Can you be charged for having taken a drug if it's no longer in your system?

[Distracted]

Are there laws that can apply to people in those circumstances?

This is a very general question.

Say someone admitted to having took lsd a years ago, or a week ago, or 3 days ago. They're no longer under the effects of the drug, it's no longer even in their system, is there anything they could get charged for?

They could possibly get charged if they were working at the time of imbibing and broke the conditions of their contract, or admitted that they were driving at the time but that's not what i'm wondering about.

Cheers!

[waterboy 2.0]

never admit to possession..... if you took it , you possessed it.

[Psylo]

I wish Torsten was around more to give us all the scoop on such matters, without dozens of posted conjecture.

[ballzac]

Given that it's illegal to use illegal drugs, that's not going to change just because it's no longer in your system. It would partly depend on if there's a statute of limitations and how long it is. I doubt it would be several hours though, if it exists at all.

In practice though, they need more evidence than just an admission to bring a case to court, and it would be very difficult to corroborate an admission of consumption unless you put a video of it on youtube.

I doubt it would be taken seriously in court if someone was charged because they admitted to using drugs in the past.

[Sallubrious]

It would depend who you admit it to and under what circumstances, like if it applied to a criminal negligence case or something where liability was involved.

If it was an official statement to the police maybe your words could be used against you, but in most other circumstances admitting to something like that wouldn't stand up in court.

There are many reasons why someone would say something like that - I was joking, I misinterpreted the question, I was confused etc.

A good lawyer would get you off most of the time.

A statement to an employer is a bit different though, I knew someone who was taken aside by his boss and asked in a sneaky way ie just between you and me do you smoke pot ? The stupid prick said yes.

My mate thought the boss was just taking a personal interest, but the bastard sacked him. The question wasn't even about if he smoked at work or came to work stoned.

Never admit to anything illegal.

Edited May 11, 2012 by SallyD

[Evil Genius]

Well, not sure how something like this would go out in court but we do moderate stuff like that because of self-incrimination. Not only because of the risk of people actually being charged for it but also because i am extremely sure that self-incriminating posts in internet boards would definately give police the right to knock on your door. I am far from being an expert about the drug laws in Australia but it´s pretty clear to me that someone who admits in an internet forum that he was able to successfully extract DMT from a plant (random example) shouldnt be surprised if he comes home one day to find his house being turned upside down because cops took his post as an invitation to take a closer look. The fact they might not be able to make a courtcase out of the post all by itself shouldnt be a problem for them as everything they find in your house can be used as legal evidence against you. Like i said, no expert on australian laws and Torsten knows the laws a lot better but it takes no rocket scientist to know that admitting to a crime is never a good idea. In germany, its not illegal to take drugs but its illegal to possess them. And the passus about "possession" is probably enough for 90% of the cases. As we are so close to the neitherlands, people sometimes take the train to Amsterdam, get high there and drive back without actually possessing anything. But as they are starting to outlaw the sale of MJ to Tourists, this might come to an end soon.

[Psylo]

[IndianDreaming]

I didn't inhale...

[Thelema]

the short answer is no, you cannot. This does not preclude cultural examples like sackings, raidings and so forth that have been mentioned. The drug&poison laws clearly state manufacture, distribution and possession. You cannot be charged for having a drug in your system, not in the present OR the past. Of course, you can be charged for indecent public behaviour, driving under the influence etc. but these are a side-issue and not to be confused with the original question.

[chilli]

I am far from being an expert about the drug laws in Australia but it´s pretty clear to me that someone who admits in an internet forum that he was able to successfully extract DMT from a plant (random example) shouldnt be surprised if he comes home one day to find his house being turned upside down because cops took his post as an invitation to take a closer look. The fact they might not be able to make a courtcase out of the post all by itself shouldnt be a problem for them as everything they find in your house can be used as legal evidence against you.

 

But how often does this happen from an internet post, however incriminating, in practice? Surely the police would have to know who wrote the post, so what is the link between them reading an internet post and then knocking on your door?

I totally agree about people not incriminating themselves online, and ideally not doing anything illegal in the first place. It seems like people write some pretty blatantly illegal stuff, especially on other forums, but they only seem to get raided or arrested for stuff they have done offline. I'm sure there must be cases where it has happened, I just don't know of any or how common it is, or how they would be traced.

