From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: Re: Legal Lemurs
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 04:18:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.232340.14869@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> vkochend@nyx.cs.du.edu (vance kochenderfer) writes:
>                                   
>Someone asked if there was any law prohibiting keeping a lemur as a pet.                                   
>A short search of LEXIS/NEXIS turned up the following court cases...
>                                   
>                                   
>                                   ANNOTATION
>              SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE THAT POSSESSOR OF CONTROLLED
>             SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN COCAINE, HEROIN, OR MARIJUANA HAD
>              INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE IT, SO AS TO VIOLATE 21 USCS @
>                                   841(a)(1)
>
>                            Martin J. McMahon, J.D.
>
>                               80 A.L.R. Fed. 507
>
>[*7]   Methaqualone
>
>   In the following cases, involving possession of methaqualone, courts held or 
>implied that the evidence of intent to distribute was sufficient to constitute a
>violation of 21 USCS @ 841(a)(1).
>                                                                                
>   In United States v Buettner-Janusch (1980, SD NY) 500 F Supp 1285, affd on
>other grounds (CA2 NY) 646 F2d 759, cert den 454 US 830, 70 L Ed 2d 107, 102 S
>Ct 126--a prosecution for possession of methaqualone with intent to distribute
>in violation of 21 USCS @ 841(a)(1), based on six plastic jars containing
>methaqualone in various stages of purification, which were seized from the
>defendant's laboratory during a government search--the court held the evidence
>more than sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict and denied the defendant's
>motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial.  The court noted that the
>defendant and his coconspirators, who allegedly were involved in  lemur 
>research, had purchased enough raw material to make sufficient methaqualone to
>drug all the  lemurs  in the United States and keep them in a perpetual state of
>euphoria and that the evidence also included a note written by the defendant

Anyone out there got answers to the following questions?
	1) how did the court determine that the level of methaqualone that 
	   could be made would be sufficient to keep all the lemurs in the USA
	   in a perpetual state of euphoria?
	2) how many lemurs ARE there in the USA?
	3) were the lemur researchers doing research on how to keep lemurs
	   happy?  And if so, why?

>concerning a step in the manufacturing of LSD and included sodium barbitol and
>precursors of LSD seized from the defendant's basement storage area.  The court,
>in considering the propriety of certain remarks made in the prosecutor's
>summation, stated that no reasonable juror could have put much stock in the
>defendant's contention that he was manufacturing drugs not for street use, but
>solely in connection with his highly scientific  lemur  research, which
>allegedly necessitated a higher quality drug than concededly available from
>licensed manufacturing chemists required to adhere to purity standards of the
>United States pharmacopoeia.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.lemurs:140 alt.folklore.urban:29205