Jesus On Peyote Posted July 29, 2007 Hey, i saw a small article on fridays heraldsun which said theres gonna be some new laws on chemicals and precursors nation wide. im not too sure what it was on about coz the article was so small but wondering if anyone else has seen or heard such news of new laws comming on in? Im pretty sure it said it would be implemented by the end of the year sometime. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted July 30, 2007 Chemical ban to boost Vic's war on drugs http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=403465 Victorian police will soon be able to charge people for owning common chemicals under new laws intended to shut down secret drug laboratories before they begin making drugs. From next Wednesday, police will have the power to charge suspected drug makers with possessing precursor chemicals such as ammonia, hydrogen chloride, lithium, iodine, sodium and sassafras oil. Inspector Jim O'Brien said the laws would save vast amounts of police resources by allowing an early intervention in the drug trade. "The cost of resourcing police investigations is enormous in relation to the amphetamine industry because we generally, to prove our case, generally have had to wait until we've had finished product on the table," he said. "What that means is hours and hours of surveillance, hours and hours of resources of people and technology." There are 103 chemicals listed as precursors and people charged with owning them will face five years in jail, a $66,000 fine or both. Many of the chemicals are used in industries such as the cleaning, tanning and pharmaceutical industries, but the laws have been designed to avoid affecting these businesses, Police Minister Bob Cameron said. Precursor chemicals were a danger to the community, he said. "When they follow a drug recipe, what they bring about is amphetamines, they bring about misery and they bring about crime," Mr Cameron said. So far this year, Victorian police have raided 38 secret drug laboratories. Last year they uncovered 64. Mr O'Brien said only people using the chemicals as precursors for making drugs, such as ecstasy and ice, had reason to fear the new law. "It's fairly easy to establish a lawful excuse, one would expect, for someone that would have this type of thing sitting at home," Mr O'Brien said. "It's not a matter of Victoria police going along, looking in people's medicine cabinets, laundries, and trying to seek out one chemical here, one chemical there. "We're talking about these chemicals being found in such circumstances ... (as) to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that they're being used and sourced for illegal purposes." Mr Cameron said Victoria was the first state to introduce the laws and he hoped other states would soon follow. "The sooner that we all have laws in place to try and break the back of drug barons, then the better off we all are as a nation," he said. In February, Victoria made it illegal to own a pill press without lawful excuse and two people had since been charged, Mr Cameron said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted July 30, 2007 LOL, some of these are already federally controlled and it's not helping. I wonder what your average brickie is going to do without access to HCl. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted July 30, 2007 Looks like they'll still let you buy it but they now reserve the right to come and ask you what you use it for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auntyjack Posted July 30, 2007 "The cost of resourcing police investigations is enormous in relation to the amphetamine industry because we generally, to prove our case, generally have had to wait until we've had finished product on the table," he said. who needs the burden of proof?...it generally gets in the road of a conviction anyways, generally. I mean we seem to be moving away from the old 'beyond a reasonable doubt'...to the more modern and progressive 'reasonable probability'. And ya know the one thing about probabilities....with 65% of them you can make them say 95% of anything!! AJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaBReT00tH Posted July 30, 2007 what's sassafras oil used for making? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naja naja Posted July 30, 2007 what's sassafras oil used for making? U are kidding right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conan Troutman Posted July 30, 2007 From next Wednesday, police will have the power to charge suspected drug makers with possessing precursor chemicals What Auntyjack said! scary stuff...sounds like as with terrorism its going to 'reasonable probability' as a basis for laying charges.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
