Queensland government bans chocolate, saffron, echinacea and beer

Share This Article

Chocolate With the Ban SignCopy of a Press Release in relation to new drug laws published by Melbourne Criminal Lawyers :

Last week the QLD government passed the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2012.  As a result, many harmless chemicals, foodstuffs and herbal medicines were inadvertently banned including the popular cold and flu herb, Echinacea; the popular sleep tonic, Tryptophan; saffron; chocolate and even the unthinkable – alcohol.

The new laws state that if the ‘intent’ of a substance is to have similar effects to a banned or dangerous drug, the substance virtually becomes the drug.

Eros (The Adults Only Association) CEO, Fiona Patten said that the science of pharmacology examined which receptors a substance binds to in the body. By matching the receptor-binding qualities of commonly used substances with the receptor-binding qualities of currently scheduled drugs, it was possible to show how the pharmacological analogy laws would capture many legal compounds.

“Alcohol [ethanol] is a GABAa agonist”, she said. “Under these new laws it will arguably become illegal because several illegal drugs are also GABAa agonists. These illegal drugs include muscimol and barbiturates.”

Other alcohols such as methanol [racing car fuel], isopropyl alcohol [rubbing alcohol], and butanol [common industrial solvent] are all GABAa agonists and would all fall under the same pharmacological profile as muscimol and barbiturates.

“PEA [phenethylamine] is the ‘love drug’ in chocolate. It is a noradrenaline and dopamine agonist just like amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA and cocaine. Will the Queensland police now start raiding chocolate shops because under these new laws they will have every right to”.

“Saffron [the common spice] contains safranal which is a serotonin agonist and crocin which is a dopamine agonist. The illegal drug MDMA [ecstacy] is also a serotonin & dopamine agonist. Under these new laws a magistrate will be able to find an Asian grocery store guilty of a drug offence using the same logic and laws that they convict Ecstasy dealers.”

“These new laws catch up a host of commonly used products in herbal medicine that are found in most health food stores. Any analogue of the chemical 5HTP is now automatically illegal’, she said. ‘5HTP is a simple derivative of the amino acid tryptophan which is in almost all protein containing foods and will be well known to hundreds of thousands of people who use L-Tryptophan to get to sleep at night. It has no abuse potential and has no precursor potential. Banning this substance shows the Queensland government to be completely incompetent in their understanding of what is a dangerous drug. 5HTP is in every human brain because it is the essential biosynthetic pathway from tryptophan to the neurotransmitter serotonin. The body can’t make serotonin any other way.’

“Skullcap [Scutellaria lateriflora] is a common herb used in herbalism, and also a common garden herb. It contains flavones that are GABAa agonists and hence have the same pharmacology as muscimol and barbiturates.”

“Hordenine is an alkloid in barley and especially in beer. It is a noradrenaline and dopamine agonist. The illegal drugs amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA and cocaine are also typical dopamine agonists.”

“Tyramine is an alkaloid present in fermented and aged foods such as cheese, salami, and beer. It is a noradrenaline and dopamine agonist just like amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA and cocaine.”

Ms Patten said that her association had lobbied the Queensland government in Committee hearings not to go ahead with the new laws, saying that there were many unintended consequences to them. The Queensland Law Society had argued a similar line. The final definition in the new laws appears to say that the pharmacological similarity has to be ‘substantial’ however ‘substantial’ is never defined and most police officers would err on the conservative side and take any similarity as prima facie evidence of a crime.

She said that the government had created a law that gave an inert substance, human attributes. ‘To say that a drug or a chemical or substance can possess an ‘intent’ to mimic something else is to ascribe powers to that substance that even kindergarten children would know is impossible’, she said.

“With these new laws the Queensland government is trying to legislate people’s ‘conduct’ and not the prescribing of particular dangerous drugs”, she said. “They are the desperate actions of a Nanny State intent on forcing Queensland’s moral compass back to the Victorian era and they will have unintended consequences for the Premier and the Attorney General as well as the general population”.

