harvesting acacia obtusifolia

[shruman]

""Why anyway? Acacia Obtusifolia is certialy not illegal."

No obtusifloia is not but DMT is & the scheduling states DMT containing material (live material is not included) is illegal & not just that u r charged for the weight of the mterial not the DMT it contains & even worse it is S9 the same schedule as heroin or coke. I believe the charge is the same for 2 grams of DMT as it is for 1 gram of heroin."

Reread the thread man, the law makes a distinction between live plant material & dead. Once u take bark off a tree the bark is dead & u have at least comitted the crime of possession

[ballzac]

I believe the charge is the same for 2 grams of DMT as it is for 1 gram of heroin."

I thout it was the other way around, but I,m probably wrong.

Once u take bark off a tree the bark is dead & u have at least comitted the crime of possession

Could it be that you have also commited the crime of manufacturing?

[shruman]

Check eeit "The large commercial quantity limit (maximum penalty = life in prison) is set at 20g. (note the penalty for 20g of harmine/harmaline is equivalent to 500g of ecstasy, or 1kilo of heroin, or1 kilo of cocaine, or 2 kilos of DMT, or 1000 cannabis plants)"

Clique: http://shaman-australis.com.au/shop/index.php?cPath=21_26_61

Possibly another crime or to if u admit to it or they can pin it on u but possession is a dead cert if they knew what it was.

Just realised thats not exactly what I said not sure bout grams but kilo's yeah. & thats NSW law u should check ur local laws.

Edited February 17, 2008 by shruman

[gerbil]

Given that the plant can be grown quite legally, there is no prohibition to possessing the plant material itself unless there is a clear intent to extract the prohibited compound, extracting or possessing the extract are the illegal activities.

Can people please stop spreading misinformation, how many times do these things need to be gone through!?

If you don't know the law, please don't make it up!

[AvataR]

Actually you are wrong. Under Australia law, any material that is not growing on the plant or usable for propagation (i.e. a cutting) is considered a preperation and is therefore technically illegal.

1 preparation.

2 to be a preparation, something must first have been done to the plant material. A branch falling to the ground is not considered an act of preparation.

Your logic is laughable, for according to the theory, i could be arrested for possession of an illicit drug whilst collecting firewood. If i am carrying methylated spirits, i could be arrested for manufacture.

Also, given that the same criminal codes do not cover all of the states uniformly, with the exception of federal law which will not be the statute used to prosecute in the majority of cases, to claim that any one statute governs the entire country is ludicrous.

[wandjina]

well worth a read:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con...t/dmata1985256/

schedule I:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con...85256/sch1.html

for reference:

Quantity - Traffickable, small, indictable, commercial, large commerical

N, N-Dimethylamphetamine 3.0g 1.0g 5.0g 0.25kg 1.0kg

Heroin 3.0g 1.0g 5.0g 250.0g 1.0kg

Coca leaf 30.0g 5.0g 90.0g 2.5kg 10.0kg

Cocaine 3.0g 1.0g 5.0g 250.0g 1.0kg

Cannabis leaf 300.0g 30.0g 1 000.0g 25.0kg 100.0kg

Cannabis oil 5.0g 2.0g 10.0g 500.0g 2.0kg

Cannabis plant cultivated

by enhanced indoor means 5 50 50 200

Cannabis plant-other 5 50 250 1 000

Cannabis resin 30.0g 5.0g 90.0g 2.5kg 10.0kg

[occidentalis]

It is definitely worth reading that, but remember that Austlii tends to be a couple of years out of date, so don't rely on it.

The WA legislation it hasn't been updated since 2004.

[ballzac]

Your logic is laughable, for according to the theory, i could be arrested for possession of an illicit drug whilst collecting firewood.

It's not MY logic. I think it's kind of laughable too.

And yes, if the firewood contained an illegal substance, you could theoretically be arrested, charged, and convicted of an offence.

Also, given that the same criminal codes do not cover all of the states uniformly, with the exception of federal law which will not be the statute used to prosecute in the majority of cases, to claim that any one statute governs the entire country is ludicrous.

I never said it was one statute. However, what I said applies to every state AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong). This doesn't necessarily mean that live plants are legal in every state, but that is another story.

[Torsten]

1 preparation.

2 to be a preparation, something must first have been done to the plant material. A branch falling to the ground is not considered an act of preparation.

Your logic is laughable, for according to the theory, i could be arrested for possession of an illicit drug whilst collecting firewood. If i am carrying methylated spirits, i could be arrested for manufacture.

Also, given that the same criminal codes do not cover all of the states uniformly, with the exception of federal law which will not be the statute used to prosecute in the majority of cases, to claim that any one statute governs the entire country is ludicrous.

