In response to a few comments: I didn't want to imply that LSD was very dangerous, but that 1V-LSD is thought to be more dangerous. LSD is generally believed to be considerably safer than, for example, alcohol, and with either a very low or zero risk of addiction. The main risks from LSD come indirectly from accidents due to intoxication, and with intoxication lasting up to 20 hours, that's a genuine concern. Whether that's concerning enough to justify banning it is a different conversation that I'm not qualified to lead, but the German government sees fit to ban it and that's the premise we start with for the purposes of this specific video.
In 2015, Ireland accidentally legalised ecstasy, crystal meth and ketamine after the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 was found to be unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal. New legislation was hurriedly passed to fix this so it was only legal for 24 hours.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 contained a provision allowing the Minister for Health to ban drugs by issuing a statutory instrument, which is secondary legislation. So once the Act was found unconstitutional, all the secondary legislation promulgated under that Act was no longer valid.
@@webchimp § 52 StPO Abs. 1 Satz 1 states, that the right to refuse to testify applies to the (generic masculine) fiancé of the (generic masculine) accused, even at the time when same-sex relationships were illegal…which is somewhat remarkable.
German courts work on the principle of applying the intended idea of the laws. Not simply the raw text. That’s why you have human judges. (And not simply law-clerks) There exist a lot of additional commentary texts to laws. They give guidance for this process. So, no. 100% nothing did become legal because of an obvious typo. Assuming otherwise would be taken as ill intent by the courts.
Thank you! Without knowing for certain, I felt that this would be the case. German officials have a lot of leeway to inject their professional perspective into their work and it works surprise me greatly if a drug conviction would be overturned for an obvious typographical error. In the US, where no one is allowed to actually think for themselves, they would let the typo make the decision for them.
The Law itself came into being because the Law it replaced was too specific. It banned specific substances and by replacing some side group the substance was not the specific substance anymore. So unless your argument was that this was the intention of the Law that was replaced -- no, the "idea" of banning dangerous substances alone is not enough.
@@motioninmind6015 Or in the case of the 2nd amendment, an ink spot is declared to be a comma, thereby rendering the sentence meaningless and therefore interpreted as broadly as possible.
However, this is only true if the intent is obvious to normal people, and so "average Joe" ("der verständige Bürger") can tell by reading the law that it cannot have been intended that way. In the case of organic chemistry I doubt this applies. Then again, not only making laws is hard, so is interpreting them in uncommon cases. Which is why we also pay people to do that.
"German courts work on the principle of applying the intended idea of the laws". Nope, this is not (always) the case. Do you remember the non-smokers-protection law in NRW? The Health Ministry back then wanted to ban all cigarettes from some places, including e-cigarettes. The problem was that e-cigarettes weren't even mentioned in the law, but in the commentary was explained that e-cigarettes should be banned too. At the end the highest court of NRW ruled that you can't apply a law to something if that something isn't even mentioned in the law (Zitat: "Was nicht im Gesetz steht ist auch nicht gemeint") and the purpose of the commentary texts is not to add stuff to the law that was being "forgotten" when the law was created, but to explain things that are written in the law.
When it became illegal to hide your face while driving it was technically illegal to drive a motorcycle while wearing a full face helmet for a very short time. German law makers are the best trolls.
This also was the case in Germany prior to some year like 1974 or so. The drivers of ambulances had to call to a "state of emergency beyond the law" (übergesetzlichen Notstand) in order to be able to ignore red traffic lights.
I love how you mentioned what I was exactly thinking about decriminalising all drugs, leave it to the doctors to deal with drug addiction instead of lawmakers and police
Even if you studied Chemistry, the IUPAC nomenklature is very complex and to exactly describe a bigger organic molecule isn't that easy. Yes, there are rule book you can look at, but well, I guess about 90% of chemists would fail building the exact name of LSD from only having the structure. Companies like Wiley-VCH (chemistry books) have very special proofreaders to avoid such problems. They probably should have asked them for help..
@@DerDrako For sure. It is the one and only standard to name organic molecules. Yes, many compounds have other names, called Trivialname (common names), so LSD is know as Lysergsäurediethylamid. But this only describes the well known substance, not any derivatives (which are important in this legal text). And there starts the problem: let's say you add a methyl-group to the structure, then you have to name the exact location or C-atom to which this methyl-group is connected. In the IUPAC methodology, you have one exact atom to start counting and only one exact path to number all other places. Not with old common names, and you end up mixing old common names with IUPAC concepts, and this will get you in troubles. Also, all IUPAC names are international defined, although there are some grammatical differences and also a question of the point of view, i.e. which basic structure you start with. Let's look at Wikipedia: 9,10-Didehydro-N,N-diethyl-6-methylergolin-8β-carboxamid (German) and 6aR,9R)-N,N-diethyl-7-methyl-4,6,6a,7,8,9-hexahydroindolo[4,3-fg]quinoline-9-carboxamide (English) look like 2 completely different molecules, but both terms will get you the same structure. The difference in naming is the "basic structure" used: Ergolin(e) in German and Chinolin (Quinoline) in English. This is not ideal, but the IUPAC rules will get you the correct structure nevertheless even if you started the naming with different basic structures. The IUPAC nomenclature is foolproof, although the correct use is hard to master and there are also many roads to Rome (Quinolin vs. Ergoline, vide supra).
