On the Legal Status of DMT Source Plants in the US (with a discussion of the religious use defense)

[Vodsel]

If these plants are illegal, then everyone at these forums are considered criminals.

At least in the US, according to the information exposed in this thread, yes.

And idk about anyone else, but i'm no criminal, man. These things are legal and i will keep saying so until the plant's are outlawed.

And so even if i go out and cut my grass, i'm in possession of DMT, oh noooo, a crime. lmfao.

Criminal: Guilty of crime.
Crime: An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

If possession of any material containing DMT is illegal in the US and you are in the US and possess material with DMT, yes you are committing a crime and yes you are a criminal, no matter how absurd it may be. Snozz and Entropymancer are right and have made their points clearly, repeated times. No amount of denying the facts will change them.

You can work all you want to change the laws, but they don't stop existing just because you decide they don't.

But luckily there is a difference between the law and its application. Scarily arbitrary, but that's the only place where there seems to be an accidental spill of common sense.

 

[Sabnock]

I agree with you there Vodsel. All i'm saying, is that while yes there seems to be a law saying any material that contains DMT is illegal here in the US, the law itself is rarely enforced and the majority of people who use these plants will not be subject to the law, even if the law is still there. The way i'm seeing this, i'm coming from a more common sense approach, something laws lack as we all know, but nonetheless common sense says even though some little paragraph in the CSA makes anything and everything DMT-related illegal, these plants can be used anyways.

I myself, always talk about Ayahuasca and DMT to anyone and everyone i know, probably not a good thing but i'm with Rick Doblin when he said that people who use Psychedelics need to come out of the closet, the science is there, people just need to fight for it. And while man made law says Psychedelics are illegal, the law is morally wrong and i'm of that rare breed who truly believes in doing what's right instead of doing what's wrong. Could i perhaps be arrested and charged with something? Possibly. But am i letting it stop me from speaking my mind, speaking the truth, speaking of what's right vs. what's wrong? Nope.

Obviously, everyone else is free to call these plants illegal, but i will not because my mind refuses to accept that they are illegal. I know i know, it's not about what i think or believe, law is law and blah blah blah, but do you think for one second i'm just gonna lay down and say i'm guilty of committing a crime when my mind is incapable of comprehending a morally wrong law? People might not see things from my perspective, but it's kinda like if someone doesn't understand they are committing a crime, because i'm not committing what i know to be a criminal act, regardless of what law says what. You could say that could be applied to anything, but no it can not. We are talking morals here, cops and laws don't have morality, we know this, but if no one ever stood up and questioned what society thinks is wrong vs. right, then we'd never get anywhere.

Bottom line, if you make a tea from root bark or leaves or possess root bark or leaves, federally apparently they are illegal, but local and state LE will not bother you about it unless you give them a reason to. People all over the place are using the plants, and yet there's only a few rare cases of people being arrested for possessing DMT-containing plant material, so obviously the majority of people aren't having an issue with it, so they must be doing something right, eh?

 

[Vodsel]

As you say, your whole point has to do with the difference between legal and moral. In a sensible world there would be none, but doing what's right and being innocent are sadly different things.

I do believe in activism too as I'm guessing mostly everyone here does. Wise activism. And that requires knowing well your adversary and keeping your head cold. This thread is a great exercise in that sense.

 

[pau]

so Home Depot is very likely one of the biggest Schedule 1 drug dealers in the world, openly selling San Pedro cactus to minors? Or the bank in Los Angeles with T. pachanoi in the landscaping? Or the police chief who has a bentgrass lawn?

Snozzelberry said it right that the key is selective enforecement of The Law by LE. Of course they are not going to take down Home Depot, or public figures who are otherwise obeying the law. But if some DA decides it's worth harassing somebody for whatever reason, and that could include jailing him before he's convicted of anything, the fact that he has San Pedro growing in his yard and a drug lab in his kitchen consisting of a pot and a knife, then that DA has one more tool to help get an outcome desirable to LE ... what's better than a poorly written law that could be interpreted many ways?

I do not know if a jury has ever weighed in on the "legality" of possessing a bentgrass lawn...my personal feeling is that this very squishy "law" would quickly fall apart in the hands of reasonable jurists or judges who may very well have bentgrass lawn themselves ... and once that happens, then the whole house of cards would likely fall. So more likely, this type of charge would be negotiated down and not be discussed in court. It does not serve LE's interest to have this law "sharp".

If they did want to address the "legality of dmt containing plants" with a well written law, it's pretty clear bentgrass lawns would be perfectly legal (unlike peyote cactus, which is specifically banned...or is it, depending on your RACE !?!? or RELIGION !?!?)

