[hnick]

I've heard of the "technically illegal" thing and find it odd, is that actually true? Over here in Australia I think they just decided it was easier to make them all illegal too, with the schedule saying things like "TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLS and their alkyl homologues" as a catch-all.

[LoganDark]

Yes, it's true that LSD analogues such as 1cP-LSD have been technically legal to sell in the United States in the past (and in some parts of Europe, I think). Every time a new analogue gains traction, it gets separately banned by new legislation, but there is no catch-all that bans "all substances that are analogous to LSD or that metabolize into LSD". I believe there is a catch-all that attempts to classify substances by their effects regardless of formula (i.e. any hallucinogenic drug is automatically illegal), but sellers get around that by saying the substance is for research purposes only and not for human consumption; then you simply consume it anyway.

[temp0826]

Isn't this the "catch-all"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act

[borski]

The key line there carrying a lot of weight is “…but only if intended for human consumption.”

Market it as “for research only” and that law does not apply.

[LoganDark]

That is indeed the catch-all to which I refer, yes. From my comment:

> [...] but sellers get around that by saying the substance is for research purposes only and not for human consumption; then you simply consume it anyway.