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

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

New Zealand Analogue Laws

T

TheGrimSqueaker

Greenlighter
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
13
Hi all, first post here!
Have been reading stuff on here for months and finally decided it was time to make an account.
I've been having some trouble figuring out exactly wtf is illegal in New Zealand and what isn't - specifically in regards to research chemicals.
I am aware that the analogue law only applies to substances intended for human consumption, but i want to know if these things are actually legal in NZ.

Eg. DMT (dimethyltryptamine) analogues, in which the 3-(2-aminoethyl)indole nucleus has additional radicals, either alone or in combination, attached as follows:
(a) 1 or 2 alkyl radicals, each with up to 6 carbon atoms, including cyclic radicals, attached to the amino nitrogen atom:
(b) 1 or 2 methyl groups, or an ethyl group, attached to the carbon atom adjacent to the amino nitrogen atom:
(c) any combination of up to 5 alkyl radicals and/or alkoxy radicals (each with up to 6 carbon atoms, including cyclic radicals) and/or halogen radicals, attached to the benzene ring.

Does this cover 5-MeO-MiPT?
Is Part 7 of Schedule 3 of the misuse of drugs act the only analogue law NZ has?
Apologies if my questions have been asked & answered previously, I've searched and found zilch.
Cheers
 
So any drug not on that list is legal? That seems a bit too good to be true, I thought our analogue laws covered much more than that...
I'm almost certain 2C-E is scheduled in NZ
 
I'm not sure on how the NZ analogue laws work... but if they are like Australia's, then they could be vague enough to be practically all encompassing.
 
This is another excerpt from the misuse of drugs act:
Clause 2:
The isomers of the substances mentioned in this schedule whenever the existence of such isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation.
Clause 3:
The esters and ethers of the substances mentioned in this schedule and the esters and ethers of the isomers mentioned in clause 2 whenever the existence of such esters or ethers is possible.
Clause 4:
The salts of the substances mentioned in this schedule and the salts of the isomers, esters, and ethers mentioned in clause 2 or clause 3.

Given that 5-MeO-DMT is scheduled, would 5-MeO-MiPT fall under any of those analogues?
My chemistry isn't good enough lol
Thanks for the help!
 
Last edited:
(a) 1 or 2 alkyl radicals, each with up to 6 carbon atoms, including cyclic radicals, attached to the amino nitrogen atom:
Click to expand...

Sorry Grim, I didn't pay much attention to this before when I first read. That bit I just quoted covers 5-MeO-MiPT, as you are replacing one of the two methyl groups with an isopropyl which is an alkyl group; the third part of the first post also mentions an alkoxy group which the the methoxy added to the 5 position differentiating from DMT. So it looks like it's an analogue, sorry comrade.
 
Ahah. That's the clarity I was looking for!
Do any of the above count for 25C-NBOMe, given that mescaline is illegal (closest controlled substance to my knowledge) in NZ?
Only the second quote i posted from the act applies to mescaline tho.
Thanks
 
^ That's an interesting one... 2C-C is apparently what it's based on, so is that not what is specifically illegal in NZ?

I have to go to work, but when I get back I'll try and pull up the actual NZ legislation then see what it says.
 
2Cs are definitely considered illegal, I remember someone was convicted of importing 2C-E and 2C-I back in 2007. Still the analogue laws are very untested it would be interesting if some of the more structurally exotic RCs would be covered. I am quite desperate for a legal alternative to DMAA (in party pills) which only makes me sick.
 
I think you would most likely not be prosecuted for some of the research chemical stimulant/empathogens if you only possessed a smallish quantity, methylone for example was sold in NZ under the name ease for quite a while. The govt took the manufacturers/suppliers to court and in the end charges were dropped and product was withdrawn from the market - it was never actually tested in court whether it is definitely considered an analogue or not, but the government claimed that it is.
 
I'm a bit out of it right now, I can't find the specific analogue legislation in that link you posted... that substance you posted is definitely an exotic chemical, but I'm not sure if the addition of that methoxy substituted aromatic group would be enough to get past the analogue laws. What you had posted up there talked about one or two alkyl groups being added, with up to six carbons in each. You've added 8 carbons to that nitrogen by my count (one connecting carbon, six membered benzene ring, then methoxy).
 
Thanks for that; makes it a lot better to read now. I'm still lorazed out but I will spend sometime going over it and seeing what I think. :)
 
Aside from the Amp and DMT analogue clauses listed in the MODA, anything substantially similar to a controlled substance is class c by default.

So oranges, chocolate and cheese are all class c controlled substances.

Its a nasty piece of legislation as it is deliberately vague. Look at the recent case with CP47, 497. The FDA claimed this chemical is not an analogue of THC and therefore legal. But in good old New Zealand, scumf@ck politician Peter Dunne jumps up and down saying it is an analogue and therefore class c. I'm sure a lawyer with a sharp pencil could win a case, but the cost and stress of going to court would hardly be worth it.

To complicate matters further, the MOH are claiming anything that escapes the analogue law is an unregistered medicine. This is why the legal highs industry do not list ingredients. Look at the example of BZP, they hid it amongst a cocktail of pepper and capsicum extracts, by the time the media found out what really was it had already been available for years at the corner store. Same goes with JWH-018. But if someone had put in an application to sell either of those two chemicals the answer for sure would have been no, they are unregistered medicines. It is unfortunate that these government policies result in unlisted and obscured ingredients in commercial products.
 
I've heard that before about the "substantially similar" but have never seen any legislation which actually says that... Is it the part at the bottom of the first link in my last post? That's interesting about CP47,497 I haven't seen that in the news - I thought all the new cannabinoids were legal in NZ. Lucky I haven't bought any yet.
Some-one needs to prosecute a supermarket for distributing Class C controlled substances and hope that politicians see how stupid this law is.
It does seem to be deliberately vague, I wonder why that is a good idea.
 
Of course the prohibitionist politicians are going to say the 'substantially similar' clause covers absolutely everything that does or ever could exist that you can get high on but until it has been through the courts it is still open to debate. It still took a number of years for BZP to get banned even after it was widely known that it was the ingredient in party pills, it also had to banned by an act of parliament rather simply declared illegal out right, I think the referring to party pills as 'pepper based' was more of a marketing thing. Also CP47, 497 had recently been made illegal in a number of countries which probably set a precedent for declaring it illegal as well as the fact that CP47, 497 quite similar to THC compared to other cannabinoids being sold as legal highs.
 
We've got a 'pharmacologically similar' clause here, but I haven't seen one yet in the NZ code. And as has been said, who knows how it would actually play through the courts.
 
Fairly sure we don't have one.
I believe it has to be both a (vague) structural analogue via one of the two descriptions in the act and intended to produce a pharmacological effect.
Would this rule out even legitimate research on these chemicals by scientists?
I can only assume the recent claims that "current drug laws can't keep up with the designer drug culture" are related solely to JWH chemicals, there seem to be no other "designer" drugs that escape our current drug law.
 
Would this rule out even legitimate research on these chemicals by scientists?
Click to expand...

Unless they had the proper permits and licenses, then yes unfortunately. :(

As for that last statement; maybe in America that is still true, as their analogue act is a lot stricter then ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top