talking about the past

[paradox]

ok, we all know how important it is to not incriminate ourselves and others while talking bout plants online!

my question is: what are the legal ramifications for talking about something which happened in the past?

for instance, if we were discussing flowering times for hemp (or something) and someone says "i smoked some fat, stinky afgani buds the other day" (or something to that effect). if that is unprovable then isn't it ok to say?

If someone was to say: "i have a huge secret opium poppy farm and export 200 kg of raw opium to timbuktoo every year"

would that be grounds for the police to raid your home?

i guess if police read something online, they could then launch an investigation and gather enough evidence to do a raid!

but what i mainly want to know is, what the legalities are for talking about something which happened in the past.

[Fenris]

Im guessing that it has to do with how long in the past the event occurred and the seriousness of the event. If I said I did something illegal a couple of years ago, whether I did it or not actually linking me to any supposed illicit activity might be quite difficult as long as no one was hurt or impacted by my activity.

If I said I did something last week then the degree of separation from the event will not be so great and the impact from the event may still be provable. The Afgani buds may still be lying around the house with smoking impliments, I may have split it up to on-sell and have incriminating evidence lying around the house. I may have a number of a supplier in Afganistan in my address book etc.

Its just a thought. Which reminds me, there was this one time... at band camp.....

[Auxin]

It depends on the statute of limitations for the specific crime in your area. If it is a past act beyond the statute of limitations for that crime no one can prosecute you even if they find video evidence and you sign a full confession. For instance: In 1993 I trespassed in a graveyard at midnight and smoked my first joint. The statute of limitations for pot possession in my area at that time was like 2 years, and for trespassing it was like 3 or 6 months or something... so I can say it now. If I were to do the same now I'd have to keep quiet for a few years.

If its a past act not yet beyond the statute of limitations they can bust you, same if its an ongoing act.

[paradox]

whats the statute of limitations?

[Hellonasty]

whats the statute of limitations?

It's a period of time where a crime is no longer punishable ! And Australia is not like the US !!!! the only matters in Australia (Particularly N.S.W) that have a statute is minor traffic matters like speeding etc and that period it 6months. For the remaining "criminal" matters such as you speak of above there is NO limit. The only other limit we have australia is for arrest

warrants and that is 20 years !! If you can escape the law for 20 years after a warrant has been issued then your free

One particular point of interest regarding your above comments. As far as bioassay goes there is no law in NSW and i'm pretty sure this stands for the rest of aust for the past use of any illegal substance. So there is no dramas in stating what you ingested in the past, the law states the prosecution must prove "Future Use" so admitting past use to cops or even in court will have no legal ramificiations.

[Torsten]

there is NO limit.

Correct. I am glad you said this because too many folks watch american TV.

One particular point of interest regarding your above comments. As far as bioassay goes there is no law in NSW and i'm pretty sure this stands for the rest of aust for the past use of any illegal substance.

Ummm, not quite. There are various laws you cna be charged with if the offence is current, but possession is obviously not valid weeks later. However, self administration is definitely illegal and if there is good evidence of such then charges could theoretically be brought. In practical terms, I doubt it happens all that often - if ever. Certainly a statement on a forum saying 'i smoked some bud' is not enough for a conviction.

However, often it is not about convictions. Often it is about probable cause. In that case a statement about past use is certainly sufficient for them to get a warrant. Not sure how far back they can quote you, but certainly recent use such as the last year or so would probably count.

I talk about a fair bit of illegal use, but that is over 10 years ago. Some peopel think that I say 10 years because of a statute of limitations, but that is not so. I say 10 years, because my party days were pretty much over in 1997. I figure some of that may even be probable cause these days if it fits into the context of a current investigation, but then again I've been expecting a raid for 8 years now

[Vertmorpheus]

That's it... it simply isn't illegal to have been stoned or whatever in the past in Australia (I heard something that in britain they can get you retrospectively but not sure to be honest) and I'm moderately sure it's not actually illegal to be high right now... just illegal to be in possession, or driving under the influence etc. Try smoking a fat one, wandering up to the nearest copper and telling him y oure stoned...know what he'll do? tell you to get fucked.or ignore you. Or say "thats nice, how about we go have a look in your house?" at which point you'll realise keeping your mouth shut rarely hurts.