Sadly, this whole thread really makes you think about some of the underpinnings of our legal system, and how things REALLY work in the real world. It ain't like they like to teach us in second grade social studies. If you believe that stuff, you must be hallucinating.

 

[Sabnock]

I agree Vodsel.

People please remember, i'm just speaking my mind here and how i see all of this. Obviously my view or anyone else's view on these plants means nothing when it comes to federal law, so apparently these plants are federally illegal in the US. But remember, the plants are available for those who wish to buy them, they are there and you can use them, but if you're someone who is afraid of "breaking the law", then maybe you'll wanna just look the other way and keep walking, eh? As for everyone else, it's probably best, if you can, to perhaps grow these plants, afterall, they can't stop us all, right?

And yes, our judicial system is horrendous, and i really do hate how our country is set up and run, and it makes me want to scream. I surely hope my fellow Americans wake up one day and downright demand an end to this current system and to build a new one.... but who knows if that'll ever happen.

 

[Sabnock]

And i agree with you too pau

 

[SnozzleBerry]

So first off, thank you Sabnock, for finally acknowledging that these plants are illegal and that their availability and one's own attitude towards their legality doesn't change that. This is important, because you do not know who will be reading this thread, and proclaiming that these plants are "legal, legal, legal, legal" in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary is dangerous, as it could potentially misinform people.

Second, let's talk about the criminality issue you brought up earlier in the thread.

You are a criminal. I am a criminal. I would wager 100% of the people on this forum are criminals (although there may be a few exceptions). Denying this is silly and counterproductive, not in the least because it adopts the state's narrative of what it means to be criminal and buys into the notion that criminals are bad.

Criminality, as Vodsel already pointed out, has nothing to do with morality. At times it has been illegal to free slaves (and those who did so were criminals). At times it has been illegal to provide food, clothes, and/or shelter to various segments of a population (and those who did so were criminals). It is currently illegal to work with the compounds we openly discuss on this forum...and we are criminals.

The only reason I see to deny our criminality is out of some misguided desire to tell ourselves that we are somehow "better" than other criminals:

That we are less "bad" than the hungry people stealing food out of the grocery stores (the same stores that call in police forces to guard their transportation of excess food to the dumps),

That we are more justified in our actions than the homeless squatters, evicted and marched out of their former residences at gunpoint at the behest of the banks (who played a role in engineering the housing bubble and engage in sanctioned criminal actions on a daily basis),

That we are morally superior to those whose "marketable skills" and financial needs have been so maligned by this system, that the only means of surviving in this paradigm is engaging in sex work.

And, simply put, no, we are not better. We are not worse. We simply are.

The fact that the state has declared us to be criminals has no bearing on us as beings, only on us as citizens. My self worth as a criminal is no less than my self worth as a human being...the only difference is the stigma associated with my criminality and the potential jail time that may come of it.

You are a criminal. I am a criminal. We are all criminals. So what? Why deny that? Would that everyone could acknowledge the criminal acts they routinely engage in. Then, perhaps, the arbitrary laws and coercion that we find ourselves subjected to would be realized as the quiet components of the war that is waged against us on a daily basis. Perhaps then people would stand up and render themselves ungovernable, throwing off the shackles of the authoritarianism that currently permeates the world around us.

To deny your criminality...to proclaim (especially in the face of the mountains of countervailing evidence) that, "I AM NOT A CRIMINAL," is to surrender to the state before the battle has even begun. As soon as you challenge their presentation of yourself as a criminal, you cannot win. You become ensnared in the logic of the state. In the fact that, by definition, you are a criminal. In the fact that the manner in which you choose to define things has no bearing on the definitions of the state.

If, however, you embrace your criminality with open arms and acknowledge that the state has declared you to be a criminal--as it is the state that has created such constructs--then the horizon is wide open. By no means does it make life easy. But it does mean that you are free to determine your actions, free of the necessity for semantic tricks and justification to assert your lack of criminality.

Don't fall into the trap of denying what they have made us into. Acknowledge it, embrace it, own it. Look at the myriads of criminals throughout history and know that you are in good company.

 

[pau]

Amen!

There you go, man
Keep as cool as you can
Face piles of trials with smiles
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave...
And keep on thinking free.

"In the Beginning", Moody Blues 1969

 

[starway6]

Sabnock..
Im one who agrees with all you have said!

