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

[phase_dancer]

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service have released a short fact sheet in regards to legal highs.

'LEGAL HIGHS' NOT NECESSARILY LEGAL

Access is also via the fact sheet page. The article you're looking for is about half way down the page.


While the fact sheet doesn't go into specific compounds, it does warn on unknown properties and the lack of proper manufacturing standards, and provides information on penalties in regards to the importation of illicit compounds.

It also gives the following links.

For more information regarding goods that may be prohibited please contact the:
Customs Information and Support Centre
Phone: 1300 363 263
+ 61 2 6275 6666 (outside Australia)
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page4369.asp
Or
Therapeutic Goods Administration
Website: http://www.tga.gov.au/impexp/personal.htm

If any Bluelighters are thinking of ordering LHs from outside of Australia, please first check with one or both of these departments. The below link from the TGA may provide some insight, but remember, not all controlled substance analogues are listed. If a chemical isn't on the TGA list, don't assume that a 'no mention' means it's legal.

List of drug substances requiring import and or export authorisations

For some Bluelighters, the info in this fact sheet may not be anything new, but it may certainly be of help to those looking for basic info on the safety and legality of legal highs.

 

[marley]

Food for thought...

I'm not certain how the crown would gain a successful conviction if someone was charged with importing 'legal highs' or 'party pills'. Conviction requires the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person importing the prohibited drug had both knowledge of the drugs existence, and an intent to import the drug, OR, that they were reckless in importing the drug because they should have known it was prohibited.

 

[belarki]

...
For some Bluelighters, the info in this fact sheet may not be anything new, but it may certainly be of help to those looking for basic info on the safety and legality of legal highs.

Thanks for the post/links p_d I agree that most Aus DD regulars would be well aware of all of this already; the problem is spreading the message, especially when you see a lot of "legal" highs sold at stalls in festivals etc. It's not confined to head shops & internet shoppers.

Of interest was the note about the NT guy getting 8 years (5.5 without parole) for importing 4-mmc. Quite a harsh sentence though I suppose 4kg isn't going to be for personal use...

 

[phase_dancer]

A few people have indicated that Federal Legislation on analogues is difficult to find. This is from the Federal Criminal Code 1995 section 314

Schedule The Criminal Code
Chapter 9 Dangers to the community
Part 9.1 Serious drug offences
Division 314 Drugs, plants, precursors and quantities
Section 314.1
474 Criminal Code Act 1995

(2) A substance is a controlled drug if the substance (the drug
analogue) is, in relation to a controlled drug listed in
subsection (1) (or a stereoisomer, a structural isomer (with the
same constituent groups) or an alkaloid of such a controlled drug):

(a) a stereoisomer; or

(b) a structural isomer having the same constituent groups; or

(c) an alkaloid; or

(d) a structural modification obtained by the addition of one or
more of the following groups:

(i) alkoxy, cyclic diether, acyl, acyloxy, mono-amino or
dialkylamino groups with up to 6 carbon atoms in any
alkyl residue;

(ii) alkyl, alkenyl or alkynyl groups with up to 6 carbon
atoms in the group, where the group is attached to
oxygen (for example, an ester or an ether group),
nitrogen, sulphur or carbon;

(iii) halogen, hydroxy, nitro or amino groups; or

(e) a structural modification obtained in one or more of the
following ways:

(i) by the replacement of up to 2 carbocyclic or
heterocyclic ring structures with different carbocyclic or
heterocyclic ring structures;

(ii) by the addition of hydrogen atoms to one or more
unsaturated bonds;

(iii) by the replacement of one or more of the groups
specified in paragraph (d) with another such group or
groups;

(iv) by the conversion of a carboxyl or an ester group into an
amide group; or

(f) otherwise a homologue, analogue, chemical derivative or
substance substantially similar in chemical structure;
however obtained, except where the drug analogue is separately
listed in subsection (1).

