papaver

Page 2 of 3  
<< But rest assured, it is illegal to grow opium poppies, they posted the applicable laws and I have the clippings around here, somewhere.
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comspamfree (Zemedelec) expounded:

Who knows? They aren't very rabid about them, I know, I've had them out in my front garden right on the street for years. Every once in awhile some badge-heavy decides to go on a rampage and it hits the paper. I've got datura, for that matter, right out there, too. :::shrug:::
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, I don't know. What about all the seat belt laws and helmet laws? I think legislators just like to legislate. It doesn't have to make sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

if you are taxpayer and have to pay for enforcement or put up with any of fallout (e.g. overzealous people looking for their superhero costume in an okra patch), it should make sense. and when it doesn't, people will usually just let it slide, because there's really nothing you can do about it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Please find the clipping quick! And where exactly is "around here"? If you live on Malta, yep, they're illegal even as garden ornmentals!
US FEDERAL law makes it legal to rip up gardens in this manner on the mere suspicion of illegal intent, but without proof of illegal intent, there are no actual cases that can ever come to court; & local police wasting enforcement time & money harrassing people for legal plants would probably cause a few heads to roll, & it wouldn't be any gardener's head.
What you describe is perfectly plausible by the existing federal law. Over-enthusiastic law enforcement is backed up by a law that permits such enthusiasiam on the basis of suspicions alone, & suspicion is a hard thing to quantify since it's in the mind of the enforcer. But no actual cases can result for the courtroom in the absence of misuse, for no law is broken. If it were just generally illegal to grow them, rest assured, it wouldn've gotten somewhere.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@netscapeSPAM-ME-NOT.net (paghat) expounded:

My location is in my signature, it was in The Patriot Ledger but damned if I can find it right now. It's in a pile. Somewhere <G>
--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
opined:

I still cannot believe not even as much as an apology to me. Hmm, I thought you were different. Guess not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
While I appreciate that the reading and interpretation of laws can be very difficult, and I don't have a lot of time to try to sort this all out for Paghat, I felt that I should post a short message here stating that there is no question that Papaver somniferum is *technically* illegal in the U.S.
The Opium Poppy - Papaver somniferum (both terms are used in the list of schedules) are Schedule II in the United States. Schedule II substances are illegal to buy or possess without a valid prescription, and are illegal to sell without a DEA license (eg. both opium and cocaine are schedule II). There are also significant DEA controls on how Schedule II materials are produced and stored.
But laws are only as strong as enforcement. In the U.S., the ornamental cultivation of P. somniferum is just about never prosecuted. Now we could argue about the definition of "illegal" if you'd like. It's an interesting question. If a law is never enforced, is it still a law? But that's just semantics.
A few more comments below...
snipped-for-privacy@netscapeSPAM-ME-NOT.net (paghat) wrote in message

Legal statements are all about definitions of terms. How terms used in the law are officially and legally defined...defines the law.

This is a big misunderstanding of the Scheduling system. Each Schedule has it's own restrictions and requirements associated with it. Schedule I substances are unique in that they are unable to be prescribed by a doctor. But it's still illegal to possess a Schedule II substance without a prescription. The best illustration of this is the fact that both Cocaine and Opium are Schedule II.

Heh. If you think that laws are coherent...you clearly haven't read them very closely. It is *common* for laws to conflict and/or for laws to be interpreted or enforced differently by different jurisdictions or at different times.
In describing laws, it is important to cite the text of the law, the various interpretations of the law, and the actual manner in which the laws are enforced. This gives a more complete picture of the status of any given law.

The laws against them are not generally otherwise enforced. That does not mean they are not illegal.

Please cite the passage of the CSA where it differentiates between different purposes for growing Papaver somniferum. If such a passage exists, I'd very much like to read it.

Important to note that the controlled substance act is amended regularly. New substances are added and wordings and definitions are changed. Even the version you point out is not current. It is the schedules (I-V) that define what is currently illegal.

Again, just to be clear...plants and chemicals which are in Schedule II - V are also illegal to possess without a precription. Penalties vary, depending on the schedule and the quantity possessed...but they can still be very much illegal to possess.
You can visit the DEA's list of scheduled substances at: http://www.dea.gov/pubs/scheduling.html
Search for "poppy" and you'll see the entry for "Opium Poppy - Papaver somniferum".
And, while I'm mostly going to ignore the insulting comments about those at Erowid.org being stoners and pro-drug...please understand that we are serious about our work, dedicated to providing accurate information, and are certainly not "stoners".
peace, fire
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bb snipped-for-privacy@erowid.org (Fire Erowid) wrote:
[much unsubstantiated stuff clipped]

