Are there any indication that article 112 of anti narcotic laws in Indonesia are meant for &quot;dealers&quot; rather than &quot;users&quot;? Indonesia have laws against narcotic However the law is a bit strange. Say there are 2 people doing the exact same crime, namely using drugs. One is jailed a minimum of 4 years and another is freed. The only difference is physical evidence even though both have positive urine tests. All users must have "possessed". How does that work? I did a lot of research and one of the reason is that they are charged with 2 different articles. One is charged with possessions and another is charged with usage. Possession carry much bigger penalty even though every user must have possessed. The only thing that may make sense is that the possession article is intended for "dealers". However, I do not find any corroborating evidences. Some legal expert have that opinion but that's pretty much it. http://www.flevin.com/id/lgso/translations/JICA%20Mirror/english/4868_UU_35_2009_e.html The article 112 says that (1) Any person that without right or against the law possess, store, control, or provide Narcotics Category I which is not a plant, shall be punished with minimum imprisonment of 4 (four) years and a maximum of 12 (twelve) years and a minimum fine Rp 800.000.000,00 (eight hundred million rupiah) and maximum Rp 8.000.000.000,00 (eight billion rupiah). Then article 127 says that (1) Any person that without right or against the law using the Narcotics of category III against others or give the Narcotics of category III to be used of others, shall be punished with minimum imprisonment 3 (three) years and a maximum of 10 (ten) years and fined at least Rp 600.000.000,00 (six hundred million rupiah) and maximum Rp 5.000.000.000,00 (five billion rupiah). I've heard that many complains about these laws. Anyone that uses narcotic must have control, possess, or store the narcotic. So many judges uses article 112 instead of 127. There are opinions that article 112 is for dealers and not users. That is why the penalty is higher. However, I do not see anything in the law or the title of the law that says that 112 is for dealers. So which one is right? Bonus: Is this common in all over the world that the penalty for storing, possessing, or controlling narcotic is heavier than the penalty for "using". Notice that all users must have stored, possessed, and controlled narcotic for the purpose of using. Or is Indonesian laws very strange? Update: I studied court cases in Indonesia. This is some samples I found. I saw 2 users. One get jailed for 6 years (for possession) but most are freed. The difference is trivial. The one jailed for 6 years have physical evidence of possession. Of course all users must have possessed. The idea that the court can't figure this out by logic makes me wonder about the reasonableness of evidence in Indonesia court. The drug is the same. Meth. https://www.idntimes.com/news/indonesia/rochmanudin-wijaya/polisi-hasil-tes-urine-andi-arief-positif-konsumsi-narkoba-jenis-sabu &lt;- politicians free without going to trial https://www.msn.com/id-id/berita/nasional/manajemen-rsko-cibubur-mengaku-tidak-pernah-merehabilitasi-andi-arief/ar-BBVk42G &lt;- told to to go rehabiliation without trial. Of course because most users are not addicted, the rehabilitation clinic simply say he tested negative and move on. Anyone "sentenced" to rehabilitation need only to stop using drugs for 2 weeks to test negative. Typical normal users use drugs like once every 6 months. Some drugs like DMT is used like once or twice a life time https://radarbali.jawapos.com/read/2019/01/24/115702/doyan-sabu-biar-pd-pemandu-lagu-berparas-cantik-terancam-bui-12-tahun &lt;- minimum sentence 6 years https://beritabali.com/read/2019/03/27/201903270013/Jaksa-Tuntut-Pelayan-Kafe-Konsumsi-Sabu-Agar-Kuat-Minum-Layani-Tamu-6-Tahun-Penjara.html &lt;-charged with 6 years jail You probably need google translate and understand that shabu means meth. Basically the "smart" users would use it right away to minimize chance of having physical evidences and that's silly. Cops are often tested for urine. About 10% test positive. Assuming people use drugs once every month and the test is valid for 3 days, the estimate is that all cops use it. Those cops get "counselling" Someone told me that all cops are actually using it https://regional.kompas.com/read/2016/04/01/17350831/Dari.25.Polisi.yang.Ikut.Tes.Urine.12.Orang.Positif.Narkoba this article says 12 out of 25 polices are tested "positive" https://www.jawapos.com/jpg-today/21/02/2018/propam-gelar-tes-urine-terhadap-114-polisi-ada-yang-positif-nyabu/ This one tested positive too. I can't found the case where they just got "counselling". I think I read that. In any case there is no way the cops go to jail. Our jail is full. http://www.jakarta100bars.com/2015/04/illogical-facts-drugs-indonesia.html