What is relevant though is the nature of the offfense... it IS illegal to have murdered someone on the past, and I'm fairly sure the existance of any real proof (beyond your own online admission, which is just about useless in court) that you've been into something more...federally orientated can get them quite antsy on your goings on for a fair time after. Also everything any gov. dept. does comes down to outcomes vs expense... it would be just about as easy to suss out the location of the more "interesting" members in here than it would be to chase down humble collectors of obscure mints... which means , especially with the expense involved, you are a lot more likely to have hassles talking about current and or major things, or innovative pseudolegal things, than just to mention that a few years ago you grew a few mullies before the paranoids kicked in and you composted them or whatever. That you currently are growing some bizarre kind of sage with just about zero street value that just happens to be technically kind of illegal, but the aphids keep eating it, bla bla... not worth their bother.

I'd probably personally minimize that amount of talking I did about any attempts to make legal variants of illegal things in any practical sense... they'd be fairly worried about GM tech getting into underground industries and so you can guarantee theres at least a teeny weeny taskforce somewhere on earth just quietly sifting the net looking for any mention of it. They used to have to wait til you got busted to work out what people were up to, now they just google "free drugs at home" or "miracle gro" and are just as up to date as us in avery very short time

What people don't realise is that EVERY time a serious offense occurs and they get on the news about it, cop shops get swamped with calls from complete whackjobs claming to be the killer the thief the arsonist... some of them do it so often they know them by voice alone. In QLD at least I know we maintain a database of chronic false sex assault complainants (which is sad for so many reasons). Just seeing smoeone online saying "sometimes I get high" really isn't worth their time or effort. Maybe you're just trying to fit in.BUT... if they worked out who was further towards the peak of the pyramid of interestingness in here, they'd do them first if they were going to do anyone at all. Not out of cost benefit perhaps, as people are bright enough not to have too much in the way of suspect goods laying about their house, but if they want to make a statement its the serious ones they will take down to put the frighteners on the rest of us.Those old dawn raids are a favourite, even if most of the boys picked up get off, the idea is still burnt into the heads of anyone else in the same kind of game.

It would be far easier for someone to just slot right in as a quiet kind of member until the casual chat about who actually has what kicks in and then get your address etc than it wouldbe for them to sideline half a dozen computer crimes blokes who have better things to do for as long as it took to get into the servers etc involved, bear that in mind when you go being all honest.

having said that, the FOAF and "my cat dreamt that" business would piss them off more than being fairly honest, they appreciate the intel and the ideas rather than the individuals involved I suspect. lets face it, if you DO have a million dollar meth lab at your house, are you going to spend time in here mumbling about eating suspicious berris you found growing in the scrub? I think I'd be busy rolling naked in money than in here talking to you potting mix pixies (in the nicest possible way of course!).

especially living in a nation where the bulk of people over about 15 admit to having at least tried the stuff, I dont think one more admission of past entertainment is going to get you boiled in oil. But talking about boiling those magic oils, that'd be different. I'm fairly sure if you have all the bits and pieces and MOST of the stuff to go cooking ice they can do you for it whether you have a carboot full of sudafed or not, and if the local squad is getting the heavies about outcomes from on high, you might just be the next episode of "what have we here!" *cheesy game show music kicks in*

talking about OTHER people doing things, now that's an entirely different matter and as hairy and happy as I am, I am aussie enough to see dogs as being somewhere between worm spew and carpet burn. blab all you want about yourself but leave names out of it, that applies to just about any industry in this country really. The more you talk, the less you will get told then you wind up in the dark, not what you want.

if in doubt, leave it out.

GD

[Jesus On Peyote]

I agree with Greendreams,i dont think saying that you have taken a drug in the past would be legal justification for them to do anything, but some other things may have some repercussions.

