Not to complain, but I still don't feel like I have gotten a clear answer, just a lot of inside jokes in between you guys. But like I said, who am I to complain.
You have just a rough way of talking about these plant materials as a 5 year old girl would have when talking about cars.
Ayahuasca is not a natural lsd, that's like saying honda is a type of bmw, instead of saying honda is a kind of car, and so is bmw.
In this case they are both psychedelics, largely different, and Ayahuasca has been used by thousands of years by the indeginous people of South America.
Coca leaves is not raw cocain... raw cocain is well... raw cocaine... but anyway, in Peru the coca leaves are chewed and made into tea traditionally since the Pre-Incan times for medicinal purposes, to alleviate altitude sickness, to increase oxygen intake... and as far as its stimulant properties go, a cup of coca tea is much weaker and vaguer in effect than a cup of regular tea. It takes 40 kilo's of leaf to produce 1 gram.
In this specific case we are talking about more or less 10 grams of leaf material.
The San Pedro is not Peyote, but they both contain the same alkaloid, Mescaline. Peyote is illegal in the US, but not San Pedro, but San Pedro is illegal in Norway.
The psychoactive ingredient in Absinthe you are talking about is called Artemisia absinthum (I may have misspelled a letter or two) and Absinthe is mostly produced in countries like Hungary and Slovakia, not Germany.
The psychoactive ingredient in Absinthe is not Sativa nor is it in any way or form similar. And yes, you did spell Sativa right.
I know I may seem very obnoxious here, and I admit, I might be a little irritated at your ignorance on this topic, but no more than it is a matter to laugh about. It's just that this is such a typical example of how people have different individual interests and areas of knowledge.
So if you don't mind clarifying for me how the law plays in on this matter of which country takes legal action and how, I would very relieved.
Do yrsou suspect, for instance, that the country of the receiver of the product would take any action to arrest the sender from where it was legal in the fit place?
It might be that identity (copy of passport) must be taped onto the package when it is sent, because of standard regulations. So the sender's identity will be out in the open on the package. But will he take any fall? Because in the senders country, what he is doing is legal. There wont be any tracks of money being traded neither.
The recipient can without fail stick to his claim that he has no knowledge of why this package came to him.
What are your thoughts?
