Legalizing Salvia D

[JDanger]

Indeed. Bravo Vert, and apologies for the thread hijack JoP.

@ Yeti - Legals forum, "Arguments for Legalisation"?

[ballzac]

I think a good aspect would be to make a point that this is not about legalisation. It is about legislation based on rationality, evidence, and ethics. If the final outcome of this is that some substances are legalised, then that's great. If the outcome is otherwise, then that's okay too, because if the evidence actually showed that society is better off if such and such is banned, then that is a good thing that it is banned. Fact is, that apart from any vested interests, the reason we want these things legalised is because we believe that it will be for the greater good.

[Yeti101]

I think a good aspect would be to make a point that this is not about legalisation. It is about legislation based on rationality, evidence, and ethics. If the final outcome of this is that some substances are legalised, then that's great. If the outcome is otherwise, then that's okay too, because if the evidence actually showed that society is better off if such and such is banned, then that is a good thing that it is banned. Fact is, that apart from any vested interests, the reason we want these things legalised is because we believe that it will be for the greater good.

Ballzac makes an extremely good point - I think he hit the nail on the head there. We should go from rationality, evidence, and ethics to legislation. Going for legislation based on our own interests first and then looking around for justification is counterproductive and itself unethical.

[Vertmorpheus]

Entirely agree... I can see the law would be frustrating for people of more ....serious interests... or with less faith in their discretion, but I object more to the social conditioning that certain plants are entirely normal and some are just "weird" somehow... esp when it means I see a lot of people basically doped up to the eyeballs on this n that every other day of their life in a quest to feel "better"... yes, the answer to a toxic synthetic nightmare is of course more toxic nightmares Drugs and plants can't fix all of life's problems, neither can hammers or turtles, but thats no reason to be shy about what you CAN help with a drug, a plant, or even a turtle. But don't combine the hammer and the turtle.

Depends I guess on whether someone wants to go the "fill yourself with knowledge til it starts overflowing onto those around you" path or the "serious policy advice" option... but there's nothing like a multipronged (and chronologically staged) attack on a construct to really get the job done. Then you have to make sure that whatever is going to replace the old one will work ok, too.

I do think though that it's sad that we live in a society where we must have a puritanical motivation... safe n sane, poor old "Fun." never gets much of a look in... cept in terms of golf courses, marina developments, four wheel drive parks, etc. Is the answer to staid rigidity applied to bodily intake, more rigidity on bodily intake... not an opinion, just an open ended question Course, it'd get a few people killed, but then, we're all still driving cars hey. You can go down the road and eat yourself to death, if you starve your kids you can go to jail but theres no real laws about feeding em until they have a heart condition at 15... you can leap out of planes and get onto some net-referred casual sex... all in the name of "adult fun" or "western privelidge" but daresay you would like to spend a couple days doing some kangaroo dreaming (ie, scratching your nuts) under a nice shady tree and munching thru a bag of something leafy, and people get anxious. Tell em you do it ALL THE TIME with no nasty effects and they decide you're INSANE

Edity... I find (controversial approach warning) a really helpful thing to do is always be on the lookout to help people with your interests. More people would give a shit about mechanics if more of em did free work for nanas on the side, and I find more people around me even those I don't know all that well are of late much more of the "fuckit, if it works it works" approach to their own health and happiness... I also find it helps to be willing to give people advice, dont be afraid but stay well within the realms of what you actually know something about, and more so to be willing to actually provide people with neatly packed labelled quality plant material purely out of love. You can either wait for the future to fall from above or define your own reality, with pride and without a trace of guilt, skullduggery or social malice... I find with that options people tend to essentially accept you as an undeniable element and to save time and chaos will write you into their lil worlds rather than go to the trouble of taking you out of yours... course, thats a game of odds and a lot depends on how deeply motivated you are, and from what point on the spectrum/cycle/whatever... if you really just want to be able to grow drugs without a hassle, well thats a different thing from wanting people to have free access where possible to safe food and medicines... but the two can certainly overlap, unless as was pointed out your drug or medicine of choice is a dire social hassle.

also, web design was a piss take never mind, you can't catch em all.