If DMT plants are illeagle than the existance of humanity is also illeagle...
On this site we do not really know who each other is and there is bound to be this kind of attitude...
If i used DMT.. i would certanly not call someone a criminal for its use...
I feel bad when I call an alcohol intoxicated a drunk..they are people like me..only they are sick from years of using the leaglized drug of many countrys booze!
I use DMT now ...and im happy to say I like it because it doesnt hurt me or cause me to do bad things...If it did i would stop its use..

I am a human being and not a criminal...
The invented term [criminal] just a word..is like many other terms used by peaple against other people..it is just a word and nothing else!
Sure the law is the law..laws are created with the makers personal deamons atachted to them.. but there are personal moral laws that have weight also...
If i felt anything bad about DMT use I would quit and so far i feel fine with it and know i can quit any time i like.

There are many good people sitting in cages because they got caught with an illeagle drug and that is a terrible thing to put anyone through..

I doubt any arrest for posession of natural tree bark would result into anything serious... Moderator edit: This is blatant misinformation. Several people have been arrested for MHRB and charged with the possession of kilograms of DMT as a result.

cheers..

 

[Entheogenerator]

Sabnock..
Im one who agrees with all you have said!

If DMT plants are illeagle than the existance of humanity is also illeagle...

On this site we do not really know who each other is and there is bound to be this kind of attitude...

If i used DMT.. i would certanly not call someone a criminal for its use...

I feel bad when I call an alcohol intoxicated a drunk..they are people like me..only they are sick from years of using the leaglized drug of many countrys booze!

I use DMT now ...and im happy to say I like it because it doesnt hurt me or cause me to do bad things...If it did i would stop its use..

I am a human being and not a criminal...

The invented term [criminal] just a word..is like many other terms used by peaple against other people..it is just a word and nothing else!

Sure the law is the law..laws are created with the makers personal deamons atachted to them.. but there are personal moral laws that have weight also...

If i felt anything bad about DMT use I would quit and so far i feel fine with it and know i can quit any time i like.

There are many good people sitting in cages because they got caught with an illeagle drug and that is a terrible thing to put anyone through..

I doubt any arrest for posession of natural tree bark would result into anything serious...

cheers..

Did you read the whole thread?

As Snozz spent multiple pages explaining, we are not discussing whether or not DMT use is immoral. The topic at hand is whether or not plants which contain DMT are illegal. As the law is written, DMT-containing plants are technically illegal. By definition this means that possession, ingestion, distribution, or cultivation of said plants is a crime; and that anyone who performs such actions is, by any and every definition of the word, a criminal. Although this law is often not enforced in many different circumstances (i.e. the San Pedro cactus example mentioned earlier in the thread), this does not necessarily indicate that the law cannot be enforced. Although it is highly unlikely that they will, LE could raid every Home Depot in the country which sells San Pedro cacti and charge them with distributing a Schedule 1 substance (mescaline), if they really wanted to.

Nobody here is saying that possessing/ingesting DMT or the plants which contain it is immoral. They are only stating that, as the law currently exists, it is most certainly illegal.

Nobody here is saying that the law is reasonable, just, fair, or in any way called for. The simple fact, which has been stated repeatedly throughout this thread, remains:

DMT and the life forms which produce/contain it are technically illegal.

I want to emphasize that I am not trying to be disrespectful, but I do share Snozz's concern in regards to the spreading of misinformation.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I doubt any arrest for posession of natural tree bark would result into anything serious...

:!:

5 seconds of Google searching yields numerous reports of people arrested for bark:

-NJ State Troopers Seize $127,000 of Hallucinogenic Drug on Turnpike
-The Spirit Molecule: Man arrested with 3 kilos of DMT in his New Haven home
-Judge's son arrested for importing 2kg of hallucinogenic drug
-And there is plenty more where that came from.

You are wrong.

The only reason I am even bothering replying to your post is so that your misinformation does not lead to someone else winding up with an incorrect understanding of the legal terrain they face, should they choose to engage with these plants.

Please stop making these erroneous claims. Future posts containing misinformation and non-critical claims will simply be deleted.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

I haven't read the thread entirely, because of its redundant replies - I agree with Snozz, please delete misinformation right away. But I guess it's the right thread for my question. So possession, manufacture and trading of a CSA schedule I substance is illegal, that's clear. But what about consumption of a CSA schedule I drug? Is that legal under US law?

 

[Entheogenerator]

why are we arguing and debating this? Like, what's the reason for this or the point of all this?

There is no need for aggressive and vulgar language. Nobody is trying to argue with you. The point of this thread is to make the laws clear to people. Nobody here is "overthinking" anything. Stop creating unnecessary confrontation.