Edited May 12, 2012 by chilli

[quarterflesh]

I like it how they say on border patrol "we dont care if you do drugs just dont bring them back into the country with you"

idiots on that show give them selves up at the drop of a hat.

do you do drugs? yes

do you have any on you ? no

TELL PEOPLE NOTHING, THE ANSWERS ALWAYS NO

Edited May 11, 2012 by quarterflesh

[Darklight]

Not sure about the strict legality of the OP issue

However if you were in any kind of legal ( or civil- ie ugly divorce ) trouble, public admission of previous substance use could be used to further build a case against you which could have disasterous consequences.

Being seen purchasing some drain cleaner under 'suspicious circumstances' is one thing.

But if LEO are building a case to get a warrant out to raid you, finding multiple posts where you claim to have extracted illicit compounds and taken bucketloads of naughty things is going to make them look a damn sight harder. Or if you *were* raided and found in posession and your ISP gives up your records, such admissions help them strengthen their case and could result in additional hassle or further charges

[SunChaser]

When I got done for growing cannabis over 8 years ago, one of the charges they put on me was using illegal drugs. I guess they were able to charge me for ‘use’ because I freely admitted to being a cannabis user and also admitted to smoking the night before, since I didn’t get drug tested or anything like that.

So I guess the answer would be you technically can, but no copper would probably actually bother doing it, unless it was on top of other charges.

I’ve always thought it would be a good media stunt to some how approach the authorities and demand they correctly apply the law, by charge all the politicians who have admitted to using illegal drugs in the past. It would just show people how ridiculous these drug laws actually are. It would also show the politicians how demeaning it is.

[whitewind]

I wish Torsten was around more to give us all the scoop on such matters, without dozens of posted conjecture.

 

I like the posted conjecture. It gives a well-rounded view of how the community sees such issues, which is very important too. I am consistently shocked at the number of times new posters come on the forums and incriminate themselves, but it does suggest a trust in the anonymity of the internet which isn't necessarily that well-founded.

Clearly, it's important to know the law, how the law is being currently interpreted by the community and the police, and it's also clear we're not sure about certain aspects of it.

I think it would do us all good if we looked up a few of these things ourselves, instead of just relying on Torsten. He's an awesome source of information and hugely generous in sharing it, but we could provide backup sources ourselves if need be, he's not always around either.

Quick online search reveals:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/dmata1985n226283.pdf

DRUG MISUSE AND TRAFFICKING ACT 1985 No. 226

NEW SOUTH WALES

Page 9

Self-administration of prohibited drugs

12. (1) A person who administers or attempts to administer a prohibited

drug to himself or herself is guilty of an offence.

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful the administration or

attempted administration by a person to himself or herself of a prohibited

drug which has been lawfully prescribed for or supplied to the person.

 

I'm not a legal person so I don't know if this is up-to-date or superseded by other legislation, but it seems pretty clear to me that it wouldn't be a good idea to admit to doing anything, unless one was overseas at the time.

I think, as others have suggested, whether you get prosecuted for such a thing is dependent on the circumstances; do the police have the time to chase every petty drug user, or are they after the traffickers? Will you provide a link to the traffickers? Do they need someone as an example, and do you make a good one? The more evidence they have, in their eyes, the better, and multiple admissions in writing will go a long way along with other physical evidence supplied.

Another good question, and I don't know the answer to this, is how serious the offense is deemed to be in comparison to the clearly more serious intent to supply, or actual possession?

[Pat Uri]

Akin with "shape shifting" and "bear skins" your's truly can don a Savile Row and "transform" into an elitist capitalist 'pig' fascist and even mingle and be accepted by their herd around the watering hole. Like all alpha narcissists they do the talking; I do the cigar and drink supply, lead the conversations, mirror their body language, and spy. (We hunt kangaroos the same way.)

So it was after Easter, attending a plutocratic pisshead local Yacht Club's certain race finish, I raised forum concerns about hobby tobacco growing with drunk, offguard, partying authorities.

My barrister - enjoying, what he thought was a genuine Cuban cigar of mine - examined briefly the "Virginian tobacco thread" and made the comment,

"I see that there is no entry for the 'member's occupation' forecluding that they probably don't have one!"

(I grinned and bared it - but believe me I hated his fucking guts for saying that! I have more loyalty for you, dear readers, than I do a highly paid bullshit artist 'working' for the law - as you can afford it!)

His professional advise if anyone asks what these plants are in your front yard that "look" like tobacco is:-

"I'd tell them fuck all!. Get their accusing arses off your property - it's obviously provocative and expects you to answer conjecture!

"Immediately tell them to fuck off - and happy "onus probandis" to them"

In that vein:- after "9-11" (Actually the 12th of September in Australia) anti-terrorism became the raison d'tre of Facism amongst the "Alliance of the Willing". An incredible erosion of civil liberties occurred to the delight of Multi-internationals demanding to drug test their workers for cheaper insurance.