Weird old world but it has that kind of bookstore smell, so you gotta love it.

VM

Edited August 15, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[MindExpansion]

Bood points Ballzac, Yeti and Vert.

Peace,

Mind

Edited August 16, 2008 by MindExpansion

[ballzac]

I guess this thread could remain the discussion thread, and a new thread could be created for simply providing the abstract and link of journal articles, or other forms of evidence.

[husk]

I guess this thread could remain the discussion thread, and a new thread could be created for simply providing the abstract and link of journal articles, or other forms of evidence.

or we could start a new thread with a poll to find who wants to start a community organisation what our aims and philosophies would be...

i mean are most of us here just happy to go on growing, utilising and sharing our plants and knowledge discreetly or does anyone actually want to change the way it is? are we happy to stop swapping spores or trading cactai? can we really just get by on smoking mixtures and homebrew?

i think with the recognition or Australia's oppressive past regarding indigenous ppls and immigrants and groups like Get Up! receiving huge support in their actions along with the *ahem* 'green movement' (squirm) now would be the perfect time to really address our interests in concert with the rest of society's concerns.

cos i reckon if somthn like this doesn't start here then i doubt it will start at all.

i know im willing to do whatever i can but i would prefer guidence and support.

so what could we have done to prevent the scheduling of salvia divinorum?

[MindExpansion]

Perhaps to prevent it's scheduling one could've suggested less intense measures such as allowing personal growth but not the sale of plant material or extract, most of the idiots who were using it as a 'legal high' and posting their videos on youtube resulting in it's scheduling would not have used it if they couldn't just walk down the the local head shop/type in a web address and buy a bag.

I think that most people who are willing to put in the effort to grow the plant are sensible enough to research its use and precautions that should be taken. However, how many people do you think actually used it anyway...its not like it was going to be the next MJ. The idea would be to look at the criteria that should be met by any drug to become scheduled and to present scientific/social evidence as to why the substance doesn't meet that criteria, and then look at some other aspects like the environmental diversity one mentioned before.

An idea of the specific goals to be aimed towards would be a good start, I put forward my ideas above, maybe those interested could do the same.

Peace,

Mind

[husk]

Perhaps to prevent it's scheduling one could've suggested less intense measures such as allowing personal growth but not the sale of plant material or extract, most of the idiots who were using it as a 'legal high' and posting their videos on youtube resulting in it's scheduling would not have used it if they couldn't just walk down the the local head shop/type in a web address and buy a bag.

ok so, first of all i think it is going to be really hard to be all inclusive of our whole gardens considering that somthn like salvia had been scheduled before the majority caught on to it, and that humble mj possession is only a civil offense in ACT and SA already, and that beloved cactai is thankfully seen as a plant more so than a drug, and that opium can actually be quite dangerous etc... perhaps its easier to be specifically for one element rather then all of them. tho if that were the case i would be more motivated to concentrate my efforts on cactai rather then salivia and then we wouldn't have the benefit of a forming a decent sized group anyway!

are there any other allowances made for opposition to scheduling by the TGA apart from letter writing?

i mean if we disputed in the name of an organisation would it make any more difference than a handful of individual responses?

Edited August 17, 2008 by husk

[MindExpansion]

I think if you got shunned by TGA which is probable, the idea would be to gain public support with good reasoning, like the financial wastes of the current drug laws, but I suppose it depends on what you are going to be looking at

by looking at just plants you will be able to muster limited public support because most people have no idea what you are talking about and because a law against cacti only effects a limited number of people and doesnt cost the tax payer much.

By aiming at plants in general, you may get the support of any green thumbs out there, herbalists, traditional medicine believers, biological groups, botanical groups and gardens etc etc. and civil libitarians.

By aiming at drugs in general you would get support of people (public, libitarians, stoners, some scientists and medical professionals and some police like another post just pointed out about a group in america of police officers looking for a new approach to drugs) by looking at the financial and social problems associated with the current drug legislation, but if you come across as a group of pro-drug stoners you'll be written off as just that, that is the same however regardless of what you are going to be looking at.