I think there is someone in politics that has recently said he smoked weed at school when he was younger and i think people wanted to kick him out but nothing about legal charges, not sure what happened tho, they always report the news but never finish the story.

[Torsten]

did no one read my post??? Possession is not the only crime. Self administration carries the SAME penalties. People get charged with that all the time - usually when they decide to be clever and hide the pills in the mouth and dispose of the evidence that way. If the cops see it then you're toast.

HOWEVER, there is a difference between the law and how it is applied. This is in many cases up to the officer's discretion and because of the low priority they have about users rather than dealers, these days not many self administration cases go to court. That does not mean that the law isn't there and that it could be used anytime. Just like the bong law in NSW, it is up to the officer's discretion if he wants to book you for a bong or not, but these days they rarely do. If we got a liberal state government we would instantly have these laws back in force.

So, greendreams, while it is not illegal to have been stoned in the past, it is illegal to have self adminstered drugs in the past. Theoretically you can get charged if for example you [for some reason] stated in an affidavit that you 'were too busy munching on hash cookies' then that statement is court admissable evidence. I am not sure whether a simple statement of 'man, I was too stoned from the joint I smoked that day' wold also be sufficient as evidence, but I think it would be good to err on the side of caution.

Bottom line is that any drug offence that was an arrestable offence at the time it happened, is still the same arrestable offence 5 minutes later or 5 years later. The only thing that varies is the strength of the evidence.

In reality though there are simply no resources for prosecuting past self adminstration charges, so this is a matter of theory only.

oh, and btw, being a self admitted recent drug user is plenty of probable cause for them to raid your home. they frequently do this if they find drugs in blood samples taken for whatever reason.

[Auxin]

 

 

being a self admitted recent drug user is plenty of probable cause for them to raid your home. they frequently do this if they find drugs in blood samples taken for whatever reason.

Over here meter maids, mail men, and delivery boys get paid for reporting stuff to the cops- even if its just potting soil and pots if the people that live there are in their 20's or look like hippies the informant gets paid and the house gets raided (in large cities this can as much as double a persons yearly income) the reason I bring this up is if over there having drugs in ones blood is enough to get raided are the folks at the blood banks, hospitals, and AIDS clinics paid snitches? Or do privacy laws protect medical reports?

[amanito]

SD as Therapy? Write about It, Get Barred from US

IPB Image

BC psychotherapist denied entry after border guard googled his work.

View full article and comments here: http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/04/23/Feldmar/

By Linda Solomon

Published: April 23, 2007

Andrew Feldmar, a well-known Vancouver psychotherapist, rolled up to the Blaine border crossing last summer as he had hundreds of times in his career. At 66, his gray hair, neat beard, and rimless glasses give him the look of a seasoned intellectual. He handed his passport to the U.S. border guard and relaxed, thinking he would soon be with an old friend in Seattle. The border guard turned to his computer and googled "Andrew Feldmar."

The psychotherapist's world was about to turn upside down.

Born in Hungary to Jewish parents as the Nazis were rising to power, Feldmar was hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust when he was three years old, after his parents were condemned to Auschwitz. Miraculously, his parents both returned alive and in 1945 Hungary was liberated by the Russian army. Feldmar escaped from communist Hungary in 1956 when he was 16 and immigrated to Canada. He has been married to Meredith Feldmar, an artist, for 37 years, and they live in Vancouver's Kitsilano neighbourhood. They have two children, Soma, 33, who lives in Denver, and Marcel, 36, a resident of L.A. Highly respected in his field, Feldmar has been travelling to the U.S. for work and to see his family five or six times a year. He has worked for the UN, in Sarajevo and in Minsk with Chernobyl victims.

The Blaine border guard explained that Feldmar had been pulled out of the line as part of a random search. He seemed friendly, even as he took away Feldmar's passport and car keys. While the contents of his car were being searched, Feldmar and the officer talked. He asked Feldmar what profession he was in.

