Jump to content
The Corroboree
Joshwaa

Townsville man facing court for growing cacti

Recommended Posts

Hey Josh..... Link requires a membership to be able to read the article.....

 

But I think we can get the gist. Without the specifics of what the article contains, I'm not sure the case could set a precedent unless the outcome overturns the current Queensland law which makes it illegal to grown/sell/own cacti which contain mescaline. (I think the plant is still legal in some states, like Tas, Vic and NSW, but strictly as ornamental). 

 

Is that what the court case is about, changing the legal status? That would be a nice step bringing us into line with the rest of the East Coast.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats strange I read it earlier but now it wants me to pay too, would have copy posted if I had realised. 

 

I did not realise these plants were prohibited in QLD! They don't seem to prosocute the council's for all the prickly pears I had to deal with when I was working up there last year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONFUSION levels were high as to the legality of cactus plants when a Townsville man was brought before the courts for possessing dangerous drugs.

Robert Michael Nakovics faces drug charges relating to cactuses police discovered at his Cranbrook home
during a raid on July 2, 2016.

Nakovics allegedly had 20 cactus plants growing at the rear of his property, including San Pedro, Peruvian Torch and Bolivian Torch varieties.

All three forms of Cactus contain mescaline, a dangerous drug that causes hallucinogenic effects that have been compared to those created by LSD or magic mushroom consumption.

Appearing in Townsville Magistrates Court on Friday defence lawyer Brandon Wood of Gun Lawyers said his client would be proceeding by pleading guilty.

However, when Mr Wood said the guilty plea would be referring strictly to the possession of the actual cactus plants, with the prosecution not being able to prove Nakovics extracted the mescaline the cactuses, Magistrate Cathy Wadley sought clarification.

“There are many varieties (of cactus) that are shown here and they look like common garden varieties,” Mrs Wadley said.

“Yes, your honour … there are probably many homes across Townsville … well Australia (with the same plants),” Mr Wood said.

Police prosecutor Mark Fenlon said the Drug Misuse Act was somewhat ambiguous when it came to mescaline while Mr Wood said his client was ready to plead guilty on the understanding that possessing any part of the plant that contained mescaline was illegal.

Mr Wood referenced section 4 of the Drug Misuse Act which states a dangerous drug means “any part of a plant that is a thing stated in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987” (which mescaline is).

But Mrs Wadley, who said she had never encountered such a situation before, remained unconvinced.

“I can’t imagine that section (of the legislation) applies to possessing mescaline because you are growing a cactus,” Mrs Wadley said.

“It’s a very curious topic … is it the prosecution’s position that anyone who owns a cactus including in parks and gardens (is possessing a dangerous drug)?

“It’s a very curious matter that probably needs more exploration.”

The prosecution and defence have been given extra time to seek clarification through case conferencing.

The matter is next due before the courts in March.

The Bulletin attempted to get a clear answer off the State Government as to whether or not it was illegal to own certain varieties of cactus.

The inquiry was passed through the Department of Justice, Department of Environment and the Queensland Police Service with no one being able to provide a straight forward answer.

A QPS spokesman said “the marks on the plant are what’s important … it can be presented as evidence that someone is in possession of the cactus for the mescaline”, but they would not comment further.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://outline.com/2j7TbB

 

CONFUSION levels were high as to the legality of cactus plants when a Townsville man was brought before the courts for possessing dangerous drugs.

Robert Michael Nakovics faces drug charges relating to cactuses police discovered at his Cranbrook home during a raid on July 2, 2016.

Nakovics allegedly had 20 cactus plants growing at the rear of his property, including San Pedro, Peruvian Torch and Bolivian Torch varieties.

All three forms of Cactus contain mescaline, a dangerous drug that causes hallucinogenic effects that have been compared to those created by LSD or magic mushroom consumption.

Appearing in Townsville Magistrates Court on Friday defence lawyer Brandon Wood of Gun Lawyers said his client would be proceeding by pleading guilty.

