More on the "Psychoactive Substances" bill

generalmiaow

AKA pat sheen wrote: »

Someone who doesn't know they are committing an offence might say it as an act of defiance and end up incriminating themselves. Also, someone further up the thread asked about customs interfering with packages. I don't know if they are doing that yet but they will.

I strongly doubt anybody is going to be testing all mail for substances they haven't heard of yet and for which no identification procedure exists except GC/MS, because it would be impossible.

Steodonn

generalmiaow wrote: »

I admit I missed that. On the other hand, the process for determining that substance is "a psychoactive substance knowing that substance is being acquired for human consumption" is so convoluted that I would be pretty surprised if customs got involved in research chemicals.

For example, someone imports a gram of 1,3-unobtainium from Pandora, Alpha Centauri. As far as customs see, this is an unlabeled powder or clay like substance in a clear ziploc bag. In order for them to determine that it was psychoactive, they would have to consume it themselves. The same applies if that person imported a nutmeg or a coffee bean, both of which are psychoactive. It's completely impossible to prove that any random object in an envelope is a "psychoactive substance intended for human consumption" unless the label says "drugs" or something. So the activity is for all intents and purposes unregulated,.

Edit: Hold on there. I can't find the line AKA Pat sheen quoted in the act in the first post or anywhere else. Are you referring to "import or export" under the definition of "sale"? The intention of the law is fairly clear there tbh.
Edit 2: Anyone with a law degree able to say if Tesco can be prosecuted for selling nutmeg, ginger, etc?

You don't need a law degree
For something to be sold for human consumption it has to be approved a board of something or another. Nutmeg and ginger are sold for human consumption therefore will remain legal its in the bill somewhere I am just not bothered to quote. This is why currently headshop products say ( NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION )

Shulgin

generalmiaow wrote: »

Edit 2: Anyone with a law degree able to say if Tesco can be prosecuted for selling nutmeg, ginger, etc?

No, but any psychoactive plants or seeds they may sell (such as morning glory seeds) they could be prosecuted for if sold recklessly, whatever that is. Dunnes Stores sell Morning Glory seeds btw.

generalmiaow

Steodonn wrote: »

You don't need a law degree
For something to be sold for human consumption it has to be approved a board of something or another. Nutmeg and ginger are sold for human consumption therefore will remain legal its in the bill somewhere I am just not bothered to quote. This is why currently headshop products say ( NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION )

Thanks. That helped me figure it out - my problem is that any organic matter is arguably a psychoactive substance according to the definition in the bill (that contains l-tryptophan, say). If "approved foods" are excluded, the law could potentially ban you from selling/importing any random plant or animal if you have "drug paraphernalia" (such as a biro) or any of the other things in 3.3. I can't think of any possible moral justification for this. For example, this law potentially technically precludes the importation of kava - which apart from some debatable hepatoxicity creates no social problems or dependence, and which headshops would have no interest in. Or, for example, catnip.

For anyone reading, I found the relevant parts are the minister saying:

I should point out that the legislation is designed so that it can have no impact on legitimate trade. It will not apply to products which can be legally sold for human consumption, such as medicines and food.

and in the bill in section 2

This Act does not apply to...
(g) food, within the meaning of section 2 of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland
Act 1998, which has been placed on the market in compliance with food
legislation, within the meaning of the said Act,

Myrddin

Steodonn wrote: »

Prove it ?

Prove what?

AKA pat sheen wrote: »

Someone who doesn't know they are committing an offence might say it as an act of defiance and end up incriminating themselves. Also, someone further up the thread asked about customs interfering with packages. I don't know if they are doing that yet but they will.

In fairness, I dont think anyone who buys from headshops has missed out of hearing about the ban, and even if there are some self incriminators, the vast majority will NOT admit its for consumption.

bushboy

Argh such reactionary and conservative braindead politics annoys me no end. We all, unfortunately, live in a backwater on the very edge of civilization. The truth is that some of these drugs might be dangerous, but until we know for sure nothing should just be banned because some aul ones group shouts louder then rational people.

