watch out mushroom collectors near perth

[bloodbob]

The police are currently doing searches in the bushlands around perth for mushroom collectors so just watch out they have caught 4 ppl so far.

[Guest Monkey Shines]

Do you know what areas of perth, did they just get a caution or what.

[spiders]

well, if your caught, tell the police that you will only confess if they can properly identify the mushroom in question without contention, prove that the mushroom contains psychoactive alkaloids, prove that the mushroom contained these alkaloids when it was picked, and that your intent was to seek and acquire these mushrooms purely for their psychoactive properties.

There are few people in Australia that would be qualified to properly identify the mushroom - and their identification would be contentious. According to Cleland they could be Ps.Subaeruginosa, whereas according to Guzman they could be Australiana/Eucalypta, etc. Tasmanian law enforcement were actually going to outlaw a species of mushroom (psilocybe collybiodes) that is only found in Argentina obviously oblivious to this fact. Any defense would have to focus on this point to discredit their charges.

There are also few people in Australia that would be able to conduct the chemical analysis required to prove that the mushroom specimens that were found in the individuals possession contained psychoactive alkaloids.

Another issue is that no analysis of these mushrooms has been able to adequately pinpoint when the mushrooms actually develop these psychoactive characteristics. Maybe they developed these after you picked them!?!

[spiraleyes]

nice one bluemeanie

almost would be fun yeah

[bloodbob]

I dunno they just a had a small bit on the late news the other night.

[Auxin]

bluemeanie, in stead of saying all that just say "I want a lawyer" the lawyer can then take care of all of that other stuff without incriminating you further. Anything you say to cops in a situation like that WILL be used against you, so "gimme a lawyer" is usually enough.

[theobromos]

I find it difficult to believe that Australian forensic services are so backward as to be unable to positively identify psilocybin or psilocin.

[Torsten]

the above is silly. All the cops need to do is to prove the presence of a prohibited substance. It is not the mushroom species that is illegal, but the actual constituent. It wouldn't matter if the psilocybin was in a champignon, they could still prosecute. As for the analysis, I would assume this is done by GC/MS the same way they analyse paper for LSD. They only need a tiny sample and this is multiplied by the total volume you got busted with. As for only a few people being qualified, think again. Each states forensic lab has such a facility. As well as all airports and seaports (yes, customs got their very own so they can make immediate identification).

As with anything, keep you trap shut if you get busted. more than 50% of all drug cases are won on the basis of people incriminating themselves. Contrary to what the polic will tell you, the courts DO NOT come down harder on you if you don't say anything. Quite the contrary, selective answering is much more frowned upon. Just shut up and ask for a lawyer then they will give up soon enough.

if you feel you missed your chance to 'get in their good books', don't worry, you can always do that later with your lawyer present and it will not go against you.

[spiders]

Im not sure that law enforcement would use expensive forensic analysis to prosecute an individual who was carrying a small bag of dried questionable mushrooms. The VAST majority of prosecutions for possession of psychoactive fungi are due to - as Torsten has stated - the individual incriminating themselves. I too in reality would suggest that an individual say nothing to incriminate themselves, but there is historical basis for my claims.

Actually there have been a number of cases in the past where individuals have questioned the identification of questioned mushrooms and this basis has been used to discredit the prosecutions case. Sure it is the active alkaloids themselves that are schedules, but this basis has been successfully utilised by soliciters in the past.

A friend of mine in the US who was recentally being prosecuted for possession of psilocybin/psilocin argued that it could not be proven that the mushrooms in question had the psychoactive properties at the time they were picked. His charges were dropped despite being found with cultivated specimens.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by bluemeanie:

Im not sure that law enforcement would use expensive forensic analysis to prosecute an individual who was carrying a small bag of dried questionable mushrooms.

to the cops it doesn't matter if it is questionable mushrooms or questionable herbs. In fact these days you are more likely to get away with herb than shrooms. It is simply not expensive for them to test the psilo as this is a low priority matter for the forensics labs. They do this sort of stuff on the quiet days.

there is historical basis for my claims.

Actually there have been a number of cases in the past where individuals have questioned the identification of questioned mushrooms and this basis has been used to discredit the prosecutions case.

this would only be of value if the ID of the shroom had any significance. For the last 15 or more years it has been extremely easy to test for small quantities of such drugs and since then the ID is irrelevant. There may be historical cases, but they would certainly date from when mushroom ID was the basis for prosecution..... which it hasn't been for as long as I remember.

Sure it is the active alkaloids themselves that are schedules, but this basis has been successfully utilised by soliciters in the past.

