25 years jail for owning any document that provides instructions for making illegal drugs (Qld)

[Torsten]

Have been reading the Qld drug act for a friend's upcoming herb based courtcase and stumbled across a law I recently posted about in regards to NT.

In Qld there is a provision for 25 years jail for any document that instructs how to make illegal drugs. This includes electronic document's, books, note papers, and even online instructions.

Even the possession of a password that leads to an online deposit of such information is covered. In my interpretation this would mean a username and password for sites like the hive etc.

Reference: QLD Drug misuse act section 8A

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN...gsMisuseA86.pdf

[transDiMenTional]

Wouldnt this also aply to sites such as this one and the nook etc too?!

That sux btw

[Torsten]

yes. this means that we definitely can't tolerate any such instructions here. I am pretty sure we have kept them out so far anyway.

[teonanacatl]

shit ay, whats the definition of making? would it emcompass growing, isolating. What if the instructions were by you, I have exercises in my organic books that say for example design a synthesis for mescaline. The list goes on, what about vogels, journal articles.

So how does a drug manafacturer get out before 75yo with all the charges that can be laid.

Edited September 28, 2006 by teonanacatl

[Torsten]

shit ay, whats the definition of making?

A preparative process that result in an illegal drug.

would it emcompass growing, isolating.

I don't think growing would be included as long as it is not a drug plant (the magic 5) or as long as the process of deriving a drug from the plant was not established.

What if the instructions were by you, I have exercises in my organic books that say for example design a synthesis for mescaline. The list goes on, what about vogels, journal articles.

It seems to me from the law that any instructiosn that actually name the illegal compound would be covered. if however the instructions were for an analog then I don't think the law covers it. So, for speed for example one could simply write the instructions for the molecule phenylisobutylamine. In fact school text for the Leukart reaction already use the amination of the beta carbon as their example.

I am intrigued how this would affect text books and science journals. There are literally thousands of references to such drugs in uni libraries.

So how does a drug manafacturer get out before 75yo with all the charges that can be laid.

I think that's the point.

[Gunter]

Is there any dsitinction made between the study of a subject which may entail data which can be used for illegal drug production, but is not geared to, but is rather an aspect of information. For example if one were to talk about the ceremonial use of ayahuasca, and include the native preparation in that discussion, would this be criminal? It is in a historical and anthropological context.

This may be more important than it seems in some ways as that the study of drugs, both legal and illegal is something that occurs in viable commercial and academic settings. Though these studies often cover production and preparation it is seldom if ever their intent to serve as a recipe for doing so. Moreover they often seem to entail the study of drugs in a legal context, despite their legal status in nation in which the student lives.

If one lives where a specific substance is illegal, does that mean it is a crime to read of the legal use of that substance when and if what is read includes any description of how that substance is prepared? If so I feel a great deal of pity for those scholars who become the victims of such unjust law.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Archaea

[Torsten]

Is there any dsitinction made between the study of a subject which may entail data which can be used for illegal drug production, but is not geared to, but is rather an aspect of information. For example if one were to talk about the ceremonial use of ayahuasca, and include the native preparation in that discussion, would this be criminal? It is in a historical and anthropological context.

I don't know. The law is a pretty broad and vague one and is probably only as good as it's application by the courts. I doubt any judge will sentence a scientists for most aspects of such study, but if the scientists was also in possession of a meth recipe then that might be a different story.

[Torsten]

I have just confirmed that the federal criminal code also has a 7 years jail term on the same offence. That means the possession of such materials is prohibited in all states under the federal laws.

[Torsten]

a closer reading reveals that the possession of books may not be illegal under federal law after all (keep in mind this only applies to the federal law and that state laws are different) unless intent is proven.

The law states:

308.4 Possessing substance, equipment or instructions for commercial manufacture of controlled drugs

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person possesses any substance (other than a controlled precursor), any equipment or any document containing instructions for manufacturing a controlled drug; and

( the person intends to use the substance, equipment or document to manufacture a controlled drug; and

© the person intends to sell, or believes that another person intends to sell, any of the drug so manufactured.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 1,400 penalty units, or both.

(2) For the purposes of proving an offence against subsection (1), if:

(a) a person possessed a tablet press; and

( a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory required the possession to be authorised (however described); and

© the possession was not so authorised;

the person is taken to have possessed the tablet press with the intention of using it to manufacture a controlled drug.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person proves that he or she did not have that intention.

Note: A defendant bears a legal burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3) (see section 13.4).

