Grasshopper

a Case of Drug Abuse in Indonesia

Case

Hengky Gunawan is a suspect of drug abuse case who isn’t a stranger in the illicit business. From the information gathered from various sources, residents from Duryat, Surabaya known since 1997 as a supplier of ecstasy in foreign and domestic. This man has a global network. 15 years ago, he had been sentenced to one year in the Netherlands since 2000 caught carrying ecstasy pills. Back to Indonesia, he even made ecstasy factory in Yogyakarta. Hengky rearrested by the police in 2003 and jailed for two years.

Breathe free air, he did not give up as well and re-established the ecstasy factory in Surabaya. Hengky was arrested on May 23, 2006 at the Yani Golf, Gunung Sari, Surabaya, East Java. He was arrested by the police for producing and distributing large amounts of ecstasy.

The arresting of Hengky is the result of the development of the arresting a courier named Kristian in the Grogol, West Jakarta. Kristian was arrested while carrying 39 thousand ecstasy pills claim to be supplied Hengky. In the beginning, he denied the charge by the police.

However, Hengky could not deny when the police took him to Surabaya to be met with Warno, another courier who was arrested by police in Nganjuk, East Java. Warno confessed ordered to dispense ecstasy pills.

Then, Both suspects asked by the joint team of the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) with East Java Regional Police to show the evidence of storage for dispensing ecstasy pills. Ecstasy factories owned by Hengky expected to produce one million ecstasy pills.

Moreover, Surabaya District Court sentenced him to 15 years in prison for Hengky which is then compounded by the appeal to the High Court Surabaya for 18 years in prison. On appeal the punishment maximized to death penalty. The death penalty imposed by Iskandar Kamil, Prof. Komariah Emong Sapardjaja and Prof. Dr. Kaimuddin Salle.

But the death penalty was annuled by the Supreme Court in a PK decision dated August 16, 2011. Hengky Gunawan's appeal was granted by the judge. The panel of judges in the Supreme Court chaired Imron Anwari with the members Achmad Yamanie and Nyak Pha granted to review (Peninjauan Kembali) petitioned by offender of drug cases, Hengky Gunawan. The reasons of the Supreme Court granted the petitioned by offender of drug cases, Hengky Gunawan is the consideration that the death penalty contrary to Article 28 Paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution and violated Article 4 of Law No. 39 Year 1999 on Human Rights.

Law that Arranging the Case

Act No. 35 year 2009 of Narcotic, stated that

Article 112

(1) Any person who without right or unlawfully possess, store, control, or provide Narcotics Group I not plant shall be punished with imprisonment of 4 (four) years and a maximum of 12 (twelve) years and a minimum fine Rp 800.000.000 (eight hundred million rupiah) and a maximum of Rp 8.000.000.000 (eight billion rupiah).

Article 113

(1) Any person who without right or unlawful to produce, import, export, or distribute Narcotics Group I, shall be punished with imprisonment of 5 (five) years and a maximum of 15 (fifteen) years and a minimum fine of Rp 1.000.000.000 (one billion rupiah) and a maximum of Rp 10.000.000.000 (ten billion rupiah).

Article 114

(1) Any person who without right or unlawfully offering for sale, selling, buying, receiving, brokered the sale, exchange, or give Narcotics Group I, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 5 (five) years and a maximum of 20 (twenty) years and a minimum fine of Rp 1.000.000.000 (one billion rupiah) and a maximum of Rp 10.000.000.000 (ten billion rupiah).

Article 115

(1) Any person who without right or unlawful carry, transfer, transport, or transit Narcotics Group I, shall be punished with imprisonment of 4 (four) years and a maximum of 12 (twelve) years and a minimum fine of Rp 800.000.000 (eight hundred million rupiah) and a maximum of Rp 8.000.000.000 (eight billion rupiah).

THE DISPUTE OF ACQUISITION SIPADAN LIGITAN ISLANDS BETWEEN INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA

Territorial Sovereignty is the most important attribute for the existence of the state. In the territory, the state rights to implement sovereignty over people, things or events also legal actions that occur in its territory. However, the state is prohibited to use its territory for actions that harm other countries and the actions that endanger national peace and security (Article 7 Draft UN Declaration on the rights and obligations of 1949). In relation to the territory, the state is prohibited to recognize the territories that acquired by force (Article 12 of the Draft UN Declaration on the rights and obligations of 1949).