Why are we discussing legality? Did you consider the possibility that we are discussing legality because that is the topic of the thread?? How can you not understand why it is important for people to know whether or not they are breaking the law? It seems pretty obvious to me that the knowledge of related laws is an extremely crucial piece of information for a person who is reading up on/ exploring the world of entheogens. Snozz is merely trying to ensure that if a member on this forum is unsure of whether or not they are breaking the law, they will have access to accurate information. Seems pretty logical to me.

The only thing in this thread that is ridiculous is your completely unwarranted attitude. :!:

 

[Ufostrahlen]

why are we arguing and debating this? Like, what's the reason for this or the point of all this?

I guess for a better understanding of the situation. If we have more information, we can tailor our actions according to our new understanding.

What I don't understand: Why is the lawmaker doing it? It seems, it doesn't have the health of it's citizen in mind, because if the state does, it would ban alcohol and tobacco, too. Or introduce "health" as a school subject. Or ban/control fast food.

So is it ignorance or intention? Doesn't the lawmaker see the hopelessness in his action? The people do it anyway, even if it imposes high jail sentences. I mean he could shoot the people right away, the people still would trade, manufacture and consume drugs.

Or is it intention? Is the lawmaker corrupted by drug producers and traders, so they can make more profit out of their business model. Profitable jails, a costly drug enforcing agency, addicts who generate income by actions sane people would never pursue etc.

Edit: a third explanation comes in mind: if people would get high on 420 and acid, the current business models would collapse (war, jails, slave jobs) and the profiteers would go bankrupt. But this explanation is contradicting the constitution, which claims the pursuit of happiness being a valuable goal. So if the US lawmaker would take the constitution seriously, it would export 420, acid and its proper use into the whole world. But it currently seems, that the US is exporting bombs and wars...

 

[Entropymancer]

So possession, manufacture and trading of a CSA schedule I substance is illegal, that's clear. But what about consumption of a CSA schedule I drug? Is that legal under US law?

Well, the act of consuming the drug is not illegal... but it's impossible to consume the drug without possessing it, and possession is illegal. This includes possessing it prior to consuming, as well as possessing it inside your body after consuming before the material is fully metabolized.

 

[Sabnock]

How can you not understand why it is important for people to know whether or not they are breaking the law?

Does anyone here really care if they are breaking the law or not? It's pretty simple really, there are plants that grow wildly that if consumed could harm or kill me, yet they are perfectly legal. But there are plants that grow wildly that "society" tells us are bad for us/illegal, and we're supposed to put some sort of importance towards that? Okay, technically federally anything containing DMT or other various chemical compounds are illegal, alrighty then, let's move on, why do we care if they are illegal or not? We can all agree the law is bullshit, and drug laws need SEVERE reformation, but that's not the point here, the point is that the plants are available, and they are available for the majority without legal issues.

So why can't we move past the fact that yes, federally these plants are illegal, but for the people wishing to explore the use of these plants, they usually will not encounter unwarranted attention by LE all because one wishes to explore Ayahuasca. Extracting DMT is one thing, but growing a plant or tree that contains DMT or possessing root bark or leaves, or brewing up an INACTIVE tea from root bark or leaves, i'm not seeing where exactly one's concern about law or illegality vs. legality would come in mind, why would anyone care?

Yeah, right now we might not be able to sell Ayahuasca with DMT in it here in 'Merica, but we as private citizens can in fact buy the necessary plants online or their seeds and use them or grow our own, and 99.9% of the time you aren't going to be bothered. I'm just not seeing why people are wanting to give this more attention than it deserves, we already agree the federal law says these plants (and us) are illegal, but why keep the fence/guard up and make it seem like people are doing something wrong by ordering, possessing or growing these plants?

These plants are being sold, illegally or not, people can order them with no trouble, just because you can't make big money off them without the federal government coming in to seize your assets, that doesn't mean individual citizens of the USA can't experiment with their own consciousness even though we're bombarded with all sorts of consciousness altering compounds on a daily and nightly basis, natural or not.

To me, all this shit is just people making a big deal out of nothing. Yes, this thread is addressing a federal law issue, but once again, what's next? What's next is who cares about the federal law? I don't, most people don't, only those who wouldn't even be researching DMT in the first place would care if they "disrupted" federal law by doing something illegal. Moral or immoral is not the question here, the question is why are we giving this shit more attention than it deserves?

 

[Entropymancer]

To me, all this shit is just people making a big deal out of nothing. Yes, this thread is addressing a federal law issue, but once again, what's next? What's next is who cares about the federal law? I don't, most people don't, only those who wouldn't even be researching DMT in the first place would care if they "disrupted" federal law by doing something illegal. Moral or immoral is not the question here, the question is why are we giving this shit more attention than it deserves?

