| Pages:
1
2 |
roamingnome
Hazard to Others
Posts: 363
Registered: 9-9-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
its TEXAS law, partner
While "window" shopping at my favorite lab supply site
i saw a nice soxhlet glass piece...
then i saw
BUYERS IN TEXAS MUST HAVE "PERMIT FOR PRECURSOR CHEMICALS AND/OR LABORATORY APPARATUS".
while a soxhlet device is somewhat complex to just make yourself, what really defines laboratory apparatus?
i mean we all know its the same old song and dance, more regulation, registration leads to easier confication, its a NRA issue as well..... i hope
this doesnt spread to far
|
|
|
EllisDTripp
Harmless
Posts: 7
Registered: 30-5-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Texas glassware law is pure drug war fascism, being worded in such a way that practically ANYONE can be busted at any time at the discretion of
the local cops. A list of what is considered "laboratory apparatus" is available here:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcot...
I particularly love item "K" from that list. "A Transformer". Anyone living in a house with an electric doorbell is subject to arrest whenever the
local pigs feel like it!
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
My favorite is item N, "adaptor tube". That's nice and unambiguous. (not)
|
|
|
neutrino
International Hazard
Posts: 1583
Registered: 20-8-2004
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: oscillating
|
|
In texas, jam jars are illegal because they can be used as beakers. Yep, pure BS.
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
But beakers aren't on the forbidden list, so they are ok.
Although flasks are forbidden, flask-shaped-beakers aka fleakers, aren't on the forbidden list either, so they are ok too. Handy thing, those
fleakers. 
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
I was about to say coffee pots are illegal too, because they contain a pyrex beaker, heating mantle, and filtration funnel.
|
|
|
neutrino
International Hazard
Posts: 1583
Registered: 20-8-2004
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: oscillating
|
|
I remember some discussion at RS concluding that Texas's chem regulations could apply to beakers (and therefore jars) as well. This was a year or two
ago, so they might have changed their rediculous legislation since then.
In the end, it proably matters more how expensive your lawyer is. Stupid country.
|
|
|
mrjeffy321
Hazard to Others
Posts: 149
Registered: 11-6-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
One of my favorite (or rather, least favorite) direct quotes right out of Texas law is:
| Quote: |
(b)For purposes of this section, an intent to unlawfully
manufacture the controlled substance methamphetamine is presumed
if the actor possesses or transports:
(1) anhydrous ammonia in a container or receptacle
that is not designed and manufactured to lawfully hold or transport
anhydrous ammonia;
(2) lithium metal removed from a battery and immersed
in kerosene, mineral spirits, or similar liquid that prevents or
retards hydration; or
(3) in one container, vehicle, or building,
phenylacetic acid, or more than nine grams, three containers
packaged for retail sale, or 300 tablets or capsules of a product
containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, and:
(A) anhydrous ammonia;
(B) at least three of the following categories of
substances commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine:
(i) lithium or sodium metal or red
phosphorus, iodine, or iodine crystals;
(ii) lye, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid,
or muriatic acid;
(iii) an organic solvent, including ethyl
ether, alcohol, or acetone;
(iv) a petroleum distillate, including
naphtha, paint thinner, or charcoal lighter fluid; or
(v) aquarium, rock, or table salt; or
[... and so on ...]
|
But the part which lists off glassware is:
| Quote: |
(53) "Chemical laboratory apparatus" means any item of
equipment designed, made, or adapted to manufacture a controlled
substance or a controlled substance analogue, including:
(A) a condenser;
(B) a distilling apparatus;
(C) a vacuum drier;
(D) a three-neck or distilling flask;
(E) a tableting machine;
(F) an encapsulating machine;
(G) a filter, Buchner, or separatory funnel;
(H) an Erlenmeyer, two-neck, or single-neck
flask;
(I) a round-bottom, Florence, thermometer, or
filtering flask;
(J) a Soxhlet extractor;
(K) a transformer;
(L) a flask heater;
(M) a heating mantel; or
(N) an adaptor tube.
|
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
Yeah, the part about 'presuming intent to manufacture meth' is especially lame. Element collectors - Don't open batteries to try and get Li metal.
You are then *officially* a meth-cook.
