Having just had the honor of spending five glorious days in the Nederlands and being able to spend three of those days at the only Legal Government approved and run magic mushroom farm in the country, I am please toshare with you, my heros, some of the beautiful cultivated images of the in vitro large-scaled cultivation of Panaeolus subbalteatus.
During this trip, I froze because the weather was four times colder than Seattle, and I had massive camera problems. My electronics on my $500 dollar digital Nikon 4300 Cool Pix were fucked and out of about 400-500 photos taken only about 50-60 of the subb images were any good. The majority cannot be posted due to prior commitments with Shroom Talk mag. My film camera, a Nikon FM also had something wrong. Four rolls of film came out blank when developed. I believe the friggin screening process at the Dulles International airport in Washington D.C. fuck my film, up and customs confiscated flower seeds I bought at the airport, almost $80.00 dollars worth of flower and herb seeds (none of them illegal in Illinois or in Seattle, Washington. The l;ocation of my arrival according to my plane tickets.
I was suppose to go to Chicago and then to Seattle.
United Airlines in Amsterdam closes their gates forty minutes prior to take off and no one was allowed onto the plane once the gates closed. So me and quite a few others were bumped, although we were on time at the airport and in lince for boarding passes, but the ugfly 60-year-old United Airline employees put us all on standby to the Capital and that was really the last kind of air space I wanted to fly over. So when I went to develope the four rolls of film here in Seattle, those four rolls of film were blank.
Again I am reposting here the Un Charter which, according to the United Nations which write s that fresh Psilocybine mushrooms are not illegal to have.
It will be posted under the 7 photographs I am posting of the Panaeolus subbalteatus. Please take the time to read this information because it is important to all of us to understand. Someday some of us, god forbid, may need to use this in a legal setting.
Boomer2
Enjoy these beautiful images.
(//http://mushroomjohn.com/amsterdam/supersub1abc.jpg)
(//http://mushroomjohn.com/amsterdam/supersub2abc.jpg)
(//http://mushroomjohn.com/amsterdam/supersub3abc.jpg)
(//http://mushroomjohn.com/amsterdam/supersub4abc.jpg)
(//http://mushroomjohn.com/amsterdam/supersub7abc.jpg)
(//http://mushroomjohn.com/amsterdam/supersub5abc.jpg)
(//http://mushroomjohn.com/amsterdam/supersub6abc.jpg)
Of anyone here wishes to see even more photos s then visit:
//http://www.freshmushrooms.nl
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
And here is the UN charter regarding the legality of these fresh mushroosm throughout the world.
The Convention on Psychoactive Substances and the National Legal Practices
Psychoactive mushrooms not controlled by international conventions
According to the United Nations International Narcot*ics Control Board mushrooms containing psilocine and psilocybin are not controlled under the 1971 Convention on Psy*chotropic Substance. The INCB is of the opinion that consequently, preparations (e.g. decoctions) made of these plants are not under international control and, therefore, not subject to any of the articles of the 1971 Convention. The secretary of the board wrote on September 13, 2001:
“The International Narcotics Control Board Secretariat has recently received an inquiry from attorneys who represent defendants in a criminal case in your country regarding mushrooms that contain the substances psilocine and psilocybin. (---) The INCB consulted with the Scientific Section and the Legal Advisory Section of the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) in the preparation of this reply (---) As you are aware, mushrooms containing the above substances are collected and abused for their hallucinogenic affects. As a matter of international law, no plants (natural materials) containing psilocine and psilocybin are at present controlled under the Convention on Psy*chotropic Substances of 1917. Consequently, preparations (e.g. decoctions) made of these plants are not under international control and, therefore, not subject to any of the articles of the 1971 Convention.(---) It should be noted however, that criminal cases are decided with reference to domestic law, which may otherwise provide for controls over mushrooms containing psilocine and psilocybin†(appendix 1, letter September 13, 2001 of Herbert Schaepe, Secretary of the Board).
In 2004 the Board established an ad hoc working group to look into this matter anew. After a thorough study and discussion the working group concluded that the opinion expressed by the Secretariat in 2001 on the issue should remain as it is (appendix 2, letter of May 25, 2005 of Mr. R Lousberg, member of the INCB, with appendix).