Sorry avatar, but logic does not come into this. The law is quite clear. Any plant material that contains an illegal substance is deemed to be that substance if it has been prepared in any way. The definition of preparation is ANY intervention by a human and most certainly includes picking up fallen branches.

ie, a fallen branch is not illegal, but picking up a fallen branch is illegal. And yes, if you picked up acacia branches that contain dmt with the intention of using it as firewood, the law still maintains that this is possession of an illegal drug.

However, what you are trying to get at is probably the chances of prosecution. So, while the fallen and picked up branch is illegal, if you are chucking it in a trailer with all sorts of other [non DMT containing] branches in a clear attempt to collect firewood, then a judge is very unlikely to penalise you. And as the prosecution knows this it is also unlikely it will ever come to a prosecution.

If however you have a trailer full of acacia firewood and they find instructions of how to cook up dmt in your car [or home], or even the record of coming to this forum, then things start to look a lot more difficult. Not that they have to prove intent, as you have already broken the law by being in possession, but intent certainly makes it easier for the judge to ignore any pleas of ignorance [which as you know is not a legal defense, but can help to soften the punishment].

Bottom line is that you need to understand the written law first and then you need to look at how common law has developed to see what your chances are of prosecution and punishment. To spread ignorance and uneducated guesses doesn't help anyone though. There are a handful of people on this forum who seem to have a reasonable grasp of the basic legal concepts involved and it would be prudent to listen to them rather than making a jack of yourself. It's always good to question these things, but there comes a time when it is obvious that others have done their homework and you haven't.

btw, you thought this was confusing, then try Qld law. In Qld you can be arrested for having a dmt acacia growing in your garden as Qld does not make a distinction between 'substance' and 'preparation'. The fact that the RTA, National Parks and councils would be guilty of mass production of dmt is irrelevant. Personlly I find this disgusting as I always believed that in a democratic system the law has to treat everyone equally rather than picking and chosing who it is applied to. A lot of law is very badly written.

[Torsten]

It is definitely worth reading that, but remember that Austlii tends to be a couple of years out of date, so don't rely on it.

The WA legislation it hasn't been updated since 2004.

All states have their legislation on their government websites, so I don't understand why people bother using austlii.

[Torsten]

Would having a kilo of dried poppies in your cupboard be the same under law as having a kilo of dried morphine resin?

Would a kilo of dried bark in your cupboard be the same under law as having a kilo of white, extracted DMT crystals?

I don't know, i'm just asking..

Poppies would come under 'poppy straw' which is a separate entry to 'morphine' and the penalties are quite different.

As for bark vs pure dmt, the law in most states is clear in that the substance containing the scheduled drug is deemed to be that drug. ie the prosecution has no obligation to find out how much dmt is in the bark, all it has to establish is that the bark contains dmt. These laws are from an era when it was impossible or at least difficult to test how much of a drug such as cocaine was in the baggie of street cut crap, so the offender was simply slammed with the total weight. These days it is easy to determine the exact drug content of any material, so in most cases the charge will be dropped to the actual drug weight. Two things to keep in mind though:

1) There is no guarantee this will happen.

2) It is entirely at the prosecutions discretion.

[AvataR]

Sorry avatar, but logic does not come into this. The law is quite clear. Any plant material that contains an illegal substance is deemed to be that substance if it has been prepared in any way. The definition of preparation is ANY intervention by a human and most certainly includes picking up fallen branches.

ie, a fallen branch is not illegal, but picking up a fallen branch is illegal. And yes, if you picked up acacia branches that contain dmt with the intention of using it as firewood, the law still maintains that this is possession of an illegal drug.

However, what you are trying to get at is probably the chances of prosecution. So, while the fallen and picked up branch is illegal, if you are chucking it in a trailer with all sorts of other [non DMT containing] branches in a clear attempt to collect firewood, then a judge is very unlikely to penalise you. And as the prosecution knows this it is also unlikely it will ever come to a prosecution.

If however you have a trailer full of acacia firewood and they find instructions of how to cook up dmt in your car [or home], or even the record of coming to this forum, then things start to look a lot more difficult. Not that they have to prove intent, as you have already broken the law by being in possession, but intent certainly makes it easier for the judge to ignore any pleas of ignorance [which as you know is not a legal defense, but can help to soften the punishment].

Bottom line is that you need to understand the written law first and then you need to look at how common law has developed to see what your chances are of prosecution and punishment. To spread ignorance and uneducated guesses doesn't help anyone though. There are a handful of people on this forum who seem to have a reasonable grasp of the basic legal concepts involved and it would be prudent to listen to them rather than making a jack of yourself. It's always good to question these things, but there comes a time when it is obvious that others have done their homework and you haven't.

btw, you thought this was confusing, then try Qld law. In Qld you can be arrested for having a dmt acacia growing in your garden as Qld does not make a distinction between 'substance' and 'preparation'. The fact that the RTA, National Parks and councils would be guilty of mass production of dmt is irrelevant. Personlly I find this disgusting as I always believed that in a democratic system the law has to treat everyone equally rather than picking and chosing who it is applied to. A lot of law is very badly written.

