Drugs sold as 'food' exempt under new laws in Aus

[CLICKHEREx]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/drugs-sold-as-food-exempt-under-new-laws-20130918-2tzow.html

Date September 19, 2013
Amy Corderoy
Health Editor, Sydney Morning Herald
View more articles from Amy Corderoy

New penalty: Fines of more than $2000 are now enforced for the supply of synthetic drugs. Photo: Supplied

A loophole will allow drugs sold as "food" to be exempted from laws pre-emptively banning all new synthetic drugs, the Greens say.

Experts have argued the law cannot keep pace with new ''synthetic'' drugs, with one new drug emerging in Australia each week.

Greens MP John Kaye said legislation introduced to Parliament on Wednesday failed in its mission to deal with this problem by banning anything that can affect a person's "motor function, thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood", because it exempted foods.

"This will just shift the drugs arms race and encourage people to move from making drugs you can smoke to drugs you can eat," he said.

The law introduces fines of more than $2000, penalties of up to two years' jail and new powers to authorities to ban drugs once they are discovered. But it also exempts anything defined by the Food Act as a ''food'', that is, anything used for, or represented as being for, human consumption.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/drugs-sold-as-food-exempt-under-new-laws-20130918-2tzow.html#ixzz2fKLt6wl3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hypothetically, it'd be fairly easy to add it to a suitable melted chocolate and sell it for a good profit, maybe with a few chunks of macadamia and cashew thrown in, to provide reasonable justification for a price of around $15 - $20 per smallish bar. Or low fat, high fibre varieties, with dates, nuts, pepitas and raisins, etc. Bugger; now I'm hungry!

Come to think of it, if such products were made overseas and infused with actives there, they'd be undectable in ordinary circumstances. It'll be interesting to see what the future has in store for us, especially in the near future, trendwise.

I can't imagine importers wanting to draw attention to the nature of their product by calling them "Spaceman Bars" or such like; I s'pose their wrappings would be changed for final sale, and I only hope they're child resistant.

Will this finally make the authorities throw up their hands in despair, and begin testing and regulating the sale of products proven to be of low risk, as in New Zealand?

Edited September 19, 2013 by CLICKHEREx

[TommyChesnutt]

I have a firm belief that many drugs taste not very well.

Edited September 19, 2013 by hunnicutt

[TommyChesnutt]

You know, something tells me Betty Crocker wouldn't approve of that particular style of cooking.

...Actually, now that i think about it, i might be wrong about Betty Crocker.

Edited September 19, 2013 by hunnicutt

[newageshaman]

so by that then things like pot brownies would then became legal you would think, as it is eaten not smoked although i wouldn't really count on it myself

[Anodyne]

The law introduces fines of more than $2000, penalties of up to two years' jail and new powers to authorities to ban drugs once they are discovered. But it also exempts anything defined by the Food Act as a ''food'', that is, anything used for, or represented as being for, human consumption.

Errr...so it'll be ok to sell drugs as long as people intend to eat them?

[Raoul Duke]

I find this very confusing but am hopeful at the same time.

Would be easier if we legalised everything and regulated it all out in the open including tax.

[newageshaman]

Yeah but unfortunately that makes to much sense, and when has the government used any common sense?

[whoami]

Never made sense. but I don't think were ready to have all drugs legalised just yet. sounds like some kind of utopian ideal. but too many people are struggling with drugs that are already legal. like alcohol in remote communities. the cost to society to educate everyone on responsible drug choices would be absolutely massive. imagine dealing with a community where 80% of people are high all day and refuse to do anything else with their lives. the standards of living and quality of life would plummet. it'd be the worst thing you could ever do in some places, make drugs more accessible and with less convictions.

it sucks but its the way it is. some places would descend into absolute chaos overnight

Edited September 20, 2013 by whoami

[waterboy 2.0]

bring on the space cakes...

[whitewind]

/

Edited September 29, 2013 by whitewind

[gtarman]

LOL...sometimes I wonder what kinda drugs the lawmakers are on. Gotta get me some of that shit.

[IndianDreaming]

^ They're on coke, cos they can afford it...

[shortly]

LOL...sometimes I wonder what kinda drugs the lawmakers are on. Gotta get me some of that shit.

Its looking to me that they wanted to stitch up any & all synthetics. They were obviously happy to screw over the gardeners but wanted protect what they deem to be legitimate industry (the ones that pay them) so they nicely put in loophole for their mates (if its food its ok) but in doing so made their new toy into a farce.

Sooooo is it back to parliament with yet another amendment? Or are they going to make do with what they have?

[whitewind]

whoami, if 80% of the people are so high they can't work then there wouldn't be enough food to go around and we'd all die. Clearly this won't happen as people are self regulating by and large and still manage to function well, despite the fact that drugs are widely available to all and in some cases legal. Your post is mere hyperbole.

[whitewind]

/

Edited September 29, 2013 by whitewind

[upside]

You don't want to be on the same drugs as politicians/lawmakers! They're obviously a misleading and very dangerous compound that makes you talk alot of shit!

Edited September 21, 2013 by upside

[hostilis]

Never made sense. but I don't think were ready to have all drugs legalised just yet. sounds like some kind of utopian ideal. but too many people are struggling with drugs that are already legal. like alcohol in remote communities. the cost to society to educate everyone on responsible drug choices would be absolutely massive. imagine dealing with a community where 80% of people are high all day and refuse to do anything else with their lives. the standards of living and quality of life would plummet. it'd be the worst thing you could ever do in some places, make drugs more accessible and with less convictions.

it sucks but its the way it is. some places would descend into absolute chaos overnight

Keeping drugs illegal wont stop addiction. It actually just makes it a LOT harder on the addicts. When there is a demand there is going to be a supply and it being illegal, as you know, doesn't stop people from using it. If it was legal it could actually be regulated a little bit. There could be programs to help people out with this. Instead they just tell everyone how bad it is and keep it in the hands of the black market, then throw people in jail for it when they probably actually need some help instead.