When Feldmar said he was psychologist, the official typed his name into his Internet search engine. Before long the customs guard was engrossed in an article Feldmar had published in the spring 2001 issue of the journal Janus Head. The article concerned an acid trip Feldmar had taken in London, Ontario, and another in London, England, almost forty years ago. It also alluded to the fact that he had used hallucinogenics as a "path" to understanding self and that in certain cases, he reflected, it could "be preferable to psychiatry." Everything seemed to collapse around him, as a quiet day crossing the border began to turn into a nightmare.

Fingerprints for FBI

He was told to sit down on a folding chair and for hours he wondered where this was going. He checked his watch and thought hopelessly of his friend who was about to land at the Seattle airport. Three hours later, the official motioned him into a small, barren room with an American flag. He was sitting on one side and Feldmar was on the other. The official said that under the Homeland Security Act, Feldmar was being denied entry due to "narcotics" use. LSD is not a narcotic substance, Feldmar tried to explain, but an entheogen. The guard wasn't interested in technicalities. He asked for a statement from Feldmar admitting to having used LSD and he fingerprinted Feldmar for an FBI file.

Then Feldmar disbelievingly listened as he learned that he was being barred from ever entering the United States again. The officer told him he could apply to the Department of Homeland Security for a waiver, if he wished, and gave him a package, with the forms.

The border guard then escorted him to his car and made sure he did a U-turn and went back to Canada.

'Curious. Very curious'

Feldmar attended the University of Toronto where he graduated with honours in mathematics, physics and chemistry. He received his M.A. in psychology from the University of Western Ontario. At University of Western Ontario, he was under supervision with Zenon Pylyshyn, who was from Saskatchewan and had participated, along with Abram Hoffer and Duncan Blewett, in the first experiments with LSD-25.

"Zenon told me he had had enough strange experiences, that he had gone about as far with LSD as he wished to go. He still had what was once legal.... Looking back 33 years, I don't quite recall why I decided to accept his tentative offer. I was 27 years old and thought of myself as a rational scientist, and had no experience with delirium, hallucination, or altered mind states. I was curious. Very curious. I thought that, like Faust, I might make a pact with the devil in return for esoteric knowledge."

Zenon gave him 900 micrograms of acid and the surprise of his life, he wrote in the Janus Head article. "Following this initiation, I traveled to many regions many times with the help of many different substances. I took peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, cannabis, MDMA, DMT, ketamine, nitrous oxide 5-MEO-DMT, but I kept coming back to LSD. Acid seemed my most spacious, most helpful ally. While on it, I explored my past, regressed to the womb, to my conception. I remembered, grieved, and mourned many painful events. I saw how my parents would have liked to love me, and how they didn't because they didn't know how. I learned, on acid, to endure troubling and frightening states of mind. This enabled me, as meditation has done, to identify with being the witness of the workings of my mind, observing whatever was going on, while knowing that I was simply captivated by the forms produced by my own psyche."

After receiving his MA, Feldmar spent a semester in the U.S. at the Johns Hopkins University's Ph.D. program in theoretical statistics. In 1969, he began Ph.D. work with Dr. Charles Osgood in psycholinguistics at the University of Illinois at Champagne Urbana. He did further Ph.D. studies at Simon Fraser University.

Legal options expensive

Feldmar was determined, in the months after the aborted border crossing, to turn things around. He was particularly determined because the idea of not being able to visit his children at their homes was unthinkable.

He contacted the U.S. Consul in Vancouver to protest and was again told to apply for a waiver. When he consulted Seattle attorney Bob Free at MacDonald, Hoague and Bayless about going through this process, he learned that for $3,500 (U.S.) plus incidentals, he'd have a 90 per cent chance to get the waiver, but it would probably be just for a year, and the procedure would have to be initiated again, any time he wished to cross the border. Each time, he would have to produce a statement saying that he had been "rehabilitated."

He looked into filing suit against the U.S. government for wrongdoing but gave up the idea when he learned that a legal battle with U.S. Customs would cost his life's savings and, with the balance of power tipped so extremely in the government's favor, he would almost surely lose.

