So I’m fairly knowledgeable about US controlled substances and fed analogue act; and even wrote my law school “thesis” on analogs and the law. I can tell you as far as US law enforcement is concerned, you are guilty of possessing and possibly using USPS for mail fraud; both carry heavy penalties. There’s a famous criminal procedure case that mirrors the “I had no knowledge of what’s in the package I signed for” involving a girl who agreed to take an extra luggage bag back to the US and really wasn’t aware - although of course a reasonable person would try to make some effort to verify legality in this case, she may have simply been naive or “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. If I’m recalling correctly, the fact that she accepted a bag full of controlled substances was enough to meet the element of her crimes, and she was harshly deemed willing and with reason to double check who and what might be “accepted.” Every US and the fair bit of Canada enforcement operations will have an undercover cop posing as your mailman and a team is ready to bust in and search your house once you’ve signed for a package. Rule number one is: if it’s your normal mail person you’re fine. They aren’t put in dangerous operations like this ever.
Rule two is to go with the most overburdened shipping carrier - usps and national parcel services (though the crimes are higher) because they’re not very good at detecting illicit parcels or packages dealing with food, animal and veterinary health, drugs pharmaceutical or otc, and care a great deal about catching mislabeled shipments of a benign chemical that will in fact end up as part of an “active drug ingredient” despite labeling for some cheaper purpose. Of note when dealint with a carrier is the private companies and their agreements to assist customs or otherwise deliver under contract for the state postal service- they care less about catching offenders and more about publicity; and those with primary concern for expediency (and less international cooperation between custom agencies) are best. DHL doesn’t officially onboard a customs inspector to inspect suspicious packages during flight time from Europe to N. America, but for Canada I don’t know - I think Purolator does, but even so this is never going to be an issue for small personal orders. The imaging and protocols in force for bothe US and Canada are virtually identical, with both agencies having bound themselves to agreements on rules and procedures for customs inspections to occur validly, yet take zero to a minimum few days to “clear.”
If you do get a notice of seizure from customs, completely ignore it and move on with your life. I estimate 95% of the mailing drugs arrests involve a postal worker on the inside who is discovered by supervision of their work routine. That is taken seriously. These drug enforcement agencies are more concerned with national repositories and lab analysis of seized substances to determine smart operation logistics at the border and other trends in “data” here. Unless you’re part of a distribution chain and happen to be seeking uncommonly high volumes of drugs - especially opioids at this point - no local and federal interagency drug bust is in the budget.
So, rule two is to sign if nothing tips you off, or take the note to the post office yourself in a day or two. And yes, you’re right about local mailboxes and shipping locations festering with employees who take advantage of illicit packages. I have a friend who would get close to a pound of weed every week just working as a clerk at a small town UPS. But nobody is officially going to open and inspect after clearance from customs. Delivery carriers are gonna try to stay safe, but they just want to get you your mail asap. In the US we have USPS Informed Delivery on the tracking website, and this gives me the option to electronically sign days or so before taking possession, but if I do sign at the door I usually just say “wasn’t expecting anything, hope it’s actually for me,” and sign my real name “for intended deliveree or custodian.” These days I am simply not young and paranoid anymore, so I actually scribble something and hurry inside to check out my goodies. So the last rule is to sign ahead of time online, if possible, and to check for your usual mail person. If it’s too fishy for you let them leave a tag and go pick it up in a couple days - multiple full day officers waiting at your local post office is a waste of time and money for these guys. So make your order, sign if you must - and definitely use your real name as the fraud and deceit crimes just get added - you’re just a small time, average young male stereotype of online drug shipping. They won’t have the resources to go after you even if they wanted to do so. I received a customs seizure letter for 500 indian mags and it got lost in tracking, but FIVE years later somehow US customs finally let me know...
Finally, the last point is more of a clarification on what these newsworthy law enforcement operations are really about: making large scale arrests and charging everyone all the crimes on the books so the public and dealers may hesitate. If you follow up, most of the people are let free for lack of evidence, or given simple and small plea deals, even if there is large quantities here. Barely anyone gets caught this way, and Canada recently did it once and proudly lists the news of arrests for etizolam and large amounts of heroin a couple ordered for delivery. This was even before etizolam was put on Canada’s ridiculous lists of controlled substances and “their derivatives, isomers, salts, etc.” There are several state and one circuit case where someone fought charges for RCs under these analog provisions and won. Several didn’t, but probably had shitty expert witnesses. It’s absolutely not constitutional to ban some unidentifiable act and criminalize those who aren’t fortunate enough to estimate just how “substantially similar in effect and chemical composition” the analog must be. This is what routinely results in a suit for declaration by large companies doing something that is a “cruel, two horned“ dilemma - carry out business and profit to the best of their capacity yet risk breaking a vague law, or be cautionary, cease that aspect of business and lose out but live to operate another day. Most decisions - though there are few - with respect to RCs rule the first prong irrelevant or unconstitutionally vague because “similar effects” means if it gets you high, essentially. Similar chemical structure is arguable but unwise. Most defendants point to the patent or licensing of trade property in pharma - escitalopram and citalopram are like D and L amphetam!ne, yet sold separate and patented separate and distinct. Many RCs were patented or under licensed exclusive deals for drug development years ago and simply never made it to market.
Sorry for the long rambling post. I wanted to help as I’ve been there with those concerns as well, but I am also really passionate about drug control and police powers to criminalize harmful substances - with RCs it’s before they’ve hit the market in many cases. How can adequate harm and risk assessment be undertaken? Plus, I am on a new phone and the typing is weird and it’s been a long month for me. Hope you found some reassurance from the community here, and hope you simply skipped any tangential points I drifted towards. Best of luck and be well!
