• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

online legal psychedelic drugs

Status
Not open for further replies.
shephard89 said:
aMT ftw. Brilliant drug thats gaining popularity , which is a shame as it will no doubt be banned :( . Defiently worth trying , just make sure you invest in scales . I only really take aMT, LSD , 4-aco-dmt and weed now . Everything else seems shit, including booze , MDxx etc
Click to expand...

I'll second that emotion. I can't stand drinking lately. I still find myself doing it on the odd night for I don't know what the fuck reason...but yeah, I've tried LSD instead of drinking at the last two parties i've gone too, and it's so much better ! I'm going to try some AMT at a party tonight though, should be fun !
 
thanks for all the info guys been very helpfull i never heard of this AMT but i really do like the sound of it i will do some research and try find any reliable suppliers of this i wont just buy something without researching i like to know the info first. if any you guys on here got any good advice i'd appreciate it very much.

i have done a quick look but cant seem to find any decent suppliers as of yet but when i get more time i will look into this.

and again thanks very much for all your help
 
Bardo5 said:
I'm pretty sure mescaline contaning cacti are ambiguous in the US. Peyote is sched I but I think san pedro and peruvian torch could go either way depending on its intended use.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as 'ambiguous' when it comes to legality, my friend. It's illegal. Here is the text of the Controlled Substances Act, which lists mescaline as a Schedule I substance, that makes any mescaline-containing cactus unambiguously Schedule I as well.

* (c) Hallucinogenic Substances

Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances,
Click to expand...

And there's no denying that San Pedro and Peruvian Torch cacti are "materials" containing mescaline.

The only legal defense is not INTENT, but evidence that you had no prior knowledge of the fact that these plants contained mescaline.
 
^ The San Pedro/Peruvian Torch cactus themselves are not scheduled. They are containers of a schedule I substance, which could lead to prosecution. Peyote is the only cacti which is explicitly scheduled.

San Pedro and the other columnar mescaline-containing cacti are not specifically scheduled, but they contain the controlled substance mescaline. Mescaline is a Schedule I substance in the U.S. Because of their ubiquitous availability through nurseries and major plant vendors across the country, as well as in arboretums and on government property, simple possession of columnar mescaline-containing cacti with no intent to ingest is de facto legal.

Sellers (or anyone) who represent the cactus as a source of mescaline or sell them for their psychoactive properties (for "getting high") are at far higher risk of prosecution. Any preparation of the cactus for ingestion would likely turn the plant into a clearly scheduled (illegal) material. We are not aware of any convictions for the possession or sale of non-peyote mescaline-containing cacti such as San Pedro, but this does not mean that the cacti are "legal", it just means that the cactus has not been considered a problem and is currently not treated as a controlled plant by the police.
Click to expand...

U.S. FEDERAL LEGAL SUMMARY
Mescaline-containing Cacti
REGULATED - No
STATUS - Ambiguous
SCHEDULE Contains Schedule I Chemical

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

So it's ambiguous, its not exactly legal but chances of being prosecuted for the cacti if there is no reason to believe it was intended for human consumption are low.
 
Bardo: this is true, but the CSA is also quite clear that any plant which contains a scheduled drug is treated as scheduled. The explicit scheduling of peyote is, from a legal/technical standpoint, completely redundant as mescaline is already scheduled. San Pedro and Peruvian Torch are both common, easily grown decorative cacti, though, so they have never been treated as the Schedule I carriers they indisputably are, luckily for all of us. So to be uber pedantic, I'd say its legal status is unambiguously 'illegal' - its enforcement status, on the other hand... ;)

If you get prosecuted you don't really have any legal defense; that said, the only way I can even imagine US officials prosecuting a case of San Pedro or Peruvian Torch possession is if they caught you red-handed midway through an extraction tek or some other method of prepping it for consumption, or if you went down on some other *major* drug charges and they searched your property looking for more to hang you with.
 
ok this thread might be going a little off topic here but can i just ask is 5-meo-dmt deffo legal in the uk? cuz i'm having a hard time finding any suppliers on the net. i found this one site but you gotta contact seller first i wont list the site on here for obvious reasons *snip*

its just i remeber when mephedrone was legal i had no trouble getting it online but this stuff seems difficult which is making me doubt wether its legal or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bardo5 said:
^ The San Pedro/Peruvian Torch cactus themselves are not scheduled. They are containers of a schedule I substance, which could lead to prosecution. Peyote is the only cacti which is explicitly scheduled.
Click to expand...


Erowid is WRONG. Did you not read the text I just pasted? Not only are specifically listed substances Schedule I, but "Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances," are also Schedule I.

"Any material... which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances... mescaline..." are considered Schedule I substances themselves. Cacti are WAY more illegal because if there are sentencing guidelines, instead of counting it as 400mg of mescaline, they're going to count your single cactus as 1lb of mescaline. It's the same exact situation as LSD on blotter paper, except the mescaline is in a plant.