In addition to the obligation not to recognize the territories that acquired by force, it is important for the state to arrange its territories. Arranging the territory for Indonesia stipulated in Law No. 43 of 2008. Arranging the territory by Act No. 43 of 2008 about the territory of the state has objectives:

1.      Ensuring the integrity of territory, sovereignty, and the order in the interests of the Border Regions of the entire nation

2.      Uphold the sovereignty and sovereign rights

3.      The management and utilization of the State and Territory Border Area, including oversight limits.

            Furthermore, Law No. 43 of 2008 also stipulated that the territory of Indonesia covers land, territorial waters, seabed. subsoil and the airspace above it, including all natural sources contained in.

            Land of the state consists of land (dry parts) and waters in the land such as rivers and lakes. Land of the state can be the beginning land of the state or additional land of the state. Land surface can occur or be determined by the action or unilateral declaration of the state when it proclaimed its independence. By international agreement, an international customs or be determined by the development after the country was formed. As occurred in Israel and Poland were initially uncertain land area as independent. Various international agreements are generally made by the state to regulate border issues such as land area in Indonesia that have land borders with three countries: Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Timor Leste.

            Beside the beginning land of the state, international law also recognized the additional land of the state based on theories of international law. That can be obtained by the state in several ways. One of ways is occupation.

            Occupation is the acquisition or establishment sovereignty over terra nullius areas. Terra nullius is territory which belonged to not state before the acquisition. It may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The elements that must be fulfilled by the actions of the occupation is:

a.    the discovery of the terra nulius territory or taking no possession to taking terra nullius territory

b.    the intention or the will to find new areas to make it their own or placed under its sovereignty

c.    the occupation should be conducted by state and not by private person

d.   the intention must be manifested in the effective actions

e.    be intended as a claim of sovereignty over the territory

            Elements of the discovery can be regarded as an objective element. While the intent elements are realized with concrete actions is a subjective element. Both conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively. Fulfillment of the discovery of any new element is enchoate title or an introductory element to the validity of the act. The importance of effective elemets in occupation regarded from some decision of international court such as Sipadan Ligitan islands.

            Sipadan and Ligitan islands are islands which disputed by Indonesia and Malaysia. These islands are belong to Indonesia, but always claimed by Malaysia. This case was debated by ministers and the Indonesian people because the islands which is rich in natural resources and mining claimed by Malaysia.

            The beginning of the case that began in 1968, when Malaysia reacted to the cooperation agreement between Indonesia and Japex (Japan Exploration Company Limited) in 1966. Malaysia was also worked with the Sabah Oil Company Teiseki in 1968. as a response towards the sea exploration activities in the area of ​​Sipadan, in  1969 Malaysia began to claim that Sipadan Ligitan islands are belong to Malaysia. this was immediately rejected by the government of Indonesia. Several agreementsA series were held by Indonesia and Malaysia. Ways that emphasizes dialogues to avoid military conflict.

            Finally the issue became muffled in quotes, which means the dialogue about the dispute tried to do by diplomacy. Indonesia really carried away with that way. Then, Indonesia surprised when in October of 91, Malaysia suddenly pulled out a map that included Sipadan and Ligitan to Malaysia territory. In 1997, Indonesia and Malaysia agreed to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice, the Hague in the Netherlands.

Problem Formulation

1. What are the ways that had been done by Indonesia to Malaysia in Sipadan Ligitan case settlement?

2. Why was Indonesia lost in the dispute of the Sipadan Ligitan case?

3. What are the ways to prevent our islands claimed by the other states in the future?

International Court Decision

            In 1998 Sipadan and Ligitan issue was brought to the International Court of Justice. Later in the Tuesday, December 17th, 2002 International Court of Justice give a decision on dispute of sovereignty Sipadan and Ligatan islands between Indonesia and Malaysia. The result at the voting in the institution is Malaysia won by 16 judges, while only one judge that choose Indonesia. From seventeen judges, fifteen are permanent judges of International Court, while one of seventeen court is chosen by Malaysia and one chosen by Indonesia. The victory of Malaysia was considered by effectivity (without deciding the question of territorial waters and maritime boundaries). The British government which colonilized Malaysia had done the administrative in the form of issuance of bird wild life protection ordinance, levy a tax on the collection of turtle eggs from 1930, and the light house operation since the 1960. Meanwhile, tourism activities undertaken by Malaysia was not consided and rejected based on chain of title theory.