While it's nice to see someone posting replies who has a deep abiding interest in recreational drugs (Usenet being the ultimate democracy after all), all you really needed to do was quote the relevant portion of the Act that makes it perfectly clear the plant itself illegal. You never have, & never will, because there is no part of the Controlled Substance Act that states this.
Note 1) The Act itself is clear as to what concentration of specific opiates would have to be present for a substance to be illegal; 2) which for opiates is specifically "90 milligrams per dosage unit, with an equal or greater quantity of an isoquinoline alkaloid of opium" required to reach a level of illegality; & 3) no poppy reaches the concentrations that would define them as illegal.
The Act does make them illegal IF AND WHEN they are used for an illegal purpose (or attempted to be used for an illegal purpose; gardened opium poppies are not actually a source of opiates, but attempting to discover otherwise would be enough to render them suddenly illegal).
[more unsubstantiated stuff clipped] > just to be clear...plants and chemicals which are in Schedule

Was your qualifier "CAN be" a confession that you're aware they're otherwise legal, or just bad writing?
Again, you can make this statement in your own words, but you have neither here nor at your web pages quoted it from the Act, because it isn't there. It amounts to what you believe, or what you have heard within the recreational drug advocacy community. If you could've quoted it in law you would've done so just now -- indeed, you would have done so long before now, but you never could do so because it is a phantom law.

You have not referenced a law, nor even a list of banned substances, but only a list derived from the Controlled Subtance Act. The list is not a law, & the list explicitely states that it includes parent sources of scheduled drugs ( Papaver is NOT a drug but is a parent source of many drugs; it is only a "scheduled drug" insofar as IF it were attempted to be used illegally, that would make it illegal; it is otherwise not a controlled substance & gardeners & growers & nurseries, unlike scientific researchers, are not required to register their use, as no law even regulates such use, let alone bans it).
If any congressional Act actually states that opium poppies grown for ornamental purposes is illegal, you should quote that precisely. The extant law makes it very clear that intent is part of the law. Hell, even steer manure & motor oil are illegal if you intend to make bombs out of it, not otherwise. If opium poppies were illegal it wouldn't be possible to buy them in every county & city of this nation from above-board garden centers & growers; if such a banning law existed, it would be easily quoted & sourced. The urban folklore on this is rampant because amateur journalists & mistaken editorialists spread urban folklore as truth. You have failed to quote a law because you couldn't find one, & yet you persist in believing it must exist somewhere in an Act from which it cannot be quoted. No heroin addict or opium smoker in America ever got their shit from gardened opium poppies, & while laws can be very stupid, the CAS isn't quite that stupid.
Papaver is included as a Schedule II "drug" (though it is not a drug) because in any medical or scientific experiments done legally with Papaver, it is that context controlled by law; & if any opiate salt or chemical is extracted or synthesized from it, that too is illegal unless registered for scientific purpose. Iin these contexts only the opium poppy is itself illegal, just like possession of bags of manure becomes illegal if you intended to make bombs out of it, but manure is otherwise yours to revel in, & opium poppies are legal to sell, buy, & grow. This is multiply-explained in the Acts' numerous redundancies, yet in all its redundancies, it found no room to state that the plant is illegal in any other context, or in all contexts, but only in the explicit contexts stated. The law is NOT "schizophrenic" as your website article so absurdly puts it; said schizophrenia is the article-writer's projection born of a confusing their superimposing on the the CAS some deeply believed urban folklore that just isn't in the actual legislation
The Act's preamble "This law is a consolidation of numerous laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, anabolic steroids, and chemicals used in the illicit production of controlled substances" is not confusing in this matter. It leaves out reference to the plants per se, because if plants with a POTENTIAL for extracting those sorts of drugs would include scores of plants I can harvest in any field or forest or desert growing wild, & only those which function as drugs as picked & misused fit any legal definition of "drugs." Peyote would in & of itself without further processing fit the Acts' preamble about the Act's purpose & content. Marijuana, too, fits the preamble, without further processing. But opium poppies are harmless & you cannot get you stoned or sick on them without considerable processing. If such processing is attempted, despite the fact that temperate-grown poppies lack the required alkaloids, the poppies would upon that mere attempt of an illegal usage come under the Controlled Substance Act & become illegal due to the misuse & abuse. To extract or synthesize opiates, all sorts of otherwise legal chemicals would be required, & each & every one of them would become illegal because of the illegal usage, not otherwise.
Since it is a topic close to your heart, perhaps you'd do well to hire an expert attorney willing to put his name to a little article which would sort out the strictly LEGAL issues for you apropos of the actual CSA, so you can correct your website's misinformation & cease to confuse folklore & non-legal lists & editorials for the actual law! You clearly are no expert, not even slightly expert; I cannot claim to be an expert either, though I certainly can see that no part of the Act bans the cultivation of poppies for ornamental purposes. But since neither of us are experts, perhaps you should hire one, so that a definitive redaction of the Act & its meaning would be available for all the dumbass folklorists out there who can't tell fantasy from law.
Think about it kiddo -- if you could've cited this alleged law FROM the Act itself, you wouldn't be desparately avoiding any actual quotations from it. The fact that poppies are cited as a source of scheduled drugs, & fall under the Act if they are used for any drug-related purpose, does not make poppies themselves illegal. The test is as I said it would be: If it were true that poppies were illegal but the law doesn't have time or energy to stop nurseries from selling them & gardeners from growing them, then take some marijuana plants down to the same nurseries & sell them to the same gardeners & see what happens. When a plant IS illegal, there is not the slightest hint of reluctance to prosecute the matter to the full extent of the law.

