Canadian Law: What is the true reason for scheduling plants?

Great Debates
21

I thinkk this is not quite the point. I am not arguing natural products, i am arguing nature. The species, as a plant.

I am talking baout how criminal it is to own plants, and use plants. Not manufactured drugs.

Not heroin, but yes Papaver somniferum. Not cocaine, but yes Erythroxylum coca. Not hash, but yes cannabis staiva.

One could call the plants containers for the drugs as they do in Australia. So if you import 1000kg of coca leaves like coca cola would in the states (to be later extracted), they would treat as if you were importing 10000kg of pure cocaine. In many countries they equate a single plant to XX in weight of final product. I believe the USA does this as well, but cant be 100% sure on that.

Despite what social problems refined drugs have, until it starts truly affecting others on a physical level, then i feel they have every right to use them. Just as much as i feel every person has the right to cough syrup or corn.

my bringing up the jail thing is only to put more power behind the word jail. many people just say it and don’t even bother thinking how horrible the whole ordeal is. I am trying to make the point that growing some plants, and maybe even using the plants you grew to get high, is not a criminal offence and is (should be) a human right.

Getting high often causes little harm, this depends on species and I wont get into it in great depth as i am well versed in that area. The ones that are dangerous, and which there are many of and ironically are not often/ever controlled, tend not to be habit forming. The most common habit forming ones are probably opiates adn cocaine. Cocaine is a rather involved process and takes a great deal of material that is not easily grown outside semi tropical mountains. Opium is easy to grow/use. I am not going to debate opium addiction as its an addiction and in its current state a bad thing as you have problems when you are addicted to something and cant have it due to XXX reasons.

so, plants should not be controlled aside from conservation status and import status in consern to disease adn noxious weeds (as they already are). Although sometimes you get air heads (Austrlia in one state) that put a slow growing, rot prone cactus (peyote) oin the invasive species list.

These won’t likely be legalized and people allowed to self regulate on their own terms anytime soon. But I think medicinally it is really a form of torture to take people away from something that will help them. People need more responisibilty and more rights to be free, we should be done with nannies by our teen years.

What i am trying to find is a canadian book/website/public file stating the reasoning behind each plant that is banned.

here are some links and info for others.
The act in Canada.

Controlled plants of canada (note some controls are not outright bans but restrictions of movement)
Sched. 1 Papaver somniferum -Opium Poppy
Sched. 1 Erythroxylon - Coca (that reads the entire genus, many species)

Sched. 2 Cannabis - Marijuana (It’s not even a debate anymore how criminal it is to criminalize this incredibly useful plant)

Sched. 4 Catha edulis - khat

Sched. 6 Ephedrine (erythro-2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpropan-1-ol), its salts and any plant containing ephedrine or any of its salts (That is quite a lot of plants actually)

A question for you law folk. When the act states a chemical name, say Mescaline, and states “any salt thereof”, does this also by default include teh living plant? I assume not, however in the Mescaline case they also go on to exclude a specific species of plant, implying they are included. see below:
17.
Mescaline (3,4,5–trimethoxybenzeneethanamine) and any salt thereof, but not peyote (lophophora)
So mescaline is controlled, and a specieis of plant (Lophophora) is an exception.

these substances do not exclude any speices:
11.
Psilocin (3–[2–(dimethylamino)ethyl]–4–hydroxyindole) and any salt thereof (Many mushroom species)

Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) (N,N–diethyllysergamide) and any salt thereof (Many morning glory species)

N,N–Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) (3–[(2–dimethylamino) ethyl]indole) and any salt thereof (DMT is found in thousands of species of plants and animals, including our own)

there are amny more like this, and it seems to leave awide gap for translation.

22

Irrelevant. People don’t have a right to own something just because it is found in nature. Laws restrict the ownership of the plants you mentioned, and they also restrict the ownership of plants or animals that may cause damage to ecosystems (i.e., invasive species that would cause damage to other species like you mentioned). Laws also limit what pets people can own.

Just because something is found in nature doesn’t mean there’s a right to own it.

ETA: it seems you’re kind of making two arguments: you just want to talk about owning plants that could produce drugs, and yet you want to disregard the fact that the plants are sources of drugs. And then you go on about how people should be able to use drugs. Well, which is it? Let’s just be straight here, you’re saying that people should be allowed to own plants so they can manufacture their own drugs, correct?

23

But only the ones you think should be delisted, is that right? The others are all okay to control.

It sounds like you just want the line drawn slightly more over that way, so as to accommodate your own proclivities, and the rest is just window dressing.

