Jump to content
The Corroboree
Jesus On Peyote

Legalizing Salvia D

Recommended Posts

Hiyas,

Iv just been pissed off lately about the ban on kava and most probable ban on Qat,that i was on google trying to find an australian pro legalize salvia site (which i sadly couldent) and found myself at a link to the TGA website,so i thought what the hell, iv had some time to burn and some reading wouldn't be bad for me,so i did a search for Salvia and came up with this http://agencysearch.australia.gov.au/searc...amp;form=simple

Where there was only 6 documented entries about it 2 done in 2001 and 1 in 2002.

ANyway, of those 6 only 3 have any info about it other then the mention of its name. So i thought ild do a quick cut and paste of all the hard work, consideration and time they put into banning Salva.

Quotes will be from first to last in time frame.

NDPSC Record of reasons, Meeting 32, 21-23 August 2001

SALVIA DIVINORUM

OUTCOME

44. The Committee agreed that there appeared to be a prima facie case for control of

Salvia divinorum as an hallucinogen, but that there was no evidence of a major public

health hazard at this stage. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to foreshadow

appropriate Schedule 9 entries and seek public comment.

FORESHADOWED DECISION

Schedule 9 - New entries

SALVIA DIVINORUM

8-METHOXYCARBONYL-4A,8A-DIMETHYL-6-ACETOXY- 5-KETO-

3,4,4B,7,9,10,10A-SEPTAHYDRO-3-(4-FURANYL)- 2,1-NAPHTHO[4,3-

E]PYRONE *(SALVINORIN A)

NDPSC Record of reasons, Meeting 33, 20-22 November 2001

SALVIA DIVINORUM

DECISION 2001/33 - 7.

The Committee agreed to confirm its foreshadowed decision to include Salvia

Divinorum in Schedule 9 of the SUSDP, on the basis of high potential for abuse and

risk to public health and safety.

Schedule 9 - New entries

SALVIA DIVINORUM.

8-METHOXYCARBONYL-4A,8A-DIMETHYL-6-ACETOXY- 5-KETO-

3,4,4B,7,9,10,10A-SEPTAHYDRO-3-(4-FURANYL)- 2,1-NAPHTHO[4,3-

E]PYRONE *(SALVINORIN A).

The last one, And with most information.

Record of the Reasons 36th Meeting 15-17 October 2002

16.2 SALVIA DIVINORUM

PURPOSE

The Committee considered Salvia divinorum and its active ingredient salvinorin A.

BACKGROUND

Salvia divinorum is a member of the mint family and contains a range of diterpenes

including salvinorin A, its primary psychoactive substance. It has been reported that

salvinorin A is a highly active naturally occurring hallucinogen whose mechanism of

pharmacological action is not clear. Inhalation of 200 to 500 μg (2.9-7.1 μg/kg for a 70

kg adult) of salvinorin A produces psychoactive effects in humans (Seibert DJ, 1994,

Salvia divinorum and Salvinorum A: new pharmacologic findings. J Ethnopharmacol 43:

53-56). Traditionally, the leaves of Salvia divinorum were consumed by the Mazatec

Indians of Mexico during spiritual rituals for its vision-inducing effects. The leaves were

either chewed and ingested or taken as an aqueous infusion.

Salvia divinorum is being widely promoted as a “legal” hallucinogen on overseas internet

sites increasing interest in its use as a recreational drug. Contemporary use of Salvia

divinorum as a recreational hallucinogen includes smoking the dry leaves, chewing leaves

in a quid or ingesting liquid extracts in tincture form.

The November 2001 NDPSC Meeting agreed to include Salvia divinorum and salvinorin

A in Schedule 9 of the SUSDP, on the basis of high potential for abuse, and potential risk

to public health and safety. The Schedule 9 amendment was included in SUSDP 16

Amendment No 4, which came into effect in State and Territory law on 1 June 2002.

DISCUSSION

The Committee was informed that the Therapeutic Goods Administration had received

representations on Salvia divinorum from the media, who quoted extensively from a

paper written by XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX was advised by the

Secretariat that consideration of his paper would not be within the formal processes

required for consideration of scheduling proposals but nonetheless, the Chair of NDPSC

had requested that his paper be provided to the October 2002 Meeting. The Secretariat

also indicated that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX had not responded to a previous invitation to

make a formal submission to the Committee with regard to the scheduling of Salvia

divinorum and salvinorin A.

