Question of Legality of Lophophora diffusa in U.S.

Is there anybody in the U.S. who owns Lophophora diffusa or any other Lophophora species other than L. williamsii? I obviously know that L. williamsii isn't legal to own in the country, a shame, as it is a fascinating plant. But if any other species in the genus are legal to own, I'd like to have one in my collection.

I've looked extensively on the internet to find whether only L. williamsii is illegal or if the whole genus is illegal to own. There has been so much contradictory information, but I have found that on a U.S. seed selling website that some of the species are available for sale.

However, I'd like to know that if I buy the seeds to those plant that I won't have anyone coming to my house to arrest me.

Any information, if any can be given, would be greatly appreciated.
Even information about how I could find out what plants are illegal to own in the U.S. would be greatly helpful.

Thank you.

 

Look at what cactus specialists who sell nursery-grown plants are offering. Any that are illegal will not be listed by inspected certified nurseries.

 

Otherwise, join the Native American Church? They can grow L. williamsii legally.

Or move to Britain, I'm not aware of any law banning its cultivation as an ornamental plant here (growing for drug production may be different, though).

 

Lol Even if you are a member of that church, you have to be Native American to own peyote. And I believe that even if both of these requirements are met, you can be interrogated and investigated to see if you are a legitimate practitioner of the church who should be allowed to practice using peyote.

I don't, however, have any interest in doing any psychedelic drugs. I just want to collect cacti. ha.

 

My take on the law is that it would be illegal to possess L. diffusa in the USA because it contains mescaline, a Schedule I Controlled Substance. Sounds like something lawyers could certainly argue over, but I certainly would not take the risk of growing the plant there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_controlled_substances

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996a

 

Where are you getting that L. diffusa has mescaline? I've always read that it does not contain it.

 

Ah, I see. Most sites say no mescaline, but some I read indicated low amounts, but with much higher amounts of the chemical that makes one nauseous, making it undesirable as a drug.

This paper for instance found trace amounts:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/647075

The paper is a bit old, maybe this has been resolved?

 

I would think the mescaline to cactus ratio is equal to the opiates to poppy seeds ratio. Not based in scientific evidence on that quote, but I'd believe that'd be the reason that the trace amounts of mescaline in L. diffusa would be considered harmless to drug enforcement. ha

Thanks for all your insight.