And exactly this is why other countries use "framework legislation", where the appendix isn't actually a part of the law, but is managed by a government agency or independent body.
So, the argument can easily be transfered to: Intended ban: Heu und Wagen Actual ban only banning: Heuwagen So you can have all the Heu, and all the Wagen you want XD .. awesome! And yeah, it should make a difference.
That's like: You can buy cannabis seeds, but you are not allowed to stick them in turf and water them. You are allowed to buy a tool to detect speed controls in advance, but you are not allowed to use it. There are much more examples like this. Der Schildbürger lässt grüßen. ^^
It's a variant of the old joke "Come, we eat papa." (commas can save lives) But as they included the structural formulae, the intent is even more clear, so there won't be much discussion about what actually is illegal. The politicians trying to hold this against the lawmakers better take some chemistry classes - I doubt they'd be able to read that stuff out lout better than you did …
The C would still have to be capitalized because the hyphen is being used to compound the noun -- just like the "S" and "G" in "Neue-psychoaktive-Stoffe-Gesetz".
The drawn structures only describe the core structure, the typo is in the substituent description. If the lawmaker actually intended to ban all alkylcarbonylcycloalkylcarbonyls with up to 10 carbons in the alkylcarbonyl-chain and 3-6 carbons in the cyclic part, they probably would have written it the same way it was written here. So even though they did not meant it, if they would have meant it that way, they would have written it how it is written now.
I don't know German law but a Pardon in the USA is an admission of guilt. In the USA the legal term to use would be "vacate" convictions or "over turn" any convictions. Overturning would be if a clever lawyer were to file a class action for those convicted by a 'defective' law. Not sure h ow similar German law is but most of these are based on Euric and Roman law.
Turns out the reason LSD is considered really dangerous is because the American government wanted to crack down on the counter-culture, and attacking their psychedelics was really easy, just put them on the dangerous drug list, and explain it with overblown and completely invented horror stories. (And yes, it seems people have actually admitted to inventing those.) Plus, it now turns out (worse, it turns out we already knew that before the horror stories) that LSD and other psychedelics, when used under the care of relevant medical professionals, is really, really helpful in treating a number of mental problems, such as PTSD and depression and alcoholism, because it allows the brain to actually reason about traumatic stuff, for example, by temporary lowering the impact. There are currently bipartisan efforts in the US House of Representatives to change the relevant laws to make such treatments legal.
simmilar wired thing happened in the us too. the t in atf is for tobacco not nicotine. so some companies argue that chemically synthesized nicotine is not under their jurisdiction because it dosent come from a tobacco plant. wired.
I disagree with some other commentators: the law applies exactly as written. the courts do not consider what the legislature wanted to write, but what they wrote.
You may disagree, but that's the reality. Judges interpret the law and have a substantial leeway in doing so. An obvious typo is interpreted as a typo.
Decriminalize drugs is the only way to solve the drug problem and, more importantly, the criminal activities related to it. Why is there a drug problem with a lot of criminality? Because a lot of money can be earned with it. Why? Because it's illegal. So, getting people to get addicted to drugs is very lucrative., so it is an incentive to the criminals to try to get more people addicted to the stuff. Those who oppose to legalizing drugs will say that this would remove all obstacles to obtaining them. Sure, but are addicted people really hindered by the current bans? I don't think so. Anyway, legalizing drugs and making them available through official channels would reduce drug criminality to zero. But that, dear people, is a problem because fighting this criminal activity also requires a massive police force. And that is exactly what the politicians want: a reason to maintain a massive police force to fight a problem that they have created themselves by making drugs illegal.
The problem is that legal and open access to heavily addictive drugs will cause more people to become addicted. And if a society wants to have socialized healthcare (I certainly want that) this also means that the health of the individual is a concern for all. If we all pay for it, then we all have to decide whether or not something is an acceptable health risk. The alternative would be: You can do with your body whatever you want, but pay your own medical bills.
So normally laws are interpreted according to Savigny's rules. That means: wording, system, history, thelos. Due to Article 103 GG, there is a lot of analogy in criminal law. While in all other areas of law unplanned regulatory loopholes can be closed by the legal practitioner by analogy, regulatory loopholes in criminal law are always at the expense of the state's right to criminal punishment. This has repeatedly led to new criminal offenses in the past. For example, in the early days of electricity, there was a case where someone stole electricity. The man was charged with theft. However, theft only applies to movable property and electricity is not a movable property. He was acquitted and a little later the offense of stealing electricity was included in the penal code. Since damage to property only refers to things, the offense of data modification was also introduced. In the case of LSD derivatives, it's like this: The law doesn't state that it's forbidden. It was in there, and laws can be changed, but in criminal law I'm not allowed to judge the intention or the reason why it's no longer in there, just that what's in there. So the law needs to be changed now. However, it is not that complicated. There were laws that were introduced into the legislative process in the morning and signed by the Federal President in the evening.
