haste said:
Jail for bid to make ecstasy
11feb04
A LENAH Valley man who set up a laboratory in his bedroom to make the party drug ecstasy was yesterday jailed in the Supreme Court in Hobart.
I've been saying for awhile that small time attempts at producing MDMA will increase with the number of imports intercepted by authorities. While this has been relatively slow to surface, at least when looking at reported lab busts, the numbers have nevertheless been slowly increasing over the past year or 2. I believe the future will likely see far greater numbers of people venturing or attempting to venture into the world of MDMA production.
Paul Phillip Bailey, 40, was convicted of possessing chemicals, equipment and books of instructions needed to manufacture the drug, also known as MDMA.
Chief Justice William Cox said Bailey had acquired all but two of the chemicals needed to produce a potential 4600 tablets of the drug.
And Justice Cox said Bailey had the necessary equipment, instructions and starting agent.
mmm...there seems to be a lot missing from that statement, or perhaps I'm seeing it more that the evidence hardly seems to indicate a crime has been committed. But I suppose intent counts for a lot 8)
I do wonder though, just exactly what did the equipment comprised of and how was it determined that it was intended to be used for making MDMA? Was there proof it had been used for this purpose before (traces on the glassware) or simply deduced because other items, including books, were found?
The interesting thing about the second statement, is that, like the guestimation approach police use to determine the value of seized drugs, reality says that depending upon what methods are used in production, efficiency of the processes may mean as little as 10% of the starting material is actually turned into MDMA. Details details....
What were those 2 chemicals needed? Obviously they must have been difficult to obtain chemicals. In any synthesis, a chemical missing means there is no synthesis. It's just not possible, and another route means more chemicals. So while he may have had several chemicals, some glassware, and books, each of those chemicals is hardly a drug or can become one, and depending upon the route used, each of those chemicals has perfectly legal and reasonable uses around the home, office or workshop.
So, if we took the books out of the equation would there have been enough evidence to convict him? Probably, but possibly not.
But then again, what about someone who does cosmetics and essential oils at home. Someone who owns some laboratory glassware and measurement equipment, and also owns a copy of PiHKAL? That person may very well also fit the description for the crime and could well be charged with something similar. Anyone see where I'm going with this?
Seeing that, if conditions and routes were carefully selected, equipment
could be substituted for common kitchen gear, would possession of a small amount of safrole and instructions therefore constitute an equal crime? One would certainly hope not. Incidentally, regarding theoretical maximums in production; only around 500mL of safrole would be required to produce the amounts mentioned. I know dog owners who wash their pets with a sassafras / detergent mixture for fleas and lice. I'd bet there would be those with such in their possession for completely innocent purposes.
"Whether he had the skill to realise the full-potential product and the contacts and/or personality to market what he did produce, I cannot say," he said.
The first part of this should have been proven IMO, although the law says otherwise. Intent is a difficult thing to prove beyond doubt, but with such high penalties involved I believe justice isn't done without it. Marketing is a different matter all together - he'd been charged with intent to produce.
While no drugs were produced, there was a need to send a clear message of deterrence to others who might want to copy Bailey, Justice Cox said.
It's perfectly understandable a magistrate or judge would feel its his duty to act in this way, but it doesn't take much to remember the first penalties imposed for growing pot, and how that was supposed to be a clear message of deterrence. Many suffered jail sentences that would now be given a little talk by community workers.
With the ever-growing need for local production in effort to circumvent seizures by customs, there will be more of this to follow. I don't think our jails will ever be as they were in the peak of the pot period, but I wouldn't mind betting they'll increase substantially with manufacturing convicted inmates. And what better place to find out all one needs to know about the next time, than in jail with fellow psychonautic dissidents of chemistry. They'll no-doubt rekindle any pre-reform interest in the subject.
"He has led a sad, introverted life in recent years, suffering from significant health problems and social isolation," he said.
So who's to say - in light of expected product weight i.e. not 400 something grams, but perhaps 10-15% of that - that he wasn't simply intending to make the stuff for himself?
This is where sentencing needs to fairly distinguish between producing for personal or otherwise. Sure the above amount still looks a little high for personal use, but if the amount was only based upon one chemical - the starting material - then this is very unfair. While I think it's reasonable and to some degree necessary, that big producers are targeted by police, and that sentencing is in some ways fair for the dollars involved, it doesn't equate to the same as Joe Unhappy, thinking about saving money on the only thing which lifts the veil of isolation and allows him to feel a part of humanity.
"Any prison sentence will impact harshly upon him."
Justice Cox said it was unlikely Bailey would reoffend.
He sentenced Bailey to nine months in jail, suspending six months on the condition he was of good behaviour for two years after being released from prison.
So suspend all but 3 months of his detention. 3 months should be just enough time to learn a few new tricks and re-spur his interest in knocking up some temporary happiness 8)
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")