I have to say I think it's a little fucked up to be throwing people in jail for something that was such a grey area just months ago. I mean we've gone from not charging people for importation to throwing people in jail? Shouldn't there be some kind of public service announcement, some kind of amnesty period?
I agree it would have been nice of authorities, but it's normally not the way the law works - ignorance being no excuse, and in this case there's possibly even less reason for LE to want to announce anything - see below *. Anyway, it's up to the person/company importing to make sure local laws aren't breached, isn't it? And for anyone who thinks there should have been warnings on it's legality - there were! Right here

And if those didn't do it, the moment it appeared in the news the writing was on the wall.
4-methylmethcathinone was described as a controlled substance analogue here over two years ago. We had at least one qualified legal person state it was definitely covered by analogue legislation in all states (neodoves II thread). As for the poster who is now facing that charge mentioned above, it's just a pity he/she couldn't have seen those posts where this was discussed in detail.
I can't begin to count how often I've had to explain how 4-MMC is regarded as a derivative of methcathinone. Even some of who I would term our more intelligent posters refused to accept this fact - In the end I started cutting and pasting the same responses, it got that ridiculous. I guess it's another case of clouded judgment - not wanting to hear (or accept) the truth about a favourite substance. I suppose it should come as no surprise because in many instances the same responses were seen in regards to the medical warnings, even with the anecdotal accounts and discussions that followed
To again state the obvious, as far as analogue legislation is concerned, this is as close as it gets. Compared to methcathinone, 4-MMC only differs by a single methyl group - ring substituted at that - so it's clearly a controlled substance analogue. Interpretation of the substantially similar clause says that 4-MMC is 89% similar to methcathinone (number of similar atoms of C10H13NO compared to C11H15NO).
* So, for LE, I'd suspect in many ways this is something they've been eagerly awaiting, as prosecutors will be super confident in applying the up till now rarely used analogue clauses. These laws have not always been easy to apply, as key experts could, in many cases, argue either way - not the case for 4-MMC though. This means convictions will undoubtedly set a precedent or two which will have major bearings on any future drugs, even those that differ considerably from specifically scheduled substances. It will also likely have impact on OTC products and retailers - a good thing some of you might argue. The downside is it will also likely be a blow to HR efforts, as new drugs won't be as openly discussed and therefore new unknowns could present even greater risks to wellbeing and liberty.
Still, on a slightly brighter note, I'm reminded that there were undoubtedly some people who did heed those warnings and either ceased purchasing or didn't start, and so were saved from the current ordeal.
I've painted a harsh reality with this post, and while it might not seem like it, I don't wish to sound unsympathetic; I'm just pissed off, frustrated that we couldn't do enough or the right stuff to prevent most of this. These matters have been on my mind from the moment I first read these posts, wondering what kind of hell those charged will face. As I'm sure we all do, I only hope the courts will be lenient and accept that ignorance on these laws is widespread.