I repeat my claim, though, that beakers are a-ok.
|
|
|
evil_lurker
National Hazard
Posts: 767
Registered: 12-3-2005
Location: United States of Elbonia
Member Is Offline
Mood: On the wagon again.
|
|
Or if you do open batteries, pack them under argon.
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mrjeffy321
direct quotes right out of Texas law
|
Do you have a link to the current law? I had one but it went bad.
It's a pain in the ass to have to read it anyways, besides being idiotic and annoying, it is written in Legalese rather than English so reading it is
torture. The law also fundamentally gives more rights to businesses than to people, which philosophically pisses me off too.
However, I don't think beakers were ever on the list, at least not in the last 5 years or so, perhaps before that. Phosphorus is the only recent
change I noticed.
|
|
|
UnintentionalChaos
International Hazard
Posts: 1454
Registered: 9-12-2006
Location: Mars
Member Is Offline
Mood: Nucleophilic
|
|
So, if you gut a battery for lithium for an element collection, put it under vacuum and heat it...its melting point is pretty low. I should think
(wouldn't know) that the thin sheet (high surface area) in the battery would be ideal for whatever use in making meth it plays. A little glob would be
1:impossible to track to battery extraction, and 2:probably poorly suited to meth production.
They could (and probably would) still give you hell about it, but you'd have a better argument.
Or ampoule it and argue that it would be ludacris to go through all that trouble if it was intended to be used for meth
[Edited on 1-8-07 by UnintentionalChaos]
|
|
|
mrjeffy321
Hazard to Others
Posts: 149
Registered: 11-6-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here is a link to the law,
"Texas Controlled Substances Act",
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/pdf/hs....
It is a very lengthy read, but you should be able to search through with certain key words to get to the good parts.
That part about presuming intent to manufacture meth really shocked me when I first read it...all it takes is for someone to have some drain cleaner
(NaOH), nail polish remover (acetone), and paint thinner, and boom you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent.
|
|
|
UnintentionalChaos
International Hazard
Posts: 1454
Registered: 9-12-2006
Location: Mars
Member Is Offline
Mood: Nucleophilic
|
|
If it is accurate as quoted before, then,
"(3) in one container, vehicle, or building,
phenylacetic acid, or more than nine grams, three containers
packaged for retail sale, or 300 tablets or capsules of a product
containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, and:
(A) anhydrous ammonia;
(B) at least three of the following categories of
substances commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine:
(i) lithium or sodium metal or red
phosphorus, iodine, or iodine crystals;
(ii) lye, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid,
or muriatic acid;
(iii) an organic solvent, including ethyl
ether, alcohol, or acetone;
(iv) a petroleum distillate, including
naphtha, paint thinner, or charcoal lighter fluid; or
(v) aquarium, rock, or table salt; or
[... and so on ...]"
It sounds like you need a lot of phenylacetic acid, ephedrine, or pseudoephedrine as well as anhydrous ammonia and some of the more common materials.
Then again, the anhydrous ammonia (in a non-approved container) and battery lithium are "definite" indicators by themselves. Any house would probably
contain the VERY suspicious table salt and alchohol (vodka). Also, any drain cleaner other than organic acids will probably have lye, HCl, or H2SO4 in
them.
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
I think you are ok (legally) as far as the assumed-meth-cookery if you can manage the following:
1 - No anhydrous NH3.
2 - No Li cut from batteries. Li metal from other sources is ok. (My element collection is happy about that part.)
3 - No more than 3 boxes of relevant cold medicine.
I can abide by those without much trouble. The main one being the cold medicine, I could easily see accidentally going over that limit. (But now I
know.) Anhydrous NH3 could surely be used for some legit experiments (and the dissolving alkali metal thing sounds interesting by itself), but I can
live without it.
The glassware restrictions are by far the biggest issue.
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
Thanks. Some comments from reading this...
The definition of "Chemical precursor" in 481.002, number 51, does NOT include phosphorus or the related hypophosphorus (or whatever) acid. RP does
appear on the list that EllisDTripp listed, but it isn't in that PDF.
The language regarding what is *assumed* to be anhydrous NH3 in 481.124 (p. 39) is interesting. Paraphrasing, since I couldn't figure out how to
select and copy...
A substance is presumed to be anh NH3 if it is in a container that is:
1 - Designed to hold anh NH3, or
2 - Not designed to hold NH3, if
A - (skipped)
B - A water solution of the substance tests positive for ammonia.