Even the law as it is meant to be is basically useless for its intended purpose. For non-chemists, the way it's supposed to work is by saying "Here''s an LSD molecule. It's illegal. Here are a few sites on that molecule. If you add any of these things (list of lots of things) to any of these points, it's still illegal." Another way of interpreting that is "If you add anything other than what's listed to those sites, or if you add anything to any other site, it's legal." The law is basically a set of instructions for how to defeat itself.
Actually it's more of a list of legal shortcuts. Like with free speech in Germany, Drugs are regulated on the principle of their impact and these lists (or anticonstitutional symbols) are confirming this is explicitly prohibited, rather than implicitly by the mentioned prior principles
The thing is, these combined molecules are possible. Perhaps they would be formulated differently, but you can write water (H2O) as "Dihydrogenmonoxyd" or "Hydoxylacid" or "Hydrogenol" (Maybe).
The law is precisely what the words say, not what the legislators had wanted them to say. That’s how the court will rule I expect. Because how does one glean what the parliamentarians “intended” if they can’t be bothered to properly write it down. How does one follow a law that doesn’t say what it means? Seems like a huge legal problem for society. What surprises me is that Germany didn’t put their implementation details not in the law directly but in the implementation policies of that law that the federal drugs and chemical regulating agencies create using scientists. The scientists-bureaucrats should be keeping the explicit lists updated with political oversight , not the politicians. If it is the way you describe then you have the corporate executives writing the software rather than the software engineers and coders. Hold on, maybe that’s why so much Microsoft and Google software is so horrible. 😊
Germany is one of those countries in which the courts are expected to interpret the law taking into account what lawmakers intended it to do. There's only so far you can take that principle, of course -- you don't want courts making up their own laws -- but if a strict literal interpretation of the text leads to a perverse outcome, the courts have to rule in a manner which is fair and in line with the obvious intent of the law. Since there are no jury trials (trial by jury is mostly restricted to legal systems that are based on the English system, it's quite rare in other parts of the world), we get to see in detail exactly what the judge or panel took into considerating when reaching their verdict, and so there is full accountability there. We know what the legislative branch's intent was, because we have minutes of the relevant meetings in which the decision was made, earlier versions of this appendix before the changes were made, and the fact that the current version of the appendix appears to ban a compound that doesn't in fact exist.
But don't take 1V-LSD (called "Valerie" by some german speaking guinea pigs in the Hannover area), which may now be "legalized" by a typo, but gave a very bad time to many guinea pigs, but 1D-LSD instead, which is legal in Germany and gave most guinea pigs the same psychedelic experiences as the still illegal LSD. It is legal for research purposes and can be bought on nice, colorful blotters to 70 to 150 micrograms. As far as I know, there is even a shop in Berlin. There have been rumors that some guinea pigs have become psychotic, but so does LSD. It is a powerful substance. Never underestimate it!
You can be sure that this appendix was, at least in part, written by people with a PhD in chemistry. That's what scientific advisors are there for. A PhD doesn't protect you from making mistakes. As someone with a PhD myself, I can assure you of that (not in chemistry but in mathematics, though, but still).
Good luck finding someone who's simultaneously smart enough to get a PhD in chemistry and dumb enough to want to work in for the goverment (This is a joke, pls don't get mad at me German government)
The Bundestag has a scientific service (Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages) that is certainly involved in formulating such things in an advisory capacity. But we also know all these typographical errors that you don't even notice on the fourth reading.
@@hurtigheinz3790 in physical chemistry though (via a physics background) so Merkel's expertise would not apply here which would require organic chemistry (which she would not have learnt beyond high school , if any, due to studying physics as an undergrad)
Why does it legalize substances that have been banned? Has the law specifically replaced an existing one completely rather an just amended the body of law? Otherwise, any substance would still be covered by existing laws.
Basically, there is a list of various types of drug, and they just wanted to add one more type to that list. But instead of adding it as a separate type, they effectively added its name to the name of an already existing type, creating an entirely new name. Imagine I had a law than banned certain types of vegetable, and one of those banned vegetables was "potato". Now I want to add "turnip" to the list, but instead of writing "potato, turnip" I write "potatoturnip". Now the law doesn't ban turnips or potatoes, but instead it bans something called "potatoturnip".
@@rewboss it doesn't really work like that in Germany. Judges (and attorneys/solicitors) are beholden to uphold the spirit of the law, not only strictly what's written down.
@@RagingGoblin While not wrong, the Law replaced a law that was just too specific, so some side chain of the molecule was changed and the substance was not illegal anymore.
Well great! Now half of all hard drugs are legal, but for Canabis I am still criminalized? typical. One has made so test for cocaine in the toilets in the Bundestag, and they were often positive. But I would have been even more consistent as a politician and would have forgotten a hyphen even with cocaine. 😄
Okay but there has to be some underlying addition stating that the law is to be applied in a reasonable fashion. I'd be very disappointed if some criminals were allowed to run free because of typos. Not to say drug users should be in prison, but in a more general sense.
