i am goin abroad soon n would like 2 know how much gear i can bring with me i.e how many vials and tablets?
thanx
Printable View
i am goin abroad soon n would like 2 know how much gear i can bring with me i.e how many vials and tablets?
thanx
Why would you want to get gear abroad I reckon you can what you need over here if its just for personal use and from the info i have had prices are about the best you can get
Do what adam says.........Quote:
Originally posted by freddygunns
i am goin abroad soon n would like 2 know how much gear i can bring with me i.e how many vials and tablets?
thanx
You only have to meet some ass who is having a bad day, or doesnt know the rules to have your whole day ruined. They cant take your stuff but you might end up sitting around for hours while they figure that out!
If you are really intent upon bringing it with you, give customs a call.......they will tell you the answer. I had a buddy do it when he wanted to import some stuff.
g
Check under my sig there is an article about the law on AAS
prices are cheap here the items are plentiful and to be honest it just is not worth the risk.Let someone else take the shit if the heat is turned up.
The link didnt send me to anything on the law......just somebody asking how to put a cylce together.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy Boy
Check under my sig there is an article about the law on AAS
prices are cheap here the items are plentiful and to be honest it just is not worth the risk.Let someone else take the shit if the heat is turned up.
bump:unsure:
BUMP No one else got any info?
Here you go
For the UK as inaccordance to The Medicines Act 1968 and The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.This was reviewed in 1996
Brief Outline of the situation within the UK
• Anabolic steroids can only be sold lawfully by a pharmacist to someone with a doctor’s prescription.
• Possession for personal use without a prescription is not illegal
• Supply (giving or selling them to another person) is against the law, and Class C penalties apply
• The maximum penalty for supply of a Class C drug is 5 years prison and/or a fine.
Detailed Description
Current law in the UK
Two main statutory controls exist in relation to drug use in the UK: The Medicines Act 1968 and The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ("MDA"). The former essentially regulates, through a licensing system, how drugs are marketed and sold. The latter is targeted against the criminal production, supply and possession of various compounds scheduled within it, and is concerned to limit to defined groups, for legitimate purposes, the availability of a range of drugs which have been determined to pose a significant threat to society.
A wide selection of performance enhancing drugs were scheduled to be regulated under the MDA in 1996. Up until this time the only controls that existed were those in place under the Medicines Act in common with most other drugs. At the time of the law change it was difficult to understand the purpose to which the law was being directed. Home Office press releases at the time were kept very much with the "war on drugs" mantra in mind declaring a "battle to stamp out abuse of steroids...". At the time however there was, and remains, little evidence of the drugs so controlled moving beyond the relatively small and specialist pockets of use they inhabit. The introduction of the law has led to uncertainty: an uneasy position for the user, and a less than clear mandate for intervention for the enforcement authorities. In seeking to deal with a perceived social harm related to drug taking, the law change could in fact mean actual harm is inflicted upon users.
The Regulation Process
A substance becomes subject to MDA regulation after recommendation by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ("ACMD"). The Council has a role laid down by the MDA, which places it under a duty to:
"keep under review the situation in the [UK] with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them to be likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears to be having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem..."
In particular the Council is required to consider such means as: restricting drug availability; ensuring provision of treatment or rehabilitation facilities; co-ordinating relevant professional services; providing for education; and promoting research into matters necessary for the prevention of the misuse of the drug in question or on any of the social harms that it may create. A current example involved the question as to whether GHB should be brought under the control of the MDA. Sold to night-clubbers as "liquid ecstasy" and as a sleep-promoting training aid to body builders, the ACMD has shown reluctance to reschedule it.
The ACMD first examined AS in the late 1980's, but concluded at that time the social harm test was not fulfilled. The issue was revisited in 1993 after publication of Department of Health sponsored research, investigating use-patterns and potential public health concerns . On this occasion the ACMD felt compelled to recommend that AS be brought under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It should be noted that the report itself explicitly stated that it did not consider the social implications of use and remained confined to medical concerns . In particular the risk of the spread of blood borne disease such as HIV and hepatitis through unsafe injecting practices were cited. Harm reduction methods such as greater education and other health promotion activities were recommended. The Council advised that mere possession of AS should not be an offence under the Act and the Government seemed to legislate accordingly.
Problems with AS under the MDA
Delegated legislation in the form of Statutory Instruments was passed to place AS within class C of the MDA. The MDA sets out offences in relation to the manufacture, supply and possession of the drugs scheduled within it. These drugs are classified as either class A, B or C in relation to their perceived harm and/or abuse potential. Class A drugs are subject to the harshest penalties, and would include drugs such as heroin, cocaine and LSD. Although AS are subject to the lowest possible penalties under the MDA, it is possible for a supplier to receive a maximum three year sentence. The MDA restricts the manufacture and trafficking of AS by virtue of schedule three to the Act; it also restricts the supply of the drugs, by virtue of schedule four, but should allow the possession for personal use. That possession is not criminalised is subject to the proviso that the steroid in question is in the form of a medicinal product. This has become the problem area in the UK law as will be examined below. At a general level, concerns attach to the de facto lack of positive influence the authorities are able to exert over an illicit market which, by definition, operates outside the normal conventions of command and control. Furthermore, concerns exist in relation to the inconsistency of application of the law, despite guidance on the issue .
Placing AS under the control of the MDA has thus led to problems of interpretation. It is clearly of concern to the user that enforcement authorities are unsure as to their exact powers. The main problem would appear to relate to the fact that the definition of a medicinal product does not appear in the MDA itself. Given that this term is crucial to the operation of the schedule, this would appear to be a major oversight.
The police and customs are not used to dealing with AS in the way that they are familiar with other drugs of "abuse" controlled by the MDA. Anecdotal reports of drug squads using "underground" body-building magazines for guidelines as to current trends suggests the need for proper thresholds to be established in order not to penalise the user as opposed to the genuine supplier. There is no consistency of approach with only a handful of police forces in the UK, according to the Home Office's statistics, actively pursuing AS users. It would therefore all seem to be somewhat of a lottery for the user unlucky enough to be brought into contact with the law.
Since AS were included in the drug seizures statistics, there has been a year on year increase in the levels of seizure and the amounts involved. What is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of these figures from a legal perspective is the number of people being convicted on a charge of possession of these drugs. It would appear that those who have been convicted on possession charges have all pleaded guilty to the charge, which has in every case been a secondary aspect of some main offence. An example here would be the cases of a group of doormen (bouncers) who were convicted of supplying MDMA (ecstasy) and who opted to plead guilty to a charge of possession of AS. MDMA is a class A drug, with a potential (although unlikely) life sentence attaching to a conviction for its supply. Possession of a class C drug such as AS would only attract a fine in by far the majority of cases and thus it is not probably worth the argument, if a criminal record is going to occur in any case. Where the person is not being charged for any other offence however, the position is obviously far more serious a threat to an individual's liberty.
The law is clear, as is the rationale for the law change, in stating that mere possession was not to be viewed as an offence, especially given the medicinal product limitation. In fact the law goes further to even exempt the importer or exporter of AS as long as they are medicinal products and solely for self-administration. Could the law be any clearer?