However, when Mr Wood said the guilty plea would be referring strictly to the possession of the actual cactus plants, with the prosecution not being able to prove Nakovics extracted the mescaline the cactuses, Magistrate Cathy Wadley sought clarification.

“There are many varieties (of cactus) that are shown here and they look like common garden varieties,” Mrs Wadley said.

“Yes, your honour … there are probably many homes across Townsville … well Australia (with the same plants),” Mr Wood said.

Police prosecutor Mark Fenlon said the Drug Misuse Act was somewhat ambiguous when it came to mescaline while Mr Wood said his client was ready to plead guilty on the understanding that possessing any part of the plant that contained mescaline was illegal.

Mr Wood referenced section 4 of the Drug Misuse Act which states a dangerous drug means “any part of a plant that is a thing stated in the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987” (which mescaline is).

But Mrs Wadley, who said she had never encountered such a situation before, remained unconvinced.

“I can’t imagine that section (of the legislation) applies to possessing mescaline because you are growing a cactus,” Mrs Wadley said.

“It’s a very curious topic … is it the prosecution’s position that anyone who owns a cactus including in parks and gardens (is possessing a dangerous drug)?

“It’s a very curious matter that probably needs more exploration.”

The prosecution and defence have been given extra time to seek clarification through case conferencing.

The matter is next due before the courts in March.

The Bulletin attempted to get a clear answer off the State Government as to whether or not it was illegal to own certain varieties of cactus.

The inquiry was passed through the Department of Justice, Department of Environment and the Queensland Police Service with no one being able to provide a straight forward answer.

A QPS spokesman said “the marks on the plant are what’s important … it can be presented as evidence that someone is in possession of the cactus for the mescaline”, but they would not comment further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gimli said:

A QPS spokesman said “the marks on the plant are what’s important … it can be presented as evidence that someone is in possession of the cactus for the mescaline”, but they would not comment further.

I was really intrigued by this bit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you just beat me to it @Gimli

 

Hope this person isn't a member and they get the lightest possible penalty. Its a bullshit law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joshwaa said:

I was really intrigued by this bit!

 

It's a bullshit argument. He probably just took a cutting and gave it to a friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting full articles..

 

God this is so sad for the dude. How the fuck do markings = eating it anyway. Shit happens, they break sometimes and how the absolute fuck do you propagate cacti without cutting them? Hopefully the people in the court room will make that statement laughable.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow , isn't this sort of ridiculous , did they raid him just for having cactus in the yard ? Or for something else and just tried as hard as possible to pin anything on him . It sounds like they had no actual proof or idea what they are talking about ? Markings? Yeah sure markings on the bottom of the barrel as they're scraping it .

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the way the law is written that in Queensland any mescalin containing cactus is considered entirely made of mescalin and you will be charged with the weight of the whole plant.  I imagine his lawyer has told him as much and told him to just take his licks instead of fighting it and being made an example of because if they really push it to the letter of the law he could be put away for a very long time.

 

Personally though if it were me I'd fight it unless they caught me in the middle of cooking it up.  The burden of proof is on them and having "markings" on the plant doesn't mean shit but especially so when cutting them is the main form of propagation for the average grower to use.  I can understand not wanting to risk it but I wouldn't allow my case, especially such a weak one like his, to be used against the rest of the community that grows cacti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just out of curiosity and for the purely speculative out there, given this law as it is what are the chances that someone monitors his mail and finds he's selling cuts, then proceeds to raid him on possession, cultivation and distribution charges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have got a botanist to come in and explain how many cacti varieties contain mescaline and how many australian trees contain dmt.  Everyone would be going in court.  Ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Anybody heard anything more on this? The case was supposed to go back to court this month, but I haven't been able to find any info regarding if it did yet. Not too sure if court records are easily available or if you need special access or something.

 

 

Edited by xponentx

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

×