She said that the young and inexperienced Qld Attorney General, Jarrod Bleijie, had gone against expert evidence in Committee to force the new laws through. He had considered many of the substances listed in the Regulations as dangerous, when clearly they were not. ‘Not only has he outlawed herbal cold and flu remedies but they have potentially banned any number of household foodstuffs and other products’, she said. ‘Laws like this that allow the police to enter people’s homes and prosecute them for harmless substances in the kitchen cupboard or on the bathroom shelf are frightening and indicative of an extremist agenda’.


As Criminal Lawyers we believe this is an important issue for people to be aware of. Governments are trying to make what are currently legal highs illegal. They are trying to change criminal laws to criminalize broad categories. Previously they had found a product and then specifically made it illegal which was a much better system although still flawed. 

If you want to read further about drug laws in Victoria go to our website www.criminal-lawyers.com.au

Know more about Bill Doogue on LinkedIn.

Share This Article

90 Responses

  1. john nystrom says:

    you have to be joking choclate and beer will be illegall who does the the attorney general in queensland think he is why don’t they go after real criminals like home invaders drug dealers rapist murderers child sex offenders ect ect ect

  2. Tim says:

    References please? I can’t find anything related to this in the Amendment mentioned.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Fuck you Government.

  4. Since these guys didn’t give a source or show any proof. Here is a link to the Queensland Government legislation amendment (the changes mentioned in the article are on Page 88, section 40):

  5. "John Miller" says:

    The Qld Attorney General is only a kid not long out of high school. Give him a break.

  6. b says:

    new world order agenda 21

  7. Glixno Wunderbaaren says:

    Methanol and the other alcohols listed are illegal and should be as they are highly toxic. Drugs do not have an “intent” but the person making them does. If their intent is to mimic an illegal drug then it falls under the law.

  8. Straw woman says:

    This is UN AGENDA 21 in action the UN the world health organization and codex alimentarius are to blame ohh i almost for got the illegal corrupt government/ American corporation, judicial system, police and lawyers…

  9. Rhys Hunter says:

    To all who approve upon this outta be locked away themselves. Removing these products and substances will not prove to help our society in Queensland it will destroy it! Its bad enough we have high crime rates, drug charges, deaths throughout Queensland, but having this approved will throw people into anarchy. This will not help, it will only make matters worse.

  10. Timmy says:

    This will never happen, I dare them to tell all the bogans oh by the way drinking is illegal.

  11. Zane says:

    So instead of realizing that the war on drugs is almost a complete waste of time and money, they make more things illegal? Seems logical really.

  12. Greg says:

    QLD, back to he laughing stock of Australia.

  13. Jess says:

    Before you know it taking a shit will be against the law.

  14. paksta says:

    Yeah, pretty sure this is a hoax. A pretty obvious hoax at that.

  15. John Smith says:

    Why would you put drug dealers in the same category as home invaders, rapists, murderers and child sex offenders? Drug related “crime” is a victimless crime, and almost all of the damage from drug crimes are either a direct or indirect consequence of the law…. jail being an example of direct consequence, overdose or poisoning due to non-existant quality control being an indirect consequence. This is a far cry from the rest of those crimes you mentioned. And, I should also point out, if you’re anti-drugs, you shouldn’t kick up a stink about beer being possibly banned – like it or not, alcohol is a drug.

  16. Ian G says:

    chances are that these new laws were designed to cull most herbal use, so big pharma can reap in more profits from their crap pedalling products..(seems newman wants all his big business buddies to profit better)… i for one prefer the use of herbs (non smoking) for fighting cold, infections, and other ailments. Looks like this one has gone a bit pear shaped for them. But then again, maybe its just a way for prick cops (no not all cops) to use the laws to fuel their egos…. “… see your honour, i caught this fifteen year old kid trying to push one kilo bricks of chocolate to the kids down the local park….”

