Hypothetical hbwr bust Q

[didgeman]

Hypothetically what could happen to a friend who had been busted in the state of Q LD and amongst the confiscation as a hypothetical example was some old hbwr squares upon anaylsis the word lysergide is possibly mentioned with a reading of approx between 0.000500 to 0.000750 g

and also if there could possibly be any form of logical loop hole or baffle with botany because it would be from a plant not chemical based does the laws differentelate between the two that could soften the blow cos of a catagory one classification ?

[Torsten]

in Qld it doesn't matter at all if the scheduled compound is live plant material, dead plant material, or refined extract as far as the written law is concerned. This is a little different to most other states, where live plant material is not included.

So the quantity is 5mg? However you say that the analysis showed lysergide, which is another term for LSD. So what is it then, HBWR [ie seeds], lysergic acid, or LSD?

From the way you write this it seems the item involved is LSD blotters, so why bring HBWR into it?

[mark80]

i think he meant that if he got busted with a few hbwr seeds would the active constiutents of the hbwr seeds (which is a lysergic something) get him into trouble.

in Qld it doesn't matter at all if the scheduled compound is live plant material, dead plant material, or refined extract as far as the written law is concerned. This is a little different to most other states, where live plant material is not included

what torsten is syaing here is that if a drug is prohibted so is anything that ocntains it thus meaning in qld tricocerues, lophophora, Acacias, and plethora of other things are illegal.

[Undergrounder]

I think either he got busted with LSD squares and he's trying to see if he can pass them off as HBWR extract or something

OR

He meant old HBWR 'seeds', not 'squares'.

[Torsten]

hbwr don't contain lysergide!

[mark80]

The seeds of the plant contain ergot alkaloids, including the hallucinogenic LSA (ergine), which is a chemical analog of LSD.

I think this is what he is trying to pull. But seeing as though they contain no lsd there is a phat chance it'll work/

[didgeman]

hbwr don't contain lysergide!

So this is very interesting in this hypothetical ,

but to clarify as the underground fella tried to twist it off the path,

so to get back on the right bush track we start again ,

the HBWR is on the blotters as described OK

the anaylsis comes in at a rounded off 0 . 000550 g (notice the decimal point ) which is sweet FA

but the word lysergide is mentioned now could this be a fuk up by the systems lab so called experts

could this possibly be the sequel to that Steve McQueen movie G E long long time ago before evil kenevil played leap frog crikey

[Undergrounder]

but to clarify as the underground fella tried to twist it off the path,

Me and my evil path-twisting intentions... i apologise.

OK try again. For a start, 0.0005g is more than a standard dose of LSD under the law. Luckily for you its less than a 'small quantity' under the law, which is 0.0008, so its not too bad. The worst you're looking at is a minor possession charge.

But as to how the LSD mysteriously made it onto your 'HBWR squares'. For starters, how did you get the 'HBWR' on the blotters? If you could prove that you made your blotters using LSA, you could say that the lab made a mistake. But you'd get busted for extracting LSA and you'd be in even deeper shit. If you try and say you bought them off someone who told you they were LSA, but it was LSD, it wouldn't be a defense at all.

Edit: Didn't realise LSA and LSD were different schedules in QLD, unlike in NSW.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Torsten]

OK, so these are definitely [hypothetically] blotter squares which has LSA impregnated on them?

LSA is scheduled separately in the Qld drug act, so the charge should be for LSA not lysergide [lsd]. I am pretty amazed they fucked this up.

As LSA is NOT in the same schedule as LSD but I am not sure just how much would be gained by having the charge altered [LSD = s1 and LSA = s2]. If you wanted to make sure you go down for LSA rather than LSD then you could get your solicitor to apply for the sample to be saved [they turf them very quickly] and to be reanalysed.

However, be careful with this as this will then bring up the question where the LSA came from and you may hypothetically have to answer who manufactured the squares. This may not be in your interest as it could bring up a manufacturing charge.

You should however have a chat to your solicitor. I am not familiar with the intricacies of double jeopardy and there might be a situation where you can wait for your LSD conviction and then AFTER the case is finished come up with proof that the product wasn't actually LSD and hence the conviction must be quashed. I don't think they would be able to retry you for LSA as they've had their pop and fucked it up. But seriously, you would need to spend some money and talk to a really good solicitor or barrister if you're gonna play games like that. You also need to make sure that you have the proof before the court case as the samples routinely get destroyed after the conviction and then any analytical evidence is unappealable.

[mark80]

My guess is, he got smae acid tabs and was wondering if the shit hit the fan could he palm them off as a legal hbwr extraction, which he obviously can't.

[John Smith]

in Qld it doesn't matter at all if the scheduled compound is live plant material, dead plant material, or refined extract as far as the written law is concerned.

So they don't have poppy seed rolls in QLD then? Poor bastards!

[Torsten]

So they don't have poppy seed rolls in QLD then? Poor bastards!

poor example, cos poppy seeds are specifically excluded from scheduling.