National Jurisprudence: The Netherlands
Despite this clear explanation by the Narcotics Control Board, national states like the Netherlands and the United States, for example, seem to have a hard time accepting this point of view. After all, it would imply that the individual states are not compelled by any international treaty to criminalize the use of psychoactive mushrooms or for example ayahuasca (a psycho-active tea originally brewed in the Amazons).
The Dutch Supreme Court referred, in the past, to the Conven*tion of 1971 in their interpreta*tion or explanation of the Dutch legisla*tion on psychotropic substances. As a result possession or selling of fresh mushrooms is not under control of the Dutch Drug Law. Since the Dutch Courts realized however that this implied the decriminalization of psilocybe mushroom tea or -cookies, for example, as well as the psychoactive ayahuasca, it changed its policy on this matter. In two judgments, on November 18, 1998 and November 5, 2002, the Dutch Supreme Court decided that any processing of mushrooms containing psilocybine, including simply drying the plants, turn them into a substance which is prohibited by law (appendix 3 and 4 Dutch Supreme Court, NJ 1998/213 and NJ 2003/488). This means that the Dutch Supreme Court has chosen a more restrictive drug policy on mushrooms than the Interna*tional Convention on Psycho*tropic Substances requires. It also means that processing any natural substance containing a hallucino*genic like certain mushrooms renders its possession or delivery illegal in the Netherlands. For Dutch law, such processing would make the original natural material equal to the pure psycho*tropic substance which it contains by na*ture.
The implication for the Netherlands is, that you can freely eat a fresh psilocybe mushroom in the streets. Smart shops keep them fresh in their refrigerators for you. However, as soon as you buy this mush*room dried or prepared in a cookie, you become punishable. If you sell or deliver this preparation to someone else, you will basically be risking a prison sentence of 8 years. The same applies to using or delivering ayahuasca. You are allowed to chew the vine of the Banisteriopsis Caapi, even when you combine it with some leaves of the Psychotria Viridis. But don't drink the ayahuasca tea, which is traditionally brewed in the Amazons from a mixture of these two plants.
The same goes for the dried or grated nutmeg in your kitch*en cabinet. By nature, the nutmeg contains the psychotropic substance MDMA, mentioned on the Schedules of the Con*vention on Psychotropics Substances and the Dutch drug law. Serving your family a meal prepared with some grated dried nutmeg, in theory, puts you at risk for a prison sentence of 8 years in the Netherlands.
International respect for Mother Nature
Old magical and religious rites
The authors of the Conven*tion on Psychotropic Substances were warning against those exact consequences. In the United Nations Conference (for the adoption of a protocol on psycho*tropic substances) the US-delegation said:
that is was not worth attempting to impose controls on biological substances from which psychotropics sub*stances could be obtained (Records 1971, Volume II, p. 38/39).
Psychotropics Substances after all can be found in a large diversity of living organisms, among which mushrooms, cacti, fishes and nuts. Any endeavor to control this would mean the extinction (extermination) and annihilation (destruction) of a currently unpredictable diversity of plants and animals.
The official Commentary on the Convention is crystal-clear on the fact that neither infu*sions nor the roots of such plants as the Mimosa Hostilis or Psilocybe mushrooms are covered by the Convention. The commentary men*tioned explicit*ly:
Neither the crown, fruit, mescal button of the Peyote cactus nor the roots of the plant Mimosa Hostilis nor Psilocybe mushrooms themselves are included in Sche*dule I, but only their respective active principals Mes*caline, DMT and Psilobyne (Psilocine, Psilotsin). (.....). An infusion of the roots of the Mimosa Hostilis is used (.....) and (.....) beverages made from such mushrooms are used (Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Vienna 21 February 1971, Art. 32, Reservations, p. 386).
