Mark Niemoeller’s business, JLF Poisonous Non-consumables, sells legal plants and chemicals. But in September, after someone allegedly died after consuming one of his products, almost all of his stock was seized and he was charged with selling illegal substances. Many of the products that JLF sells are legal psychoactives and some of them are analogues of federally scheduled drugs. But the Federal Analogue Act states that the analogue law does not apply to “any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance.” Some of the chemicals, such as DXM (the main ingredient in cough syrup), clearly don’t fall under the federal analogue act. In addition to most of Niemoeller’s stock the DEA seized his computers, his truck, and froze his $750,000 bank account so that he can’t even pay his lawyer.
2 Comments
Comments are closed.
Archive by Date
- November 2021
- March 2020
- October 2019
- July 2019
- January 2019
- May 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- May 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
- May 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- January 2002
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001
- May 2001
- April 2001
- March 2001
- February 2001
- November 2000
- August 2000
- January 2000
© 2024 Technoccult
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑
March 4, 2002 at 6:37 pm
The Federal Analogue Act is not the only legal issue in Niemoeller’s case. Most of the counts in the indictment against him are actually for violation of FDA regulations. While the DEA may have had a big part in the investigation of Niemoeller, most of the criminal charges against him regard the sale of “misbranded” prescription drugs.
It’s all in my article. Read it again.
–Travis Dunn
March 12, 2002 at 1:35 pm
Yes, he’s being charged with more than the Federal analogue act violation, and I should have addressed this in my write-up. The main reason that I focused on the analogue act is because I know that Niemoeller did not violate the Federal Analogue act by selling 2CT7, 5-MEO-DMT, or any of the other products that he sells.
The story says that a condition of Niemoeller’s bail was that he not sell 2C-T-2, Brazilian sassafras oil, 5-MeO-DMT, 5-MeO- DIPT, the skins of bufo marinus toads, tramadol, benzylpiperazine, L- tryptophan and betel nuts. The rationale for this probably comes from the federal analogue act (it’s also worth noting that benzylpiperazine is not a federally scheduled substance nor is it an analogue of a federally scheduled substance). So I think the emphasis of the case is on the analogues.
But while we’re on the subject of the alleged pharmies… I don’t think that L-DOPA and the other drugs that he’s being charged with distributing are federally scheduled as prescriptions only (but I don?t know that for sure). And like he says, there are other companies that sell these products to people without prescriptions. There are in fact other companies that sell all the products that he sells: usually in much larger quantities. If the DEA and FDA were really concerned about the sale of these substances they would be going after Niemoeller’s suppliers. But it would be much more difficult to challenge a lot of larger companies than to challenge one sole-proprietorship.