Most of us here, if not all, collect cacti for the love of them, not because of what chemicals they may contain. However, there are some proposed legislative changes which will make many of our beloved species illegal to grow or possess.

The proposed changes can be found here.

Along with countless other thousands of plants that would become illegal if these changes were to go through, would be all mescaline contaning cacti (species from, from example, Trichocereus, Lophophora, Aztekium, Pelecyphora, Turbinicarpus, Myrtillocactus, etc.).

Serious collectors and hobbyists stand to lose many of their plants or face criminal charges if they don't rid themselves of these species. Businesses will lose money because of these changes. Criminals will not suffer, rather, it will only serve to create a black market and alert people to the fact that these plants can be used as drugs.

Submissions are being invited from the general public up until March 11, 2011. All of us should be making submissions outling why these changes are a very bad idea.

I have made a suggestion to GetUp, an organisation that campaigns against various issues such as this one, to take it up as a campaign. The process that a suggestion goes through is a democratic one though, so it needs to be voted up to show that people care enough about it. I ask that you can at least vote for this suggestion to move it up in the queue. it only takes a few seconds and an email address.

Please find the voting page here.

Don't let them do this to us!

well thats sh*t trichos are my favorite,

I wouldn't go raising hell with the local member just yet...

I read with interest the following paragraphs:

L. Legitimate use defence - plants

90. The model controlled plant schedule expands the list of categories of plants and fungi. The
collection and use of certain plants by botanists and collectors raises the question of whether there is
a need for a legitimate use defence, and on what grounds this would be available. For example,
botanists or plant collectors may have a legitimate use of cactus species where possession would
otherwise be an offence.

91. Similarly, given that all genera of cannabis are controlled plants, cultivation of any variety is
an offence against Commonwealth legislation (subject to the defence in section 313.1 of the
Criminal Code). It may be timely, in the context of considering application of the model schedules,
to consider whether a defence might be warranted to allow commercial exploitation of industrial
hemp for fibre or other legitimate uses.

Question L
Does the model schedule of controlled plants create any problems of inadvertent criminalisation,
particularly in relation to the offence of selling a controlled plant within Australia?

This provision - a "legitimate use defence" - would seem to protect collectors from prosecution as their activities would come under the umbrella of "legitimate use". I also note an explicit reference to cultivation of industrial hemp as "legitimate use" which in my opinion is a positive step forward in relation to this plant.

My only concern at this stage would be how offences are set out in legislation, and whether the defence has to be invoked in response to a prosecution attempt. To my mind, it would much more appropriate for the element of "non-legitimate use" to be a requirement for the prosecution to establish, rather than as a presumption to be rebutted by the defense at trial.

It is still worth of getting the member knowledgeable about this, and getting a submission together that entails the effect of garnering support for this defense.

If we sit down and allow it to occur, they could conveniently remove this possible clause in the law, and as such, our ability to grow these plants?

As you have referenced, it raises a question, doesn't actually state that this would be a part of their ruling.

Either way, this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Who are they to think they can criminalise nature? Karma's a b*tch...

The unintended consequences of this legislation will, I think, make it pretty unworkable. Criminalising the cultivation of many common garden plants including a very large number of indigenous species is downright laughable. Furthermore, I'm certain police don't want to be tied up with this sort of nonsense and have enough on their plates dealing with drunk and violent bogans before they become concerned with a gardener who unknowingly has a scheduled brugmansia flowering in their front yard.

The point is, is that a blanket law like this wouldn't be enforced. But if then they could selectively enforce it on anyone they wish. Regardless of how it would work, we should stop it before this become legislation.

While I have little to add on this topic (I think you all make valid points). I do know of a case where similar laws were selectively enforced on an old and very experienced collector. He was very unwise to try to import a few plants that are hard to get here without paper work hoping they might slip through. It resulted in a raid by customs and federal police on his home. They confiscated all the plants he had in these categories as well as all his endangered species, a collection that took several decades to establish. After over a year of fighting and much expense most of his plants were returned to him(some died, most were in poor health). I am quite sure the raid left this poor guy and his family feeling violated and persecuted and as I understand it customs didn't even need a warrant.
Now I am the first to agree that what he did was stupid and irresponsible but it seems the reaction of the authorities was excessive. I can say that I and many others who know the story feel we may be vulnerable to similar persecution. This has resulted in some of the master collectors I know becoming very cagey about who they will allow to visit their collections...

Thank you for adding that cryptocarpa. What you described is disgraceful and serves as a lesson to others. Unfortunately, if these law changes are to pass, it is people like us that will be persecuted the most.

Just receieved an email from one of the Aussie Societies and if people wish to make submissions, this site has more info and also a ready made email form for you to send your email submission of protest to the AG.

Very well done actually !

www.gardenfreedom.com

Just a reminder to get your protest submissions in by Friday, the cut off date...

Thanks for the reminder Nav.
It is very important that all of us with an interest in these plants and a valid perspective on the issues addressed by this legislation make a submission to prevent our freedom to collect cacti being outlawed by a nanny state trying to protect us from ourselves!

Agreed ^

I only found out about this today, read it online in the paper, and it led me to joining this forum. I haven't been growing cactus for long, but I bought my first cuttings from a place that grew Peruvian apples, Koubo, for southern restaurants. My concern is that this proposed legislation will prevent the growing of this fruit.

From my research it seems all cacti have edible fruit. If I can grow it organically on my property to feed myself, I should be allowed to. Unfortunately, I missed finding out about it before the cut-off date.

I will ring my federal member, Warren Truss, on Monday to let him know what I think about it, I doubt it will make any difference though.

It was announced at the C.S.S.A. meeting last night....Due to the large number of negative responses to the proposed legislation it has been scrapped and will be reconsidered in its entirety.
This is yet to be officially confirmed but the person who made the announcement is very highly regarded.
It may be premature , but.... !

Great news