The fact is that at the time of signing, the Convention offered the individual states a possibility for reservations with regard to plants growing wild on their territory that were traditionally used by certain small, clearly determined groups in magical or religious rites. For example, the US made such reservation for Peyote, harvested and distribut*ed for use by the Native American Church. Canada did the same. Peru, for example, made a reservation for ayahuasca as well as for the cactus known as San Pedro (containing mescaline and used by indigenous medicine men or shamans). The Commentary underlines, however, that such reserva*tions are only made for a distant future, for the possible occasion that infusions like ayahuasca or cacti like Peyote or San Pedro, or mushroom beverages were ever to be placed on Schedule I of the Convention. In that case, the reserva*tions already in place could give the individual state legislatures the freedom to not criminalize the traditional use of those plants. Peru could then make an official exemption in their drug legislation for the traditional use of for example, ayahuasca. In this respect the official commentary underlines:
It may be pointed out that at the time of this writing (1971) the continued toleration of the use of hallucino*genic substances (.... does not .....) require reserva*tion (.....). Schedule I does not list any of the natural hallucinogenic materials in question, but only chemical substances which constitute the active principals con*tained in them (ibidem Commentary, p. 387).
The Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States
The District Court of New Mexico accepted this interpretation of the Convention in 2002 in a decision dealing with the request by the Uniao do Vegetal (UDV) to protect their free*dom to use ayahuasca in their religious ceremonies. It decided that the Treaty does not appear to extend to 'Hoasca'. The court stated:
that it felt appropriate to turn to the Commentary, which makes clear that (.....) the scheduling of a hallucinogenic chemical in the Convention does not imply the scheduling of a plant that contains that chemical (decision of the United States District Court for the district of New Mexico, August 12, 2002, p. 58.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court of the United States recently decided otherwise. February 21, 2006 it ruled:
“The District Court found that the Convention (of 1971) does not cover ‘hoasca’(---) We do not agree. The Convention provides that ‘a preparation is subject to the same measures of control as the psychotropic substances which it contains and defines ‘preparation’ as ‘any solution or mixture, in whatever physical state, containing one or more psychotropic substances’ (---) Hoasca is a ‘solution or mixture’ containing DMT; the fact that it is made by the simple process of brewing plants in water, as opposed to some more advanced method, does not change that. To the extend the commentary suggests plants themselves are not covered by the Convention that is of no moment â€" the UDV seeks to import and use a tea brewed from plants, not the plants themselves, and the tea plainly qualifies as a ‘preparation’ under the Convention (appendix 3: Supreme Court of the United states, February 21, 2006, Uniao Do Vegetal, page 16/17).
From these examples it may be clear that the national jurisprudence has a unimpeded ability to give a more extensive interpretation of the concept of a ’preparation’ of a psychotrop*ic substance than the INCB of the United Nations. Illustrative are the decisions of the Dutch as well as the United States Su*preme Court that a ‘preparation’ includes any treatment of natural materials contain*ing a hallucino*genic. Defining a natural material as a preparation, means that it is seen as the psychotropic substance that it contains by nature. At the same time, the possessor of it becomes liable to punishment. Consequently, the drying of fresh mushrooms is defined as a criminal act in the Netherlands. Equally the use and possession of the brewed tea ayahuasca is defined as a punishable act in the United States.
National Legislation on Psychotropic Substances: the United Kingdom
The member states of the Convention of 1971 do not only have the right to adopt more strict or severe measures of control in their national jurisprudence; they can also introduce stricter regulations than those provided by the Convention in their legislation. They can do so, if ‘in its opinion, such measures are desirable or necessary for the protection of the public health and welfare’ (see, article 23 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971). In the Netherlands such measures were never deemed necessary or desirable. Already in 2000, a State nominated Commission, the Coordination Centre for the Assessment and Monitoring of new drugs (CAM), carried out a risk assessment on psychotropic mushrooms containing the active substances psilocin and psilocybin. The CAM concluded that in comparison to other drugs for which CAM has carried out risk assessments (MBDB, MTA and GHB), paddos score relatively low on the risk scale. The risk to public health and order was judged to be low. In view of that, the CAM advised that paddos do not present any need for a statutory ban (appendix 4: Risk assessment report relating to paddos (psilocin and psilocybin, The Hague, February 2000). Later, the Cam advised the Dutch government similar on ‘ayahuasca’. Despite this internationally known Dutch CAM-study however, the United Kingdom adopted in 2005 new legislation in which fresh magic mushrooms were made a Class A drug. Before that moment the possession or selling of those mushrooms were not under any criminal enforcement in the U.K. This was done by simply inserting into Part I of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drug Act: ‘Fungus (of any kind) which contains Psilocin or an ester of Psilocin.
The protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
The Convention on Psychotropic Substances itself does not offer a right of complaint for the individual citizen against the mentioned national interpretations of the Convention and adoptions to it. There are no possibil*ities for appeal to an international authority regarding the above-men*tioned interpre*tations of the Treaty on Psychotropic substances. One (piece of) straw to grasp are the fundamental human rights which are protected in national constitutions and interna*tional treaties like the European Convention for the protec*tion of human rights and fundamen*tal freedoms (November 4, 1950) or the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (of De*cember 19, 1966). The Santo Daime churches in the Netherlands relied precisely on this European Convention: Art. 9, the protection of the freedom of religion. Article 9 of the European Convention is basically similar to Art 18 of the United Nations Treaty on Civil and Political rights. The Santo Daime Churches succeeded, in this way, to legalize their holy sacrament ayahuasca in the Netherlands. In its decision of May 21, 2001, the District Court of Amster*dam recognized the fundamental rights of the churches, pro*tected by Art. 9 of the European Convention, to celebrate their religious ceremonies with the holy sacrament ayahuasca. It was the first time that the Dutch drug law, had to give way to stronger constitutional rights.
In the United States the Uniao do Vegetal choose the same path to get their use of ayahuasca in their religious ceremonies legalized. The District judge of New Mexico as well as The United State Supreme Court concluded on that application that the Federal government failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in barring the UDV’s religious based sacramental use of ayahuasca.
Constitutional right of intoxication?
The right of free development of the personality
In the past we saw some experimental proce*dures based not only on the freedom of religion, but also on the freedom of thought and conscience protected by international treaties. For example, why would the ritual use of psycho-active mushrooms or ayahuasca in a quest for spiritual develop*ment not be protected by Article 9 of the European Conven*tion or by art. 18 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Article 8 of the European Convention and article 17 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights could also form a base for such a procedure. It protects the right of everyone in ‘respect for his privacy and family life’.
In 1990, in Germany, the District Court of Lübeck declared the prohibition of cannabis unconstitu*tional exactly due to this kind of violation of civilian rights. The court called the prohibition of cannabis-use in violation with the principle of equality. It is an undisputed scientific fact, for example, that the use of alcohol or nicotine is a much bigger health risk for someone than the use of cannabis. Despite this fact, it is only cannabis that is officially prohibited by law. The court also argued that the constitutional right of self-determina*tion and free development of personality includes the constitutional right of intoxication, of being high. The search for intoxication is, according to this District Court of Lübeck, a fundamental human desire that is constitutionally protected. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in the end, did not accept this far-reaching decision of the Lower Court of Lübeck.
Howev*er, a similar argumentation was used by the Constitutional Court of Colombia in 1994 by declaring the criminali*zation of the use of drugs unconstitutional. Art. 16 of the Colombian constitution consecrated the right to free develop*ment of personality. According to the Colombian Constitutional Court in 1994:
If the right of the free development of personality has some meaning within our system, it is necessary to conclude that (.....) the norms that make the consump*tion of drugs a crime are clearly unconstitutional.
(Constitutional Court sentence of the Supreme Court of Colombia nr. C-221/94, published in the constitution gazette 1994, special edition.)
Concluding, the Convention on psychotropic substances itself, offers full opportunity for the use and selling of natural materials, plants or animals, which by nature contain hallucinogenic substances. When a safe social setting is guaranteed, or risk for public health is otherwise minimized, limitations by the government on the use of hallucinogenic substances should be defined as contrary to constitu*tional rights, such as freedom of conscience, self-determination, the free development of the personality and respect for one's private life.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Gotta love the mycelium, nice detail in these shots.
What a beautiful thing, to have gone to the legal cultivation farm in the Netherlands, that must have been sweet, too bad the camera screwed up indeed :?
thanks again for posting the legalities and informations on the subject, very informative and interesting Boomer. Definetly needed knowledge :wink:
-WS