A friend of mine in the US who was recentally being prosecuted for possession of psilocybin/psilocin argued that it could not be proven that the mushrooms in question had the psychoactive properties at the time they were picked. His charges were dropped despite being found with cultivated specimens.

would love a ref for this please. Sounds like it is either a wank or charges got dropped for different reasons. If this was really a true case then there would be people who would know about it... or at least they SHOULD know about it. There are many anti drug war legal councils who would have a field day with this if it was true.

[spiders]

sure ill talk to the person in question.

[spiders]

John Allen has told me of a number of cases in Australia in the 1970s and 80s where individuals who have been caught by law enforcement with psilocybe Cubensis in NSW and charged. Australian Forensic analysists were not able to detect psilocybin or psilocin in these mushrooms despite many of those who were charged freely confessing that these mushrooms were for picked for their psychoactive compound. Those individuals who did not plead guilty had their cases dropped.

A similar case involved an individual in New Zealand who was charged with possession of psilocybin/psilocin in a mushroom identified as Psilocybe Mexicanna. Doubt was cast on the individuals intention to procure psychoactive mushrooms, so law enforcement attempted to demonstrate that the mushroom was a known psychoactive species.

Thirdly, identification is often used by law enforcement to prosecute individuals. As an example, agar cultures of psychoactive fungi contain psychoactive alkaloids but there have been no prosecutions in Australia of individuals for possession of these alkaloids because they were found with a culture.

The particular case that you feel is a wank involves a moderator on the shroomery and someone i have known for a considerable period of time. The mushroom in question was Copelandia Cyanescens. He was found with a large bag of dried mushrooms when his car was checked by police and they asked him what type they were. He explained that they were a mushroom that he had picked for a friend who as studying mushrooms from Seattle. They doubted him, and radioed to their headquarters to find out if they had a 'identification kit' to which they were told that there was 'no kit available'. The cops took the baggie and arrested the person. They interviewed him for half an hour then released him after charging him for possession of a variety of substances.

When he was notified to appear in court the charges of possession of psilocybin had been droped apparently because they could not ascertain if the mushrooms had held psychoactive properties at the time they were picked and this is what he was told.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by bluemeanie:

John Allen has told me of a number of cases in Australia in the 1970s and 80s where individuals who have been caught by law enforcement with psilocybe Cubensis in NSW and charged. Australian Forensic analysists were not able to detect psilocybin or psilocin

such historical cases are simply that - historical. And of no use now as the situation has changed. Quoting such historical cases as proof of a current situation is dangerous and misleading. You should know better. There are people on this forum who do not know better and may get themselves into trouble on the basis of your statements.

A similar case involved an individual in New Zealand...

as so often there are may other factors involved. More details of the case would be good as is pointed out by the case below....

Thirdly, identification is often used by law enforcement to prosecute individuals. As an example, agar cultures of psychoactive fungi contain psychoactive alkaloids but there have been no prosecutions in Australia...

these two statements contradict each other.

identification is often used [] to prosecute individuals

and

As an example....[] there have been no prosecutions in Australia

My point was that there are NO prosecutions in australia for the last 15 or so years on the basis of ID. All such cases would have to be on content analysis. The ID of the species is of no significance to prosecution (except in customs/quarantine cases as the species itself is listed as a prohibited substance).

The particular case that you feel is a wank .....[] They interviewed him for half an hour then released him after charging him for possession of a variety of substances.

When he was notified to appear in court the charges of possession of psilocybin had been droped apparently because they could not ascertain if the mushrooms had held psychoactive properties at the time they were picked and this is what he was told.

So he went to court and the issue got decided by the judge? or the charges were dropped by the prosecution??

You see the problem I have here is that if it went to court then the charges didn't get dropped. So if it went to court then there would be a court ruling, which would be a great precedent.

So I presume it was dropped before it went to court, in which case the prosecution is unlikely to tell anyone why they dropped the case. If they did drop it, then this could be for a variety of reasons (regardless of what they may have stated). For example, they might have realised that your friend has good character references in which case his argument that he was picking mycology samples would probably sway a judge to rule against the prosecution. They may have also tested the mushrooms and found them to contain a total quantity of alkaloid so low as to not warrant a prosecution (depends on which state). Testing is often slow (a friend of mine got his results 2 days before the courtdate) and may interfere with court procedure. These are all more likely scenarios than your friend actually convincing the prosecution that shrooms may not have illegal substances in them at the time of arrest.