But .. what about the substances that are now erroneously illegal ( assuming they exist, I am clueless 😂) ... could anyone get jailed for owning/producing/selling those?
(I have no more idea about this than you, so I'll just share your assumptions): while they could, they would not. There are actually a few laws and ordinances in Germany which "criminalize" stuff that shouldn't be but changing the laws in question would be too much of a hassle, especially when laws interact with each other new problems can arise and so forth. So similar to a programmer not fixing a known bug because it is under control and nobody knows what would happen if I added a line there, some stuff indeed is illegal and it's completely ignored by the courts. (These are usually very specific cases though, generally involving multiple laws, not a broad definition as it is here)
Actually, it is forbidden to own or synthesise compounds covered by the NpSG. And it is forbidden and punishable to do so for trading and trading of those compounds as well. So in contrast to the BtMG, you will not get jail-time just for owning such substances for your own use. However, you might be punished for buying such drugs.
it seems to me that the law itself would not need to be changed. Only the appendix. I assume this is something that would need to be done on the regular. if the law is worded in such a way that it lists in the appendix only examples, but does not preclude other compounds not listed to possibly be also illegal this could be a non-issue. then again, i am too lazy to read the actual law.
Die Politik hat doch schon oft genug rückwirkend irgendwas entschieden. Ich glaub nicht, dass die Leute, die deswegen im besagten Zeitraum dagegen verstoßen haben, jetzt aufatmen können.
"Nulla poena sine lege" is a pertinent point in German jurisdiction, so it cannot be done until specific other rules apply (like "everybody could see what this should have read"), and politicians certainly cannot change criminal law and date it back. I'd like an example (excluding Nazi era and GDR) for this "schon oft".
@@Ulkomaalainen OK, vielleicht ist das im Strafrecht anders und nicht so einfach möglich. Ich hab an sowas wie die diskutierte Übergewinnsteuer nachgedacht, die auch rückwirkend sein sollte. Solche Dinge und Vorgaben werden auch mal rückwirkend geändert. Strafrecht aber vielleicht nicht. Bin aber auch kein Jurist.
However, the intent of the law is taken into consideration, and in German law, a loophole does not prevent punishment. Let's say you create a new sort of device that kills people, and you certainly intended that to happen, but somehow, you made sure it is not covered by intentional or negligent homicide, that there is a law that outlaws similar behavior will cover your new method as well even if you tried to skirt around getting punished.
You absolutely did miss the point! Nothing that you said actually describes the situation or the uselessness of any of these laws. There are thousands of derivatives to LSD and if one of them gets banned by law there will be 10 others available tomorrow!
That's why the law doesn't list individual compounds, but ranges of compounds. Aside from that, I think they concentrate on the ones they think are more likely to be dangerous, rather than trying to ban literally all of them.
@@rewboss Thanks for your answer, and greetings from Babenhausen by the way! I am watching your videos for quite some time now. I will try to have a deeper look into the law and whether they have really tried to include a whole group of substances!
The law explicitly states derivates (Ableitungen) of the named compounds, so yes, they did exactly the opposite of what you stated. No deeper look needed, it's right on the front page at the website.
In response to a few comments: I didn't want to imply that LSD was very dangerous, but that 1V-LSD is thought to be more dangerous. LSD is generally believed to be considerably safer than, for example, alcohol, and with either a very low or zero risk of addiction. The main risks from LSD come indirectly from accidents due to intoxication, and with intoxication lasting up to 20 hours, that's a genuine concern. Whether that's concerning enough to justify banning it is a different conversation that I'm not qualified to lead, but the German government sees fit to ban it and that's the premise we start with for the purposes of this specific video.
Facts bro
based
very good and differentiated addition, thanks for clarifying!
An LSD trip lasts nowhere near 20 hours. It’s more like 8-12 hours.
@@lenn939 thats exactly the point here. 1V-LSD is longer acting than lsd. And a 20hr trip compares to the usual 8-12 hours is extremely taxing
In 2015, Ireland accidentally legalised ecstasy, crystal meth and ketamine after the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 was found to be unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal. New legislation was hurriedly passed to fix this so it was only legal for 24 hours.
I believe there was also "marriage is between men OR women".
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 contained a provision allowing the Minister for Health to ban drugs by issuing a statutory instrument, which is secondary legislation. So once the Act was found unconstitutional, all the secondary legislation promulgated under that Act was no longer valid.
@@webchimp § 52 StPO Abs. 1 Satz 1 states, that the right to refuse to testify applies to the (generic masculine) fiancé of the (generic masculine) accused, even at the time when same-sex relationships were illegal…which is somewhat remarkable.
German courts work on the principle of applying the intended idea of the laws. Not simply the raw text. That’s why you have human judges. (And not simply law-clerks) There exist a lot of additional commentary texts to laws. They give guidance for this process. So, no. 100% nothing did become legal because of an obvious typo. Assuming otherwise would be taken as ill intent by the courts.
Thank you! Without knowing for certain, I felt that this would be the case. German officials have a lot of leeway to inject their professional perspective into their work and it works surprise me greatly if a drug conviction would be overturned for an obvious typographical error.
