for
the 'crime' of raising money from their fellow Americans for something called NORAID, the Sinn Fein charity.
So the sword cuts both ways. When the UK govt wants its back scratched, the US obliges, and vice versa.
and No, I am NOT a supporter of the IRA!
|
|
|
jim20/20
Harmless
Posts: 25
Registered: 10-7-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sauron
@jim20/20, I know of a lot of US citizens who have been for decades harassed, indicted, prosecuted and convicted in the US at the behest of the UK for
the 'crime' of raising money from their fellow Americans for something called NORAID, the Sinn Fein charity. |
harassed, indicted, prosecuted and convicted in the us
if the operators of this company were being tried in the uk i would have no problem with it at all
there is a case to be answered
they thought they were in a neat little legal loophole
i very much doubt that
but they have no chance in the us imho
| Quote: | Originally posted by chromium
Unfortunately there have been cases in UK where homes are raided for buying RP and iodine and In US, its not that hard to buy RP as this KNO3 case
clearly shows. Problem is the same in both countries - you can get into big trouble if you buy it. I do not see any reason to belive that after
controlling ephedrine controlls on phosphorus and iodine are relaxed. |
maybe uk customers of kno3 have been raided sure
pretty dumb to buy from them in the first place
i disagree with your last point
the uk has gone far further than the us by limiting sales to a maximum of
760 mg per sale and one sale per customer
not only that but they have the option to make it prescription
only by 2009 or before if necessary
the much looser limits in the us almost wiped out meth
labs in some places so it obviously works
but because different states have different
controls the problem relocates to wherever is most favorable
the difference in the uk is that the mhra policy applies
everywhere and since there is no meth lab problem yet
the stable door is closed
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are the weak link for the meth
cook
i still think those controls are probably good for uk amateur chemists
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
In the Netherlands, ephedrine cannot be purchased legally. There are some smartshops (kind of shop, where different kinds of drugs are sold, many of
them from natural sources), which seem to sell this stuff to the general public, but in the standard pharmacies and drugstores, this cannot be
purchased without prescription.
Because of the lack of ephedrine and similar related compounds, there also is not much value for iodine and red P in the Netherlands for the meth
cooks. So, such regulations definitely work and are good for the home chemist. It would be really good if the USA also put stronger regulations on the
real drugs-precursors and not on all kinds of 'helper-chemicals', which have numerous other uses outside the drugs scene. Other chemicals, prohibited
in the Netherlands are sassafras, gamma hydroxy butiric acid and direct precursors and a few more, but the list only contains chemicals, which the
average amateur chemist does not need for his experiments.
[Edited on 20-9-07 by woelen]
|
|
|
chromium
Hazard to Others
Posts: 284
Registered: 27-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: reactive
|
|
Of course it would be good for amateur chemists if ephedrine is controlled instead of RP and iodine but i do not have any reason to belive that those
states which already have controlls on RP and iodine intend to abandon them even if ephedrine is made completely unavailable. Modern fashion is such
that new controlls are placed every day to something (for our safety, of course) but i can not remember when single thing that was once forbidden is
let free again.
In fact controlls on red phosphorus and iodine are so illogical that it has always made me think that there are actually other affairs instead of drug
problem.
[Edited on 21-9-2007 by chromium]
When all think alike, then no one is thinking. - Walter Lippmann
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
The governments want RP out of the way so that terrorists will have more difficulty making PCl3, PCl5, POCl3 and their derivaties such as irimethyl
and triethyl phosphite, hence methyldialkyl phosphonates, also methyldichlorophosphine oxide. All of these speak directly to GA, GB, GD etc.
There are already a few gaps in this coverage. But, all of the substances I mentioned are CWC and Australia Group listed, which mandates
intergovernment communication about their shipments, and licensing of large quantities. Many countries have gone further, and require permits for
import of even small quantities. That includes RP. But not I2, and so the motivation is not ephedrine reduction, despite the fact that there is a huge
meth problem here and the origin of the ma huang plant is next door in Yunnan, China. So logically the sole concern about RP here is CW related.
|
|
|
Eclectic
National Hazard
Posts: 899
Registered: 14-11-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: Obsessive
|
|
But you assume the regulations are reasonable and logical! How logical is it to believe that someone who could fabricate a chemical weapon without
killing themselves and their neighbors could not make WHATEVER they need from anything that contains the needed elements? 
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Indeed, but they want to make things as difficult as possible, to place more hurdles in the path. Remember that internationally they (the governments
who have signed CWC) have only agreed to controls on a small number of chemicals, and then really only in large quantities. The Australia Group
countries want the list expanded.
I think the Aum incident (Tokyo subway sarin) scared them all badly. Not rational, as it was ineffectual, but there you are.
For decades, those of us who were sounding the alarm about terrorists and CBW/NBC - primarily Dr Joe Douglass of Edgewood, Neil Livingstone, Jack
McGeorge and myself - were scoffed at by the rest of the intelligence community. (See the book "The Poor Man's Atom Bomb" by Douglass and Livinstone.)
But not after the Aum.
And that wasn't even a matter of terrorism, in any accepted strict definition of terrorism. Still, it was a wake up call for the policy makers, and
now they have overreacted.
You are correct that the tactics employed by these governments are not always logical, rational, reasonable, or even effective. You are preaching to
the choir about that. I am the biggest critic of the various lists and schedules and regimes. It does not work - demonstrably is a failure - for drug
enforcement, where it is pretty much busywork. So how can it be expected to work for chemical terror?
Also it is important to remember that proposals for G to G controls on chemical warfare have existed ever since WWI and that is more than 90 years.
The Aum case was what galvanized those perennial proposals. The Clintons shoved them through just before leaving office. (So you can imagine what the
Clintons might do if the Hill & Bill Show gets back in.)
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
7 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