  17. Realistic says:

    all public servants, Police, Politicians and government workers need to have regular drug tests that are accessible to the public, if they wish to execute these draconian measures.

  18. Dave says:

    I agree completely. They would not prosecute the person who got my 15 year old pregnant after a trail of grooming techniques we could prove to the police. They also would not prosecute the parents of said “father” who then abducted our 15 year old (see section 363a – a law we had to find, the police didnt even know it existed) and still have her, while they are controlling her every move.

  19. me says:

    Chocolate will not be made illegal. This is a beat up article. As if the Govt would be able to pass a law like that.

  20. The Govt has passed the legislation. The whole point is that it is very silly legislation. They are trying to capture legal highs that you can buy at shops but they have made it too wide. I can guarantee you it is not a beat up. It is shocking drafting if you buy something in a shop and you can not know till afterwards whether it is legal or not

  21. Sonja says:

    Will make it easier for Sharia Law to be imposed if alcohol is already banned. This is the only conclusion I can come to with this ridiculous law.

  22. Sonja says:

    Agree! As a public servant myself, I can guarantee that some staff are not “sober” or “clean”. If you are going to do that, you also need to ensure that any union can’t step in and stop random drug testing – as has been done for a well known manufacturing company. When someone laughs as they tell you they got out of a random drug test with union help – while high at the time, you know unions are a joke.

  23. Anon123 says:

    Ummm… so are they going to ban breast milk? Are we ‘drugging’ our children with PEA? Pretty sure this article is bung… apart from it screaming ‘I did my research on Wikipedia’ any idiot would know that it would ban basically EVERYTHING ON THIS PLANET to eliminate the chance of people creating a product to get a buzz.

  24. Does this mean we can no longer grow crocus for the flowers in our garden, and a multitude of herb generally used for cooking – Garden centres will not be pleased either as they will be subjected to “raids” for growing drugs too perhaps?

  25. mediatriage says:

    Drug related crime is not victimless. We recently had around AU$20,000 worth of things stolen from our house by junkies who then handed our electronic items to highly sophisticated criminals. Junkies are tools for the real crims and I am the victim of their crimes, which they’ve committed to score more drugs. I am not saying ban legal highs, I am simply refuting your claim that drug related crime is victimless – I am a victim, so is my wife who is very scared that these junkies will return as they think we had insurance (which we don’t).

  26. Monique do some research on us on the internet or at Austlii (the legal reporting site). We act in the Reserve Bank bribery case, we represent Nacer Benbrika the head of the alleged terrorist cell, the Kerang train crash etc. We are fair dinkum and we agree with this press release that this legislation is so vague as to capture many things that are legal. The point we are making is that you can not have laws that are this vague. It is surely wrong to draft laws like this.

  27. There are all sorts of things that are potentially illegal. It just comes down to the Police whether they decide to prosecute. What we object to is that arbitrary process. You should know what is unlawful or at least be able to work it out.

  28. I’m not saying drug crime is victimless. Crime is crime. But taking legal highs does not, should not, make you a criminal. The point is you should be able to know if you have committed a crime. This legislation is so vague you can not.

  29. me says:

    I will have to reply to myself because I can’t reply to you. This article is a beat up. It’s like saying that the police will take my car off me because of hooning laws. While technically true under a small range of situations it is massively over reaching in its statement.
    Yes if you have 2 tonne of chocolate and a lab to produce it into something like a drug you will be arrested. Is chocolate banned? I can walk to four shoppoing centres in Brisbane, one of them is the largest. Can I still buy chocolate? Yes. Your own article states “will arguably become illegal”. Arguably is a lot different to banned.
    The drafting may be shocking but so is this article and over stating to make a point is just as bad as crying wolf. Do you really think the police will arrest people for chocolate and alcohol?

  30. Lindsay says:

    perhaps the ‘intent’ to do “something that may be considered to be unlawful in the future or made unlawful during the drive back to the station” should also be covered by this law. i believe it would not be contrary to the “spirit of the legislation” ?