Note that any aqueous solution of NH3 would be considered 'anhydrous NH3' by this test, as an aqueous solution (of the already aqueous solution) would
test positive.
Also, it isn't clear to me what restrictions there are on *synthesizing* anything on the chemical precursor list, as there would not be any transfer
of the material to anybody.
|
|
|
UnintentionalChaos
International Hazard
Posts: 1454
Registered: 9-12-2006
Location: Mars
Member Is Offline
Mood: Nucleophilic
|
|
Lawyers wrote this, not chemists. I think it would be thrown out of court if they tried to bring up household ammonia as evidence.
|
|
|
roamingnome
Hazard to Others
Posts: 363
Registered: 9-9-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
After reading the exserpts of the LAW
its appears that it is the INTENT of the ACTOR thats the issue.
if you intend to use the lithium too solvate electrons in ammonia you best not have any organic molecules around....
Its unforntunitate becuase that sodium ammonia phenomenon is one of the coolest in chemsistry... theres things to discover there...
how does it respond to magnetic fields....thats my question...
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by roamingnome
its appears that it is the INTENT of the ACTOR thats the issue.
|
But, there is a specific section, that lists certain items, which if you possess, you are AUTOMATICALLY considered to have INTENT to manufacture meth.
Regarding those sections, whether or not you ACTUALLY have intent is irrelevant.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
But, there is a specific section, that lists certain items, which if you possess, you are AUTOMATICALLY considered to have INTENT to manufacture meth.
Regarding those sections, whether or not you ACTUALLY have intent is irrelevant. |
I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds so bizarre to me. Does the possession of gasoline and matches automatically mean you will start a fire?
What happened to means, opportunity and MOTIVE? Innocent till proven guilty?
It would be interesting to look at precedents, eg is there anyone who has been convicted solely because of the possession of certain materials?
As for TX, what is it with that state that it has such an insane concentration of nutjobs?
[Edited on 9-1-2007 by vulture]
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
joeflsts
Hazard to Others
Posts: 226
Registered: 14-1-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by vulture
| Quote: |
But, there is a specific section, that lists certain items, which if you possess, you are AUTOMATICALLY considered to have INTENT to manufacture meth.
Regarding those sections, whether or not you ACTUALLY have intent is irrelevant. |
I'm not a lawyer, but this sounds so bizarre to me. Does the possession of gasoline and matches automatically mean you will start a fire?
What happened to means, opportunity and MOTIVE? Innocent till proven guilty?
It would be interesting to look at precedents, eg is there anyone who has been convicted solely because of the possession of certain materials?
As for TX, what is it with that state that it has such an insane concentration of nutjobs?
[Edited on 9-1-2007 by vulture] |
Texas is a large state, in fact one of the largest in the US. It has huge problem with illegal drug manufacture. Assholes that make and sell illegal
drugs caused these stupid laws to get written. Of course that also holds true for the buyers as well. As long as we allow drugs to remain illegal we
will see this only get worse.
Joe
[Edited on 10-1-2007 by joeflsts]
|
|
|
mrjeffy321
Hazard to Others
Posts: 149
Registered: 11-6-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by vulture
It would be interesting to look at precedents, eg is there anyone who has been convicted solely because of the possession of certain materials?
|
Also, what about the innocent people who might get arrested and have to spend a night in jail (and a day in court) trying to explain why they had
those seemingly innocuous materials in their car on the way home from the store.
Even if they are ultimately not convicted, there is still a lot of hassle to go through to prove yourself innocent when you are assumed guilty.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Seems like a law that can be used to screw over anyone the gov wants...
Its strange which liberties in texas people have and don't have. All the guns you want, but no flasks.
Edit: Spelled 'which' wrong
[Edited on 10-1-2007 by The_Davster]
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by The_Davster
All the guns you want, but no flasks. |
Yep, what a shame.
Theoretically, you are supposed to be able to get a permit for all this stuff, but the process is really burdensome. You would have to apply for a
new permit each and every time you'd buy any of the restricted items, and then wait like a month for the permit. Not to mention explicitly giving the
cops permission to search you at any 'reasonable time'.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
It does indeed look this law gives the Texas LE the right to arrest anyone they suspect of making meth (or don't like) no matter how circumstantial
the evidence.
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.
[Edited on 10-1-2007 by Magpie]
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