Again, he appealed to the U.S. Consulate. The consulate wouldn't return his phone calls, but in this e-mail message to Feldmar, the consulate explained its position.

"Both our countries have very similar regulations regarding issuance of visas for citizens who have violated the law. The issue here is not the writing of an article, but the taking of controlled substances. I hear from American citizens all the time who have decades-old DUI convictions who are barred from entry into Canada and who must apply for waivers. Same thing here. Waiver is the only way."

Ensnared by Section IV

"Admitted drug use is admitted drug use," says Mike Milne, spokesman for U.S. border and protection, based in Seattle. Milne said he could not comment specifically on the Feldmar case, due to privacy issues, but he quoted from the U.S. Immigration Law Handbook section which refers to "general classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible for admissions" to help shed light on the clauses that may have ensnared the Vancouver psychotherapist.

"Persons with AIDS, tuberculosis, infectious diseases are inadmissible," Milne said. And then there is Section IV. "Anyone who is determined to be a drug abuser or user is inadmissible. A crime involving moral turpitude is inadmissible and one of those areas is a violation of controlled substances."

If there's no criminal record, as in Feldmar's case?

Not necessarily the criterion, Milne said. You can still be considered dangerous.

'More diligent and vigilant'

"The level of scrutiny at our nation's borders have definitely gone up since the 9-11 disaster and we are more diligent and vigilant in checking people's identities and criminal histories at our nation's borders."

Milne goes on, "There are three main areas that we have employed since 9-11 to better secure our borders. First is the number of officers we have working at our borders. We've doubled the numbers at the border. We've combined officers from Homeland Security and border protection. We brought in the officers from immigration and naturalization service, the department of agriculture and U.S. border patrol. By combining the expertise of those disparate border agencies into a single agency under a single management with the single purpose of protecting the U.S. against terrorism and other related offences, it created a more effective border agency. It created a more secure border.

"The second thing would be our information systems, our watch list systems are better shared within the U.S. government and between governments, between information sharing agreements, through Interpol, through terrorist watch list sharing internationally, we have better access for our front line officers to query information systems up to and including public based systems, including the Internet. Third, we have better infrastructure at our entries. We have cameras in some of our more remote points of entry, gates, lighting, to make them more secure. We do more checks at the borders. It depends on what level of alert we're at. At certain alert levels we do 100 per cent identity checks."

War on drugs meets war on terror

Eugene Oscapella is an Ottawa lawyer, who lectures on drug policy issues in the department of criminology at the University of Ottawa. He also works as a policy advisor to a range of government agencies and departments, including the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Oscapella sees the American security system upgrades and the potential uses alarming.

"This is about the marriage of the war on drugs and the war on terror, and the blind, bureaucratic mindset it encourages. Government surveillance in the name of the war on drugs and the war on terror is in danger of making us all open books to zealous governments. As someone mentioned at a privacy conference I attended in London, U.K., several months ago, all the tools for an authoritarian state are now in place; it's just that we haven't yet adopted authoritarian methods. But in the area of drugs, maybe we have."

'Ominous omen'

Feldmar was in the process of considering whether to apply for a waiver when he sought help from Ethan Nadlemann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance in New York, whose financial backer is another Hungarian, George Soros.

Nadlemann was outraged. "Nobel Peace prize winners, some of the great scientists and writers in the world have experimented with LSD in their time. We know people are being pulled out of lines and racially profiled as part of the war against terrorism. But this is a different kind of travesty, banning someone because they used a substance in another country thirty years ago," he said.

In February he wrote Feldmar, "Not that it helps much, but I just want you to know that I have not forgotten you or your situation. I feel frustrated vis a vis the media, and on other avenues, but I am not forgetting. I really think this situation is absurd, and an ominous omen of things to come."

