Jump to content
The Corroboree
alive

RC's held by customs

Recommended Posts

Finally, what are some details on these cases of people being done at the post office? Were they for analogues or specifically listed chemicals and what states?

I can't talk about it just yet. Maybe in a week or two. not specifically listed, ie it was an analogue.

There are other cases, but I only know about them through an industry body and don't have a huge amount of detail nor authority to make details public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't talk about it just yet. Maybe in a week or two. not specifically listed, ie it was an analogue.

There are other cases, but I only know about them through an industry body and don't have a huge amount of detail nor authority to make details public.

No worries man, update us if you can please and I will pursue some more information as well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Doesn't matter if it's legal in your state, or your state has no analog clauses, if IMPORTATION is the issue, then its a FED offence.(importation vs posession.)

2) Only 2cb and cathinone derivatives in commercial and trafficable or commercial quantities have been tried under section f of 314(2).(i.e so far 5g or more of substances)

This effectively means that a prospective "analogue substance" not meeting criteria 314(2)d or e is legal to import until it has been decided by a court that the subclause 314(2)(f) applies to it. Officers are not invested with the power to interpret that section of the law.

3) So busts can happen by customs holding onto "suspect analogues" until such time as a judge or magistrate declares they fall under 314(2)f by caselaw and then they become illegal. Then they can deliver it to your house, where you are now taking possession of an illegal import.

4)At this stage, or prior to this, it might be helpful writing out a statutory declaration saying you cease(repent, revoke and refuse) ownership of the substance, if laws come into being during the process of it being held that alter it's legal status, simultaneously with the decision of the court being passed. It might help as evidence if you are taken to court federally, especially if you include the reasonable steps that caused you to anticipate that your purchase was not reckless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to derail but here is a cool article I found

Thanks for posting. I'm one of the authors (Monica). Steve and I simply wanted to try and summarise the situation as best we could, even though as we state in the article, we are not legal experts and our post should not be relied upon for legal advice.

Lots of errors in this even though it is only a few days old. The prohibition is far wider than this page indicates.

Torsten, if you have the time, we would be most grateful if you could let us know where we could make the article more accurate. As I can see just checking out the rest of this thread, it's confusing given the combination of federal, state and analogue laws. I'm a drugs researcher, not a legal expert, so I fully admit that the post was just an attempt rather than an authority on the matter (hence the title 'work in progress'!)

For that matter, anyone with comments - feel free to post on the blog or here - I'll definitely read them and take into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Monica,

will you and Steve be at EGA? I am a bit swamped before then, but would love to have a chat to you there and would certainly like to help you both update the article. I owe Steve a favour, so that's the least I can do. I didn't mean to just criticise the article as it is a good article, but I was just concerned that in the context of this thread some people might have gotten the wrong ideas about what's legal. I also didn't contact you directly at the time because I was waiting to see how some of the Qld busts turned out, ie whether any of the analogs cases are going to court.

I will be spending a fair bit of time at the Koda Phytorium stall [look for the stall with the labware ;) ], so just ask for me there if you can't find me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bump..... any new relevant information ?

Edited by _e_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bump..... any new relevant information ?

in regards to who or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had been hearing rumours regarding the legality of analogues of analogues, sighting significant structural difference.

but i had taken them as mis-informed rumours, but was still curious.

specifically the bomb range.

before indulging curiosity any further, i figured more research was needed, then saw this thread, and this comment :

ie whether any of the analogs cases are going to court.

edit- just read mxe thread, which helps affirm my initial instinct

Edited by _e_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mephedrone cases were pretty dramatic. people got busted for 5 or 10g at customs entry. The feds raided and seized email and credit card records and then prosecuted for the full weight of all combined orders, including orders that hadn't even arrived or been sent yet. The cases were dealt with in federal court and penalties were very harsh.

I can confirm a raid (six agents plus dogs) for as small as 5g of 4-MMC, dollar value well under $100 AUD at the time.

Cases were also dealt with in Magistrates Courts but under Federal law, be aware that because of evidence collected such as receipts/CC records whether digital or otherwise, these can be used as evidence for a charge of "attempted importation". They do not need to have seized the physical contraband, for example if they have one package and proof of other orders either placed or received, such charges can be laid at the discretion of the CDPP.

Do the feds even prosecute controlled drug charges ahead of the states?

They did in victoria in regards to mephedrone as the vic law did not cover this reliably.

In one case, a defendant was charged with and plead guilty to a federal charge of "possession of LSD" even though the seizure took place in a mephedrone raid in Victoria, lawyers inform that this charge is rare and is normally handled under state law. Federal charges of possession normally apply only to the NT and ACT.

Thanks for your input Torsten, it's good to see you around again. For those that are interested, here's one case that fell under section 314: http://www.austlii.e...A/2011/316.html

Thanks for this, if you have any others related to the 2010 Federal mephedrone raids I'd be interested to read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schedule 9 controlled drugs are a bit different to Schedule 4 drugs....My brother had ordered bbenzodiazpeines from overseas...he got a warning letter from customs only because it was in a parcel...letters slip through customs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychmaster, customs enforces the customs act, incl the prohibited import regulations schedule 4 [drugs]. This is different to what you might be referring to as S4 drugs, which refers to the Therapeutic Goods Act SUSMP schedules. These are not directly enforced by customs.