The Committee noted XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 's paper and in particular the following

points:

• Salvia divinorum and salvinorin A became prohibited substances in Australia on

1 June 2002, whilst remaining freely available elsewhere in the world.

• Inadequate public consultation and lack of evidence to support the decision to include

Salvia divinorum and Salvinorin A in Schedule 9 of the SUSDP.

• The scheduling of Salvia divinorum would place a heavy financial and regulatory

burden on Australian researchers.

• The systematic chemical name for salvinorin A appearing in Schedule 9 the SUSDP

is in error.

Members highlighted that there is considerable published literature on Salvia divinorum

and salvinorin A, which indicates that the herb is being used as a recreational

hallucinogen and supports the Committee’s previous decision to include Salvia divinorum

and salvinorin A in Schedule 9 of the SUSDP. In particular, it was noted that a case

study (Hanes KR, 2001, Antidepressant Effects of the Herb Salvia divinorum: A Case

Report. J Clin Psychopharmacol 21; 634-635) stated that:

“Ms G volunteered that she also benefited from occasional intoxicating oral doses of

Salvia divinorum, consisting of from 8-16 leaves of the herb (approximately 2 to 4

grams), claiming that this herb had engendered a kind of ‘psychospiritual’ awakening,

characterized by the discovery of the depth of her sense of self, greater self-confidence,

increased feelings of intuitive wisdom and ‘connectedness to nature’.”

Members noted that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX had claimed inclusion of Salvia divinorum

and salvinorin A in Schedule 9 would inhibit further Australian research into the

therapeutic potential of the herb. It was pointed out that all Jurisdictions had provisions

within their legislation whereby Schedule 9 substances could be made available when

required for medical research, or for analytical, teaching or training purposes with

approval of Commonwealth and/or State or Territory Health Authorities. A Member

advised that XXXXXXXXXXXXXX is currently working under the auspices of a

Department of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX that holds a permit to obtain and possess but not

to resell any substance in Schedule 9, including Salvia divinorum.

The Committee was advised that the chemical name for salvinorin A specified in S9 of

the SUSDP appeared to be incorrect. Members were informed that the Chemical

Abstract Service (CAS) Registry No for salvinorin A was 83729-01-5 and the name listed

in the 9th Chemical Index was:

2H-Naphtho[2,1-c]pyran-7-carboxylic acid, 9-(acetyloxy)-2- (3-furanyl)dodecahydro-6a,

10b-dimethyl-4, 10-dioxo-, methyl ester, (2S, 4aR, 6aR, 7R, 9S, 10aS, 10bR)-(9CI)

The Committee agreed to adopt the elements of the CA Index name for salvinorin A with

appropriate modification to conform to SUSDP naming conventions.

OUTCOME

The Committee agreed to make an editorial amendment to the systematic name for

salvinorin A in Schedule 9 of the SUSDP to reflect the nomenclature specified in the

CAS Registry.

Schedule 9 – Editorial amendment

8-METHOXYCARBONYL-4A,8A-DIMETHYL-6-ACETOXY- 5-KETO-

3,4,4B,7,9,10,10A-SEPTAHYDRO-3-(4-FURANYL)- 2,1-NAPHTHO[4,3-

E]PYRONE *(SALVINORIN A) – correct entry to read:

METHYL (2S, 4aR, 6aR, 7R, 9S, 10aS, 10bR)-9-ACETOXY-6a,10b-DIMETHYL-4,10-

DIOXO-DODECAHYDRO-2-(3-FURYL)-2H-NAPHTHO[2,1-c]PYRAN-7-

CARBOXYLATE *(SALVINORIN A).

Secretariat Note: The Secretariat has become aware that Congressman Joe Baca

introduced a bill (HR 5607) into the United States (US) House of Representatives on

10 October 2002. The “Hallucinogen Control Act of 2002 - Amends the Controlled

Substances Act to add any material, compound mixture, or preparation which contains

salvinorin A or Salvia divinorum to Schedule I (drugs or other substances with a high

potential for abuse, with no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the US, and

with respect to which there is a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision)

unless specifically exempted or listed in another schedule.”

End.---(To sum it up to anyone who cant be bothered reading it all, its total shit.)

K,so apart from the last 1 the other 2 are pretty short, but this shits me. Most of that is written there should back the legalization argument of it and the people who were is charge should be charged with negligence at work for not properly researching everything.

