harvesting acacia obtusifolia

[Undergrounder]

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

You mean N,N-DMT right, not N,N-DMA? Don't worry, i made the same mistake. The main difference is for DMT, one dosage unit is deemed to be 0.2g and a small quantity is 0.8g. How on earth they get one dosage unit as being 200mg i don't know but that's pretty hardcore. You know what, i wonder if they made the same mistake and a dose of NN-DMA (Similar to amphetamines) is 200g and someone stuffed up and made that the DDU of DMT?

By the way if you have less than a single dose can you even be charged? Like 40mg of DMT is less than a quarter of their DDU and a fraction of their 'small amount'.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Undergrounder

[reshroomED]

By the way if you have less than a single dose can you even be charged? Like 40mg of DMT is less than a quarter of their DDU and a fraction of their 'small amount'.

Don't know about other substances, and the tolerable quantities have probably changed since, but I was once charged for possession of <.6g marijuana (Victoria, mid-eighties).

Funny thing was that I had a quarter of a lot better gear as well, but they were so stoked at a "bust" that they immediately told me to stand against the bonnet of the divvy and proceeded to strip-search everyone else in the car (on the side of a public rd - cnr Kororoit Ck Rd and Millers rd Altona). While this was going on I threw my 1/4oz. under the car, and sure enough, there it was when I was hitch-hiking back home .

It's nice to reflect back on small wins like this.

As for the reality of being charged with possession of a controlled/prohibited substance, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in the real world unless you have enough cash to afford appropriate lawyers.

Amongst other personal experiences with the law, I was caught and charged with possession, use, and cultivation of marijuana approx two years ago.

Four plants under lights, no more started, no scales, bags, etc, etc, yet I faced over a dozen charges, including trafficking. Four court appearances and , in the end, only my poor health got me off.

That being said, if i was an eighty year-old woman with a patch of opium poppies in my front garden (that I never used apart from to look at) I'd feel reasonably safe that I wouldn't be busted for cultivation etc.

But short of that I'd not feel safe at all. If they want to get you, you're pretty-well fucked.

Not fair, just, or logical, but very, very real.

ed

Edited February 19, 2008 by reshroomED

[wandjina]

Thinks the law is logical.

yep, the law exists in a logical vacuum completely insulated from culture, politics, economics, history, and society in general....to say nothing of numbnuts.

I haven't read all of the above thread, but anyone arguing the administration of law (and in practise 'law' itself, broadly speaking) aint plastic, perhaps especially in regards to drug legislation, don't know bo diddly about 'the Law'.

At the end of the day, say if someone got busted with a trailer of bark, the outcome could come down to the mood of the police/magistrate/judge, how the relevant part of an act is seen to apply given circumstances... blah de blah, a bottle of brown liquid could be just that, or '500ml of harmaline' etc...

contingent on many factors.

You mean N,N-DMT right, not N,N-DMA?

lol, you got me. I just saw the NN-dimethyl bit and ran with it

I love skimming through Schedule I , some really exotic sounding substances in there...many unfamiliar to me, like Thebacon ...the bacon? (thebaine derivative), and funky sounding research chemicals like 5-(2-aminopropyl) indan.

How often would people ever actually get busted for stuff like this?

the arse covering bit at the bottom of SI is also interesting.

How on earth they get one dosage unit as being 200mg i don't know but that's pretty hardcore.

yeah, how do they determine dosage units? the ones for harmala alkaloids seem odd...0.0002g.

Could that ammount elicit any effect? Or is this the smallest amount their scales can register or something?...its the same for lyergic acid and derivatives. Funny how these two seem to have been put in the same category of potency.

[reshroomED]

yeah, how do they determine dosage units? the ones for harmala alkaloids seem odd...0.0002g.

Could that ammount elicit any effect? Or is this the smallest amount their scales can register or something?...its the same for lyergic acid and derivatives. Funny how these two seem to have been put in the same category of potency.

I hadn't noticed this, but it definitely seems a protocol issue rather than any real 'dosage' figure.

Which seems odd, as measuring minute quantities requires great accuracy in device calibration, sample preparation, and analysis, yet legislation usually voids such issues ie. breathalysers, speed cameras etc.

Sometimes searching for the logic in such a system can be futile.

ed

[Torsten]

yeah, the harmaline scheduling is one perfect example of lawmakers making laws in a vacuum of logic and knowledge. 200micrograms will not cause any effect. the 200mg needed for MAO inhibition barely cause any effect other than mild sedation. So the only logical explanation for the law is that some chemistry advisor told them it looks like a complex indole and the closest relative is LSD. And whoopee doo it is in the same dosage unit.