We're doing it because we are a caring community that wants everyone to be as completely informed as possible. People do get arrested and charged for MHRB. You're right that it doesn't happen often, but it does happen. And I, for one, would feel terrible if those few people who do get arrested were under the impression that what they were doing was legal.

When buying other illegal substances, a person is taking an informed risk. But if they are told again and again, "these things are legal, you can't get arrested," then end up behind bars, we as a community would be doing them a disservice. I believe we should make it as easy as possible for people to be fully informed before taking a risk. And FYI, a couple years back when a few of these arrests happened in the span of a month, I received some PMs criticizing my posts in this thread for not being sufficiently emphatic about the risk of arrest.



But that's only part of the reason for this thread. The other part, I think you would understand if you read the first dozen posts in this thread: This thread seeks to understand where we stand and what we can do about it.

You say that it is BS that everything containing DMT can be declared illegal. I agree. In my opinion, it is only because of the selective enforcement of it that the law is still on the books. Consider what Vodsel said:

I'm surprised there hasn't been in the US any case of (reckless?) self-charging in order to stage a reductio ad absurdum in court, following the letter of the law.

It seems to me that that is precisely what we need. But we need police and district attorneys to accomplish it, and I don't know how to make that happen. Any other ideas for ways that we can cut the legs out from under the CSA are also welcome.



Those seem to be two productive goals:
1.) Letting people take informed risks rather than lying and making them believe there is no risk.
2.) Looking at strategies for changing the situation.

Do you honestly think that discussing ways to change this unjust situation is not worth our attention?

 

[Ufostrahlen]

Well, the act of consuming the drug is not illegal... but it's impossible to consume the drug without possessing it, and possession is illegal. This includes possessing it prior to consuming, as well as possessing it inside your body after consuming before the material is fully metabolized.

That's interesting, as this is the same situation in Germany. They declare scheduled substances "res extra commercium", non-tradable goods. So the question is: how is the term "possession" defined in legal language.

Because someone could stuff and light the DMT pipe for you, you only come in contact with the substance when inhaling. But if possession of DMT is even defined by inhaling it, then so is the production of DMT by the lawmaker's gland. Which contradicts the law immensely and opens a gateway to challenge the law. If one desires so.

Also this brings light to the thinking of the (presumably United Nations) prohibitionists: we do not declare the use of drugs illegal, we declare the goods non-tradable. Interesting way of fogging the real reasons.

 

[Cosmic Spore]

So the question is: how is the term "possession" defined in legal language?

Legal definition of possession.

Possession by Consumption Law & Legal Definition.

I'm not a lawyer. I was once charged with possession of drug paraphernalia [scales] when in the front passenger seat of someone else's vehicle; the scales were between my seat and the console [was also caught with weed at the time].

* Basically if you can reach it, they can charge you with possession.

* If you have consumed it, you can be charged with possession by consumption.

* A homeowner can be charged with possession if a guest throws their drugs on the floor of the homeowner's house.

* Anytime a car with multiple ppl are searched (and drugs are found), if nobody claims the drugs - they all can be charged with possession. [I've seen it].

Any other ideas for ways that we can cut the legs out from under the CSA are also welcome.

Maybe we could argue for equal protection [from police] because of the enormous selective enforcement and selective prosecution issue. See: Equal justice under law, Void for vagueness.

Finally, in an honest court, they must prove 2 things:
The criminal act, and the intent to perform whatever criminal act was accused. Actus Reus and Mens Rea.

I don't foresee cops, prosecutors, or judges joining our efforts much; we may could take it to the supreme court if we had standing, but that court decides which cases they do, and don't "hear" via Writ of Certiorari.

 

[Ufostrahlen]

Possession Law & Legal Definition:

Possession refers to the exercise of dominion over property, holding or having property in one’s power. It is the right under which a person can exercise control over something to the exclusion of all others. It is a continuing exercise of a claim to the exclusive use of a material object.

Possession Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Possession refers to the exercise of dominion over property, holding or having property in one’s power. It is the right under which a person can exercise control over something to the exclusion of a

definitions.uslegal.com

Manufacture of Controlled Substance Law & Legal Definition

"Manufacture" is defined as “the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or re-labeling of its container.” Cudd v. Ozmint, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88603 (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2009)

Manufacture of Controlled Substance Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

definitions.uslegal.com

* If you have consumed it, you can be charged with possession by consumption.

Well, if this construction is applicable, I can see a case where one can be charged with possession by endogenous production. I'd start with Mr. John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the US, if I weren't a follower of the "Do not judge, and you will not be judged"-thing :twisted: Also, I'm not an US citizen.