Jump to content
The Corroboree
Gollum

Question on cactus legallity

Recommended Posts

Hi all, Its been a very long time between post for me so please be gentle.

I caught up with an old friend today and between catching up and telling a few stories I was asked about the current legal status of the Lophophora genus.

Its been ages since I had been "in the loop" so to speak, so I couldn't give him a definitive answer. I thought to myself there must be a knowledgeable member on the Shaman-Australis forum that could give enlighten us both.

My guess was that both plants and seeds were illegal federally but if some one could clarify this I would be appreciative.

I'll set it up like this and if some one could fill in the blanks, that would be great.

example= ACT, Seeds, legal

Plants, illegal

W.A Seeds illegal

Plants, illegal

or if I am right and they are illegal federally.....um, I guess you just write= Federal and its the end of the discussion. ☺

Thanks

----------------------------------

NSW=

VIC=

QLD=

TAS=

ACT=

NT=

WA=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

put up your dukes :slap:

they're not illegal fedrally yet, and on a state level depends where you live, in vic they're legal they sell them at the markets

WA/QLD/SA i think illegal, nsw i think legal, tas not sure

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was legal to own them but illegal to consume. If you were caught with a chopped up (mescaline) cactus or skins or any evidence you were doing something other than just growing it you can be charged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was legal to own them but illegal to consume. If you were caught with a chopped up (mescaline) cactus or skins or any evidence you were doing something other than just growing it you can be charged.

Who would do that anyway, I have a cousin who thinks he is a glass of orange juice because he became a cactus junkie

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was legal to own them but illegal to consume. If you were caught with a chopped up (mescaline) cactus or skins or any evidence you were doing something other than just growing it you can be charged.

afaik they're illegal where they get caught up in the "plant containing x" legislation, which is SA, WA and QLD specifically

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cure or eradication of a disease leads to the collapse of a multi-billion dollar market of pharmaceuticals.
The natural purpose and driving force of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase sales of pharmaceutical drugs for ongoing diseases and to find new diseases to market existing drugs.

By this very nature, the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in curing diseases. The eradication of any disease inevitably destroys a multi-billion dollar market of prescription drugs as a source of revenues. Therefore, pharmaceutical drugs are primarily developed to relieve symptoms, but not to cure.

If eradication therapies for diseases are discovered and developed, the pharmaceutical industry has an inherent interest to suppress, discredit and obstruct these medical breakthroughs in order to make sure that diseases continue as the very basis for a lucrative prescription drug market.

The economic interest of the pharmaceutical industry itself is the main reason why no medical breakthrough has been made for the control of the most common diseases such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, heart failure, Diabetes, cancer, and osteoporosis, and why these diseases continue like epidemics on a worldwide scale.

For the same economic reasons, the pharmaceutical industry has now formed an international cartel by the code name "Codex Alimentarius" with the aim to outlaw any health information in connection with vitamins and to limit free access to natural therapies on a worldwide scale.

At the same time, the pharmaceutical companies withhold public information about the effects and risks of prescription drugs and life-threatening side effects are omitted or openly denied.

In order to assure the status quo of this deceptive scheme, a legion of pharmaceutical lobbyists is employed to influence legislation, control regulatory agencies (e. g. FDA), and manipulate medical research and education. Expensive advertising campaigns and PR agencies are used to deceive the public.

Millions of people and patients around the world are defrauded twice: A major portion of their income is used up to finance the exploding profits of the pharmaceutical industry. In return, they are offered a medicine that does not even cure.

The way it is looking any medicinal herb such as st.john's wort or chamomile or the stinging nettle will soon be illegal. Let alone plants like LW in the hands of collectors

Edited by tipz
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seemed like an inspired rant tipz, it pretty much sums up my view of chemical company fraudsters (doctors).

There are a few good ones out there though.

I seem to remember you being on the medical roundabout a while back tipz, I hope you got it all all sorted out mate.

My parents and my Mrs' parents are getting the drugs to treat the symptoms of drugs routine at the moment and they still have original problems. It seems once you get to certain age you become a prime target for this type overmedicating fraud.

If anyone has any cardiovascular problems (or even knows someone who is) do yourself a favour and check out this article by US doctor - Dr Al Sears MD

http://www.alsearsmd.com/pdf/confidential_cures/cholesterol_fraud.pdf

He's a last resort for many cardiac and stroke patients and has saved countless lives with nutritional therapy and a bare minimalist approach to medication. Some of his success is based on getting people off the medications that are making them sick. His philosophy is to make a real diagnosis and treat the actual problem - not just to suppress symptoms like the rest of the medical establishment.

