mercury35

Ignorance of the law is now excuse as we are told time and time again . An offence is an offence , any law that says plants containing DMT automatically includes acacia and wattle . WTF . who cares if they went off half cocked , not my problem , back to the ignorance thing. pollies / attorney general passed this shit , the law is the law. The law makes no nention of intent it is quite clearly stated that any plant containg DMT is a controlled plant. Dosesnt matter what their intent was weather to cover acacia or not they included them under the umbrella law. What now we are supposed to believe ignorance of the law is now a defence from the people who passed the law and open the floodgates Just a backward law for the backward state that I live in where politicians make criminals out of themselves ( refer previous messages re attorney general ) then change the law to cover their arses New law also now come into effect next month covering marijuana laws in this state, 1 hydro plant up from max $500 fine to $2000 and or 2 yrs inprisonment Australia is looking lees and less like the lucky country and no wonder S.A. people are leaving in droves THIS IS SHIT

Here is the link to the story in the advertiser headline was something like cheech and chong politics goes up in smoke http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0...5006301,00.html there have now been amendments to the law to allow hooka's etc to be legal for cultural reasons but bongs / pipes etc are illegal to sell / buy here If the attorney general was trying to make a law that made him a criminal what chance have the rest of us got in keeping up with this shit

This would be better than it stands now , knowledge doesnt prove intent . Just because I own a bottle of metho, have researched uses of metho on the net and find I can use it to get drunk on ( side effects aside) doesnt prove intent that I mean to drink said concoction. could also argue then just because Someone hypothetically may have a neatly trimmed khat hedge that does not really mean they are consuming the trimmings they may just like to keep a particular hedge neat and tidy. How could the law prove intent to consume. If knowledge that an acacia tree can be pruified justifies intent that puts the polititians back on the hook, they passed the law and they must know why it was passed so they possess the knowledge of alternate uses. Polititians are not so good at secrets, when a new law came in here about no selling of bongs / implements the attorney general had to admit he owned a hooka So the attorney general had knowledge of what a hooka was and what it was used for does that prove intent for him to smoke the green weed in, after all bongs got outlawed because they are used for that so they say

This whole adventure for me started with an email from a excellent herb company in QLD advising me on the illegality of khat , ephedra and a few others and advising they have destroyed all stock and are no longer selling these species. This made me wonder what was going on in S.A. But the reputable company I deal with is excellent and brought me to investigate further so step 1 was I then downloaded the controlled substances act for S.A . no mention of it so thought cool Next step was visit the http://www.austlii.edu.au/ website go to S.A. acts and do a search for catha edulis , no hits all still cool go to S.A. regulations and do the same search and D'oh there it is , regulation dated 31.12.2007. WTF Seemed to sneak that in as I tend to keep a pretty good eye on things. I am going to get a bit active in this area but need to be a bit careful about how I go about it . Need to find an MP Sympathetic to the cause here to try to sort the situation out , maybe petitions etc . Couple of high profile busts of pollies with acacia or wattles may just cause a revision of that part of the law only although it will bring to light the stupidity of this law in the end the publicity may be a double edged sword and bring unwanted attention to this issue. I am open to any suggestions or legal opinions. The actual regulation was attached to my first post in this thread

Attorney general or pollies would be good to catch indulging in the criminal act of growing material containing DMT ( eg an acaci) although as we are all told "ignorance of the law is no excuse" this group either made the law or passed it in state parliment so the could plead ignoance at their peril , or maybe they were asleep at the time gets worse if hypothetically I wanted to grow an interesting plant I have some choices , as far as the S.A. law goes if caught, to be a large commercial enterprise I can be faced with the following choices to receive this charge grow 800kg of erythroxylum grow 10,00 plants or 1000kg of papaver somniferum grow 200kg of ephedra or grow a catha edulis plant to 5kg what sort of BULLSHIT is that to be charged for a trafficable amount of catha edulis all you need is a live plant or cutting weighing 250gms

Regardless of who the law is aimed at, the law is the law and thats it , In S.A. the law says you MUST not have any plants containing DMT . If reported the police must investigate , as the law stand if you have plants containing DMT they must prosecute because according to this law possessing a live plant or a cutting in a growing medium makes you guilty of the offence by my reading of it . The is no suggestion of you having to cultivate it by watering , fertilizing etc , the live plant or cutting is the offence I have posted a copy of the regulation in my original post as well as links to this regulation

excactly , that makes an acacia tree illegal in S.A. , wonder how many politicians have them at home or at their offices . also what about the botanical gardens. Dont know much about mescaline but I was of the opinion that lots of cactii carry mescaline be it in tiny amounts See how the law works when someone reports a a polly or a cop for having an acacia tree or a mescaline containing cactus in their yard. After all the law is the law and it applies to all. The S.A. law makes no mention of end use it just says having the live plant or a cutting in growing medium constitutes the offence . here is the link to the controlled substances (general) regulation 2000 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/csr2000406/ it states that having :- a growing plant listed in Schedule 3 Part 1 or a cutting taken from a plant listed in Schedule 3 Part 1 (provided that the cutting has been planted or otherwise placed in a growing medium) is a no no

doesnt really matter who was first , where did they sneak this shit in suppose it is only a matter of time before all of Aust follows suit may drive past the local politicians houses and if they have an acacia tree growing make a complaint under the S.A. law that says all plants containing DMT are controlled plants and see how that goes down in parliment. This is the S.A. law all plants containing DMT are controlled plants See em deal with that since ther is no exclucion and a fully grown tree would weigh tonne's one would have to say that tonne's of this material would have to equate to a large commercial enterprise

shit aint the word , everyone thinks QLD was first, this regulation became law in S.A. on 3.12.2007. While the act in QLD has not commenced at this date, the act includes a legal statement saying it is basically in force from the 20/2/2008. For a state like S.A. that was a forerunner in marijuana laws to free up the courts by decriminalizing small scale plantings (currently 1 plant , outdoor not hydro) and simple possesion of less than 100gms and made these offences punishable by a $300 on the spot fine this is a big step backwards for S.A. Whats next outlaw peppermint tea and bergamot and camomille How can you outlaw the growing of an acacia tree because it contains DMT. What a bloody nightmare. I thought Qld had the most draconian drug laws till I read this from our unesteemed supposedly peers in government.

I did a bit of digging on the south australian law on illegal plants and came up with the following info for South Australia this info was obtained from the http://www.austlii.edu.au/ website section 33k of the controlled substances act 1984 makes it illegal to cultivate a controlled plant section 5 , subsection 3 of the controlled substances act (general)regulations 2000 , dated 3.12.2007 makes the growing a plant listed as controlled and possessing cuttings in a growing medium for cultivation of a controlled plant an offence schedule 3, part 1 of the controlled substances act (general)regulations 2000 , dated 3.12.2007 lists the following controlled plants and a few others erythroxylum papaver spp catha edulis ephedra spp datura , and more . but here is where it gets even more stupid any plant containing DMT , presumably this includes acacia spp because it does mentions ANY plant containing DMT any plant containing mescaline is also included. D'OH I have no legal training but that is that the law seems to be in South Australia Any comments , opinions would be welcome as this is just my reading of the acts and regulations , just thought it would be worthwhile info to pass on. attached is a copy of the regulations 2000.199.un.pdf