UK - Test Case on mimosa hostillis bust

[CHEMDUDE]

Well high everyone.It looks like swim isgoing tobe the first (test) case for the first DMT bust in the uk.
swim was given 2 bottles (small) of what he was told was a herbal preperation that is good for cleansing the body.and cleanse it did.swim lost all bowl movements symaltaniously,yep you got it.piss,shit,puke.it even felt like it would come out of my ears and eyes,not a plesant experiance..SWIM WOULD RECOMEND READING UP ON THE RITUALISTIC USE OF SUCH ENTHEOGENS B4 UNDERTAKING THE USE OF SUCH PLANT PARTS (SWIM WISHES TO STATE THAT HE IS NOT ADVOCATING THE USE OF SUCH THINGS).
But guess what? tony blair and his goon squad,in their infinite wizdom,have placed some 200 (or as it was explained to us at the police station,as a little known list of some 200 herbs,plant parts,including bark and root bark) on the grade A drugs list.so basicly,most of the south american sacred and religious spiritual plants are now classed as list 1 narcotics
BUT THANX TO A COMPLEAT STRANGER PHONEING ME UP WITH THE NAME OF A FANTASTIC SOLICITOR IN MY AREA (Who just happens to have compiled a conciderable amount of info for just such an occasion) swim is now in good hands.IF YOUR HERE MY GOOD FRIEND,MAY THE UNIVERSE SEND YOU MANY MANY BLESSINGS AND ALL THE BEST IN THE FUTURE.
does anyone have the info on the GERMAN,HOLLAND AND FRENCH ? CASES That were thrown out of court due to the lack of info available to the public
over these shermanic tools? swim would be most interested in any info concerning them.
acording to the (european narcotics buero ?),say these plants are legal,but as usual there is some confusion between them ,the uk and other european countries.ANY AND ALL INFO WOULD BE EXTREAMLY APRECIATED...PEACE..C_D

[CHEMDUDE]

Swim should mention that he believes the preperation was mimosa hostillis.

[dirk]

most of the south american sacred and religious spiritual plants are now classed as list 1 narcotics

Sounds like misinformation to me. The truth is that some of the chemical components of these plants have been class A controlled substances for a long time. However, plant material containing such substances (unless the plant is specifically listed in the misuse of drugs act) do not constitute controlled substances.

otherwise you'd be busted for owning a poppy-seed bagel

BTW, British law doesn't use the term "narcotics"

If the police really are trying to convince you of this, then it's probably for thier own interest rather than yours.

Preparations (i.e. brews/infusions) are another matter, and the law is a tad grey in that area.

[coke]

i might of missed something, how'd this person get busted in the first place?

[CHEMDUDE]

busted for buying firework chemicals and posting on another site.notice the "INTENT" (This is a new term in the polices arsnal when they have verry little evidence or just want to bust or pull you over in your car to check you out) by which swim means "no drugs" just chemicals and a web site.not that it makes any differance.but you can bet that the legal buying of these sacred plants is being watched and info passed on to the police,just as chemical purchaces are.
the guy who gave me the solicitors name only purchaced the plant material(s),so that in itself is evedence of purchaces being made known.
it wasn't the uk law swim was refering to when using the word narcotics,the word narcotics may have been drugs.but swim is pritey sure that the word narcotics was used..

[Bikelbees]

Test case, have you been charged? As far as I am aware mimosa etc are perfectly legal here in the UK and there is no such list of plants, or at least no such list with any legal standing. I don't know what "firework chemicals" are, but presuming they are to do with extraction as opposed to bomb making, then I think you are suggesting that the intent to extract DMT is what you are being investigated for? In my view it is a grey area legally to know at what point (if any) the purification of alkaloids from legal plants creates an illicit substance.

