No I didn't, I pointed out that I'd done it accidentally in one case and it hadn't bit me, and further that people do all sorts of illegal things on the border every day without getting caught. That's hardly a suggestion that you should do the same.
What? No it's not, the limit is "50 dosage units" (
http://www.incb.org/documents/Psych...e/USA_17_June_2014_Original_travellers_II.pdf); beyond that you're playing with fire. Yes, in general, the worst thing that will happen is that they will confiscate it. However, if there is a suitably sized bee up their bonnet, they have, as I said, a big hammer they can drop if they want to. (Where people typically get in trouble is bringing back personal use quantities of things, and then become accused of bringing them back for distribution -- and in fact, even if you only have 50 pills, if a border agent really wants to give you a hard time, they can make all sorts of claims about suspicious behavior leading them to suspect it is not for personal use, in which case the 50 pill deal does not help you).
I've done all sorts of things with zero problems which could potentially have had serious consequences, what's your point?
Er, no, it's not the same thing at all. This is a bit complicated, I will try to be as brief as possible here. Trobalt is a controlled drug in the US (schedule V). My comment was that
if Autifony is approved in the UK
prior to the FDA taking any action on it here, then it will be in the twilight zone of being a drug which is not on the books at all in the US, which is also not an analog of any schedule I/II/III drug. So, that would put it in a fundamentally different status than Trobalt. As a schedule V drug, Trobalt is generally illegal to import without a valid prescription; the only exception to that I am aware of is the "carrying >=50 dosage units on your own person as you cross the border yourself" which
@dan is alluding to above. On the other hand, drugs which are not on the books in the USA at all, are generally legal to import for personal use, provided that they are not an analog of any drug which is itself a schedule I/II/III drug.
This leads to some weird situations: for instance, alprazolam (xanax) is a schedule IV drug in the US. There are a handful of benzodiazepine analogs which have never been explicitly scheduled in the US. Since none of the scheduled benzos in the US are schedule III or higher, this means that benzo analogs which are not explicitly listed in the controlled substances schedule in the US, are generally legal to import. Hence, if you can find someone who can legally export Phenazepam or something from their country of residence, it's not illegal to import. This is not the case for Trobalt.
So, if there were a period of time where Autifony were also in that weird gray area, and if it was being marketed widely in a country where it was legal for someone to export it, would I consider acquiring some? Possibly, and doing so would be completely legal.
Member
I'm already married, though I will say that my wife doesn't seem to have a really strong appreciation for my extensive understanding of the minutiae of the controlled substances act and related import regulations!
