Jump to content
The Corroboree
Torsten

The legality of JWH in australia in the past

Recommended Posts

Over the months and years there have been many statements about the supposed illegality of JWH compounds in australia. Most of them were wrong. Most of the explanations provided were also wrong. Please forget everything you thought you knew... and read on.

JWH was never illegal in oz. The federal and state laws cover cannabinoids - but not cannabinoid agonists that are not cannabinoids. JWH are cannabinoid agonists that have no structural relationship to cannabinoids. Drug analogy works on the principle of structural relationship rather than pharmacological relationship. I am sure that the reason they were overlooked for so long is because even the lawmakers and their chemists weren't sure of the distinction. I've refrained from stating this publically because we don't want to help the authorities, but I guess now it doesn't matter anymore.

Sadly there are many threads that state this wrongly. Sometimes things need to be kept quiet to keep legal.

JWH also does not produce positive THC tests as the metabolites produced by THC which are tested for cannot be produced from consuming JWH. Obviously there are occasional false positives with any urine or saliva test, but these are always cleared up in a confirmatory blood test.

Some of the early incense mixes contained actual cannabinoids becuase they were designed for the european market where there were no analogs laws against THC analogs. The early versions of 'Spice Gold' contained cannabinoids, including some of the spice gold imported into australia and sold online a year or two ago. Spice eventually added 018 and then dropped the cannabinoids. At one time there were at leats 4 different versions of 'spice gold' floating around that were in identical packaging.

Most brands of incense started with JWH 018. There are about 30 analogs of this that have some activity, with about 7+ that are 'worthwhile'. I suggest that discussion of details should be held back until all states have scheduled as we can be sure that information from this forum is used in scheduling decisions [has happened before].

I've also previous explained why the packaging states 'not for human consumption', but here is more detail. Packaging is made to comply with as many international markets as possible as it needs to be ordered in numbers of 500,000 upwards and is generally distributed from one country into many different international markets. The USA is still the largest market. In the USA the analogs clause only applies to products that are intended for human consumption. So as long as a substance is not specifically scheduled, the analogs clause only applies if the packaging and the sales advice somehow shows intent for human consumption. The obvious thing to do is to put 'not for human consumption' on the packaging. This is also why cathinone analogs are sold as bathsalts over there - as bathsalts are quite clearly not for human consumption. However such labelling has absolutely no relevance in australia and just serves to confuse those unfamiliar with the law. It also seems to stimulate the nutters into coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sp how does the blanket clause fit in.... where by chemicals that act similar to banned chemicals are also covered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure what you mean. there is no such clause in any law anywhere. In Qld the analogs clause requires BOTH structural and pharmacological similarity which has allowed them to open up the strutural aspect of the law much broader.

All other jurisdictions base their analogy purely on structural similarity. the limitation with the latter approach is that it catches many benign substances so there is a need to limit the structural analogy range. In the Qld model there is no need to limit the structural range as non-effective substances are automatically excluded from the law.

So, as the JWH cannabinoid agonists are not structurally related to cannabinoids, no analogs law applies to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of these laws has been misunderstood apparently, ugh, i coulda been :bong: all these years :(..

the law Slybacon mentioned does sound very familiar though.

So, put into the simplest terms possible.. JWH compounds are legal in some australian states still as they are cannabinoid agonists? This includes importation of these compounds as there are no state/federal laws in place?

If there are no laws regarding these compounds, why must they be marketed as "Not for human consumption"?

So confused!!

Edited by FungiFriend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the law Slybacon mentioned does sound very familiar though.

There is a current proposal to make such a law in Qld.

So, put into the simplest terms possible.. JWH compounds are legal in some australian states still as they are cannabinoid agonists? This includes importation of these compounds as there are no state/federal laws in place?

yes, although I wouldn't bother importing them now because the customs law is likely to change by the time it gets here. It is usually th law that changes first, but for some reason it is lagging a bit this time.

If there are no laws regarding these compounds, why must they be marketed as "Not for human consumption"?

read my original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with the recent state bans in WA & SA, have they specifically outlawed the chemical JWH, or just banned the sale of Kronic as a branded product ?

EDIT: In the case of Western Australia, the media reports suggest that Synthetic cannabinoids have been added to the poisons act of 1964

Edited by Psylo Dread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

psylo, there are other threads that clearly cover this. It makes no sense to have a law about a proprietary product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly what "conspiracy theories" you are talking about when referring to the "not for human consumption" labeling, but I should clarify my own opinions that I stated in another thread to avoid confusion.

