and growing law enforcement problem.” Pub. Law No. 106-172, § 2(4) (2000) (emphasis added). DEA regulations also specify that “GBL and 1,4-butanediol are structurally and pharmacologically similar to GHB and are often substituted for GHB. Under certain circumstances they may satisfy the definition of a controlled substance analogue.” Placement of Gamma-Butyrolac-tone in List I of the Controlled Substances Act, 65 Fed.Reg. 21,645-47 (April 24, 2000) (emphasis added). As the Second Circuit asserted in Ansaldi, “[r]egardless of any other ways in which the laws governing controlled substance[s] might be vague, there is one thing they make perfectly clear—the sale of GBL for human consumption is illegal.” 372 F.3d at 122. Cf. United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In our view such pronouncements are
holding that ajbsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face holding that the analogue act was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to classify unlisted substance gbl as an analogue of ghb holding that a defendants unlawful use of a controlled substance need not be simultaneous with the actual crime involving the firearm as long as it occurs during the time period charged as part of the indictment  citation omitted holding that illegal gambling activity may be enjoined even though these operations are also subject to criminal prosecution holding that these congressional pronouncements also confirm bds status as a controlled substance analogue