In Europe there are a lot of these so-called "research chemicals". They are basically illegal drugs but chemically they are different enough that they aren't illegal.
I think the most well-known example is 1P-LSD.
I think the most well-known example is 1P-LSD.
Many of the actual pharma research companies creating this stuff are in the US, so there's no customs between you and an order of random-drug-sample #91245096. And even when there is, both the US and Canada are basically allow-then-deny when it comes to drug importation: if they haven't seen it before—and it doesn't smell like a known-restricted compound to the dogs/scanners—they allow it in.
While there are some pharma companies in the EU, there aren't many, and EU countries basically don't allow drugs to be shipped in from outside the EU, no matter what's in them. Indeed, you can't even order unscheduled, OTC drugs from other countries (e.g. Russia) into the EU. It's a big problem in the nootropics community. (Try to figure out how to get bromantane in Germany. I'll wait.)
I randomly browsed Reddit and wandered onto the 1P-LSD thread and saw that most of the stores mentioned were in Germany, Netherlands, Spain so I just assumed that it was more of a Europe thing.
EDIT: Any ideas why I get "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks."?
You're probably posting too fast.
(Sorry, i had to...) ;-)
TEST to see if it stopped happening
Most suppliers of research chemicals that are marketed to consumers in the US get their product from China. Whether they have it tested at an independent lab is up for debate.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/2/contents/enacted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_Substances_Act_20...
But also the UK has rapid powers to add a substance to the schedule in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Here's a recent list: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlled-drugs-...
Here's schedule 2. I don't know how often this gets updated: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/schedule/2
> You can't legislate a state of mind,
You can legislate "intoxication", although the methods for doing so are pretty crude at the moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_receptor_agonist#5-H...
It would likely also lead to unforeseen consequences. For example, the Czech government attempted to ban growing Phalaris, but had to backpedal as it's a common unassuming weed.
The definition is "not 100% exact" in its nature, but dealers have been prosecuted and sent to prison for violating this.
It's also possible to apply broad bans to Markush structures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_scheduling_of_synth...), which is how I understand some places attempt to regulate synthetic cannabinoids and other broad classes of chemicals.
(Keep in mind these laws do not apply to fentanyl -- in the United States, fentanyl is schedule II and is available as prescription medicine. Illicit fentanyl is more "illegal drug market" than "research chemicals"; cocaine is in the same boat in the US as well, a schedule II drug that's available on the illicit market. The above might apply to any fentanyl analogues though.)
The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 was introduced in NZ after its failed experiment with legalising synthetic highs. I don't necessarily agree with the act, but it basically is a "broad ban" of new recreational drugs.
From what I could tell that's almost exactly what's happening in Europe as well. One difference though is that it takes even longer since each member state bans these individually.
From what I saw there are RC variants of many drugs I've never heard of but I saw RC-LSD, RC synthetic cannabis, RC-ecstasy, angel dust...
Tbh the government reactions to this, banning specific substances cannabinoids in particular, have made this situation just that much worse.
This stuff booming like that should have told them the whole story: That there's a very real demand for legalization. Instead, they continue prohibition practices even further, forcing manufacturers to use other (much more dangerous) substances, a game they've now played so long that by now most of these synthetic Cannabis variants have nothing at all do anymore with the "natural stuff" and instead have become extremely destructive and addictive substances [0]
By insisting on the prohibition stance the regulators literally made "weed" lethal.
The inherent danger in iterative research chemicals is a lesson I had to learn firsthand. I had tried the initial formulations for "spice" a few times and found it to be a pleasant analogue to marijuana. I decided to pick some up several years later, and well, the effects were closer to that of a hardcore disassociative than anything resembling THC. Don't fuck around with products you can't be 100% confident in.
Caption: "Yan Xiaobing was indicted for distributing these similar compounds; making slight changes to the molecular structure can have unpredictable effects on potency."
Also: [I]n recent years, rogue chemists have unearthed instructions for analogues that researchers discovered decades ago but never put into legitimate use.
While Chinese authorities control fentanyl, they’ve been slow to ban new analogues.