Jump to content
The Corroboree
love is a stream

Legality of Acacia confusa root bark NSW

Recommended Posts

Meanwhile 'the elite' are all snorting cocaine like its never going out of fashion. And yeah, people do gown for petty shit sometimes, like the judge who puts people away for pot, meanwhile he smokes pot.

But it is a matter of perspective, this is plants we are talking about. We haven't seen any evidence there is a deliberate crackdown in oz about these plants, it is not out of the realm of possibility, but I can't see it being likely.

Can you see yourself, Joe Bogg's, saying 'guilty, your honour', for possession of Acacia confusa, I was making a tea out of it, and wanted to connect with higher dimensional beings and realities?

Especially, first offence, that's going to be like a $50 fine!

We don't live in Scandanavia, where they see these plants as being a serious matter. (the only country I know of maybe apart from the U.S.)
There is an element of common sense here, there are just SO MANY laws, law enforcement often do exercise some discretion over what is prosecuted. Stupid stuff would clog up an already clogged up system anyway.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard so and so tell about such and such package just not arrive, it happens all the time. Sure stings do happen, but normally for kilos of powders and shit.

AND, the only reason these laws exist is some beaurocrat saw that DMT was similar to LSD in the early 70's. They are not just unjust, they are just not founded in any meaningful decision which should regulate anyone's life, especially when the results and effects are so often very life changing and healing.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

- Martin Luther King.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time comprehending what the OP is trying to say! His attitude, such as saying, why are not these listings "taken down" reinforce the tyranny and fascism this country continues to endure.

I'm just asking a question, information on this subject is quite sparse. And it's not my 'attitude', the bark literally contains DMT and Australia tends to have rather strict laws when it comes to these things, so I'm surprised they haven't been taken down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um, there's still a heap of confusa on ebay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folias, the $50 fine is probably pretty close to reality if it is just a possession charge. however drug imports are usually dealt with under federal law in a federal court and the penalties here are FAR more severe. eg a NSW 'meow' possession of ~10g is a few hundred dollars and some good behaviour time. A similar import charge will almost certainly get you jail time plus thousands in fines [unless you spend >10k on a solicitor]. A lot of people get caught out in a big way thinking that import penalties are the same as state possession penalties. The only good thing is that the feds usually couldn't be bothered, so just let it through as a controlled delivery and then the local plods charge under state possession. I wouldn't rely on it though.

I can't remember for certain, but i think federal laws are based on actual constituent weight. ie you can be charged for full weight, but this is corrected to actual weight by the time it goes to court. That's also how Qld state drug law works for example. In NSW it is up to the defendant to apply for the quantitative analysis and there is no guarantee that this is the measure used in sentencing. So these sweeping statements about how something would be treated in court are pretty ignorant as the various jurisdictions ahve pretty different standards and penalties. After having been involved in a few cases in WA in the last couple of years my advice for that state is to simply not do anything wrong. It's about as bad as federal cases.

Julian, you want precedents? of what exactly? shouldn't be a problem finding them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And i don't try to dissuade people from doing what they think is right. I just want to make sure everyone decides to do so knowing exactly what the potential risks are. Almost every court case i help out on the defendant grossly underestimated the potential and actual consequences. Whether that is the legal costs for a federal court case to make sure they don't bury you for several years, or whether it is the quantity cut-off values, or the social consequences [visa restrictions, criminal record for work applications, etc].

Recently was involved in a case in WA where the person thought he would get about 3-6 months because a forum told him he compound was not illegal and because of the general feedback on the internet. He got 6 years. First offence. Career over. if he had been charged under federal law he would have gotten 15-20. This is someone who honestly did not think he was breaking the law - and as far as I am concerned only got the 6 years because the lawyer did not understand the law well enough to challenge it.

For many people I advise the penalty isn't the sentencing, but rather the legal process. A crap lawyer for a simple case will cost 2-5K. A good one will cost 6-15K. For someone who is NOT a drug dealer such amounts are often life destroying.

That's why i want people to make decisions based on the potential risk. I really have no problem if they ignore my advice and go ahead with whatever they decide to do, but they should never do so with a false sense of security.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ, what a complicated issue. Hypothetically, if I were to order an amount of bark from a Tasmanian ebay vendor for dye-making purposes, could I potentially be charged for importing a controlled substance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I say to people, is that if you are not prepared to do the time, don't do the crime :shroomer:

Torsten,

It sounds like the case in WA was for a compound and a large amount of a compound.

I'm not saying we have a non-fascist system, but also I know of cases where people have argued that their use of so called illicit substances was conscious and legitimate. And I have advised one person who was technically facing years, and got a very minor conviction, because he chose this argument.

I just think if you are working with plants and your head is in the right place, you should be a able to argue your case and if you can't do that and think if what you are doing is "wrong", then maybe you should just stay at home and play x-box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B)

Looking at these buyer names .. ? seems like ghost lists / factitiious names manifactured by the seller to rate themselves with fake ratings/ .. not sure though - I'm not too experienced in these sort of matters..?

:rolleyes:

edit: found an ebay feedback generator:

http://thesurrealist.co.uk/feedback

:rolleyes::lol:

Edited by mysubtleascention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone who is NOT a drug dealer such amounts are often life destroying

well its good to know the drug dealers can afford decent protection :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having tannin powder for dye making purposes sent to the prison state of WA has not been difficult for someone I know, it came within 3 days and without hassle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well its good to know the drug dealers can afford decent protection :)

no, but for drug dealers it is a business, so they would take the risk and consequences into account. That's not what this thread is about though, which is why it is good to highlight the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having tannin powder for dye making purposes sent to the prison state of WA has not been difficult for someone I know, it came within 3 days and without hassle.

the number of times you gte away with something does not diminish the legal status or the potential consequences to someone who may not be so lucky.

Just think of your argument in different terms for a moment. only about 3% of shipping containers get inspected. So theoretically for every mafiosi that gets busted with a shipping container full of pills at least 30 mafiosies will make statements like yours about how it was not difficult nor any hassle. But does it reduce the risk for the one who gets done? no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the case in WA was for a compound and a large amount of a compound.

I'm not saying we have a non-fascist system, but also I know of cases where people have argued that their use of so called illicit substances was conscious and legitimate. And I have advised one person who was technically facing years, and got a very minor conviction, because he chose this argument.

The again you would also be aware of the case where such a defence argument made the judge irate and he gave him the maximum available.

The case in WA was for equivalent of 200g mdma. So not a big amount in comparison to the sentence.

While it was for a compound, you will find that to judges this generally makes no difference as plant materials are charges by compound content anyway.

I'd also like to point out that the title for this thread was about legality. There is a big difference between what the law says and what you can get away with. That discrepancy needs to be an informed individual decision. I think it is dangerous to tell people that they'll be fine just because 99% of cases end up that way. The person needs to know what the potential 1% is so he can make an informed decision.

  • Like 3

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

×