No_One Posted July 30, 2007 "It's fairly easy to establish a lawful excuse, one would expect, for someone that would have this type of thing sitting at home," Mr O'Brien said. What do ya's reckon these lawful excuses would be? Sounds like he's saying you can have them as long as you don't get caught using them illegally red-handed, am I missing something? Why then wouldn't anyone wanting to do the naughty just set up small businesses as a "lawful excuse" for having the stuff you have laying around - a bricky with no work is still a bricky isn't he? Peace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naja naja Posted July 30, 2007 What it means is that if u have solvents around for use as paint thinners, cleaning agents, etc and it's easy to see that they are not used in conjunction with manufacture, then u are fine. For example.... If they come around and find HCL in your swimming pool pump shed or with your spa test kit and then they find xylene in the shed next to tins of acrylic paint and then they find ammonia in the cupboard next too a bucket and mop and then they find lithium batteries in your torche and spare ones in a draw in the house and sum drain cleaner in the laundy cupboard, then it's all fine and dandy. But if they find all these chems, stored next to each other( DON'T store bases and acid together ), possibly along with sum glassware, sum empty pseudo tabs or a oil still and a bunch of sassy leaf, then ur fuct. Pretty simple really, if u are manufacturing or have a set up to do so, then it is illegal unless u argue that it is for legal purposes: ie, tea tree oil extraction, aromatherapy,etc. If it is an obvious clandestine setup, then it's illegal weather in use or not. They still have to prove it to sum extent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted July 30, 2007 I think they will be used to act more quickly on suspects, ie they have reason to believe you are making somthing illegal so rather then waiting for proof they can get you for solvents whilst they look for other stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jesus On Peyote Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) Thanks for the link apothecary and replies. Got much more info from here then the actual article :/. kinda scary how they can just go pass more n more intrusive laws,This sounds like total bullshit,so now they have a right to come into your house and search it for no other reason then you buying somthing that *could* be used illegally??.. Cough *fascism* Cough who needs the burden of proof?...it generally gets in the road of a conviction anyways, generally.I mean we seem to be moving away from the old 'beyond a reasonable doubt'...to the more modern and progressive 'reasonable probability'. And ya know the one thing about probabilities....with 65% of them you can make them say 95% of anything!! Thats pretty worrying also, new laws for the new millennium, cirtainly feels like where going backwards Edited July 30, 2007 by Jesus On Peyote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
apothecary Posted July 30, 2007 who needs the burden of proof?...it generally gets in the road of a conviction anyways, generally.I mean we seem to be moving away from the old 'beyond a reasonable doubt'...to the more modern and progressive 'reasonable probability'. And ya know the one thing about probabilities....with 65% of them you can make them say 95% of anything!! AJ Your argument seems a bit fallacious. Even if they decide to raid your house because they saw you order a 50 gallon drum of HCl (or whatever), they still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were planning on using it to make whatever they charged you with. They obviously raided a couple of places too early and ended up having people get off just because their was no actual drugs produced yet (or possibly shipped off already). I doubt the law says all people who purchase anything on this list have a high probability of being criminals, therefore they are criminals. :/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ergoamide Posted July 30, 2007 Now this sucks and is a load of crap i think. Many of the chemicals can be used for legal extractions. So i wonder will they try to get you then even if you claim this is what they are for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted July 30, 2007 As said i think they will need to show proof you were making or intending to make illegal drugs. Extractions would cause you a little greif but im sure it would be easy to see you were doing legal things if you infact were. Meh i dont think it changes anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ergoamide Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) true teo it won't change much now but it brings them one step closer to being able to say unless your a registered lab NO CHEMICALS. Edited August 1, 2007 by ergoamide Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gamma.goblin Posted August 1, 2007 heh, I can see them applying that law to individuals, but not the whole country ;) You could expect huge lobbying from the chemical industry against any such blanket laws, as it would effect their economy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Auntyjack Posted August 1, 2007 "We're talking about these chemicals being found in such circumstances ... (as) to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that they're being used and sourced for illegal purposes." Your argument seems a bit fallacious. Even if they decide to raid your house because they saw you order a 50 gallon drum of HCl (or whatever), they still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were planning on using