The Misuse of Drugs Act weights do NOT relate to pure samples
To be considered a drug trafficker you need to have 28 grams of pure MDMA, MDA, Speed or Coke. So... working on 80mg a pill (at best in Perth!) , that's about 350.
Unfortunately this is a big mistake and a common misconception.
In Western Australia the Court of Criminal Appeal, back in 1988 in the case of
Fursman v The Queen ruled that the amounts in the Misuse of Drugs Act does NOT equate to pure amounts of the drugs.
This excerpt is taken from the recent case of Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164:
It must be borne in mind that the question of intent aside, the offence is the possession of a preparation or admixture of the prohibited drug. The relevant weight therefore is the weight of the admixture, not the weight of the pure drug contained in it. This applies also to the presumptive quantity (Fursman v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7414; 5 December 1988 (per Brinsden J at 2 and 5).
There is therefore no substance to the contention of the applicant that the learned sentencing Judge failed to appreciate there was less than 1.15 grams of pure cocaine (less than the presumptive quantity) and that the amount of pure amphetamine was 311 grams. His Honour was required to sentence the applicant on the basis that the offences involved 4.8 grams of cocaine of 25 per cent purity and 3.168 kilograms of amphetamine ranging from 9.1 to 10.6 per cent purity. That is what his Honour did.
As already observed, whilst the weight of the drug and its purity and value are considerations of some importance (R v Hafner [2002] WASCA 211 per Steytler J at [23]; Dodd v The Queen [2002] WASCA 55 per Wheeler J at [5] and Miller J at [55]) they should not be determinative to the exclusion of other factors (Wong v The Queen, supra). It is critical to consider what the offender actually did, and with what knowledge or purpose (R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at [19]). The issue will always be to determine the criminality of the particular offender.
As Wheeler J pointed out in Dodd at [5]:
"... In assessing the criminality of the offender in many cases of crimes involving production or distribution of drugs the offender's intention, or understanding, or knowledge, of the amount likely to be produced or distributed, and of the enterprise in which the offender was involved, will generally be of greater importance than the actual amount involved: ..."
It is an utter travesty but that is how the Courts view it, and unless there is legislative change, that is how the police and the DPP will apply it.
Whatever the weight of the substance is you are caught with, that is the weight you are deemed to possess. Regardless of the purity, if you are caught with 30 grams of 10% pure methamphetamine you will be declared a drug trafficker, despite possessing only 3 grams of actual drug. (You will also lose all the property you have ever owned and you do not have the right to prove that is was acquired lawfully) If you are caught with 25 grams of 80% pure methamphetamine, you cannot be declared a drug trafficker.
As you can see the system is a disgrace. MDMA pills is even worse - if your pills are 300mg, 94 pills is all it will take to get you declared a drug trafficker. What this fails to appreciate is that MDMA's dose is far higher than methamphetamine. 94 pills is 94 doses. Whereas 25 grams of 80% pure methamphetamine is a good 500-1000 doses.
The system is incredibly unfair as it is plainly obvious to all of us what presents the bigger danger to the community. In reality a Court will sentence the methamphetamine possessor to a greater term as purity will be taken into account during sentencing. However thanks to the
Criminal Property Confiscation Act the "kid" with the 94 MDMA pills loses all his possessions, the person with the rather large amount of "ice" keeps everything.
The case of Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 is another shocker, as that is the one responsible for calling for a firming up on sentences for drug offences involving amphetamines, and because MDMA is an amphetamine it must follow suit.
"In my opinion, having regard to the increasing prevalence of the use of MDMA or ecstasy, which is one of the drugs in the amphetamines group, and taking into account the increasing prevalence of the use of amphetamines generally, including methylamphetamine, the courts have tended to firm up the sentences for the sale or supply of such drugs or their possession with intent to sell or supply ...
It is important to note that methylamphetamine is now regarded as being at the high end of the scale of seriousness in the hierarchy of prohibited drugs. If not equated to heroin and cocaine, it is close enough to those drugs to be regarded as in the same category."
Subsequent judges have tended to use this case to, for the most part, group MDMA in the worst category too, because after all, it is an "amphetamine". This of course misses the point that the reason why the community demands drug dealers be sentenced harshly is in consideration of the harm their drugs do in the community. MDMA cannot be grouped in that sense alongside methamphetamine and heroin, because people are not committing terrible crimes in order to obtain it or whilst under the influence of it.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
