Insequent

Keep these coming, brother. Please don't stop, even if you're not getting much feedback. I'm really loving it.

Welcome, Freako!! Welcome to your new home. You're gonna love it here.

Hey Josh..... Link requires a membership to be able to read the article..... But I think we can get the gist. Without the specifics of what the article contains, I'm not sure the case could set a precedent unless the outcome overturns the current Queensland law which makes it illegal to grown/sell/own cacti which contain mescaline. (I think the plant is still legal in some states, like Tas, Vic and NSW, but strictly as ornamental). Is that what the court case is about, changing the legal status? That would be a nice step bringing us into line with the rest of the East Coast.

Whether something is useful or not is a matter of perspective. The reason the government is reticent to implement pill testing is it is not useful to them. It's much more to their liking to keep drugs illegal than to allow something like pill testing, which is a step in the direction of eroding the illusion the war on drugs is the only way to deal with this problem. Another thing to consider is what the Premier is not saying, as opposed to what she is saying; "Pill testing doesn't stop overdoses..." Whether or not that is true, the focus of the debate has been put on "overdose". It is most likely deaths related to drug taking at these events are more a result of a combination of things including drug (im)purity, interactions with other medications, level of hydration etc, not overdose. Until the media starts calling it what it is, the politicians will use this tactic to counter proposals like pill testing.

From what I've read, Olivetol is not illegal anywhere (can't find anything specifically about importing into Oz). I may be wrong here, but my understanding is it was being investigated as a possible way to counter the psychoactive effects of THC, given it acts as a competitive inhibitor for both CB1 and CB2 receptors. Flux is quite right however, in saying it is believed to be a precursor in various syntheses of THC, though I think this comes from the possible process the cannabis plant uses Olivetolic acid (in harmony with quite a few other enzymes) to bio-synthesize THC. Someone a little more chemistry literate might shed some light on this and whether it's possible to artificially synthesize THC using Olivetol.

Whoa.... wait..... ummm..... Na, sorry, I find this a little confusing. Perhaps your take on the cause of issues like our health problems due to diet, the welfare of animals and the state of the environment is coming from a completely different place to mine. How do you conclude vegetarianism/veganism to be unnatural and morally incorrect?

Leave the law as it is, decriminalization or legalization. They won't leave it as it is; I think that's inevitable now. I think they'll legalize rather than decriminalize simply because it give 'em the hugest $$ return. I'd like to see it treated like tomato with educated and informed parental guidance. Like tomato, it has pretty impressive nutritional value as well... https://www.leafly.com/news/health/a-dietitians-perspective-on-cannabis

To all... I hope you find peace, relief from pain and suffering and a world wrapped in Love and Happiness. Be safe. Be kind. Have fun. Merry Christmas.

I think considering raising the legal drinking age in Oz to 21 is worthy (I would support it), I'm not sure it will be effective unless it is supported by other measures. Set at 18, it has not stopped what I suspect is a large number of kids as young as 12 and 13 drinking. I'm thinking the use of cannabis among the same age group might be either pretty close to the same, if not more prevalent. Perhaps we could also consider a greater focus on educating our young about not just alcohol, but all substances of abuse, as well as mental health. If they first understand how these substances work in the body to produce the effects they do (both the negative and the positive, especially the neural effects), and then gain an insight as to why people turn to them and why some develop dependence, I think we have a greater chance of seeing our kids make wiser decisions with a lesser burden of punitive consequences. And I don't think this will be as effective as it could be if we don't find a way to make them really interested in learning and fully understanding these subjects. This could be the toughest part.... initially.

Well, I've been back to my fave spot a number of times and observed the cheeky Maggie interact with quite a number of other folk. I struck up a conversation with a bloke who frequents the spot and he told me he started feeding this Maggie about 2 months ago. Others have done the same, so it appears his interest in me was to see if he could get some tucker from me too. I'm not keen to feed wild birds myself, given their diet in the wild is vastly different from what most folk think they can feed them. I've done a bit of reading and I'll make the effort to track down some of what Maggies normally eat, thankfully easily found in me own backyard.... Who knows, maybe the little bugger and I will become friends.

