CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
PREV12345NEXT
On the Legal Status of DMT Source Plants in the US (with a discussion of the religious use defense) Options
 
starway6
#41 Posted : 4/4/2014 3:34:28 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1669
Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Last visit: 07-Sep-2019
Location: planet earth
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?
 

Trippy glass for trippy people.
 
SnozzleBerry
#42 Posted : 4/4/2014 4:57:56 PM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
starway6 wrote:
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?

It's actually quite straightforward...

Quote:
"any material... which contains any quantity" of a schedule I drug is itself a schedule I drug under the law.

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.
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 
pau
#43 Posted : 4/4/2014 5:33:23 PM

Yes? No?


Posts: 689
Joined: 14-Mar-2010
Last visit: 26-Dec-2020
so the San Pedro cactus I could buy by driving to Home Depot right now is also illegal? (and there is plenty of Trichocereus growing around my southern California neighborhood...I've even seen it in the landscaping at a bank on Wilshire Blvd in L.A.!) 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.
WHOA!
 
starway6
#44 Posted : 4/4/2014 5:52:53 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1669
Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Last visit: 07-Sep-2019
Location: planet earth
SnozzleBerry wrote:
starway6 wrote:
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?

It's actually quite straightforward...

Quote:
"any material... which contains any quantity" of a schedule I drug is itself a schedule I drug under the law.

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.


This is very strange and confusing...how mimosa is suposed to be illeagle..when there is quite a bit of online info calling the bark itself still unscedualed in USA..

It is used in soap making and for its dye content...
Whats even stranger is.. [how it so hard to find now].. but acacia has not been messed with yet??
will acacia be next?
Next time i mow my lawn i better be carefull not to get caught with the dmt containing grass clippings!
Also how about the DM Tin side us all?
No words exist to descride the ignorance of these so called laws..
 
SnozzleBerry
#45 Posted : 4/4/2014 6:51:36 PM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
pau wrote:
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.

Precisely.
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 
starway6
#46 Posted : 4/5/2014 12:14:59 AM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 1669
Joined: 10-Jul-2012
Last visit: 07-Sep-2019
Location: planet earth
In an honest court of law.. calling a natural material like bark.. from a tree.. a scedual one drug...is BS!
ITs Like their saying... because we are able read your mind.. we know what your real intention is with the bark ..so on these grounds its illeagle!
If it was an honest judge and court this would never happen..
The charge would be thrown out of court.. and they would have to return your bark!
I can understand if they caught someone with processed DMT thats diferent all together...
Natural Bark is Bark.. simple as that ..so saying any natural substance containing DMT is a sedual one drug is nonsense!
That would make me ..you my cat and dog.. and everything natural living thing on mother earth illeagle ..because some [jelous person] sitting at a desk says so...
This is just one example of an abuse of power in many parts of the world..
my two cents..
 
SnozzleBerry
#47 Posted : 4/5/2014 12:26:54 AM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
Many plants are illegal. Prohibition is absurd.

Unfortunately, despite that, there are numerous people sitting in cages as a result of these laws.
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 
Sabnock
#48 Posted : 4/5/2014 2:36:20 AM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 277
Joined: 15-Oct-2012
Last visit: 22-Dec-2014
I for one choose to believe that DMT-containing plant material is NOT illegal. Regardless of what law may say what, there is absolutely no reason to say that Mimosa or Acacia bark or Chaliponga or Chacruna leaves are illegal when they are in fact not. The plants are unscheduled, meaning they are able to be grown, sold, possessed and used, imho. My opinion might not mean jack poop compared to "man made" law, but i'm of the mind that certain laws, like unjust laws, are bullpucky and are meant to be broken.

The thing is though, because the plants are unscheduled, they are in fact in a grey area when it comes to LE. Local and state officials are not looking for DMT-containing plants, bark, leaves, or teas. If they see you have some sort of white crystalline lookin' stuff on your persons, then yeah they'll be all "what the fornication is that fecal matter?" and will probably take you in, but when it comes to teas or roots or even some "obviously not Cannabis" leaves? no way, it would be highly unlikely.

Federal LE officials might have a grudge against DMT and thus might intercept some Mimosa or what not at Customs, and might raid vendors who have too much Mimosa coming in and being ordered. The only reason that local or state LE might raid or visit someone at their house, is if the person was known by LE to be a supplier/dealer or if they're connected in some way to other drugs, or if someone was just loose mouthed and was selling it to anyone and everyone, all of which would be enough in LE's eyes to warrant a visit or raid by local or state LE if they catch wind.

Long story short, you most likely will NOT be sexed with about DMT unless you're extracting DMT into it's crystalline form, then and only then would a cop if he sees it, fornicate with you. But straight bark or leaf material, or even an egg white cleansed tea resulting from the bark or leaves, imho should not have any issue with LE.

And also, i'm a big proponent of leaving your stuff AT HOME and not taking it out somewhere. And even if you must take DMT somewhere, i personally would much rather it be in cleansed tea form since it looks like a kool-aid or something and obviously doesn't smell like Alcohol, so a cop really would have no reason to sex up one's day over a bottle of tea.
 
Entropymancer
#49 Posted : 4/5/2014 4:26:11 AM

DMT-Nexus member

Salvia divinorum expert | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumExtraordinary knowledge | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumModerator | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumChemical expert | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumSenior Member | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorum

Posts: 1367
Joined: 19-Feb-2008
Last visit: 12-Jun-2016
Location: Pacific Northwest
I choose to believe that speeding is not illegal. You know everyone drives over the speed limit anyway, right? So there is absolutely no reason to say that speeding is illegal. It's legal imho.

Except, of course I'm wrong. It's not legal. Neither are DMT containing plants.

The difference between speeding and possessing DMT containing plants is that, in the rare circumstances that law enforcement does come after you, speeding only gets you a ticket. Schedule I materials land you behind bars.

I'm not saying the law is just. I'm not saying that people shouldn't break the law when it is unjust. But don't deceive yourself or others: these things are illegal under the letter of the law. That's not an opinion. That's not a belief I "choose" to have. It's a fact.
 
pau
#50 Posted : 4/5/2014 5:27:00 AM

Yes? No?


Posts: 689
Joined: 14-Mar-2010
Last visit: 26-Dec-2020
Getting thrown behind bars temporarily for driving around town with a San Pedro you just purchased at Home Depot is one thing....some level of LE can legally decide to mess with you even tho they know they could not get a conviction in court. But ultimately, you're not guilty of breaking a law until convicted of it. Some of these "laws" are pretty squishy. I bet that here in southern California there are mayors and police chiefs who have mescaline growing on their property....and if they have a pot, knife and stove in their house, then they have a drug processing lab, too.
WHOA!
 
Sabnock
#51 Posted : 4/5/2014 5:44:01 AM
DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 277
Joined: 15-Oct-2012
Last visit: 22-Dec-2014
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". The only reason LE officials would mess with someone over DMT-containing plant material or cacti or anything like that, is if the person was known to police and was a dealer mostly in other stuff or even some neighbors might report suspicious activity if one's extracting DMT.

So while i'm sure there are some hardasses out there that just feel the need to say "well the law is the law and therefore this shit's illegal", i will disagree with them that while DMT is illegal, the specific plants that contain it are not because they are not scheduled or for that matter even looked for by local and state LE officials, they are more concerned about busting a Cannabis smoker than they are about anything else although they do also focus on Meth and Coke and pills and all that, but some root bark or leaves or a tea? i highly doubt they'd care about that.

So yes, while there are a few RARE cases of people being busted for possessing DMT in some form, the law also states that WE are illegal and that a shit ton of other plants are illegal, because we and they possess DMT naturally, albeit in minute/trace amounts. So that law is therefore essentially unworkable and i for one don't listen to some stupid law, especially one that makes no sense and has no scientific backing.

So yes, the law may say anything containing DMT is considered illegal, but that is not only federal law, but it's a bullshit law that people can break willingly and there'd be no consequences. The ONLY way one will get busted with DMT, is if they are extracting it. 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. Yet while SS is gone, all the other vendors are selling Acacia, Chaliponga and Chacruna, yet no raids are happening for those 3 plants, yet anyways. Mimosa drew alot of attention at Customs, which is why vendors were raided due to the heavy importing of Mimosa. Yet you could say that Acacia is also being heavily imported into the US so why isn't Customs on that shit as well? 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?

In fact, i'm growing 3 Mimosa Hostilis plants and 2 Mimosa Ophthalmocentra plants, yet do you or i think LE is going to come snatch up my plants because they produce DMT? I highly, highly doubt that would ever happen. Hell, i can grow me a garden of Opium Poppies and have some smokable Opium, but do you think LE would come snatch up the Poppies? Nope, well, not unless they knew my intention was for smokable Opium lol. If i possess root bark or leaves that contain DMT, no one's going to care, but if i possess weed, cops would be on my ass like flies on shit. If i were to grow a Cannabis plant, they'd probably have some LE hate-official that would come and hack down my Cannabis plant just because they can, other plants though, they don't give a shit about.

 
SnozzleBerry
#52 Posted : 4/5/2014 3:37:19 PM

omnia sunt communia!

Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

Posts: 6024
Joined: 29-Jul-2009
Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
Sabnock wrote:
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".

Except when they do.

Sabnock wrote:
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.

No...it's not. And look, you even had to qualify this statement. That alone should indicate to you how wrong you are.

Sabnock wrote:
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?

Because selective enforcement is a privilege enjoyed by the state, not its citizenry.