The schedules you speak of regulate possession, while the customs act regulates import. The warning letter you get from customs is not harmless as is often assumed. The reason customs does not prosecute most small illegal imports [except 'dangerous' drugs] is because they rarely get a conviction. Most people simply plead ignorance of the law and hence get a slap on the wrist. havign received that letter from customs you will find it clearly spells out the breach of the legislation and hence if you ever do it again they will have your signature [the letter is usually delivered by registered mail] to prove that you were not ignorant of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - I am the R.Simpson you appear to be discussing - I have a wealth of material, as I would, on the subject. The supreme court appeal on the matter is also in the online AustLII case law library. I was charge under the 'derivative' part of the act, as 2-5dimethoxy-4bromophenylethylamine (aka 2-CB or Nexus) was not on Schedule One of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficing Act at the time - I was charged then with having manufactured a drug 'structually derived from a methoxy phenylethylamine and with hallucinogenic properties'. This was a 'catch all' in the act. Subsequent to the charges being sucessfully prosecuted, the substance was scheduled.

The bummer of it was I had checked it's legality out with my solicitor prior to manufacture. He never found it on Schedule One, the Poisons List or the Customs list and told me it would be legal to produce. At trial the Judge said it wasn't checked well enough and he 'hoped my lawyer had good insurance'. In a nutshell (the trial lasted 9 months) the prosecution had to prove the substance was (a) structurally derived from methoxy phenylethylamine and (B) had halucinogenic properties. The Judge stated that the term 'structurally derived' was to be interpreted as 'any substance that could be derived from the structure of methoxy phenylethylamine on the blackboard.' The fact that maybe twenty reactions and / or whether the reactions could actually be performed was irrelevant - if a theoretical route could be established it was enough. We probed the Judge with ' Well according to this loose definition, petrol would fall into this category - are we all driving around with a prohibited drug in our petrol tanks?' The judge smiled and said "perhaps, but you are not being charged for that'Both legal teams argued at length - we lost.

The halucinogen clause - well we were basically setup by an informed DPP who had been down this path before - we hadn't. The definition of halucinogenic became paramount. The substance effects the eyes, similar to double vision when being drunk. The DPP called one witness on the subject, an english professor, who when asked what halucination meant said ' anything that effects the eyes'. When asked where he got his definition from he said 'everyday english usage'. On cross examination by John Korn, my Barrister, he was asked 'well when you rub your eyes when you wake up in the morning, is this an halucination?' - he replied 'yes'. Another question - ' when one is drunk and the eyes go funny - halucination?' - answer 'yes'. Well about now we were smiling thinking what on earth is this idiot on about.

Alexander Shulgin testified saying it was not halucinogenic. We had doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, all manner of expert testify that the accepted definition of halucination is as in DSM4 - that it is not enough to see visual disturbances where one might say 'I must be out of it, the clock appears to be melting down the wall' - a true halucination requires a 'conviction to belief in the reality of the situation' ie 'oh my god, the clock is melting on the wall' where one truly believes in the experience. This was not the case with 2-CB.

Summing up, the Judge ordered the jury to dismiss all defense witnesses on the subject of defining 'halucination'. He said this was because each defense witness spoke from an area of expertese. The law, said the Judge, was required to be interpreted in terms of 'everyday english usage'. (Where had i heard that before!) The only witness who's definition was acceptable was from our dear DPP english professor.

The annoying thing was all we needed to do was present with our own english professor, with a DSM4 definition, who stated he got his definition from 'everyday english usage' and thanks to a precedent set by Lindy Chamberlain's case, there would have been a conflict of expert evidence and the Judge would have been required to order the jury to take the defenses definition. Ah well.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting Fixmycom, thank you for taking the time to post. Do you mind if I asked what penalty you received? Did you appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting fixmycom/R.Simpson. If you don't mind me asking, what was the outcome of your case? i.e. Gaol time/probation/etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, thanks for the background story fixmycom. The definiton of hallucination is just astounding. I wonder if they'd get away with this these days as law now has to refer to established [ie published law] definitions OR to the dictionary defintiion. I am currently involved in a similar case where it comes down to the definition of a word that is used in both chemistry and in general usage and your post comes at a very opportune time as the defendant [once he has been charged] would probably get railroaded in a similar way.

I've spent a lot of time looking for your case on austlii, but couldn't find it. Any pointers? Not urgent and not relevant to the current matter, but I'd like to read it again just out of curiosity as I spent quite a bit of time discussing it with sasha a few years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, no, I've been quietly consuming all your wise words of wisdom this whole time, it still hasn't arrived but neither has anyone busted down my door either.

It is however still trackable on the postal system and status says it's just awaiting clearance, considering I have recieved this product before completely opened and tested by customs I'm still hoping for the best.

Lol just want to put in my experience of a parcel 'awaiting clearance' for a long time...

