LikeAshesWeFade

Legality of Ethylphenidate and Dichloropane (RTI-111) in Australia

11 posts in this topic

Hey guys just wondering if anyone can put some clarity on this for me? I have found a site within australia (not pineapple passion) that stocks a bunch of incense aswell as pablos powder (ethylphenidate) and montana madness (dichloropane) and states that the synthetic substances used are all legal within Australia.

Is this true? A potent NDRI psychostim and a potent stimulant both producing effects somewhat similar to cocaine, are both legal within Australia at this current time??

I can see what will happen in a matter of months though.. mdpv is now banned after killing a few idiots (lack of knowledge on dosage is my assumption) and obviously synth cannabinoids are next on the list in May.. but what about cocaine/tropane derivatives and substitutes? Sure the dosage isnt as low and sensitive as pv, but the world is full of sheep.. so surely enough some spanner is going to hammer some ethylphenidate, O.D and die..?

Like I say.. they are never going to catch up and stay ontop of substitutes to illicit drugs.. So I think it is upto to us (the consumers) to inform one another on what is currently legal within Australia and possibly for sale at the time, therefore if there is going to be people who use these compounds.. they will atleast know the basic dangers, dosage and side effects of these new RC's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was talk on the EK forums about the new vendor merely being the newest incarnation of PP. Not saying it is just letting you know that it might be a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ethylphenidate is covered by the Australian analogue act as an analogue of ketamine "alkyl, alkenyl or alkynyl groups with up to 6 carbon"

From wikipedia.

Found nothing for DCP but it is an analogue of cocaine so I'd say your shit out of luck.

The laws cover pretty much everything - I can't remember directly, but it basically says anything with a similar structure or effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. They just added 4-Fluroamphetamine.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's half as effective as c*ke it should be marketed as the "ethical" alternative :D

I looked into RTI 111 but no info anywhere. Given methylphenidate is S8 then ethyl will be covered, but I'm no chemist, or lawyer.

You first.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the analogue Clause that applies to NSW. I'm no chemist but it appears fairly broad and will cover the vast majority. I think the government can easily "stay ahead" of new substances all it will take is a clause that makes references to the pharmacological effect rather than chemical structure and I would bet that is where the law will head in the future.

Methylphenidate is not just S8 it is listed in the schedule of the NSW Drug Act as a prohibited drug and as such Ethlyphenidate would without a doubt be an analogue, given the analogue clause below. I would treat it as illegal.......in NSW anyway, I have not checked the legislation in other states.</p>

Sorry to be the fun patrol but people should know the risks. People think they are dealing with legal alternatives when in fact they are buying the equivalent of Meth or Coke etc from the internet.

Any substance that is an analogue of a drug prescribed in this Schedule, being a substance that has psychotropic properties, is not separately specified in this Schedule and is, in relation to the drug, any of the following:

(a) a structural isomer having the same constituent groups as the drug,

( B) a structural modification obtained in one or more of the following ways:

(i) the replacement of up to 2 carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures with different carbocyclic or heterocyclic ring structures,

(ii) the addition of hydrogen atoms to 1 or more unsaturated bonds,

(iii) the addition of 1 or more of the following groups having up to 6 carbon atoms in any alkyl residue, namely, alkoxy, cyclic diether, acyl, acyloxy, monoalkylamino and dialkylamino groups,

(iv) the addition of 1 or more of the following groups having up to 6 carbon atoms in the group and being attached to oxygen, namely, alkyl, alkenyl and alkynyl groups (for example, ester groups and ether groups),

(v) the addition of 1 or more of the following groups having up to 6 carbon atoms in the group and being attached to nitrogen, sulphur or carbon, namely, alkyl, alkenyl and alkynyl groups,

(vi) the addition of 1 or more of the following groups, namely, halogen, hydroxy, nitro and amino groups,

(vii) the replacement of 1 or more of the groups specified in subparagraphs (iii)–(vi) with 1 or more other groups so specified,

(viii) the conversion of a carboxyl or an ester group into an amide group.

Edited by Hellonasty
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methylpheniate is a border controlled drug in the federal criminal code act, which is a de facto customs act and is enforced by customs.

This act includes the widest analogue's phrase of all state and feral acts.

"(f) otherwise a homologue, analogue, chemical derivative or substance substantially similar in chemical structure;"

But it doesn't even need to use this catch-all as ethylphenidate is well covered under the clearly defined analogues.

This makes it 100% a prohibited import and a federal offence to import and subsequently possess - 2g being a marketable quantity and 2kg being a commercial quantity. Keeping in mind that federal penalties are much harsher and courts much stricter. eg it is common for as little as 50g of amphetamines/MDMA/analogues to attract a custodial sentence, which is unusual for first offence in state courts.

It also needs to be kept in mind that such federal import cases usually add all offences together. eg a friend of mine was busted with 5g of mephedrone. he ended up being charged with 45g, that being all previous orders over 2 years as per his credit card details and email traffic, AND 5g of a future purchase which was paid for but hadn't even been sent yet! Very nasty situation.

Dichloropane and related cole analogues also fall well under section f as outlined above. Many people argue that section f is not tested and won't stand up in court, however this has already been proven wrong. There are several small cases and a couple of very big [hundreds of litres of PMA ketone] cases where section f was the sole/main charge. In fact, I am not aware of any cases where the application of section f was not successful.

The above is just about import. It does not affect possession unless the feds decide to look where it came from and trace credit card details etc, ie make a case for the importation. if you want you want to know about possession you need to look at state law.

I can assure you though that methylphenidate is S4 and the TGA analogues clause would easily cover ethylphenidate. This would make the possession illegal, but probably nothing the TGA would really care about. The sale however is a different story and a seller could face tens of thousands of dollars in fines for first offence of supplying an S4 analogue.

I am not saying possession is legal for either of these, but can't give more details without looking at state law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm not so sure about that - of ethylphenidate satisfying the TGA analog clause of an S8/S4 medicine of methylphenidate. The SUSMP only refers to "derivatives, including salts, esters, and or ethers." I don't know whether adding a methyl group would fall under this. I don't think this has been tested legally. I agree though, much more likely to be tested against a seller than a possessor. Thus it seems likely that possession would of ethyphenidate would be legal in Vic and WA, which don't have state analog clauses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to interpret the TGA analogues clause the same way as you, but this is incorrect. There is no actual tight definition. The TGA says that it will take pharmacological similarities as well as structural similarities into account. There is legal precedent. The latest would be in regards to the initial set of cannabinoids that were scheduled. In the record of reason you will get a bit of an insight into how the clause is applied. And you can follow some of the court cases in Qld to see how it stands up in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus it seems likely that possession would of ethyphenidate would be legal in Vic and WA, which don't have state analog clauses.

Is this true and does it matter? I thought WA did have one, but even without the fed regs still count?

Edited by eatfoo

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