I don't want to seem like a wanker, but talking down to me is likely only to embarrass you.

The admixtures provision is not present in federal legislation, and so depending on the circumstance in which you may find yourself being prosecuted, there is a possibility that the total amount of illicit substance will actually be quantified.

Don't try to educate me on how to read legislation or on how to go about its interpretation, i have professional training in this regard. I would suggest re-reading yourself torsten, and then consider how silly you look when all is washed up.

Given that the schedule posted earlier is both a prohibited plant and prohibited drug schedule, that acacia obtusifolia does not appear here means that possession of the plant material itself is legal. A branch simply does not fall into the category of a preparation, however stripped bark may as this is an initial preparative step in the extraction of the illicit compound. Unless you actually understand the NSW admixtures provision don't try to "educate" others.

Though you are loathe to admit it, the legal system is based upon logic. Picking up a tree branch unless it is a strictly prohibited plant will not end in prosecution. To use an analogy, to be charged for possession after picking up some fallen branches is akin to being charged for possession after making my lunch using a roll with poppy seeds on it.

Though you have glossed over this aspect, there does need to be mens rea with relation to most possession charges. If you are in possession of something which may fall under the deemed possession provision, this does not necessarily mean that you will be found guilty. It merely shifts the onus of proof to your shoulders, and it is now your responsibility to prove that you did not have it in your possession for the purposes of illegal activity. Indeed, if I had a substance in my possession unknowingly, despite an arrest and charge, the chances of a successful prosecution are slim indeed without other mitigating circumstances such as the passage over international borders.

You have confused the issue with your inept discussion of the admixtures provision torsten, and i would suggest further investigation on this aspect of admixture. The provision actually relates to the use of cutting agents in street sales of illicit drugs. Its reason for being is that if the substance is good enough to sell at the stated (by the seller) weight on the street, then that is what the person should be prosecuted for.

Also, given that there is no definition of preparation other than prepared opium (in the NSW legislation), then the reasonable man/person test would apply. This would include tincture, solution, resin, sap extract, etc, but would not contain the picking up of a fallen branch. To take only bark however would most likely be seen as an initial preparative step and the authorities would most likely act accordingly.

Bottom line is torsten that you may like to seem as though you are educated in this field, but you are quite clearly not. I think an iota of your own advice "Bottom line is that you need to understand the written law first and then you need to look at how common law has developed to see what your chances are of prosecution and punishment. To spread ignorance and uneducated guesses doesn't help anyone though. There are a handful of people on this forum who seem to have a reasonable grasp of the basic legal concepts involved and it would be prudent to listen to them rather than making a jack of yourself. It's always good to question these things, but there comes a time when it is obvious that others have done their homework and you haven't." fits here.

A post count does not equate to knowledge, merely to excessive talking.

Edited February 18, 2008 by AvataR

[Torsten]

I don't want to seem like a wanker

Too late.

The admixtures provision is not present in federal legislation, and so depending on the circumstance in which you may find yourself being prosecuted, there is a possibility that the total amount of illicit substance will actually be quantified.

I already said that the actual drug quantity MAY be established, but that this is not certain and definitely not at the choice of the defendant. While most drug charges will be dealt with under the state's health or drug acts, the SUSDP provides the framework for most state laws. The SUSDP quite clearly defines admixtures the way I have stated them above. And if that is not enough I am happy to post an email from the TGA legal department that clarifies this as I requested examples from them a few years ago.

Don't try to educate me on how to read legislation or on how to go about its interpretation, i have professional training in this regard.

Who cares! The last time I got legal advice in regards to drug matters from a Barrister and a solicitor I nearly went to jail for 5 years .

Given that the schedule posted earlier is both a prohibited plant and prohibited drug schedule, that acacia obtusifolia does not appear here means that possession of the plant material itself is legal. A branch simply does not fall into the category of a preparation, however stripped bark may as this is an initial preparative step in the extraction of the illicit compound. Unless you actually understand the NSW admixtures provision don't try to "educate" others.

Actually, there are plenty of cases which demonstrate what I stated. Such as people being charged for possession of harmaline for the total weight of their ayahuasca brew or in another case for the total weight of the caapi bark they were in possession of. Or people being successfully prosecuted for posession of psilocybin for the total weight of the mushrooms. The proof of any law is how it is sucessfully applied in court, so if you want to educate us you should first educate yourself.