Reading that article was like a breath of fresh air for me, I've never seen a doctor so openly state what a state of fraud the AMA/FDA style of quackery has come to. He also gives a lot of real advice in the article about how these problems can be treated without resorting to taking a list of drugs as long as your arm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be that the only countries that scheduled the cacti itself were the countries where it grew naturally. If certain Oz. states are adopting "container" legislation (common statutory language in most states and at the federal level in the USA which brings many Psilocybe sp. mushrooms under legal scrutiny in almost every state while only a couple states have scheduled/banned specific species) which encapsulates naturally growing plants, and mescaline is scheduled/illegal, then it would be in the same status as DMT containing plants in states/countries where that compound is scheduled/illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coja, 'container' definitions are a bit more complex here. In Qld for example "Any Thing" that contains mescaline is illegal, while in NSW "preparations" are illegal. To be a preparation is has to be harvested, meaning that live plants are not illegal.

As for the original question, why does your friend needs to know about all states? Why not just the one you're in? I am hesitant to make a list as it is likely to change and then becomes a dangerous reference. That said, I think only Qld has it scheduled by name, ie that means it includes seeds. WA and SA have 'container' laws, and WA also has it as a quarantine prohibited item.

Federally all parts of the plant are illegal to import, but there are no federal restrictions on possession of live plants as long as there is no intent to consume.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just a casual conversation about the laws and I guess he was just wondering if there was anywhere in Oz you could freely grow it as part of a collection. He tends to travel a bit and has lived in quite a few states and countries( we call him the wanderer) and is looking to settle down somewhere. I think he had a few plants before he went overseas and is probably looking to start up a collection again and wanted to know if and where he could grow them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you will get yourself in trouble mate. A charge is only likely if you get investigated for something else. If you were under investigation and were found to have various illegal items in your possession/property maybe if they found the cacti (and it was illegal in said state) They may include that in the other charges but it is unlikely to be the motivating factor behind the bust. If this is your situation the cacti would be the least of your worries anyway.

The other problem would be if you were reported by someone. Keep it to yourself, don't piss people off, I am sure you understand.

If you went to court with this being the only significant charge I would be confident your not going to be looking at maximum penalty.

Edited by rigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rigger, your advice is not correct. There are examples on this forum [and plenty more that are not posted here] where no other investigation was ongoing, but charges were laid anyway [and convicted].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My language in no way refers that you cannot be charged or investigated from only growing a cactus but that I didn't "think" it was "likely" in some cases.

To prove your point you should state the specifics of the charges you mention. You need to show these people were investigated and charged for the sole reason of growing a few cacti as I suggest and some supporting evidence to prove this is generally the case.

My advice backs up your own statements of the law and is a continuation of my initial advice which is they should be fine to own. This is all I say and mean. It is in no way referring to commercial production, import, export, processing or any other illegal activity.

Anyway I think it would be informative for all to hear more about the cases you mention. If people generally get charged due to the sole reason of just growing a cactus in a personal garden, you are correct and my advice is wrong. Without this information you have no basis in which to discredit my advice. More importantly you do not do your point the justice it deserves if it is truly the case.

Talking about behavior in which is of questionable nature in regard to the subject and obviously very risky when dealing with such a thing. If you are thinking of pushing the boundaries in these areas you shouldn't take internet advice, nor should the advice that is given be assumed to apply to this sort of behavior.

Edited by rigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do your own research. several cases are discussed on these forums. The rest I have been told in confidence so can't talk about details anyway. But the notion that cops couldn't be bothered with cacti is simply wrong. They have regularly pursued drug charges via neighbour reports and online transactions, but also as a result of erroneous cannabis grow raids [some cactus collectors use artificial lighting which attracts interest], and in two cases the cops actually recognised peyotes in Qld while on a non-enforcement assignment [one while asking for information about a crime at the neighbours, the other to check a registration of a car that didn't belong to the residents, ie both outside of the control of the owner]. Beat cops in Qld hence appear to actually be trained to ID peyote. One of the peyote owners had no other cacti or ethno plants [the peyote was a present from a friend].

When I got raided by the feds a few years ago several of the agents were seconded from the Qld drug squad. They ALL recognised the peyotes and immediately wanted to seize them [not realising they were not illegal to possess in NSW], despite them being placed amongst similar looking cacti.