[CHEMDUDE]

TTHE FIREWORK CHEMS CAN APARENTLY BE USED TO MAKE METH.THEY CHOSE 2 OUT OF 200 CHEMS,RED PHOSPHOROUS AND IODINE.They said i would be summondes to apear in court.the "intent" charge is to manufacture meth as swim was looking at another site with info on the subject.along with organic,inorganic and other chemistry

[CHEMDUDE]

intent tomanufacture or extract DMT maybe one ofthem,swim has not been formaly charced with anything yet apart from growing cannabis

[CHEMDUDE]

and swim is still not sure of that.it's all a bit up in the air at present

[FuBai]

If the substance was in a preparation designed for consumption then you may be in a sticky area. The way the majority of sellers get around the problem is by putting warnings on the packet saying that the product is "not for human consumption." That's how they sell dried san pedro samples in Head Shops, even though as soon as you make the samples into that god awful tasting mescaline liquor you have a class A drug on your hands. So, even if that preparation was from Mimosa Hostilis, which is a plant that is legal in the UK to posses, extractions or DMT heavy preparations are still likley to fall foul of the law.

Originally Posted by CHEMDUDE

TTHE FIREWORK CHEMS CAN APARENTLY BE USED TO MAKE METH.THEY CHOSE 2 OUT OF 200 CHEMS,RED PHOSPHOROUS AND IODINE.They said i would be summondes to apear in court.the "intent" charge is to manufacture meth as swim was looking at another site with info on the subject.along with organic,inorganic and other chemistry

Unless you had ephedrine or psedoephedrine they shouldn't be able to make that stick. One of those to chemicals is basicly essential to any meth cook.

And on a final note, people have been charged with possesion of DMT already in the UK - there was a little scandle a few years ago when it was discovered that Americans were sending DMT amongst other things via mail order to Britons under the guise of chmical samples or something like that.

[Bikelbees]

[quote=FuBai;306835]If the substance was in a preparation designed for consumption then you may be in a sticky area. The way the majority of sellers get around the problem is by putting warnings on the packet saying that the product is "not for human consumption." That's how they sell dried san pedro samples in Head Shops, even though as soon as you make the samples into that god awful tasting mescaline liquor you have a class A drug on your hands. So, even if that preparation was from Mimosa Hostilis, which is a plant that is legal in the UK to posses, extractions or DMT heavy preparations are still likley to fall foul of the law.


FuBai - I don't see why intention or consumption has anything to do with it. This issue was raised in respect of cactus chips in the famous UK case, and as far as I understand it, its irrelevant. It would be ridiculous anyway to try and sustain a system where something legal becomes illegal so readily as by putting it in water or whatever. The warnings put on by head-shops probably are there with this very disclaimer in mind, but also serve other purposes as regards licensing of medicines, avoiding civil liability etc.

Remember before they changed the law to schedule magic mushrooms outright, that they were sold explicitly for consumption even though they contained a Class A drug. What is clear is that too many people have been convicted in the past on laws that should have been exposed as incorrectly interpreted, and now the law is too uncertain to fairly prosecute. Unfortunately police and the public still talk about "preparation" in the incorrect way, believing as the courts had us believe, that a preparation means something done by hand, or that the intention to use something changes possession of a legal thing into a illicit one and other such palpable nonsense that the legal system has presided over for far too long.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Bikelbees

If the substance was in a preparation designed for consumption then you may be in a sticky area. The way the majority of sellers get around the problem is by putting warnings on the packet saying that the product is "not for human consumption." That's how they sell dried san pedro samples in Head Shops, even though as soon as you make the samples into that god awful tasting mescaline liquor you have a class A drug on your hands. So, even if that preparation was from Mimosa Hostilis, which is a plant that is legal in the UK to posses, extractions or DMT heavy preparations are still likley to fall foul of the law.


FuBai - I don't see why intention or consumption has anything to do with it. This issue was raised in respect of cactus chips in the famous UK case, and as far as I understand it, its irrelevant. It would be ridiculous anyway to try and sustain a system where something legal becomes illegal so readily as by putting it in water or whatever. The warnings put on by head-shops probably are there with this very disclaimer in mind, but also serve other purposes as regards licensing of medicines, avoiding civil liability etc.