I read this thread for the first time this morning. At lunch time, I usually head out to a quiet spot under a large shady tree situated in the bend of a creek (which unfortunately for the most part is dry), and spend about 30 min just relaxing with my eyes closed, listening to silence and nature. Today, after a few minutes, I hear rustling in the leaves and grass beside my car, lo and behold, there is a magpie standing there looking at me; no more than about a meter from my open door. He turned around in circles a couple of times, cocking his head looking at me first with one eye, then the other, then suddenly flew up and landed on the bonnet close to the windscreen right in front of the steering wheel. He stayed there looking at me for a few minutes, then flew off. I was gob-smacked. If I hadn't have read this thread, the experience would have been unique and something to tell friends about... but with what has been shared here, well now ya'll got me wondering. I visit the same spot most days, so if he decides I'm worthy of getting to know, I'll post an update.

Mmmm, too late, me thinks. Thankfully you started a long time ago. Just don't stop.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/family-forced-to-pay-dollar40k-a-year-for-sons-medicinal-cannabis/ar-BBO7QAW?li=AAgfIYZ&ocid=mailsignout … $40 000 a year..... despite the fact we could see this coming, I just can't think of something to say which would be constructive at this point. "Tis Fucked

Mmmmm. Throws a bit of a spanner in the (current paradigm) works. -Edit- If you choose to watch it, this bugger speaks sooo slowly. Change the speed setting on the YouTube player to 1.5x.

Too true, Micro. The more I've looked into the Bosnian guy, the more he comes across as being way outside of left field. Some of his claims, well... Let's just say he's not doing himself any favors. I found a couple of interviews with some mainstream guys, in particular Robert Schoch, and they were quite restrained with their criticism (and their frustration), considering his stubborn refusal to accept unequivocal, hard scientific evidence contradicting his claims. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the Bosnian businessman; something which is sometimes not easily conveyed with the written word. I think the documentary below answers quite a few of the claims, though I would still like to see some response to some things said in the video which has been removed. For me, as it stands with the evidence presented and discussed so far, much as I'd very much like it to be, the current paradigm is in no danger.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/a-drug-derived-from-marijuana-has-triggered-the-first-us-federal-shift-on-cannabis-in-half-a-century-and-experts-predict-an-avalanche-effect/ar-BBNCN2c?li=AAgfOd8&ocid=mailsignout On the face of it, good news.... I guess. But then you all know my thoughts on this. What I get from this article is just how nicely the corporate agenda is squeezing its greedy hands so tightly around the throat of medicinal cannabis. Loosening prohibition on Cannabis was only ever going to happen once big pharma and corporate government could get regulation and legislation in place to protect their profit. "But they are also aware that desperate people - especially parents of young children - may seek alternate sources of CBD that might be cheaper and don't require a prescription. In August, GW Pharmaceuticals, the company that makes Epidiolex, announced on a call with investors that the treatment would cost roughly $US32,500 a year." "But they are also aware that desperate people...." What???? To me this is literally saying "Fuck the poor." US$32 000 (approx. AU$44 000) a year in a country where the median gross wage for 2017-18 was estimated at just AU$50 063. I'm sorry, but US$32 00 a year is just ludicrous. If (perhaps when) the FDA/DEA decision has a flow-on effect which will dribble into the hallowed halls of the TGA in Australia (and if you're holding your breath, prepare for a long stint without oxygen) will it positively change what we already have in place here? We already have some medicinal Cannabis products available, but only via private prescription (you pay the full cost as it is not on the PBS, nor is it likely to be soon). But just ask your GP how difficult it is to get a script approved, and how much you'll be out of pocket.. My gut feeling tells me, unless you have private health insurance (who at present offer no coverage for medicinal Cannabis), the chances of average Australians being able to afford this treatment will be low. And even if private health insurers come on board, the cost will still likely be prohibitive for most. From the Medicinal Cannabis Medicines Portal (MCMP) website: How much does Medicinal Cannabis cost and is it on the PBS? Medicinal Cannabis is a private prescription only medicine (in other words, you pay the total cost for this prescription), and costs depend on the strength of the product and the dosage form. The MCMP provides access to a variety of Medicinal Cannabis products from multiple manufacturers. Specialists, Doctor and Pharmacies registered with the Medicinal Cannabis Medicines Portal can advise the products available and the cost of those medicines. By law, the list of registered doctors and pharmacies who have agreed to prescribe and dispense the medicinal cannabis facilitated by the portal can’t be displayed to the public. A Special Interest Group Pharmacy or Doctor should be able to assist you with this information. All Medicinal Cannabis products available through the MCMP can be accessed at MCMP Network Pharmacies with the added security of a maximum price to patients. That pharmacist will be able to confirm the price for you, and your doctor will also be able to advise the maximum price for the appropriate medication during your consultation. https://hempindustrydaily.com/dea-takes-cbd-off-schedule-1-with-fdas-approval/ "Shares of GW Pharmaceuticals, which trades on the Nasdaq as GWPH, closed at $174.50 Thursday, an increase of almost 7% and a record high for a cannabis stock on any exchange." Mmmmmmmoney, money, money. https://chicago.suntimes.com/cannabis/pot-topics-cbd-oil-elon-musk-marijuana/ On a related note, and this one's a bit of a mixed bag of info, I did find this article's Elon Musk reference both sad and humorous. Sad because, not only is it again about money, but the issue which has lead to Musk having to step down as Chairman of Tesla has nothing to do with Cannabis. Humorous because apparently the SEC reckons someone with Musk's level of awareness and intelligence has only recently learned of the connection between the number "420" and the Cannabis Culture. For the sake of the argument, just imagine Musk's troubles with the SEC were predominantly due to his proposed private share value being $420.00, only because that figure relates to Cannabis. Call me a cynic, but does this seem to infer it is morally ok to make millions from sick people (who desperately need this medicine) so long as you're part of the pharmaceutical (Cannabis) industry, but not ok to make millions from wealthy people (who are investing in renewable energy - and flying into space), by apparently making a veiled reference to the Marijuana Culture? Or perhaps it was just because his girlfriend (as I did) would find it amusing? I know it's a utopian attitude, but having worked in mainstream medicine for 30 years, I believe we need to urgently find a way to separate money from medicine because everyone should have access to affordable medical treatment, whether they live in a sewer or a penthouse. “Big Pharma needs sick people to prosper. Patients, not healthy people, are their customers. If everybody was cured of a particular illness or disease, pharmaceutical companies would lose 100% of their profits on the products they sell for that ailment. What all this means is because modern medicine is so heavily intertwined with the financial profits culture, it’s a sickness industry more than it is a health industry.” ― James Morcan, The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy

Guess discussing this particular presentation is now moot. YouTube has removed it for violation of it's terms of service. The Wiki article pretty much sums up mainstream academia's response to the claims, which is nothing new and is to be expected. Having said that, as Wiki states, there have been a number of bona fide experts in the fields of geology, history and archeology (who have actually visited the sites - some seem to have dismissed the claims not only without visiting for themselves, but have not even bothered to actually look at possible evidence) who refute the claims of Semir Osmanagić. They state the hills are completely natural, in particular, the stone slabs which were found when excavating. Despite my own reservations about the level of veracity exercised by the mainstream, I note some of the experts who have commented have no immediately apparent reason to deny any pro-pyramid evidence is real when it is (or even may be), and they have been pivotal in overturning the accepted paradigm before. I don't imagine they would knock back an opportunity to repeat the exercise. I was a little baffled by the intensity of the establishments efforts to discredit the guy. If he's wrong and he's digging around in natural hills, what is the harm? He's going to come unstuck eventually My issue with anything like this, is ascertaining what is fact. An example of this problem is the dating for The Great Sphinx which mainstream Egyptologists still maintain was built by the Egyptians during the reign of Khafre c 2500 BC. Yet there is apparently some contemporaneous (and earlier) text which state the Sphynx was already in existence, and the water erosion on the Sphynx enclosure indicates the structure is at least twice that age, and possibly even in excess of 20 000 years old, as claimed now by at least 200 geologists who have visited the site. When you consider the fact Egypt has not seen a climate with any significant precipitation for at least 7000 years, plus the required passage of time to achieve the level of erosion we see, it starts pushing the construction of the structure further into history. There were a number of claims made by the presenter in the vid I linked, such as having a piece of one of the stone slabs sent off to a laboratory for testing. He claimed the results showed it was an artificial concrete, much stronger than we can create today and definitely not natural stone. Given he also named the laboratory where he sent the piece, I was going to follow it up to see if this and some of his other claims could be verified. (Shoulda dun notes). Gonna keep digging on this one (pun intended ), mainly because I got no idea if this is legit or not. I think the talk was about work which had been completed last year, or earlier this year, so it may be some of the mainstream would offer a different opinion if presented with the latest claims. If this is the case, there appears to be evidence presented by those who claim they are indeed pyramids, at least in my mind, which needs to be properly addressed and not just brushed off. And there's a little bit of a gut feeling as well... Then there's the tunnels....