Anyway, So what im getting at is what can we do 5/6 years on with the extra knowledge about it proving its harmlessness? and is there a legalization crew for it? I may have missed some pages before when i was looking for australian pro sally sites, but i found none. What can petitions do? or is their any way of submitting something to someone (that can help) about re-legalizing it?

And im not just talking salvia.. i mean we need to fix the wrong with the kava situation, the kratom, the looming cactus situation up in NSW and/or Queensland, and most recently the Qat battle that will lay ahead (im sure i missed some), but no plants should be left behind!.

Sorry for the long post but yea, what can be realistically done to stop and even reverse some of these ridicules bans?

(Main point of the thread)

Peace

Edited by Jesus On Peyote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, So what im getting at is what can we do 5/6 years on with the extra knowledge about it proving its harmlessness?

Proving its harmlessness would not be possible, because there is not enough research on the subject. However, it is also the wrong way to go about it. The harm concept is a red herring - the harm that drugs cause has nothing to do with their legality or otherwise. It's a trap that the authorities lay for us to keep us debating about harm when in fact drugs are illegalised for ideological reasons rather than rational ones. It's illegal because it can get you high.

In my opinion it is this approach that we have to challenge, and every time anyone mentions harm, in relation to the prohibition of any drug, we need to remind them that harm or risk of harm is not the issue. People should be allowed to make decisions about the risks they take with their own lives, and they should be mature enough to make those decision intelligently. We shouldn't stoop to the level of arguing about harm (if they lie or make a claim we can easily disprove, then we should, but we shouldn't get caught up in endless argument).

Just my $0.02 :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats it, the few ancient plants or preps you can still buy off the shelf are basically things that kill you, some of them even when used "properly", and otherwise are more of the "shutupandgotosleep" nature than the "wow, I just had the BEST idea...." variety. Anything else is usually in a form or a product that makes it almost worthless medicinally, just a big ball of dodgy side effect. You can't get a room smiling with kava capsules, but you CAN get a tummy ache.

Ciggies, codeine, alcohol... noone can debate the harm or potential harm of any of those things, well ok the codeine isnt so lethal immediately but when its mainly in combo with enough paracetamol in a pack to make a decent hole in your liver if you had it all at once... its all a bit suspect.

Nothing to do with harm to the self, just harm to the system of things. Course, always being on the lookout for harm, the systems that rule are attracting serious harm anyways... self fulfilling fear...and then that makes them ANGRIER.

Then they start freaking out and looking for more threats to crack down on :wink:

VM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot damn,

The harm reduction aspect i guess your right, there are alot more legal harmful things then illigal, one of the main reasons i mentioned it was because on the basis of the ban all they say is

high potential for abuse and risk to public health and safety.

If we can prove its harmless health wise, then thats one down, and everyone knows that it is not addictive in any shape way or form, so thats number 2.

If these can be proved supposedly beyond doubt, then legally what stance can they have for keeping it legal until they write up a new legislation to ban it? or am i being too ignorant about who and how the drug laws are taken care of?

Im just wanting to hear as much info as possible about ways that we can make a change in this area of things before its too late.

Anyway, i just feel that the laws are closing in too fast and soon even this forum will be illegal, and when more plants are banned,i can see the ethno community in Aus getting paranoid and our once "under the table" trades are becoming non existent, and so too the plants themselfs soon after.

Has anyone ever started a guerrilla war for the sovereignty and de-segregation of plants? Plants of all colors,Cultures,Countries and chemicals!

I HAVE A DREAM!! :)

ED- Thanks Ballz, Yea looks like theve stopped updating much, but anything is better then nothing i guess. maybe we need to kick start a new one.

Edited by Jesus On Peyote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's illegal because it can get you high.

Isn't that the fucking truth!

If prohibition was about harm, then list of what was legal or not would look very different. The trouble is that certain conservatives have a conception of harm that takes in an immaterial form of harm to society or the universe or something. They just don't believe that any self action is independent in any way (metaphysical or otherwise). No matter how little effect your drug use has on other people or even yourself they will tell you it is wrong, because for them, anything that produces the kind of mind-states we are looking for here is inherently evil :devil: .

I am all for taking a more philosophical as opposed to harm reductionist approach, but against hard-core conservatives, I'm not sure what will work. You sure are not going to sell them on any 'individual liberty' type platform. Maybe a combined approach is needed: "So long as it doesn't mess anyone else's life up, what I do to my brain is between me and God". I'm no believer, but the idea that self-effecting choices are between an individual and the deity has been a powerful one throughout history - in Europe at least. Liberty is an unpopular word in Australian politics at the moment ( and lets face it, we've never been very big on it), and it is going to take a really concerted effort to change that.