Firstly, this labeling may be unnecessary in Australia, but I have seen products manufactured and sold exclusively in Australia that have this (or similar) labeling. Perhaps it is a 'just in case' disclaimer for those that don't know the law, but I'm thinking it has more to do with making the products look less 'dodge' and hence stay below the radar a little longer. It is the current political climate surrounding drugs that prompts manufacturers and vendors to provide 'misleading' information, so I do not blame said manufacturers and vendors. However, what I dislike (again, a criticism mainly of the laws and politics of our society) is that there is no requirement for quality control or for these products to meet requirements based on the intended consumption. Now, I don't know how well it would stand up in court if someone died because they ate a product that had something poisonous in it and the manufacturer stated that it says not to eat it on the packet. But, nevertheless, products intended for human consumption should be required to meet certain standards, and this isn't being enforced with these sort of products. Regardless of whether the disclaimer actually does anything to protect the manufacturer/vendor in the event thereof, I don't trust people to hold themselves accountable to the extent that they should be held accountable by law to look after the welfare of their customers. I'm not suggesting that people deliberately want to poison their customers, but we don't trust random drug dealers on the street to be providing us with products that are exactly what we are told. Why should we trust anyone else if they aren't held to any greater standards?

People are always complaining about insecticides used on our veggies and stuff, but there is worse stuff out there than what is actually permitted for use on food. When you buy something herbal that is "not for human consumption", how do you know that it is not adulterated with such products, and who holds the manufacturer/vendor accountable if it is? If alcohol was illegal, would you buy alcohol to drink that says "not for human consumption", and has no labeling on it to indicate what is actually in it?

What I would like to see is a political climate where manufacturers/vendors do not feel the need to hide behind misleading names like "incense" for fear of their products being banned. I would also like to see laws in place to make sure that such products always carry accurate information about how the product should be used, how it should not be used, and what its known dangers are. Bit of a pipe-dream I know, but until then I will be weary of all products that are not marketed as being for human consumption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referrign to all sorts of conspiracies voiced over the last few months in other threads on this topic. Most of them aimed at legally evading responsibility etc. I know several of the importers and manufacturers of these incenses and most of them have about as much knowledge of the law as the average forum member here. Most of them will parrot the legal mumbo jumbo that is applicable to US law even though it bears no resemblance to the actual australian situation.

In australia most suppliers would come unstuck with their not for human consumption label because they have not been very strict about enforcing the non consumption aspect. Simply labelling it as NFHC and then for the sales rep to explain how to consume it doesn't hold up in court. btw, that discrepancy is exactly what the targets of operation webtryp came unstuck for a few years ago.

The NFHC label also makes sure the product is entirely out of the domain of the TGA, which is no surprise because under TGA rules such product could not be sold. A couple of years ago i tried to get a rather weak and benign stimulant approved as a non-restricted substance. It failes at the very first hurdle which cost me nearly 10K to get to. Ultimately the substance will end up in S4 [prescription only] and would cost about 200K to get to approval stage [and that's just for the paperwork, not for the human trials etc]. So, sadly it is impossible in australia to get anything for recreational use approved within the existing framework. That's why a group of vendors recently made a submission to the TGA to establish somethign like the schedule D in NZ which is for social inebriants. I expect a flat out refusal from the TGA because they have long campaigned against this schedule in the transtasman operations. So you see that there are really not a lot of options for getting these products onto the australian market. And it is getting worse. Tighter restrictiosn coming in the next few months will see all capsulatd & tabletted products becoming illegal unless they have TGA approval [which is impossible for these products]. It will also become illegal to give any dosage instructions or even post warnings about precautions or side effects. in future the market will be dominated by loose powders of unknown potency with weird names [that may hint at an effect], but no actual dosage or description of what to expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In australia most suppliers would come unstuck with their not for human consumption label because they have not been very strict about enforcing the non consumption aspect. Simply labelling it as NFHC and then for the sales rep to explain how to consume it doesn't hold up in court. btw, that discrepancy is exactly what the targets of operation webtryp came unstuck for a few years ago.