I think it is a good idea to first establish the goal(s) to be achieved and then an idea of the groups ethos/purpose could be formed.

Peace,

Mind

[ballzac]

Perhaps to prevent it's scheduling one could've suggested less intense measures such as allowing personal growth but not the sale of plant material or extract, most of the idiots who were using it as a 'legal high' and posting their videos on youtube resulting in it's scheduling would not have used it if they couldn't just walk down the the local head shop/type in a web address and buy a bag.

I think that most people who are willing to put in the effort to grow the plant are sensible enough to research its use and precautions that should be taken. However, how many people do you think actually used it anyway...its not like it was going to be the next MJ. The idea would be to look at the criteria that should be met by any drug to become scheduled and to present scientific/social evidence as to why the substance doesn't meet that criteria, and then look at some other aspects like the environmental diversity one mentioned before.

An idea of the specific goals to be aimed towards would be a good start, I put forward my ideas above, maybe those interested could do the same.

Peace,

Mind

Isn't this just pandering though? It seems wrong somehow. It's like if they planned to outlaw homosexuality again, and people prevented it by suggesting that public displays of affection by gay couples be outlawed but private acts remain legal. Seems a bit wrong. It gets back to the ethics of it. Also, you say "its not like it was going to be the next MJ". Using that as a reason that it should not be banned is a concession that MJ should be. Again, it's pandering. I think the purpose of any organisation aimed at sensible drug reform should not be to give in inch by inch, it should be to have a clear aim of across the board sensible and ethical drug legislation. If that's too much for the general public to deal with, then it will probably be ineffectual for a while, but if we actually make it clear what we want and why we want it, then I feel in the long run we have a better chance of actually getting what we want.

The fact of the matter is that all of this legislation comes from prejudice. Drug users are scum. Drug use is immoral. Drugs should only be used for medical purposes. All this crap. If the lawmakers know that a substance can make a person feel good, or entertain them, or alter their perception in any way, they will do everything they can to ban it (unless it's alcohol of course). The only way to prevent this happening, is to shake society's perception of drugs and recreational drug use. It may take a couple of generations for this to sink in...if it ever does. But if we take the pandering approach, we will have little 'victories' here and there, but in a hundred years, there will still be more illegal substance than there are right now.

[MindExpansion]

Using that as a reason that it should not be banned is a concession that MJ should be.

Good point on that one. I wasn't suggesting an inch by inch approach, and I totally agree with:

I think the purpose of any organisation aimed at sensible drug reform should not be to give in inch by inch, it should be to have a clear aim of across the board sensible and ethical drug legislation

And what I have been saying is that what needs doing is a defining of that aim so efforts can be focussed.

I also really agree with:

The fact of the matter is that all of this legislation comes from prejudice. Drug users are scum. Drug use is immoral. Drugs should only be used for medical purposes. All this crap.

There are a few ways to reduce prejudice particularly by using respectable peoples who are willing to stand up and say that they used drugs. I remember reading that the founder of Apple computers said something along the lines of taking LSD being among the most important decisions he ever made. Those things alone though are far too trivial to be an argument for changed legislation, just a way to possibly increase public support. The legislation changes must be encouraged using a multi-pronged approach highlighting social-financial-medical reasons why the current legislation isn't right, and why new legislation would be better.

Also:

If the lawmakers know that a substance can make a person feel good, or entertain them, or alter their perception in any way, they will do everything they can to ban it (unless it's alcohol of course).

Unfortunately probably all too true, but it is that last little section there that could be focussed on for this. The question we could ask is why is alcohol legal. If you can show that other substances are not as bad with regards to the three aspects I mentioned before, then you have already formed a reasonable basis for an argument against the legislation of those substances. This may not constitute an argument in itself but it may be quite strong... 'We have looked at all the available evidence and have concluded that Salvia Divinorum poses a far lesser risk to society both financially, socially and medically than alcohol. As such we believe it should be subject to no stricter legislation than alcohol itself.' If you really do have the evidence to back up that statement the only real way they can argue is to dispute that evidence. And thus if the evidence is truly good, they could only do three things (as far as I can see): They could take the immature approach as simply dismiss the evidence and the argument in the third grade 'silent treatment' style, they could legislate alcohol to the same level as the substance in question, or they could de/relegislate the substance in question.