On a different note, even though I miss Sally D, the prohibition we have had to endure has, IMHO, made us smarter, more resourceful, better researchers, more responsible practitioners and more ethical vendors. Mostly at least - no generalisation is 100% true eh?

If you think that being able to buy SD (and all those other things we can't) easily over the net necessarily makes a society better, then go and roll around in the unfocused sound and fury over at eDot. There a lot of good people there, but there are a lot of idiots who take powerful tools for granted. I admit we still do that (me included), but I'm willing to bet that it is a shitload less often.

But what to do? I don't know much about the 'Salvia Crusaders', so I don't know if throwing in with them is a good idea. Personally I'm a big fan of standing up and being counted. Write to the TGA. Write to various politicians. Write articles for various publications that may (or may not) be sympathetic to your cause. But doing this comes at a price, and that price is that you can never get caught breaking the law. You could write a pro-SD essay that could win the Nobel prize for literature, but if the police turn your house over (and they probably will) and find something naughty, then it will all be for nothing.

Edited by Yeti101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to make it clear, as far as im concerned about salvia, the plant itself should be legal, i couldent care less and would rather online vendors dont sell 20x or 50x extracts, thats retarted. even if they kept importing salvia preparations could be kept illegal, but the plant itself is what im trying to say.

Views on this can vary, and im not 100% on it as it is kind of hypocritical, but IMO, if people want it, they should HAVE to grow it, rather then being able to buy massive extracts which i think is wrong (For SD anyway.)

I would just like to think we can live in a place where someone can grow a plant legally without being hindered by the stupidity of others.

Yeti, How many letters petitions to the TGA would we need to get noticed you reckon? (if where even that lucky :()

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a different note, even though I miss Sally D, the prohibition we have had to endure has, IMHO, made us smarter, more resourceful, better researchers, more responsible practitioners and more ethical vendors. Mostly at least - no generalisation is 100% true eh?

Well said.

I think there are definitely some plusses for prohibition... The laws have generally kept it out of the hands of irresponsible, vocal, nuisance abusers who do nothing for the public image of creative and responsible use of natural psychoactives.

The laws have ensured her rarity, just the way she had always been before mass-market, legal-high, teen-frenzy took hold. I remember reading on some website that you can buy her in many convenience stores in parts of the US.

That said, if I were asked my opinion on scheduling her before it had happened I wouldn't have put any support behind the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the convenience I object to, rather the abuse. And it's not even abuse. I mean, if I want to take a hallucinogen for shits and giggles, then I would not call that abuse. Being involved in massive commercial operations or the posting of u-tube vids that could reasonably be assumed would lead to scheduling - that's abuse of a substance, not to mention it's well intentioned users.

I would not know how many letters to the TGA or pollies it would take. I think it's a bit symbolic where the TGA is concerned. But pollies are a differnt matter, especially in marginal electorates.

I think we have to be smart about this and be aware that as the screws get tightened on all psychoactive substances, legal or otherwise, we are potentially going to have some strange political/ideological bedfellows. I think this underlines the potentially difficult situation we are in her in Aus. In other countries, you could make the harm comparison with alcohol, and that might work. But in the current climate here we are more likely to get prohibition of alcohol ( wouldn't that be fun), that legalisation of a hallucinogen. The trouble is that harm is something the TGA believes in. Liberty might not be.

No, the scheduling was not a good thing, and I love to see it over turned, because the community is a bit more mature now I think. But we are better for it. But that's life, sometimes bad shit happens, and sometimes, (if the shit isn't too bad) you learn from it. I like to think that we won't make the same mistakes here again if we 'discover' something good.

I can't imagine what federal scheduling of SD (and Kratom) will do to the US ethno community though.

Edit: My spelling and grammar still suck.

Edited by Yeti101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a good place to start would be asking some well-thought-out questions at the TGA on their upcoming open day!

http://www.tga.gov.au/about/openday.htm

"The TGA will be hosting an Open Day on Sunday 24 August from 10am until 4pm. TGA's Open Day will be run in conjunction with National Science Week and the Australian Science Festival. Science institutions around Canberra will be opening their doors to the public.