The argument that "I choose to believe these things are legal because so few people get arrested/charged" is not only wrong...the logic behind it (or lack thereof) is absurd.

People have been charged...anyone can be charged...for possession of Schedule I materials for possessing plants (or other materials) that contain scheduled substances. Period. End of story.

The fact that people want to argue about this, within a community of criminals shows how naive people are with regards to selective enforcement. There are literally tons of laws that are on the books in various jurisdictions that do not get enforced, until the legal apparatus decides that the people who are engaging in such activities are undesirables. This doesn't mean these things are not illegal, in fact, it usually means you get the ridiculous reactions evidenced in the last several posts of this thread.

For example, numerous people broke city and state ordinances by assembling in public places 24/7 during the Occupy movement. Most jurisdictions overlooked these violations, initially, because it was politically favorable to do so. However, when the people in these public spaces became too much of a nuisance...and in some cases, when only SOME of the people were deemed "undesirable", SWAT teams were called in to evict these groups and the media arm of the government swung into gear, spewing divisive rhetoric and loudly proclaiming that the actions had ALWAYS been illegal and the government should have been lauded for letting the activities go on for as long as they did.

You are a criminal for possessing these trees and grasses...for growing them...for extracting from them. Don't deny it. Don't hide from it. If you do, the only person that will be surprised in the event that you face charges as a result of your activities is YOU. There is nothing inherently shameful about being a criminal...you have no control over these ridiculous laws. I believe we should embrace our criminality, so as to remove the stigma so many associate with it...rather than denying the situation that these governments have created and pretending like we are somehow immune from their legal constructs.

Additionally, on a slightly more serious note, you all need to stop claiming that these things are legal, because they're not and it creates a dangerous situation for people who actually don't know. By all means, feel free to delude yourselves and tell yourselves whatever you wish, but do NOT bring that nonsense here and post it publicly for others to read. From a harm reduction standpoint, it's incredibly detrimental. So knock it off.
WikiAttitudeFAQ
The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
גם זה יעבור
 
Doodazzle
#53 Posted : 4/5/2014 6:11:56 PM

DMT-Nexus member


Posts: 793
Joined: 23-Oct-2011
Last visit: 22-Aug-2014
Location: arcady
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.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein

I appreciate your perspective.


 
Cosmic Spore
#54 Posted : 4/5/2014 6:19:34 PM

☠ ⚡ ☣ ⚠ ☢


Posts: 599
Joined: 09-Nov-2011
Last visit: 10-Aug-2016
Location: Spirit World
Please take the time to read the whole original post (post #1):
Notes on the Legal Status of DMT Source Plants in the United States. Very Informative.

Obviously most questions are answered there. Selective enforcement is a primary issue here.

This isn't the entire OP:
Entropymancer wrote:
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 wrote:

(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.


  • Seeds are clearly a "material".

    The real question is "are living plants a 'material'?" and "are humans a 'material'?".

    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 one breaking the law by existing, acquiring pets, bearing children?
    If we meet the definition of "material", then yes.


    Doodazzle wrote:
    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.



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

    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.
     
    Entropymancer
    #55 Posted : 4/5/2014 7:34:10 PM

    DMT-Nexus member

    Salvia divinorum expert | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumExtraordinary knowledge | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumModerator | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumChemical expert | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorumSenior Member | Skills: Information Location, Salvia divinorum

    Posts: 1367
    Joined: 19-Feb-2008
    Last visit: 12-Jun-2016
    Location: Pacific Northwest
    Cosmic Spore wrote:
    The real question is "are living plants a 'material'?" and "are humans a 'material'?".


    Going back to the example of P. cubensis mushrooms, there is clear legal precedent that living fungi constitute a "material"; plenty of people have been arrested and convicted for growing mushrooms.

    I can't see any reason why plants would be different than fungi, but I'm not certain whether there is explicit legal precedent on the matter... Has anyone been convicted for growing cacti or poppies? I suspect it's happened, but don't know any cases offhand.

    Living animals might receive different treatment. As a species we have a natural bias towards other things with nervous systems.
     
    SnozzleBerry
    #56 Posted : 4/5/2014 8:08:03 PM

    omnia sunt communia!

    Moderator | Skills: Growing (plants/mushrooms), Research, Extraction troubleshooting, Harmalas, Revolution (theory/practice)

    Posts: 6024
    Joined: 29-Jul-2009
    Last visit: 09-Oct-2020
    Entropymancer wrote:
    Has anyone been convicted for growing cacti or poppies? I suspect it's happened, but don't know any cases offhand.

    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.

