steewith2ees
Bluelight Crew
For your perusal guys. (.pdf)
http://wedinos.org/resources/downloads/WN_Annual_Report_1415_final.pdf
http://wedinos.org/resources/downloads/WN_Annual_Report_1415_final.pdf
Possession is not an offense unless there is intent to sell
Believed to be purchased MDPV - sample tested 25I-NBOMe and 25H-NBOMe
Thanks for posting that Stee![]()
Perhaps that's exactly what they want?...I thought the police had enough on their plate already and the paramedics. We've been slammed with anti terror laws that have hijacked any freedoms that did remain and now suddenly all the emergency services, Border Control etc have the man power and time to deal with what is going to be a huge explosion of crime and unnecessary deaths. Bizarre. Haven't heard much about what the EEC regs are making of this rogue lasso?
This now opens the doors for growing, making your own without breaking the law ? DMT, Mushrooms etc
No, it would seem that possession of these substances - explicitly named in prior acts - will rightfully remain illegal. The so-called 'decriminalisation clause' in the new bill was inserted purely to counter any hysteria from the pro-drug lobby over the overnight criminalisation of previously (technically) law-abiding citizens. It opens no new avenues whatsoever.
I think not. There's enough catch-all potential in the act to begin with, and even-more-novel substances could be appended to the Act. Besides, synthesis is not simple possession, and would strongly imply intent to distribute. The nefarious chemists / dealers would face justice like any other drug dealer.
I think not. There's enough catch-all potential in the act to begin with, and even-more-novel substances could be appended to the Act. Besides, synthesis is not simple possession, and would strongly imply intent to distribute. The nefarious chemists / dealers would face justice like any other drug dealer.
I have a question, read loads on this topic and still the contradiction arises. Allegedly they are stating that substances marked 'safe for human consumption' will be exempt from the ban but then wasn't that the WHOLE point in the first place, the products on the market they are 'banning' are marked clearly 'Not for human consumption'..so WTF?..If anyone can clarify this please do so.
I have a question, read loads on this topic and still the contradiction arises. Allegedly they are stating that substances marked 'safe for human consumption' will be exempt from the ban but then wasn't that the WHOLE point in the first place, the products on the market they are 'banning' are marked clearly 'Not for human consumption'..so WTF?..If anyone can clarify this please do so.