Jump to content
The Corroboree
Torsten

Qld change to analogue clause. Yes, they really did it......

Recommended Posts

A few months ago I posted about the ridiculous proposal of an analogues clause that makes any substance with similar pharmacology an analogue, even if it is not structurally related. I understood the ened for them to separate out out the burden of pharmacology proof in prosecuting structural analogues, but the same should not have applied in reverse. But they went one step further. They even scheduled things that are INTENDED to have similar pharmacology. It is already law in most states that you can be prosecuted for pretending to sell a drug [eg caffeine pills masquerading as mdma can get you a sentence same as mdma], but now if you sell a caffeine pills an claim it to be 'similar to mdma' then you can be done for mdma even if you clearly indicated that it does not contain any mdma.

The new analogues clause as decided in parliament last night. Royal assent pending. The ridiculous bits are in purple.

dangerous drug means—
(a) a thing specified in the schedule 1 or 2 or, where the thing so specified is a plant, any part of the thing; and


(B) a thing being a salt, derivative or stereo-isomer of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or any salt of such a derivative or stereo-isomer; and
© a thing that
(i) has a chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or (B); or
(ii) has a pharmacological effect that is substantially similar to the pharmacological effect of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or (B); or
(iii) is intended to have a pharmacological effect that is substantially similar to the pharmacological effect of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or (B);


and includes a thing referred to in paragraph (a), (B) or © that is contained in a natural substance or in any preparation, solution or admixture.


this is what it looked like before:

dangerous drug
means—
(a) a thing specified in the schedule 1 or 2 or, where the thing so specified is a
plant, any part of the thing; and


(B) a thing being a salt, derivative or stereo-isomer of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or any salt of such a derivative or stereo-isomer; and
© a thing that has a chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) and (B) and that has a substantially similar
pharmacological effect;

and includes a thing referred to in paragraph (a), (B) or © that is contained in a natural substance or in any preparation, solution or admixture.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update Torsten. These parliamentarians really frustrate me at times, well a lot of the time. Someone should graffiti all coffee shops saying that the coffee may cause effects similar to MDMA and see how long those pollys go without their coffee.

Times like these we need a facepalm emotion but I'll just settle with this one :slap:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be about time to reconsider the smilie shortcuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scorched earth policy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i better go hand in my brain as it produces DMT and plenty of other triptamines

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps once its gazetted PPL should make sure its enforced, ALL of it :devil:

& if not acted upon surely that would be cause for the to get involved if the police are turning a blind eye to blatant drug production and or trafficking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus that's so broad it could cover almost anything, including many foods! A definition of 'substantially similar' would be a start in trying to untangle that mess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that is the idea, that way the cops can turn up looking & chances are if they cant nab you for what they originally hoped for they can get you for your lawn, coffee, dried parsley whatever. makes life nice n easy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i better go hand in my brain as it produces DMT and plenty of other triptamines

Worse yet you've established a lab in your brain to synthesise the stuff from tryptophan, a DMT analog found in milk!

Jesus that's so broad it could cover almost anything, including many foods! A definition of 'substantially similar' would be a start in trying to untangle that mess

I've used the analogy a few times to explain the law to "lay" folk - chocolate contains phenethylamine, which could be argued is an analogue of many amphets, mescaline, etc etc. The carrier is regarded as the total amount of drug, so theoretically the laws as I understand them could be used to prosecute a 250g block of chocolate not unlike 10oz of crystal meth if someone chose to really throw the book.

I suspect that is the idea, that way the cops can turn up looking & chances are if they cant nab you for what they originally hoped for they can get you for your lawn, coffee, dried parsley whatever. makes life nice n easy.

Yes, unashamedly a profile law, no two ways about it. :/

One reliable mark of a "first world" society is that police corruption is only accessible to the rich.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which committee is responsible for this ridiculousness? Was there no request for public comment?