Hey Gimli. Good luck mate. My dad was an apiarist shifting around 1000+ hives to follow the blooms in SE QLD and Northern NSW. He got out of it when the drought which started in the early 90's decimated his hives and he eventually sold what was left. I always toyed with the idea of getting a hive or 2 just for family and friends, but never got round to it . Hope all goes well for ya.

And Gordon Gekko for president!

I am not educated in law. The following is my understanding of how the system in this area works, based on the experience of a friend who was a defendant and a former friend who is a police prosecutor. I have done some research, especially into the constitutional legality of the legislations created and imposed by the corporate blubberment. I am unashamedly and unappologatically biased aginst the establishment because I perceive it to be itself biased and currupt. I am, however, well read in psycho (neuro) pharmacology which is all about how substances interact with the brain and the effects on the body as whole, and developmental psychology (and to some extent psychological anthropolgy) which enlighten one to the processes lining the pathway to substance use. (I do not believe in the terms "addiction" or "substance abuse" because the former infers inherantly addictive substances, and poor choices or a flagrant disregard for socoety on behalf of the user, and the latter infers no illicit substance use has any medicinal basis). It is this knowledge which has emphasized to me the restrictive and manipulative nature of the legal system and the disasterous failure of the war on drugs which, combined, has helped shaped both public opinion and legislation in all areas relating to substance use. Essentially, if you're involved in an incident which results in being tested and found to have any substance in your system (prescribed or illegal) which has the potential to cause impairment, you can and almost certainly will be charged. Regardless of whether you are impaired or at fault. If it is a positive saliva test as a result of a random stop, provided the follow-up blood test shows active substance levels below the minimum set by law, this should not result in charges. Even though the legislation prescribes parameters prohibiting driving only whilst impaired, the legal system has essentially broadened it's scope to include the mere presence of a substance in order to address and prosecute the question of impairment. There are no tests, invasive or passive, required by law enforcement to establish the level of impairment. (In fact, I know of NO test repeatedly and accurately capable of doing this, apart from the defendant being obviously intoxicated and displaying incoordination at the time. And a letter from a doctor or anyone else, if you could actually get one, will not help). This is despite not only the fact everybody is affected by and metabolizes drugs differently, but each time the effects of the substance on an individual can differ widely. Your level of impairment (tolerance) is never considered from a law enforcement perspective, on the face of it simply because this is not only too difficult for the police to establish, but because it is the job of the courts. The legal system will in no way attempt to ascertain individual tolerance, due to the varying nature of physiological and psychological responses resulting from the action of substances in the dynamic environment of the human body. From the legal perspective, tolerance cannot be established and is therefor not considered. If the substance is prescribed, the attitude you will face in court is one which expects you to be able to know whether you are impaired or not, and if you are unable to know, then proceeding to drive will mean you're committing an offence because it introduces reasonable doubt about your ablility to drive safely. This is not something you would expect an average person be qualified to accurately ascertain, each and every time they get behind the wheel. Given there is no one test which could give you the "all clear" regarding impairment, nor anyone to provide either test or clearance (for each and every time you wish to drive), and given the warnings on the medication, the legal expectation is that you do not drive. In essence what this does is place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the prosecution. Law enforcement have satisfied their brief and proven the presence of a drug thus, under this burden, you are required to prove you were not (or knew you were not) driving impaired. Unless you're clever about it, it is not not necessary for the court to prove you were (see the next paragraph). When a blood test clearly demonstrates the minimum level of an active substance, impairment is a given, regardless of tolerance. If the levels are below minimum but the case has, for whatever reason, proceeded to the court, the prosecution will always present an argument producing reasonable doubt about the defendant's ability to drive unaffected, especially in cases involving injury or death. Because the burden of proof is on the defendant, reasonable doubt works for the prosecution. One point to consider here regarding burden of proof: Most defendants when asked... "Your drug test shows the presence of a substance which can impair your ability to drive; do you claim, or are you of the opinion you were not impaired?" will most often automatically respond defensively with a statement in the affirmative, often under the advice of counsel. i.e. "I believe I was not impaired." This is only natural if we wish to defend ourselves, however it is this response as a statement which shifts the burden of proof to the defendant because a statement in court requires the one making it to provide the proof of the statement. If instead the defendant (or counsel) responds with a question, something like, "Can the prosecution provide evidence the defendant was driving impaired?" or perhaps, "If the prosecution believes the defendant was driving impaired and cannot offer proof of this, how can the court expect the defendant to prove he wasn't?" it should shift the burden of proof from the defendant because it is asking a question, not making a statement, returning reasonable doubt back in favour of the defendant. In law it is important to never answer a question with a statement you cannot immediately backup with proof, or simply avoid making any statements at all. A very tall order for us mortal folk.. I have my doubts as to whether this example would actually get you anywhere, but I mention it because I believe it highlights how the system is able to work so well against us. We are ignorant of the language and grammar used in Legalese, the language of law. Not that I have a great deal of respect for the source, but the argument at the end of the article linked below pretty much sums up our position (regarding driving and substance use) within the legal system and the attitude of those who run the legal system. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/are-you-at-risk-of-failing-a-roadside-drug-test-after-a-wild-weekend/news-story/9d3acf6803063a6e26c310df9b8358c8 I love Asst Comm Hartley's response which equates the presence of drugs rather than the level of impairment with the cause of fatal accidents: Assistant Commissioner John Hartley of the Traffic and Highway Patrol Command, told Fairfax the tests were “a strong program aimed at deterring people who take illegal drugs from driving a motor vehicle”. “Between 2010 and 2014, 14 per cent of all fatalities involved a driver or rider with an illegal drug in their system,” he said. One in three tests this year has returned a positive test result in NSW alone, compared to one in 300 alcohol tests. More than 30,000 roadside drug tests are carried out in NSW each year, with that number set to increase to 97,000 by 2017. All this was a long-winded way of saying, "If you drive with illegal or prescription drugs (which can possibly cause impairment) in your system and you're caught, in my opinion 99% of the time you're gonna get fucked over". While I'm sure a percentage of police officers would not pursue charges if a random roadside blood test result showed below minimum levels of active substance (and it's not their call in the instance of an accident), I am not aware of anything the average person can do to protect themselves before they decide to drive, short of an education in Legalese, changing legislation or finding a way of successfully arguing the constitutional illegality of the legislation. You're placing yourself in the hands of a hostile system. Of course, a successful revolution would go a long way.....

