Guest I think Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 14 minutes ago, singalion said: The urine test or others test will determine whether the attendants took drugs or not. There will be only prosecution if drugs were found in the urine. Those who attended but for whom the outcome of the urine test confirms they didn't take drugs won't be charged. Attending a sex orgy party (without taking drugs) is not a crime. Awareness that drugs will be consumed might be present depending on the invitation, flyers or message exchange with the hosts or other participants. The media reports indicated that there was an invite. I m sure the CNB and police knows the relevant buzz word indicating drugs. They can't charge them without first determining first their intentions and contexts surrounding the drug consumptions. I mean, going to the party with the awareness and intention to do drugs and being unaware but succumbed to peer pressure are very different scenarios that cannot be dealt with similarly. Likewise for first time and repeat offenders. If the situation is complex and undeterminable, I think all will be given stern warnings. For someone to be charged in court, the criminal intent has to be very clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 The 12 August 2023 media article already contradicts what some Guest person claims here: Quote: 49 men arrested in Sentosa hotel villa after drug raid 12 Aug 2023 10:08AM CNB declined to disclose at which hotel the incident took place. It said investigations into the drug activities of all the suspects are ongoing. => investigations of all suspects have been initiated by CNB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I think Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 23 minutes ago, singalion said: The urine test or others test will determine whether the attendants took drugs or not. There will be only prosecution if drugs were found in the urine. Those who attended but for whom the outcome of the urine test confirms they didn't take drugs won't be charged. Attending a sex orgy party (without taking drugs) is not a crime. Awareness that drugs will be consumed might be present depending on the invitation, flyers or message exchange with the hosts or other participants. The media reports indicated that there was an invite. I m sure the CNB and police knows the relevant buzz word indicating drugs. If the defence will work that attendants weren't aware on drug consumption or drinks were drug laced without their knowledge has to be seen. That's what the science says: In general, the detection time is longest in hair, followed by urine and oral fluid. Drugs in hair may be detectable for up to 90 days, whereas drugs in urine are generally detectable for one to seven days (or longer in chronic users) Surely, the authories will do various tests on the suspects... Not sure about saliva, but they cannot be charged in court by drug detection in hair. Only urine test can determine that. Otherwise, second hand drugs in the hair of people who walked pass or hung around drug takers causing them to be jailed will be overkill! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 8 minutes ago, Guest I think said: They can't charge them without first determining first their intentions and contexts surrounding the drug consumptions. I mean, going to the party with the awareness and intention to do drugs and being unaware but succumbed to peer pressure are very different scenarios that cannot be dealt with similarly. Likewise for first time and repeat offenders. If the situation is complex and undeterminable, I think all will be given stern warnings. For someone to be charged in court, the criminal intent has to be very clear. The drug offences is Singapore work with presumptions. The intention is not relevant. The assumption of innocence is also reversed, which means the suspected person having consumed drugs must prove his innocence. That might be a difficult task or impossible. Presumptions relating to consumption Sec 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act stipulates if a controlled drug is found in the tested urine samples of a person, the person is presumed to have consumed that controlled drug, until the contrary is proven. Quote end. For first time offenders anyhow the law provides a special treatment. Please read at CNB's website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 6 minutes ago, Guest I think said: Not sure about saliva, but they cannot be charged in court by drug detection in hair. Only urine test can determine that. Otherwise, second hand drugs in the hair of people who walked pass or hung around drug takers causing them to be jailed will be overkill! Here on the test. The law refers to "or" meaning both test are valid. If a person is suspected of having consumed controlled or specified drugs, that person may be required to provide a urine or hair sample for testing under sec 31(2) and sec 31A. Failure to provide a sample is an offence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 22 minutes ago, Guest I think said: They can't charge them without first determining first their intentions and contexts surrounding the drug consumptions. I mean, going to the party with the awareness and intention to do drugs and being unaware but succumbed to peer pressure are very different scenarios that cannot be dealt with similarly. As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed: Quote: Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption. The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it. Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I think Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 35 minutes ago, singalion said: The drug offences is Singapore work with presumptions. The intention is not relevant. The assumption of innocence is also reversed, which means the suspected person having consumed drugs must prove his innocence. That might be a difficult task or impossible. Presumptions relating to consumption Sec 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act stipulates if a controlled drug is found in the tested urine samples of a person, the person is presumed to have consumed that controlled drug, until the contrary is proven. Quote end. For first time offenders anyhow the law provides a special treatment. Please read at CNB's website. The defense will be accidental or unintentional consumption. Drinks were passed around. Some wouldn't know better. Some may be drugged by unscrupulous people who wanted to make them high for sex lol. I think intention for drug consumption, but what you stated more for drug trafficking. I could be wrong. That statuette already included the "unless" part. That means whether to be charged, still depends on intention and contexts of consumption. Otherwise, many people who did not intend to consume drugs, but consumed them unknowingly or accidentally will be charged. Maybe someone drank the spiked drink because of thirst after dancing or