Come and visit TGA and find out what we do. There will be laboratory tours throughout the day featuring seminars and workshops on:

* counterfeit medicines

* medical devices

* influenza

* atomic absorption spectroscopy

* medical device testing

There will also be displays of medicines, ranging from complementary to prescription; medical devices; and information about what we do. If you are thinking about a career in science, come and see our recruitment information stall."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its all being made illegal because it ultimately isn't taxed by them and any purchase, use of or growing of any alternative drug opposes there more addictive higher taxed drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. The government makes millions from these and they would prefer to see us spend all our dollars on their drugs not the clean drugs that we would like!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morg i agree with what you are saying as pro's for prohibition but i personally don't think prohibition is the answer, just regulation on how it can be distributed. It is the same as my view on cannibis. The government of our 'democratic' society prides itself on freedom of speech and the rights of it's residents but it takes away our rights to do so many things.

Proving its harmlessness would not be possible, because there is not enough research on the subject. However, it is also the wrong way to go about it. The harm concept is a red herring - the harm that drugs cause has nothing to do with their legality or otherwise. It's a trap that the authorities lay for us to keep us debating about harm when in fact drugs are illegalised for ideological reasons rather than rational ones. It's illegal because it can get you high.

In my opinion it is this approach that we have to challenge, and every time anyone mentions harm, in relation to the prohibition of any drug, we need to remind them that harm or risk of harm is not the issue. People should be allowed to make decisions about the risks they take with their own lives, and they should be mature enough to make those decision intelligently. We shouldn't stoop to the level of arguing about harm (if they lie or make a claim we can easily disprove, then we should, but we shouldn't get caught up in endless argument).

So true because the risk of harm when driving down the street in your car, taking a swim at the beach, lighting up that cigarette or having that nip of brandy is no smaller than the risks involved in the use of other drugs and in some cases is even greater such as with abuse of alcohol, cigarette addiction and driving your car.

I don't think anything psychoactive should be unrestrictively legalised.

MJ, as with Salvia, and anything else that can be grown at home should be legalised for personal use from home grown stuff, or should be handed out by pharmacy's only.

Things that can't be so easily grown at home like kava should be sold under conditions, and these should be very relaxed for something like kava which isn't likely to cause any harm.

It would all take more legislation than banning the stuff but only by a few pages.

I think the most likely way you could succeed in having the drug related legislation changed would be to point out the hypocrisy of the current legislation when there is no proof suggesting kava/salvia/cactus causing harm to people when there is an abundance of evidence to show how bad alcohol and tobacco are for people. The story might be a bit different for qat and MJ where there probably is some evidence to show negative effects/outcomes, but these probably still don't compare to the negatives of the licit substances. If you could compile a meta analysis of sorts using evidence about the substances of interest and write a report comparing that analysis to an analysis of alcohol and tobacco you may succeed in having the plants you focus on legalised or at least re-considered and may open the door for further re-consideration. But as I say, I wouldn't try to go for the whole hog, try and get them re-considered for conditional use maybe, and you would have to put up comparison to the current legal drugs and maybe some papers on the history of use of drugs including tobacco and alcohol and make some inferences based on their history of use to suggest why they have not been banned and why other anciently used substances have not been accepted by the government.

I think, and this is just my opinion that this would be the best way to go about it and the last piece of advice would be to avoid at all costs sounding like a pro-drug 'scum bag' who just wants them legalised so you can get high. And this would be difficult and would come from a non-biased assessment of the situation and a carefully worded objective report.

Peace,

Mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Mind. It's just going to take a lot to really get the ball rolling. Right now, the majority of Australians aren't interested in Liberty, because most of what they want to do is legal (or it's illegal, but unenforced). If/when this changes, the idea of letting responsible adults do as they choose with regard to substances will suddenly become worth talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, for example, lets see the gov. ban cigarettes, then watch the public outrage about people's rights and freedom of choice.

A bit twisted if you ask me.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are certainly heading that way, and with alcohol too. I think the restrictions on booze would generate the most discussion though. I would hope that we can make some inroads before things get to that point, because I don't think that prohibition is the answer to the problems that legal drugs cause either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most ridiculous thing may well be that this has all been done before, prohibition over half a century ago in America achieved what? Massive profits for organised crime syndicates providing the previously legal alcohol to the people who were still determined to get drunk, the same as they provide people with drugs now. The government are far too idealistic, misinformed, ignorant and hypocritical (or at least they will be until they do ban smokes and alcohol which I don't think we will ever see happen).