           

Discussion

            It is understandable when almost all of the International Court judges agreed that Sipadan and Ligitan islands fell to the Malaysia. Because those two islands are not far from Malaysia and the fact that Malaysia has built several infrastructure of tourism in those islands.

            Effective occupation itself is a doctrine of international law derived from the ancient Roman law. Occupation comes from the concept Romawi occupatio means of administrative measures and are not necessarily the physical act of occupation. Effective occupation as an act of administrative control of the region can only be applied to terra nulliusatau new territory and the no-man's land, or areas considered no man's land and disputed by the state. Effective occupation can not be applied to the areas governed by the agreement, the judge's decision, arbitration decisions, or registration with clear legal ownership.

            Obviously the key element in the application of the doctrine of effective occupation is the presence or absence of a law, rule of law, or regulation regarding the status of the region. This is certainly in line with the meaning of occupatio (read okupatio) which means that administrative actions and are not necessarily physical occupation.

            Because including the international doctrine, effective occupation categorized as a source of substantive law that refers to a form or birth bahan-bahan/materi rules or norms that have binding power, and a benchmark for the occurrence of a legal act.

            International Court in solving this case Malaysia rejected the argument that the two disputed island territory once part of Malaysia acquired by private management contract with the Sultan of Sulu Sen-Overbeck/BNBC/Inggris/Malaysia. The Court also rejected the argument that the two islands, including Malaysia in the Sulu region / Spain / U.S. / UK and then handed over to Malaysia based theories ownership chain (Chain of Title Theory). According to the Court neither legal or evidentiary documents filed Malaysia beard handover of sovereignty the relay contains a reference that explicitly refers to the two disputed island.

            International Court also rejected the argument that the two disputed island Indonesia is an area under Dutch rule based interpretation of Article IV of the Convention of 1891. Interpretation of Indonesia to the line limit of 4 ° 10 'N which cut Sebatik island as an allocation line and continues to the east to reach the islands dispute is also unacceptable Court. Clarity regarding the ownership status of the two islands is also not in the van Toelichting memory. Memory Map Toelichting van which illustrates Indonesia's interpretation of article IV is considered to be unenforceable because it was not part of the 1891 convention. court also rejected the alternative argument of Indonesia because of the islands dispute is not mentioned in the contract 1850 and 1878 as part of the Sultan Bulungan submitted to the Dutch colonial government.

            Mastery effectively considered as a stand-alone issue with 1969 as the critical date RI considering legal arguments and legal arguments Malaysia can not prove their claims ownership over both also in dispute.

            In connection with the proof effectivities Indonesia, the International Court concludes that there is no strong evidence that can realize the sovereignty of the Dutch or Sipadan island and Ligitan island. Similarly, there is no evidence and authentic documents that may indicate the presence of the shape and form of the implementation of Indonesia's sovereignty over the islands referred to in 1969. Court can not ignore the fact that the Law no. 4/Prp/1960 on specified waters on 18 February 1960 which is the beginning of a legal product for the concept of territorial assertion Archipelago, also did not include Sipadan-Ligitan into the territory of the Republic of Indonesia.

            In connection with the proof effectivities Malaysia, the Court concluded that a number of documents submitted show that there are multiple measures of sustainable and peaceful management of the British colonial government since 1917.

            Several ways of British efforts materialized in the form of legislative action, quasi judicial, and administrative disputes over the islands, such as:

a.       Quotation of tax on fishing activities and the collection of turtle eggs turtle since 1917.

b.      Dispute resolution in the collection of turtle eggs in Sipadan island in 1930.

c.       Determination of Sipadan island as a bird sanctuary.

d.      Development and maintenance of the lighthouse since 1962 in the Sipadan island and in 1963 at the Ligitan island.

            In reviewing the legal evidence before 1969 that shows the effective occupation over the islands of Sipadan-Ligitan, the Court considered the evidence submitted both countries, namely:

a.       Indonesia submitted evidence of Dutch naval patrols in the region from 1895 to 1928, including the presence of the Dutch Navy ship Lynx to Sipadan in November-December 1921, and the hydrographic survey ship in waters off Sipadan Dutch Macasser Ligitan in October-November 1903. These patrols continued by navy patrols. Moreover, the evidence presented was a fisherman fishing in Indonesia in 1950-1960s and even early 1970s.

b.      Malaysia submitted evidence in the form of the English law of evidence Turtle Preservation Ordinance 1917; licensing of fishing vessels Sipadan Ligitan region; regulation bird sanctuary in 1933 and the construction of a flare in 1962 and 1963. Everything is a product of the British colonial government law, not Malaysia.

            Before assessing the evidence Indonesia, International Court of Justice confirmed that 4/Prp Act 1960 on the island of Sipadan-Ligitan not listed as belonging to Indonesia. International Court believes it is relevant to the case of Sipadan Ligitan islands because Indonesia does not put it in a national legislation. Against the Dutch naval patrols, the Court found that this was part of the group practice or collective agreements in the fight against piracy, so it can not be the basis of filing a claim.

            Indonesian fishermen about fishing, the International Court held that "activities by private persons can not be seen as effectivities, if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority" Therefore these activities are not part of the implementation of the legislation Indonesia or under the authority of the Government, the Court concludes that this activity can not be the basis of the existence of effective occupation.

            The International Court holds that different from Indonesia who presented evidence in the form of a number of activities and fisher folk Netherlands, Malaysia presented evidence in the form of a number of legal provisions. Court stated that the UK regulations indicate the existence of a "regulatory and administrative assertions of authority over territory roomates is specified by name".

            The essence of this decision is not as stated namely that while the state should pay attention to the environment, economic development or even existence on a remote island to show effective occupation, but the most important is whether there is a legal or legal instruments, regulations or other administrative activities on the island apart from the contents of their activities. This decision also does not give legal meaning to the resort development undertaken by Malaysia after 1969 and also Indonesian fishermen fishing activities that are not based on legislation.

            It should be underlined that the evidence presented is Dutch and Indonesian activities against the British legal evidence. So in terms of international law glasses, Malaysia to get the islands but not on its own activities on the British legal activities conducted in 1917, 1933, 1962 and 1963 long before the Federation of Malaysia was formed with a membership of Sabah on 16 September 1963

Raina Carly

This is my lovely Teddy Bear. Named Raina Carly. She was born in November 23, 2012 located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

at Shark aquarium in Sea World, Jakarta.

Raina looked out the window while on our way to nearly restaurant.

These 3 photos located in Taman Pelangi, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Raina in Dino's mouth!

Raina with Mr. Horse.

Raina posed in Vespa Contest!

Psychotropic

Definition

A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, or psychotropic is a chemical substance that crosses the blood–brain barrier and acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it affects brain function, resulting in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, and behavior. These substances may be used recreationally, to purposefully alter one's consciousness, or as entheogens, for ritual, spiritual, and/orshamanic purposes, as a tool for studying or augmenting the mind. Some psychoactive drugs are also recognized for therapeutic use asanesthetics, analgesics, or for the treatment of psychiatric disorders.

Because psychoactive substances bring about subjective changes in consciousness and mood that the user may find pleasant (e.g. euphoria) or advantageous (e.g. increased alertness), many psychoactive substances are abused, that is, used excessively, despite health risks or negative consequences. With sustained use of some substances, psychological and physical dependence ("addiction") may develop, making the cycle of abuse even more difficult to interrupt. Drug rehabilitation aims to break this cycle of dependency, through a combination of psychotherapy, support groups and even other psychoactive substances. However, the reverse is also true in some cases, that is certain experiences on drugs may be so unfriendly and uncomforting that the user may never want to try the substance again. This is especially true of the deliriants (e.g. Jimson weed) and powerful dissociatives (e.g. Salvia divinorum). Most purely psychedelic drugs are considered to be non-addictive (LSD, psilocybin, mescalineetc.); "psychedelic amphetamines" or empathogen-entactogens (such as MDA, MDMA etc.) may produce an additional stimulant and/or euphoriant effect, and thus have an addiction potential.

In part because of this potential for abuse and dependency, the ethics of drug use are the subject of debate. Many governments worldwide place restrictions on drug production and sales in an attempt to decrease drug abuse. Ethical concerns have also been raised about over-use of these drugs clinically, and about their marketing by manufacturers.

History

Psychoactive drug use is a practice that dates to prehistoric times. There is archaeological evidence of the use of psychoactive substances (mostly plants) dating back at least 10,000 years, and historical evidence of cultural use over the past 5,000 years. The chewing of coca leaves, for example, was found to date back over 8000 years ago in Peruvian society.

Medicinal use is one important facet of psychoactive drug usage. However, some have postulated that the urge to alter one's consciousness is as primary as the drive to satiate thirst, hunger or sexual desire. The long history of drug use and even children's desire for spinning, swinging, or sliding indicates that the drive to alter one's state of mind is universal.

One of the first people to articulate this point of view, set aside from a medicinal context, was American author Fitz Hugh Ludlow (1836–1870) in his book The Hasheesh Eater (1857): "...drugs are able to bring humans into the neighborhood of divine experience and can thus carry us up from our personal fate and the everyday circumstances of our life into a higher form of reality. It is, however, necessary to understand precisely what is meant by the use of drugs. We do not mean the purely physical craving...That of which we speak is something much higher, namely the knowledge of the possibility of the soul to enter into a lighter being, and to catch a glimpse of deeper insights and more magnificent visions of the beauty, truth, and the divine than we are normally able to spy through the cracks in our prison cell. But there are not many drugs which have the power of stilling such craving. The entire catalog, at least to the extent that research has thus far written it, may include only opium, hashish, and in rarer cases alcohol, which has enlightening effects only upon very particular characters."

This relationship is not limited to humans. A number of animals consume different psychoactive plants, animals, berries and even fermented fruit, becoming intoxicated, such as cats after consuming catnip. Traditional legends of sacred plants often contain references to animals that introduced humankind to their use. Biology suggests an evolutionary connection between psychoactive plants and animals, as to why these chemicals and their receptors exist within the nervous system.

During the 20th century, many governments across the world initially responded to the use of recreational drugs by banning them and making their use, supply, or trade a criminal offense. A notable example of this is the Prohibition era in the United States, where alcohol was made illegal for 13 years. However, many governments, government officials and persons in law enforcement have concluded that illicit drug use cannot be sufficiently stopped through criminalization. Organizations such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) have come to such a conclusion believing "the existing drug policies have failed in their intended goals of addressing the problems of crime, drug abuse, addiction, juvenile drug use, stopping the flow of illegal drugs into this country and the internal sale and use of illegal drugs. By fighting a war on drugs the government has increased the problems of society and made them far worse. A system of regulation rather than prohibition is a less harmful, more ethical and a more effective public policy." In some countries, there has been a move toward harm reduction by health services, where the use of illicit drugs is neither condoned nor promoted, but services and support are provided to ensure users have adequate factual information readily available, and that the negative effects of their use be minimized. Such is the case of Portuguese drug policy of decriminalization, which achieved its primary goal of reducing the adverse health effects of drug abuse.

Effects of psychotropic use

Substances or psychotropic drugs may decrease the activity of the brain or stimulating the central nervous system and cause behavioral abnormalities, accompanied by the onset of hallucinations (dreaming), illusion, impaired thinking, feeling changes can lead to dependence and has the effect of stimulation (stimulated) for the users .

Use of Psychotropic prolonged unattended and restrictions health officials may result in a worse, not only cause addiction and even cause various kinds of illnesses as well as physical and psychological disorders of the users, it is not uncommon even cause death.

United Nations Convention on fighting narcotics and psychotropic substances of 1988

Council of the United Nations had held a convention on fighting the circulation of psychotropic (Convention on psychotropic substances), held in Vienna from 11 January to 21 February 1971, followed by 71 countries and added 4 countries as observers.

As a reaction driven by deep concern over the increased production, demand, abuse and illicit trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances, children and adolescents are used as user market narcotics and psychotropic substances illegally, as well as the target of production, distribution, and trafficking narcotics and psychotropic substances, has led to the birth of the United Nations Convention on the Eradication of Illicit Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988.

The convention contains basic thoughts:

1. The community of nations and countries in the world need to give priority attention to the problem of fighting illicit trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances.

2. Fighting illicit trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances is a problem that all countries need to be deal together.

3. The provisions set forth in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, Protocol of 1972 Amendments Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961,  and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, need to be confirmed and refined as a legal basic to prevent and fight illicit trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances.

4. The need to strengthen and improve the legal basic for more effective within international cooperation in order to fight crime in the area of ​​trans-national criminal organizations in the activities of illicit narcotics and psychotropic substances.

Classes of psychotropic

Psychotropic drugs that have the potential of resulting in dependency syndrome classified into 4 categories:

Psychotropic group I: substances which are not used for medicinal purposes with the potential for a very strong dependence

Psychotropic group II: substances that are efficacious therapy, but can cause dependence.

Psychotropic group III: the effects psychotropic drugs with moderate dependence from the sedative hypnotics.

Psychotropic group IV: the effects psychotropic mild dependence.

Based on the United Nations Convention on fighting narcotics and psychotropic substances in 1988 can be classified as follows: (preceded by the name of International and chemical name is placed in parentheses)

Psychotropic group I

·         Broloamfetamine atau DOB ((±)-4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxy-alpha-methylphenethylamine)

·         Cathinone ((x)-(S)-2-aminopropiophenone)

·         DET (3-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl]indole)

·         DMA ( (±)-2,5-dimethoxy-alpha-methylphenethylamine )

·         DMHP ( 3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H- dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-olo )

·         DMT ( 3-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]indole)

·         DOET ( (±)-4-ethyl-2,5-dimethoxy-alpha-phenethylamine)

·         Eticyclidine - PCE ( N-ethyl-1-phenylcyclohexylamine )

·         Etrytamine ( 3-(2-aminobutyl)indole )

·         Lysergide - LSD, LSD-25 (9,10-didehydro-N,N-diethyl-6-methylergoline-8beta-carboxamide)

·         MDMA ((±)-N,alpha-dimethyl-3,4-(methylene-dioxy)phenethylamine)

·         Mescaline (3,4,5-trimethoxyphenethylamine)

·         Methcathinone ( 2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpropan-1-one )

·         4-methylaminorex ( (±)-cis-2-amino-4-methyl-5-phenyl-2-oxazoline )

·         MMDA (2-methoxy-alpha-methyl-4,5-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine)

·         N-ethyl MDA ((±)-N-ethyl-alpha-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine)

·         N-hydroxy MDA ((±)-N-[alpha-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethyl]hydroxylamine)

·         Parahexyl (3-hexyl-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol)

·         PMA (p-methoxy-alpha-methylphenethylamine)

·         Psilocine, psilotsin (3-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl] indol-4-ol)

·         Psilocybine (3-[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl]indol-4-yl dihydrogen phosphate)

·         Rolicyclidine - PHP,PCPY ( 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine )

·         STP, DOM (2,5-dimethoxy-alpha,4-dimethylphenethylamine)

·         Tenamfetamine - MDA (alpha-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine)

·         Tenocyclidine - TCP (1-[1-(2-thienyl)cyclohexyl]piperidine)

·         Tetrahydrocannabinol

·         TMA ((±)-3,4,5-trimethoxy-alpha-methylphenethylamine)

Psychotropic group II

·         Amphetamine ((±)-alpha-methylphenethylamine)

·         Dexamphetamine ((+)-alpha-methylphenethylamine)

·         Fenetylline (7-[2-[(alpha-methylphenethyl)amino] ethyl]theophylline)

·         Levamphetamine ((x)-(R)-alpha-methylphenethylamine)

·         Levomethampheta-mine ((x)-N,alpha-dimethylphenethylamine)

·         Mecloqualone (3-(o-chlorophenyl)-2-methyl-4(3H)- quinazolinone)

·         Methamphetamine ((+)-(S)-N,alpha-dimethylphenethylamine)

·         Methamphetamineracemate ((±)-N,alpha-dimethylphenethylamine)

·         Methaqualone (2-methyl-3-o-tolyl-4(3H)-quinazolinone)

·         Methylphenidate (Methyl alpha-phenyl-2-piperidineacetate)

·         Phencyclidine - PCP (1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl)piperidine)

·         Phenmetrazine (3-methyl-2-phenylmorpholine)

·         Secobarbital (5-allyl-5-(1-methylbutyl)barbituric acid)

·         Dronabinol atau delta-9-tetrahydro-cannabinol ((6aR,10aR)-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H- dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol)

·         Zipeprol (alpha-(alpha-methoxybenzyl)-4-(beta-methoxyphenethyl)-1-piperazineethanol)

Psychotropic group III

·         Amobarbital (5-ethyl-5-isopentylbarbituric acid)

·         Buprenorphine (2l-cyclopropyl-7-alpha-[(S)-1-hydroxy-1,2,2-trimethylpropyl]-6,14- endo-ethano-6,7,8,14-tetrahydrooripavine)

·         Butalbital (5-allyl-5-isobutylbarbituric acid)

·         Cathine / norpseudo-ephedrine ((+)-(R)-alpha-[(R)-1-aminoethyl]benzyl alcohol)

·         Cyclobarbital (5-(1-cyclohexen-1-yl)-5-ethylbarbituric acid)

·         Flunitrazepam (5-(o-fluorophenyl)-1,3-dihydro-1-methyl-7-nitro-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Glutethimide (2-ethyl-2-phenylglutarimide)

·         Pentazocine ((2R*,6R*,11R*)-1,2,3,4,5,6-hexahydro-6,11-dimethyl-3-(3-methyl-2-butenyl)-2,6-methano-3-benzazocin-8-ol)

·         Pentobarbital (5-ethyl-5-(1-methylbutyl)barbitur

ic acid)

Psychotropic group IV

·         Allobarbital (5,5-diallylbarbituric acid)

·         Alprazolam (8-chloro-1-methyl-6-phenyl-4H-s-triazolo[4,3-a][1,4]benzodiazepine)

·         Amfepramone (diethylpropion 2-(diethylamino)propiophenone)

·         Aminorex (2-amino-5-phenyl-2-oxazoline)

·         Barbital (5,5-diethylbarbituric acid)

·         Benzfetamine (N-benzyl-N,alpha-dimethylphenethylamine)

·         Bromazepam (7-bromo-1,3-dihydro-5-(2-pyridyl)-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Butobarbital (5-butyl-5-ethylbarbituric acid)

·         Brotizolam (2-bromo-4-(o-chlorophenyl)-9-methyl-6H-thieno[3,2-f]-s-triazolo[4,3-a][1,4]diazepine)

·         Camazepam (7-chloro-1,3-dihydro-3-hydroxy-1-methyl-5-phenyl-2H-1,4 benzodiazepin-2-one dimethylcarbamate (ester))

·         Chlordiazepoxide (7-chloro-2-(methylamino)-5-phenyl-3H-1,4-benzodiazepine-4-oxide)

·         Clobazam (7-chloro-1-methyl-5-phenyl-1H-1,5-benzodiazepine-2,4(3H,5H)-dione)

·         Clonazepam (5-(o-chlorophenyl)-1,3-dihydro-7-nitro-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Clorazepate (7-chloro-2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-5-phenyl-1H-1,4-benzodiazepine-3-carboxylic acid)

·         Clotiazepam (5-(o-chlorophenyl)-7-ethyl-1,3-dihydro-1-methyl-2H-thieno [2,3-e] -1,4-diazepin-2-one)

·         Cloxazolam (10-chloro-11b-(o-chlorophenyl)-2,3,7,11b-tetrahydro-oxazolo- [3,2-d][1,4]benzodiazepin-6(5H)-one)

·         Delorazepam (7-chloro-5-(o-chlorophenyl)-1,3-dihydro-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Diazepam (7-chloro-1,3-dihydro-1-methyl-5-phenyl-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Estazolam (8-chloro-6-phenyl-4H-s-triazolo[4,3-a][1,4]benzodiazepine)

·         Ethchlorvynol (1-chloro-3-ethyl-1-penten-4-yn-3-ol)

·         Ethinamate (1-ethynylcyclohexanolcarbamate)

·         Ethyl loflazepate (ethyl 7-chloro-5-(o-fluorophenyl)-2,3-dihydro-2-oxo-1H-1,4-benzodiazepine-3-carboxylate)

·         Etil Amfetamine / N-ethylampetamine (N-ethyl-alpha-methylphenethylamine)