Kinda like when they say yohimbine is closely related to LSD, which crops up in the literature [not just legal stuff] all the time.

[wandjina]

Perhaps this is a US import? (along with alot of other post WWII Aussie drug laws/ideologies).

Strange that given Australias success with harm minimisation/reduction strategies in regard to virtually halting the transmission of HIV (via injecting drug use)...policies wholly at odds with US zero tolerance palaver...that we have concommitedly shaped and aped other aspects of the most ineffective, no...disastrous, drug laws/policies in the western world.

The seemingly arbitrary quantities listed in SI may be another reflection of such 'US standards'.

[ballzac]

BTW, it's good to see you around here again lately Wandjina.

[AvataR]

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!!!

Cock smoker. Simple fact is that only in America is there any course with a name anything like pre-law, what the fuck is that anyway. Go do something instead of watching american legal shows and thinking they have any reference to our situation fucktard. I call bullshit. The simple fact is that with the talc/cocaine situation, were you able to show that through no fault of your own what you thought was legitimately talc for a very real purpose, A conviction is not a certainty, nor is it even probable. but then I doubt you read what you typed dumb shit?? BEING CHARGED IS NOT BEING CONVICTED. Just because a cop decides to do something stupid, doesn't necessarily mean that the court will view their case as legitimate. Just because you say something, "i thought it was talc" doesn't change the situation. But, if you can show that you have reason to be carrying a kilo of talc, and you thought that what you were carrying talc, and can point the investigative services towards who sold you the "talc" then i highly doubt that you would even be charged, let alone end up being convicted of it.

Learn to spell halfwit.

No torsten, there is simply no difference between picking up a stick, and being in possession of a tree which dies by natural causes. You continue to fail to accurately identify the factual similarities and differences in the examples you provide.

[Vertmorpheus]

"But, if you can show that you have reason to be carrying a kilo of talc, and you thought that what you were carrying talc, and can point the investigative services towards who sold you the "talc" then i highly doubt that you would even be charged, let alone end up being convicted of it."

"ndeed, 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."

Avatar, you really do say the cutest things...isn't that just so sweet and decent guys? Lets put some pigtails and a startled expression on it and get it online...such innocence has to be capitalised upon.

I suspect that if you ever had to apply your theory to anyone elses idea of practice, you'd swiftly find yourself working as a lockup legal lurk merchant retained by the big boys on a pro boner basis.

"I put it to the court that the accused is a cocksmoker"... what could sound more legally qualified?

stay safe all, remember that 90 percent of their case for anything lies in your readily observed adrenalin overload... unless you genuinely believe you are innocent (not only of the case at hand, but in general) you are doing most of their job for them just by having a carotid artery working overtime... after that its a magistrate that has seen your kind before, many, many times...

VM

[Undergrounder]

"But, if you can show that you have reason to be carrying a kilo of talc, and you thought that what you were carrying talc, and can point the investigative services towards who sold you the "talc" then i highly doubt that you would even be charged, let alone end up being convicted of it."

...

"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."

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

...

But does the legislation mean that the accused has to know he/she has drugs in his/her possession?

For some time the courts held that possession of a prohibited drug was all the prosecution had to prove (Bush (1975) 5 ALR 387). not seen as a necessary ingredient of the offence of possession. If someone gave you a pencil tin with drugs, not pencils in it, so that he/she would not be caught with it, you would be guilty.

However, in He Kaw Teh (1985) 157 CLR 523 the High Court found that if possession of prohibited drugs was an element of the crime of possession, then it was logical that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew, or believed, that the package in his/her possession indeed contained drugs.

So how can knowledge be proved?

In Kural v R (1987) 162 CLR 502 it was reasoned that the court can infer knowledge from the circumstances, for example, no other explanation possible for drugs in a case to which you keep the only key. But knowledge is not what the average, reasonable person would know or suspect: it must what the accused might know or suspect (Fallon (1981) 28 SASR 394). A clearly naïve person might not be guilty; but the problem, of course, is that the person must prove as much.

(The DMTA covers the situation where drugs are placed with a naïve person and that person is controlled by others. Putting drugs in the physical care and control of others and then directing what to do with them from a safe distance is caught by section 7 of the DMTA. This section states that ‘a prohibited drug ... in the order or disposition of a person shall be deemed to be in possession of the person’. In this case, both parties will probably be guilty of possession.)

The reality

While He Kaw Teh says knowledge is essential, in real terms if a person is caught with drugs then the charges of possession and supply can usually be made to ‘stick’. So, the practical way in which the DMTA is enforced at street level is important. At that level the police need to:

catch offenders with drugs on them

seize those drugs

prove they are prohibited substances.