What I have said above may be somewhat naive but on the other hand it may be true.

But if we take the pandering approach, we will have little 'victories' here and there, but in a hundred years, there will still be more illegal substance than there are right now.

Very true.

At any rate, the first thing any organisation would need would be an idea of their aims/goals.

Peace,

Mind

[niall]

I think a good aspect would be to make a point that this is not about legalisation. It is about legislation based on rationality, evidence, and ethics. If the final outcome of this is that some substances are legalised, then that's great. If the outcome is otherwise, then that's okay too, because if the evidence actually showed that society is better off if such and such is banned, then that is a good thing that it is banned.

Couldn't agree more - we need evidence based legislation. Guys keep an eye on my High Court thread - this case is not just about cannabis, and will shine a very bright light on the TGA and Australian laws enacted to implement our treaty obligations. There should be a significant update in that thread in the coming days and you will see that this case cuts to the heart of ballzac's statement above on medical, religious, evidential and Constitutional grounds.

[husk]

At any rate, the first thing any organisation would need would be an idea of their aims/goals.

totally i would agree with that. what do you guys think about pushing for civil possession amendments which are already in place in SA and ACT in relation to cannabis (apparently ACT's laws seem to spill into south coast of NSW also) so instead of aiming high at a blanket reversal on the general status of all illegal drugs (unlikely!) we could just focus on those that are botanical, with of course a definate stance on personal choices and freedoms.

also i don't know if it is such a good idea to demonise alchohol so much as to possibly end up restricting it, again, unlikely but i think we are all for free will and choice and would want to come across as such. maybe it would be better to align our cause with alchohol perhaps suggesting access to a more well rounded selection of safer substances to discourage the abuse of just one and thus help society, especially with psychedelics ability to help kick bad habits and such.

i really think the plant/food vs drug concept is one that is important to bring up. i have found with my less supportive friends that suggesting to them to think about taking someone's nurtured plants away from them as opposed to supposedly saving them from a life of destructive drug abuse usually reminds them of the lack of freedom and respect for our self determination and the right to culture.

what do you guys think?

edit: sorry mind i didnt see yr post back there, so i hope u dont think i was ignoring yr drugs as opposed to just plant suggestion! though some part of me still thinks that to try a different tact, like addressing the substances in a form which have obvious uses beyond simply 'drugging' oneself and trying to foster acceptance that they actually do, is plausible.

i personally would not rid my backyard of 'outlawed' cactai purely because i do not grow them and keep them for drug use so that seems like a perfectly senisble and legitimate position to have despite the reasons for legislation, but perhaps not for a cohesive group the likes of which we are discussing!

peace

Edited August 17, 2008 by husk

[Ace]

Just finished watching 'Is Alcohol Worse Than Ecstasy?' by BBC's Horizon. Quite interesting in that it shows the faults in the UK's current drug classification system by classifying the 'Top 20 Most Dangerous Drugs in the UK' and show what is Britain's most dangerous drug. It can be found via torrent if one searches or is possibly online elsewhere.

The 3 criteria used in creating the list were*:

1. Danger to the person using it

2. How addictive it is

3. Consequence to society

*(Note: the doco stated that the criteria were based on the most current research and the doco looks to have been created, or at least released in, 2008. Also note that the film is based on use in the UK, so it could be different in Aus.)

For your info, here's the list given in the doco (from most dangerous to least):

1. Heroin

2. Cocaine

3. Barbiturates

4. Street Methadone

5. Alcohol

6. Ketamine

7. Benzodiazepine

8. Amphetamine

9. Tobacco

10. Buprenorphine

11. Cannabis

12. Solvents

13. 4MTA

14. LSD

15. Methylphenidate

16. Anabolic Steroids

17. GHB

18. Ecstasy

19. Alkyl Nitrite

20. Khat

Take from that what you will, but I thought that might help in this crusade against the WOD. Not the best doco I’ve seen on the subject, but well worth a look for those interested in the subject.