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05659-z I can't help the impression this is a good news story for the industrial medical/pharma complex very loosely wrapped in the guise of a good news story for those suffering who would potentially benefit from Cannabis. ---Lessening restrictions on the study of CBD would also be good news for biotech startups that have been producing cannabinoids through genetic engineering. These products could be purer and more affordable than those obtained through older methods of extraction from marijuana plants or chemical synthesis. “It’s a biochemical gold rush right now”, says Oliver Kayser, a bioengineer at the Technical University of Dortmund in Germany.--- ---Another Canadian company, InMed Pharmaceuticals in Vancouver, is refining the production of rare cannabinoids in the bacterium Escherichia coli. Extracting useful amounts of these potentially beneficial compounds from plants is unrealistic because they occur at very low levels, says Samuel Banister, a chemist at the University of Sydney in Australia. “For minor cannabinoids,” he says, “there is a huge need for synthetic biology.”--- The inference here is the plant as a medicine is only going to be effective by genetic modification and isolating certain cannabinoids for targeted use (perhaps I'm wrong). Whilst this possibly offers (and has clearly demonstrated) great promise for treating the likes of epilepsy, for example, it flies in the face of what we know of cannabis as a "whole plant" medicine. The synergistic relationship between the more than 110 known cannabinoids and over 400 terpenes enables the plant to interact holistically with the body's endocannabinoid, immune and endocrine systems and offers clues as to why cannabis has shown success (albeit inconsistent success) treating such a wide range of maladies. In other words, it's not that certain cannabinoids exclusively and only "target treat" certain health issues, but the whole plant appears to have an overall positive holistic effect on the entire immune system, suggesting a positive systemic effect on overall health of the body enabling it to better deal with (certain) health issues. It may well be there will be an invaluable use for synthetic as well as whole plant cannabinoid medicine, but for the scientific medicine and the powers that be to abrogate what nature has perfected over the last 20 million years by claiming it can produce something "more pure and more affordable" while at the same time denying free access to the whole plant, to me at least, is counterintuitive and has the stink of capitalistic monopoly. In this light, it is not the minor cannabinoids which have the huge need for synthetic biology, it is the synthetic biology and pharmaceutical industry for whom the huge need exists. Minor cannabinoids appear to be do just fine until they are isolated from their brethren. To be fair to the article, it is clearly about the need to allow research into the medicinal benefits of cannabis and removing the legal barriers which have denied research and industry access to the plant. No one can argue removing the barriers will be a great benefit to industry, but will this and, more importantly, the subsequent end cost of any medicine produced, equate to a greater benefit to humanity than the benefit of using the plant in it's natural form? The underlying message in the piece to me, is the benefits of cannabis can only be made available and can only be effective via biomedical intervention improving on nature. While the author makes it clear the changing of laws presents a potential windfall for industry and leaves it to the reader to infer the flow-on of this potential to patients, the patient is not mentioned at all. The benefit to humanity, in my opinion the crux of any debate over any potential for and safety of cannabis, should not be omitted from any discourse. My bias against government regulation/legislation and the industrial medical/pharma complex arises from being unapologetically opposed to those seeking to turn a profit from others' suffering.