 

That's what I would have guessed, but it doesn't make me any any more confident of the fitness for consumption of these products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ Its a sad state of affairs. At least we have a community like this to stay connected. Your knowledge on these subjects is priceless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I would have guessed, but it doesn't make me any any more confident of the fitness for consumption of these products.

 

If it is any consolation, the labs in china that are the source of most of these things are actually mostly not too bad. Several of the one I know work for big name pharma companies [doing their customs synths and R&D] and are GMP approved, so the product they ship out is pretty much the same standard as approved pharmaceuticals. I am sure that doesn't apply to all of them. Before I started looking into this I assumed all of them were dodgy backyard or slave driven labs in dodgy chinese buildings. And certainly the pics published of the lab that made mephedrone for the UK market and 'invented' sparkle and E4 didn't help with that image. But among the producers and wholesalers for the USA and australian markets I have had contact with this seems to be an exception rather than the rule. Then again, these synth manufacturers don't actually specialise in recreational substances, so their usual clientele would be much more demanding. It's all very complex and I haven't quite worked out what the dynamics are that drive certain choices - eg that dirty lab on the news isn't actually cheaper than the clean ones, so I don't understand why someone would opt to buy from them.

I'd actually be more concerned with solvent residues, choice of herbs, and hygiene for these products, ie with the manufacturing processes after the actual synthesis. Just as these manufacturers have little knowledge of the laws, they have even less knowledge of the herbs. Luckily the cheap and easily processed ones are also the harmless ones, so that might be an advantage.

I know that many producers would love to be completely honest about their products. Commercial secrets [eg what the active ingredient is] don't usually stay secret for long anyway these days with government labs and private researchers lining up to make a name for themselves to 'crack the code'. It's an easy way to get yourself in the paper, which is improtant for science careers and even more important for the bottom line of companies. Just look at the free advertising that drug testign company in WA got for their claims of JWH being rife in mining staff.

So with secrets not being secret for long, most producers would prefer their products to sell on their merits, eg officially listed dosages or blends or flavours, etc.

The current scheduling system makes this impossible.

btw, I am not naive enough to think that ALL manufacturers would prefer things that way. i am just talking about the circle of local and overseas manufacturers I am friends with, most of who are old time ethnobotany or hippie freaks with a different perspective to many of the operators that have no subject knowledge other than accounting.

edit: This reminds me of one product on the oz market. It is clearly died bright green. Obviously they could not source nice green herbal material so they used something resembling hay chaff which is grey golden in colour. It is then coloured with a green dye. You can still see the dye effect because the chaff doesn't actualy accept the dye very well. The dye is neither listed as ingredient nor is there any guarantee that it is actually a food dye. And even if it is a food dye, I am not sure if any pyrolysis tests have been done on food dyes to make sure they don't produce nasties. So even what would look like a benign process could in fact be toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a brain storm last night when i was in bed & thought to look at who holds the patent on JWH-18 & saw the assignee was Hongfeng Deng MA

A quick google search & i wonder if this Hongfeng Deng bloke is this Hongfeng Deng Manager of Chemistry at GlaxoSmithKline Massachusetts the plot thickens when i read GlaxoSmithKline :scratchhead:

I wonder if there may be some promising news in the near future on Cannabimimetic indole derivatives, after the legalization of medical marijuana in some states in the US the commercial value of jwh may go sky high & replace the natural alternatives that big pharma has less control over :scratchhead:

im not saying its all a conspiracy to ban medical marijuana :blink::wink:

Then again maybe i have been reading & watching too many conspiracy threads & movies :blush:,on that thought gotta go im out of foil

Edited by mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the whole point of looking into and creating synthetic cannabanoids - they want to create new effective cannabanoids that are CB2 receptor specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, what zen said. CB2 agonists are important in pain management and pain management is still one of the largest pharmaceutical industries. Big bikkies in that one which is why so many labs were working on this. They mostly found really good CB1 agonists, hence the wide array of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Mr Lucas said the Government was tough on drugs and those people who make, sell or use drugs face tough punishments. "Our strong laws reflect the Government's determination to rid Queensland of dangerous drugs that ruin so many lives," he said.