Peace,

Mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most ridiculous thing may well be that this has all been done before, prohibition over half a century ago in America achieved what? Massive profits for organised crime syndicates providing the previously legal alcohol to the people who were still determined to get drunk, the same as they provide people with drugs now. The government are far too idealistic, misinformed, ignorant and hypocritical (or at least they will be until they do ban smokes and alcohol which I don't think we will ever see happen).

Peace,

Mind

reminds me of some of dennis learys stand up comedy (no jokes here though) regarding ciggies...

he was saying (paraphrased) govt. could change the name to "poison" and make 'em a hundred dollars a pack and black packaging with a big old skull and crossbones on it and you can only buy it at the chemist with a note from your doctor/mommie blah,blah,blah and they'd still have cues down the street 'cause some people REALLY like nicotine and you'll always have people who are going to get that delicious nicotine into them at any f^&$ing cost regardless of the legalities/difficulty obtaining it because they love it..maybe a little too much?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a different note, even though I miss Sally D, the prohibition we have had to endure has, IMHO, made us smarter, more resourceful, better researchers, more responsible practitioners and more ethical vendors. Mostly at least - no generalisation is 100% true eh?
Yeh, for example, lets see the gov. ban cigarettes, then watch the public outrage about people's rights and freedom of choice.

A bit twisted if you ask me.

Peace

Good points. Perhaps this whole crackdown on almost every substance used by man (generalisation I know, but as if it's not heading that way) is actually history's way of saying "Hey, if you don't know how to use it properly, you're not allowed to use it at all".

Maybe we actually have to restrict freedom to the point where people will have rely on their own initiative instead of expecting governments to do all the thinking for them. A kind of "smarten the fuck up, already".

Unfortunate but plausible, if not a tad too simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JDanger, the problem with the idea that it is somehow justified to ban all of these plants because we can't use them properly and the legislation means we just have to be more resourceful only falls down when you think that by being resourceful, we grow a plant like sally d to use when she is healthy, then the cops see it and cuff you to take you in for your 'dangerous' resourcefulness.

Peace,

Mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't justifying the ban, merely trying to find the silver lining in the dark historical cloud we happen to find ourselves under.

Or is all of history one dark cloud? Point is, we can try to learn from what is happening. Take 'their' objections and find ways around them. Eventually the authorities will be exposed as the irrational ones, and hopefully human development can continue on its merry way, with access to whatever tools nature has kindly provided us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unfortunately they aren't just going to realise that they are taking the wrong approach,

so unless someone comes along and tells them something/shows them something to convince them that they are they will simply continue to legislate against those 'super dangerous cactus' and that public menace 'kava' that makes everyone go crazy and break things/kill people.

I'll ask again, does anyone know of any societies/groups who are actively, sensibly, and for the right reasons looking at current legislation and moving towards having it changed?

Peace,

Mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are certainly heading that way, and with alcohol too. I think the restrictions on booze would generate the most discussion though. I would hope that we can make some inroads before things get to that point, because I don't think that prohibition is the answer to the problems that legal drugs cause either.

That iteslf is the crux of the argument. Prohibition fails at every angle.

And believe me, if something should be illegal (in my own pathetic opinion) it IS alcohol. I'd most likely still have a modicum of health left if I had weed as a substance I could legally procure, besides booze.

But that is selfish on my part. I abuse the grog, and it's something I need to deal with, but I *DO* know that back in the day, when I could score a stick (impossible now, everyone has fuckered off oO) I drank far less...

The hypocrisy of the current laws is disgusting, and it only breeds more ignorance in the general community. As it is, WA - as I heard on the news tonight - has that cockface carpenter pledging to make marijuana laws stricter (No personal plants, drug paraphanelia illegal to sell etc) so it just seems like we're going backwards.

Make their god damned chardonnay illegal, and blame the wino on the street for all the ills booze causes, and you'd see a whole range of people screaming how bullshit it is.

But argue the same logic with other substances that when NOT abused, are no threat to anyone, and these same clowns scream "Shut up druggy, your drug addled brain has no merit. Wah wah wah"...

I gave up arguing it back in '96 in talk.politics.drugs in usenet, because the general threads went along the lines of:

Rational drug user puts forward rational concept for legislation.

Irrational drug use opponent screams absurd rehtoric.

Rational drug user replies with cited facts and coherent evidence for their argument.

