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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

News Report - Four accused of ecstasy supply - Surely a Joke

Jokerswild

Jokerswild

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
181
Four accused of ecstasy supply
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01feb05
FOUR men will face court on multiple drug charges after police seized 116 ecstasy tablets in Sydney over the weekend.

Detectives used a drug dog to recover the tablets worth $5800 during an operation to target the use and supply of illegal drugs, a police spokeswoman said.

Police allegedly seized 116 tablets from four men; a 19-year-old from Peakhurst, a 19-year-old from Toongabbie, a 29-year-old from Pyrmont and a 24-year-old from Darling Point.

All four were arrested and charged with the possession and supply of drugs.

They will appear in Downing Centre Local Court on February 21.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

116 / 4 =29 pills each, how does that constitute supply and distribution????

And

5800 / 116 = 50 per pill, in 1997 maybe.
 
Yeah it's ridiculous how they're still costing them at $50. It's to ramp up the hyperbole, methinks.

But I was of the impression that anything over 10 pills in your posession could be seen as "intent to supply". Anyone confirm this?
 
There are no "safe" limits on the amount of drugs you can carry - circumstantial evidence can corroborate the physical evidence of quantity of drugs physically in the defendant's possession at the time of arrest. The upshot of this is that it's never a good idea to carry more of a substance than you absolutely have to.
 
Strawberry_lovemuffin said:
But I was of the impression that anything over 10 pills in your posession could be seen as "intent to supply". Anyone confirm this?
Click to expand...

I know this happened in Sydney, but in WA, I understand supply starts at 20, but is also very contingent on whether they are all in the one bag or in seperate baggies. If they are in seperate baggies then from what I've heard the amount becomes almost inconsequential as being in seperate baggies shows "intent".

As for the pricing, well I guess these posts will get all the pricing cleaned out of them later today by a moderator .. will people never learn .. hehe
 
^ I always had the impression that 10-12 was supply.. it doesnt matter how many baggies they are in. it is still supply.
 
so this was a proper bust then? the use of the word "detectives" doesnt make me think it was cops+dogs hanging around the clubs or wherever
 
So the cost of this operation and the work of these detectives was how much? Must have been worth it to get those 2 master criminal teenagers behind bars, they could have been ringleaders for a massive international distribution ring with numbers like that.
 
Schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1984 (NSW) lists the Traffickable quantity of 3,4-Methylenedioxymethylamphetamine as 0.75g.

s29 states that any quantity not less than the traffickable quantity is to be assumed to be for supply, unless it can be shown that it was not

s4 implies that admixtures are to be taken to be the drug itself. That is, the fact that your drug is impure means nothing. For instance, if you have 1g of speed, but that only contains 0.1g of methamphetamine, you will be charged for possession of 1g of methamphetamine.

If you have 3 tablets that weight 250mg each (=0.75g), then you will be charged as having 0.75g of MDMA, despite the fact the tablets may only have 70mg of MDMA each.

Net result: You only need 0.75g of tablets to be deemed to be supplying. That may be as few as 3 or 4 tablets.
 
Last edited:
They probably did this operation and targeted some low level dealers, because every low level dealer has to get their stuff from someone else - most likely a higher level dealer. I'd imagine it wouldn't be all that many more steps to the top, which is who they're really after. Since these kids (well, two of them are virtually kids anyway) probably don't want to fuck up their lives over a fairly small amount of pills, and given the cops would know this, I'm sure they'll offer them a reduced sentence (or even a reduced charge) if they squeal on their own suppliers. It sucks and all, but from a law enforcement perspective it does make sense. They may not have been ringleaders of a drug syndicate, but there's a good chance they're part of the circle.

Probably a good reminder to people out there that you're never too small for the police to ignore.
 
Cops busting small time dealers is pretty sad...

Especially when you consider the small time dealer might give away his source (under interogation, cops making offers that sound TOO GOOD TO REFUSE etc...) ... and then get royally fucked for it.

And i dont mean from the cops.
 
I think what we can take from this thread is that anything from the amount of MDMA seized, saddy bags, cash, etc can determine whats 'supply' and whats possession. I know people that have been taken to court with as little as 2 pills, and then Ive known people getting done with a 1000 and all they had to do was cough up the $30 000 bail. For a serious dealer that amount would be seen as a pittence.

Often police will do a bust, and weight things incorrectly, or dont fill out the paper work properely. This is known to happen quite a bit.

If you get done , take it on the chin. Get a good lawyer, prepare yourself well, and hope that the judge is in a good mood on the day hehehe... Peace out!
 
The questions that need to be asked are thus.


Is this news worthy??????


Is the police's time and physical recouseces being used effieciantly and in the best interests of protecting the public?????



JoKeRsWiLd =D
 
Clearly the war on drugs is being lost if something this insignificant makes the news. What a waste of taxpayers money.

Again, I need the laughing emoticon right now.
 
Originally posted by Pleonastic
Since these kids (well, two of them are virtually kids anyway) probably don't want to fuck up their lives over a fairly small amount of pills, and given the cops would know this, I'm sure they'll offer them a reduced sentence (or even a reduced charge) if they squeal on their own suppliers.
Click to expand...

A friend got busted a while back - not with much but a lot of circumstantial evidence that was hard to beat.

As he was on a student visa, rather than easily being released on bail he was held for over 3 months in remand. During that time he underwent constant interviews, requests by police, etc to give up sources.

Thankfully for him he didn't - there is no doubt he would have been fucked over in prison had he rolled. In the end he had a (relatively) easy run during his sentence - and it was quite clear it was because he kept his mouth shut.

Now he's back home OS, enjoying his freedom, and all his fingers and toes!
 
rofl

a Mexican/European/Asian/(or wherever ur friend is from) Salad for the jailhouse big boys to 'toss' !!! eep
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top