orgy, he was in an intoxicated state from alcohol consumption, unaware the drink was spiked and no other drinks were available nearby at that time? That's why if the intention and contexts are unclear, people are usually given stern warnings. They will apply the law more strictly for repeat offenders, who were already established to have the intent before in prior cases. They will also look at the overall profile of the party attendees, if they have prior criminal records, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I think Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 45 minutes ago, singalion said: Here on the test. The law refers to "or" meaning both test are valid. If a person is suspected of having consumed controlled or specified drugs, that person may be required to provide a urine or hair sample for testing under sec 31(2) and sec 31A. Failure to provide a sample is an offence Yes but to be charged in court requires a positive urine test, the hair test is just for reference and cannot be used to charge in court. Otherwise, marijuana traces in your hair from your buddy blowing smoke in your hair can land you in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I think Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 50 minutes ago, singalion said: Here on the test. The law refers to "or" meaning both test are valid. If a person is suspected of having consumed controlled or specified drugs, that person may be required to provide a urine or hair sample for testing under sec 31(2) and sec 31A. Failure to provide a sample is an offence They will test your hair if they suspect you took drugs more than 2 weeks ago, but a positive hair test alone cannot be used to charge you in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I think Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 1 hour ago, singalion said: As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed: Quote: Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption. The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it. Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts. Then they need to substantiate their claim of unawareness by demonstrating their trust in that friend beforehand and getting testimonials from people who were shortchanged and know that friend better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest I think Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 1 hour ago, singalion said: As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed: Quote: Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption. The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it. Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts. Get also testimonials from people who had known you for a very long time and know you very well to expound on the fact that you have always displayed a strong and clear aversion to drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Know nothing Posted June 22 Report Share Posted June 22 5 hours ago, singalion said: As earlier said, the excuse of having been unaware has little chances to succeed: Quote: Section 22: Presumption Of Drug Consumption Similar to drug possessions, there are also presumptions relating to consumption. The first is outlined under Section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which states that if a controlled drug is detected in a person’s urine, they are presumed to have illegally consumed it. Once again, the burden of proving innocence falls on the accused. Any reasoning or excuse, like: “I wasn’t aware that the brownies my friend gave me were laced with cannabis”, is not likely to be accepted by the Courts. wow, you can Google but still know nothing about the realities of what has happened with this case. i really wonder where this endless need to keep posting to try and prove you are right comes from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Borrrred Posted June 22 Report Share Posted June 22 Hmm, interesting debate. If I were the police, I would be more interested in who brought in the drugs in the first place. As for those whose urine are positive, there will be rehab for sure, its the same for those who returned from bkk and tested positive, its sg law. The lucky ones that will be be given stern warnings are those whose urine was tested negative. Moral of the story, avoid such big parties, if really want to, don't drink anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yucks Posted June 22 Report Share Posted June 22 13 hours ago, singalion said: The 12 August 2023 media article already contradicts what some Guest person claims here: Quote: 49 men arrested in Sentosa hotel villa after drug raid 12 Aug 2023 10:08AM CNB declined to disclose at which hotel the incident took place. It said investigations into the drug activities of all the suspects are ongoing. => investigations of all suspects have been initiated by CNB. Yes all were being investigated, that’s of course right? If not, why were they being detained? Fact is most cases are already concluded. No one is down playing the severity, it’s just the truth. You know nothing and like to assume. Just stop posting something that you have no knowledge of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted June 22 Report Share Posted June 22 Fact is that the media did not report on every one each involved in the Covid party, ( = 32 others) but just the two co host, why should the media do it in the Sentosa case? This means the cases of each won't be known. Sure anyone can take the effort and read every judgment from the criminal courts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Know nothing Posted June 23 Report Share Posted June 23 10 hours ago, singalion said: Fact is that the media did not report on every one each involved in the Covid party, ( = 32 others) but just the two co host, why should the media do it in the Sentosa case? This means the cases of each won't be known. Sure anyone can take the effort and read every judgment from the criminal courts... still desperately trying to have the last word…. With no actual knowledge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 23 Report Share Posted June 23 @singalion If you have no knowledge of a topic and do not have any first hand info, it's better to just keep quiet. You think.....you assume.....it's just making you look real bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oh... Posted Thursday at 09:53 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 09:53 AM So negative urine test = stern warning First time positive urine test = rehab Second time positive = jail? That's their current playback? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oh... Posted Thursday at 09:54 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 09:54 AM Just now, Guest Oh... said: So negative urine test = stern warning First time positive urine test = rehab Second time positive = jail? That's their current playback? *playbook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts