The compounds are also getting scheduled, as I understand it, so any "unscheduled" plants will also become sched 1 as a result of their chemical constituents. Hooray for the CSA :thumb_dowGodsmacker said:
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
DEA Announces Kratom to become a Schedule 1 Substance
- Thread starter Muskogee Herbman
- Start date
Nathanial.Dread
Esteemed member
To be fair, mescaline is also Sched. 1 but no one's come down on San Pedro and Peruvian torch vendors yet.SnozzleBerry said:
Blessings
~ND
Technically, it's not, for the reasons already outlined.Biawak said:
Again, I'm not talking about enforcement, only legality, and the two should not be confused.
If you find yourself staring down the barrel of the state's legal apparatus, a defense of "Well, it's generally not enforced" isn't going to do you much good. People on this forum have been busted for cactus chips and had legal fallout as a reason. I just think it's best to understand what the actual legal terrain is regarding these plants, so that people don't assume they're completely safe when they're not.
^^^
I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.
To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.
Whatever the case may be, you're surely correct that it would not guarantee complete legal safety and perhaps I could have clarified or worded my post a bit differently.
I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.
To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.
Whatever the case may be, you're surely correct that it would not guarantee complete legal safety and perhaps I could have clarified or worded my post a bit differently.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claimBiawak said:
I think the "prior knowledge must be proven" statement (mens rea would be the legal issue, afaik) is irrelevant given that this discussion is among people using illegal drugs and growing plants for the purpose of manufacturing/securing illegal drugs. And really, it's an issue that highlights selective enforcement more than any relevant legal loophole pertaining to live plants, as the CSA makes no distinction and simply states that any amount of material containing any amount of a scheduled compound is illegal.Biawak said:
Seeing as that's the case, the distinction between live plants and plant material isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, imo. Especially given that people have been charged with cultivating plants for their schedule I compounds. No one here could honestly plead ignorance.
concombres
Rising Star
Meanwhile, U47700 remains relatively un-noticed by legislation & causes about a thousand times more damage with zero medical benefit & a growing userbase. :thumb_dow
The U.S. government is a bunch of freakin clowns.
The U.S. government is a bunch of freakin clowns.
Godsmacker
Rising Star
Godsmacker said:
Whelp, here's the answer to my question (it's not on the front page, but many examples of mitragynine "analogue" species are included in this document.
Enjoy,
-Godsmacker
SnozzleBerry said:I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claimBiawak said:
As you're probably aware, no such case law pertaining to Trichocereus cacti exists. However, there haven't been any convictions based on simple possession of whole cacti, and the convictions thus far have been dried material, afaik.
The following excerpt from an Erowid article (that we've probably all read before) sums up the legal implications of dried chips vs. live cactus.
Erowid said:
Are we discussing convictions? I certainly wasn't. From my perspective, at the point where you are arrested, that's "too far" imo. People have been arrested and charged for live plants (including cacti). For me, that, combined with the fact that no one involved in this discussion can honestly plead ignorance is pretty much the end of the discussion.Biawak said:SnozzleBerry said:I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claimBiawak said:
As you're probably aware, no such case law pertaining to Trichocereus cacti exists. However, there haven't been any convictions based on simple possession of whole cacti, and the convictions thus far have been dried material, afaik.
Live plants have been treated as "any material containing a scheduled substance" by the DEA before. Arguing that there is a legal loophole pertaining to live plants or that the CSA doesn't apply to the folks involved in this discussion (who know damn well that they are growing drugs) strikes me as the usual cutesy assertions that people make to pretend they're not engaged in criminal activity.
Simply put, growing live plants that contain scheduled compounds is neither safe nor explicitly legal. Issues around mens rea and prior knowledge are moot for the purposes of this discussion given that we are on a drugs forum and all of us have something that implicates us beyond our live plants (even if it's just an internet search history). From a harm reduction standpoint, arguing counter to this makes no sense, as there is greater risk from pretending that your actions are legal than understanding the risk associated with growing plants that contain scheduled compounds.
There are always people who seem to want to argue the point, but let me ask you this. At the point where someone believes your assertion that this doesn't apply to live plants and gets charged with possession or manufacture as a result of their live plants, are you going to cover their legal expenditures?
I'm a european, so maybe there's something i don't understand here, but can the DEA decide over the legal status of plants and substances? Doesn't that go straigh against the whole separation of powers/trias politica idea? Isn't legislative power CONSTITUTIONALLY prohibited to congress, and congress only?Muskogee Herbman said:
The White House
President Biden and Vice President Harris promised to move quickly to deliver results for working families. That’s what they’ve done.petitions.whitehouse.gov
The DEA Intends To Place Kratom And Mitragynine On Schedule I
With the federal intent to place kratom and its bioactive constituents on Schedule I, used for drugs with no known medical use and high abuse potential, the DEA is ignoring the potential benefits of the plant and will certainly make subsequent research more difficult.www.forbes.com
I know some people may not like kratom but no plant deserves to be murdered by humans. Defend the standing silent nation
Psilociraptor
Rising Star
dragonrider said:I'm a european, so maybe there's something i don't understand here, but can the DEA decide over the legal status of plants and substances? Doesn't that go straigh against the whole separation of powers/trias politica idea? Isn't legislative power CONSTITUTIONALLY prohibited to congress, and congress only?Muskogee Herbman said:The White House
President Biden and Vice President Harris promised to move quickly to deliver results for working families. That’s what they’ve done.
The DEA Intends To Place Kratom And Mitragynine On Schedule I
With the federal intent to place kratom and its bioactive constituents on Schedule I, used for drugs with no known medical use and high abuse potential, the DEA is ignoring the potential benefits of the plant and will certainly make subsequent research more difficult.
I know some people may not like kratom but no plant deserves to be murdered by humans. Defend the standing silent nation
I don't know the exact details but it's a temporary ban. Basically an "emergency" ban that doesn't have to go through all the hoops. What happens is they nearly always temp ban something and then work on getting it banned for real. Usually when it's temp banned there's no coming back.
REMOVED peeps, what are we going to do? This is maddening... I don't use it a whole lot any more but it's gotten me through some of the worst parts of my lyme disease
entheogenic-gnosis
Rising Star
Why was kratom scheduled in Thailand?
What this basically says it that kratom was scheduled in Thailand because the Thai government was taxing and profiting every aspect of the opium trade, and that kratom use was cutting into government profits.
kratom was also an aide to addicts in withdrawal, who used the plant to quit heroin, which again was bad for the Thai governments interest in the heroin trade.
-eg
Seething within the underbelly of this political turmoil was the ever-present black market. Not surprisingly, one of the largest black market trades was the opium trade. Knowing how profitable it was, the Thai government passed a series of laws that levied duties and taxes from every aspect of the opium trade that they could; from the grower, to the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the shop owner and even the end consumer. It was a “cash cow” for the government.
With this boom in opium consumption, there was also a boom in opium addicts, opium-related deaths,and general public health concerns that come with any drug, licit or illicit. The government was clearly in the opium trade, as it was profiting heavily from it. With the amount of money that was generated from their taxes and levies, this was an aspect of money generation that was worth protecting.
A member of the House of Representatives from Lampang in a special meeting on 7 January 1943 (Police Major General Pin Amornwisaisoradej) said this: “Taxes for opium are high while kratom is currently not being taxed. With the increase of those taxes, people are starting to use kratom instead and this has had a visible impact on our government’s income.”
Why Kratom Was Banned In Thailand - Entheology.com
Anyone who has even a passing interest in Kratom will likely hear that it’s banned in the country it originates from; Thailand. As always, there are a number of urban legends, rumors, and other stories, some of which are true, and some of which are complete fabrications. This brief article is...entheology.com
What this basically says it that kratom was scheduled in Thailand because the Thai government was taxing and profiting every aspect of the opium trade, and that kratom use was cutting into government profits.
kratom was also an aide to addicts in withdrawal, who used the plant to quit heroin, which again was bad for the Thai governments interest in the heroin trade.
-eg
It's all about money and for the agency to justify their existence.
There were 14,000 deaths reported with prescription painkillers in the year 2014 alone the news reported today, compare that with the 15 total deaths reported with natural kratom (and these were reported to have been with combinations of kratom with other drugs, many research chems). You tell me which is safer.
The news also reported that addicts can go to their doctor and get buprenorphine prescribed or methadone prescribed and stay on those drugs for a lifetime, think about how much $$$ the prescription drug pushers make! and the doctors! Kratom cannot be patented as it is natural, no money to be made.
There were 14,000 deaths reported with prescription painkillers in the year 2014 alone the news reported today, compare that with the 15 total deaths reported with natural kratom (and these were reported to have been with combinations of kratom with other drugs, many research chems). You tell me which is safer.
The news also reported that addicts can go to their doctor and get buprenorphine prescribed or methadone prescribed and stay on those drugs for a lifetime, think about how much $$$ the prescription drug pushers make! and the doctors! Kratom cannot be patented as it is natural, no money to be made.
1ce
Communications-Security Analyst
Biawak said:
yes and no. Cactus chips are a bit easier to argue intent. It'd be pretty hard to put someone in jail for a cactus that could be found at home depot (or very similar) amongst many other non schedualed desert plants when all they can prove is that you think the flowers look pretty.
The cactus chips I've seen at least, were marketed toward human consumption.
they can charge you for anything, but it's the conviction that matters.
entheogenic-gnosis
Rising Star
SnozzleBerry said:
I wanted to clear up the whole "not for human consumption" thing...
I'll start with an excerpt from TIHKAL where shulgin briefly elucidates the stipulations of the federal analogue act of 1986:
Again, here shulgin lists the criteria for exemption from being legally an analogue substance:
"Not for human consumption" is the best defense research chemical enthusiasts have...and thank God we at least have that, or all these compounds would automatically fall victim to the drug war.
However, this is a concern for unscheduled research chemicals which would be considered analogues, and thus illegal, if this "loop-hole" was not in place.
Here is a section of the analogue act itself:
This is also an American issue, other countries have their own unique laws and loop-holes.
Kratom, as its now scheduled, is not an analogue, it's a scheduled substance, meaning analogue loop-holes can not apply here.
-eg
entheogenic-gnosis
Rising Star
SnozzleBerry said:I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claimBiawak said:
I think the "prior knowledge must be proven" statement (mens rea would be the legal issue, afaik) is irrelevant given that this discussion is among people using illegal drugs and growing plants for the purpose of manufacturing/securing illegal drugs. And really, it's an issue that highlights selective enforcement more than any relevant legal loophole pertaining to live plants, as the CSA makes no distinction and simply states that any amount of material containing any amount of a scheduled compound is illegal.Biawak said:
Seeing as that's the case, the distinction between live plants and plant material isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, imo. Especially given that people have been charged with cultivating plants for their schedule I compounds. No one here could honestly plead ignorance.
I've always been curious about something:
Stropharia cubensis is not mentioned anywhere in the drug laws, but psilocybin and psilocin are, the mushrooms themselves are not illegal, but are viewed as a "container" for a scheduled substance...meaning so long as they contain psilocin they are scheduled.
However, as DMT is endogenous, would this mean that all humans are legally "containers" for a controlled substance?
It's all worthless nonsense if you ask me...
Part of freedom is accepting personal responsibility...which nobody in this country wants to do...
Do you want to be "protected" by your government or do you want to be free?
you must accept any potential risks and dangers involved, and say, "it's my job to be safe, educated, and responsible, and if something happens to me, it was my fault"
the risks are the price you pay for the freedom.
-eg