·         Fencamfamin (N-ethyl-3-phenyl-2-norborananamine)

·         Fenproporex ((±)-3-[(alpha-methylphenylethyl)amino]propionitrile)

·         Fludiazepam (7-chloro-5-(o-fluorophenyl)-1,3-dihydro-1-methyl-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Flurazepam (7-chloro-1-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl]-5-(o-fluorophenyl)-1,3-dihydro-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Halazepam (7-chloro-1,3-dihydro-5-phenyl-1-(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)-2H-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one)

·         Haloxazolam (10-bromo-11b-(o-fluorophenyl)-2,3,7,11b-tetrahydrooxazolo [3,2-d][1,4]benzodiazepin-6(5H)-one)

·         Ketazolam (11-chloro-8,12b-dihydro-2,8-dimethyl-12b-phenyl-4H-[1,3]oxazino[3,2-d][1,4]benzodiazepine-4,7(6H)-dione)

·         Lefetamine - SPA ((x)-N,N-dimethyl-1,2-diphenylethylamine)

 SUBSTANCE

In Article 59 on Act No. 5 year 1997 of Psychotropic, stated that

(1) Whoever:

a. using psychotropic group I than referred to in Article 4 paragraph (2), or

b. produce and / or use in the production of class I substances referred to in Article 6, or

c. distributing psychotropic class I did not meet the provisions referred to in Article 12 paragraph (3), or

d. import psychotropic group I than to the interests of science, or

e. is no right to own, store and / or carry psychotropic group I will be punished with imprisonment of 4 (four) years, maximum 15 (fifteen) years and a minimum fine of Rp. 150,000,000.00 (one hundred and fifty million dollars), and a maximum of Rp 750,000,000.00 (seven hundred and fifty million rupiahs).

(2) If the offense referred to in paragraph (1) shall be organized shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years and a fine of Rp. 750,000,000.00 (seven hundred and fifty million rupiahs).

(3) If the offense under this section committed by a corporation, besides the subject will be punished, the corporation also imposed a fine of Rp. 5,000,000,000.00 (five billion dollars).

The interpretation of each word;

Production: activity or process of preparing, processing, producing, packaging, and / or changing the shape of psychotropic drugs.

Organized: has compiled and organized into a unity

Corporations: which entities authorized legal entity, the company or a very large enterprise or company that is managed and operated as one large company

Importing: include merchandise from abroad

Distribute: bring (deliver) the goods from one person to another

Without right: The person who does not have any authority to own the thing

Possess: The person who own a thing

Store: Put the thing in the safe place

Article 60

(1) Whoever:

a. producing substances other than those specified in the provisions of Article 5, or

b. produce or distribute in the form of psychotropic drugs that do not meet standards and / or requirements referred to in Article 7, or

c. produce or distribute in the form of psychotropic drug that is not listed on the departments responsible for health, as referred to in Article 9 paragraph (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of 15 (fifteen) years and a maximum fine of Rp. 200,000,000.00 (two hundred million rupiahs).

(2) Any person distributing psychotropic drugs other than those specified in Article 12 paragraph (2) shall be punished with imprisonment of 5 (five) years and a maximum fine of Rp.100.000.000, 00 (one hundred million rupiahs).

(3) Any person receiving psychotropic distribution other than those specified in Article 12 paragraph (2) shall be punished with imprisonment of 3 (three) years and a maximum fine of Rp 60,000,000.00 (sixty million dollars).

(4) Those who submit psychotropics than those specified in Article 14 paragraph (1), Article 14 paragraph (2), Article 14 paragraph (3), and Article 14 paragraph (4) shall be punished with imprisonment of three (3) years and a maximum fine of Rp. 60,000,000.00 (sixty million dollars).

(5) Any person receiving delivery of substances other than those specified in Article 14 paragraph (3), Article 14 paragraph (4) shall be punished with imprisonment of 3 (three) years and a maximum fine of Rp 60,000,000.00 (sixty million dollars). When the user receives the handover, it shall be punished with imprisonment of 3 (three) months.

The interpretation of each word;

Production: activity or process of preparing, processing, producing, packaging, and / or changing the shape of psychotropic drugs.

Receiving: take, receive, hold, something that is given or sent

Users: people who use goods

Distribute: bring (deliver) the goods from one person to another