This means that it is legal to extract jungle spice from mimosa as long as we don't exactly know what substance it is, and you throw away the separated DMT.
The same aplies to the mysterious substance in calamus 69ron has been bioassaying.

So i guess it's better for us of no-one further researched these chemicals

I hope you're right, Entropymancer. I hope that FDA involvement in this is just a fluke that we can chalk up to the K2 issue. You are right that I've exaggerated the feds' involvement in this, given what we know thus-far, and that Kansas state law is the current issue in this case. I just can't help but think that the FDA's involvement in aiding the state in obtaining these charges is a bad sign of things to come.

Maybe. BBB was flaunting their illegal operation though, which is bad for everyone. The feds need to be viewed as though they are uniformly applying law, and suppliers need to be viewed as non-complicit in supplying entheogens.

1) I urge you all to donate via BBB website
2) please do not ask people involved in the case to discuss strategy...that's like giving the other team your playbook, not smart.
3) I don't care if TheGuy isn't Jon's dad. He is helping BBB. The address he gave for donations matches the one on BBB website...what's the issue?

Here is the link directly from the Bouncing Bear website.

Please donate if you can:

http://www.savejon.org/

Or you can just hop on paypal and donate to jonsdefense@yahoo.com

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe for one second that he was oblivious to this.

Thats the thing Kisper, those matters cannot be discussed sincerely and without propably affecting the legal case while it is in full development.

Think of the legal system (especially when things go to court) as a rhetoric battle that has its rules and each speaker -speaking for or against a person/idea- will try to play some cards, and the other part will try to negate them. An interesting example is this : I dont know of international law but in my country addicts receive less severe punisment -and sometimes may alltogether prove innocent- than people who are dealing or who are not addicts, on the basis that the addict "cannot help it, and needs more help and less punishment". So the usual scenario when someone is arrested with weed, is for the lawyer to support in a court of law that his client is an ADDICT and hence support that the amount found is for personal use and hope things go smoothly and his client receives the smallest possible legal reprecussions. Now, the client supports also that ,because he/she goes in the court of law scared and threatened by the forthcoming punishment so he/she tries to minimise it.If you were an alien that visited our planet and had a look at court papers you will think that this "weed thing" turns you into an addicted fiend from all the cases of "addicted to weed" you would see,imagining that if you smoke it once you will be craving it and you will not be able to live without it,that you will become "sick for it" in a sense. Now, who in here will support the above view,that weed is akin to "heroin",with withdrawals leaving you sweating and not able to function so once you smoke it you NEED it? Well, people would start laughing because they know its not exactly like this ,is it, and also such a view slanders weed and can be considered nasty propaganda. BUT! If while this man arrested for weed is on trial, you go in the courtroom and state the view that weed is not addicting in that sense or make him aknowledge it, you ruined his case! Most lawyers and clients will not form a defence on CHALLENGING an established law because that is very difficult and needs to go to higher courts,whereas using an already known/played "defence card" will get their client of the hook easier and its a more surefire way.

For example in my country illegal drugs are defined as drugs that are "CNS active have no medical use and are addictive".If one is arrested with lets say psilocybin or cannabis the laywer could:

a)Challenge the definition of the law: That they can and do have medical use ("pubmeding the judge" and also challenge the definition of addictive.
b)Call on the laws for softer treatment of addicts,supplementing propably with prior lawfull life of the client.

Given the circumstances the lawyer can also try other lines of defence, for example what seperates the gardening grandma from the teenager caught with morning glory seeds is intent of use and knowledge.Of the above which is easier to defend? B is usually the easiest in my country,has scored "wins" legal wise and of course most clients also ask for it rather than going in a huge legal battle following line of defence in A.

Of course ,and here comes the interesting part, since future court cases are based on past decisions (hence you can "call them" in a court) under the rational that the court can interprete the law (not change it, at least not lower courts) it would be in a "psychedelic's longterm interest" to go with A, challenge the law,try to change it. What if it fails though ,here you would need very strong lawyers,the appropriate climate (social political) for a law change and having loads of luck having an at least somewhat considering/thoughtfull judge to try the case.Also is one willing to sacrifice himself/herself in such an uphill battle using a very risky line of defence? Prison is not exactly the prettiest place in the world, and "Get out of jail FREE" cards are not lying in the bathroom floor to grab one when you are trying to reach for the slippery soap...

A rather notable case on challenging the law is that of Casey Hardison ,thumbs up for the courage and putting his head on the line (i dont know also if during further trials he tried to change his line of defence when his defence was not working).His attitude though is rather relevant to this thread : http://www.freecasey.org/



Hard uphill battle eh?

I believe the roots of this statement run deeper than at first we see.

I'd never heard of this guy before... and he is now my hero.

I hope one day there will be statues in the streets in his honour, and that he will be free to sit beneath them.
I hope they melt down all those bronzes of murdering colonialists to make the statues of Saint Casey.

He's become one of my heros too this guy walks the walk, read his ten year spiritual journey, I loved it. I hope somehow he can be released early, this dude in prison is a travesty for humanity as a whole.

Well, i dont know if Casey is a saint or not, but his line of defence was a refreshing tone in a "law world" where everyone follows the much treaded path. I, for one, support that if one was to possess or manufacture for his own consumption not harming others (if consumption can be defined as harm) then a man/woman should do as he/she pleases and not receiving "multiple of decades" prison sentences.

