Poppy pods and sourcing

[weekender2]

SWIM has been looking around and has found some very good material on the legality of poppy pods (in the US) - and everything he's read would seem to indicate that their sale and possession is illegal. However it's difficult to deny the market realities -- one can, it would seem, purchase them from a variety of sources on the web, and one of them specifically advertised that it once again is shipping to the US. If poppy pods are illegal, it certainly seems as if DEA is more lenient with these than any other controlled substance.

Then SWIM re-read the material out there and was struck by the fact that most of it dates back to 2002-2003, which brings up SWIM's question: Has something changed? Or is DEA truly turning a blind eye to this grey market?

SWIM is also looking for the accounts of others who have bought from web-sources (without naming sources, of course) successfully.

Thanks!

[Forthesevenlakes]

Poppy pods are legal to buy and grow. What is illegal is using them for consumption, or harvesting the opium. So just remember that nice piece of federal legislation, and use them in accordance with local law!

Its not that the DEA turns a blind eye to this, its just that poppies look very nice, dried ones are used in flower arrangements and many people enjoy growing them. So they are only illegal if used to get high.

[Emmajs]

Originally Posted by Forthesevenlakes

Poppy pods are legal to buy and grow. What is illegal is using them for consumption, or harvesting the opium. So just remember that nice piece of federal legislation, and use them in accordance with local law!

Its not that the DEA turns a blind eye to this, its just that poppies look very nice, dried ones are used in flower arrangements and many people enjoy growing them. So they are only illegal if used to get high.

Correct, when SWIM was stopped by the local police with 10 case in his van the police confiscated them. Since SWIM sells other dried flowers also the police returned the dried flowers after a week since they could find no law being broken.
If SWIM was to grind up the poppy pods it would become poppy straw which is a schedule 1 narcotic.

[GDxCAT]

When SWIM was arrested police officers found 60 dried poppy pods in his house.
Out of the 60 they took 1 and charged SWIM with posession of a schedule 1 drug.
SWIM said these were for flower arrangements but the LEO didnt buy it.
In court though the charge was dropped.

So, yes, it is a bit ambiguous.

[snapper]

A while back SWIM contacted Alfa about potentially discussing sources for poppy pods given the popularity of flower arrangement as a hobby of drug forums members. Alfa felt that this would be inappropriate given that opiates are controlled everywhere. However, these are sold openly for flower arrangement all over the place - even more openly the ayahuasca additives or san pedro cactii.
So (1) how is discussing sources different than Ayahuasa or san pedro cactus ? and (2) how does one interpret the law (in the US anyways, and anywhere else where opium is illegal and poppy pods are sold) ?
As an aside, a recent article in a microgram bulletin discussed a house overgrown with p. somniferum which was purged of its flora, yet the owner was left unprosecuted because there was no evidence of usage.

Personally, SWIM thinks that discussing sources of these plants is the same as with Pyschotria viridis or Mimosa hostilis root bark. All three contain controlled substances, but are sold for ornamental/ non-consumption purposes. However, it seems that the law leave a lot of room for interpretation..

[Nicaine]

SWIM's opinion: It wouldn't make sense discussing cocaine use on a florist's forum, and by the same token it doesn't make any sense to discuss flower arranging on a drugs-forum. Since that's the only legal reason to source poppy pods (and illegal source discussion is against the rules), SWIM can see why it would be inappropriate.

Not to mention... if pods are sold openly and are widely available, why use bandwidth discussing sources?

[snapper]

There are many souces and types of ornamental poppies which possess different qualities; sources are not difficult to find, but there are a lot of them and mileage varies.

This is a hypothetical discussion at this point, but how is this different from discussing dried cactus or root bark? There are no legitimate uses for these either, other than ornamental purposes, and they also contain controlled substances.
A more direct analogy would be coca leaf, which is even packaged for ingestion (tea bags). Same context applies, and this has been discussed here before.
I don't really think this is a waste of bandwidth but I can drop it if this is the consensus.
I found this thread today discussing legality which was not there when I originally did a search on the subject. Maybe this should be merged with it ?
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...ght=poppy+pods

[weekender2]

SWIM certainly didn't intend to stir up controversy with this post; he apologizes if he crossed any established lines. He thought the ban on source discussions pertained more to naming names rather than discussing the relative ease with which a transaction took place.

If the subject matter makes SWIAnyone else uncomfortable or uneasy, please consider the question withdrawn, again with SWIM's apologies and thanks to those who have responded.

Pax,
Weekender