(3) The trafficable quantity for a drug analogue described in
subsection (2) is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the trafficable quantity set out
in the table in subsection (1) for the controlled drug to the
which the drug analogue relates (whether directly or
indirectly); or

(b) if the drug analogue relates to more than one controlled drug
listed in the table in subsection (1)—the smallest trafficable
quantity set out in the table in subsection (1) for any of those
controlled drugs.

(4) The marketable quantity for a drug analogue described in
subsection (2) is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the marketable quantity set out
in the table in subsection (1) for the controlled drug to which
the drug analogue relates (whether directly or indirectly); or

(b) if the drug analogue relates to more than one controlled drug
listed in the table in subsection (1)—the smallest marketable
quantity set out in the table in subsection (1) for any of those
controlled drugs.

(5) The commercial quantity for a drug analogue described in
subsection (2) is:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the commercial quantity set
out in the table in subsection (1) for the controlled drug to
which the drug analogue relates (whether directly or
indirectly); or

(b) if the drug analogue relates to more than one controlled drug
listed in the table in subsection (1)—the smallest commercial
quantity set out in the table in subsection (1) for any of those
controlled drugs.

The complete Criminal Code can be accessed here. Amendments should be accessible through the Australasian Legal Information Institute

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.

Yes belarki, it's certainly possible that some stall holders and local vendors are supplying controlled substance analogs, marketed as legal highs. Imo it's something potential customers should be well aware of, and the widespread availability of some of these substances only underlines the need for a broad based early warning system.

 

[thestudent14]

The world we live in, where our streets are flooded with Legal pills that are actually illegal and the ones that are meant to be illegal are replaced with legal stuff.

 

[MrIbis]

If you're smart about how you import 'possibly illegal' chemicals, even in mass quantity - you'll be surprised what you get let off with.

All the knowledge in the world won't get you a criminal charge if ya keep your real works smart.

However, I think my ideas don't tend to come too easily to the common man. So yeah - everyone is best off avoiding importing chems from overseas unless they're 100% sure it's legal. Even then, certain proof from the uk seems to show that companies care less and less for laws and will sell anything as anything to turn a profit.

 

[misteee]

The world we live in, where our streets are flooded with Legal pills that are actually illegal and the ones that are meant to be illegal are replaced with legal stuff.

agree just ask someone in a club for a pill. then u have a herbal high!!!

 

[Divine Moments]

^ if you're lucky..

 

[Sustanon]

Dont understand why ud try to import stuff. Lived any many countries throughout my life and AU has been the best with availability. I wouldnt of dreamt of scorin pharms like oxys etc in EU. Froms RC's to pharms. MDMA is around so why touch anythin that tries to mimic it? Best off not risking importing the so called legal things as that could get u into alot of trouble, best to leave it for the big key players.

 

[Flexistentialist]

Food for thought...

I'm not certain how the crown would gain a successful conviction if someone was charged with importing 'legal highs' or 'party pills'. Conviction requires the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person importing the prohibited drug had both knowledge of the drugs existence, and an intent to import the drug, OR, that they were reckless in importing the drug because they should have known it was prohibited.

This was exactly the reason that a high profile prosecution fell over in Queensland a while back. And that prosecution was handed over from the feds to the state, because the feds realised they wouldn't be able to get a conviction.

 

[taita]

Dont understand why ud try to import stuff. Lived any many countries throughout my life and AU has been the best with availability. I wouldnt of dreamt of scorin pharms like oxys etc in EU. Froms RC's to pharms. MDMA is around so why touch anythin that tries to mimic it? Best off not risking importing the so called legal things as that could get u into alot of trouble, best to leave it for the big key players.

That about sums it up So many people dont UNDERSTAND our law system or our given rights %) So much word magic....

 

[Sameria]

This was exactly the reason that a high profile prosecution fell over in Queensland a while back. And that prosecution was handed over from the feds to the state, because the feds realised they wouldn't be able to get a conviction.