Remember before they changed the law to schedule magic mushrooms outright, that they were sold explicitly for consumption even though they contained a Class A drug. What is clear is that too many people have been convicted in the past on laws that should have been exposed as incorrectly interpreted, and now the law is too uncertain to fairly prosecute. Unfortunately police and the public still talk about "preparation" in the incorrect way, believing as the courts had us believe, that a preparation means something done by hand, or that the intention to use something changes possession of a legal thing into a illicit one and other such palpable nonsense that the legal system has presided over for far too long.

No, the legal status changes when intention to use or supply for human consumption can be established. You may not see why intention for consumption has anything to do with it, but it does - it shifts the perspective from organic sample to consumable drug.

[Bikelbees]

Originally Posted by FuBai

No, the legal status changes when intention to use or supply for human consumption can be established. You may not see why intention for consumption has anything to do with it, but it does - it shifts the perspective from organic sample to consumable drug.

You speak in terms of absolute certainty and confidence FuBai, but was is your authority? These "consumable drugs" as you call them are not illegal, it's not apparently illegal to consume cactus or DMT containing plants, as it was not illegal to eat magic mushrooms before their scheduling, all this FuBai is old hat now in the UK, the only way cactus is going to be illegal is if its scheduled and it hasn't been. I'm not 100% sure about extracts where the end result is pure mescaline from cactus as that would be an identical substance to the actual Class A drug mescaline, but cactus is cactus and not mescaline or a preparation of mescaline or a drug no matter how you envisage it transforming with human intention to consume it IMO.

[sergei77]

Originally Posted by FuBai

No, the legal status changes when intention to use or supply for human consumption can be established. You may not see why intention for consumption has anything to do with it, but it does - it shifts the perspective from organic sample to consumable drug.

In some States in the US intention does matter when it comes to controlled substances or containers of controlled substances, however there is nothing in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act which refers to intentions when it comes to plants and fungi. It's a red herring. The only question in the UK is whether what you have in your possession is a "preparation or other product" containing the controlled substance, not intention.

It's not clear anymore if the law is now sufficiently certain for the concepts of "preparation or other product" to ever hold any water in court again in light of a recent case (see below), however historically, according to legal precedents set with magic mushrooms, in order for something to be legally definable as a "preparation or other product" it needed to meet 2 criteria: 1) the plant or fungus must have been altered by the hand of man, and 2) it must be in a state in which it could be used (ie. ready for use).

Intentions don't come into the picture and I would argue that the concepts of "preparation or other product" are now legally obsolete anyway. Refer to the motion to dismiss for this case for further details:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law2.shtml

This case shows that intentions are not relevant and it was also argued that that historical definitions of "preparation or other product" were erroneous and should no longer be followed.

CHEMDUDE, did the police seize a brew made from Mimosa hostilis from you or just the plant material? Are you in London?

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by sergei77

In some States in the US intention does matter when it comes to controlled substances or containers of controlled substances, however there is nothing in the UK Misuse of Drugs Act which refers to intentions when it comes to plants and fungi. It's a red herring. The only question in the UK is whether what you have in your possession is a "preparation or other product", not intention. In order for something to be legally definable as a "preparation or other product" it must meet 2 criteria, according to legal precedents set with magic mushrooms: 1) the plant or fungus must have been altered by the hand of man, and 2) it must be in a state in which it could be used (ie. ready for use). Intentions don't come into the picture. Refer to the motion to dismiss on this case for further details, this case shows that intentions are not relevant:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cacti/cacti_law2.shtml

Did the police seize a brew made from Mimosa hostilis from you or just the plant material? Are you in London?

The motive behind the words is to establish intent. A "preparation or other product" is included because once there is a preparation it is considered as demonstrable of intent to use as a drug rather than a biological specimin.

[Evil GIR]

I would admit to nothing and say nothing, Swim is still waiting over the cacti chips thing.
They Got swims cacti, chemicals and computer, it been a year and still swims waiting.
Swim think if they had anything on him he would be in court by now.

The only realy way they can get you on posession of class a drugs for plant materials is if you admit what you where going to do or use them for. If you denie anything they have no case. Well unless they catch you with an extracted material.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good advice. Too many people get convicted based on what they say when interviewed.