Slightly OT: just wondering what substances are still available in head shops today? I know loads were banned a few months back but what is still available?

Pace2008

bushboy wrote: »

Argh such reactionary and conservative braindead politics annoys me no end. We all, unfortunately, live in a backwater on the very edge of civilization. The truth is that some of these drugs might be dangerous, but until we know for sure nothing should just be banned because some aul ones group shouts louder then rational people.

Slightly OT: just wondering what substances are still available in head shops today? I know loads were banned a few months back but what is still available?

A load of ****e that ranges from completely useless (caffeine) to positively dangerous (naphyrone). Steer clear.

TheDark_Knight

Some one who is not me has sent home some good class a from a friend in san fran, in a envelope, 2 grams, a few times and never a bother, so sending rc's shouldn't be a problem I'd imagine...

ScumLord

TheDark_Knight wrote: »

Some one who is not me has sent home some good class a from a friend in san fran, in a envelope, 2 grams, a few times and never a bother, so sending rc's shouldn't be a problem I'd imagine...

It's all random luck whether they find it or not. SF probably wouldn't be known as a hot spot for shipping drugs I had a old sick friend who was getting hash sent from Spain with no problems, the first time it came from Morocco he was picked up and arrested, well, he went in to collect it at the DHL office but he just didn't care at all about being caught and he was let off with it as he is seriously ill.

Steodonn

EnterNow wrote: »

Prove what?

Prove that you intend to use it your bath

The most dangerous part of this bill is that the onus is the the user/seller to prove its not for human consumption

Myrddin

Steodonn wrote: »

Prove that you intend to use it your bath

The most dangerous part of this bill is that the onus is the the user/seller to prove its not for human consumption

That should be quite easy to do. Simply ask them to watch you add it to your bathwater. If a judge convicted you because he believed you intended to use it otherwise, you'd have some case for that in the European Courts.

Elevator

so we're on the verge of this bill passing through the dail later today

was fun while it lasted and for someone who enjoyed some of their products for the passed 5 years it's a hard pill to swallow (de dum tish)

it's just a pity they weren't embraced and used as an outlet for legal weed/hash so we could all benefit from a massive cash injection to the state but then that would be doing something right

I will always remember the original head store of Galway having as many different strins of world class weed/hash passing thru it's doors when it opened. a few months into the shop being open Galway was like a mini Amsterdam

Shulgin

Is there anyone in the dail against this bill? It looks like it will go through with zero opposition. The only people to question it are saying it`s not going far enough.

Our Drug laws are a hypocritical ass, and even more so now. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, while safer drugs like mdma and cannabis will get you thrown in jail. It doesn't it make sense that they are toughening up drug laws here while other EU countries are decriminalising recreational drug users, and Nobody in the Dail will even question it, neither will the media.


They think this bill will make headshops unviable. not likely, the more established shops were doing business well before the legal high boom.

The debate was at 10:30. Did anyone watch it? Did it pass (almost certainly yes)? I was asleep.

Elevator

not one bit of opposition and to hell with them all for it!!

Well that answers my question...

See yiz later.

/me packs and moves to somewhere with decriminalisation and sunshine.

thebigbiffo

Deleted User wrote: »

I was asleep.

f'uckin layabout hippy f'uck. bet you've long hair too :mad:

Elevator

thebigbiffo wrote: »

f'uckin layabout hippy f'uck. bet you've long hair too :mad:

you've been reported you biffo

thebigbiffo

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/poisons-centre-gets-two-calls-a-week-about-head-shop-products-463935.html

high-larious. how about a breakdown of total volume of calls made and the substances they were concerning please?

thebigbiffo

Elevator wrote: »

you've been reported you biffo

d'oh

but seriously. you do know i''m joking right? go back over the thread if you dont

Elevator

thebigbiffo wrote: »

d'oh

but seriously. you do know i''m joking right? go back over the thread if you dont

**** no, soz man, will unreport ya so, someone attacked me on here with similar statement not so long ago so just seen red when I seen your post

durd1e

So they are going to okay some increased public spending for a group of non medical professionals (jobs for the boys) to ban substances without a provision for due process, scientific advisory, consideration for harm minimisation or common sense.

