Is 6-APB legal in Ireland?

Also known as: benzofury

Legal status

6-APB is prohibited in Ireland, not individually scheduled but covered by the blanket Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010, which bans the sale and supply of psychoactive substances generally. [Likely] That finding is carried forward from the entry published before this batch and was not re-derived from statute in this pass. Not confirmed for 6-APB in Ireland. What the source read establishes goes no further than this: No exact placement established; 1977 Act s. 2(2); 2010 Act ss. 1, 3, 20. Search log: “6-APB”, “6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran”, “benzofuran” and the formula found no exact entry, and paragraph 1(l)’s structural fit is not explicit enough to verify. The exact terms put to the instrument are recorded as: "6-APB" / "6-apb" in the instrument named in column 3. The wording weighed against it is “whether or not further substituted by one or more other univalent substituents”, which is the test the source records as unresolved on this row. An absence from a search is a statement about what was looked for and where, and it is not a finding that the substance is lawful in Ireland. The only other row in this table on the same placement is 1P-LSD. The pairing to read is the paragraph 1(l) rows in this table, and the difference between them is stated rather than unexplained. The 2C-I row is verified on paragraph 1(l) because iodine is a halo substituent on a phenethylamine ring, which is the structural claim the paragraph makes. This row is a benzofuran, and the search recorded here treats that as a different structural claim rather than a ring substitution the paragraph already reaches. So the same paragraph carries one row and not the other, on the dossier's own stated ground, and this row remains unresolved rather than contradicted.

Consequences if caught

Capital exposure: none. Ireland has no death penalty, so nothing on this row can reach one. The exposure that would run depends on a finding this row does not make, because the source read establishes no more than this: No exact placement established; 1977 Act s. 2(2); 2010 Act ss. 1, 3, 20. The search behind that is recorded as: "6-APB" / "6-apb" in the instrument named in column 3. No ceiling under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 is assigned here, because no controlled-drug finding was reached and that Act reaches nothing else. If section 3 of the 2010 Act were proved, section 20 reaches 5 years on indictment and mere possession is not an offence on that route. That is a conditional statement about an unproved route and it is not a finding that this row is lawful. The source's own ceiling line for this row reads: No 1977 Act ceiling is assigned to 6-apb without a controlled-drug finding; if section 3 of the 2010 Act is proved, section 20 reaches 5 years on indictment and does not criminalise mere possession. Read as at 20 September 2026. These are the statutory ceilings the source records and they are not a prediction of what any court would impose.

If prescribed or medical

Not established for Ireland in the source read here, and deferred rather than guessed. The dossier this cell was authored from carries no prescription column and no traveller column, and no source for one, so nothing is asserted about whether a visitor may bring 6-APB into Ireland, what a foreign prescription is worth at an Irish border, or what licence, certificate or authorisation Ireland requires for it. That was not researched and it is not inferred here. What the row does establish is its placement, which reads: No exact placement established; 1977 Act s. 2(2); 2010 Act ss. 1, 3, 20. Attached to this substance, the wording read for it is “whether or not further substituted by one or more other univalent substituents”, and that is a scheduling record rather than anything about medicine. This row's own words record no medical limb, no exemption and no prescribing route of any kind, so there is nothing in it to attach to even conditionally. A scheduling fact is not a prescribing route, and the silence in this field is an absence of research rather than a permission.

Documentation

Carry the search record rather than a conclusion. The source read reached no placement for 6-APB, so an answer stated confidently in either direction would be going beyond it, and what is worth having to hand is the terms that were put to the instrument and the wording that was weighed against them. Provenance: the placement relied on reads: No exact placement established; 1977 Act s. 2(2); 2010 Act ss. 1, 3, 20. It was checked on 20 September 2026. What was actually read is “whether or not further substituted by one or more other univalent substituents”, and nothing beyond that wording is carried here. The dossier behind this cell supplied no address for this row, so the citation carried here is to the named instrument and not to a retrieved document.

Drug laws and enforcement change and vary within a country. This is not legal advice. Always confirm with Ireland’s embassy or official drug authority before traveling; penalties can be severe, including imprisonment.