In the US, where no one is allowed to actually think for themselves, they would let the typo make the decision for them.
The Law itself came into being because the Law it replaced was too specific. It banned specific substances and by replacing some side group the substance was not the specific substance anymore. So unless your argument was that this was the intention of the Law that was replaced -- no, the "idea" of banning dangerous substances alone is not enough.
@@motioninmind6015 Or in the case of the 2nd amendment, an ink spot is declared to be a comma, thereby rendering the sentence meaningless and therefore interpreted as broadly as possible.
However, this is only true if the intent is obvious to normal people, and so "average Joe" ("der verständige Bürger") can tell by reading the law that it cannot have been intended that way. In the case of organic chemistry I doubt this applies.
Then again, not only making laws is hard, so is interpreting them in uncommon cases. Which is why we also pay people to do that.
"German courts work on the principle of applying the intended idea of the laws". Nope, this is not (always) the case. Do you remember the non-smokers-protection law in NRW? The Health Ministry back then wanted to ban all cigarettes from some places, including e-cigarettes. The problem was that e-cigarettes weren't even mentioned in the law, but in the commentary was explained that e-cigarettes should be banned too. At the end the highest court of NRW ruled that you can't apply a law to something if that something isn't even mentioned in the law (Zitat: "Was nicht im Gesetz steht ist auch nicht gemeint") and the purpose of the commentary texts is not to add stuff to the law that was being "forgotten" when the law was created, but to explain things that are written in the law.
They wouldn't have this problem if they just legalized LSD.
exactly
They couldn't have as much lovely bureaucracy if they did that!
@@catmonarchist8920 Well, that ,of course, is an obvious no-go
@@catmonarchist8920 Sometimes it seems like LSD is actually necessary to write the laws as they do...
When it became illegal to hide your face while driving it was technically illegal to drive a motorcycle while wearing a full face helmet for a very short time.
German law makers are the best trolls.
Happened in Switzerland, too, where they somehow forgot about ambulances and police being allowed to run red lights in some law update...
This also was the case in Germany prior to some year like 1974 or so.
The drivers of ambulances had to call to a "state of emergency beyond the law" (übergesetzlichen Notstand) in order to be able to ignore red traffic lights.
I love how you mentioned what I was exactly thinking about decriminalising all drugs, leave it to the doctors to deal with drug addiction instead of lawmakers and police
Even if you studied Chemistry, the IUPAC nomenklature is very complex and to exactly describe a bigger organic molecule isn't that easy. Yes, there are rule book you can look at, but well, I guess about 90% of chemists would fail building the exact name of LSD from only having the structure. Companies like Wiley-VCH (chemistry books) have very special proofreaders to avoid such problems. They probably should have asked them for help..
You are very right, but does the government has to use the IUPAC-nomenclature at all?
@@DerDrako of course. What else could it possibly use? They can't just have a picture of LSD's structure and say "yeah, see that? that's illegal now"
@@DerDrako For sure. It is the one and only standard to name organic molecules. Yes, many compounds have other names, called Trivialname (common names), so LSD is know as Lysergsäurediethylamid. But this only describes the well known substance, not any derivatives (which are important in this legal text). And there starts the problem: let's say you add a methyl-group to the structure, then you have to name the exact location or C-atom to which this methyl-group is connected. In the IUPAC methodology, you have one exact atom to start counting and only one exact path to number all other places. Not with old common names, and you end up mixing old common names with IUPAC concepts, and this will get you in troubles. Also, all IUPAC names are international defined, although there are some grammatical differences and also a question of the point of view, i.e. which basic structure you start with. Let's look at Wikipedia: 9,10-Didehydro-N,N-diethyl-6-methylergolin-8β-carboxamid (German) and 6aR,9R)-N,N-diethyl-7-methyl-4,6,6a,7,8,9-hexahydroindolo[4,3-fg]quinoline-9-carboxamide (English) look like 2 completely different molecules, but both terms will get you the same structure. The difference in naming is the "basic structure" used: Ergolin(e) in German and Chinolin (Quinoline) in English. This is not ideal, but the IUPAC rules will get you the correct structure nevertheless even if you started the naming with different basic structures. The IUPAC nomenclature is foolproof, although the correct use is hard to master and there are also many roads to Rome (Quinolin vs. Ergoline, vide supra).
@@pmmeurcatpics There are other nomenklatures around.
@@DerDrakothat are not accepted widely by chemists, because IUPAC is the international union of exactly those chemists
And exactly this is why other countries use "framework legislation", where the appendix isn't actually a part of the law, but is managed by a government agency or independent body.
So, the argument can easily be transfered to:
Intended ban:
Heu und Wagen
Actual ban only banning:
Heuwagen
So you can have all the Heu, and all the Wagen you want XD .. awesome! And yeah, it should make a difference.
We should decriminalize use of drugs completely. It's just so fucking stupid to punish people for ingesting something.
Technically, ingesting drugs isn't illegal; but things like distribution and possession are.
That's like: You can buy cannabis seeds, but you are not allowed to stick them in turf and water them.
You are allowed to buy a tool to detect speed controls in advance, but you are not allowed to use it.
