Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
McFadden v. U.S., 576 US _______ - Supreme Ct decision re knowledge of status of RC
#4
Ah, SDNY. Here's what's going to happen:

AUSA will argue that MXE is a PCP analogue.

Defense will bring an expert saying that to define it as such is broad. Occam's Razor, effectively.

The fact is manufacturing probably had a whole lot to do with it. Go ahead, make a batch of something Schedule V for sale and you still can't get away with it. The analogue act is added on because the elements fit and gives the feds more options. It's almost certain this will plead out, because there's no point arguing analogues when you're manufacturing anything scheduled.

This year, the focus so far has been on cannabonoids (spice) and fentynal analogues. The rules re: this - is still one that the feds will push - as it is their job - but the whole thing is, after all, a circus.

For reference:

Quote:Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act
SUBCHAPTER I — CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

Part B — Authority to Control; Standards and Schedules

§813. Treatment of controlled substance analogues

A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §203, as added Pub. L. 99–570, title I, §1202, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–13; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6470©, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4378.)

References in Text

Schedule I, referred to in text, is set out in section 812© of this title.

Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–690 substituted "any Federal law" for "this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter".

No changes so far. regulations.gov is your best source to see if anything is on the table.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: McFadden v. U.S., 576 US _______ - Supreme Ct decision re knowledge of status of RC - by jimtje - 12-03-2016, 04:53 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)