NSW Law re quantites and definitions re "traffickable" vs "discrete" or "small"

[chugs]

NSW Law re quantites and definitions re "traffickable" vs "discrete" or "small"

Hi all

So many threads contain arguments about the quantities and the definitions surrounding possession vs that of commercial supply. Due to this and a comment in the Silk Road thread I decided to see what the penalties and definitions were in relation to possession of a prohibited drug or plant. It was extraordinary easy to find and thus I'm a little surprised why I've never seen it in Aus:Drugs before.

In any case I found Schedule 1 in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which clearly defines for every drug:

Traffickable quantity
Small quantity
Indictable quantity
Commercial quantity
Large commercial quantity
Discrete dosage unit (DDU)

So for example a small quantity of LSD is 0.0008 or 800 UG. On today's market that mean 5-10 tabs of acid would fall under that category. Possession of this amount would result in a penalty of 20 Units and 2 years imprisonment. Its unclear but I believe that division 1 covers "small quantity" of prohibited plants and drugs. Anything in the indictable and above range is covered under division 2 which has far greater penalties. The act is unclear on what defences you can take with respects to a charge under division 1 so should you ever be charged unfortunately you'll still need the services of a good lawyer.

An interesting fact is that you are exempt from criminal liability should you be in possession of a prohibited drug at a licensed drug injection centre (though it has to be a "small quantity"). Though in part of the act it, from my reading, indicates that police have discretion not to charge a person with an offence in the event the person is travelling to, or from or is in the vicinity of the drug injection centre.

Not to abuse the injection centre but it would seem to me that if you lived near it, and only ever had small quantities that you would be effectively exempt from criminal liability with respects to possession. In fact if you were nearby or heading into town you could mount an effective defence/claim that you were travelling to the injection centre. Though if you made that claim and you were not of good character I would imagine the magistrate would be unlikely to accept it.

Knowledge is power. I would encourage the community to read this should you ever be the victim of an operation. Knowing your rights, whilst always being polite, may ensure your not bullied or scared into incriminating yourself.

Schedule 1 which contains the list of quantities and prohibited drugs can be found @ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/dmata1985256/sch1.html

The entire act is located @ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/dmata1985256/

 

[acidclouds]

LSD is pretty fair - 4 tabs is a 'small quantity' and 15 tabs is a 'trafficable quantity'.

MDMA on the other hand is bullshit. 0.25g = small quantity and 0.75g = trafficable quantity

 

[Christ!]

Cheers for posting that chugs.

Yeah some of the amounts chosen are a bit strange

Traffickable quantity of harmaline is three milligrams...

 

[Subdepth]

I was done three weeks ago with two pills, weighed In at 350mg, was thrown in the cell for 4 hours and slapped with a $480, the pills weren't even mine either, absolute bullshit.

 

[Subdepth]

Oh and not to mention I had to attend the local court as well.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ That sucks dude, in future probably avoid holding onto drugs for other people, its all the risk for no reward...

 

[spacejunk]

so fucking arbitrary! obviously people that can afford good lawyers have a much better chance of escaping ridiculous penalties for possessing small amounts of commonly used substances. i mean, having an 8 ball of meth or something is obviously dodgy, but the idea of two pills being any more than a small personal amount is just laughable.

 

[chugs]

that's interesting that the cops can fine you and then require you to attend court.

doesn't seem fair in what happens if the magistrates fines you? What fined twice for the same crime? What does the fine/ticket state?

 

[Subdepth]

It's beyond a joke.
I received an on the spot fine, which was the $480. To be completely honest I have no idea why I had to attend court, the magistrate looked over my case and told me to leave really. Waste of time and money.
No, only one fine, which is why I was so confused as to why I had a court date. The fine just states possession of a prohibited substance.

 

[poledriver]

We've had a few threads with the OP's link. Good that people know the info tho i guess.

 

[mister]

ridiculous laws.......10 pills is a good night out for me

 

[headdah]

knowledge is power!

i would like to see more threads of this general direction for AUDD



if only ForTehLOL would come back and post more. Really enjoyed reading his old posts aiye

 

[Sustanon]

LSD is pretty fair - 4 tabs is a 'small quantity' and 15 tabs is a 'trafficable quantity'.

MDMA on the other hand is bullshit. 0.25g = small quantity and 0.75g = trafficable quantity

Excuse me Mr dealer! I would like purchase 0.75g, please make sure it doesnt exceed that amount otherwise itd be classified as trafficking, pfftt. Who buys points or 0.75g of mdma thesedays?

 

[chugs]

Excuse me Mr dealer! I would like purchase 0.75g, please make sure it doesnt exceed that amount otherwise itd be classified as trafficking, pfftt. Who buys points or 0.75g of mdma thesedays?

well a small quantity of heroin is 1gram so that's a fairly respectable quantity of gear.... re molly, well it depends on where your purchasing but i have seen places doing 1gram and below.

the other thing is that should you ever been in the present of the D's they'd undoubtly lie their lying assess off and claim far greater punishments could be applied for your small quantity. with this knowledge you could serve em right back and tell em go fuck off to division 1 of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act.

but i want to know what thoughts people have on the idea of using the injection centre in the Cross as an effective defense in the event you were found to be posession of a small quantity of drugs, and were for example heading towards town or something when you were caught.

