Posts by Russell Brown
-
People have been asking in the other thread about the legal implications of possessing these substances now. As per Section 71 of the Act, mere possession is not a very serious offence:
71 Offence relating to personal possession of psychoactive substance that is not approved product
(1)A person commits an offence if the person has a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product in his or her possession.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who holds a licence in respect of the psychoactive substance.
(3)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $500.Supply is a bit more serious:
70 Offences relating to psychoactive substance that is not approved product
(1)A person commits an offence if the person, without reasonable excuse,—
(a)sells or supplies a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product to any person; or
(b)offers to sell or supply a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product to any person; or
(c)possesses a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product with the intent to sell or supply the psychoactive substance to any person.
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who holds a licence to sell psychoactive substances that are not approved products that applies to the psychoactive substance.
(3)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction,—
(a)in the case of an individual, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years:
(b)in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $500,000.By comparison, the penalties relating to cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act are much more severe: three months jail for possession and eight years for supply or even growing plants. If it happens to be in the form of hashish, manufacture or supply attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years.
But of course we can't talk about this because it's election year.
-
Hard News: Illegal Highs, in reply to George Darroch,
Does this mean that products which have not been submitted for interim approval (and which are not part of previously banned) will no longer be illegal? The scope of the new law will be crucial.
The law remains, but without the interim approvals. So any of the products could subsequently be approved.
-
Hard News: Illegal Highs, in reply to George Darroch,
Sounds dangerous. Keep it illegal.
Damn you. I just fixed that.
-
And in the latest update, it now appears clear that Dunne had no plans to make an announcement until Labour sent out a notice about its announcement tomorrow.
-
Neither Dunne or Cunliffe is proposing to scrap the Psychoactive Substances Act, just cancel interim approvals.
This will be like when BZP was banned: firesaling, stockpiling, a flood out into the illicit market.
-
Oh my god. Dunne done did it already:
The Government will ban all synthetic drugs within two weeks until they can be proven to be low-risk, Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne has revealed.
The move comes as Labour plans to announce its own policy on psychoactive substances tomorrow, and follows increasing protest from local communities to legal highs.
Mr Dunne told the Herald this afternoon: "Last Tuesday, Cabinet agreed on a proposal from me to introduce legislation under urgency when Parliament resumes to remove the remaining 41 products from the shelves until such time as their low-level of risk can be proven."
He said he would have made the announcement earlier but he did not want to encourage stock-piling of the drugs.
-
From Cunliffe's Twitter account:
Labour will introduce legislation to remove synthetic cannabis and other psychoactive substances from sale immediately.
How do they propose to ban all psychoactive substances?
-
David Cunliffe will be announcing "Labour's synthetic cannabis proposal" at 1.30pm tomorrow in Mangere.
This will be interesting.
-
Hard News: Sorting out our thinking on drugs, in reply to debunk,
Methadone 10mg twice a day
Gabapentin – offlabel antiepileptic used for pain relief
Two anti-psychotic medications (doesn’t say which)
An antidepressant – doesn’t say whichToxic mixture?
Especially methadone with the others. The FDA is very wary about the use of methadone for pain relief.
-
Meanwhile, in today’s Star Times, Colin Espiner doubles down on Clayton Cosgrove’s “It’s like the Crusaders losing Richie McCaw” and declares that Jones’ departure is “more like the All Blacks losing McCaw. To France.”
Good grief.
And the HoS devotes an incomprehensible editorial to the topic:
In the long-term, Labour needs people like Davis. But in the short-term (the only terms in which most senior MPs think) Labour may want Harawira.
Because of MMP’s derided coat-tails rule, Harawira can win just the one seat and bring in another MP from the Mana Party, perhaps a couple more from the Internet Party when they formalise their ragtag alliance in two week’s time. This would provide Cunliffe with a real prospect of toppling John Key from power – despite the fact that Labour is trailing about 17 poll points behind National.
Jones missed out on winning the leadership. But what he did this week was force the hand of the Labour leadership.
Cunliffe and Co must now decide whether to throw their support behind Davis, and set out on the long road to build Labour back to its one-time glory as the party of the working man and woman. Or they can give Davis a comfy list placing, and throw Te Tai Tokerau back to Harawira and its richest resident, Dotcom of Coatesville.
Eh? Davis is unlikely to win Te Tai Tokerau from Harawira, but he can certainly do some good for Labour’s party vote. And he will surely receive a good list placing. The HoS’s strange either-or scenario doesn’t make any sense at all.