• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

'LEGAL HIGHS’ NOT NECESSARILY LEGAL- Australian Customs and TGA

Isn't that another way of saying all they have to prove is that you didn't take the necessary precautions before importing a "party pill". If you couldn't be sure of the contents, I'd imagine they'd push that you took an "unjustifiable risk" to import it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem fair. Nothing really is though in the War on Drugs.

A hypothetical defendant could maybe argue that if the site was promoting them as legal, it was safe to assume they were?

Based on that fact, it's now also liable that people importing cathinones will get away with nothing more than a love letter.
Click to expand...

It's strange they placed it in Schedule IV, when cathinone and methcathinone are both Schedule IX. Previously, they would have charged under it being a Schedule IX analogue. Are they getting soft?
 
^ I'm confused... is this Schedule IV they are talking about Schedule IV of the SUSDP or is it a Customs classification?

It seems as if it's the latter and it's talking about what the import requirements are. So I imagine that 4-MMC is still regarded as an analogue of a Schedule IX substance. And they have moved ketamine; I wonder if that has anything to do with the emergence of methoxetamine?
 
Sorry guys I haven't had time to look at this in detail. With this notification, I was also sent this;
The listing of these substances in Schedule 4, means they are now part of the import control regime governed by Regulation 5 of the PI Regulations.
Click to expand...

If there's still confusion I'll look further the moment I get some free time....
 
Thank you for your query on the scheduling of medicines and poisons.

The Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons 1 (SUSMP 1), otherwise known as the Poisons Standard, lists medicines and chemicals in accordance with their access restrictions. The SUSMP 1 came into effect on 1 September 2010. An Amendment to the SUSMP 1 is currently being prepared and will come into effect on 1 January 2011. Please note that this Amendment must be read in conjunction with SUSMP 1.

An electronic copy of both the SUSMP 1 and Amendment 1 (when available on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments) can be obtained via http://www.tga.gov.au/ndpsc/susdp.htm. This page also has a link to an order form if you wish to order a hardcopy of these publications.

In December 2010, the Delegate has also published a Public Notice outlining recent changes to the scheduling of certain substances (including the creation of a number of new Schedule 4 entries). This Notice specifies the implementation date and the reasons for these entries. This Public Notice is available at http://www.tga.gov.au/regulation/scheduling-decisions.htm

If you wish to receive updates regarding new information on the scheduling website, please sign up to the Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons (SMP) email list at http://www.tga.gov.au/new/smp-email.htm

We hope this information is of assistance.

Scheduling Secretariat

Medicines Adviser | Medicines and Poisons Scheduling Secretariat | Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Health | Office of Health Protection | Department of Health and Ageing | ' 02 6289 2659 | 7 02 6289 2500 | * MDP 88 GPO Box 9848 CANBERRA ACT 2601 |
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

PLEASE NOTE: This email may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender by telephone immediately and delete this email.
Click to expand...

TL;DR: The new additions to Schedule IV are mostly uninteresting, with the exception of tapentadol, which is Schedule II in the states (equivalent of Schedule IX here).

So the notice p_d posted must be related to a Customs classification.

Also interesting to note: the SUSDP is now the SUSMP (Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons) since September 2010 and there will be an amendment on January 2011.
 
Schedule 4 of the Customs Regs would not be the same as schedule 4 of the SUSMP (i.e. SUSDP).

4-MMC was added to schedule IX of the SUSMP in the most recent review conducted. So it is now in the tighest schedule in its own right. This is not at all surprising.

On a side note, ever since the chemical was banned in the UK, the amount an acquaintance of mine has seen coming through lab tested seized "drugs" (mainly capsules) has reduced substantially. Again, perhaps not surprising.

Perhaps the take home message from all of this is that even if ordering a supposedly legal chemical, it could well be that an unscrupulous supplier provides something else, which may be covered by Australian legislation. I can't really comment on the correctness of Marley's comments about prosecutors maybe finding it difficult to get a convictions, but all the same, I don't think anyone would welcome the ordeal that goes with being charged with importation and/or receiving a visit from the feds.
Click to expand...
I agree with the precaution but the legal reality works this way.

If you ordered a chemical online that you believed was legal and it turned out to be illegal you would be guilty of the offence. This is because your mistake is one of law and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

However, if you ordered a chemical online that was completely legal and then some dodgy supplier sent you something else that was illegal, and you had otherwise done everything right and had no reason to suspect you were being sent something else, then your mistake is one of fact. An honest and reasonable belief in the existence of something that turns out to be mistaken is a defence to a charge and you would not be guilty of anything.

This should also apply to Commonwealth importation laws. The recklesness provision is effectively saying that being reckless will not cover mistakes such as this, which makes sense, as a reckless mistake would not be a reasonable one.
 
Biscuit said:
Schedule 4 of the Customs Regs would not be the same as schedule 4 of the SUSMP (i.e. SUSDP).

4-MMC was added to schedule IX of the SUSMP in the most recent review conducted. So it is now in the tighest schedule in its own right. This is not at all surprising.

On a side note, ever since the chemical was banned in the UK, the amount an acquaintance of mine has seen coming through lab tested seized "drugs" (mainly capsules) has reduced substantially. Again, perhaps not surprising.


I agree with the precaution but the legal reality works this way.

If you ordered a chemical online that you believed was legal and it turned out to be illegal you would be guilty of the offence. This is because your mistake is one of law and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

However, if you ordered a chemical online that was completely legal and then some dodgy supplier sent you something else that was illegal, and you had otherwise done everything right and had no reason to suspect you were being sent something else, then your mistake is one of fact. An honest and reasonable belief in the existence of something that turns out to be mistaken is a defence to a charge and you would not be guilty of anything.

This should also apply to Commonwealth importation laws. The recklesness provision is effectively saying that being reckless will not cover mistakes such as this, which makes sense, as a reckless mistake would not be a reasonable one.
Click to expand...

You, Sir, deserve a medal. Thanks for putting it so clearly
 
I HATE RCs!

:X

They have made dealers lazy, people are becoming more paranoid, and pot smokers are turning to these disgusting online vendors for herbal "incense", as it is generally stronger (not more psychoactive or physically stimulating) than the rubbish they are sold!

BAN RCs! bring back MDMA, Cannabis, REAL LSD, the 90s speed, and REAL coke (not the synthetic "yayo" i saw getting around a party last night)! Damn this uneducated country we live in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top