The world wouldn't change, the drugs are already here, they will never stop being here. This to me just sounds like exactly what they want the population to believe. When in reality they're just making money off of it and that's why they keep it this way.

Edited September 21, 2013 by hostilis

[Torsten]

This headline is completely wrong and shows the authors complete lack of understanding of even basic legislation.

You can't simply call something a food. The definition of food is very limtied and enforced by the AU & NZ food authority. In short, you can't add anyting dangeorus or non-food to a food and still call it a food, and hence the exemptions of the new bill don't apply to such a mix.

you also can't simply add a drug to a food and claim the exemption because there is a clear exclusion to the exemption section which states that adding a non-compliant substance to a compliant substance automatically removes the exemption.

This bill is incredibly ambiguous, but THIS was not one of the ambiguous bits. The author is simply a moron, because that is not what the John Kaye said.

[Foo]

lmao ^^

[whoami]

Keeping drugs illegal wont stop addiction. It actually just makes it a LOT harder on the addicts. When there is a demand there is going to be a supply and it being illegal, as you know, doesn't stop people from using it. If it was legal it could actually be regulated a little bit. There could be programs to help people out with this. Instead they just tell everyone how bad it is and keep it in the hands of the black market, then throw people in jail for it when they probably actually need some help instead.

The world wouldn't change, the drugs are already here, they will never stop being here. This to me just sounds like exactly what they want the population to believe. When in reality they're just making money off of it and that's why they keep it this way.

Meh, I'm just thinking about places like remote communities. Obviously you people have never fucking been to one.

They lack even the most basic health services, let alone chemists and clinics. As I SAID it would require reform in so many areas, not just in legislation. Its so much bigger than that. The government hardly gives two shits about the welfare of these people as it is. All they do is throw money at them as if it helps. The issues indigenous Australians in remote areas face are many, and the government does fuck all to really help

whoami, if 80% of the people are so high they can't work then there wouldn't be enough food to go around and we'd all die. Clearly this won't happen as people are self regulating by and large and still manage to function well, despite the fact that drugs are widely available to all and in some cases legal. Your post is mere hyperbole.

As I said, I'm talking about places like remote communities. I'm not about to go and try to explain how they are. Sure, make more substances easier to acquire and easier for people to abuse, I'm just as keen as anyone else to see what happens when they're all addicted to opiates instead of alcohol and tobacco. maybe give them access to whatever sort of amphetamines they like eh?? Especially when considering how much trouble some of the more 'enlightened' cunts have managing their own addictions as it is!!!

do you see the point yet?? I think yall need to visit an old mission

Edited September 23, 2013 by whoami

[Torsten]

whoami, in all prior experiments with decriminalisation the consumption rate did not increase. As much as this seems counterintuitive, it is a fact in all instances. In portugal where decrininalisation was across the board, consumption fell because more money was available for addiction treatment options. Regulations would make even more funds available due to the extra taxes collected from the products.

So if prohibition has no negative effect on actual consumption rates then how is it protecting vulnerable communities? Especially communities that urgently need more funds for treatment options? Are you sayin that prohibition is helping keep cannabis use down in those communities? the statistics indicate otherwise. All prohibition does it make profits for criminals and increase incarceration rates of those vulnerable communities. Ever considered what effect the high rate of youth incarceration [directly resulting from drug charges] has on those communities?

The approach you are advising has never worked and will never work. It's time to try something new. And yes, I have been to missions. In fact that's where I used to score my pot from because there was no place that had a more reliable supply.

Please edit your above post as it it insulting and has been reported to mods. I have greenlighted it for now under the assumption you'd prefer to keep discussing this rather than insulting people.

[CLICKHEREx]

So if the synthetic drug dealers overseas decide to begin importing foodstuffs, like chocolates, cookies, or "health bars", laced with product, to avoid detection, what response(s) would the feds be likely to make, as they would be undetectable by dogs, and they'd only be tested if there was definite intelligence on it?

[GoOnThen]

So if the synthetic drug dealers overseas decide to begin importing foodstuffs, like chocolates, cookies, or "health bars", laced with product, to avoid detection, what response(s) would the feds be likely to make, as they would be undetectable by dogs, and they'd only be tested if there was definite intelligence on it?

You know some people that want to import these compounds may be a bit ruthless but do you think they would be stupid enough to bring in a compound that is active at micro doses in a chocolate bar or some other food. Could they trust the seller to do the right thing.

The most important thing is would you trust a unknown source to give you a unmeasured dose of an unknown substance that you can not identify or measure. And that is before you even consider the issues of someone eating it thinking its just chocolate/food .......................your child perhaps .

I for one would think that this is the most irresponsible stupid thing that any one could conceive doing. Hiding drugs in foodstuff is bad enough but laced food that is just fucked.

Cheers

Got

Edited September 23, 2013 by GoOnThen

[Foo]

I think yall need to visit an old mission

I think you might need to leave the mission.

[enohpi-zeekim]

Goes to support the fact that the more they criminalize these substances the less there is known about them. It seems to put a strangle on the research as fewer people can obtain them. People Start to dream up more insane methods of hiding them putting the unsuspecting hungry child in harms way. I definitely agree that they should be in the hands of professionals and distributed with correct information and dosage to those willing to experiment. All these laws seem to do is drive it into the arms of amateurs and people just looking at the dollar value and screw the health of the curious. Decriminalize and regulate, Treat and educate! Anyway Nature is best!