Lophophora...legalities question

[cactoman]

Hi all...

Just a quick question. As (most) folks know here possession of Lophophora is technically illegal in the US..although there are lots of Ariocarpus *cough* and Turbinicarpus *cough* on collectors benches across the country.

Now, if one were to be caught on the wrong day with a small flat of Loph seedlings and Pereskiopsis cuttings (which have been often recommended for growing Lophs on Drug websites), can they get you on Federal "MANUFACTURING OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE" charges saying that you have constructive possession on materials to *manufacture* Peyote for illicit distribution, and therefore catch 10 year mandatory minimum drug sentence in Federal Prison with no chance of parole? Maybe I'm just a little paranoid lol, but, the thought has crossed my mind.

***I AM NOT A DRUG ABUSER AND DO NOT CONDONE BREAKING THE LAW*** <== standard disclaimer

Just starting a conversation...
Ed J
the CACTOMAN

[SnowFella]

Guess it all would depend on how the wording of the law is, if it's labeled as a controlled substance or controlled plant.
I know down here that mescaline containing cacti are legal to own and grow but as soon as you cut them up and prepare them for ingestion you step over the boundary into an illegal activity. Though that could change real quick down here as there now are scedules in place where a magistrate could outlaw the possesion of any mescaline containing plant by just signining a piece of paper.

[Saxicola]

Only L. williamsii is illegal. All other species are perfectly legal to grow (except in California).

I've never heard of someone getting trouble for growing one that wasn't part of some bigger drug operation. I'm no lawyer but I'd assume that if they somehow found one in your cactus collection and actually wanted to go to the trouble of prosecuting you it would probably be for possession of a controlled substance. If you aren't growing a lot of them and there is no evidence of you distributing them as a drug I'd be amazed if they could get a manufacturing charge to stick. Since you did a disclaimer, I'll do one too. This is an opinion, not legal advice, and acting on the opinions of random people on the internet is a bad idea!

I think it is kind of silly that Mescaline users take the risk with L. williamsii when there are several other Mescaline containing cacti that are 100% legal to own (like San Pedro).

[peterb]

Good summary of various peyote laws in the US and globally:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/peyote/peyote_law.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am not aware of any hobbyist ever being busted at either the state or federal level for having plants.

I have found a few high profile cases of federal charges, where people had thousands of plants and were members of a religious organization using peyote.

peterb

[cefalophone]

I was under the impression that cultivated plants do not cotain any useable amounts of mescaline.

[Saxicola]

Any plant that isn't from the wild is cultivated, but I think I understand what you mean. I'd agree that the plants grown by hobbiests probably have lower levels of mescaline than the ones drug growers cultivate because they are artificially selecting strains with higher mescaline levels while we couldn't care less. The fact that Native Americans have been using wild plants for thousands of years suggests that usable levels of mescaline should be present in "regular" plants.

Anyway, if push comes to shove that won't make much difference. The law doesn't say only L. williamsii with higher than X% mescaline is illegal, it says all of them are.

[cefalophone]

True but I think to be fair if a hobbyist is ever prosecuted for having one or two lophs in their collection the law should take into consideration that the plants are probably useless for a drug user. They should at the least do a chemical anlaysis to get the exact % of mescaline contained in the plant as opposed to going off of the plants weight. That way the defense can prove their case that the grower was merely a hobbyist if the concentration of mescaline in the plant is negligible. Even though it is still illegal to posses I do not think a hobbyist should face drug charges if there was no intent.

[daiv]

I have 3 Loph species, including an L. williamsii. In my case, I called the sheriff and told them I grew cacti as a hobby and that I did come across a plant that is Lophophora williamsii - what he would know as "Peyote". I actually did not know I was getting this plant, but recognized it right off. So I told him I would like to grow it, but if he required it, I would turn it in. Anyway, the deputy was rather speechless, although he admitted that he wouldn't have the slightest clue what it was if he was staring right at it. He said he'd have to call me back. About an hour later, he called me back and said that he talked to the district attorney's office and they thought that in my case, it is not a problem and continue growing it. He said if anyone ever gave me trouble about it to call him and he gave me his name and badge number.

Take that story how you want. Since I have done stories with the Star Tribune, the local News channel, and the local PBS station, all I needed was someone to spot it in a picture or something. Of course, you probably will have very different results in a place like LA County California vs. Todd County MN. I think you get more people-friendly experience in rural areas.

[Saxicola]

True but I think to be fair if a hobbyist is ever prosecuted for having one or two lophs in their collection the law should take into consideration that the plants are probably useless for a drug user. They should at the least do a chemical anlaysis to get the exact % of mescaline contained in the plant as opposed to going off of the plants weight. That way the defense can prove their case that the grower was merely a hobbyist if the concentration of mescaline in the plant is negligible. Even though it is still illegal to posses I do not think a hobbyist should face drug charges if there was no intent.

You are taking the hypothetical question to the extreme I think. We all pretty much agree that none of us have ever heard of someone getting in trouble for having a plant or two of L. williamsii. That in and of itself suggests that they aren't concerned about this to begin with. If they really wanted to go after you they wouldn't bother with testing the plant since the law is clear that possession of the plant is illegal (just ask the US hemp industry). I'm sure the reason is that it is extremely low on their priority list is there are more real drug crimes going on than the authorities can keep up with to begin with. Also, Daiv's experience of a cop saying they'd have no idea what it was if they were looking right at it is would probably be true in almost every precinct in the country.