it to make whatever they charged you with. No they don't, they will charge you for the chemicals not the drugs, all they need is reasonable suspicion and your inability to justify possession, proving you were going to make illegal substances is irrelevant. They obviously raided a couple of places too early and ended up having people get off just because their was no actual drugs produced yet (or possibly shipped off already).I doubt the law says all people who purchase anything on this list have a high probability of being criminals, therefore they are criminals. :/ but the option is now there. AJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gamma.goblin Posted August 1, 2007 well heres the bit from the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 , it has been updated today. 71D Possession of precursor chemicals A person who, without being authorized by or licensed under this Act or the regulations (if any) to do so or otherwise without a lawful excuse, possesses a prescribed precursor chemical in a quantity that is not less than the prescribed quantity applicable to that precursor chemical is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 600 penalty units or level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum) or both. Seems you can possess 'precursor' chemicals in any amount as long as you have a 'lawful excuse'. If you can buy it legally, and you can justify the quantity for a legal purpose, then you can't be found guilty. Also, if you have less than the 'prescribed quantity applicable to that precursor' in your possession then this law does not apply. I have no idea where such a list of chemicals and applicable quantities is. Of course if there was other eveidence of an illegal drug manufacturing operation, then it could still be used to lay charges under 71A: 71A Possession of substance, material, documents or equipment for trafficking in a drug of dependence (1) A person who, without being authorised by or licensed under this Act or the regulations to do so, possesses a substance, material, document containing instructions relating to the preparation, cultivation or manufacture of a drug of dependence or equipment with the intention of using the substance, material, document or equipment for the purpose of trafficking in a drug of dependence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teonanacatl Posted August 1, 2007 chemicals are used in loads of things, doubt they will outlaw possesion. A perfectly legal reason for owning such chemicals would be that you are a hobby chemist, extracting or making legal compounds. Just ask yourself why they would they want to send innocent people to jail? Seriously I see it as allowing them to act sooner if need be, think of the reduction in sentence if they bust somone for owning chemicals rather then manafacture with intention to distribute. There must be a trial aswell, where they would want a pretty tight case, cant get tighter then busting somone with the drugs. So as for them just busting cooks because they bought a chemical i doubt it, they will use it as a last resort. If your not doing anything wrong you have no need to be worried. There are plenty of compounds out there to synthesise, amphetamines represent a very very easy synthesis, if you want to make somthing find the latest natural product and start working on it, will be a way bigger achievement in the end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
No_One Posted August 1, 2007 CAUTION: THIS IS NAIVE! Ignoring illegal importation how do people get hold of the chemicals/precursors to make drugs? Do the places that sell them sell them to anyone? I've read you need an EUD but how strict are they with it? Peace Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SaBReT00tH Posted August 2, 2007 (edited) Sassafras roots are used to make the flavour in oldstyle root beer - if drunk in combination with bananadrine and pop rocks you can get seriously high as a MoFo.Hence it is naughty to have it Thanks Greencave. So MDMA is made through extracted sassafras oil? When drunk with benandrine are the effects like MDMA also? Edited August 2, 2007 by SaBReT00tH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gamma.goblin Posted August 2, 2007 (edited) heh, perhaps you should try googling bananadrine *doh beat to it Edited August 2, 2007 by gamma.goblin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coschi Posted August 3, 2007 When you drink sassafrole with "bananadine" the effects are a cross between DMT, Mescaline, MDMA, 2c-b and THC all rolled into one. It is a real heavy trip man.....real heavy. lol 'sassafrole' hehe argh WHERE THE FUCK IS MY SASSAFROLE ?? serious, i want it, i had no idea.. a pidgeon very recently saw 25mL Sassafras Oil bottles in a store for $20ish, ohhh the possibilities I thought bananadine was a load of crap? does this mean we should all be stocking up on bananas before they get banned? Regarding the original point of this, do you think we'll see the day where caustic soda, shellite, xylene, distilled h2o, vinegar, HCl, etc.. are no longer off the shelf? wouldn't surprise me one fucking bit.. and why the fuck is dmt illegal anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
