Cannabinoids
Rising Star
What is the legality issues behind Growing mimosa hostilis in the US?
It's actually quite straightforward...starway6 said:I dont understand this older claim that mimosa bark is illeagle in usa?
Ive seen more recent reports that the bark itself [a grey area]..is totaly leagle to buy or posess as long as it isnt turned into spice!
What is the currant truth about this..this is so confusing!
any opinions?
Bark is illegal, under the letter of the law. People have been charged with possession of kilo(s) of DMT, based on the weight of bark in their possession."any material... which contains any quantity" of a schedule I drug is itself a schedule I drug under the law.
SnozzleBerry said:It's actually quite straightforward...starway6 said:I dont understand this older claim that mimosa bark is illeagle in usa?
Ive seen more recent reports that the bark itself [a grey area]..is totaly leagle to buy or posess as long as it isnt turned into spice!
What is the currant truth about this..this is so confusing!
any opinions?
Bark is illegal, under the letter of the law. People have been charged with possession of kilo(s) of DMT, based on the weight of bark in their possession."any material... which contains any quantity" of a schedule I drug is itself a schedule I drug under the law.
Precisely.pau said:It seems that LE has a good deal of discretion in how to apply the law. And then how it would turn out in a court is another matter altogether.
Except when they do.Sabnock said:Well, i still say they aren't illegal, because LE doesn't really follow the specific law that states "anything that contains DMT is illegal, apparently".
No...it's not. And look, you even had to qualify this statement. That alone should indicate to you how wrong you are.Sabnock said:But possessing, growing or selling DMT-containing plants is so far technically legal, minus the illegal raids on SS and other vendors for selling Mimosa.
Because selective enforcement is a privilege enjoyed by the state, not its citizenry.Sabnock said:They seem to pick and choose when and when not to follow the law, it seems, which is another reason why i say, why can't we?
Entropymancer said:Notes on the Legal Status of DMT Source Plants in the United States... so allow me to lay out clearly and unambiguously why M. tenuiflora root bark is illegal.
First, take a quick read through the CSA, specifically the part dealing with schedule I hallucinogens:
The US Legislature said:(c) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another
schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which
contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances,
or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers
whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers
is possible within the specific chemical designation:
(1) 3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(2) 5-methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
(3) 3,4,5-trimethoxy amphetamine.
(4) Bufotenine.
(5) Diethyltryptamine.
(6) Dimethyltryptamine.
(7) 4-methyl-2,5-diamethoxyamphetamine.
(8) Ibogaine.
(9) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
(10) Marihuana.
(11) Mescaline.
(12) Peyote.
(13) N-ethyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(14) N-methyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
(15) Psilocybin.
(16) Psilocyn.
(17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.
Let me draw particular attention to the first part: "any material... which contains any quantity" of a schedule I drug is itself a schedule I drug under the law.
I expect some of you may be scrutinizing that for loopholes ... .
Another consequence of explicitly naming cannabis as a schedule I drug is that if one were to grow hemp that contained no tetrahydrocannabinols whatsoever (for example using miRNA to knock down a crucial biosynthetic enzyme) the plant would still be a schedule I drug, ensuring that there are no loopholes through which to sidestep the prohibition on industrial hemp cultivation ... .
It is worth noting that the DEA has explicitly acknowledged that DMT-containing plant materials are schedule I drugs, remarking that "[d]espite their controlled status, a number of DMT-containing natural products, including Mimosa hostilis, are openly marketed on the Internet" (emphasis mine; this quote is from an article in the Microgram Bulletin). Further, the Supreme Court itself has even affirmed that the Controlled Substances Act applies to Psychotria viridis (chacruna) on the grounds that it contains DMT (in the case of Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal). You can bet that if you're charged with possession of M. tenuiflora root bark, this case will be cited as precedent clearly establishing the material to be a schedule I substance.
[*]Attempting to prosecute people for possession of DMT-containing organisms could very easily lead to the complete collapse of the Controlled Substances Act. After all, many Americans own pets, and many of these pets contain DMT. If you can be arrested for owning M. tenuiflora root bark, what's to stop the police from arresting you for owning a cat or dog? ... all it would take is a few major news stories ("Special Report: Are YOU breaking the law when you adopt a pet? The answer may surprise you!" ) and that argument would go right out the window. Not only that, but the fact that humans contain DMT (among other controlled substances) could cause problems as well; you can't "possess" yourself in the legal sense of the word, but you can "manufacture" a human (i.e. through sexual reproduction), making it illegal to have sex without adequate contraception, and making pregnancy a serious felony. Nor do the problems stop with DMT; many natural products contain controlled substances. For example, wheat and potatoes are both technically illegal (schedule IV) by virtue of containing trace amounts of diazepam (valium), and cow's milk is a schedule III substance by virtue of containing small quantities of morphine; even most paper money is illegal (schedule II) considering that over 90% of US banknotes contain detectable quantities of cocaine. In order to resolve all of these issues, the CSA would have to be replaced by a piece of legislation that is much more explicit about precisely what constitutes a scheduled drug, and the high degree of specificity required in such legislation would necessarily make it susceptible to endless loopholes. I'm sure the DEA is much more comfortable with the current legislation which deters loopholes by making virtually everything illegal with the implied mutual understanding that you'll only be prosecuted if someone might be getting high as a result of your actions.
Doodazzle said:I love you guys.
Juries do have a legal right to not convict someone, in spite of evidence that they are in violation of the law--if the juries disagrees with a law, they have that right. Jury nullification, it is called. Prohibition, I understand it, was ended that way.
I've always kind of thought that if jurists these days knew about this, it might change things a bit. If I was on a jury--not guilty. The law is just silly scribbles on paper, let the guy go free.
Cosmic Spore said:The real question is "are living plants a 'material'?" and "are humans a 'material'?".
Isn't charged enough, for the time being? I mean, even if you get off, your face and name are still out there. If law enforcement is comfortable with going after people, whether or not the cases result in convictions, lives are still getting turned upside down.Entropymancer said:Has anyone been convicted for growing cacti or poppies? I suspect it's happened, but don't know any cases offhand.