  31. Well you go to a Brisbane shop and buy some legal highs (not alcohol but other legal highs). Legally from a lawfully run Shop. You can do that in Brisbane and walk out with something that says that it is a “legal high”. You can then be arrested outside by the Police who say it is unlawful. That is not a beat up that is a reality. I know that is a reality because we have a client that has happenned to recently. You are missing the point of the press release which is the absurdity of the law. A Law that captures what should clearly be lawful conduct is badly worded and stupid – that is the point.

  32. me says:

    Again I have to reply to myself. Your client went to a shop and bought a product that immiates an illegal high, that probably hasn’t been tested for side affects and he/she was arrested. This is the point of the law isn’t? To stop people from buying potentially dangerous items that are trying to be illegal drugs? And aren’t they only legal because testing hasn’t yet been complete on them? Are you advocating that people be allowed to buy yet untested products that are trying to immitate illegal highs?
    What the law is trying to achieve is to stop people making drugs that should be illegal but aren’t yet due to testing from hitting the market claiming they are legal and safe. Wasn’t bath salts sold like this recently and now they are known to cause a lot of issues.
    Besides that is a long, long way from banning chocolate like what your headline states. If people are trying to prey on ingorance to sell people potentially dangerous substances I have no issues with it.
    Also buying something that states on it that it is a legal high is stupid. Any dealer in the world will write the words “Legal High” on any drug if it means the difference between a sale or not. Never believe marketing hype.
    When they actually ban chocolate you will then have an arguement.

  33. Samantha Marshall says:

    and we can still buy cigarettes

  34. Axiom says:


  35. Mark says:

    Yes, this is a stupid law. Yes, it is incredibly poorly worded. Yes, it appears to imply, without deeper reading, research, and understanding of intent, that chocolate, beer and so forth could potentially be classed as a dangerous drug because of section 4 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (29 April 2013).
    Seriously though – have just a VERY quick look at the legislation itself, not just the article and the uninformed reactions of the many.
    It states that for a substance to be a dangerous drug (which the centrepiece of the discussion here), it must meet certain criteria:
    a) defined in sch 1 or 2 or the Drugs Misuse Regulation
    b) be a salt, derivative or stereo-isomer of (a)
    c) be a thing that is chemically or pharmacologically similar, or intends similar pharmacological effects to (a) or (b)
    any of (a), (b), or (c) contained in a natural substance, any preparation, solution or admixture.
    Find me a trained monkey who can’t defend a charge against paragraph (c) there (which it seems is the sticking point in this discussion). Is chocolate manufactured with the INTENT of providing a similar pharmacological effect as amphetamines, cocaine, MDA, etc? Of course it’s not. It has to be INTENDED as having a SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR pharmacological effect as a declared dangerous drug. Be honest now – is chocolate intended to have the same effects as cocaine? Is beer intended to have the same effects as barbiturates? Not likely. Of course “substantially” is not defined….does it really need to be? Does the dictionary not do a good enough job?
    Yes, once again, it’s a stupid law and should be revised. I challenge anyone here to find me a SINGLE precedent that even remotely implies that this is ever going to be taken seriously.
    Congratulations, though, to Fiona Patten for getting her name into the media and stirring up strong feelings amongst the populace. Let’s hope she can prove section 45 of the Queensland Criminal Code.

  36. Clarence says:

    Sonya, do you have brain damage? Have you been abusing your body with too much chocolate and echinacea?

  37. With all due respect you seem to be misreading the section
    “C) is chemically or pharmacologically similar, or intends similar pharmacological effects to (a) or (b)” . The legislation is not an “and”
    This section will be used to prosecute charges.

  38. Lindsay says:

    it is a pity the legislators are unable to see the stipidity of this law. Those ‘legal high’ chemicals are generally used by people who care more about obeying laws than they do about their own health. Some appears to be more expensive that the illegal stuff as well.