Irrational drug user screams obsecenities at Irrational drug use opponent.

Irrational drug use opponent latches on and claims victory, citing Irrational drug user as proof.

Repeat.

The morally bankrupt politicians have nothing to gain from legalizing anything they don't see votes in, and even less when they have paid flunkies to provide them with garbage 'realities' and biased studies. Rhesus monkeys anyone?

I spoke once with rhonda parker, when she was the representative for family and health here in WA, after she pushed for harder MJ laws based on her 'proven studies' that showed smoko caused severe problems to the family unit.

I got a nice "marijuana has caused blah blah blah blah" reply, which ended in a "Thank you for letting me inform you." reply. Sure, ignore all the things I said and auto-bot me you typical pollie.

Pointless much?

I've not touched weed in years. I did again once this year. That these pompous gits can tell me Im wrong and that they need to babysit me, is infuriating. I stopped wearing the damn nappy 36 years ago, thanks.

I purchased salvia in 01. I was lucky.. 02 it was outlawed.

WHERE WILL IT STOP?

Australia really is starting to be a joke in terms of customs and local prohibition. We're considered one of the worst when it comes to customs.

Wow /rant.. I need a beer, legal, intoxicating, hangover causing, job ruining, argument causing, family fight causing, beer.

Oo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well unfortunately they aren't just going to realise that they are taking the wrong approach,

so unless someone comes along and tells them something/shows them something to convince them that they are they will simply continue to legislate against those 'super dangerous cactus' and that public menace 'kava' that makes everyone go crazy and break things/kill people.

I'll ask again, does anyone know of any societies/groups who are actively, sensibly, and for the right reasons looking at current legislation and moving towards having it changed?

Peace,

Mind

MAPS are trying to make psychoactives (cannabis, MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, etc) government-endorsed prescription medication, though I'm unaware of any serious attempts currently aimed at legalising personal use of plant-based materials, at least not in Australia. Except for this guy, but we don't really know enough about that yet.

I would be happy to start a coalition of the enlightened with you, though I'm under the impression I don't have enough letters after my name to make my opinion count for anything, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be happy to start a coalition of the enlightened with you, though I'm under the impression I don't have enough letters after my name to make my opinion count for anything, yet.

I'm not sure who does. I know that I still feel like I don't, yet, but I'm working on it. :wink:

I'm not sure what the solution is. When I think about it, I really don't know how groups (or individuals) create or encourage change - I know that people try to do things, but I don't know what is successful, or why. Every idea I come up with has a million reasons (and sometimes real-world examples) why it won't work. The factors that would allow us to approach a grass-roots level critical mass are the same things that raise the red flags for the authorities. But societies, and more importantly, their laws, do change, so there must be some way. What we need are historical examples where something that was illegal became legal. If we can get our heads around what causes community attitudes to change, then perhaps we can do something. If the broader community accepts that something should not be illegal, even if many of them still think it immoral, then the way is paved for the laws restricting it to be removed.

This is purely speculative, but if plant or substance use could be portrayed purely as a moral (or dare I say it - lifestyle!) issue, rather than a legal one, then it becomes an inappropriate candidate for restrictive legislation. But when you think about it, there are a lot of conditions that have to be met for this idea to get off the ground. I think it is an approach that has some merit, but it's pretty long term, requiring years of discussion - both in public and academic circles, and years of lobbying in the political sphere.

I think we should put serious time into discussing things like this. And there is no point in keeping this discussion secret. Not only is it negative in the sense that we don't draw people into the discussion, but it's pointless, because in order to change anything, it is all going to be out in the open at some point.

That's my opinion at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be happy to start a coalition of the enlightened with you, though I'm under the impression I don't have enough letters after my name to make my opinion count for anything, yet.

academic abbreviations shouldnt make for a better argument. after all that cannabis research centre hasn't done much to help our interests has it? i wonder if there was never the australian marijuana party that there would be the sort of laws concerning plant possesion in the ACT and SA? does anyone know how those laws evolved?

if we can collectively achieve all that is to be expected from the TGA and the govt in response to scheduling it must be worth somthn, given that they do have interest in amendments at all.

if we form a community group and have a basic outline of what we can do and do it would anyone here be interested?

could anyone lead us in creating such a group?

if so i reckon we'd want to make the cause rather broad and all inclusive of 'exotic' growing, so we could get support from those outside of the ethno community like grannies with 10m pedros and the neighbourhood sage lovers.

peace x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×