|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
OregonBlues
newbie
Registered: 03/11/02
Posts: 36
Loc: Oregon
|
legality of San Pedro Cacti
#617523 - 04/24/02 03:54 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I have heard conflicting reports on this cacti and its legal status in the United States. If any one knows please let post of PM.
|
MrNobody
Loser

Registered: 01/22/02
Posts: 178
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: legality of San Pedro Cacti [Re: OregonBlues]
#618933 - 04/25/02 11:26 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I have heard that they are legal to own, but illegal to consume. How stupid is that?
-------------------- Free thinkers are dangerous.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 7 days
|
Re: legality of San Pedro Cacti [Re: MrNobody]
#624772 - 05/02/02 09:36 AM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> I have heard that they are legal to own, but illegal to consume. How stupid is that?
You heard 100% correct (in the US). The cactus is legal to own. It is a very common cactus and would be as difficult to outlaw as morning glories would be. The cactus is commonly used in landscaping in the southwest.
Basically, anything you take to get 'stoned' is illegal in the US even if it is not mentioned by name in the lawbooks. If you drink water with the intent of getting stoned, you are consuming an illegal drug. Makes one just love congress, no? Anymore they are trying to make it illegal to even write about illegal drugs. I guess nobody in congress ever bothered to read the constitution or first amendment... they must have all been too busy cashing their Enron checks.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Macey Howard
Formally MOE HOWARD


Registered: 07/02/99
Posts: 14,165
Loc: Georgia
Last seen: 6 years, 6 months
|
Post deleted by Moe Howard [Re: OregonBlues]
#627264 - 05/11/02 11:38 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Hugs and Kisses!
|
baraka



Registered: 07/15/00
Posts: 10,768
Loc: hyperspace
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: legality of San Pedro Cacti [Re: Macey Howard]
#627941 - 05/12/02 02:51 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
heh i bought a san pedro at home depot last year. It was very unpotent. Good luck im gonna check to see if they have some at my home depot.
-------------------- This is the only time I really feel alive.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist



Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,212
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 45 minutes
|
Re: legality of San Pedro Cacti [Re: OregonBlues]
#634411 - 05/17/02 12:09 PM (20 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
No drug is illegal to consume. San Pedro, Morning Glory, Woodrose, Mimosa hostilis, Khat, P.viridis, etc... are illegal to possess with intent to consume.
Salvia divinorum is legal to possess with intent to consume, as is Kava Kava, and Ephedrine.
It is also "legal" to possess any prescription drug if you still have a pill bottle and an expired prescription for that drug.
-------------------- (•_•) <) )~ ANTIFA / \ \(•_•) ( (> SUPER / \ (•_•) <) )> SOLDIERS / \
|
BuzzDoctor
Runs withscissors


Registered: 08/10/99
Posts: 948
Loc: Atlantis
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
Re: legality of San Pedro Cacti [Re: OregonBlues]
#644672 - 05/25/02 10:30 AM (20 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Is the glass half-full or half-empty? I say it is both.
|
|