Though you are loathe to admit it, the legal system is based upon logic. Picking up a tree branch unless it is a strictly prohibited plant will not end in prosecution. To use an analogy, to be charged for possession after picking up some fallen branches is akin to being charged for possession after making my lunch using a roll with poppy seeds on it.

The legal system is largely based on one sided motivation and law is often written in a vacuum of parallel considerations. example: make all dmt containing items illegal, but ignore the fact that it is contained in the human brain.

Your analogy is seriously flawed as poppy seeds are specificaly defined as being excluded from scheduling [showing your ignorance again?].

Picking up a branch of dmt containing acacia is exactly the same as picking up a wilted Psilocybe mushroom. In fact this is an excellent example to show you how wrong your whole interpretation is. Under your interpretation only prepared psilcybin is illegal, while the live psilocybe mushroom is not [it is not scheduled as an illegal plant nor as an illegal drug under the name Psilocybe sp]. So how then does it happen that dozens of people get successfully prosecuted for possessing mushrooms each year in NSW?

Though you have glossed over this aspect, there does need to be mens rea with relation to most possession charges. If you are in possession of something which may fall under the deemed possession provision, this does not necessarily mean that you will be found guilty. It merely shifts the onus of proof to your shoulders, and it is now your responsibility to prove that you did not have it in your possession for the purposes of illegal activity. Indeed, if I had a substance in my possession unknowingly, despite an arrest and charge, the chances of a successful prosecution are slim indeed

The onus is not to prove that you did not have illegal intent, but rather that you have to prove that you were not aware of its illegal content. ie, picking up a log of acacia for firewood is still illegal if the prosecution can reasonably show that you were aware that it MAY contain dmt. In the case of drugs the onus is usually on the defendant to show that he was unaware of the dmt content. This is not easy and hence is not something I'd like to promote here as it is only bound to get peopel into trouble. Those who are capable of playing this close to the edge are also capable of reading the law themselves.

Onus usually only applies to the actual court proceedings. Point is that the law allows for you to be charged with possession regardless of whether you have collected it for firewood or not. It is important to always make the distinction between what can cause you to be charged vs what can cause you to be successfully prosecuted. Most of your arguments might have some bearing on the latter, but none on the former.

You have confused the issue with your inept discussion of the admixtures provision torsten, and i would suggest further investigation on this aspect of admixture. The provision actually relates to the use of cutting agents in street sales of illicit drugs. Its reason for being is that if the substance is good enough to sell at the stated (by the seller) weight on the street, then that is what the person should be prosecuted for.

There is no mention of cutting agents in the law and it is specifically NOT THERE because it was not intended to be. The law was written to include all natural admixtures too. Such as the listing of muscimole, psilocybin, thebaine, to cover amanitas, Psilocybe and non scheduled poppy species respectively.

I ahve already provided examples above of how the admixture law has been used for successful prosecutions, which makes your argument look rather obsolete.

Also, given that there is no definition of preparation other than prepared opium (in the NSW legislation)

There is no direct definition of 'preparation' in the NSW drug act because there is a definition of 'admixture' which covers everyting. See the bold bit to realise just how wrong you are.

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 No 226

4 Admixtures

In this Act, a reference to a prohibited drug includes a reference to any preparation, admixture, extract or other substance containing any proportion of the prohibited drug.

If you then take the word 'substance' from that definition and go back to the definitions section you will find that substances include all preparation.

"substance includes preparation and admixture and all salts, isomers, esters or ethers of any substance and all salts of those isomers, esters and ethers."

So, while it is a bit of a roundabout way, the NSW act defines admixture and substance, which includes preparation. It also clearly states that all admixtures, usubstances and preparation which contain an illegal substance are deemed to be that substance

then the reasonable man/person test would apply. This would include tincture, solution, resin, sap extract, etc, but would not contain the picking up of a fallen branch.

It is in plain text for you to read above and there are plenty of precedent cases. We are not interested in your interpretations as long as the act and legal system interprets these things sufficiently.

To take only bark however would most likely be seen as an initial preparative step and the authorities would most likely act accordingly.

Hang on, didn't you just state yourself that there is no definition of preparation and hence preparation is not an offence?

The offence is 'possession of admixture' and has nothing to do with preparation at least as NSW law is concerned.

But just to confuse things I am going to completely screw up everything you said [and even some of what I said]. The NSW drug act is not the only act relevant to these offences. Most states somehow implement the SUSDP in part or in full by some provision in their state acts. Most states simply list the susdp schedules as their own. In NSW things are a little more complicated. In NSW we actually implement the whole federal therapeutics acts [incl SUSDP]. So evertthing that was said about the limitations and definitions of preparations, admixtures etc in regards to the federal act also applies in NSW.

Now go and do some reading.

Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act of NSW

Part 4A

Application in New South Wales of Commonwealth therapeutic goods laws

Division 1

31 Application of Commonwealth therapeutic goods laws to New South Wales

(1) The Commonwealth therapeutic goods laws, as in force for the time being and as modified by or under this Part, apply as a law of New South Wales.

You might also want to look at the definition for possession in NSW. It does not mention any lawful excuse [eg ignorance or naivety]. Not saying that it isn't there, but I actually couldn't find one in a cursory search of the summary offences section. Maybe there is one for indictable offences only. I know some other states have this provision.

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 No 226

7 Deemed possession of prohibited drug etc

For the purposes of this Act and the regulations, a prohibited drug or prohibited plant in the order or disposition of a person, or that is in the order or disposition of the person jointly with another person by agreement between the persons, shall be deemed to be in the possession of the person.

[shruman]

"I don't want to seem like a wanker

Too late."

ROFL

Seriously dude after u read those acts UTSE & u can find most of that info & more with a search.

Thanks T might be getting a little tired for u writing on the matter but I always enjoy reading.

Edited February 19, 2008 by shruman

[wandjina]

It is definitely worth reading that, but remember that Austlii tends to be a couple of years out of date, so don't rely on it.

The WA legislation it hasn't been updated since 2004.

All states have their legislation on their government websites, so I don't understand why people bother using austlii.

For a number of reasons, one being easy access. Search the dmta, and austlii is the first link...finding the nsw gov one isnt as easy.... As part of my prior research into the history of Australia Drug laws, Austlii was fantastic... it is also used regularly as a resource by the AOD training sector, ie, in studying drug legislation and policy for Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) workers.

An especially important part for workers relates to safe injecting facilities and what clients can legally carry etc. As workers, we need to know this stuff.

Whilst its true Austlii can be a bit behind, based on the presumption (my presumption) that this thread relates to NSW law, it makes sense to provide a link to the relevant legislation...the DMTA, regardless of source (NSW).

More good info for anyone interested in NSW drug Acts:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/ho...c/2000/4/3.html

and drug legislation in general:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/ho...c/2000/4/2.html

also Manderson, Desmond (1993) 'From Mr Sin to Mr Big, a History of Australia Drug Laws.'

Oxford University Press Australia

Interesting stuff... may not get you off , but worth a look imo.

[AvataR]

you do nothing but tie your argument in knots torsten.

Simply put your perception of the situation is fallacious, and your apparent belief that either an arrest or a charge are the discriminators of what is legal or illegal is laughable.

You take situations which clearly have no relationship to each other because of a distinct factual nexus, and try to support a point with them wholly convinced that you're being accurate despite the fact you avoid the factual dissimilarities apparent to anyone with the capacity for rational thought. Clearly in the situations you have outlined, there has been a clear intent in the behaviours which have been targeted by the law enforcement crowd. This includes the stripping of the bark as being an initial preparative step in the manufacture of and illegal mixture of the psychoactive in question. Picking up a piece of timber is very different to this.

The comparison you make between the picking of a psychoactive mushroom and a tree branch is 100% incorrect. Why you ask is there no prohibition of the mushrooms in the "prohibited plant or prohibited drug" schedule????? BECAUSE FUNGI ARE NOT PLANTS. Congratulations on missing the point again. You take a thing (the mushroom) which has no other purpose or use other than its psychoactivity and compare it with a lump of timber. Blind freddy can see the dissimilarities of the comparison.

If you then take the word 'substance' from that definition and go back to the definitions section you will find that substances include all preparation.

"substance includes preparation and admixture and all salts, isomers, esters or ethers of any substance and all salts of those isomers, esters and ethers."

So, while it is a bit of a roundabout way, the NSW act defines admixture and substance, which includes preparation. It also clearly states that all admixtures, usubstances (sic) and preparation which contain an illegal substance are deemed to be that substance

Clearly you need to comprehend what this definition is clearly stating. Given that the other substance phrase is given after preparation, the intent of the legislation is evident that this other substance should follow the thrust of the initial qualifiers in the definition.

[Torsten]

Simply put your perception of the situation is fallacious, and your apparent belief that either an arrest or a charge are the discriminators of what is legal or illegal is laughable.

I never said that these define what is legal or illegal. I am just pointing out what you can expect to get away with and what not. There are many thigns which are illegal, but where there is little or no chance of successful prosecution and hence under common law these things are still illegal, yet the law is powerless to do anythign about it. That's the beauty about common law, it isn't just what is written in the statutes, but also how the judges interpret it. The judges are the ones who bring logic and common sense to some pretty stupid laws. I am surprised you don't kno about how common law works as you claim to be in the legal profession

You take situations which clearly have no relationship to each other because of a distinct factual nexus, and try to support a point with them wholly convinced that you're being accurate despite the fact you avoid the factual dissimilarities apparent to anyone with the capacity for rational thought. Clearly in the situations you have outlined, there has been a clear intent in the behaviours which have been targeted by the law enforcement crowd. This includes the stripping of the bark as being an initial preparative step in the manufacture of and illegal mixture of the psychoactive in question. Picking up a piece of timber is very different to this.

