endlessness said:
Crime of intent, is it related to awareness that material has such illegal components, or rather related to whether you are growing/selling that plant having as your intent the use of those illegal components?
Intent appears to be a complicated area in the law, and can sometimes include considerations of purpose. But in the section of the US Controlled Substances Act defining unlawful acts, the wording makes things clearer on this point:
21 U.S. Code § 841 "Except as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person
knowingly or intentionally … to manufacture, distribute, or dispense … a controlled substance" (emphasis mine)
So intention to make use of the illegal components is irrelevant; if you knowingly manufacture the substance (for example, growing orange trees when you know that they contain DMT and bufotenine) then you have committed an unlawful act.
Cosmic Spore said:
If one is knowingly in possession of MHRB [but honestly doesn't know it contains controlled substances] is that illegal? [O]r would they need to be aware that it contains a scheduled substance? Does the old saying "ignorance is no excuse" apply to being ignorant of the controlled substances within MHRB, or does that saying only apply to "I didn't know DMT was illegal"?
"Ignorance is no excuse" applies only to knowing the legal status of DMT/bufotenine/etc. If you possess/manufacture/distribute a material that contains a controlled substance, but you are genuinely unaware that it contains a controlled substance, then you have not committed an unlawful act (because you did not do this "knowingly or intentionally").
A perfect example is the Florida mushroom-picking case which Muskogee Herbman alluded to, where the court ruled that "the statute does not advise a person of ordinary and common intelligence that this substance is contained in a particular variety of mushroom". It is reasonable to think that other courts would follow this precedent with regards to other plants that contain controlled substances, and require the prosecution to establish that the defendant had knowledge of the controlled substances contained within the plant in order for the statute to be applied.
Cosmic Spore said:
Either way, if the citrus growers … have been informed of the illegal constituents, they are obviously in violation of the law
Yep. This is why raising awareness of the controlled substances in citrus trees is important.
SnozzleBerry said:
Local and federal prosecutors could easily state that they weren't going to enforce the law in that case, while still busting home extractors. Additionally, if we somehow convinced a judge to push for rescheduling of DMT, the DEA could still overrule it (as they did with MDMA) afaik.
You're absolutely correct, they aren't required to enforce the law. To make a legal case out of it, there would need to be a district attorney willing to stick their neck out on the issue. It makes things slightly easier that most states' controlled substances acts use the same language as the federal act, so the case could be made at the state level. But I don't know how likely it is that the necessary people would come together to make an issue of it. If a case were made, it wouldn't be to push for rescheduling; it would be to push for the court to find the entire controlled substances act (or significant portions of it) to be void for vagueness or overbreadth. The DEA could not overrule that sort of finding.
On the other hand, judges aren't the only ones whose opinions matter. There's something to be said for the court of public opinion. That's the other reason to raise public awareness: Undercut the public's faith in the law when they realize we pretty much all become criminals simply by becoming educated about the law and the science.