There are much more examples like this.
Der Schildbürger lässt grüßen. ^^
It's a variant of the old joke "Come, we eat papa." (commas can save lives)
But as they included the structural formulae, the intent is even more clear, so there won't be much discussion about what actually is illegal.
The politicians trying to hold this against the lawmakers better take some chemistry classes - I doubt they'd be able to read that stuff out lout better than you did …
Espacilay since the C in Cycloalkylcarbonyl is still capitalized, making it extra clear thet there has to be a spelling mistake.
The C would still have to be capitalized because the hyphen is being used to compound the noun -- just like the "S" and "G" in "Neue-psychoaktive-Stoffe-Gesetz".
The drawn structures only describe the core structure, the typo is in the substituent description. If the lawmaker actually intended to ban all alkylcarbonylcycloalkylcarbonyls with up to 10 carbons in the alkylcarbonyl-chain and 3-6 carbons in the cyclic part, they probably would have written it the same way it was written here. So even though they did not meant it, if they would have meant it that way, they would have written it how it is written now.
@@rewbossthis is not true in IUPAC names, at least according to Wikipedia and my chemistry teacher
@@jan-lukas It's in German. Every noun has to be capitalized, so two words - two capitals. (And, chemistry diploma here)
Ireland did a similar oopsie once
It was very funny
As we say in german: oh je...
I say: "Hoppla".
Tja
I don't know German law but a Pardon in the USA is an admission of guilt. In the USA the legal term to use would be "vacate" convictions or "over turn" any convictions. Overturning would be if a clever lawyer were to file a class action for those convicted by a 'defective' law. Not sure h ow similar German law is but most of these are based on Euric and Roman law.
It's similar. If your verdict is overturned, you were never guilty in the first place.
"even more dangerous than LSD"... for someone who likes to research topics, you clearly dropped the ball on this one.
everything is dangerous :P just some things more than others
Turns out the reason LSD is considered really dangerous is because the American government wanted to crack down on the counter-culture, and attacking their psychedelics was really easy, just put them on the dangerous drug list, and explain it with overblown and completely invented horror stories. (And yes, it seems people have actually admitted to inventing those.)
Plus, it now turns out (worse, it turns out we already knew that before the horror stories) that LSD and other psychedelics, when used under the care of relevant medical professionals, is really, really helpful in treating a number of mental problems, such as PTSD and depression and alcoholism, because it allows the brain to actually reason about traumatic stuff, for example, by temporary lowering the impact. There are currently bipartisan efforts in the US House of Representatives to change the relevant laws to make such treatments legal.
Ever had a box with 10kg of LSD fall on your head? That is dangerous!
LSD is shockingly safe.
No
simmilar wired thing happened in the us too. the t in atf is for tobacco not nicotine. so some companies argue that chemically synthesized nicotine is not under their jurisdiction because it dosent come from a tobacco plant. wired.
wouldn't that be weird? rather than wired? also you spelled wtf wrong
@@uliwehner shure buddy mobile sucks. but atf is the acromym for the bureau of alchahol, tobacco, firearms and explosives but its still just atf.
I disagree with some other commentators: the law applies exactly as written. the courts do not consider what the legislature wanted to write, but what they wrote.
You may disagree, but that's the reality. Judges interpret the law and have a substantial leeway in doing so. An obvious typo is interpreted as a typo.
Decriminalize drugs is the only way to solve the drug problem and, more importantly, the criminal activities related to it.
Why is there a drug problem with a lot of criminality? Because a lot of money can be earned with it. Why? Because it's illegal. So, getting people to get addicted to drugs is very lucrative., so it is an incentive to the criminals to try to get more people addicted to the stuff.
Those who oppose to legalizing drugs will say that this would remove all obstacles to obtaining them. Sure, but are addicted people really hindered by the current bans? I don't think so.
Anyway, legalizing drugs and making them available through official channels would reduce drug criminality to zero. But that, dear people, is a problem because fighting this criminal activity also requires a massive police force. And that is exactly what the politicians want: a reason to maintain a massive police force to fight a problem that they have created themselves by making drugs illegal.
The problem is that legal and open access to heavily addictive drugs will cause more people to become addicted. And if a society wants to have socialized healthcare (I certainly want that) this also means that the health of the individual is a concern for all. If we all pay for it, then we all have to decide whether or not something is an acceptable health risk.
The alternative would be: You can do with your body whatever you want, but pay your own medical bills.
So normally laws are interpreted according to Savigny's rules. That means: wording, system, history, thelos. Due to Article 103 GG, there is a lot of analogy in criminal law. While in all other areas of law unplanned regulatory loopholes can be closed by the legal practitioner by analogy, regulatory loopholes in criminal law are always at the expense of the state's right to criminal punishment.
This has repeatedly led to new criminal offenses in the past. For example, in the early days of electricity, there was a case where someone stole electricity. The man was charged with theft. However, theft only applies to movable property and electricity is not a movable property. He was acquitted and a little later the offense of stealing electricity was included in the penal code. Since damage to property only refers to things, the offense of data modification was also introduced. In the case of LSD derivatives, it's like this: The law doesn't state that it's forbidden. It was in there, and laws can be changed, but in criminal law I'm not allowed to judge the intention or the reason why it's no longer in there, just that what's in there. So the law needs to be changed now. However, it is not that complicated. There were laws that were introduced into the legislative process in the morning and signed by the Federal President in the evening.