When Feldmar was barred from entering the U.S., he joined the ranks of other intellectuals and artists. Pop singer Cat Stevens was turned back from the U.S. in 2004, after being detained. Bolivian human rights leader and lawyer, Leonida Zurita Vargas was prevented from entering in February of 2006. She was planning to be in the U.S. as part of a three week speaking tour on Bolivian social movements and human rights. The tour would have taken her to Vermont, Harvard, Stanford and Washington D.C., but she never got beyond the airport check-in at Santa Cruz, Bolivia where she was informed her ten-year visa had been revoked because of alleged links to terrorist activity.

'Ideological exclusion provision'

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security denied Professor John Milios entry into the country upon his arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport last June. Milios, a faculty member at the National Technical University of Athens, had planned to present a paper at a conference titled "How Class Works" at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Milios told Academe Online that U.S. officials questioned him at the airport about his political ideas and affiliations and that the American consul in Athens later queried him about the same subjects. Milios, a member of a left-wing political party, is active in Greek national politics and has twice been a candidate for the Greek parliament. Milios's visa, issued in 1996, was set to expire in November. The professor had previously been allowed entry into the United States on five separate occasions to participate in academic meetings.

The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center, filed a lawsuit this year challenging a provision of the Patriot Act that is being used to deny visas to foreign scholars. They did this after Professor Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss intellectual, had his visa revoked under "the ideological exclusion provision" of the Patriot Act, preventing him from assuming a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. It's a suit that attempts to prevent the practice of ideological exclusion more generally, a practice that led to the recent exclusions of Dora Maria Tellez, a Nicaraguan scholar who had been offered a position at Harvard University, as well as numerous scholars from Cuba.

In March 2005, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn more about the government's use of the Patriot Act ideological exclusion provision. Cuban Grammy nominee Ibrahim Ferrer, 77, who came to fame in the 1999 film Buena Vista Social Club, was blocked by the U.S. government from attending the Grammy Awards, where he was nominated for the Best Latin album award in 2004. So were his fellow musicians Guillermo Rubalcaba, Amadito Valdes, Barbarito Torres and the group Septeto Nacional with Ignacio Pineiro. The list goes on.

Cut off from friends

Nine months after being turned back at the border, Feldmar has concluded that his banishment is permanent. The waiver process is exhausting, costly and demeaning. The David and Goliath aspect of the situation is too daunting.

This is devastating to his family and friends. "My father was doing nothing wrong, illegal, suspicious, or at all deviant in any way, when he was trying to visit the U.S.," his daughter, Soma, an instructor at a Denver college, says. "In terms of family it really sucks. "

It's hard for his friend, Alphonso Lingis, a professor of philosophy at Pennsylvania State University. "I'm deeply pained by the prospect of no longer being able to welcome him in the United States," Lingis said. "The notion that he and his work could harm anyone is preposterous. He's a victim of scandalous bureaucratic incompetence by the United States officials involved in this matter."

'Alchemist's dictum'

When Feldmar looks back on what has happened, he concludes that he was operating out of a sense of safety that has become dated in the last six years, since 9-11. His real mistake was to write about his drug experiences and post this on the web, even in a respected journal like Janus Head. He acknowledges that he had not considered posting on the Internet the risk that it turned out to be. So many of his generation share his experience in experimenting with drugs, after all. He believed it was safe to communicate about the past from the depth of retrospection and that this would be a useful grain of personal wisdom to share with others. He now warns his friends to think twice before they post anything about their personal lives on the web.

"I didn't heed the ancient Alchemists' dictum, 'Do, dare, and be silent,'" Feldmar says. "And yet, the experience of being treated as undesirable was shocking. The helplessness, the utter uselessness of trying to be seen as I know myself and as I am known generally by those I care about and who care about me, the reduction of me to an undesirable offender, was truly frightening. I became aware of the fragility of my identity, the brittleness of a way of life.

"Memories of having been the object of the objectifying gaze crowd into my mind. I have been seen and labeled as a Jew, as a Communist, as a D. P. (Displaced Person), as a student, as a patient, a man, a Hungarian, a refugee, an émigré, an immigrant.... Now I am being seen as one of those drug users, perhaps an addict, perhaps a dealer, one can't be sure. In the matter of a second, I became powerless, whatever I said wasn't going to be taken seriously. I was labeled, sorted and disposed of. Dismissed."