    Wasn't Sloan charged with both live and dried material? And, he was also charged with "unlawful cultivation" of chemical compounds, in addition to named plant matter. He was also charged with cultivation/distribution of colorado river toads, so we have the trifecta of live, dried, and animal charges. Whether or not this is exceptional, due to the nature of the case, it does seem to indicate the potentiality that you could face charges for live plant matter, especially if there is evidence of intent. It certainly seems, to my mind, to indicate that these plants carry a risk under the laws, as they currently exist and are enforced.
    WikiAttitudeFAQ
    The NexianNexus ResearchThe OHT
    In New York, we wrote the legal number on our arms in marker...To call a lawyer if we were arrested.
    In Istanbul, People wrote their blood types on their arms. I hear in Egypt, They just write Their names.
    גם זה יעבור
     
    Cosmic Spore
    #57 Posted : 4/5/2014 8:19:07 PM

    ☠ ⚡ ☣ ⚠ ☢


    Posts: 599
    Joined: 09-Nov-2011
    Last visit: 10-Aug-2016
    Location: Spirit World
    That eliminates any confusion on my part. I hope that there is a legal way to defeat the CSA, such as Void for vagueness, Equal justice under law, or other crafty methods. Other than that, we really are counting on either not getting caught, or jury nullification.

    "Although the court ruled that a juror's refusal to apply the relevant law was just cause for dismissal, only unambiguous evidence of the juror's deliberate disregard of the law (not apparent in this case) would justify such a dismissal. In so holding, the appellate court acknowledged the necessity for secrecy in jury deliberations."

    and

    "Similarly, in 1999, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's Contempt conviction of juror Laura Kriho. People v. Kriho, 996 P.2d. 158 (Colo. App. [1999]). Several of Kriho's fellow jurors testified that during deliberations, she suggested to them that drug cases should be handled in the community rather than by a criminal justice system, and then advised them of their right to nullify. Although the trial court cited Kriho's alleged misleading of the court about her attitudes toward drug use during voir dire examination, the appellate court found that the Kriho case was, in fact, about jury nullification. It reversed her conviction on grounds that the court should not have considered evidence from jury-room deliberations. The end result of these cases reaffirms that juries have the power to render unreviewable general verdicts of acquittal, making it nearly impossible to definitely prove that nullification occurred."
     
    Vodsel
    #58 Posted : 4/5/2014 8:29:11 PM

    DMT-Nexus member

    Senior Member | Skills: Filmmaking and Storytelling, Video and Audio Technology, Teaching, Gardening, Languages (Proficient Spanish, Catalan and English, and some french, italian and russian), Seafood cuisine

    Posts: 1710
    Joined: 03-Oct-2011
    Last visit: 11-Aug-2019
    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. Or has it?
     
    Sabnock
    #59 Posted : 4/5/2014 10:26:47 PM
    DMT-Nexus member


    Posts: 277
    Joined: 15-Oct-2012
    Last visit: 22-Dec-2014
    If these plants are illegal, then everyone at these forums are considered criminals. 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.

    And also, why is it that the only place that considers these plants illegal, is right here in this thread? Everytime someone says these plants are illegal, their source information is this thread. It seems to me like it's just a few people who are afraid DMT-containing plants will be outlawed, so they searched and searched and searched for anything they could find to point to a supposed illegality issue and when they found one they flaunt it like it actually means something.

    These plants can be bought and used and grown by ANYONE, regardless of what law may say what, these plants are available and no one is going to get in trouble by ordering them or using them in the privacy of their own homes, UNLESS you give local LE a reason to fuck with you, otherwise, they could care less if you have some roots.

    And btw, Opium Poppies can actually legally be grown in the US, and are used as decorative plants. So the plants can legally freely grow, you can even have a poppy garden and cops can't do a damn thing because it's not against the law. However, it is said if you are consuming the poppies, and LE knows, THEN they can do something "if they want to". So tell me, why are we arguing over legality vs. illegality of DMT-containing plants, when the only plant material LE really ever cares about is Cannabis? You can literally grow ANY plant you wish, probably even Iboga even though it's actually outlawed, but you can't grow one single Cannabis plant. And yet federal law says that any material (which i would argue DOES also mean human beings) that contains any amount of DMT is considered illegal and violation of federal law? Pshh, they can kiss my ass and anyone else who wants to scare people away from Ayahuasca can also kiss my ass.
     
    Vodsel
    #60 Posted : 4/5/2014 10:39:19 PM

    DMT-Nexus member

    Senior Member | Skills: Filmmaking and Storytelling, Video and Audio Technology, Teaching, Gardening, Languages (Proficient Spanish, Catalan and English, and some french, italian and russian), Seafood cuisine

    Posts: 1710
    Joined: 03-Oct-2011
    Last visit: 11-Aug-2019
    Sabnock wrote:
    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.

    Sabnock wrote:
    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.
     
    PREV12345NEXT
     
    Users browsing this forum
    Guest (2)

    DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
    This page was generated in 0.105 seconds.