Its worth actually reading through the law again - they're meant for different categories of drugs - and its worth looking up the relevant laws as a whole. You can't cherrypick which law you charge them under in this case. It depends on what the suspect has in posession, and if you have more serious charges, they're probably going to be preferred unless the prosecution decides to throw the entire library at the suspect and charge them with everything they can, or a larger subset. A quick search on the internet - which shouldn't be taken as legal advice, brings up this link. Category 1 drugs are addictive and seen as therapeutically useless - you shouldn't have any realistic reason to have quantities of it in your posession. Category 3 is drugs with therapeutic use - stuff like codine. You could get a prescription for that, but there's potential for abuse. They're aimed at different classes of drugs - and the confusion is over a misinterpretation of what the law is about. As an aside, this is why you need to usually read more than just a specific statute or law to get what its about.
A company had me sign two conflicting documents about two years apart. Which one would apply? Possibly both because actually there is no conflict. What you describe does not reflect that these documents are incompatible or inconsistent. There is no indication that the second document impliedly or explicitly replaces the first one. The second document seems just redundant so far. Employees could likewise be required to sign a third document that only says &quot;no drugs or alcohol on the job site on Wednesdays&quot;, and that does not mean that any previous documents they signed expire.
Arizona does not license chemists, though they do license pharmacists. There is a law against possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of which is a felony. The law also says In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority shall consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following: Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any drug. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter. The proximity of the object to drugs. The existence of any residue of drugs on the object. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this chapter. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use. National and local advertising concerning its use. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community. Expert testimony concerning its use. The size of your equipment would be relevant in defending against such a charge; your publications in the field of chemistry would be relevant. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you were using the glassware to make drugs. Paraphernalia is defined as all equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a drug in violation of this chapter. so a garden shovel can be used to grow marijuana, but that is not enough. The prosecution has to prove that the items "are used, intended for use or designed for use" in drug making – not just that they could be so used.
The controlling federal (US) law is: 21 U.S. Code § 812 - Schedules of controlled substances 21 US Code 812 and &quot;Marijuana&quot; is specifically listed among Schedule 1 substances. Just as with any other federal law, for this to be changed, Congress would need to amend or repeal this statute so that Marijuana no longer appears in the list and the act would then need to be signed into law by the President, allowed to take effect without signature, or vetoed and overridden by Congress. I suppose another possibility would be for a federal court to rule that 21 U.S. Code § 812 (or Marijuana's inclusion in the list) is unconstitutional.
Since this apparently amends the law giving colleges and universities the power to adopt and enforced various regulations, what it really means is that if such an institution adopts a rule in violation of this law, it may not legally enforce that law. It might also give an affected student a right to sue if such a rule is adopted and enforced. As a comment by ohwilleke mentions, such a law might well authorize a court to issue an injunction forbidding the institution from enforcing the kind of rule prohibited by the law. Note that it is not at all uncommon to have &quot;or else&quot; provisions in different sections of the law. For example Section 123 of the (hypothetical) New France state code might prohibit having a faked driver's license, section 124 prohibit obtaining a license through false or misleading statements on nthe application, and section 458 say &quot;anyone who violates sections 123, 124, 125, or 126 shall be fined up to $2,000, or imprisoned for up to 1 year, or both, as a court may think just&quot;. Thus it is not always easy to find what penalties, if any, apply to a code section.
It is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor in Washington (RCW 66.44.270). The seller can get into various kinds of trouble, including losing their license, under liquor board regulations. However, as long as the establishment follows the rules for acceptable ID, they escape liability if in fact they sell alcohol to a minor: the license holder is legally allowed to accept an identification of the specific type. That is the sense in which this is required by law: the customer must have actually presented the identification, in order for the establishment to escape liability (RCW 66.20.210). Looking old enough is not the issue. It is legal to sell alcohol to a person who is over 21, and the law does not require presentation of identification as a condition for a sale. However, under RCW 66.20.180 a person is require to produce ID "upon request of any licensee, peace officer, or enforcement officer of the board". The legal risk attached to sales in an age-marginal situation is very high, and actual presentation of ID is required to escape liability by the establishment, so in that sense, it is "required by law". All requests to produce ID for liquor sales (at least in Washington, and leaving out deliveries which are governed by other laws) are driven by company policy. Typical policies are quite rational, being designed to protect the company's interest in not getting into a heap of trouble for an under-age sale. There is no law saying when you must ask, or when you are protected if you don't ask. Usually, store policy is to use "common sense" so that 90 year olds are not required to produce ID (they may be asked, jokingly). Non-compliance with RCW 66.20.180 carries no legal penalty, that is, there is nothing in the statute that says "if the customer doesn't...". The most obvious would be that the seller would refuse to sell, which the seller can arbitrarily do anyhow. There is no statutory penalty imposed on a licensee if they request ID of a person over 21 and the person fails / refuses to produce the ID. Obviously, the licensee cannot be punished if a customer fails to provide ID (and leaves), especially if they lost it. But the law "requires" them to provide an ID, with ne except "unless you leave / put the bottle back". Somewhat less obviously, if the legislature wants to, it can enact a provision that once a licensee requests ID, they are forbidden to sell alcohol to that customer until ID is provided. But there currently is no such law. "The law" also included regulations, such as WAC 314-17-105. This regulation is a chart, and the relevant entry is PERMIT: Failure to produce permit or identification upon request. See RCW 66.20.310 and 66.20.180. for which the 1st offense consequence is "5-day permit suspension OR $100 monetary option". This is a problematic regulation (potential lawsuit fodder), since it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The question is, of whom is the permit or identification predicated? Only the licensee has a permit, but customers and employees can both have identification. If we interpret this regulation as meaning "Failure by licensee or customer", then we arrive at the absurd conclusion that if a customer fails to produce ID on request, the establishment is fined. It is important to note that this regulation is under a chapter about server training, thus the regulation can only reasonably be interpreted as being about licensee providing identification.
It depends. If the tip is that there are pictures proving that a minor consumed alcohol 10 years ago, probably not. If the tip is that there's a kidnapped child being tortured inside, more likely. In either event, they would probably seek to build up some independently obtained evidence to enable them to obtain a warrant based on probable cause. An anonymous tip might be enough, depending on how detailed it was and whether there were any objective indicators of reliability, but it's not a sure thing.
From the legal perspective, the question is whether the substance is legal in Australia. The legal root of the matter is the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Dosages above 100 mg are on &quot;Schedule 4&quot; meaning they require a prescription. There are also apparently state regulations. In Queensland, there is an amendment to the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 to ensure that the substance 5-Hydroxy tryptophan (5-HTP) is captured in Schedule 2 with the exception of preparations that contain 100mg or less of 5-HTP per dosage unit Schedule 2 is &quot;Substances, the safe use of which may require advice from a pharmacist and which should be available from a pharmacy or, where a pharmacy service is not available, from a licensed person&quot;. The fact that it is very difficult to verify what the current regulations are may explain the &quot;friction&quot;, which may make online purchases difficult. The underlying reason for government regulation is to keep people safe. Politics SE is an appropriate place to debate the balance between safety and usefulness.