 

This QLD government is just fucked,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah my roundabout point was its too valuable to let people buy it over the counter of your local sex shop or online

banning it & or putting it up as a prescription alternative to medical marijuana will ensure the big bickies are made by those who own the patent

it may also change restrict or reverse the amount of medical marijuana dispensers and people growing their own medical marijuana

sorta putting the ball back in the courts of legislation or the war on drugs & big pharma much like you see with poppies etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are always complaining about insecticides used on our veggies and stuff, but there is worse stuff out there than what is actually permitted for use on food. When you buy something herbal that is "not for human consumption", how do you know that it is not adulterated with such products, and who holds the manufacturer/vendor accountable if it is? If alcohol was illegal, would you buy alcohol to drink that says "not for human consumption", and has no labeling on it to indicate what is actually in it?

 

Such as hemp seed oil?

The only reason those labels exist is because the FDA doesn't want to do its job properly. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just got through watching the wire,

if the reality is anything like the fiction,

then god help us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was watching the federal government question time a few days ago, the family first senator was pushing for these to be banned, although he was still calling them synthetic cannabinoids. What I found the worst was when they mentioned the brand name "Kronic" about half the people in the house had a bit of a chuckle to themselves, they obviously have smoked cannabis in the past and to laugh at something like that shows they themselves personally don't condemn the use. The whole drug war has got to a seriously delusional point, where many of those making the laws in government do not see a problem with the drugs and even use them, yet still allow laws against them to pass without any defence.

Reminds me a bit of the NSW ecstacy incident a year or two ago, with one minister buying a pill and being caught, all the premier said at the time was that she condemned the over indulgence of her staff, which is exactly what it is, not a criminal offence but simply somebody wanting to indulge themselves in something enjoyable. Still it was condemned basically everywhere as a criminal action regardless of her statement not implying any real offence being committed.

Really frustrates me how the personal opinion of basically everyone in government is totally opposite to the laws they create and allow to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that the government are a bunch of hypocrites?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me a bit of the NSW ecstacy incident a year or two ago, with one minister buying a pill and being caught, all the premier said at the time was that she condemned the over indulgence of her staff, which is exactly what it is, not a criminal offence but simply somebody wanting to indulge themselves in something enjoyable.

 

Time travel back to the mid 1990's, and poor little Anna Wood dies from an alleged contaminated pill. It was later established top be a water overdose. Regardless, the then Premier of the time decided it would be great PR to close down the whole venue for good (The Phonecian Club). Knee Jerk reaction much ? And after he retires, he takes on a consultancy position with the Macquarie Bank, who as we know are big investors in commercial property. The venue site, incidentally, has been redeveloped for retail and housing. That little girl's death was a blessing for the power-players, and I cant help but wonder if there was just a little bit of string pulling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all are hypocrites, there is people elected who have served quite well in other areas, and even some who have come along in high positions and tried to move drug laws in a direction towards decriminalisation of use, most of those laws have been reversed now however by following governments. Today it just seems they are so scared of their own party and public response against the party that once they finally get in power they are in too much fear to stand up for their own personal opinions or even attempt to bring in any rational discussion of how things actually work in the real world.

Not just in Australia either, it's happening world wide, there is a few who stand up and speak their own words but they are largely outnumbered by those who are in too much fear to be an individual voice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i firmly believe anyone who has not tried at least one drug in there life , either it weed , shrooms , or what ever.. then you have missed out , you have missed out on the experience that life itself has to offer you.

you have missed out on that huge chunk of what life really is and consciousness in a altered state.

for me on a spiritual level.. its like a insight on just what happens when we die . our consciousness changes and goes to another state that we really dont know nor can be sure of.

hence why DMT is now becoming a drug known as a very profound moving experience.

it happens for reasons we cant even be 100% sure of , yet its there.

well if its there , then there is a reason for it.. dmt in the pineal gland.

i believe is not most all politicians have tried drugs.

bet you didnt know the worlds top scientist try LSD to get a inner insight and understanding of the mind.

shit even the military experiment with drugs under different circumstances.

is military not government ?

Edited by 7baz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in hindsight baz if i ever got to live my life again i would not touch a drug of any kind including alcohol, whilst i have had only positive experiences and no problems ever in the past when i experimented it doesnt change anything i believe, in fact i think its all rather false......like putting on a porn dvd and imagining your a porn star when all you really are is a wanker. i certainly dont want my children taking drugs of any kind and the best experiences i have had in life are totally sober ones, sober is the new drug my friend.....once apon a time it was deemed different to smoke a bit of weed and co, now its just too common, to lame, very steriotyped and not very cool, the best minds are those that have not been touched by drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×