Guess you’ll just have to wait, like the rest of us, until the day comes … “When I’m king of the universe…”

Till then, keep on tilting at them windmills, someone’s got to do it!

24

Oy. No all wrong.

I am arguing plants should eb legal to own, period. Plants as far as disrupting the natural balance (weeds/disease carriers) i am fine with the laws because they are not banned. If you import some morning glories, you don’t go to jail. If you import hemp, you can.

Fair enough, but we could split hairs as i am not talking about owning it, simply caring for it on land i have legal rights to use. I could argue just because a species in nature has a chemical which can alter our species’ perception doesn’t mean there is just reason to be jailed either. in fact that’s what I am arguing.

No…i am saying people should be able to grow plants on their land regardless of whether they want to go further and extract drugs from them.

No, I am for the legal right to grow any plant. The thing is the laws restricting invasive species and such do not draw the same penalty as plants such as marijuana. So arguing against those laws (which don’t physically and mentally harm people when punished, and do actually serve a purpose) would be less productive.
People are losing their lives for growing these plants, that is wrong. Surely I am not the only one who sees this? And I have yet to find, and no one here has yet to hint at the core of the issue: the information. Where is the original texts that ban these plants? i am not seeing it. I can’t believe we are all following this BS without actually having something in paper explaining.

25

I may have been born yesterday, but it wasn’t last night.

I fail to believe you for one microsecond that people would grow marijuana, opium poppies, cocoa leaves, or whatever and have no interest in extracting drugs from those plants. It’s just not a plausible argument at all.

26

Well, let me be the first to wade in then, and state outright, I do not want to see Opium production taken up in my country, just so you feel freer and want a hobby. There are social consequences to such things. Have you actually visited any countries where opium production continues, to see the social cost? It ain’t pretty.

I, and I believe, the vast majority of people, have no problem with this plant being illegal because of the social costs. As it’s a democracy, I think you’ll have to do better than, “But it’s a naturally occurring plant, dude!”

Not that the majority wouldn’t like to see Marijuana delisted. Most probably would. That’s a far cry from delisting opium or coca. Because they are plants.

Natural, God provided, blessed by saints - none of it changes that some plants produce horrific social consequences, that the vast majority care not to risk in the name of your personal freedom in pursuit of a hobby.

And now, I believe we’re back in …“When I rule the world…” territory again.

27

The law you’re looking for is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c 19. In Part:

There are the bans…they’re not original texts…it’s a 1995 law, replacing precursors, but it’s what’s in force now.

28

Right, because it’s well-known that Canada has capital punishment for growing marijuana and opium. :rolleyes:

29

sorry i should clarify. Not your life as in dead. Your life as in social, financial and family life will be seriously damaged.

yes thanks, i have copied some of it above already. But i cannot for the life of me find anywhere describing the reasoning behind the laws. Often they will have a discussion before outright banning, thats what im trying to find. the logic behind their decisions.

Nor do I. the discussion is not about opium but about Papaver somnifera. This is not so i have a hobby, it is so thousands of people can have their lives back and not be forced to live in a cell like a rat for growing plants. I currently live in Asia and have for some years. I have gone all through Asia helping farmers diversify crops to make money to feed their families. I know first hand the social effects of opium, among many others. And this wont be popular or on topic so let it die after this: Opium is not a big pull on society when left to the traditional sort of farmers who grow and use it. IN cities and western areas it becomes a problem. When you see farmers in a town smoking in their huts at night, its less of a problem. The problem is a social one, not strictly a chemical one. thats another debate though, here we are talking about plants, not chemicals.

If your grandmother was arrested for 3 years for her patch of opium poppies in her garden, you might sing a different toon. I would agree that is not likely to happen, as even police tend to have some compassion for freedom, but as the laws is written grandma can go pay her time because she is a hardened criminal.

not so much. In Canada cocaine can never be produced from raw plants, its to cold and you need many acres to make anything. Its called just not realistic. Legalizing the plant would do nothing to the industry. Also the raw leaf is not addictive and very much medicinal hence its use as a medicine for a long time in the west. It is an incredibly healthy plant to have in your diet, and cocaine addiction is just not possible with raw material, its a very refined drug. The only plant drug, in respect to being in Canada, that could possibly argued is the opium poppy because when the drugs are extracted they have serious social draws in Canada and it can be grown in sufficient quantity. That said there are many reports of people using poppy pod tea for years with relatively few social costs. We could also bring in ethanol, which clearly has a far greater economic cost than any opium ball could hope for.

once again, not. I am talking about nature. This is banning a living entity. A living species of life, and being punished severely for having it. And as of yet i have sen little to zero evidence supporting such drastic measures from the government in their decisions (I have asked them repeatedly without an answer, which is why I am even here on a public forum asking).