  39. tru says:

    to the person above my comment …technically by law ,,whether or when or on what occasions they choose to prosecute with it it is technically law according to a lawyer as stated above and yes even chocolate,,the language allows that,,you should listen when a lawyer speaks,,they do this day in day out ,,although the person commenting above comes off as a armchair laywer with their casual i will trust my govt. blindly,,,the nazi movement started just like this,,,,complacency , apathy ,,then again it may no tbe the person aboves fault, they probably consume compulsory fluoride from the water supply which was also used by the nazis to dumb down people,,,,,,,,,, if a lawyer is worried then NOVICES like you should be too ( you failed to quote noteworthy credentials so i will treat your reasoning as trite ,, as you did to this lawyer,,at least they have released their profession and who they are and expertise ) think for yourselves while you still can

  40. Mark says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t believe I’m misreading it.
    (c) a thing that—
    (i) has a chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or
    (ii) has a pharmacological effect that is substantially similar to the pharmacological effect of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or
    (iii) is intended to have a pharmacological effect that is substantially similar to the pharmacological effect of a thing referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
    and includes a thing referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) that
    is contained in a natural substance or in any preparation,
    solution or admixture.
    It further refers to section 4BA which states:
    (2) The thing is a dangerous drug if it is intended, by the accused person, to have a pharmacological effect that is substantially similar to the pharmacological effect of a thing referred to in section 4, definition dangerous drug, paragraph (a) or (b).
    This is from the updated version (the amendments in the “Criminal Law (Child Exploitation and Dangerous Drugs) Amendment Bill 2012” have been incorporated) of the Drugs Misuse Act in force from 29 April 2013 (i.e.: yesterday).

  41. dicksee says:

    Yes by reading the article perhaps nothing drastic will happen,but this may just be the beginning where the government start to get control of what we can eat or drink just think on that.

  42. kate says:

    You overlook the details in your second post as well, the important word here is OR. You still misinterpret.

  43. Seer says:

    What right has the state to legislate what you can and cannot ingest into your OWN body ??
    Can you say ” serfs on free range serf farms ” ?

  44. Seer says:

    AGENDA 21

  45. Circuit Ben says:

    This reads like one of those “The Muslims are going to ban Christmas” articles – like it’s been written by a semi-literate, middle-aged blow-hard, who’s looking for a reaction. Don’t give them the satisfaction, they have nothing to say, and very loudly.

  46. Amon Re says:

    Thank you… I see common sense and realism does indeed exist among the internet populace. I was beginning to lose faith.

  47. The Anonymous Ferret says:

    Yeah, throw a few seeds into the neigbours’ gardens, wait for the rains, then call the cops.

  48. Seer says:

    “me” you are a moron .. all drugs should be legalised .

  49. Common Sense says:

    That is absolutely ridiculous… Most medical drugs are synthetic patentable copies of nature so of course natural products will affect the same receptors. This smells like UN agenda 21/ sustainable living BS. Btw real government cannot make new laws without consent of the people so these rules are limited to the corporate government and its employees and contractors. Seems its ok for them to drug the people with fluoridated water so they don’t even follow their own laws. Wake Up Australia

  50. Mostly Amelinda says:

    I thought I was the only one who thought this

  51. James says:

    Congratulations, you totally missed the point.

  52. Stopped reading half way says:

    This whole blog is flawed with the one paragraph
    “The new laws state that if the ‘intent’ of a substance is to have similar effects to a banned or dangerous drug, the substance virtually becomes the drug.”
    None of the items are made with the intent of having similar effects of dangerous drugs so cops can’t “raid the chocolate shop”.

  53. Josie says:

    So I guess breastfeeding our babies will no longer be “doing what’s best”, but it will be a criminal offence given that we (nursing mothers) all contain natural cannabinoids in our breast milk.
    This is beyond absurd, it’s an absolute ludicracy.

  54. Heather says:

    Why am I not surprised by this… Newman has an agenda, he will do more, Im pretty sure he realises he wont be re voted but does he care? Hes probs doing what hes wanted to do for many years, now the state is his todo what he wants mwah hahahaha – some ridiculous, some not… Ive lost my job under his gov…..

  55. H says:

    Well, I would say that Echinacea could dangerous. I took a normal dose of Echinacea (which I bought OTC at a chemist) when I had a bad cold and it made my heart race for four days. I went to the hospital where they told me I had something called atrial flutter. Apparently I could have had a stroke in my 20’s!!! I had previously taken this drug with no problem so I don’t know why this happened.

  56. This legislation will be challenged in the Courts for sure. I know lawyers who are already considering its implications. Can you name one other piece of legislation that allows the Police
    to pick and choose what they charge as being illegal?

  57. Daniel says:

    “Can you name one other piece of legislation that allows the Police
    to pick and choose what they charge as being illegal?”
    Yes. The new car impounding procedures. Now Queensland police officers can impound cars at their discretion, rather than having to go through the courts.

  58. No that is a different concept – really that is prosecutorial discretion . What I am asking is can anyone name legislation where there is such vagueness about whether a drug (or substance) is captured by the legislation? Anywhere in Australia?
    Because the problem is that a person can go and buy something that is legal from a shop and then be told it is illegal. That is why, imho, this legislation is flawed.

  59. John Smith says:

    The hoon laws have no exact definition, it is the police’ choice as to how they enforce them, and they are the judge and jury – courts are removed from the decisions. They can crush your car while you are waiting to go to court to prove your innocence, and when you do prove your innocence, they are not required to offer you compensation for there blatant mistakes.

  60. Mark says:

    Wrong. I haven’t suggested anywhere that “and” is relevant – how could it be? It’s not used. By definition, a dangerous drug meets (a) OR (b) OR (c) in section 4 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986.
    The fact is that the items of discussion here don’t meet (a) OR (b) in the definition, which only leaves (c) as an item of contention. Let’s look at (c) then, which has three alternative options, denoted (i), (ii), and (iii).
    For the purpose of discussion, I’ll use chocolate and cocaine as the two contrasting examples here. Feel free to substitute beer and barbiturates or whatever you prefer.
    (i) While I’m not a chemist, I’m fairly certain that the chemical structure of chocolate is not “SUBSTANTIALLY” similar to the chemical structure of cocaine. Yes, there are similarities (they’re both made from carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen – so are humans, with a dash of other stuff thrown in! Good lord!! The Queensland Government has banned people!!), but are those similarities substantial? It only takes minimal research to discover that in fact they are not, just as the similarities between humans and cocaine are not substantial.
    (ii) Next option: does chocolate have a pharmacological effect that is “SUBSTANTIALLY” similar to that of cocaine? I’ve seen and dealt with people under the influence of both, and I assure you that (at least in my experience) they are in fact substantially DIFFERENT.
    (iii) Our third option is that chocolate is INTENDED to have a pharmacological effect that is “SUBSTANTIALLY” similar to that of cocaine. Do you think that’s even remotely likely?
    Three options, (a), (b), and (c). Has chocolate met any of those?
    I think you’ll probably find that I haven’t overlooked any details, or in fact misinterpreted the legislation.

  61. Anon123 says:

    That’s exactly right – also many supplements and vitamins consumed at pharmacological levels have a pro-oxidant effect, promoting disease. However I don’t think they would be concerned for our health. Anything consumed in excess can be detrimental – they can’t ban everything.

  62. Anon123 says:

    They also sell soda bulbs at convenience stores – they never question intent.

  63. Anon123 says:

    Thanks Mark… I was getting frustrated with wording. ^^ Perfect.

  64. Anon123 says:

    The only other article I could find was by ‘Happy High Herbs’ and had no new information – funnily enough…

  65. Anon123 says:

    I’m sorry, but the opening paragraph does not match the content. It gives the impression that the information was misinterpreted by the author. I am not questioning the companies ‘fair dinkumness’ at all – only its ability to divulge accurate information in this particular article. The only Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2012 I can find does not make mention of chemicals, foodstuffs or herbal medicines. Care to point me in the right direction? You used Eros (The Adults Only Association) CEO as your main source of information. Was this your only source? TIA.

  66. Anon123 says:

    Thank you – it didn’t even see this post.

  67. Ann says:

    And coming to a state near you!!!
    I dont think will just be Qld for long, do you.

  68. Dezmondo says:

    If you do your research, you will find out that the supposed Queensland Government is actually a Corporation. complete with ABN number, and registered in Washington DC. Just like the Supposed Federal Government.
    But then again a sheeple would not know this.

  69. Dezmondo says:

    Correct!, they are putting all the pegs in place, ready to pounce.
    Its the way of the beast.
    Welcome to the Orwellian system.

  70. I says:

    Organic verses GMO……Japanese scientist have successfully made a steak from human feacal protien it looks real cooks real But does it SMELL REAL?

  71. I says:

    MKR?, resteraunts?, cook books showing you how to make a chocolate cake?, Recipie books?, Chocolate biscuts, Chocalate lollies?, Hot Chocolate?, Milo?, Advertising Chocolate?, When will the Chocolate Industry go into liquidation?, and how long a sentence will the makers of chocolate products get for selling chocolate laced products to the World?? I am horrified to think i have been lied to for such a long time…What on earth is happening to what we are eating?……When will the bottle shops start closing down?, When are they going to charge all the large alcohol Companies and store owners for selling Alcohol illegally to the people?. Are they illegal Already in Qld?. Wow When will this be breaking news on all tv channels? Interested to know the death by yummy double laced chocolate cake truth!!!.

  72. SteveS says:

    “legislation that allows the Police to pick and choose ”
    How about the new Qld religious exemption for bicycle helmets.
    Minister says it will apply to sikhs but a muslim woman’s head covering would not qualify for exemption. Why not? How about a catholic nun’s head covering?
    Looks to me like it will be up to police to judge the merit of the claimed religion, whether that religion really requires the head covering and whether that head covering really makes wearing a helmet difficult.

  73. merck1 says:

    Obviously this law is meant to capture 2 classes of potential drugs of misuse :
    1. Substances that are designed to mimic, in their effects, existing scheduled drugs of misuse
    2. Substances that are designed to mimic, by their chemical structure or biological interaction, existing scheduled drugs of misuse.
    The problem is that both 1 & 2 are ultimately poorly defined.and certainly outside of the range of the average law enforcement officer to judge “on the fly”.
    Not every MDMA (ecstasy) like substance is substantially psychoactive – even though they may share a common precursor structure, Similarly for cannabinoids, etc.
    And, yes, a number of foods DO have substantial psychoactive properties :
    Nutmeg – hallucinogenic
    Coffee & Tea – Stimulant (Caffeine)
    Chocolate – euphoric (phenylethylamine) / stimulant (theobroma / caffeine)
    Puffer fish – neurotoxin
    Lettuce milk – opioid
    along with the “usual” range of medicinal herbs which appear as “alternative medicines” on the pharmacy and supermarket shelves.
    The problem ultimately, for both the courts and law enforcement, is the ability to distinguish between “legitimate use” and “intent”. What would make the use of an otherwise legal substance fit the criteria of an otherwise illegal substance – under what circumstances, dosages, etc.
    There is a good reason that laws like this are usually ultimately scrapped – they are almost unenforceable (for their stated intent) in the real world.
    So why have them on the books at all? Because they are so broad that they allow “legal” search and seizure to be undertaken with the weakest of all possible cases – “Yes your Honour – we believe that the accused had 100 grams of nutmeg in their possession – in excess of what we believe is a reasonable amount – and so we were justified in searching their premises.”.
    These are ultimately “witch hunt” laws – Queensland is the new Salem.

