| Pages:
1
2 |
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Magpie
What I'm wondering is how hospitals, universities, businesses, etc, can possibly function if they have to apply for a permit every time they need to
buy some glassware.
|
Institutions etc. can get a single permit and be done with it. (Maybe with some incidental reporting, not sure.) INDIVIDUALS must get one-time
permits for each and every purchase.
|
|
|
mrjeffy321
Hazard to Others
Posts: 149
Registered: 11-6-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by pantone159
Not to mention explicitly giving the cops permission to search you at any 'reasonable time'. |
I have long heard about this requirement, but I have never seen it anywhere official in writing. Do you know where this is set down? Is it in the
same "Texas Controlled Substances Act" that lists the glassware, or is it somewhere else?
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
Upon further review, I may have exaggerated just a little...
481.080 (l) (2) - Specifies that the cops can search at 'any reasonable time'. However, after reading this closely, it sounds like it would not apply
to holders of the one-time permits, which is what individuals have to get. Rather, it would apply to the institutions with the broad permits.
481.081 (e) - To apply for an apparatus permit, you must give written consent to inspect. It is possible this phrasing means you only have to allow
an inspection once, not the more broad 'at any reasonable time'.
These are both on p. 25 of the pdf.
|
|
|
asilentbob
Harmless
Posts: 24
Registered: 4-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: *sigh*
|
|
The "reasonable time" thing is also with owning and operating distilling equiptment of such and such capacity for blank use. IIRC.
Edit: I'm just happy that they did not and have not stopped me from getting any equiptment or chemicals thus far.
[Edited on 11-1-2007 by asilentbob]
So many ideas... too few dealing with chemistry.
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5103
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I hope that people will forgive me for reawakening an old thread, but I hadn't noticed this one before.
I note that the Texas Authorities consider you a meth cook if you have methylamine.
Are they taking the piss, or has nobody told them it's a normal costituent of urine?
(And you thought the bit about transformers was stupid).
http://www.seibertron.com/toys/gallery.php?id=494&size=0...
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by unionised
I note that the Texas Authorities consider you a meth cook if you have methylamine.
Are they taking the piss, or has nobody told them it's a normal costituent of urine?
|
I'm not sure that is true, at least it is not explicitly stated in the law. OTOH, having 4 boxes of cold pills + chemicals that most of us probably
have DOES equal 'Meth Cook', explicitly.
MeNH2 is listed as a precursor, and you must have a permit to buy any. (Along with 15 or so other chems, approximately the DEA List I.) My reading
of the law says this doesn't apply if you make it yourself (and thus it is never transferred from anybody else to you) which implies that if you make
some in your own urine, that's ok.
Now, if somebody else gives there urine to you, that's another matter.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Wow! Do public restrooms have to have licenses now? After all, you never know where its going...
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
I concurr with joefists. These draconian laws are a response to the drug cooks. I can remember when there was no DEA, when there was no BNDD before
it, there was only the tiny Federal Bureau of Narcotics chasing smack smugglers and dealers.
Then the FDA got in on the act to go after knockoff drugs (basically as a hit squad for the pharm industry), that was called BDAC Bureau of Drug Abuse
Control. They merged with FBN amd became BNDD and as bureaucracies will, it grew like Topsy.
The architect of much of that was Chuck Coulson of Watergate notoriety.
Anyway, without the meth labs, and to a far lesser extent the LSD labs (few) and the rest, all these chemical-control stupidities simply would not
exist. So, let's place the blame squarely on those among society who pervert our science to make a fast dirty buck and who do not give a damn for the
consequences. We are reaping the consequences of forty years of their nonsense.
Don't misunderstand, the government is also wrong to overreact and to compromise civil liberties. But it's the clandestine drug labs that have
provoked this reaction.
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
The majority of the BIG drug labs & successfull are accross the boarder in Mexico as I am awair. Thus the boarder problem makes this have even
more impact than it does already.
YES, they have perverted chemisrty to anti-social ends in a sense but the choice of law enforcemnt to go after US based individuals is in response to
lack of action from our neighbor. The palm is greased in that country in every activity from driver's liciences to taxes. Prohibition in any activity
has always lead to crime where none existed previously. But I doubt there is any easy answer to this. Mind altering substances are a complicated
subject to address as those who would indulge make themselves both socially unawair and are dysfuntional as well: irrational in every respect.
Treating drug abuse as a public health issue as opposed to a law enforcement issue would entail a massive public education / advertising plan.
Thus far the public has been treated to an agenda of hysteria aided by the media that has been very successful. This is due to the everyday facts of
social dysfuntion as a direct result of mind altering elements (kids being neglected, labs blowing up, people being killed for drug profits, etc).
Someone would need to gamble their political career on any change in that direction as well as engage the entrenched law enforcement elements who's
careers depend on those same laws. Remember that the FBN (FBN&DD) and Harray Anslinger tried to wrench power from J Edgar Hover (and lost). The
DEA byproduct was given a more flexable mandate than simple interdiction. The DEA is both an intelligence arm and an LE agency of the gov't. We won't
easily give up that intel agency and it's cash flow just for a little social reform.
[Edited on 7-2-2007 by quicksilver]
|
|
|
agorot
Hazard to Self
Posts: 73
Registered: 25-1-2010
Location: too fed-o-phobic to say :D
Member Is Offline
Mood: like an activated complex
|
|
Say I live in texas for hypothetical purposes (I don't).
If I were to get the permit, and honestly have absolutely no interest whatsoever in manufacturing drugs, what reasoning could I use that they would
allow me to purchase the apparatus? Say I put "I will manufacture cobalt chloride by reacting the pure metal with liquid chlorine gas" on the
reasoning, do you think they would let me do it? I highly doubt they would allow me the permit if I said "I want to manufacture sulfur trioxide by the
catalytic conversion of SO2 to SO3 over a vandium pentoxide catalyst."
2)If I were to apply for the permit (found here: ftp://ftp.txdps.state.tx.us/forms/nar-120a.pdf) and already had some of the prohibited stuff on the list and they searched me, what do you think
would happen? Would there a way I could register glassware I already had and not get in trouble for it?
Remember, I don't live in Texas, and this the purpose of this thread is only to discuss the law itself.
But if I did live in Texas, I would be in constant fear of police knocking on my door with a search warrant, especially if I had glassware/chemicals
already and had absolutely no interest in manufacturing drugs. I would be scared that a supplier I had ordered from would give my name, address, and
current glassware inventory to the state of Texas. I would also be scared that they were tracking my internet connection and were taking note of all
the things I was looking at online.
|
|
|
entropy51
Gone, but not forgotten
Posts: 1612
Registered: 30-5-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fissile
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by agorot  | Say I live in texas for hypothetical purposes (I don't).
Remember, I don't live in Texas, and this the purpose of this thread is only to discuss the law itself.
But if I did live in Texas |
I bet you're wearing a cowboy hat and boots with spurs right this
minute 
|
|
|
agorot
Hazard to Self
Posts: 73
Registered: 25-1-2010
Location: too fed-o-phobic to say :D
Member Is Offline
Mood: like an activated complex
|
|
[Edited on 4-3-2010 by agorot]
|
|
|
agorot
Hazard to Self
Posts: 73
Registered: 25-1-2010
Location: too fed-o-phobic to say :D
Member Is Offline
Mood: like an activated complex
|
|
[Edited on 4-3-2010 by agorot]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
