AvataR

Doubt that we would have got along sunrise.

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.

More time thinking, less time watching television idiot.

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.

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?

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. 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.

Anyone have any idea about how to make a spore print of an enoki mushroom, or would it be best to just use parts of the shroom itself to propagate.

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.

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.

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.

Clearly this issue would be one of intent with regards to the plant material. Possessing the plant material itself is not a crime, nor prohibited unless the material had been obtained from a national park/state forest where behaviour like taking plant material is a no-no. But merely being in possession of the plant material would hold no adverse consequences. This being said, if you were at the same time possessing any equipment for the extraction (a stupid move at t he best of times to carry raw material and extraction equipment) a case could clearly be made that you were in possession for the purposes of illicit drug manufacture/extraction.

Hi, I am looking to exchange some spore prints of cubensis or cyanescens. Willing to trade cactus cuttings or the like, get in contact with me to find out what i have to trade. located in the hunter.