Is that the Günther Schabowski moment of German drug policies?!? 🤣
Even the law as it is meant to be is basically useless for its intended purpose. For non-chemists, the way it's supposed to work is by saying "Here''s an LSD molecule. It's illegal. Here are a few sites on that molecule. If you add any of these things (list of lots of things) to any of these points, it's still illegal."
Another way of interpreting that is "If you add anything other than what's listed to those sites, or if you add anything to any other site, it's legal."
The law is basically a set of instructions for how to defeat itself.
Actually it's more of a list of legal shortcuts.
Like with free speech in Germany, Drugs are regulated on the principle of their impact and these lists (or anticonstitutional symbols) are confirming this is explicitly prohibited, rather than implicitly by the mentioned prior principles
The thing is, these combined molecules are possible. Perhaps they would be formulated differently, but you can write water (H2O) as "Dihydrogenmonoxyd" or "Hydoxylacid" or "Hydrogenol" (Maybe).
The law is precisely what the words say, not what the legislators had wanted them to say. That’s how the court will rule I expect. Because how does one glean what the parliamentarians “intended” if they can’t be bothered to properly write it down. How does one follow a law that doesn’t say what it means? Seems like a huge legal problem for society.
What surprises me is that Germany didn’t put their implementation details not in the law directly but in the implementation policies of that law that the federal drugs and chemical regulating agencies create using scientists.
The scientists-bureaucrats should be keeping the explicit lists updated with political oversight , not the politicians.
If it is the way you describe then you have the corporate executives writing the software rather than the software engineers and coders. Hold on, maybe that’s why so much Microsoft and Google software is so horrible. 😊
Germany is one of those countries in which the courts are expected to interpret the law taking into account what lawmakers intended it to do. There's only so far you can take that principle, of course -- you don't want courts making up their own laws -- but if a strict literal interpretation of the text leads to a perverse outcome, the courts have to rule in a manner which is fair and in line with the obvious intent of the law.
Since there are no jury trials (trial by jury is mostly restricted to legal systems that are based on the English system, it's quite rare in other parts of the world), we get to see in detail exactly what the judge or panel took into considerating when reaching their verdict, and so there is full accountability there.
We know what the legislative branch's intent was, because we have minutes of the relevant meetings in which the decision was made, earlier versions of this appendix before the changes were made, and the fact that the current version of the appendix appears to ban a compound that doesn't in fact exist.
Can't wait to fly to Germany so I can finally try jenkem for the first time
But don't take 1V-LSD (called "Valerie" by some german speaking guinea pigs in the Hannover area), which may now be "legalized" by a typo, but gave a very bad time to many guinea pigs, but 1D-LSD instead, which is legal in Germany and gave most guinea pigs the same psychedelic experiences as the still illegal LSD. It is legal for research purposes and can be bought on nice, colorful blotters to 70 to 150 micrograms. As far as I know, there is even a shop in Berlin. There have been rumors that some guinea pigs have become psychotic, but so does LSD. It is a powerful substance. Never underestimate it!
I think thats good. I'm for the legalization of all drugs.
I guess this is where having someone with a PhD in chemistry in your government might help.
You can be sure that this appendix was, at least in part, written by people with a PhD in chemistry. That's what scientific advisors are there for.
A PhD doesn't protect you from making mistakes. As someone with a PhD myself, I can assure you of that (not in chemistry but in mathematics, though, but still).
For 16 years we had a chancellor with a PhD in chemistry.
Good luck finding someone who's simultaneously smart enough to get a PhD in chemistry and dumb enough to want to work in for the goverment
(This is a joke, pls don't get mad at me German government)
The Bundestag has a scientific service (Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages) that is certainly involved in formulating such things in an advisory capacity. But we also know all these typographical errors that you don't even notice on the fourth reading.
@@hurtigheinz3790 in physical chemistry though (via a physics background) so Merkel's expertise would not apply here which would require organic chemistry (which she would not have learnt beyond high school , if any, due to studying physics as an undergrad)
Just keep booze legal at any quantity and I'm fine.
They don't already cover analogues
Look, LSD should not be criminalized in the first place.
Söder almost dropped his Maßkrug because of your outrageous demand 😂
Sometimes I think my adopted country is only pretending to be super efficient and organised, and is really being run by a bunch of hippies...
Germany never really pretended to be super efficient and organized. It's just a cliché.
Why does it legalize substances that have been banned? Has the law specifically replaced an existing one completely rather an just amended the body of law? Otherwise, any substance would still be covered by existing laws.
Basically, there is a list of various types of drug, and they just wanted to add one more type to that list. But instead of adding it as a separate type, they effectively added its name to the name of an already existing type, creating an entirely new name.