I never stated that, that’s not my business nor is it yours. Nor is it the focus of the debate. the focus on the debate is the legality of a living species, no the intent of a human with given species. There are already plenty of laws not only controlling the chemicals inside these plants, but on some of the chemicals used in extracting them. Ricin, a very nasty chemical, is banned probably worldwide. But the plant here is perfectly legal, you can even sell seeds in walmart where kiddies can pick them up and play with them. one cracked seed and an imperfect digestive system, and you are dead. But they still don’t ban it, thankfully. However the processes of making a chemical from it is, and this is what i would consider a good compromise. Although with some drugs, hallucinogens specifically, it is very much oppressive to tell someone they are unable to hallucinate, that is a human right. I say this because hallucinogens tend not to be addictive, they tend to have tolerance periods limiting repeated use, and most of them have no known physical health issues.

This was my issue with the Salvia divinorum thing in Canada. Their argument was that hallucinating is wrong. What right does anyone have over that? In literal terms, dreaming is a hallucination of sorts. If there is no negative impact on society, there is little argument.

I think people really do not realize the sheer number of species with drugs in them. It is seriously huge, and i would bet that even close to half of all flowering plants contain narcotic/psychoactive compounds. Homo sapiens itself is a container for a few controlled substances, as are other animals

30

and again…“you just want the line drawn slightly more over that way, so as to accommodate your own proclivities”.

:rolleyes: You get to tell us to drop it? Because it’s not where you’d like the discussion to go? Seriously?

Except for his health, his family and the children he’ll sell to pay for it, sure. I have lived in Asia as well, and with this sentence, for me, you just flushed any credibility you had, down the drain. It speaks to how your only concern is really yourself, in my opinion.

Okay then, well we clearly shouldn’t be concerned about it at all then, right? How ridiculous!

No one’s Gran has been sent to jail for growing poppies in the garden, by your own admission. Do you even understand how such silly points are undermining any point you may have had?

In your universe perhaps. Tell it to the guy who had his face eaten off by a guy who was hallucinating.

Suddenly I can totally understand why you’re not getting any answers. You are deaf to any opinion but your own. It doesn’t seem like you want to engage in discussion so much as just an opportunity to convince everyone of your view.

I remain unconvinced by your silly ‘it’s a living entity’ argument.

31

Ok I’ll bite on this, assuming you are not considering any method of consumption extraction(obviously the reason for cultivation and possession is consumption).

Why would a law that allowed possession and use of the whole plant, but criminalized extraction and purification of certain compounds be a problem?

32

For the same reason it’s still a crime to hold up a bank with a fake gun. If you want the law enforced effectively you have to give the police a fighting chance, at least.

Allowing people to grow plants but just not ‘extract’ is ridiculous from an enforcement point of view. This would be entirely counterproductive to the ends you’re trying to achieve, not to mention increase enforcement costs substantially, I should think.

33

Codeine products are over the counter in many countries, with the proper equipment that codeine can be extracted and turned into heroin, yet anyone is allowed to purchase it.

34

I can think of several examples of laws against things that, if one were to put blinders on and totally ignore any context whatsoever, you could argue should be legal.

Possession of burglary tools. What is wrong with walking around at night in dark clothing with a prybar and latex gloves? There are already laws against burglary.

What is wrong with owning a fully automatic high-powered rifle with no serial numbers that is not registered with the appropriate officials? There are already laws against assault with a deadly weapon.

Here’s another thought: police shouldn’t be allowed to harass people buying lots of fertilizer and diesel. There’s nothing wrong with either of those commodities, in fact, they are very common. If the government starts getting concerned about every person who rents a U-Haul to move a few hundred pounds of fertilizer and diesel, then we’re going to be sentencing farmers to their doom in state-run dungeons (to turn a phrase inspired by the OP).

And why should large cities ban people from holding demonstrations in the streets while wearing masks to conceal their identity? Sure, the US has a long history of hooded white men holding bonfires in residential areas at night, but there are laws against that, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask, right?

If one is willing to totally ignore the real world, lots of things might be considered harmless activities.

35

I gave a real world example of codeine(which can be extracted and through chemistry turned into heroin) which is not in itself illegal per se. But show intent or possess other materials involved and that can change and become criminal.