The internet is full of drug lore and whether moderator or not, it is best to play it safe when taunting law enforcement (unless you're willing to get into trouble, but then don't display it to others as safe!). Fact is that most people don't have the first clue of how the law works and most of what people talk about is plain wrong. For all we know your moderator friend may be exaggerating similarly to as appears to be the case with your other friend. Nothing wrong with that, except where is endangers other people.

[Guest Mesqualero]

Or you could just say what my "friend" did when found with a certain amount of Copelandia cyanescens and say that you were looking for your dog when you found these mushrooms and were taking them home to make soup worked for my friend, the police let him take the mushrooms home to make soup

pity the soup tasted terrible hehehehe

For a while though my friend thought he was seriously in toruble though....

I agree in that When in doubt say NOTHING the police arent your friend they think everyone is a potential criminal.

[spiders]

From reading my original post, I do concede that it is a bit irresponsible - and I do suggest that people remain silent or do not atleast incriminate themselves.

However, depending on the situation, there are methods that can be employed to sway police officers themselves. Im not suggesting to taunt or patronise law enforcement as this will almost certainly turn a routine situation into prosecution.

Just use your head.

I understand what you are saying, but I trust in my friend's account. His mushroom related charges were dropped before court, whereas other charges were taken further.

As for identification i believe it still has relevance and the case explained to me by John Allen in New Zealand is a prime example - not only of incorrect identification, but also that it was used to demonstrate the intent of the person being prosecuted.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by bluemeanie:

I understand what you are saying, but I trust in my friend's account. His mushroom related charges were dropped before court, whereas other charges were taken further.

he, he, I knew there was more to this story

You will find that almost all weak cases of shrooms or other semi legal herbs get dropped as a matter of routine if there are more solid charges to prosecute with. I don't understand the reasoning behind it, but maybe it is to save the prosecution from loosing a shroom case that didn't need to be. You will find that in most multiple charge offences the lowest ones get dropped, especially if the defendant has no priors or can show good character.

So yes, I believe that your friend's charges got dropped, but this would have had precious little to do with his argument.

As for identification i believe it still has relevance and the case explained to me by John Allen in New Zealand is a prime example - not only of incorrect identification, but also that it was used to demonstrate the intent of the person being prosecuted.

If a person has no priors, then intent is often the hardest thing for the prosecution to proove. This may work if you have a basket of different species with the odd trippy one in there and claim you just picked everything in the paddock. It would not work for a baggy of dried trippy shrooms. I cannot speak for NZ as I know little about their laws and their forensics services. I know that in australia ID is of NO consequence in prosecution. Forensics is the only thing they rely on and base their prosecution on. I am sure we will see a few shroom cases coming out of WA now that they are onto it.

BTW, I might just take this opportunity to remind everyone that Amanita mushrooms are in the same category as Psilocybes as far as the law is concerned. Muscimole and ibotenic acid are both scheduled in most (maybe all) states.

[theobromos]

Copelandias contain mostly the rather unstable psilocin. In the case of inexperienced cops it is possible that the evidence deteriorated beyond the ability of detection of the actives very rapidly. Had the mushrooms been bioassayed before confiscation?

[spiders]

Copelandias contain more psilocybin than psilocin so im not sure about your point there. Copelandia Cyanescens species from Australia and Cambodia have higher ratios of psilocin that variants found in Hawaii and Florida, but Gartz still found a higher ratio of psilocybin than psilocin. The Copelandias in Australia and Asia tend to oxidise more of their active alkaloids when bruised and dried than those from Hawaii, which is where the cultivated specimens in question were from originally (as a clone).

In a specimen from Florida, .71% psilocybin to .04% psilocin was detected as quoted by Stamets.

From personal experience of Australian and Cambodian Copelandia Cyanescens i can say that these mushrooms are still active after drying and after considerable bluing and handling.

[theobromos]

Perhaps I am thinking of a different Copelandia? Or perhaps my memory is suffering from being away from libraries for too long. Sorry.

[Chiral]

Very interesting and worthy read...

H.

[hahauhmmno]

Very interesting and worthy read...

H.

lol you just bumped a 6 year old post.

As everyone has said, yes it is very easy for the cops to test for psilocybin and psilocin.

[Garbage]

This snippet may tickle your fancy.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3955011.J...d__rare__drugs/

[Garbage]

Justice Hall is one of the Oxford "Paedophilist" judges.

[Re-Grifter]

Let me get this straight.

We have police, hanging out in forests, pouncing on people picking shrooms.....

So there's no unsolved murders, arsons, or rapes that they could be pursuing instead of persecuting harmless hippies and mushroom enthusiasts.....

The whole thing is just a joke.

[naja naja]

Since no psilocybin or psilocin containing shrooms occur in or near perth, I would worry very little of this news.