Torsten Posted October 17, 2011 the new analog definition is: (i) has a substantially similar pharmacological effect; or (ii) is intended, or apparently intended, to have a substantially similar pharmacological effect;’. I am kinda curious to see this tested in court. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gunter Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) interesting, i can't help but wonder about when effects are dose related if you take too much of something legal then it becomes an analog when specific effects manifest? consider harmine, illegal in Oz, in low doses is a proven anti-depressant and attempts have been made to patent the use of it for that purpose, according to Oz law, now anything with a similar effect (anti-depressant) should be illegal, because harmine is. Edited October 17, 2011 by Gunter 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alkatrope Posted October 17, 2011 Interesting indeed.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhoenixSon Posted October 17, 2011 disgusting indeed so that makes codeine smack? a cup of coffee a hit of speed? longjack a illegal steroid? damiani like hash? what the fuck is apparently intended! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhoenixSon Posted October 17, 2011 ap·par·ent·ly/əˈparəntlē/ Adverb: 1) As far as one knows or can see: "the child nodded, apparently content with the promise". 2) Used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legba Posted October 17, 2011 Addiction is on this restaurants Home Page The Menu suggests substantially similar pharmacological effect unavoidable Tim Tam's would be a gateway drug Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alice Posted October 17, 2011 Bugger. Well I suppose in court they can swing it as much or as little as they want really. It may all come down to the magistrates subjectivity on the day, so dress well and be polite, it's all about the "vibe". 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhoenixSon Posted October 17, 2011 its mostly about how much money you cough up for a decent lawyer imho Certainly agree on being polite and clean. But a good lawyer will be having drinks with certain people to cultivate a certain subjectivity ideally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2Deep2Handle Posted October 18, 2011 I drink coffee every morning because it wakes me the fuck up...not because it tastes great (tastes alright)... i'm doing it to get off or get a stimulated effect from it, no different to the effect i would i would get (although somewhat subdued) if i were to ingest illegal amphetamines. Does that mean i can be processed as a commercial supplier of the brown buzz if i have over 500 grams? Stupid fucking laws! what fuck-wit (labor no-doubt) politician got paid out the ass to come up with this one? They should all be charged for possession of money which makes them feel GOOD! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bread Filter Posted October 18, 2011 How about energy drinks? I can see a lot of advertising having to be changed in QLD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Francois le Danque Posted October 25, 2011 isnt there an energy drinked simply called cocaine ? fucking moronic. no surprises... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thelema Posted October 25, 2011 SSRIs are very similar in effect to SRAs. Does this mean that sertraline will be as incriminated as MDAI or MDMA? NO. This is a " catch all" law that allows the freedom of lawmakers to apply retrospectively to whatever substance happens to them to be a menance. It also means that anyone caught under this jurisdiction will be caught in a quagmire of beaureaucratic subjectifiation. That in itself is enough to turn one queasy, unless you possess the "anti-kafka" gene and just go for the fucker anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IceCube Posted November 14, 2011 Forgot to say that this only comes into effect on 04 April next year: http://www.sclqld.org.au/lu/items/acts/173 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted November 14, 2011 at the time I posted this it was before parliament. it could have been passed in a matter of days/weeks, but was instead referred to committee which usualy adds a few months. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IceCube Posted November 14, 2011 at the time I posted this it was before parliament. it could have been passed in a matter of days/weeks, but was instead referred to committee which usualy adds a few months. Thank god! There is still the original clause added in '07: Definition of Dangerous Drug The definition of dangerous drug in section 4 has been amended so as to include a chemical that is an analogue of a dangerous drug (i.e: a drug that is structurally similar and has a similar pharmacological effect to a dangerous drug listed in the DMR). The purpose of this amendment is to target underground chemists who make slight changes to the molecular structure of existing illicit drugs to create new drugs not covered by the law Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
