naja naja Posted October 12, 2012 Not really , LAWF, they are being sold illegally and not being prosecuted. There is a clear difference. However, since there are peeps here who purchase these and we know authorities use these forums for help/hints. Maybe we should all just be silent about it. As it is loose lips that sink ships. I purchased a bag of spice in 2005 and the vendor thought i was crazy when I told them it had a cannabinoid in it. Who woulda thunk hey. And it does really matter when the cops raid them, take all their stock, test it and find cannibimetrics (very broad interperetation) and then they lay charges which end in a prosecution. I really think it will matter alot weather it has an agonist in it. But hey, thats just how I interperate it, maybe a judge would give u the benifit of the doubt 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shruman Posted October 12, 2012 Legal till they bust ya... "A SIPPY Downs man has become possibly the first person on the Sunshine Coast to be charged with drug possession for a satchel of "potpourri" that up until nine months ago was legal. Potpourri traditionally refers to sweet smelling satchels of dried leaves, herbs and flower petals, but Christopher Peter Jack faced court for simply possessing a "smokeable" version of it and also a "bong" with which it had been used. Police prosecutor Sergeant Paula Murphy told the court that when police pulled Jack over, he assured them he had no illegal cannabis in his car and willingly revealed two satchels of the dried leafy substance, which he believed was legal. However, a certificate of analysis was returned in mid July which confirmed the items included "synthetic cannabinoids", which was declared illegal last year. Sgt Murphy told the court Jack had bought the satchels after being approached by a man in the street. "He thought it was legal because he had previously bought it from the Off Ya Tree shop in Brisbane," she said. Defence lawyer Michael Robinson noted that Jack worked in the mines and smoked the potpourri because "it doesn't reflect negatively in urine tests". It had the "same packaging and had a website address on it, so he bought it in the belief that it was legal," Mr Robinson said. In a bizarre twist, if the substance was cannabis Jack may have qualified for a non-monetary penalty. "If it had been the actual drug itself, I could have sent you to a program to teach you about the dangers of drugs, but that's not possible," acting Magistrate Andrew Walker said. Jack was fined $350. The previous state government added about 19 new chemicals to the Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987 Act last November. Among them were those previously regarded as providing "a legal high" but could nonetheless be toxic. A staffer at Off Ya Tree in Brisbane yesterday said the store sold only items that were legal." http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/potpourri-has-man-on-drug-charge-sunshine-coast/1521115/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goneski Posted October 12, 2012 Thanks for the post Shruman.. I was just about to ask a related question: What happens if you were to buy "incense" from a retailer under the assumption that it's legal as it was advertised as such? Surely they don't expect consumers to have independently tested it before consumption? Shit, I know ignorance is no excuse, but when sellers themselves have no idea and testing is probably out of reach to the average consumer.. Will they just try and charge you for intending to consume a substance that mimicks cannabis? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naja naja Posted October 12, 2012 If I were a ethno retailer I wouldn't even be selling any smoking mixes that had nothing on them and had no claims, just incase they tried to bust u. But thats prob just me being paranoid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bread Filter Posted October 12, 2012 Thanks for the post Shruman.. I was just about to ask a related question: What happens if you were to buy "incense" from a retailer under the assumption that it's legal as it was advertised as such? Surely they don't expect consumers to have independently tested it before consumption? Shit, I know ignorance is no excuse, but when sellers themselves have no idea and testing is probably out of reach to the average consumer.. Will they just try and charge you for intending to consume a substance that mimicks cannabis? That is what people are being told they have to do to ensure the legality of the product. There is an Australian manufacturer who fabricated a lab report from a US lab and distributed it amongst his Aussie retailers. When the lab found out about it they were pretty pissed off. The lengths these scammers will go to has to be seen to be believed. Testing of powders and incense blends is available for $120 per substance via the DEA's Ecstasydata.org Apparently ASH Herbal and Northern Lights were raided 2 days and had 70kgs seized. One group disputes that this actually happened though. There is a hell of a lot of disinformation and deceivement out there at the moment. It is important to remember that Schoolies is just around the corner as well... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goneski Posted October 12, 2012 Wow this whole situation surrounding "legals" sure is insane. Lawl at the war on drugs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted October 12, 2012 In Qld the prosecution needs to show knowledge and intent according to my Qld solicitor. I am not convinced, but if he is right then the guy in the newspaper article should be fine as he can demonstrate lack of both. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LikeAshesWeFade Posted October 12, 2012 I see where your coming from Naja and you've made a good point about not giving this topic too much hype otherwise it'll cause unwanted attention.. I just thought it'd be good for everyone to know if what they're smoking is legal or not. I've always known that my local blend has cb agonists in it and it would be interesting to have it tested via ecstacydata.org, I just wouldn't pay the $120 they're asking for unless I was a retailer. Your not wrong SYNeR it is mind boggling.. maybe it all is basically illegal..? The companies could just be hoping on the fact their product won't be tested and that government's will just assume it's legal because it says so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bread Filter Posted October 12, 2012 . I just thought it'd be good for everyone to know if what they're smoking is legal or not. I agree with you entirely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foo Posted October 12, 2012 Just had a listen to Tronicas tripple J appearence. Glad that someone is at least trying to bring some actual facts to the mainstream. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LikeAshesWeFade Posted October 13, 2012 Yeah definitely! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bush Turkey Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Would Oleamide be illegal? Also what about rice bran NAPE isolates? Edited November 3, 2012 by Bush Turkey Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blog Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) There was a quick back and forth between a journo and Qld police detective about what is a legal or illegal drug relating to seizure of some 'legal highs' synthetic drugs. Might be interesting to someone. [There's audio/video dropouts unfortunately, if they delete it and reupload fixed version just search for qldpolice channel] FF to around 2m20s link isn't auto forwarding to the right spot in the video. Edited November 15, 2012 by blog Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shruman Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) They get their ducks all in a line, "people have plead guilty", "death of a man in NSW', "man seriosly injured his leg", "anyone can buy it online", "schoolies week" & bam they have justification. Damn journalists suck, such weak fucking questions we really don't have any alternative media. Legal till they bust ya... Edited November 15, 2012 by shruman 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timtam Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) hey do you mean for locally, non-imported compounds or what? Cos the recent federal "cannibomimetic" law applies to all states. Hard to see a loophole. Edited March 4, 2013 by timtam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timtam Posted March 4, 2013 trying the new blend in my washing machine tonight! give a review afterwards Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ghosty Posted March 4, 2013 i dont go near that rubbish at all, have before, not again. poison as far as im concerned. nobody knows the purity let along long term effects etc. etc. all to easy to make (well, allot of them are) and god knows who is making them and it what environment, substituted solvents / reagents etc. not worth it. to take such risk with so many unknown variables is just crazy, and to what, get stoned.. LOL i have well lost the passion to "get stoned" these days. the whole idea kinda makes me laugh while making me concerned about the younger mob using it. if you MUST get stoned, use the real deal as we know what long term effects are and the law now is the same. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LikeAshesWeFade Posted March 5, 2013 Yeah a couple friends of mine have had bad reactions to some of the newer blends. To be honest if it was easier to get ahold of consistent quality ganja I'd gladly go back.. but I just got sick of the chasing and poor quality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ghosty Posted March 5, 2013 well, you will be glad to learn that australia has finally woken up to it's self. you can now buy marijuana at the local smoke shop =) they did a GENUINE study and found it makes no harm to persons or community. they applied tax and found they make far more money that way than the current system. they also found it seems to increase productivity in a vast number of test subjects and rightfully assume this will be good for our economy. id like to be the first to thank them for their efforts! in a perfect world. =P 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poisonshroom Posted March 14, 2013 i found out today (not going to go into detail how) that Bombay blue - at least the one sold in north qld - contains a compound called xlr-11, related to am-2201, and has been linked to acute kidney damage (mods feel free to remove this if i shouldnt post this). so there you go - just reaffirms my view that theres some bad stuff in these things, as well as the fact it is classified as a prohibited poison in qld rather than a dangerous drug. be careful people; as always the tried and true is better than the crap trying to emulate it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
endorfinder Posted March 14, 2013 I strongly suspect that most synths on the market currently are principally CB-13 and/or XLR-11 (5F-UR-144), I'll be curious to hear your story PS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poisonshroom Posted March 14, 2013 no link - it was from personal communication with someone who had a lab certificate taken from the product which was taken from my posession (hint hint). i made sure to specifically ask what the substance in question was and he told me xlr-11 in the 5f-ur-144 group or something along those lines (i was a bit shaken up at the time and had never even heard of either), and the reference to kidney damage is from wiki. and as soon as i get a new laptop ill fill you in endor (my laptop shat itself last night - just another thing to add to the list -_- ) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bush Turkey Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) The synths on the market are xlr-11 (5f-ur-144) and 5fakb48 plus a couple other flurinated compounds. 5fakb48 has been tweaked as well. I really doubt cb13 is in any blends these days (intentially) The acute kidney failure has not been proven yet but it wouldn't surprise me. Edited March 14, 2013 by Bush Turkey 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites