• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Etizolam blotters
#11
(05-10-2016, 06:36 PM)niamh Wrote:
(05-10-2016, 12:40 PM)Tails Wrote: Yes. You can send one to http://wedinos.org/ for free testing. It will only tell you the content though not exact amount.

Sadly the law made it quite possible for vendors to send out bunk then ban or ignore any user that broke the erms and conditions by admitting consumption..

If they sold to somebody knowingly consuming they were in fact breaking the law. Of course all vendors knew but to admit or discuss it in email is a different story.

Good luck thumbup

Energy Control will test international submissions for a fee and can provide quantitative analysis.

Going off topic for the rest of this comment...

I think the utility of the not for human consumption line was debatable and the liability of admitting knowledge of human consumption less than was assumed. Labelling as not for human consumption was well on its way to being regarded as not meaningful by the courts and certainly didn't prevent a series of successful prosecutions under the General Product Safety Regulations. Selling without this label may have opened up the possibility of prosecution under the Human Medicines Regulations, but EU Court of Justice decisions in the last few years made that less likely and the direction was to exclude substances intended for recreational use from the definition of a medical product.

Making the admission and then providing labelling and safety information intended to provide consumers with an accurate perception of the risks and guidance on how to use in safer ways would then have made it much more difficult to prosecute under the GPSR.

(In theory anyway, I'm not a laywer and this is all academic now that the PSA is in place).

The terms and conditions that vendors had were laughable. Vendors could indeed refuse sale to anyone as long as they weren't discriminating on the basis of a protected attribute, but you can't place arbitrary restrictions on post-sale use in a sales contract and such clauses were likely without force. Vendors were essentially disclaiming that their products were fit for the purpose of human consumption and freeing themselves from the implied warranties that would otherwise result, but I suspect that this would not have been convincing if anyone had taken legal action under consumer rights law since it's an obvious attempt to limit the vendors liability and deny consumers' their rights to legal redress. I wonder how many vendors took legal advice on this rather than just copying what everyone else was doing.

EC charge 60 EURO.. not a bad price at all (I've paid over £300 in the past with other companies) or if you give them 80 EURO you get the results in a nice PDF haha..
Reply
#12
Dude that guy was nailed when he wrote this. Another benzo tolerant person pissed they are well....tolerant lls.
love the world and it will love you back. chin
Reply

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

   
DISCLAIMER
Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.