[Bikelbees]

FuBai, I see you have thought about the last 2 postings for all of 4 mins, Sergei77 has edited his post but you beat him to it with your response, anyway, these words on preparation and product actually refer to products based upon "chemical drugs", nothing to do with unscheduled plants which can freely be used as "drugs" IMO

[Bikelbees]

The judgment couldn't be more specific in this regard about the supplier, he can sell it explicitly for consumption, it would be bizarre then to have the end-user criminalised when the "dealer" is in the clear. Anyway, its not a preparation of mescaline, its a prep of plant.

[CHEMDUDE]

nothing was perchaced,it was a gift.
swim went to the person who gave the gift and was as suprised as to the legality of such a gift.
swim was led to believe the preperation was made from mimosa hostillis.
swim went to the local drug misuse center and asked as to the legality of said gift and was told to look it up on the web,as this is where it was baught from (as swim is led to believe) swims friend who gave the gift thaught it was legal.
swim fails to see how a preperation that causes such dire results can be classed as a drug open to abuse,unless one is into some verry strange parties.
especialy after the severe detoxing and freaking out that swim experianced after taking some of the herbal prep,swim thaught he had thrown it away.but not so as it happens.
hell,swim couldnt tell you how it was even prepared or anything else about it.
no swim is not from london,but the good person who gave me the name of the solicitor was from around that part of the world.

[sergei77]

You need to tell you solicitor that, if you are charged, he should firstly argue that the law is insufficiently clear for you to be prosecuted (quoting the recent dried cacti precedent referred to above) and secondly that even if what you had in your possession is a controlled substance you still have a defense under Section 28:

Section 28 deals with the issue of "knowledge of the nature of the substance in possession" which requires that the accused should know not only of the existence of the substance but also that he or she should know that the substance over which he or she has control is in fact a controlled drug. Earlier cases involved the conviction of persons who had no knowledge of the fact that the substance in question was a controlled drug, thus making the possession offences, offences of strict liability. The unacceptability of this state of affairs resulted in the subsequent provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the aim of which were to provide a defence of mistake of fact in such circumstances.

Section 28 of the 1971 Act, which applies to certain named offences provided for by the Act, states in subsection 2 that "… in any proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he neither knew of nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the existence of some fact alleged by the prosecution which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove if he is to be convicted of the offence charged".

Presumably you had no knowledge that what you had in your possession contained DMT, all you knew is that it was some kind of legal plant decoction made from something called Mimosa.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by sergei77

Section 28 of the 1971 Act, which applies to certain named offences provided for by the Act, states in subsection 2 that "… in any proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he neither knew of nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the existence of some fact alleged by the prosecution which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove if he is to be convicted of the offence charged".

It still seems to leave the burden of proof on the behalf of the defendant - he must prove that he did not know something...which seems reasonably difficult to me. However DMT and it's extraction from Mimosa Hostilis is a reasonably obscure and technical procedure. Many people - even regular drug users and dealers have no idea what DMT is.

[sergei77]

Originally Posted by FuBai

It still seems to leave the burden of proof on the behalf of the defendant - he must prove that he did not know something...which seems reasonably difficult to me. However DMT and it's extraction from Mimosa Hostilis is a reasonably obscure and technical procedure. Many people - even regular drug users and dealers have no idea what DMT is.

At the moment nobody "knows" for sure if any Mimosa hostilis decoction is illegal because there is no specific precedent, it is not explicitly scheduled. Is it a "preparation"? What is a "preparation"? We've discussed this at length before. I would conclude that it is practically impossible for the defendant to know that he was in possession of an illegal drug, even if the court does classify what was in his possession as an illegal drug (which I would argue against in the first place - again this has been discussed here at length before), when even legal experts wouldn't be able to say for sure where the legality of it stands. He doesn't need to prove that he didn't know, he just needs to show that the situation as it stands is that nobody knows, so it is impossible for him, as a layman, to know. How can you know when there are no precedents and the law is so unclear? And this is not just my personal opinion that the law in this area is unclear, it has been confirmed in court time and time again with the magic mushroom cases that were thrown out and the recent dried cacti case that was also thrown out for the same reasons.