Mmmm.... A tiny half step in the right, general direction.. sort of. I don't think the powers-that-be need lessons in using a compass; they need to use a compass which accurately tells them which way to go.

Hey ya, Kindness. After listening to a couple of talks by the likes of Gabor Mate, Gordon Neufeld and Robert Sapolsky, I started looking behind my addictions to find the reasons for the pain I was treating with substances. The pivotal point being "why the pain" rather than "why the addiction". I already understood why these substances made me feel better, but I wanted to know why I needed to feel better. This started me on the path which lead me, among other places, here to SAB. Long story short; I somehow managed to cease taking opiates by deciding I didn't want to take them any more. I pretty much followed what Siggor advised above, but whilst handling the cravings got (somewhat) easier the longer I had abstained, there were times when they came crashing down on me like I'd never stopped. I have no doubt I would have relapsed because my pain, if not the cravings, would eventually become too much. Well.... either relapse or end it. What saved me was The Shroom. I took a number of trips last year and did a couple of courses of micro dosing. I can't say this cured me; I've still got me issues , but I'm somehow changed. I no longer suffer the crippling depression and anxiety and I'm able to look into my past to try and work through the cause of my PTSD without the stress of triggers smacking me down. The most amazing differences though, are 1. the complete loss of the cravings and 2. taking more than a small amount of any opiate makes me physically sick. As an example of what I mean here, when I needed to rely on codeine, I could take anywhere up to 300 or 400mg. Now I find it uncomfortable to take more than 15mg. At 30mg, I'm throwing up. These changes were not gradual. Within 2 weeks of my first 5g Shroom trip, which was at times incredibly beautiful and other times incredibly difficult, I just 'lost' the cravings and my body seems to now reject opiates. Now I know of a number of others who have tried the Mushy to deal with addictions and mental health issues without success. Perhaps you already have. I know I'm so very lucky for the success, but I'm continuing my work with Shrooms (and in other areas) in the hope of finding more answers, seeing how so many suffer. There's quite a bit more than what I've described here. But I'm alive and where I am, I believe, all thanks to the humble Mushy and a couple of very special people here who gave me support. I'm still a long way off understanding why it worked, but if ya have any questions and you think I may be able to help, flick me a PM.

Hey there, Mycrobe. Welcome to the tribe.