Most people though dont see it this way ,when it comes to psychoactives. It was rather interesting what the judge said while he was convicting him , pay attention to the wording : ""You are a highly intelligent, articulate and talented man. Tragically you have used those talents for illegal purposes. You have strong personal beliefs that hallucinogenic drugs which alter the human mind are not harmful. The public and governments of civilised modern democracies take a different view.". Especially the last sentence is one that raises an eyebrow...But i think the judge truly believed he was putting behind bars "a real criminal" (real in the sense of harmful for the general public).Apart from that i do not know if casey was involved in sale/distribution.Sometimes its easier to sympathise with those who do not.

I dn't care even if he was selling LSD, that doesn't make him a bad person. Selling drugs cut with nasty crap to increase profits would make him a bad person, but I haven't heard about him doing that. You just can't tell if this guy is nice or not unless you meet him or hear of some evil deed he's done.

I can't believe they're being so harsh on him. I am ashamed of them.

I do think making himself look a little less freaky would help him, he probably scares the socks off those upper middle class farts doling out his sentencing. Not that his appearance should matter, it shouldn't... but it does. Poor guy. Crazy to think he's getting the same time as Nick Sands got so many years ago. Shameful.

SnozzleBerry, i agree,personally i would have hired a lawyer. Not that i havent got "faith" in me being able with words, but a lawyer is usually able with words, knows the legal system plus has some experience on the matter.

I wonder though up to what extent the law can be challenged on such cases.Realistically, i cannot see it happening succesfully in an extent that most forum members would be happy with...

That damned legal tango...The priority is avoiding it ,than dancing to it however skillfully one can dance...

yeah

law is not science
ambiguities galore

Anyone have any idea when the post-indictment arraignment is set for? (That's when Jon will have to enter his plea) I don't want to miss any developments in this case.

I asked TheGuy but he didn't respond... I think he distrusts me simply because I pointed out that under the law (based on an ample body of legal precedent), the plants in question are illegal unless you're unaware of their chemical composition.

^ no offence my friend. But if my son was in jail for selling plants found at WalMart I'd be upset at someone telling me that, in effect, he was justly arrested.

That being said, the law is what it is, for now. The problem in getting laws like this changed are that it requires an ungodly amount of money. Money that the average joe, or even average joe's club dosesn't have.

In ANY case, no matter what retarded laws are on the books, he needs to get off. Any way possilbe, this guy needs to not have even 1 of those charges stick.

Consider this analogy: Say your son is in the habit of driving 120 mph down a freeway with a 75 mph speed limit. He's a good driver, not endangering anyone, but every day he cruises along going 120 mph. When he inevitably gets a ticket, should you be upset simply because people who only exceed the speed limit by 1 or 2 mph don't get tickets?

The key difference in this case is that Walmart doesn't know the seeds contain ergine. And it's not like this is mysterious new information. If you make a business based on selling plants that contain controlled substances, it seems to me that you owe it to yourself to check out the laws on the subject... otherwise you can expect it'll come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later. If Jon had bothered to read the federal Controlled Substances Act or the Kansas State laws on the subject, he'd have realized that what he was doing was technically illegal. And if he'd probed the records of how the law has been applied, or just asked a lawyer specializing in this area of the law, he'd have found out that it's all about scienter, and taken steps to cover himself (like not producing a video on how his products are used as psychoactive drugs, and not opening a forum for customers to get advice about how to use them:roll. Considering some of his products are sold at Walmart, he probably could have received a legal dispensation to sell the types of products he did if he had reached out to the relevant state and federal authorities.

Yeah, it really really sucks that he was arrested for plants that ought to be legal... but how in the world did he not see this coming and take some steps to prepare for it?



Agree, 100%

I see your point, but this isn't a fair analogy, considering that speeding like that would be an incredibly dangerous activity, whereas speeding up to 5mph over the limit is reasonably safe and common. The point being that speed limits are in place for very good reasons with legitimate concern for public well-being. I hardly consider prohibition to be a comparable policy.

I wasn't in any way trying to compare the justification of speed limits with prohibition (you'll notice that in my hypothetical analogy, I postulate that the person is able to speed that much without endangering anyone). The point of the analogy was the difference in the degree to which the law is being broken. No one cares about speeding by a couple mph, even though it is technically illegal as the speed limit is being exceeded. But when someone is blatantly flouting the law to a degree that inevitably attracts attention, they shouldn't be terribly surprised by the consequences.

Walmart and 99% of their customers could never be convicted for possessing morning glory seeds because they don't realize it's illegal, so the authorities don't bother... but when someone is selling a boatload of plants containing controlled substances and is clearly aware of their psychoactive effects (and by extension, the fact that they contain scheduled drugs), they can be successfully prosecuted (if the case histories regarding psilocybian mushrooms are any indication) and sooner or later someone is going to take notice.

Like I said, it really sucks he was arrested for something that ought to be legal. I don't support prohibition in any way... but that doesn't mean I'm going to extract DMT next door to a police station.

So according to Jon, the charges are being dismissed: http://www.dancingbearbo...index.php?topic=1451.150

No indication yet whether the court dismissed them, or if the DA dropped them. It'll be interesting to hear the details.

I'm not familiar with Kansas's drug tax laws specifically, but if it's like other drug tax laws, he still won't be getting his money back unless he countersues though... so I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this in the coming weeks.

Still, this is very good news that firm precedent won't be set on the matter, since it did not go to trial. Depending on the nature of the charges being dismissed, this could potentially be good news for the legal status of entheogenic plants that contain controlled substances in the US.

So BBB has an incredible expense and hassle for being dummies, and no unfortunate legal precedent is set? Seems like a best case scenario.