Revisiting: Why a compound being unapproved is not the same as being illegal to possess

On post #11 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Import restrictions vary by compound and by jurisdiction: what is a controlled substance in one place is legal to purchase in another. What you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold.

post #15 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Compounding and pharmacy rules: some jurisdictions allow a pharmacy to compound a drug that is not on the market under specific conditions. The conditions are strict and vary by jurisdiction. Generalising from one country's rules to another's is unreliable.

Primary documents matter: regulatory positions are published in official documents. Reading the regulatory agency's website directly is more reliable than reading a forum summary of it.

Worth separating two things that post #15 runs together.

Why this category is maintained as documentation, not as recommendations: the goal is factual accuracy and sourcing, not endorsement of any specific regulatory position.

Research-use-only status is a legal classification, not a safety classification. It means the compound is sold for laboratory use and not for human consumption. The label does not establish whether the molecule is safe, efficacious, or toxic.

Labelling and intended use: a compound sold as "research-use-only" does not change its pharmacology if ingested. It changes the legal status of the sale. The labelling tells you the intended use, not the actual use people make of it.

Off-label use and medical practice: clinicians can prescribe approved medications off-label under some circumstances. That is different from research-use-only compounds, which are not approved for any human use.

Picking up post #20: that is the part I would want checked first.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Coming back to post #22, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Regulatory positions change: a compound's status today might differ from its status a year from now. Citing a regulatory position is worth doing only with a date attached.

Why this category is maintained as documentation, not as recommendations: the goal is factual accuracy and sourcing, not endorsement of any specific regulatory position.

Research-use-only status is a legal classification, not a safety classification. It means the compound is sold for laboratory use and not for human consumption. The label does not establish whether the molecule is safe, efficacious, or toxic.

Compounding and pharmacy rules: some jurisdictions allow a pharmacy to compound a drug that is not on the market under specific conditions. The conditions are strict and vary by jurisdiction. Generalising from one country's rules to another's is unreliable.

I read post #26 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Import restrictions vary by compound and by jurisdiction: what is a controlled substance in one place is legal to purchase in another. What you can import for personal use depends on your country's rules, not on where it is sold.

Primary documents matter: regulatory positions are published in official documents. Reading the regulatory agency's website directly is more reliable than reading a forum summary of it.

On post #26 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.