Here's the one of the only realistic scenarios where I can see someone with one plant getting charged with possession of L. williamsii. The person is wanted by the law for other crimes (burglary for example), they obtain a search warrant and in the process of the search they see a plant. Because they are out to take down this guy anyway, they will add any charges they can, even if they would ignore for an upstanding citizen.

Now, if you got a bunch of seeds and grew them into plants I would be careful about selling them (especially somewhere you can be tracked like Ebay) since you may look like a distributor.

[paulzie32]

I was under the impression that cultivated plants do not cotain any useable amounts of mescaline.

LOL I think that is Poison Dart Frogs. Those raised in captivity do not normally eat the toxic bugs their wild counterparts do... but I haven't heard that about Lophos. There are as others have said, some speices that do not produce the Alkaloid that gets you high.
I had read a story a few years back about a guy that set up a website to try to raise money to help pay his legal bills. From what I remember, he was being harassed by local authorities who insisted he was growing them for drug purposes, but he also grew other cactus. All were confiscated. I wish I could find the story.
If I do, I'll post it.

[John C]

I have 3 Loph species, including an L. williamsii. In my case, I called the sheriff and told them I grew cacti as a hobby and that I did come across a plant that is Lophophora williamsii - what he would know as "Peyote". I actually did not know I was getting this plant, but recognized it right off. So I told him I would like to grow it, but if he required it, I would turn it in. Anyway, the deputy was rather speechless, although he admitted that he wouldn't have the slightest clue what it was if he was staring right at it. He said he'd have to call me back. About an hour later, he called me back and said that he talked to the district attorney's office and they thought that in my case, it is not a problem and continue growing it. He said if anyone ever gave me trouble about it to call him and he gave me his name and badge number.

Take that story how you want. Since I have done stories with the Star Tribune, the local News channel, and the local PBS station, all I needed was someone to spot it in a picture or something. Of course, you probably will have very different results in a place like LA County California vs. Todd County MN. I think you get more people-friendly experience in rural areas.

Interesting story Daiv! That is nice of them to give you an exception!

I am sure you are right though, I doubt that nearly any law enforcement or government employee would recognize it if they were looking right at it - even with a correct plant tag saying L. williamsii. The only ones who could I.D. it would be serious cactus growers, or a drug user who really knew his stuff and intended to use peyote. Like others have said, I think law enforcement has more important things to worry about than a casual cactus grower growing one plant.

On a side note, did the video about your collection ever get published online (I think that was the PBS one - right?) It may have not been posted yet, or maybe I just missed it looking through the topics. Regardless, I still think it would be neat to see.

[promethean_spark]

I don't think 1 in 100 police officers could pick a peyote out of one of our collections. Frankly, I think they are illegal mainly for conservation purposes. If possession were legal there would be scads of junkies digging up all the wild plants and selling them. If the law was really concerned about people growing plants containing mescaline, we'd be a sad bunch because that would include many of our trichocereus, aztekium, pelecyphora, ect. I'm under the impression that if a plant is described as 'sacred' it's code for having been used as a drug.

OTOH, a homebrewer in santa cruz was busted on hard drug charges for making beer with poppy seeds from the grocery store as an ingredient (any grain can be used in making beer as long as the mix of grains has enough total enzymes to break the starches to sugars). Putting them in bread is apparently okay but making a tea with them - not so much. If the police decide to crucify you as an example, they can. Particularly if they find a plant with it's top chopped off - evidence of consumption.

[Steve Johnson]

I don't care about whether the pretext is a drug issue or conservation concerns, either way the law prohibiting all Lophs in California is IMO idiotic. In fact I'm contrarian enough to take it as a challenge. I find them to be very attractive plants, and I seriously doubt that law enforcement would bother to go after me, even if I have to go sub rosa to find a grown Loph in California. With that said, any paranoia I'd entertain would be to avoid putting photos up online anywhere. I'm not saying for sure that I'll follow through on this endeavor -- it's more a question of A. the lengths I'd have to go to find one, and B. if I wanted to take up the very limited space in my collection I could use for other cacti I'd like to get.

I know this comment may be academic on my part, but an interesting thread here nonetheless.

[DaveW]

I doubt if only L. williamsii is prohibited law enforcement agencies could tell the difference between it frickii, koehresii or alberto-vojtechii. I think only diffusa is more easily recognised by us due to it's more sickly green colour and they would not be able to tell that either. Mind you the way law enforcement agencies work is to confiscate the lot in case, so you might need to sue them to get them back. Could help to keep books or articles handy showing there are more species than williamsii, even they may look all the same to non collectors, then tell the officer to sort out which is which as he can only legally take the williamsii's if he wants to seize them!

Used to be quite a thing with the British police and pornography in decades past, they used to sieze all the magazines from some distributors who used to then apply to the courts and the judge used to order the police to give them all back again!

Maybe you ought to label all your williamsii's frickii, after all it's not your fault your not very good at identifying cactus species?

[hoteidoc]

Been thru this whole "thought game" when I realized (from my really old thinking) that I could actually grow these guys. Bottom-line, to keep it really simple, just be discrete & it's really a non-issue. Play whatever "game" you feel you need to - if any. I even had seed sent (from another forum) from Spain! So I've got a dozen seedlings - big deal! They're a pretty plant & I think I've gotten (spiritually) beyond self-induced vomition!