Perhaps a little less deadpan seriousness & a lot more humor would serve you better.
Personally I collect opium literature & hashish literature, & I hugely enjoy its influence on art. Unfortunately the lives of the influenced authors & artists were invariably harmed by their habi. While some of the beauty they left behind redeemed them, they most certainly did require that redemption, for since little else about them was admirable. Geza Csath was one of the world's greatest surrealist writers inspired by his laudenum addiction; but it was not admirable him sitting at his kitchen table in his own shit until his ass was infected with soars. Anna Kavan turned her pain into some of the most beautiful magic realist literature of all time, but her paranoia made life hell for her, & people who did not know that she was shooting up every time she had a paranoid fit & returned from the bathroom much better just thought she was crazy.
So recreational drug advocacy is never undertaken by anyone worthy of respect, though it is an equal or greater folly for legislators to make such things as recreational drug use & suicide illegal. So while I disrespect the thuggish policing authorities more than the nitwit stoners, only the tiny handful who succeed at something spectacularly creative within their drug abuse are wholly forgiveable, whether it's something genuinely great like Poe created before he died for his addictions, or something rather stupid but enjoyable like the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers -- which at least notices that it's dorks who recreate with drugs. Those are not "insulting comments" but the truth.
-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would think if a farmer dedicates his farm, say 1000 acres to P.somniferum, would be doing it for heroine production and would be in harsh violation of the law. Seeds are sold in many catalogs for P. somniferum. Illegal or not, you'd need quite a production company in order to grow enough to make a dent in the heroine industry which comes from the middle east. No war on anything has been able to stop production of heroine in the middle east, and it never will.
On 24 Apr 2004 16:58:07 -0700, bb snipped-for-privacy@erowid.org (Fire Erowid) opined:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
my name is pam too. just felt like saying that. about half of the ones i am growing are the illegal kind. i just foun out. p. somniferum. v. persian white. i am soon going to move t another houselhold and planted a full garden, of which most of th stuff is blooming already or about to. the poppies however are not, an now that i know that they are illegal, i am wondering if i will get t see them bloom before i move in september, and have to rip them out s that the next tenants dont get in a heap of trouble. they are currentl about six inches tall with about twenty leaves or so each. i plante them in febuary. i live in florida, and they get a lot of sun. doe anyone have any experience with these, and might be able to tell me ho long it takes for them to bloom? i know that the other poppies planted, the california one, will take a full year, meaning that i wil not see them bloom. : - agnatha314 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- posted via www.GardenBanter.co.uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:55:57 GMT, agnatha3141

I grew them from seed one year and they bloomed mid-summerish, as I recall.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:59:43 GMT, "Pam - gardengal"

I believe we aren't allowed to grow P. somniferum in bulk, even for culinary use. Seeds in bulk (for spice sellers and bakers) are imported.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< I believe we aren't allowed to grow P. somniferum in bulk, even for culinary use. Seeds in bulk (for spice sellers and bakers) are imported. >>
Probably some from the Czech Republic, where they are also illegal. On drives out into the county my Czech friends would point them out. They're a real staple of Czech pastries--if you ate a poppy-seed kolach then had to produce a urine specimen, DEA would put you under the jail.
zemedelec
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
from snipped-for-privacy@aol.comspamfree (Zemedelec) contains these words:

Poppy seeds (and plants) are perfectly legal here in the UK, and we eat loads of them on/in bread and cakes etc. AFAIK, heroin/morphine is derived from the sap of P somniferum, not its seeds. Just as toxic substances are present in certain parts of potatoes, apples, tomatoes, or rhubarb, and not in other parts of the same plant.
Janet
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

nope. that's wrong.
Papaver oriental is the perennial poppy; salmon, pink, red, and white. Papaver somniferum is the opium poppy, an annual, pink flowers only. Papaver nudicaule is icelandic poppy, sometimes called champagne bubbles; pink, yellow, white, and orange. Eschultzia california is california poppy; orange or yellow; hybrid thai silk poppies, ruffled pink, salmon, yellow, white, and red flowers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, papaver somniferum is available in pink, lavender, white, and stained-glass window red. I have heard that here is one available now in a blackish red as well. It is also availabe in single, half-double, fully double, and frilly center versions. However, pink is probably the most common color, with red second.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, I realize I mistakenly said the wrong thing. I knew what I wanted to say, but I still wrote the incorrect thing. I've been chastised by someone I considered a friend, all because I said I like someone on this newsgroup.
The extent of immaturity I have experienced online is getting worse and worse. I post less and less. It's hateful, angry, and spiteful. I don't have it in me any more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a recent chastiser, I feel obliged to correct any mistaken impression by other posters that you might be referring to myself. I have never done anything to deserve the repulsive insult of being considered your friend.

Oh yes you do. When someone you like posts immature, spiteful verbal abuse you give your encouragement and approval.
Janet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:41:13 +0100, Janet Baraclough..

Sorry Janet, not everything is about you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.