Ok; I stand corrected; in this event, which other unscheduled plant species contain mitragynine and 7-HO mitragynine?

The compounds are also getting scheduled, as I understand it, so any "unscheduled" plants will also become sched 1 as a result of their chemical constituents. Hooray for the CSA

To be fair, mescaline is also Sched. 1 but no one's come down on San Pedro and Peruvian torch vendors yet.

A live plant of a different genus should be safe.

I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.

Ok; I stand corrected; in this event, which other unscheduled plant species contain mitragynine and 7-HO mitragynine?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claim

They can be purchased at mega-chains such as Target and Home Depot and are cultivated on government properties and in arboretums. Because of this, simple possession with no intent to ingest is de facto legal. Cutting a propagable section (over 5 inches or 12 cm) off of a live cactus would generally not count as preparation. However, slices, blended or boiled cactus material, pulp, extraction equipment, or any process of extraction could be considered preparation and immediately turns the plant material into a "container" for a Schedule I substance.

As you're probably aware, no such case law pertaining to Trichocereus cacti exists. However, there haven't been any convictions based on simple possession of whole cacti, and the convictions thus far have been dried material, afaik.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance

http://www.forbes.com/si...h-benefits/#7a0ea89c7924


I know some people may not like kratom but no plant deserves to be murdered by humans. Defend the standing silent nation

I'm a european, so maybe there's something i don't understand here, but can the DEA decide over the legal status of plants and substances? Doesn't that go straigh against the whole separation of powers/trias politica idea? Isn't legislative power CONSTITUTIONALLY prohibited to congress, and congress only?

Seething within the underbelly of this political turmoil was the ever-present black market. Not surprisingly, one of the largest black market trades was the opium trade. Knowing how profitable it was, the Thai government passed a series of laws that levied duties and taxes from every aspect of the opium trade that they could; from the grower, to the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the shop owner and even the end consumer. It was a “cash cow” for the government.
With this boom in opium consumption, there was also a boom in opium addicts, opium-related deaths,and general public health concerns that come with any drug, licit or illicit. The government was clearly in the opium trade, as it was profiting heavily from it. With the amount of money that was generated from their taxes and levies, this was an aspect of money generation that was worth protecting.

A member of the House of Representatives from Lampang in a special meeting on 7 January 1943 (Police Major General Pin Amornwisaisoradej) said this: “Taxes for opium are high while kratom is currently not being taxed. With the increase of those taxes, people are starting to use kratom instead and this has had a visible impact on our government’s income.”

http://entheology.com/ne...-was-banned-in-thailand/

^^^

I think dried cactus chips are not the same as a live cactus, legally speaking.

To my understanding, in regards to live plants, it's not entirely just a matter of enforcement. Prior knowledge of the compounds present would have to be proven, if the plant is not specifically named in the CSA.

Whatever the case may be, you're surely correct that it would not guarantee complete legal safety and perhaps I could have clarified or worded my post a bit differently.

Technically, you're incorrect.

See: the CSA





To emphasize: "any material... which contains any quantity" of a schedule I drug is itself a schedule I drug under the law.

Human consumption has nothing to do with it. It's a question of selective enforcement and they can enforce whenever and against whomever they wish.

And to be clear, the numerous plants you listed as "legal" in your post are not actually legal in the US. They are illegal, but rarely enforced. An important distinction, imo.

This legislation is called 'the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986' and is part of Public Law 99-570. It was signed into law on October 27, 1986, just days before the national elections, and the news and ramifications of it have been largely lost in the noise and drama of the political events of the time. I personally believe that this law presents a shameful barrier to a very important segment of scientific research.

Let me dissect this law into its two major parts. What is an analogue? And what is the behaviour, involving an analogue, that is criminal?

According to this law, a drug is an analogue if it meets any one of the following criteria:

First, the chemical structure of the drug is considered. The compound is an analogue if its structure is substantially similar to the structure of any listed Schedule I or II drug. Just what are the structures of the drugs that are contained in these two schedules? You can find a complete spectrum of functional groups. All four types of amines are present; primary amines, secondary amines, tertiary amines, and quarternary ammonum salts. All three types of alcohols are present; primary alcohols, secondary alcohols, and tertiary alcohols. There are acids, esters, ethers, amids, ketones, and nitriles.