Ordered some different glassware bits and pieces, honestly just wanting to try distilling some essential oils etc, and some of the pieces it turns out were not wise to attempt importing without an End User Declaration already filed. 2 months later still no show, emailed the sender and got the tracking number, it showed that it had left China and Parcel was listed at customs 'awaiting clearance' for about a month. That's when I got suspicious and told my partner that if the card for pickup suddenly arrives in the mail then I would like her to accompany me to the PO in case I got arrested. I figured since I did intend to use the glassware for legal purposes and I didn't have any reagents or illicits beyond personal posession that I would be okay as long as I acted like I had nothing to hide.

Another month went by, nothing came, and then after my partner and I temporarily breaking up and me heading up the coast I got the dreaded message that a Senior Constable had come knocking... my absence and sudden move away initially triggered more suspicion, but luckily the house was clean and the smoking paraphernalia well hidden. Turns out the place had been under surveillance for multiple weeks (yes that suspicious van was actually what paranoia told me it was), but with all windows relatively concealed it was only a matter of time until they'd need to have a look inside.

My partner showed them my med sci course work, showed them books I had on essential oils and soap making, stupidly showed them a magnetic stirrer (but they didn't connect any dots), denied the question of drug usage under the guise of my bipolar diagnosis, gave em my number and then I spoke to them politely explaining my intentions, claimed ignorance and asked when a good time would be to come back down to Sydney and discuss in person. She outlined that at that time I was not in any trouble, but if they were to release the glassware to me I would be in trouble, a "catch 22" as she described it.

The morning of the arranged meeting back at the apartment I was alerted by text that the Senior Constable had gotten a call out to regional NSW somewhere and would need to reschedule.

...3 months down the track I finally get another phone call from the Senior Constable, asking if I was back in Sydney,and then I was congratulated for sorting things out with my partner. She asked if I was free for her to drop by the apartment for me to sign some forms. I looked around from behind very red eyes at my messy lounge room littered with smoking paraphernalia and spent nangs, and replied that I was currently at uni and wouldn't be home for 4 hours. She then told me that all I need to do instead is email her a declaration that stated I give custody for the NSW Police Department to seize permanent possession of my glassware from customs, sign and date, scan with passport + license and send away.

Long story short I got away without suspicion of illicit activities, which would no doubt be reflected on my police record, and I maintained my stretch of having no criminal charges or even cautions against my name.

One piece of drug related equipment sitting out when the police first came to my place would have given them right to a warrant to search the place. What they would have found paraphenalia etc wise would have been enough to link the glassware to what they presumed the glassware was for, the seizing of my computers would have possibly shown a previous educational indulgence of various synths, and obtaining my phone records may have linked to people involved in previous investigations of illegal activities etc.

Just like that one bad purchase decision could have snowballed into charges of ordering restricted materials with intent to manufacture even though I am honest to god I had and still have no intention to EVER synth amphs or MD because I have no desire to involve myself in criminal activity that could fuck my future altogether. Plain and simple.

So from this my advice is if you ever order something to your home address that you shouldn't, and it stays at customs for a suspiciously long time, you only have one chance to sanitize your shit, get your story straight and prepare for the storm. If you ordered to a PO Box instead of home address, then you may well get arrested for questioning at the PO (wouldn't be the first time I know of this happening to people as a fact).

I advise everybody that doing such shit is not worth the risk of your future, and if you do at least be smart enough not to use your own computer and IP addy to order, don't order shit to your own house in your own name if you aren't willing to accept that it could land you in legal trouble, and prepare a contingency plan if shit goes sour. Or don't and risk ending up one of those cases of ordering RCs for personal use and ending up getting done with importation of commercial quantity.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting Fixmycom, thank you for taking the time to post. Do you mind if I asked what penalty you received? Did you appeal?

Thanks for posting fixmycom/R.Simpson. If you don't mind me asking, what was the outcome of your case? i.e. Gaol time/probation/etc.

wow, thanks for the background story fixmycom. The definiton of hallucination is just astounding. I wonder if they'd get away with this these days as law now has to refer to established [ie published law] definitions OR to the dictionary defintiion. I am currently involved in a similar case where it comes down to the definition of a word that is used in both chemistry and in general usage and your post comes at a very opportune time as the defendant [once he has been charged] would probably get railroaded in a similar way.

I've spent a lot of time looking for your case on austlii, but couldn't find it. Any pointers? Not urgent and not relevant to the current matter, but I'd like to read it again just out of curiosity as I spent quite a bit of time discussing it with sasha a few years ago.

The sentence was a three years - I served two years and one on parole. This link should take you to the AustLII page. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/1998/1005.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=matter%20and%20nos%20and%2060535%20and%20[1998]%20and%20nswsc%20and%201005%20and%2012%20and%20march%20and%201998

I notice the link splits on the bracket .. suggest you highlight and ctrl-c the entire link up to 1998 and ctrl-v it into your browser url - My council was John Korn who has all the district court transcripts - be happy to allow you contact him and read them if required.

Edited by fixmycom
  • Like 4

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

×