There's a disconnect between the law and the enforcement of the law.

By the way, where did your phrase "intended for human consumption" come from? That has NOTHING to do with the Controlled Substances Act. It doesn't apply to anything related to this conversation in any way whatsoever. The only legal defense against possession of mescaline in the form of San Pedro is ignorance of the mescaline content. There is a specific federal prosecution which sets this precedent. They arrested and convicted some guy for receiving San Pedro at some point.
 
deano88 said:
ok this thread might be going a little off topic here but can i just ask is 5-meo-dmt deffo legal in the uk? cuz i'm having a hard time finding any suppliers on the net. i found this one site but you gotta contact seller first i wont list the site on here for obvious reasons *snip*

its just i remeber when mephedrone was legal i had no trouble getting it online but this stuff seems difficult which is making me doubt wether its legal or not.
Click to expand...

I do believe it's illegal in the UK in pure form... but have never heard of a case going so far as magistrate let alone Crown...

Make of that what you will.

Also, don't even begin to compare 5-MeO-DMT with fuckin' meph. Not even for a second :|
 
To continue the off-topic-ish digression: the intent for human consumption wording is indeed relevant in the Controlled Substances Act, but only in the context of the infamous Federal Analog Act (which is technically not its own act but rather an amendment adding a section to the CSA):

"(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 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 stimulant, 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."


Of course, this wouldn't apply to San Pedro and Peruvian Torch, because they contain mescaline itself, not an analog of mescaline. If they did contain an analog rather than mescaline itself, and that analog didn't already meet conditions (i) or (ii), then intent to consume to produce a psychoactive effect similar to that of mescaline would be enough to make it an illegal analog anyway.

Also important: look at (ii), which has similar wording but says nothing about intent. If the analog actually *works* to produce those effects, it's already covered regardless of intent, so I guess the only time the police would need to demonstrate intent to consume in order to charge you is if what you had wasn't even an active analog to begin with, but you thought it was and planned to ingest it or sell it as such. I'm not sure if such a charge would actually hold up but if I'm reading this right: if I fill a gelcap with baking powder and sell it to someone telling them it'll make them trip, I'm violating the Federal Analog Act and that capsule of baking powder must be considered a "controlled substance analog." What the hell? No wonder these laws aren't always enforced as written; they make no goddamn sense as written.
 
Last edited:
Whoops, thanks for the correction solistus. I forgot the FAA is an amendment and not a separate Act.
 
Y'all also forgot that the OP stated he is in the UK so couldn't give two shits about the obscure ins and outs of US law which has no relevance whatsoever to his question ;)

All good info though :)

Just utterly irrelevant to the specific topic being discussed ;)
 
Only thing I have personally tried is the fly agaric mushrooms and I only did it once. But man, i didnt weigh the cap but it was a fatty. I put it into a smoothie and drank it and the next thing i remember was complete disorientation lmao. I couldnt text correctly at all and I was just pretty out of it. It was kinda fun, but i really was in the wrong place to be on that much mushies. FFS. my cap must've been like 7g or somethin XD. i suppose a smaller dose would/could be fun.
 
Not to derail this thread back to "the obscure ins and outs of US law", but I have a question about said for Coolio and all other knowledgeable persons.

" (3) The Attorney General may, by regulation, exempt any compound, mixture, or preparation containing a controlled substance from the application of all or any part of this subchapter if he finds such compound, mixture, or preparation meets the requirements of one of the following categories:

(A) A mixture, or preparation containing a nonnarcotic controlled substance, which mixture or preparation is approved for prescription use, and which contains one or more other active ingredients which are not listed in any schedule and which are included therein in such combinations, quantity, proportion, or concentration as to vitiate the potential for abuse.

(B) A compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any controlled substance, which is not for administration to a human being or animal, and which is packaged in such form or concentration, or with adulterants or denaturants, so that as packaged it does not present any significant potential for abuse.

Couldn't a cactus (with spines, bogus other ingredients, and plenty of flesh) be considered just such a packaging? Especially if it were sold expressly for decorative properties?

Unfortunately, that whole subsection is based on the word "may", so he (the Attorney General) may always choose not to exempt it.

Also, I remember reading that Jonathan Sloan, who recently faced all sorts of charges about DMT and Mescaline for distributing plants that contained them, had those charges all dropped recently. On the other hand, the DEA still hasn't returned any of his property or assests, but still.
 
Last edited:
Yeah there are no exemptions made by the Attorney General yet.

Also, Jonathan Sloan was charged locally, not federally. The FDA was behind that case; they passed the case on to the local authorities to press state charges; the local DA then dropped them soon after. The federal CSA didn't have much of anything to do with it.
 
You two could argue about the law in the US til the sun goes down can imagine you two in the pub theres everybody else talking about girls, sex, sports, drugs etc then theres you two getting in a argument over what plant is a schedule 1 drug in the states or what ever Haha ;-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top