Imagine I had a law than banned certain types of vegetable, and one of those banned vegetables was "potato". Now I want to add "turnip" to the list, but instead of writing "potato, turnip" I write "potatoturnip". Now the law doesn't ban turnips or potatoes, but instead it bans something called "potatoturnip".
@@rewboss it doesn't really work like that in Germany. Judges (and attorneys/solicitors) are beholden to uphold the spirit of the law, not only strictly what's written down.
@@RagingGoblin While not wrong, the Law replaced a law that was just too specific, so some side chain of the molecule was changed and the substance was not illegal anymore.
@@RagingGoblin Right, which is why the government is confident that nothing has changed in actual fact. But that's a decision for the courts to make.
5 to 10 years from now they will be talking about medical cocaine.
Now there is 1D-LSD which you can buy in Berlin. Looks like it will still be legal the rest of the year!
you lost me at accidentally and dangerous.
or ask the doctor, pharmacy or chemist
Well great! Now half of all hard drugs are legal, but for Canabis I am still criminalized? typical. One has made so test for cocaine in the toilets in the Bundestag, and they were often positive. But I would have been even more consistent as a politician and would have forgotten a hyphen even with cocaine. 😄
I love organic chemistry and I love your videos.
Okay but there has to be some underlying addition stating that the law is to be applied in a reasonable fashion.
I'd be very disappointed if some criminals were allowed to run free because of typos. Not to say drug users should be in prison, but in a more general sense.
Alkylcarbonyl ist kein Brokkoli! Ok?
But .. what about the substances that are now erroneously illegal ( assuming they exist, I am clueless 😂) ... could anyone get jailed for owning/producing/selling those?
(I have no more idea about this than you, so I'll just share your assumptions): while they could, they would not. There are actually a few laws and ordinances in Germany which "criminalize" stuff that shouldn't be but changing the laws in question would be too much of a hassle, especially when laws interact with each other new problems can arise and so forth. So similar to a programmer not fixing a known bug because it is under control and nobody knows what would happen if I added a line there, some stuff indeed is illegal and it's completely ignored by the courts. (These are usually very specific cases though, generally involving multiple laws, not a broad definition as it is here)
Actually, it is forbidden to own or synthesise compounds covered by the NpSG. And it is forbidden and punishable to do so for trading and trading of those compounds as well. So in contrast to the BtMG, you will not get jail-time just for owning such substances for your own use. However, you might be punished for buying such drugs.
So how many people were being convicted in the last months for these specific substances?
it seems to me that the law itself would not need to be changed. Only the appendix. I assume this is something that would need to be done on the regular. if the law is worded in such a way that it lists in the appendix only examples, but does not preclude other compounds not listed to possibly be also illegal this could be a non-issue. then again, i am too lazy to read the actual law.
The appendix is a part of the legal text. And it has to define exactly what's illegal, otherwise you end up with courts banning pot pourri.
@@rewboss i believe you. just surprised that it would take a change to the law to fix an obvious typo in an appendix.
Die Politik hat doch schon oft genug rückwirkend irgendwas entschieden. Ich glaub nicht, dass die Leute, die deswegen im besagten Zeitraum dagegen verstoßen haben, jetzt aufatmen können.
"Nulla poena sine lege" is a pertinent point in German jurisdiction, so it cannot be done until specific other rules apply (like "everybody could see what this should have read"), and politicians certainly cannot change criminal law and date it back. I'd like an example (excluding Nazi era and GDR) for this "schon oft".
@@Ulkomaalainen OK, vielleicht ist das im Strafrecht anders und nicht so einfach möglich. Ich hab an sowas wie die diskutierte Übergewinnsteuer nachgedacht, die auch rückwirkend sein sollte. Solche Dinge und Vorgaben werden auch mal rückwirkend geändert.
Strafrecht aber vielleicht nicht. Bin aber auch kein Jurist.
However, the intent of the law is taken into consideration, and in German law, a loophole does not prevent punishment. Let's say you create a new sort of device that kills people, and you certainly intended that to happen, but somehow, you made sure it is not covered by intentional or negligent homicide, that there is a law that outlaws similar behavior will cover your new method as well even if you tried to skirt around getting punished.
accidentally based
LSD isn't dangerous
Outlaw them all and deal with reality. Grow up.
You absolutely did miss the point! Nothing that you said actually describes the situation or the uselessness of any of these laws. There are thousands of derivatives to LSD and if one of them gets banned by law there will be 10 others available tomorrow!
The real interesting story behind this law is that if one derivative is banned, 10 others of them will be on the market tomorrow.
That's why the law doesn't list individual compounds, but ranges of compounds. Aside from that, I think they concentrate on the ones they think are more likely to be dangerous, rather than trying to ban literally all of them.
@@rewboss Thanks for your answer, and greetings from Babenhausen by the way! I am watching your videos for quite some time now. I will try to have a deeper look into the law and whether they have really tried to include a whole group of substances!
The law explicitly states derivates (Ableitungen) of the named compounds, so yes, they did exactly the opposite of what you stated.
No deeper look needed, it's right on the front page at the website.
It's legaliSe, traitor.
Why is it traitorous to follow Oxford spelling guidelines?
God save the King