What is the difference?

36

So, some countries see value in allowing codeine to be sold over-the-counter as an analgesic. Wonderful. To my recollection, the places I’ve been that allow that tend to limit sales to reduce the odds that it will be used for illicit purposes. The US does the same thing for Sudafed. There’s a balance that’s struck between legitimate use of a product and the risk for abuse.

I’m saying that there is no legitimate reason for someone to claim that they were innocently growing a field of marijuana or opium poppies. Of course they’re growing it for illicit purposes. There’s no balance to be struck at all. Just because plants are, like, totally natural, man, makes no difference whatsoever.

37

Elbows, no offense my friend but you just don’t seem to comprehend.

argument: all plants should be legal. I gave examples of other dangerous plants that are not illegal/controlled and i feel they should remain legal.

What you are not getting is iI am talking about the plant, the species of living life. Not opium. I am not drawing lines to be more beneficial to me i am talking about how this species of life is actually controlled as a living species, and my thinking of how immoral and wrong that is.

I said that to present my train of thought, but it is off topic to the debate of living plants. Understand what i mean?

Opium use in traditional Asian settings are FAR different than addiction in a city in the west, any idiot can clearly see that. I’m not hear giving out all the pros of drug use, i am well aware of its health risks. People can make that decision on their own, and they do. Make drugs legal would be easy, just make it known they are paying all their own costs. In a nanny state this wont ever work because it would be bad government to let a person rot and die due to their own irresponsibility. Again off topic, I am discussing legality of living plants. Maybe we can make a second thread discussing legality of narcotics, i would love to discuss that elsewhere.

Exactly, it is completely ridiculous to think of someone going to jail for growing a plant. IN the word of the law, grandma technically can go to jail just like you could for growing a marijuana plant, or a coca plant. Its no different except for the social acceptance of the situation, duh. This kind of hypocrisy is weird and rampant.

then try to read what i am saying. The logic behind many of these plants being controlled is short sighted and lacking. I think no one has answered my question simply because they cant find a logical answer. Nor can I. Guy getting his face eaten off by a tripping person. Thats pretty scientifical, and useful. how many people died in car accidents? tobacco related deaths? ethanol related deaths? dog/pet related deaths? compare that to eating a plant, tripping and dieing. It happens but the numbers are hugely one sided, statics alone prove many things here.

I wonder how much law enforcement and related costs would be eliminated legalizing just marijuana? Never mind the economic benefits to its production, but that may be not so much given how many other industries it would ruin. Financially speaking, it makes more sense to legalize.
Grude, another very similar example as you state would be ephedrine/pseudo-epehdrine.

so hypothetical situation for those of you lucky enough to live in the real world.

Grandma can grow opium poppies in her garden, and as of yet I have not seen one of them go to jail for it. This is, I am guessing, strictly due to intent of the grower. Granny probably isn’t making poppy pod tea (probably).

Now what if granny grew a large marijuana plant in her garden for same reason, its pretty. She didn’t smoke it, only grew it. The plants are both scheduled, they are being grown by grandma, but do you think police would drive by and not do anything if it were a marijuana plant? Is marijuana more dangerous than opium? This is the logic i am discussing, and the fact that there is very little of it in regards to drug laws and psychedelics.

38

no one mentioned a field. There could easily be restrictions on plant quantity. there already is in many places for things like tobacco…why not other things? I don’t need a field of opium poppies, but i like a few in my raised beds. And frankly i like the look of Cannabis a s a backdrop, its very fine like bamboo.

and always adding “ya man” type stuff, although effective at discrediting my point of view, is kind of a scape goat for not really wanting to think something out. I’m not a hippy in the sense like that, only in the sense i believe in human rights and freedom.

39

Too bad. Just because one person may like pretty plants that can produce drugs doesn’t mean there is any good reason to open a door that would obviously be used for activities that would remain illegal under your proposal (the production of drugs from those plants). I say this in the same spirit in that just because one person may responsibly carry an illegal weapon of some kind (maybe a sawed-off shotgun), is not a sufficient reason to legalize that weapon.

Again, there is nothing unique about plants that make them less subject to regulation. There is no reason to treat plants differently than man-made items, whether the thing in question is a gun, PCP, or anything else.

Yes, it is aimed at making light of your point of view, because your point of view has no other support than “plants should be legal because they’re natural.”

40

Coastal, could you explain a bit more clearly why being natural means that something should not be regulated? That would do a lot toward convincing me your position is correct.