Hey guy's I've been a member on this forum for a while but I created a new username for this post.

The police recently searched my house and arrested me after Customs intercepted a package of Mimosa Hostilis root bark addressed to me in New Zealand

The charge they're trying me for is; importation of a class A controlled substance, and the package was 18kg.

The whole thing was a bit of a shock to me cause I believed it was legal to import and I'd been on a site called Alphaware.co.nz that had been selling Hositilis and a few other varitations of DMT containing species for years, so it thought it must be legal.

I'm hoping the judge will see my point of view when I go to court I mean if I new it was illegal there's no way I would have imported it, especially not to my address and in my name.

I had been hoping to set up a internet site to make it available as a natural dye/ leather tanner/ incense and I wasn't going to mention anything to do with illegal use on the site.

If anyone can offer me any good legal advice it would be really appreciated.

Also heres a link to an NZ site that has a bit more info;
https://www.tripme.co.nz...ms/showthread.php?t=4222

Sorry it's a bit rushed cause I don't have much access to the net atm

Peace,

On_Bail

Well, I live over in Australia but I used to live in Christchurch a long time ago.
As far as I know you can legally trade DMT containing goods within New Zealand but you cannot import/export such goods. This would probably be how Alphaware can legally sell Mimosa Hostilis.
If this is true then arguing that you were going to use to the DMT-containing goods legally probably will not work though I doubt you'll be given a harsh sentence under such an argument.
Now I'm currently studying Law in Australia so I don't know too much about New Zealand law only that it's similar and that New Zealand also follows commonwealth law.
Here in Australia it's illegal to import or export DMT-containing plants and materials but it is not specified exactly which plants and materials are illegal. If this is the same in New Zealand then you would likely get off with no charge by claiming that you did not know it contained DMT. You could prove that you were not going to use the bark illegally if you have evidence of your online shop, if not then you would need to convince the court you were not going to use it illegally which shouldn't be very difficult.
Never can you use your ignorance of the law to defend yourself but you can use your ignorance of facts. The court does not expect everyone to know that Mimosa Hostilis contains DMT and by saying that you knew it contained DMT can only get you in more trouble. I would highly advise not mentioning DMT and if they ask you about DMT then claim you haven't heard of it. If they ask you about the illegal substances in Mimosa Hostilis then you can claim that you did not know it contained any illegal substances.

Though the best course of action would be to call a lawyer and tell them what happened and follow their advise.
I hope I was of some help.

Peace.

Good luck and a lot of emotional strength to solve your current crisis.
We all know that mimosa is legal (at least in our hearts).

I contacted New Zealand Customs early last year was told I can import Mimosa Hostilis only thing was if it was whole bark it needed to be heat treated(however that's done) before I could pick it up. As far as I can tell that law hasn't changed it doesn't appear to be on the banned/prohibited list. I also read in the article you were arrested "with an unspecified amount of the drug DMT on Friday". Surely it can't be classed as dmt until its been extracted, looks like we are following other countries with the stupid bullshit, hope for your sake that don't try set an example with you.

I bought Mimosa hostilis From ebay , and they sent it to my PO BOX .. lol i wonder if its legal here ..i'm going to pick it up tomorrow .. i hope its fine

Wow dude are kidding me. As far as I knew mimosa hostilis is a completely legal substance. Dude the world is fucked up you cant even buy tree bark without getting fucked over wtf how they even suppose to know what you want to do with it fuck say you wanted really good fire wood or somethings thats ridiculous I think it should be illegal for these people to go through our mail and our homes thats our fucking business.

I live in Australia and these laws are completely fucked!
it is illegal to posses any form of processed dmt or harmaline containing plant matter. but legal to have them as living plants.
If you are using these to make dye, it would be very impractical to be using living plants.
although the importation is illegal because you can bring in parasites and other pests.
hope every thing turns out well.

yea same here dude many blessings I hope you get of that situation people need to stop putting good people in jail for stupid shit. I am more concerned about the people who are who going to try to rob and kill me than people buying "illegal" plants online. God damn who the fuck makes up this shit dude.

"As far as I knew mimosa hostilis is a completely legal substance."

The law states that any preparation containing DMT is illegal.(at least in america) Mimosa hostillis, powdered or shredded, has been illegal all this time, they're just starting to finally crack down on it.

My thoughts are with you as you fight this unjust fight. I am unfamiliar with NZ law but am afraid things here in the US will get worse with time.

Regardless, international orders just seem too risky these days.

For what? Some root bark?

Just wrong.

Mimosa Hostilis is illegal in the US only if it is shown to contain DMT, and the only way that it can be shown to contain DMT is to test it. I don’t think that law enforcement authorities can test it without a warrant of some sort.