The possession of bark is illegal - period! It doesn't matter what your intent is. Read the bloody legislation. Were does it say anything about intent in the law? Anyway, you are confusing possession with 'intent to manufacture'. Two separate charges and offences.

The comparison you make between the picking of a psychoactive mushroom and a tree branch is 100% incorrect. Why you ask is there no prohibition of the mushrooms in the "prohibited plant or prohibited drug" schedule????? BECAUSE FUNGI ARE NOT PLANTS. Congratulations on missing the point again. You take a thing (the mushroom) which has no other purpose or use other than its psychoactivity and compare it with a lump of timber. Blind freddy can see the dissimilarities of the comparison.

LOL. Fungi are generally treated as plants in australian legislation [some other states actually list them under plants, and so does a federal regulation]. Wouldn't expect you to know cos it appears you don't actually read any legislation and just make it up as you go along.

Anyway, I just used the fungus cos it was simple. Was trying to not make it too complicated for you. Here are a couple of other ones:

mescaline - scheduled substance, but no cactus listed in any schedule. There are quite a few cases in NSW where dried cactus led to successful prosecution ont he basis of mescaline possession. In Qld there are even two cases of mescaline possession from live plants.

Ephedrine - scheduled substance, but the plant and the dried herb are not listed. yet there have been prosecutions in NSW and most other states for possession of ephedra on the basis of the ephedrine content. At my recent raid the only thing that saved me was the fact that I did not admit to ever having harvested any material off my ephedra plants [cops were trying to get me to admit it repeatedly] other wise they would have charged me with possession of ephedrine.

Cathinone - the NSW health department has informed me that the possession of any khat material removed from the plant become immediately illegal. The specifically told me that pruning my plants for horticultural purposes is illegal under the law [ie this is the same as logs for firewood]

You lack the real world experience to really have any grasp on this topic and while I don't mind discussing it, I find it very annoying that your naivety might endanger other people who read your theories. Virtually everything I have stated has been through the courts and hence the law is confirmed, and those things that haven't, I have got clarifications from the various departments. if you wish to test your theories pelase go right ahead, but don't drag other people into your demise.

[shruman]

Hhhmmm.....????

Have we meet before AvataR? U would'nt have had other usernames?

"Some people are like slinkys, Absolutely fucking useless but fun to push down the stairs."

Do'es that say something bout u? telling maybe?

[mu!]

HE'S A FUCKIN NARC!!!

[ballzac]

Torsten, your patience astounds me. Don't stop though. Although this has all been gone through many times, it is good to learn more and understand it better.

HE'S A FUCKIN NARC!!!

Thinks he knows the law. Thinks the law is logical. Thinks he's top-shit. You could be right.

[AvataR]

Simply put your perception of the situation is fallacious, and your apparent belief that either an arrest or a charge are the discriminators of what is legal or illegal is laughable.

I never said that these define what is legal or illegal. I am just pointing out what you can expect to get away with and what not. There are many thigns which are illegal, but where there is little or no chance of successful prosecution and hence under common law these things are still illegal, yet the law is powerless to do anythign about it. That's the beauty about common law, it isn't just what is written in the statutes, but also how the judges interpret it. The judges are the ones who bring logic and common sense to some pretty stupid laws. I am surprised you don't kno about how common law works as you claim to be in the legal profession

You take situations which clearly have no relationship to each other because of a distinct factual nexus, and try to support a point with them wholly convinced that you're being accurate despite the fact you avoid the factual dissimilarities apparent to anyone with the capacity for rational thought. Clearly in the situations you have outlined, there has been a clear intent in the behaviours which have been targeted by the law enforcement crowd. This includes the stripping of the bark as being an initial preparative step in the manufacture of and illegal mixture of the psychoactive in question. Picking up a piece of timber is very different to this.

The possession of bark is illegal - period! It doesn't matter what your intent is. Read the bloody legislation. Were does it say anything about intent in the law? Anyway, you are confusing possession with 'intent to manufacture'. Two separate charges and offences.

The comparison you make between the picking of a psychoactive mushroom and a tree branch is 100% incorrect. Why you ask is there no prohibition of the mushrooms in the "prohibited plant or prohibited drug" schedule????? BECAUSE FUNGI ARE NOT PLANTS. Congratulations on missing the point again. You take a thing (the mushroom) which has no other purpose or use other than its psychoactivity and compare it with a lump of timber. Blind freddy can see the dissimilarities of the comparison.