Most of the attention has been in Qld, but a case [with plenty of details on these forums] a couple of years ago in WA shows that they wasted no time in applying their new laws. I've also heard of two recent peyote cases in SA, but don't know the people involced personally, so can't get the sort of confirmation I need before accepting them as fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, thanks for the info.

These are involving factors which seem a bit risky to me though. I was just saying a couple in the backyard is possibly ok. If you go to court and the evidence is a nice garden with some well positioned cacti some judges may not be too bothered.

Having quite a few grown under hydroponic set ups isn't really going to convince any judge your just innocently growing a cacti because you like the look of it.

Neighbor reports, police drop ins /related or not was why I mentioned to keep it to yourself and don't put anything in public view which may cause problems.

Im not trying to mislead, people need to think about the their situation before the court. If it is innocent you may be ok. If it's something more it will be pretty obvious to the court and you would be charged accordingly.

Anyway I appreciate hearing your accounts and details. Thanks mate

Edited by rigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is innocent you may be ok.

Definitely not in Qld and probably also not in WA and SA.

I fully agree with you that the best way to stay safe is to keep a low profile. Keep the plants out of public view etc. But my point is that IF they are seen or known about then the police WILL act and you WILL be prosecuted and convicted. A judge will have no choice but to convict as the default principle in most drug law is recklessness [not intent]. A police officer who sees a peyote must lay charges because otherwise his partner could report him for misconduct [there are no discretionary powers for drug plants].

So again, keeping safe is the most important step, but if that has failed for some reason then don't assume you are OK because it is just a minor matter - it is not.

Rigger, there are big differences in the laws between states. NSW and Vic are the easiest for plants, so don't make assumptions about Qld because of your NSW experience. It's very different up there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand police have to charge, you have taken my words out of context which was (and in initial comment) being heard in court. First you want to avoid any attention as we both agree. Then the case has to go before a magistrate where the outcome has many options dismissal, discharge, conviction etc.

Depending on your situation and history, if you case looks good the judge may at best dismiss the case(unlikely). They may fine you and not record a conviction. They may convict and make other arrangements. you may serve a suspended sentence. you may be jailed fined and convicted. This was the whole point of my post. If your case is a couple of cacti in your yard you may be lucky. Good luck trying to convince your innocence if you have 500 growing under grow lights. default conviction? this is over simplified.

This is just general legal advice. The only place I can see it would not apply would be mandatory sentencing. My intention isn't to say people will get away with it. Im saying if you just innocently grow a couple of cacti in your back yard (while ignorance is no excuse) you may have a better chance at escaping maximum penalty as I said initially.

I took the post as a guy who just wanted to grow a cacti or two in his yard and was suggesting this may be looked at with consideration.

If the evidence shows many cacti, grow lights, proof you were selling etc. your case is looking worse and worse. It was not my intention to say someone in this situation may be fine. If the post questioned the legality of commercial quantity, selling, processing or anything like that I would have never commented.

Im not making assumptions its a legitimate legal process which takes all issues regarding the case into account when sentencing.

If mandatory sentencing in relation to possessing cacti is in effect in the states you mention well consider me to be most apologetic.

Edited by rigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha, luckier depending on who you are, the situation you bring and the judge you see..... Sometimes :)

Agreed with or not, I am just happy if my ramblings are understood.

Edited by rigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's megadodgy, yet incredibly prevalent everywhere including SAB- to offer any kind of legal advice until you have *at least* read the legislation or have relevant experience.

If you must reply before doing this, could you at least put up a disclaimer near the top of your post which says something like "It is my understanding that"... instead of presenting limp views on whatever it is you think will only happen to bad people, or people who are dobbed in, or who you know LEOs overlook if they're not having a bad hair day etc

And after 14+ years of SAB existence, you can bet that there are a few legality posts which aren't there any longer because the plaintiff has requested that they be removed before trial. Some of which contained similarly stupid or inaccurate replies

The signal/noise ratio on legal questions is heavily weighted on statements like those above.

More than enough to lull some poor fool into thinking 'maybe it will be OK' when it may in fact be OK, but not in the state they're residing in, or subsequent to the date of amendment to relevant State legislation

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand completely Darklight, the disclaimer is already contained before entering the section. I also used very weak working throughout. These words have been taken out of context though.