 

[OPP]

but i want to know what thoughts people have on the idea of using the injection centre in the Cross as an effective defense in the event you were found to be posession of a small quantity of drugs, and were for example heading towards town or something when you were caught.

I would guess that would only apply if you had an injectable drug. Obviously weed or LSD wouldn't be seen as an injectable drug and therefore probably not an excuse.

 

[chugs]

I would guess that would only apply if you had an injectable drug. Obviously weed or LSD wouldn't be seen as an injectable drug and therefore probably not an excuse.

well if you read Exemption from criminal liability for users of licensed injecting centre you'll see that it doesn't actually specify that the drugs must be say heroin or that you have to inject them. It simply states: "in the case of a prohibited drug, a small quantity"

a shame we don't have a criminal SC or QC here to give us their advice on whether you could argue under exemptions that you were on your way to the drug injection centre for a smoke of pot.

 

[Mr Blonde]

^ I wouldn't completely trust the word of someone who claimed to be a lawyer or whatever unless they proved who they were. Take their advice under consideration, do my own research into it though. Even fortehlulz (who made some great posts) would say himself that what he said should be taken as non-legal opinion.

Not specifically calling you out, just something that came into my mind as it would be good to have a few professionals on here, and in fact we do have a couple but for obvious reasons they do not disclose who they are.

 

[chugs]

Not specifically calling you out,

^ huh

i'm no lawyer, never said i was. in any case its pretty clear who the professionals are on BL. They're the ones who can actually spell and understand way out complex concepts like grammar.

^ I wouldn't completely trust the word of someone who claimed to be a lawyer or whatever unless they proved who they were

Well in good faith if someone claimed to be a lawyer and sounded like one, gave a considered, well though out opinion on the matter then who are we to say otherwise? Indeed if we removed the word lawyer and the question about the law and re-framed in terms of harm minimisation and medical advice i.e. how to safely take a drug then should we not be questioning the quality of the advice we receive on BL?

The vast majority of HM content on BL is posted by people who refuse to publish their identity. There are only a very few who have publicly put their names up, notably Cowboy Mac, Johnboy and Dr Platypus (and pretty much anyone involved in Enlighten, and even that is offline) and for the last few years those people haven't even posted. Yet for the most part the HR advice, the mods are just as anonymous as say a lawyer posting a response to the question I've raised. I'm not by any means calling anyone out though.

the only measure we can truly use is; inductive reasoning i.e. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Anyway I'm still hanging out as to whether or not my theory would be an effective defence.

 

[Mr Blonde]

^ huh

i'm no lawyer, never said i was. in any case its pretty clear who the professionals are on BL. They're the ones who can actually spell and understand way out complex concepts like grammar.

And I never said you were a lawyer, I was just clarifying that your post just made me think of the disclaimers on the old thread rather then me specifically talking about what you had posted. I don't know about your criteria for professionals either, I've seen some professionals of various professions with appalling grammar and spelling.

then should we not be questioning the quality of the advice we receive on BL?

Absolutely you should. I question things on here all the time as part of trying to educate myself and see if what I think I know is actually accurate. I sometimes read old threads from various parts of this site, often having found them while doing a Google search for something, that have misinformation or inaccurate statements in them that no one corrected. I mention old threads specifically as often it's not worth going back to that time to try and fix things or editing things in an archive (especially if in another forum's archive).

Information that people post, even from trusted users, most of the time I will verify for myself when possible and it's something that everyone should do. Even from trusted users, if I'm not doing it to double check accuracy out of habit I do it because I want to learn a little bit more about the topic at hand.

I know not everyone does this though and will just read most things at face value. It's probably pretty unlikely someone would use legal advice from here for a serious issue and not actually talk to a lawyer, but stranger things have happened.

I suppose why I brought the issue up at all is because from what I've been told directly, people who do work in the legal profession do not want to readily state that they are a lawyer and give advice on here because they believe they could possibly be liable for people following their information. If I were a doctor, I'd probably be reluctant to state so on here due to the same reasons. A disclaimer might waive some of that liability, but at least for the people I spoke to it was safer to not appear to be giving the opinion professionally.

the only measure we can truly use is; inductive reasoning i.e. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I agree with that.

Anyway I'm still hanging out as to whether or not my theory would be an effective defence.

Unless there is other legislation, and the law doesn't specify, I'm guessing a good lawyer could argue that a person charged as hypothesized would be free of criminal liability. I imagine the prosecution would argue that certain drugs are very unlikely to be used for injection at the center, but if they didn't legislate for that to start with then I really think it's their loss and they have to lick their wounds on that one.