LOL. Fungi are generally treated as plants in australian legislation [some other states actually list them under plants, and so does a federal regulation]. Wouldn't expect you to know cos it appears you don't actually read any legislation and just make it up as you go along.

Anyway, I just used the fungus cos it was simple. Was trying to not make it too complicated for you. Here are a couple of other ones:

mescaline - scheduled substance, but no cactus listed in any schedule. There are quite a few cases in NSW where dried cactus led to successful prosecution ont he basis of mescaline possession. In Qld there are even two cases of mescaline possession from live plants.

Ephedrine - scheduled substance, but the plant and the dried herb are not listed. yet there have been prosecutions in NSW and most other states for possession of ephedra on the basis of the ephedrine content. At my recent raid the only thing that saved me was the fact that I did not admit to ever having harvested any material off my ephedra plants [cops were trying to get me to admit it repeatedly] other wise they would have charged me with possession of ephedrine.

Cathinone - the NSW health department has informed me that the possession of any khat material removed from the plant become immediately illegal. The specifically told me that pruning my plants for horticultural purposes is illegal under the law [ie this is the same as logs for firewood]

You lack the real world experience to really have any grasp on this topic and while I don't mind discussing it, I find it very annoying that your naivety might endanger other people who read your theories. Virtually everything I have stated has been through the courts and hence the law is confirmed, and those things that haven't, I have got clarifications from the various departments. if you wish to test your theories pelase go right ahead, but don't drag other people into your demise.

I have been saying that possession of the bark alone is illegal from the start torsten, reread.

Lets try it again.

Picking up a stick which may or may not have bark on it is not. To remove and stockpile the bark - whose only purpose can be the substance contained within and extract the active ingredient would be. Have you considered a comprehension refresher course recently????

THe circumstance I have been describing all along has been very similar to having a live tree in your garden which for the sake of the analogy will die in a storm. The second it dies, it does not become illegal. To transport this dead tree is not an illegal activity. You seem to be unable to draw a distinction between any of these plants, yet there is a clear difference between any of the native acacias, to khat, ephedra and peyote. Doesn't take a neurosurgeon to find it.

Its all about leaving yourself outs with regards to your activities. But then again, some one as clearly knowledgeable and all knowing as yourself would already know that. Anyone dumb enough not to i don't care about.

I did not say i was a lawyer, merely someone with a formal education in the area, i wouldn't be a lawyer for all the money in the world.

I've never been here under any pseudonyms, wouldn't be worth the effort.

I'm still confused torsten. Are you admitting that the legal system, although flawed contains logic??? Wasn't i trying to point this out to you earlier?? Do you understand the difference between a charge and a conviction?? one is an allegation which has not been proven. The other is decided fact. now for the surpsie quiz.

WHICH ONE MATTERS AND WHICH ONE DOESN'T?????

Yes it is possible to be charged for something you did not do. However, the chances of spurious prosecution succeeding in recording a conviction is far less likely.

Logic and rational thought go in the middle.

Need it gone over again?

[ballzac]

I have been saying that possession of the bark alone is illegal from the start torsten, reread.

Actually you have been saying this from the start:

Given that the plant can be grown quite legally, there is no prohibition to possessing the plant material itself unless there is a clear intent to extract the prohibited compound, extracting or possessing the extract are the illegal activities.

I have been saying that possession of the bark alone is illegal from the start torsten, reread.

Picking up a stick which may or may not have bark on it is not. To remove and stockpile the bark - whose only purpose can be the substance contained within and extract the active ingredient would be.

Torsten has been giving specific evidence to support his claims. Can you do the same? Show us where it says that there is a difference between bark on and off the stick.

What you may not realise is that Torsten is a prominent figure in the Australian ethnobotany scene, and is thus a potential target for for being made an example of. Because the law can be so murky and difficult to understand at times, he would have probably unwittingly broken the law and ended up in jail if he was not VERY well informed.

[Undergrounder]

The thing that's missing here is a case of someone being arrested for specifically possessing acacia bark. Since noone knows exactly what would happen if a case were tested before the courts, we can only go on the written letter, (which Torsten says is fairly clear that moving an acacia branch off a firetrail could get you busted for possession of an admixture) and on tested cases of other similar plant materials (which tends to draw a distinction between living material and harvested/dried material). If you were caught with stripped bark, i think it would be very hard to avoid a conviction, but if you were carrying a fallen branch, while technically you were breaking the law, it would be harder to to convict. Whether having a fallen branch is like carrying a dried trichocereus is probably something that would need to be tested.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Torsten]

I have been saying that possession of the bark alone is illegal from the start torsten, reread.

yes, and it doesn't matter what the bark is attached to.