God, I hope they ban alcohol. Then we'd see a positive change in drug policy.

AKA pat sheen

The Psychoactive Substances Bill "passed all stages of the Oireachtas yesterday and will now be passed to the President for signing into law."

durd1e wrote: »

God, I hope they ban alcohol. Then we'd see a positive change in drug policy.

Alcoholic drinks made from grapes including red & white wine, port, sherry etc. all contain naturally occuring GBL and GHB. Possessing and supplying GBL for human consumption is an offence unless it's as a food flavouring. However GBL/GHB in wine IS NOT a food flavouring since it is a naturally occuring by-product, it has not been "added to impart odour and/or taste to food", but occurs as some part of the production process. Secondly, GHB is not exempt as a food flavouring AT ALL. There is no ambiguity, GHB and any substance or product containing "any proportion" of it is a controlled drug, the law is quite clear about it. Every pub, club and off-license in Ireland that sells wine is breaking the law.

Volume 151, Issue 2, Pages 289-292 (16 July 2005)

The presence of gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) and gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) in alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages

Abstract

Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) and its precursor gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) are regularly implicated in instances of surreptitious drug administration, particularly in beverages (so-called “spiked drinks”). In order to assist in the interpretation of cases where analysis of the actual beverage is required, over 50 beverages purchased in the UK were analysed for the presence of GHB and GBL. It was found that naturally occurring GHB and GBL were detected in those beverages involving the fermentation of white and particularly red grapes. No GHB or GBL was detected in other drinks such as beer, juice, spirits or liqueurs. GHB/GBL was detected in red wine vermouth (8.2mg/L), sherry (9.7mg/L), port (GBL), red wine (4.1–21.4mg/L) and white wine..

AKA pat sheen

For whatever reason that last post won't render correctly and part of the quoted abstact and the link to it gets removed so I'll put the link here: http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(05)00108-8/abstract

Counter

can you still buy mephedrone online - if so those that no defeat the purpose of the legislation?

Steodonn

Counter wrote: »

can you still buy mephedrone online - if so those that no defeat the purpose of the legislation?

You can still buy it if you get a place to deliver to Ireland but you are breaking the law and if you get caught would be prosecuted

Jamiekelly

Type "Where does Brian" into google and look at the second result

I don't think they wanna congratulate him on the job he's doing lol.
If the government want to be sensible and use proof to support their anti drug arguments then they should take a look at Holland. They have decriminalized drugs and have one of the lowest overdose rates in the world. I mean come on! The fukcing facts are in their faces!!! They should do the sensible thing.
Oh wait, this is the Irish government I'm talking about. Sensible isn't in their dictionaries. Only "AIB and Money" made it into their dictionaries. Cnuts

Shulgin

Counter wrote: »

can you still buy mephedrone online - if so those that no defeat the purpose of the legislation?

Mephedrone is explicitly illegal whereas the newer unregulated chemicals (that might be psychoactive) are perfectly legal to import as long as they aren`t for human consumption.

c0ldfyr3

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If the government want to be sensible and use proof to support their anti drug arguments then they should take a look at Holland. They have decriminalized drugs and have one of the lowest overdose rates in the world.

Err, you should take another look yourself. Holland never decriminalized any drugs, let alone weed, they simply don't prosecute, there's a huge difference.

Portugal, now there's a different matter. In 2001 they decriminalised ALL drugs. Go read the Time magazine article 8 years on and then tell me criminalising users is the way to go about it.

AAAAAAAHHH

c0ldfyr3 wrote: »

Err, you should take another look yourself. Holland never decriminalized any drugs, let alone weed, they simply don't prosecute, there's a huge difference.

Portugal, now there's a different matter. In 2001 they decriminalised ALL drugs. Go read the Time magazine article 8 years on and then tell me criminalising users is the way to go about it.

You're confusing decriminalising with legalising.