gomaos Posted March 12, 2004 Now let's not make the same mistake the media and the police make and say that 1,4,b is an evil drug... Like ghb, it's a valuable tool used at the right dosage and as harmless as paracetamol for example... at the right dose it's harmless and quickly disgested and broken down. Like Paracetamol, at an overdose it can be fatal... which means it should only be used under controlled conditions... a rave is hardly such a place... I'd like to know what REALLY happened at "2 tribes"... did people take concentrated 1,4,b at the doses for diluted stuff? Sucha mistake could kill easily... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
simon_marklar Posted March 12, 2004 yeah i have tried kava kava - tastes bad, and doesnt really stop the twinges and shakes. Perhaps im not making it up right, becasue i was watching the resort the other nite (yeah i know...) and one of the people on there had kava kava and looked quite maggot . when i have it i find there is a "wave" that if i catch it i will be asleep. if i dont, its like i never drunk the kava in the first place. i can eventually get to sleep, but for the first one or three nights the twinges drive me insane. This is what keeps me going to the bong, and looking for something else to help with stopping. i have been smoking for about 10 years now, its pattern is well in my system. ANYWAYZ/// this is getting a bit OT... =) %simon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by Thelema: Torsten, I'm pretty sure there's no analogue drug clause that relates to analogous 'effect'; either federally, or any state in Australia. I didn't mean that somethign analogous in effect woudl automatically be illegal. The analogs clause requires a substance to be a structural analog AND to have psychoactive properties. ie, if a structural analog of MDMA is totally inactive in terms of psychoactivity then this substance would also be legal. Only once a structural analog shows analogous effect does it become an 'analog' under the law. At least that's how it is in NSW and for customs. Not sure about the exact wording of other states analogs clauses. Now this brings up an interesting potential situation. What if you could find an inactive structural analog (inactive by any administration route) that becomes active in conjunction with another legal substance (such as a MAOI). Theoretically this would not be covered under the analogs clause...... yeah, I know I'm dreaming The other thing that interests me is the actual toxicity of 14B. After all, isn't it quite closely related to the relatively toxic ethylene glycol (anti-freeze). In fact, isn't it a glycol and aren't all glycols toxic? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thelema Posted March 12, 2004 T- I wasnt aware that NSW had an analog clause, but I can tell you that the customs analog clause makes absolutely no reference to the fact that the analog must also be psychoactive. Hence my initial post querying your saying so. So yes, its stupid, but a non-psychoactive analog of MDMA is in fact illegal to import. Could you please reconfirm your previous assertion that the NSW analog clause does in fact make reference to psychoactivity in deciding whether or not something is analog? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted March 16, 2004 He he, you're always keeping me on my toes The NSW analogs clause is extremely extensive. It covers up to 6 substitutions or 6 carbons etc etc in any combination. HOWEVER, it clearly states that the prerequisite is that the substance is 'psychotropic'. The customs act does have an analogs clause, but you wouldn't believe it, it doesn't have one in the imports section!!!!!! I have been looking at the exports section as a friend recently got raided for something I was under the impression that it was legal (so there are a few changes coming up for our overseas customers). The exports schedule has as one of the items a sentence that is basically an analog clause. Not as extensive as the NSW one, but certainly does make reference to the prerequisite of the item having 'similar ill effect as any substance listed in this schedule' or something like that. So, looks like export is tougher than import Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