Even import them from the third world completely innocent to first world worker's demands to health, safety, life style security and fair return.

At this time, having been threatened to be kept in custody for three days if I didn't tell the police what I had that was illegal so they could bust me, Mr Barrister Man, over lunch at the local city's "silkie" bar, announced loudly,

"I believe that the people of this country have forgotten the meaning of the term 'habeas corpus', blah! blah!" - he was wrong - I never knew what it meant in the first place! Got off completely of course. (He's about the same price as a prostitute, not cheap, hates drugs, gives you just the same worthless shagged-out feeling)

Things much better now! (In a way - old Pat likes to think he had something to do with that!) Of course they've long gone me charging them for harrassment! That's why the stakes are up a bit!

AS4308 has never been ratified by law - you cannot be forced to submit evidence that is self incriminating. You're asked to as a condition of employment to "volunteer" to the process.

Laws of evidence recognise only 3 forms of evidence in court:- physical evidence; eye witness accounts (hence police statements); and expert counsel. (Retrospective charging is dodgy the burden of proof is on them)

Any d.s "sneak'n'peaking" your place can quickly figure out where your head's at. There is no prima faci evidence or they would have you in handcuffs, no questions asked.

So they use the conjecturous pseudo-evidence hoping for self incrimination:-

"Why books on chemistry? plants?" "Why it 'smell' like drugs?""Why you uptight? sweating?""Why can't you tell us what we will find if we looked?""Why flowerpots? coffee filters?" - DO NOT ANSWER ANY SUCH QUESTION! In some countries you're protected from that shit - not here! They know damn well what your up to! They think everyone under circumstances would commit a criminal act - therefore everyone is a criminal - everyone is guilty of something - they must merely uncover what they have done - to "own" them. (not all are pigs though!)

Remember folk - we are virtuous people - and we make the mistake of thinking that everyone wants to be virtuous too. But most people are normal, prefer the praise of being good, but are too selfish and lazy to do it. We don't make a living out of fucking up the lives of families because the old man can't stay off the weed long enough to pass a piss test and get a job stacking bricks, holding traffic signs, etc. Valium, Zoloft, yes - homegrown, no.

A drug ingested is evidence gone - anything you say is hearsay. "Trespass to the Person" prevents any medical confirmation.

But the merest trace is possession. You see under AS4308 once they've detected a S9 substance in you, does not the specimen itself become illegal? Do they conceal the crime? or ring the police to investigate you further? Why let you work awaiting confirmation.

AS4308 compliency depends on your agreement and terms of employment - "provide" a clean urine sample at correct temp - you complied.

I told my hands I was gonna start drug testing (just to get loads of free reverse-immunoassay drug test kits) their arses - and sit there smoking cones all day in the office, because it only applies to workers, not the bosses!

They bluntly said if I did they'd tell the cops where my crops are. - Such is the Realpolitik of bush "socialism"!

AS4308 piss test cover sympathomimetic amines/cannabis artefacts/cocaine artefacts/benzodiazepines/opiates - whether that's their way of saying GHB, LSD, K, mushies, peth, PCP and datura are alright - I don't know.

The police can not use this test! There's no proof the THCacid in your urine, weeks later, came from a spliff a month ago or a overnight praying session in church breathing in too much frankincense - the other source of THC.

They use the saliva test, that misses heroin!, but still cannot prove possession with it.

Over cannabis it remains in piss for days, but takes days to build up - it is possible to fail a piss test and pass a swab, and visa versa. The law can't have two standards that don't cross reference.

A test that confirms LSD days after sounds like mighty useful gear! If you said you've taken LSD, but cannot prove it - well my friend I've heard your packing 10" - overheard it in the gym! - that true too?...

How do you know it was +D25LSD? What if it were an accidental mushroom? Or spiked drink? Indeed a backfired, nervous joke - a faux pa - that you retract and deny? Even today it's difficult to prove lysergide from its cogeners.

Let's not kid ourselves Illicit Laboratory Investigation Team (ILIT), etc.were compelled by govt to monitor about 200 Aussie sites - detail members, networks, etc. - practise, if you will. Op. Hydra had fed surv. on the MCs for ages.

QPS told me to "keep off the forums""they'd know" - hi guys! Terrorist days they decided covert suv. by the cops was alright, because that's confidential! I don't know if they actually repealed it.

Leave that boss! - that was over the top! Presumption in the extreme. He's a cockroach and will fuck you one way or another anyway. They hate your morality as that of the risktaker, the freethinker, the whistleblower, the shaman - very dangerous to their herd!