This means that the prosecution must prove intent. This might sound difficult, but in actual fact would be quite easy. To your average conservative judge it would be incomprehensible why people would want to own a drug recipe book without actually intending to use it. If you also happen to have some drug lying around then I think you have no chance of convincing them otherwise. if however you are a conservative style academic then such intent would be difficult to prove.

[NatureBoy]

Maybe my searching skills are not up to scratch, but I have been unable to find an uptodate list of 'banned books'. But I remember reading a few years ago that 'TIHKAL' and 'PIHKAL' (Shulgin) became banned imports to Australia? and sale of them is illegal anywhere in Australia? (anyone got a current list?)

Most of this thread has been info based but I'll just add a bit of opinion/thoughts... what if this is an area of personal interest for someone? should a person who has an interest in chemicals which are at present illegal be put in jail? Should there be a greater distinction between manufacture of chemicals and posession of information regarding this manufacture?

What about conservation of knowledge? What if there are potential chemical agents for medicine, healing, and other constructive purposes... if citizens are not allowed to posess information about these, then who is? For instance does the government have copies of this stuff so that the knowledge is not lost?

This quote is from a New Scientist article in another thread (http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11704):

Richard Boire from the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics in Davis, California. "The role of governments is to prevent harm to people and society from dangerous drug use. I think the government has lost sight of this and now thinks its role is to stop people from entering other mindsets."

The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org) is concerned with (broadly) freedom of thought. These "other mindsets" that Richard Boire refers to doesn't necessarily have to refer to substance induced states - it could also mean holding certain views, or perhaps interests.

If you happen to have an interest in controlled substances, perhaps its time to take an interest in plush toy production/collection (why not buy a big cabinet to display them all in!!), sex toy manufacture, or maybe start finding out about paracetamol metabolism instead! :drool:

[occidentalis]

Maybe my searching skills are not up to scratch, but I have been unable to find an uptodate list of 'banned books'. But I remember reading a few years ago that 'TIHKAL' and 'PIHKAL' (Shulgin) became banned imports to Australia? and sale of them is illegal anywhere in Australia? (anyone got a current list?)

http://www.oflc.gov.au/special.html

[Torsten]

Maybe my searching skills are not up to scratch, but I have been unable to find an uptodate list of 'banned books'.

Virtually every thread on this forum that deals with the topic of banned books has a link to the OFCL.

[NatureBoy]

thanks for the OFLC link guys, i've been there before, just found it awkward to navigate.

i'll check out other threads on this forum

Edited October 2, 2006 by NatureBoy

[Greeny]

All i can say is im glad im not in Qld

Would that mean that all the libarys are up for investigation? Im sure you could find some text in most.

[Torsten]

OK, have read the Qld law again and have a bit better understanding of it now.

It seems that the offense is to be in possession of such materials, not just having access to them. In the case of on line content this means if you have the file stored on line and you have a password that gives you possession of the file then that is illegal. However, from the way I read it I am quite sure that a password that provides membership access to a forum that contains such information is not illegal, especially not if the content is publically available.

So, this means that no member is breaking the law by having a user log in to a public site. BUT, if you have such content in your PMs then that would be illegal (but who's gonna know).

The most complex ramifications would be for the site owner (me), who has password protected access to the storage medium. However, I am not in Qld and the NSW law does not appear to be that broad.

Needless to say great caution is advisable in future postings. Recipe content should be posted off site and only linked. I may arrange for some non-australian owned permanent webspace for this purpose. We want to be well prepared for if/when the NSW laws follow the lead of some other states.

Here's a hint:

* when talking about DMT extraction etc, one could actually talk about tryptamine extraction as there would be no differences in technique and tryptamine itself is not illegal.

[MrBumpy]

Since I'm still kinda confused aboutthe legal status of salvia and salvorin a. Would this law apply to teks like the ones orb (Northern Gnome) has previously posted before? Esp the salvorin infused cigarette paper one.

-bumpy

[Torsten]

Since I'm still kinda confused aboutthe legal status of salvia and salvorin a.

what's there to be confused about?

Would this law apply to teks like the ones orb (Northern Gnome) has previously posted before? Esp the salvorin infused cigarette paper one.

Salvinorin A is an S9 federally scheduled substance, so anything that applies to S9 drugs such as speed, heroin, cocaine will also apply to salvinorinA and salvia.

My currrent understanding of the law is that on line content is illegal in some states and depends on who posted it, who is reading it, who owns the content, who owns the site and where the owner's residence is.

Hard copy recipes are illegal in all states.

