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

Unsure email from reputable etizolam vendor
I know about the NPS and its subsections but I've recently come across a reputable etizolam vendor I've seen before the ban which seems to be still functional. At least on the surface. I wondered if it was still operational due to a loophole regarding the possibity of personal medical use. I don't know the answer to the personal medical use side of the argument as I cannot find a clear answer as of yet in the recent post ban haze of uncertainties. 

So when it comes to the legality of new pyschoactive substances and what I've mentioned about uncertainties, I decided to email them and the response I got was interesting...

It basically say...

It is not legal but here is an email address of a trust worthy supplier. Shipping will be from the uk.

I'm confused by this email as it clearly contradicts it's self.

What do you guys make of the situation, any advice?
in my experience mate if their is contradictions in the email itself and your intuition is telling you no, id go with your gut on that one.
also vendors seeking out customers cannot be good, as if you want something your go to them no? just remember how theirs loads of people willing to take advantage of our situation and scam individuals and people do. the fact he has an email for another person whos supplying sounds fishy to me

I'm The Dude, Playing The Dude, Disguised As Another Dude!
I'm Just A Dude Who's Gone Alittle CrAzY!!!! MUCH LOVE
MY D&B THREAD https://www.ukchemicalresearch.org/Threa...ated-daily
It's not a contradiction, they're just telling you "even though it's illegal we're selling it anyway."

This is very sketchy though, I wouldn't bother. People selling illegal drugs don't tend to send mass emails advertising it. And if they are for real, their opsec is clearly so bad you don't really want anything to do with them.
Who the fuck is Psychoactive Substances Bill and why is he taking all my drugs?
My instinct lies with TJTHEDJ, but yet with the thought that if you ask a formerly trusted supplier of etizolam about etizolam, and they point you to someone who might know something about it but couldn't possibly be connected with their former business, there'd be a chance they speak the truth and might rather it not be pulled apart here. But you punt on that, or not, at your own risk. There's always WEDINOS.

Obviously, I/we can't/won't vouch for anyone/anything claiming or offering to do anything illegal, so you'll have to decide for yourself.

We can observe that it's not unlawful to import up to 3 months' supply of a non-controlled prescription medication for your own personal use. For which, no, I don't have a source. But, those outfits with the stated intention of resuming shipping from an EU country when duly stocked there carry a certain amount of credibility, and not merely on past history, or who would have vouched for them pre-ban, or would punt on them now.

The point here is obvious: it would apply to a handful of Indian, Russian or Japanese pharmaceuticals known to the RC community; the products in question (provided they are not controlled substances under MoDA 1971 and ensuing regulations), would also be exempted outright from the PSA 2016 as 'medicinal products'. Thus, the importer of three months' reasonable supply of such product for personal use (which includes his/her own household) isn't committing an offence. 

By extension - and with a lot of ifs buts and maybes - if a formerly trusted supplier seeks to carry on their business where and insofar as it is lawful to do so, all power to them. Including those who haven't got there yet. That stops short of advice to trust or not trust anyone (including me!) or to draw inference from good intention. Caveat emptor.
But he said shipping will be from the UK. Even if the medicine exemption holds up, it'd still be illegal to sell an uncontrolled medicine within the UK, it has to be imported for the loophole to apply.
Who the fuck is Psychoactive Substances Bill and why is he taking all my drugs?
It's not clear to me (or I suspect anyone) whether a prosetion under the medicines act would actually succeed. It's not that "not for human consumption" was a term defined in law that provided immunity from prosecution. In fact, it failed to provide immunity for prosecutions under the General Product Safety Regulations, and was recognised by the courts as essentialy false. But prosecutions under the Medicines act for things like poppers and nitrous oxide have failed in the past and it's likely that prosecutors weren't confident that they'd be able to secure any convictions.

There's an asymmetry in terms of standard of proof required - a defense against a prosecution under the Psychoactive Substances Act would only need to introduce reasonable doubt that the product was exempt, but prosecutors in a case brought under the Medicines Act would be in the opposite situation - proving beyond reasonable doubt that the product was a medicinal product and that the sale of it would indeed be illegal.

This is the kind of stuff that gets established (expensively) under case law. If selling etizolam is now illegal under the Medicines Act, then it surely always was. Whether the Psychoactive Substances Bill makes prosecutions any more possible is another matter. One thing's for sure - the lack of clarity doesn't make the users any safer and indeed increases the risks significantly.
Always wondered what was said to persuade the bigger vendors to stop selling it. Many smaller vendors continued with impunity and unless i missed something were allowed to continue. A bigger puzzle is why Etizolam was not simply added as a named controlled drug in the misuse of drugs act, Brotizolam which is very close structurally to Etizolam is named yet is used in fewer countries than Etizolam. Brotizolam is a very potent hypnotic and the doses sold back that ( 0.125-0.250 mg) but nobody can argue that Etizolam is neither potent, lowest dose is 0.25mg, nor has the power to cause addiction.
From what I've read, the bigger vendors stopped selling it because it's used as a prescription medicine within the EU so they were concerned they were violating the Medicines Act by selling a prescription drug without prescription within the UK.
Who the fuck is Psychoactive Substances Bill and why is he taking all my drugs?
To the point and as far as i can see a reasonable post. Whilst not controlled a 3 month supply imported from a country where its used as a medicine shouldn't contrevene the new legislation. Bit of a grey area though and in no way should be taken as a definitive statement regarding Etizolam.
Melatonin is a prescription drug in some countries but a bottle of 100 can be bought for£7 on Ebay who are notoriously fussy about rules and regulations.
The ambiguity with etizolam rests with how they define a medical product. Melatonin is a POM in the UK so it is very obviously a medical product. Etizolam is not recognised as anything officially in the UK despite being a prescription drug abroad. This is why nif wrote to the HMRC. If the definition of a medicine is wide enough to include etizolam, which going by nif's research it may very well do, import is then 100% legal if you follow the three month supply rule.

But we will wait and see what the HMRC's actual response is before jumping to conclusions on that one.
Who the fuck is Psychoactive Substances Bill and why is he taking all my drugs?

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

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