So yeah... good luck with that 'talc'.

[Torsten]

Thanks for posting that undergrounder. I stand corrected and am glad that someone has finally provided this information. My solicitor had avised me otherwise and I had not come across any definitions other than statutory law in this regard.

So, total naivety is indeed a defence, but I am still unclear who has the onus of proof? It seems the onus of proof with the NSW DMTA is on the prosecution, while with things like the customs act the onus of proof of the naivety is on the defendant and only has to be on the balance of probabilities. Bit confusing [or maybe I am just going jellybrained after reading all those high court documents].

Maybe we should move this thread to the legals forum.....

[apothecary]

Looks like if you want to invoke the DMTA as your defence the onus is on you to prove you were under control from a third party or completely naive. Realistically, unless this is actually the truth, you probably don't have any hope of using it as a loophole.

Simple fact is that only in America is there any course with a name anything like pre-law, what the fuck is that anyway. Go do something instead of watching american legal shows and thinking they have any reference to our situation fucktard. I call bullshit.

Surprise, I call bullshit too.

http://www.law.murdoch.edu.au/news/pre_law_programme.html

Is this the part where you eat your words?

Pre-law simply refers to any syllabus which allows you to enrol in a Law major.

[Undergrounder]

You mean N,N-DMT right, not N,N-DMA? Don't worry, i made the same mistake.

I was just looking at the austlii site again today and i think they recently changed the wording from "N:N-Dimethyltryptamine" to "N:N-Dimethyltryptamine and its derivatives being those derivatives having hallucinogenic properties". Not sure exactly what that means, but it does mean that they're interested in it enough to update the Schedule and so there must be some interest in DMT in state legislators or police.

Who knows, maybe they're reading this thread, saw my point about confusing N,N DMT with N,N DMA and changed it as a result. (Hi police!)

[AvataR]

Looks like if you want to invoke the DMTA as your defence the onus is on you to prove you were under control from a third party or completely naive. Realistically, unless this is actually the truth, you probably don't have any hope of using it as a loophole.

Surprise, I call bullshit too.

http://www.law.murdoch.edu.au/news/pre_law_programme.html

Is this the part where you eat your words?

Pre-law simply refers to any syllabus which allows you to enrol in a Law major.

More time thinking, less time watching television idiot.

[themagicmushroom]

GTFO cocksmoker.

[indigo264nm]

Fuck this thread. Why won't it just die already???

[The Dude]

More time thinking, less time watching television idiot.

Good idea to use an actual argument if you want to refute his claims. Calling someone an idiot doesn't really make you look smarter to anyone but yourself. I hope you get over your self delusion of some kind of legal knowledge supremacy. Or simply put: grow up, there's no need for name calling. If you want to be taken seriously good idea to stop acting like a little kid... unless of course you're just a troll.

Edited April 9, 2008 by The Dude

[incognito]

u do realise calling sina an idiot pretty much makes u the 'moronic newbie tool' ?

sinas ANYTHING but an idiot, and continual insults of this nature will surely result with u havin ur ass booted out of the forum.

man uve pretty much been really rude to 3 of the smartest most helpful dudes here.

[indigo264nm]

In conclusion, Jono is right - you've been rude to some of most helpful people here.

This is a good community and the fact that you're from the central coast is sad because if you hadn't gone in with a trigger happy attitude of putting down people and their valid contributions, we could have down the track met up and chilled like I have done with many members of this forum.

Finally somebody close this fucking useless thread and let it die.

[Coschi]

 

 

[AvataR]

u do realise calling sina an idiot pretty much makes u the 'moronic newbie tool' ?

sinas ANYTHING but an idiot, and continual insults of this nature will surely result with u havin ur ass booted out of the forum.

man uve pretty much been really rude to 3 of the smartest most helpful dudes here.

And you've pretty much been an obsequious little cunt. Guess you get brownie points for blowing smoke up the arse of some guys who think they know it all..

Oh well, guess you get to add to your arse licking tally points.

[AvataR]

In conclusion, Jono is right - you've been rude to some of most helpful people here.

This is a good community and the fact that you're from the central coast is sad because if you hadn't gone in with a trigger happy attitude of putting down people and their valid contributions, we could have down the track met up and chilled like I have done with many members of this forum.

Finally somebody close this fucking useless thread and let it die.

Doubt that we would have got along sunrise.

[incognito]

someone axe this peanut

[The Dude]

Doubt that we would have got along sunrise.

lol, is that a continual doubt for you given your oh so friendly demeaner?