U.S. Code » Title 21 » Chapter CHAPTER 13— DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT › Part Part B— Authority To Control; Standards and Schedules

21 U.S.C. § 813

Treatment of controlled substance analogues

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.

(b) DeterminationIn determining whether a controlled substance analogue was intended for human consumption under subsection (a), the following factors may be considered, along with any other relevant factors:(1) The marketing, advertising, and labeling of the substance.(2) The known efficacy or usefulness of the substance for the marketed, advertised, or labeled purpose.(3) The difference between the price at which the substance is sold and the price at which the substance it is purported to be or advertised as is normally sold.(4) The diversion of the substance from legitimate channels and the clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution of the substance.(5) Whether the defendant knew or should have known the substance was intended to be consumed by injection, inhalation, ingestion, or any other immediate means.(6) Any controlled substance analogue that is manufactured, formulated, sold, distributed, or marketed with the intent to avoid the provisions of existing drug laws.(c) Limitation

For purposes of this section, evidence that a substance was not marketed, advertised, or labeled for human consumption, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish that the substance was not intended for human consumption.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 203, as added Pub. L. 99–570, title I, § 1202, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–13; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, § 6470(c), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4378; Pub. L. 115–271, title III, § 3241, Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 3950.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Schedule I, referred to in subsec. (a), is set out in section 812(c) of this title.

Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–271 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

1988—Pub. L. 100–690 substituted “any Federal law” for “this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 109 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: United States v. Earl Ramos, 814 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Earl Ramos, 814 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “§ 841 (a)(1), distribution of a controlled substance analogue (á-PVP), see 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 , 841(a)(1), possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (XLR-11), see 21 U.”
United States v. Reichenbach, 29 M.J. 128 (1989). · cites it 15× “3207 -13 (1986), codified as 21 USC § 813 . In 1988, this language was modified so that § 813 now reads, after the word “treated,” — “for the purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.”
United States v. Mark Fisher, United States of Am. v. Devon Sutton, A.K.A. Devon Daniel Sutton, United States of Am. v. Arthur Robertson, 289 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “(1) Whether the Analogue Act 21 U.S.C. § 813 , as applied to GBL, is unconstitutionally vague in that it provides inadequate notice of illegal behavior and allows arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement? And (2) whether GBL is a controlled substance analogue of GHB? 6…”
United States v. Requena, 980 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “” 21 U.S.C. § 813 (a). 4 qualified as a controlled substance analogue.”
United States v. Scott Ansaldi, Rodney Dean Gates, 372 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “The jury was appropriately instructed that, under 21 U.S.C. § 813 , a controlled substance analogue is, to the extent intended for human consumption, considered to be a controlled substance.”
United States v. Samuel Scott Raymer, 941 F.2d 1031 (10th Cir. 1991). · cites it 5× “§ 371 ; 3) count eight, distribution of MDMA, a Schedule I controlled substance analogue, 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 , 841(a)(1), on or about April 11, 1987; 4) count two, conspiracy to commit this offense, 21 U.”
McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. 186 (2015). · cites it 2× “3207 -13, 21 U.S.C. § 813 . We therefore must turn first to the statute that addresses controlled substances, the CSA.”
United States v. Demott, 906 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “Gambuzza and Snell were tried before a jury and convicted on Count 1, as well as on Count 2, which charged conspiracy to import a controlled substance analogue in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 , 960(a)(1) and (b)(3), and 963, and, in Gambuzza's case, on 19 counts of money…”
United States v. John Ways, Jr., 832 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 21 U.S.C. § 813 (“A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for purposes of any Federal law as a controlled substance in schedule I.”
People v. Frantz, 114 P.3d 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 802 (32) (defining controlled substance ana *37 logue); 21 U.S.C. § 813 (controlled substance analogue shall be treated as a controlled substance); see also People v.”
United States v. David Augustine Desurra, & Sammy Lee Smith, United States of Am. v. Arthur Breaux, III, 865 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1989). · cites it 6× “PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, three defendants appeal convictions obtained pursuant to the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, 21 U.S.C. § 813 . All three contend that the drug which they possessed was not a controlled substance analogue within the…”
United States v. Joann Mitcheltree, 940 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “3 Defendant was acquitted on count two, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance analogue, 21 U.S.C. §§ 813 & 846. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on count nine, another witness tampering count, and upon motion of the government that count was dismissed with…”
Show all 109 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.