teonanacatl Posted April 2, 2008 How could the law prove intent to consume. If knowledge that an acacia tree can be pruified justifies intent that puts the polititians back on the hook, they passed the law and they must know why it was passed so they possess the knowledge of alternate uses. The pollies passed a law on DMT containing plants not on Acacia's chances are they dont even know they are in Acacia's. Do you really think that laws on intent to consume would be any more reasonable then the laws we are now discussing??? I think intent to consume in the courts eyes would be easy to proove, you have to remember the average joe dont know about this stuff so even a small understanding could make you sound like a drug lord. Things used to proove intent could include membership to shaman-australis ethnobotanicals and the posts made and read, frequent visits to erowid, google searches of DMT acacia, random books on the subject. And if they busted you for DMT at the same time good luck. With knowledge come great responsibility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mercury35 Posted April 3, 2008 The pollies passed a law on DMT containing plants not on Acacia's chances are they dont even know they are in Acacia's. Do you really think that laws on intent to consume would be any more reasonable then the laws we are now discussing???I think intent to consume in the courts eyes would be easy to proove, you have to remember the average joe dont know about this stuff so even a small understanding could make you sound like a drug lord. Things used to proove intent could include membership to shaman-australis ethnobotanicals and the posts made and read, frequent visits to erowid, google searches of DMT acacia, random books on the subject. And if they busted you for DMT at the same time good luck. With knowledge come great responsibility. Ignorance of the law is now excuse as we are told time and time again . An offence is an offence , any law that says plants containing DMT automatically includes acacia and wattle . WTF . who cares if they went off half cocked , not my problem , back to the ignorance thing. pollies / attorney general passed this shit , the law is the law. The law makes no nention of intent it is quite clearly stated that any plant containg DMT is a controlled plant. Dosesnt matter what their intent was weather to cover acacia or not they included them under the umbrella law. What now we are supposed to believe ignorance of the law is now a defence from the people who passed the law and open the floodgates Just a backward law for the backward state that I live in where politicians make criminals out of themselves ( refer previous messages re attorney general ) then change the law to cover their arses New law also now come into effect next month covering marijuana laws in this state, 1 hydro plant up from max $500 fine to $2000 and or 2 yrs inprisonment Australia is looking lees and less like the lucky country and no wonder S.A. people are leaving in droves THIS IS SHIT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