  74. Mitchell says:

    Dezmondo, what on earth are you talking about? Do you mean that the Queensland and Australian governments have representatives in Washington DC?

  75. Les Poy says:

    I can make thermonuclear fuel (deuterium) from water, anyone can. Ban that idiots.
    The government has to stop being an ass if it wants friendly people.
    No one is going to ban safety in this world when simple water can make a nuclear bomb..

  76. Les Poy says:

    And sniffing petrol simulates a very strong Mary Jane high. They should ban it too.
    Petroleum is actually a very strong drug and is very popular with under aged children who can get access to it in any street or shed in the neighbourhood.

  77. Kim Angus says:

    Check your chemistry, that’s where it gets scary. Phenethylamine and amphetamine differ only by the substitution of a one CH3 group for a one hydrogen, for instance. To a layman are those chemical structures SUBSTANTIALLY similar.

  78. Bill says:

    How many brain dead sheep will go along with this ridiculous and childish law?

  79. Mark says:

    The the real issue here is not “drugs” or harm minimisation. The real issue is making mandatory laws that people with an IQ < 80 should screened out of entering parliament. How do these fools get in and who is voting for them? And our taxes pay this guys salary? What a joke

  80. Is this part of codex alimentarius? In any case, just defy the laws. they can’t put everyone in jail. when they put out a stupid law like that everyone needs to jump on the wagon and commit the ‘crime’ as much as possible. Queensland has always been a bit behind the times, much like Texas and the south in the USA. So backwards! There are no laws really, so just ignore it and do what you want.

  81. preman brady says:

    Your comments are very good! Nutmeg as an example can be purchased from any supermarket. One nutbeg grounded up and consumed is a very powerful hallucinogen and aphrodesiac. That is why the Dutch invaded Indonesia. It was sold in the courts of Europe for more than gold.
    The active compound is Mystericin. It is very … very powerful.
    So, – what … the Nazi idiots are now going to ban every herb and spice? …. And every naturally occurring brain substance.
    Plant that actually replace Seratonin … are a huge plus.
    These people in Government are either so badly educated – or ill advised or on the take from drug companies.
    To try and pass laws about the plant kingdom is completely bananas. Well, the image of Queensland is dimming, – and these people who are doing this are just complete idiots.

  82. A Non Farmer says:

    Dezmo is 100% correct.

  83. David Harmon says:

    Texas isn’t the state with the crazy laws, that would be the New England area and California.

  84. me says:

    Just wondering what you stance on this is now that two people have just died from buying the same types of drugs that the govt where trying to ban? Is it still a beat up and should your client still be allowed to buy untested products that imitate illegal drugs?
    Also chocolate still isn’t banned in Brisbane.

  85. Rafaela says:

    Your style is really unique in comparison to other people I have
    read stuff from. Thank you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this web site.

  86. Preman Brady says:

    Is that a good or bad thing?
    That was quite a few years ago, but most of the comments still hold close to the truth. The law makers and ill advised polititions are living in their own reality – viewed through foggy glasses!

  1. Updated April 29, 2013

    […] and Chocolate are illegal in QLD No Bull Esty you're in deep chit there mate Queensland Government Bans Chocolate, Saffron, Echinacea and Beer | Melbourne Criminal Lawyers Blog __________________ […]

  2. Updated April 30, 2013

    […] like alcohol, coffee and just about anything that can give you a “buzz” is now banned in the sovereign state through the Criminal Law Amendment Bill […]

  3. Updated March 24, 2014

    […] Det er en stund siden dette var den store snakkisen her i Australia. Resultatet var ikke uventet. De skapte en ny lov [i staten Queensland] som var så langtsrekkende at den kan gjelde for sjokolade. […]

  4. Updated October 11, 2014

    […] April 22, 2013 · by Melbourne Criminal Lawyers · in Criminal Law, Drugs. · […]