Talk:Federal Analogue Act

Requesting verification and correction

• Someone with some actual legal experience should probably check this and correct any errors. Keenanpepper 04:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if any courts of record have dealt with this section of the CSA. Often the DEA and other government agencies can shut down companies simply by seizing their inventory and freezing their funds, e.g. JLF. In the case of JLF, they even had trouble hiring a lawyer due to shortage of cash. Rad Racer | Talk 02:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3 words: lawyer on retainer. It's silly not to have one if you are in that business. --Morbid-o 19:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok I have added the two USA cases I am aware of that have dealt with this Act, but there may be others, so if there are more that should be added, then feel free to put those into the article as well!! Meodipt 04:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why isn't this article titled "Federal Analogue Act" instead of what it is titled ("Federal Analog Act")? Just because Americans spell it "analog" instead of the British way ("analogue") does not mean the US Congress spelled it the American way. In fact, they did not, so why is the title of this article "Federal Analog Act"? 198.136.28.62 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Burden of proof

There's a bit about burden of proof being different in drug/terrorism cases... I can't figure out where, if anywhere, that's from legally speaking and it seems likely to be mistaken. If there is a burden of proof issue around the human-consumption intent question, I'd think it'd be a matter of lack of intent having to be an affirmative defense, not to do with the fact that it's a drugs law. That said, I don't know enough to confidently edit it.129.63.223.133 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about things like when people get charged with possession of a quantity of drugs that is over the threshold amount for presumption of supply, they are deemed to have had the drugs for the purpose of supply unless they can prove that the drugs were for personal use, so in this situation the normal burden of proof is reversed and they are guilty (of supply) until proven innocent (of supply, i.e. only guilty of possession). Similarly when people are charged with possessing documents on making bombs etc they are assumed to have these for the purpose of terrorism unless they can prove otherwise. Depends on jurisdiction of course, but drugs and terrorism are the main areas where statute or courts have reversed the normal burden of proof so the defendant has to prove that they are innocent rather than vice versa. Meodipt (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Old law is OLLLLD

The Analogs Act was written in 1986 and because of its vagueness (necessary at the time) it's only ever been used in really clear-cut cases, where the chemical is all but the same or clearly has the same functional subgroups with only minor variations. Really, someone ought to get around to updating it to address what humanity has learned over the last 20+ years; the fact of the matter is that with increased efficiency provided by greater scientific knowledge, it may soon become possible for someone intending to produce a truly novel designer drug to engineer substances based on the intended receptor targets in much the same way that pharmaceutical companies currently produce new drugs intended for other receptor targets with the intention of deliberately evading patent law. This was probably first seen blatantly on a worldwide scale with some of the clones of the drug Prozac, but has happened many, many times since at the corporate level.

It is silly to think that as the ability to predict activity goes up and the ratio of tested & failed compounds to compounds worthy of the next level of trial goes down, that such techniques will not be attempted by those seeking to evade the controlled substances act in much the same way that pharmaceuticals companies seek to evade patent law.

Reading that someone was able to actually avoid a conviction for AET's resemblance to other scheduled tryptamines really shows that the law needs updating, especially if one considers that we know this compound has many toxic side effects. We really need either drug decriminalization, or a vastly updated version of this law in order to ensure that the public doesn't become guinea pigs. Basically, we either need to decriminalize the drugs that the public is seeking, or to strengthen the analogs act in a scientifically sound manner - hopefully before anyone dies or something like Operation Web Tryp goes down and ends up finding nothing prosecutable.Zaphraud (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The date the law was written and date enacted should be clearly noted in the article itself. Nagelfar (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Then write your congressman. This is an encyclopedia, it's about the way things are, not the way they should be.—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 16:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation section

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to me like the interpretation section is substantially wrong and should really just be removed entirely. We shouldn't be attempting to interpret it without references and the case law section does a better job of that anyway. The interpretation section is claiming that prong (iii) is sufficient unto itself, but the court in both Forbes and Washam interpreted it to mean that prong (i) was necessary and then either prong (ii) or prong (iii). If no one objects within the next few days I'm just going to remove the entire section. Let the courts do the interpreting in the case law section. Mystylplx (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a lawyer and I agree with you. I've removed the section entirely. WP:Tone WP:Synth —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we roll back and lock this article?

Trolls keep updating this thread with misinformation and sources that aren't cited. Some of the information is somewhat true...but not presented remotely professionally and rarely are they citing any kind of real source. Some things I think they are just making up. They are also dragging random usernames into this with stuff that is barely related to the article. Also they are impersonating other users when they make these edits. Is there a way we can roll back and lock this article for a while to prevent this abuse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooorn (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

ENOUGH

Lock this page to stop the trolls from posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.68.124 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Citing Legal Cases

The article highlights two famous cases that greatly influenced the interpretation of the Federal Analog Act. There was no citations for the cases when I read the entry (I believe the cases need citations since someone placed the citations flag on this article) and I have added links to the cases. However, I believe the way I'm citing this is wrong, can someone fix the citations for me if it is wrong? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbblack2013 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)