Talk:2C-E
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
2C-E is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
 |
2C-E is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] 2C-E Getting Scheduled Soon?
To whomever is providing the updates on the court case: can you give any more info on this right now? (Can you cite Fed court proceedings on Wikipedia, since they're a matter of public record, or can you only do this once they're public record? (i.e., ??are they public record yet, or only after the case is closed?? I don't know...))
2C-E is extremely rare and has not caused a single known reported death. I would think that they'd need more than the usual "analogs act" stuff to schedule it, since current study tends to show that the substance to which it is structurally closest according to Shulgin, mescaline, isn't actually bad for you... I'd hate to see 2C-E scheduled when it hasn't been scientifically demonstrated to be harmful to human beings at recreational doses while potentially-deadly, highly-addictive drugs like nicotine and alcohol remain legal. (Personally, I've watched prohibition not work more times than I can count, and anyone who has ever seen someone else smoke marijuana, for example, can attest to the inefficacy of prohibition in general, whether or not he or she is for the "off-label" use of these substances.)
Obviously, if you can't provide more info, it's understandable.
Thanks,
Tastyummy 08:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
One more thing:
It is legal to buy this chemical if you do not intend to consume it or to sell it to others as a product meant to be consumed, correct? Shouldn't you always be able to win a possession case by saying "I'm buying this to support the industry that produces these chemicals because I consider this to be good for society for reasons X, Y, and Z, but I never intended to consume or to sell it?"
(In other words, how can it be proved in court that a person intended to possess or consume it if he/she simply states that he/she buys it as an act of protest against the control of these chemicals in an attempt to legally support their production by the industry that produces them? Can this kind of protest be considered as criminal activity even though the production and sale of these chemicals via the internet by chemical suppliers-- whose customers are only required to click an "I agree" button to affirm that the chemicals will only be used in a laboratory-- is legal for those chemical suppliers, and since thus, seemingly, it can be argued that people accused of possessing this substance and intending to consume or sell it can simply argue that their intent is legal protest and not to consume or sell the analogs-act-triable substance(s) found in their possession?)
"Research chemicals" like 2C-E are often called a "legal grey area"; can anyone expert in law comment on this issue? It's relevant to the article, since this article is about such a quasi-licit drug. Information on the legality of these substances can be hard to find for a person without immediate access to case proceedings.
[edit] ============================================
[edit] Legality and proof of 'human consumption' claim
I will try to address some of the concerns above. Yes, one can buy and sell it as long as it is not for human consumption. The reason many online vendors were shot down was because they were making it obvious that they were selling it for human consumption by providing deals and sample packs. For example, buy 2C-I in bulk and get one dose of DXM free. What professional lab selling chemicals for scientific research would do that? Many online vendors who were very strict about their guidelines (Not For Human Consumption) and sold in low quantities did not get busted but did close down voluntarily out of fear. One *could* buy a flask and begin manufacturing and selling this stuff in the US if they're careful, but it's unlikely that anyone is going to risk going to court over it due to heavy court expenses.
How do you prove that you did not intend to consume it? As long as they don't catch you putting it in your cereal, they have no proof and can't charge you. I've heard about people getting caught with possession, but nobody has ever gotten charged AFAIK.
[edit] ============================================
2C-E Being Scheduled: The person who stated that on this website was some punk kid who got busted with it and with shrooms. No one ever got charged with the 2C-E in Utah as far as I know. It was a paranoid delusion of a teenager I was incarcerated with in the Utah County Jail with no factual basis whatsoever. Don't believe everything you read. ~MindHermit~
03/28/2007
[edit] Animated gif in article - not a good idea?
It's 309KBytes as-is (plus non-trivial overhead in transmission) and IMO adds nothing to the article. Even if it did it has to be balanced against the fact that not everyone has broadband. Without wishing to offend it's contributor, I believe it does not add sufficient value and should be removed. Thoughts? 81.157.27.35 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and it could also really trip out anyone currently partaking of the subject material. Never mind, just leave it, it gives the article that modern, professional feel. Exemplar Sententia. 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exemplar sententia (talk • contribs)