Wise advice. If you're smart and don't be reckless with, and especially don't take their guilty plea bargains, you can get out with minimal consequences.

There's just too many dumb people with too much money...

 

[NightLight*]

(2) A substance is a controlled drug if the substance (the drug
analogue) is, in relation to a controlled drug listed in
subsection (1) (or a stereoisomer, a structural isomer (with the
same constituent groups) or an alkaloid of such a controlled drug):

This pretty much tells me that anything even slightly related to a controlled substance is illegal...
This covers thousands apon thousands of different substances that haven't even been invented or discovered yet.. Unreal..
I know it's been said, ''we can get away with more then we reliese, IF you play it smart''...
This still dosent change my opinion that Australia has one of the tightest boarder controlls in the world...

 

[hoptis]

That's the point of an "analogue" clause, as to be so vague as to cover possibly anything. It's no wonder that our brothers and sisters in the US are putting up their own fight against similar legislation being proposed there.

'Born Illegal' -- Exploring the Powerful Advanced Psychedelics Invented by the Father

 

[phase_dancer]

I've been informed this morning that Customs has released the following.

The additional substances added to Schedule 4 are:

• Acetylcodeine;

• Acetylmorphine;

• Alkoxyamphetamines;

• Alkoxyphenylethylamines;

• Alkylthioamphetamines;

• Amineptine;

• 5-(2-aminopropyl)-2,3-dihydro-1H-indene

• Benzylpiperazine;

• 1-(8-Bromobenzo[1,2-b:4,5-b]difuran-4-yl)-2-aminopropane;

• Codeine-N-oxide;

• Dimethylamphetamine;

• Oripavine;

• 4-methylmethcathinone;

• Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine.

I'm pushed for time, so could someone else hunt down a link please.

 

[Mr Blonde]

• Acetylmorphine;

Acetylmorphine? Does this mean I could get a script for 6-monoacetylmorphine now? :D

I'm not certain how the crown would gain a successful conviction if someone was charged with importing 'legal highs' or 'party pills'. Conviction requires the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person importing the prohibited drug had both knowledge of the drugs existence, and an intent to import the drug, OR, that they were reckless in importing the drug because they should have known it was prohibited.

Search computer of person careless with their history; find Bluelight, Erowid, Rhodium Archives, etc...

I imagine that would be enough to prove criminal intent? (Duh duh duh duh daaaa...)

This was exactly the reason that a high profile prosecution fell over in Queensland a while back. And that prosecution was handed over from the feds to the state, because the feds realised they wouldn't be able to get a conviction.

Can you provide more info/links so I can read about that? Sounds interesting.

P_D: I couldn't find anything, but I've contacted the TGA to see if they can send me a link or something.

 

[Mr Blonde]

Double post. Bluelight is being slow.

 

[NightLight*]

Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine.

This stuff is trash anyway.
Pitty about some of the others tho..
Thanks for the update phase dancer.

 

[hoptis]

Food for thought...

I'm not certain how the crown would gain a successful conviction if someone was charged with importing 'legal highs' or 'party pills'. Conviction requires the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person importing the prohibited drug had both knowledge of the drugs existence, and an intent to import the drug, OR, that they were reckless in importing the drug because they should have known it was prohibited.

From the Commonwealth Criminal Code. I'd imagine that recklessness would not be difficult to prove in the case of someone importing "party pills".

5.4

Recklessness

(1)

A person is reckless with respect to a circumstance if:

(a)

he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstance exists or will exist; and
(b)

having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

(2)

A person is reckless with respect to a result if:

(a)

he or she is aware of a substantial risk that the result will occur; and
(b)

having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

(3)

The question whether taking a risk is unjustifiable is one of fact.
(4)

If recklessness is a fault element for a physical element of an offence, proof of intention, knowledge or recklessness will satisfy that fault element.

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.

 

[MrIbis]

script for 4mmc? yes please.

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