Anodyne Posted April 25, 2013 The new Qld legislation has got me wondering. Would it theoretically be a lesser offence to represent an analogue as being similar to a lesser-scheduled (but still illegal) drug? So for example if someone were representing some new fentanyl analogue as being "similar to morphine", would that technically be a lesser offence than representing it as "similar to heroin"? I mean, I understand that you'd likely be slapped just as hard at sentencing, just wondering if there are any precedents for this. The new substituted PCP & ketamine analogues would be a good example, or anything else that is an analogue of a substance with any kind accepted medical applications (i.e. not S9). 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted April 25, 2013 the analogs clause is related to the drug act and hence has nothign to do with S9. And in the drug act the possession of morphine is the same as the possession of fentanyl analogues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thelema Posted April 27, 2013 I believe you'd have to look in your state's Act Interpretation Act in order to find out what they say when an act can be interpreted in inconsistent ways. Theoretically, I think the lesser provision/penalty applies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