In the post only legality seeds and plants are mentioned. In light of that I gave advice considering this situation. It was not based on minor incident minor charge assumptions as suggested. However examples given to disprove my idea based on (questionable) online transactions and (risky evidence providing hydroponic setups) Is misleading to what my statements meant.

Minimal Involvement (personal seeds and plants as mentioned) Generally has less potential to attract attention. More involvement (not mentioned) more potential to attract attention. Police also can drop in for unrelated matters. This isn't often but again a few cacti/seeds less likely to notice (depending on how stupid the person is)

Minimal involvement (personal seed and plants) will generally limit charges. less charges can generally limit overall penalty imposed.

I get the feeling my comments were incorrectly perceived as its only cacti it should be fine. This is not what I said. In the context of the minimalist nature of the question I commented saying the risk is lower in consideration of the situation involved. Once you start adding hydro setups, peyote on the window sill, online transactions you are completely changing the nature of the question and therefore my response to it. The guy knows of its questionable legality. How my advice goes from seed and plants suggested hidden and to yourself to peyote on the window sill for police to see, online selling, hydroponic set ups ill never know.

I think this should be the way people treat it when deciding to grow in any state. Every time someone gets caught with large quantity, hydroponic setups and/or profiteering it provides negative attention. This will make it very possible none of us can enjoy growing some cacti in the future.

Any way im taking a back seat for a while. I enjoy discussing things with people but its just that. No matter how considerate the wording some people perceive attempted interaction as a golden ray of knowledge forced down upon all. Showing interest in a topic is an attack or dismissal of its worth. Even here in a disclaimed advice section it seems for some the best way to put their view forward is to unnecessarily misrepresent that of others in the most abrupt way possible. Hey there is heaps of cool people here its just a bit too serious most of the time.

Edited by rigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to take a back seat Rigger, I believe most of what you've stated is for the most part accurate. It's just that we've witnessed a few cases involving members here in the last few years where the advice you've given has been trumped by overzealous prosecutors with a point to prove.

Don't think anyone has singled you out to make an example, we just want clarification on this issue. The lines of reason are becoming increasingly blurred, so no-one here is going to support any type of complacency if it could result in unforeseen problems down the track.

Most of what you've stated is sound common sense advice, it's just the fact that they keep shifting the goal posts, so we need to be cautious and stay within the law.

Nothing you've written seems to have been divisive or written to cause any discontent, those that posted responses above are just trying to express the need for diligence on a very serious matter.

Given the context of the discussion, all I can see is people trying to put things straight, there was nothing personally directed at you.

Don't feel like you need to stay away, all rational discussion is always welcome.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rigger, I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent your statement. I already provided examples that show you that your hypotheticals weren't realistic. Two separate cases of people with a single peyote plant, no priors, no other drugs in the house [or other offences], and no knowledge that the plants were illegal. Both went to court. Both were advised to plead guilty as there really is no other choice. The magistrate fined in both cases and put on good behaviour bond [12 months I think]. no conviction recorded, however travel restrictions to USA and many other countries are not linked to conviction, but rather to the charge. One lost her job as she needed to travel to USA regularly as part of her work.

Both cases are about as benign as they could get. About the only thing you could argue is that they should have hidden them better. Although most people probably think a kitchen window sill to the private backyard is about as private as needed.

So your theoretical advice remains dangerous. We get a lot of that here because sooooo many people get away with doing all sorts of stuff. Many do it because they are not aware of the actual risks they are exposing themselves to. Take the guy in WA for example, he had no idea the law even existed and hence took no precautions. if someone had told him about the risk then maybe he may not have had that very expensive and stressful drama. Statements like yours contribute to people's carelessness, which is exactly the opposite of what this legal forum is about. I've been arguing against people like you for years. Sadly it is usually other people who bear the consequences of such poor advice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rigger, you seem like a nice bloke and I do hope you stick around. I can even understand your impulsive and passionate posts that you back down on or explain after you get called on them, I've made a ton of these myself ( I miss CS and shroomy and waterdragon, they took the piss far far better in an argument and made it fun ).

But here- as anywhere- if you make incorrect statements in areas where you have much less expertise than other people commenting- you will be called on it. This is doubly true on legal issues where loose management-type statements can impact people's freedom because it gives them incorrect impressions

Someone once said somewhere else, the Law does not deal in The Vibe

And it is becoming imperative that we all know how to read and understand the actual legislations

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×