For some reason you seem to think that bark attached to a dead branch in your possession is legal, while removing this bark makes the bark illegal. Do I get this right ?

If this is the case, then please explain how removing bark makes ANY difference to the possession of it? What you are suggesting is that the removal of the bark is the first step to manufacturing an illegal drug, and I agree with this, but this would then invoke a charge of manufacturing, not possession [a different section of the act alltogether].

You've got this all upside down. Intent to manufacture has no effect on possession.

Picking up a stick which may or may not have bark on it is not.

Wrong. You have taken into possession a substance [wood/bark] that contains a scheduled substance [dmt]. You are now in possession of dmt and hence guilty of an offence. Intent of what you are now going to do with it is irrelevant.

To remove and stockpile the bark - whose only purpose can be the substance contained within and extract the active ingredient would be.

Removing and stockpiling the bark will do two thigns.

1) you are starting the process of dmt manufacture and hence could be done for manufacture or at least intent/conspiracy to manufacture.

2) Stockpiling will increase the amount of admixture [bark] you have in your possession and hence would increase the level at which you are prosecuted.

Have you considered a comprehension refresher course recently????

Have you considered reading the NSW drug act?

THe circumstance I have been describing all along has been very similar to having a live tree in your garden which for the sake of the analogy will die in a storm. The second it dies, it does not become illegal.

True. If a storm kills the tree then you have not intervened in any way and hence you are not in possession.

To transport this dead tree is not an illegal activity.

yes, it is illegal. Technically. It is unlikely any judge will nail you for it, but that is only because s/he will give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's just assume for a moment you already have 3 prior convictions for dmt possession and dmt manufacture, then you will not get the benefit of the doubt and you will be convicted again even if your intention was purely to take the tree to the landfill. You MAY not get a conviction if you can PROVE that you had pure intentions to take it to the landfill, but in practical terms, just think about how difficult it would be to prove something like that [especially with prior convictions].

You seem to continually get confused about what the law is and what judges will convict for. yes, I know you can be charged for things that are fabricated and obviously a charge is not an indicator of what the law really is. But in most cases a prosecutor will only maintain the charges if he thinks he can get a conviction. So if the prosecutor lets you off then that does not mean you did not committ an offence. My point is that the impression you make to the judge can make a huge difference in how far a prosecution goes. I don't have the luxury of dealing with such variables because I am sure the narcs would love to make an example of me. So for me the only thing that really counts is what the law says and how the law has been previously applied.

So, for example I will warn Qld folks that possessing a peyote or san pedro can land them with a drug charge, but that the likelihood of getting done for san pedro is only a fraction of that of peyote. ie, the law is identical for both Peyote and san pedro, but the narcs, prosecutors and judges will treat them somewhat differently. That's why I make these distinctions [which you dont' seem to appreciate or grasp].

You seem to be unable to draw a distinction between any of these plants, yet there is a clear difference between any of the native acacias, to khat, ephedra and peyote. Doesn't take a neurosurgeon to find it.

Actually, there is NO distinction between these species as far as the law is concerned. I really don't follow why you would assume that there is a distinction. I mean, is the distinction that it is native? Then what about a native plant that contains ephedrine..... would that be legal in your world too?

Its all about leaving yourself outs with regards to your activities.

Proving total naivety of the drug's presence CAN be a defence, but it is no guarantee under NSW drug law. The again, if you can convince the judge of total naivety then s/he is unlikely to come down hard.

I'm still confused torsten. Are you admitting that the legal system, although flawed contains logic???

The legal system has many parts. My point is that there is often very little logic in the law. However, judges have more real world experience than the monkeys who write laws and hence judges often bring a better level of logic to the law.

[naja naja]

Though you have glossed over this aspect, there does need to be mens rea with relation to most possession charges. If you are in possession of something which may fall under the deemed possession provision, this does not necessarily mean that you will be found guilty. It merely shifts the onus of proof to your shoulders, and it is now your responsibility to prove that you did not have it in your possession for the purposes of illegal activity. Indeed, if I had a substance in my possession unknowingly, despite an arrest and charge, the chances of a successful prosecution are slim indeed without other mitigating circumstances such as the passage over international borders.

Listen to yourself moron, I seriously doubt u have any legal training at all. Maybe first year pre-law. By your example above it would be highly unlikely for me to be charged with possession of a kg of cocaine found in my car just because I legitametly thought it was talc. How are they or myself gona proove this? Lie detector? Are they admissable as evidence in Australia?

Simple fact is I will be charged no matter wat the fuck I thought it was or even if I knew it was there. True the likelyhood of being prosecuted for an acacia log is so remote it's almost laughable, but the fact doesn't change that it is still a very real possibility.

Wanker!!!

Edited February 19, 2008 by naja naja