There are examples of all the most common heterocyclic ring systems, such as pyridines, piperidines, pyrrolidines, indoles, imidazoles, morpholines, thiophenes, furans, pyrans, quinazolines, dioxoles, oxazolines, pyrimidines, and purines. And of course, there are simple benzene-ring aromatic compounds and there are simple non-benzene-ring aliphatic compounds including cyclopropyl rings, cyclobutyl rings, cyclopentyl rings, and cyclohexyl rings. One would be hard put to find a structure of any drug, anywhere, which could not be argued by some person, somewhere, as being in some way structurally related to a Schedule I or a Schedule II drug.

And what was the reason for the use of the intentionally vague phrase "substantially similar"? There is a term in rhetoric knows as a disclaimer, a word introduced as a hedge or a qualification, a word chosen to allow a certain freedom of interpretation. Words or phrases such as almost, probably, approximately, in a few days, in two weeks at the latest, are disclaimers. There is a measured ambiguity in the phrase "similar to" and there is a measured ambiguity in the phrase "substantially the same as." But what is to be inferred from "substantially similar"? Suddenly, the exactness, the precision of the original Controlled Substances Act, with its explicitly named drug targets, had been totally compromised.

A second, independent definition of an analogue deals with its pharmacological action. A drug is to legally considered as an analogue if it has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic action that is substantially similar to that of a Schedule I or Schedule II drug. In short, any drug which affects the CNS (central nervous system) in any of these ways, or in ways that could be construed as being "substantially similar" to those evoked by a scheduled drug, becomes an analogue within this legal definition. Again, the vague double disclaimer "substantially similar" must be reckoned with as part of the description.

A third definition is an extension of this, and involves the way a drug is represented. If a material is intentionally represented as having a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic action that is substantially similar to that of a Schedule I or Schedule II drug, it becomes an analogue.

It is generally accepted that if two of these three definitions are met then the chemical or drug in question becomes a controlled substance analogue. The law explicitly states that there are four criteria, any of which will exclude it from becoming an analogue; if it is already a controlled substance, if it has an approved drug application, if a particular person has an exemption allowing him investigational use of that drug in question, or it is not intended for human consumption - Alexander shulgin; TIHKAL

The law explicitly states that there are four criteria, any of which will exclude it from becoming an analogue; if it is already a controlled substance, if it has an approved drug application, if a particular person has an exemption allowing him investigational use of that drug in question, or it is not intended for human consumption -shulgin; TIHKAL

Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986
P.L. 99-570. Subtitle E, Title I.
SEC. 1202. TREATMENT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES
Part B of the Controlled Substances Act is amended by adding at the end of the following new section:

"TREATMENT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ANALOGUES"
"SEC 203. A controlled substance analogue shall, to the extent intended for human consumption, be treated, for the purposes of this title [Title I; "Enforcement"] and title III ["Interdiction"] as a controlled substance in schedule I."

SEC 1203. DEFINITION.
Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

"(32)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term `controlled substance analogue' means a substance ---
"(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
"(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulent, [sic] depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
"(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.


"(B) Such term does not include ---
"(i) a controlled substance;
"(ii) any substance for which there is an approved new drug application;
"(iii) with respect to a particular person any substance, if an exemption is in effect for investigational use, for that person, under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) to the extent conduct with respect to such substance is pursuant to such exemption; or
"(iv) any substance to the extent not intended for human consumption before such an exemption takes effect with respect to that substance.".

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal precedent that supports such an assertion. That said, if you have links to relevant case law, it would certainly be interesting to look at the support for that claim


I think the "prior knowledge must be proven" statement (mens rea would be the legal issue, afaik) is irrelevant given that this discussion is among people using illegal drugs and growing plants for the purpose of manufacturing/securing illegal drugs. And really, it's an issue that highlights selective enforcement more than any relevant legal loophole pertaining to live plants, as the CSA makes no distinction and simply states that any amount of material containing any amount of a scheduled compound is illegal.

Seeing as that's the case, the distinction between live plants and plant material isn't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, imo. Especially given that people have been charged with cultivating plants for their schedule I compounds. No one here could honestly plead ignorance.

You see, the hidden issue, and it need not be hidden among us...the government always tries to paint itself as the mother hen, concerned about her errant chicks. And so, to keep you from crashing into other people on the freeway, to keep you from leaping out of buildings or committing suicide, we have to control these drugs. As a matter of fact, you know, this is absurd. More people die because of alcohol than all illegal drugs combined in a given year. The government is not your friend on this issue. The government is very concerned to control the mass mind.
-terence mckenna