He better make sure he washes his own coffee cup, makes own coffee, eats lunch out and wipes his steering wheel down carefully with bleach in future! He has only his own mind to fear!

Peace and Consciousness People!

[LokStok]

I'm not a legal person...

 

[Francois le Danque]

people sometimes take the train to Amsterdam, get high there and drive back

 

that's a neat trick.

unless one was overseas at the time.

 

i'm pretty sure all australian laws apply to australians when overseas. so yes, the government owns your mind, no matter where you are.

[CLICKHEREx]

You would really only be stating that you took what you believed to be, (that drug) but there would be no evidence that it was, in fact, the drug you believed it to be.

Without solid evidence, they wouldn't bother to prosecute.

[Torsten]

I thought I had already replied in this thread, but apparently not.

I am surprised at how certain some people here are about the OP's question as not being possible.

Look at it a different way. if the police have evidence that you were in possession of drugs then they could prosecute even if the drugs are no longer in your possession. To prove this beyond reasonable doubt is probably quite difficult, but certainly possible. imagine undercover cop sells clearly identifiable drugs [eg packet of endone] to person A. Person A then gives some to person B wihtout the cops knowledge. Cops eventually find a picture of person B on facebook showing off his sheet of endone time stamped the day of the supply and GPS located in the vicinity. I reckon they could get a conviction.

Even easier would be if person A testified against person B that he supplied B with a certain quantity in front of other witnesses who also testify. Person B would very likely be convicted.

This is not farfetched because the same principles are applied to prosecute drug suppliers all the time.

So if it works for supply and possession, then I can't see why it should not also work for self administration.

clickhererx is wrong in assuming that one can only be prosecuted if the drugs are in factd rugs and are in possession. Merely believing a substance to be an illegal drug and representing it as such is enough to be charged. eg you get the same penalty for selling an ounce of speed as you do for selling an ounce of glucose, if you believed or represented the glucose to be speed.

While it is not uncommon for people to be convicted on 'drugs' that in fact weren't drugs, I really can't see why the cops would ever try to charge someone for self administration in the absence of drugs. In reality self admin is a VERY rare charge and usually is only used when people swallow drugs to evade possession charges. I really can't think that they would ever use self admin charges as described by the OP.

[Foo]

i'm pretty sure all australian laws apply to australians when overseas. so yes, the government owns your mind, no matter where you are.

Dont think so. Im pretty sure only child sex offences and a few other things such as "bribing a foreign official" are punishable by Australian law if commited outside the country.

Some Australian criminal laws, such as those relating to money laundering, bribery of foreign public officials, terrorism, child pornography, and child sex tourism, apply to Australians overseas. Australians who commit these offences while overseas may be prosecuted in Australia.

Australian authorities are committed to combating sexual exploitation of children by Australians overseas. Australians may be prosecuted at home under Australian child sex tourism and child pornography laws. These laws provide severe penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment for Australians who engage in child sexual exploitation while outside of Australia.

[waterboy 2.0]

^^ to add to Torstens post and put a little real world on it:

2 years ago a lad down here attempted to import some e's, went and met the supply chain, done the business and returned home.Used the postal service to import the said items. Meanwhile this had been put to the attention of law enforcement (so the story goes).

Package received, and shortly after being in his hot little hands he gets a visit. Upon inspection the "e's" were in fact blue M&Ms (yep chocolates...lol), the tool did in fact admit to his intent to import a hell of a lot of material. Pretty sure the supply chain didn't like him to much.....

This has earnt him a prolonged stay in our finest accommodation to this day, for getting caught with some fckn expensive chocolate and admitted intent.

INTENT....its a powerful word

EDIT - no e's were injured this story, stunt doubles were in fact dispatched

Edited January 19, 2013 by waterboy

[Torsten]

There is also that hilarious story about the guy who is in jail for talcum powder. He was convicted for supply, but never challenged the pounds of coke held evidence.

The error was not noticed until a year later when customs had to sell off 10 of their new detection dogs at half price [for truffle dogs] because they had been trained to talcum powder instead of coke [the training coke had been sourced from the evidence room].

what a way to find out you are convicted for nothing. well, not nothing as intent is everything.

[Bigred]

A foaf in qld got done for DUI for heroin he was found slumped at the wheel at the lights's

he was charged for possession but the only evidence they had was a blood test so it

got down graded to morphine (heroin breaks down to morphine as it is very hard to

detect heroin apparently ) and later dropped by the dpp as the defense said codeine

also turns into morphine . But there is a precedent of a man being charged for

possession of h in the same situation, but sadly he did not fight it