On the other hand, proof of intent (by who - consumer, manufacturer, seller) is so notoriously difficult to prove that I can't ever see this section being used or prohibiting anything that isn't already prohibited...

Edited by Thelema

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which committee is responsible for this ridiculousness? Was there no request for public comment?
On the other hand, proof of intent (by who - consumer, manufacturer, seller) is so notoriously difficult to prove that I can't ever see this section being used or prohibiting anything that isn't already prohibited...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so does that mean no doze will be off the shelves in Qld?

Probably not but if you have some in your possession & the constabulary don't like the cut of your jib you will probably find yourself charged with having a substance that has an effect that is substantially similar to an amphetamine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not but if you have some in your possession & the constabulary don't like the cut of your jib you will probably find yourself charged with having a substance that has an effect that is substantially similar to an amphetamine.

Worse still should you be silly enough to crush the pills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I don't think so. caffeine has a substantially different pharmacological effect to amphetamine, and is not intended to have a similar pharmacological effect to amphetamine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I don't think so. caffeine has a substantially different pharmacological effect to amphetamine, and is not intended to have a similar pharmacological effect to amphetamine.

PPL have already been found guilty trafficking for passing off no doze as speed, or was it MDMA, i'll have a dig for the ABC news article see if i can find it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I don't think so. caffeine has a substantially different pharmacological effect to amphetamine, and is not intended to have a similar pharmacological effect to amphetamine.

Both caffeine and amphetamines have been classed as CNS stimulants, haven't they?

I'm not sure how broadly the net will be drawn in QLD wrt pharmacological similarity, but you can bet it won't be a net drawn rationally- it's just that some broad classifications will be ignored by enforcement until they decide to not ignore them. Arbitrarily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I think "CNS stimulation" is a neuropsychological effect, not a "pharmacological/pharmacodynamic" effect.

Of course, if no-dose is being sold as amphetamine, that's a whole different story!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon guys, these lists are made to stimulate the chemists out there.

Just use these for bedtime reading and see if you dont find yourself reaching for the lab equiptment. :innocent_n:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant for the life of me find the link now but as i recall it was being sold as "uppers" which i guess to the constabulary = amphetamines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh jesus fucking christ this is ridiculous.

Isn't the usual response to this kind of thing to impose embargoes until the local fascist government collapses? Free Queensland now!

Edited by Anodyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no doze will be fine as they are regulated under the health act. however, if you were to dissolve no-doze in a solution and label it "just like ecstacy" then this would fall under item iii.

selling any legal substance while claiming it to be illegal means you can get convicted of selling the illegal substance. so selling nodoze as amphetamine can get you the same conviction as if they were amphetamine pills. The point I am making is that under the new qld law the intention becomes illegal. ie, even if you clearly state about those repackaged no-doze that "these pills are not amphetamine, but give an amphetamine-like effect", then you are already in breach of the law.

Bigger problems are things like all the industrial alcohols [methanol, isopropanol, etc], all of which are GABA agonists and hence have pharmacological analogue with barbiturates or GHB, or whatever other GABA agonists are scheduled.

Echinacea will be illegal because of the cannabinoids in it. Saffron will be illegal because it is both a serotonin and a dopamine agonist. The list is huge. The best one however is still the fact that analogues of 5HTP will also be illegal, ie everything that contains tryptophan.... that would make it.... EVERYTHING. LOL

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ie everything that contains tryptophan.... that would make it.... EVERYTHING. LOL

So this really is a law that they can choose who and when to enforce it on. Thats the worst thing ever.

I wonder what a judge would say to a drug charge for possessing bananas

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is messed up, in so many ways, what about things like ayurverdic medicines, the only way you can describe them to us aussies is by comparing them to normal pharmaceuticals or street drugs, this just means anyone who knows how to talk will be able to stay out of trouble but the looks if it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what a judge would say to a drug charge for possessing bananas

Guilty. :wave-finger:

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

×