Related Tyee stories:

* Psychedelics Could Treat Addiction Says Vancouver Official

City's drug policy honcho sees 'profound benefits'. A special report.

* Where Carla and Wayne Shoot Up

Inside the world of the Insite safe injection clinic.

* Secret Summit on Shared 'Security'

Why was North America's power elite invited to Banff?

Linda Solomon is an award-winning journalist who publishes The Vancouver Observer.

[Auxin]

That guys mistake was publishing under his actual name. In scientific publications its traditional to publish under ones true name to supply credibility, give stuff to add to a resume, and to inflate the ego. I think it a bit foolish to publish something under ones own name that in a few years could be criminal, thats what pseudonyms are for.

While people could find out my name if they wanted I wouldnt dream of posting half the shit I do if my screen name were my real name. For example me boycotting any country for any reason whatsoever is against federal law, if a store owner finds out I wont buy goods from israel he faces a $3000 fine if he doesnt promptly report me to the FBI. With the current political tides I dont even want to imagine what my governments views of me inciting boycotts against the US, anti-war protesting, publicly denouncing political figures as mass murdering war criminals, etc will be in a few years so my name exists no where on the net. If a border guard puts my name into google they'll get precious few hits with most being for a singer from the UK.

I love the surface-level anonymity of the net

[Vertmorpheus]

As ya said, mostly in theory as noone in any significiant numbers has ever been done for "self admin", anytime the boys in blue raid a bunch of tokers its the gear, the bong, the stolen stereo, if they could neatly tack another easy to stick charge on the sheet then they would, but they don't. Otherwise they'd just fill a bus at the nearest doof , take the lot back to the shop, bloodtest , charge, raid their house, charge... doesn't happen. I also can't find mention of self admin in the Qld Drugs Misuse act of 86 , so in QLD it's not a drama, had a brief look at amendments to the act and no go there either,all I can spot is the odd mention to syringes used for administering a substance, offering to administer to others, bla bla.... found a few refs to it happening down there in mexico, serves yez right for living in the land of tooheys new

Mentioning shit online in a vague and folksy manner is an entirely different thing from stating it in a signed affadavit or stat dec etc... the question was about talking online NOT spilling your guts on paper after being warned of your rights. Of course signing a bit of paper saying "I get high quite a bit" is probably a little incriminating (wow whoda thunkit)...but they're only going to have you in that position to do that AFTER they've taken you in for something, in which case they're already looking thru your freezer and undies as it is. What they CAN do in QLD at least is , under the act, decide that they think they can smell dope and just take the door down on the spot if they can claim they figured the offense or evidence would be gone by the time they get a warrant of entry... this is used a lot on houses that they just have had enough of or people they just want rid of (not payin their dues haha).

And when all's said n done, if you don't like lockup but do have anything above or beyond a few nuggets and a pipe around the house, you're being a bit silly.Dunno, maybe I'm the only one pretty enough in here to worry that much about such things... could be yez like playing house with a 300kilo tongan bloke named "mary".

As for samples, if everyone that ever smoked up and then got tested anywhere, anytime, had that info passed onto the cops as a matter of course, a DECENT whack of the nation would be getting raided...but then they tend to look at bloods with a view to a certain observation rather than just a broad spectrum analysis (cheaper) and if it got out GP's and paths were mailin bloods to the nearest for. tox. lab, people would be unhappy....simply not cost effective to haul ass at 4am everytime someone turns out to have had a toke at a barbie a month ago. BUT if the samples are taken as part of a psych sectioning procedure, that'll be a different case...but by then youre having a bad kind of weekend anyway. We have a firm tradition here in Aus that medical professionals tend not to go helping the PTB anymore than they are forced too... otherwise every pillhead and junkie that ends up in an ambulance would then end up in the copshop , and it just doesn't happen. Though a close associate says plenty of ambos will throw your gear out if they find it in your pocket while checking you out, etc, can't help themselves. And some have been found o be putting it in their own pockets, as well as pinching morphine and penthrane woohoo.

I wouldn't worry about it really. If it is that much of a worry , just keep it close to your chest.Or stop breaking the law.or decide that you don't believe in the law and are willing to be a martyr for the cause haha.Mailing prints all over the place probably isn't a great idea in that department.

stay safe out there, don't do their jobs for them!

GD

[Jesus On Peyote]

or decide that you don't believe in the law and are willing to be a martyr for the cause haha

Hazza!

Basically use your head when typing, you can always edit after a friendly reminder from someone rather then an angry demand to edit.

Edited April 30, 2007 by Jesus On Peyote

[Torsten]

To settle this, as theoretical examples don't seem to sink in, a friend of mine go done for self administration in Ocean Shores during a sniffer dog raid at the shopping centre [it was in the local papers - incl the self admim charge]. No, he did not have any in his possession [after he swallowed the pills] and that is all he got done for. It was his first offence, so no biggie, but he now has a record.

Cops use these obscure laws when they feel they are running out of options and if they are keen to get someone. In most cases it's not worth their trouble as the courts will just let the user go anyway, but in some cases they feel a crappy conviction is better than none.

When I mentioned blood samples I naturally assumed you would be aware of the doctor patient confidentiality laws and hence my comment obviously only refers to samples taken for legal reasons. eg after traffic accidents. In such a case the blood sample should only be used for establishing DUI proof, but is in fact also used for raiding houses for those drugs. Keep in mind that such blood samples are taken from all people invovled in an accident, not just the obvious at-fault driver ,and also remember that drugs still show up many days after ingestion.

I am at pains to always point out the law and the common application of the law separately on these forums as most people simply aren't aware of what the real laws are. For example, most smokers will tell you that bongs are legal in NSW. After all they are sold in shops and almost no one ever gets arrested for them. That would be the way you present the law - how it is applied in 90% of cases. But that is misleading, especially to the 10% who end up with a record on such bad advice. I prefer people to now the law and then to make up their own mind as to what the risks are.

Had a quick look at the Qld law and this doesn't seem to be an issue there. Qld drug law was almost entirely rewritten after you got rid of your dictator, and it was written by labor, so it is much more sympathetic to users. WA law follows a similat process. All other states should assume their law to be similar to NSW.

[shruman]

With ur example of ur friend T, he could have also been charged with tampering with evidence no?

If police see u stick something in ur mouth then swallow they can charge u with tampering with evidence cant they?

[Vertmorpheus]

Yep and if not on that they can decide its obstruction etc. Or figure only a maniac would eat that many tabs at once and get you psych sectioned, and thats basically the back way to jail.

Just pointed out the medical testing thing as I didn't want anyone deciding to skip the glandular fever test etc out of paranoia.

Queensland is a whacky place, we can get nailed to the trees over things that in other areas are a slap on the wrist, but in practice (as ya said torsten) it's quite different, plenty of people get a verbal kick in the balls and a "keepin our eye on you maggot" routine and left to their own devices, and it's not uncommon for a dodgy house with a dozen dodgy residents to get done with only one or two people being the real targets, the rest getting told to piss off.There is what it written as law, and what they choose to do on the day, they have quite a bit of leeway which sometimes is abused but generally helps them get holdof slippery forms of pondscum.But then there is joint custody, hauled out of the cobwebs to nail everyone in sight over what is obviously perso for one. Fair enough, if you have them standing in your loungeroom you've been being antisocial anyway usually.

There's generally not much of a reason to go saying "I did this specific act in this specific time period". But, if doing that was such a no no, then noone would turn up to narc anon meetings in case the D in teh crowd put em all in the bus for a lift back to his place But as Torsten said, they have an almost endless list of things they can haul out if they have to, which is why the "how to handle police" thread is a little redundant.They will win, just cop it sweet and then save the arguements for court.