[devance]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ia/15688772.htm

INDIANAPOLIS - The state plans to house up to 1,200 prisoners from California in unused portions of the New Castle Correctional Facility, a move that Gov. Mitch Daniels said Thursday would create up to 200 jobs.

The announcement came a day after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency in that state's critically crowded prisons, a step that allows him to use his executive powers to ship inmates elsewhere.

Daniels said the arrangement will benefit both states. Under a contract between California and Florida-based GEO Group Inc., the company Indiana hired to operate the New Castle prison will be paid $63 per day to house each California inmate, but $15 of that will go to Indiana state government.

Daniels said that means the state would make about $6.2 million in each of the next two years. The medium-security prison in New Castle, 40 miles east of Indianapolis, has a capacity for 2,416. It now has 1,036 inmates.

Under terms of the contract, Indiana can reclaim space for Indiana inmates as needed. Daniels said he anticipated the need to start doing that in a year, and Department of Correction Commissioner David Donahue said he expects all 1,200 beds with California inmates will be needed for Indiana prisoners by the end of 2008.

Daniels said the state first contacted California about the possibility of such an arrangement about five months ago, and he called it "a very effective and maybe creative step to take."

"Indiana gets 200 jobs, a well-trained work force at New Castle as that facility is fully used to house Indiana prisoners and millions of dollars that didn't have to come from anybody's tax payments," Daniels said. "Gov. Schwarzenegger was very happy about it, and so were we.

"I think the longer California looked at it, the more they decided this was a very good answer to a crisis that they have."

California has the nation's largest state prison population with 172,000 inmates, and its prison system is about 70 percent over capacity. Without swift action, the prisons will run out of bed space as early as June, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Each California offender will be required to meet the same medium-security standards as those sent by Indiana to New Castle. That means no seriously violent offenders, sex offenders or those seriously mentally ill. Donahue said many medium-security offenders are in prison for drug use.

Indiana still has about 1,000 DOC inmates being housed in county jails, and the state pays the counties $35 per day per offender. But Daniels said that is less than the average of $55 per day to be housed in state-run prisons, provides some counties with a little revenue, and allows some offenders to be closer to home.

Donahue said California inmates will be transferred to New Castle in waves, with the first in November and all within 90 days.

___________________________________

Need I say more about the drugs policys.

[occidentalis]

Daniels said that means the state would make about $6.2 million in each of the next two years.

___________________________________

Need I say more about the drugs policys.

No, I think you've summed it up quite nicely.

[Dodie]

Donahue said many medium-security offenders are in prison for drug use.

Doesnt say anything about dealing...

Edited October 8, 2006 by Dodie

[folias]

In the UK there is only technically more room for 150 more prisoners... prisons are at breaking point... and they are beginning to move prisoners to police cells to deal with them...

In Arizona, they recently rencounced a special state leglislation brought in a few years ago that gave people with a drug posession an automatic jail term, to 2-3 chances at rehab (whereas in federal leglisation, it is an automatic jail term).... now anyone caught with posession of the new "demon drug", methamphetamine, even once, gets an automatic jail term.

Somethings got to give with this drug war... sure metamphetamine is pretty shit stuff almost all of the time! and I'm sure many of us has seen real damage come from people overdoing it... and cocaine and crack are highly addictive and useless... in the UK cocaine is fucking EVERYWHERE! And people tell me how sad it is, that people they used to know as psychedelic warriors are now coke heads!

Portugal feels much more relaxed in general because they don't have laws criminalising people who do drugs... and there, EVERYONE smokes... and it hasn't changed anyones drug habits, according to all the people I have talked to!

I heard of a fellow in the UK, who was caught with a decent amount of lots of different psychedelic compounds, but the most decent amount was DMT, and they gave that back to him... after doing tests...

There are many similar stories in Australia... so I think we live in a pretty reasonable system, at the end of the day... not like the U.S. where judges hands are completely tied, and where reason often seems completely absent.

I think overall, this leglisation is designed, from the perspective of public policy to put away the "bad" guys who are doing illicit powder manufacturing on a big scale... I can't REALLY see how it is relevant to hobbyists or most people on this board who may have information on their computer about how to do basic extractions and stutf from their own plants... even though the amount of years are large, it seems to me, that is largely used as a way to put people away they may have difficulty finding evidence for...

I think it would be an insanely unreasonable judge who would put someone to jail who has instructions on their computer about how to extract mescaline from cactus, especially if it was their first time in court, I really doubt it would ever get that far... unless the authorities thought you were a speed manufacturer or something.

then again, it is wise to know this kind of leglislation exists!

Julian.