This is all very murky, but seems to suggest that buying and selling MHRB in the US is perfectly legal. However, if you happen to have MHRB in your possession and law enforcement authorities perform a legal search and seizure and subsequently test the seized MHRB and show that it contains a controlled substance (DMT), then you would be guilty of possessing a controlled substance. But it seems that simply possessing MHRB does not by itself provide grounds for legal search and seizure.

I'd have to disagree. To see why, consider the following:



Now tell me, do you really buy that argument? All I've done is replace "MHRB" with "Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms", since they are legally equivalent in this context: Neither one is specifically listed in the Controlled Substances Act, but both are known to contain a Schedule 1 drug. From a legal perspective, there is no difference between MHRB and psilocybian mushrooms. The practical difference is that law enforcement agencies have thankfully chosen not to enforce the law with regards to MHRB.


(Sorry to digress, I know this thread is about New Zealand laws, which I'm not familiar with. I do which you the best in resolving your situation. Regardless of the law, we all know that no one deserves to be arrested for something like this.)

It all depends on what the law says regarding psilocybin and psilocybin-containing mushrooms. The statement I made regarding Mimosa hostilis isn’t just something I made up – it’s from the DEA website.

Here’s a quote from this site:

To my mind, this says that they're controlled; by content rather than name, perhaps...but still not in the clear, legally.

OP, are you being charged with anything in addition to the importation? Are there any intent charges or anything?

I wish you the best dealing with this awful situation...hopefully the powers that be will soon realize the absurdity of criminalizing a plant.

This statement is correct. But it doesn't contradict what I've said in any way. Again, the comparison to psilocybian mushrooms is apt: Psilocybe cubensis and similar natural fungal materials are not formally controlled (by name) in the United States; however, they are controlled (Schedule I) if they are shown to contain psilocybin, psilocin, or other controlled hallucinogens.

Because they aren't controlled by name, mushrooms must be shown to contain psilocybin or psilocin in order to obtain a conviction for possession/distribution charges. But that doesn't mean you won't be arrested on the spot if law enforcement finds you in possession of psilocybian mushrooms; since the mushrooms are known to contain controlled substances, the officer is legally justified in arresting you, charging you with possession of a controlled substance, and seizing the mushrooms as evidence to be used against you (if the mushrooms are found not to contain psilocin or psilocybin, you will not be convicted). This is precisely the case with MHRB as well. That quote from the DEA acknowledges that MHRB is controlled by virtue of containing DMT (else the "despite their controlled status" clause would be entirely nonsensical). Fortunately most local law enforcement does not know what MHRB is; if they did, and they found you in possession of it, they'd likely arrest you and seize the bark as evidence (where it would subsequently be tested for DMT; if you got bunk bark, you wouldn't be convicted).

The significant difference between psilocybian mushrooms and MHRB is not a legal one, but a practical one: The federal government has chosen not to enforce the law in the case of DMT-containing plants (i.e. "despite their controlled status" they aren't arresting these vendors or seizing the material at customs). We can only speculate what their reasons are for this. The fact that most people don't know what DMT is and thus don't see it as a public menace is probably a helpful factor. But I suspect their main reason is that a good lawyer could use such a case to completely undermine the federal Controlled Substances Act. After all, my cat is also in essentially the same boat as Psilocybe cubensis. It is known to contain DMT, and yet I purchased it with full knowledge of this fact. Any pet owner who is aware of the scientific literature on DMT is guilty of deliberate possession of a controlled substance, and any pet store owner with the same knowledge is guilty of intentional distribution of controlled substances. Heck, practicing animal husbandry (or even just having sex without contraception) could get you arrested for intent to manufacture a controlled substance!


Edit: To avoid derailing this thread with a discussion of US law which isn't relevant to the original poster, I've created a separate thread discussing the legal status of MHRB in the US (note that this link won't work until the forum has relocated to its usual domain name)

[quote=Entropymancer]



ps : hope it goes all well for you On_Bail , really get a good lowyer

Still being told mimosa hostilis isn't a banned or prohibited item to import into New Zealand by customs. How can they tell people that then arrest them for bringing it in seems bloody crazy to me.

and soon all people will be banned and prohibited on this planet ... except customs their brains already stoped producing dmt ... their brains stoped producing.

In that case the OP and his lawyer ought to make the same inquiry, recording the response. Establishing that they were acting in good faith that they were in accordance with the law (and especially if they were in accordance with the law) should go a long way in building a defense.

Its like telling your child its ok to have some chocolate then telling them off for stealing it. If it was me I would also record conversation and try get it in writing. I don't think will be long now tho before it is banned. And not sure its worth the risk to try stock up a bit more in the mean time.