P.S. Somebody better appreciate that list - all those links were a pain in the arse to add I'm hoping it will help people make better decisions with what they ingest (especially since there were a few I'd never even heard of in that list, but I might just be a nieve garden gnome ), so it may have been worth it.

[ballzac]

I'm often skeptical of the method used to compile lists like this. They attemp to condense a range of complex issues down into a one-dimentional list. Firstly, I think that if alcohol was illegal it would scoot to the top of the list (possibly should be there anyway) and if heroin was legal it would drop many places. Who the hell would put cannibis above solvents? I mean, really. Do you think the people who compiled the list would rather their kids were sniffing glue than smoking weed? I can't remember the last time I heard of someone dying suddenly from smoking weed. Granted, weed is probably more addictive...yeah? And? Still seems kinda dumb to me. I don't know if a list like this is really helpful. It just makes everything look bad. But I do appreciate the trouble you went to with each list item linked to wiki.

Edited August 18, 2008 by ballzac

[Yeti101]

It's pretty good research actually. I've posted a link here: http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...showtopic=18613

If the link doesn't work, tell me and I'll find a better source.

[Ace]

I know where you're coming from Ballz. It does look to depict each substance as quite dangerous (however it does back up the fact that the current classifications are B.S. and that some category 1's are much less harmful than some unrestricted ones), but generally speaking it seems fairly accurate IMO - feel free to disagree, but I'd recommend watching it first to getthe full picture not just the list. They actually try to unhinge the preconceived notions that because some drugs are legal they are somehow safer than those that are illegal.

I personally think everything should be legalised but regulated using scientific fact, not prejudice or any other preconceived, irrational ideals. Things need to change, but people have been pushing for change (see organisations like NORML, MAPS and LEAP for example) since the 60s with no luck. The thing is prejudice and bullshit campaigns win people over (see 'your brain on ecstacy' for one easy example) because at the end of the day those in charge spin whatever works best for them via media and we buy into it because 'whatever's on telly's gotta be true - right??'.

People are sheep - they dont want to lead, they just want to get on and live life (well we've already got our own issues to deal with, why create more for ourselves?). Disrupting the way things are and have been for decades is too much work for most and generally people who do use (or abuse, as those in charge like to phrase it) would rather just go under the radar because it is much easier than taking on the big guns (plus if they were to try they'd be in the spotlight and unable to use in future without being pulled up for it). It is kind of selfish in some ways (they'd rather just have a toke/'insert method of drug administration here' in privacy rather than attempt to overturn current illogical drug laws), but it does seem the only logical (and achievable) route to take when taking on those in charge is such a huge task with very little light at the end of the tunnel.

I'd love to say that the dreams of overturning current drug legislation as discussed previously in this thread have a decent chance in the real world, but I really dont think times will be changing any time soon. Especially when those in charge are using irrational ideas to categorise substances. Although you'd think rationality would win over an opressive and idiotic system, I just dont see it happening. Call me skeptical, jaded, whatever - it just doesnt look good IMO. But now that I've dissuaded a few of you, I still think that the more organisations against these laws the better. It shows that people are against current systems and legislation and that they should be looked into seriously. If there were no organisations protesting against the WOD I honestly think we'd be living in a much worse world because those in charge had no opposition. The opposition to the WOD might not have a whole lot of power, but it does have logic. It has science. It has factual evidence that the WOD is doing more harm than good. That can be enough to change people - if people want to listen.

That is the key. I think that if people are driven to listen to factual evidence, they might be convinced to open their mind a fraction. I think one of the best formats for fighting the WOD is via documentaries. It might be a personal thing, but I know I take in a whole lot more when it is presented in an easy to understand but complex enough to be thought provoking type film showing scientific facts and logic. With those things covered off I think people would listen to anything that had to be said (I'm sure it'd be the same principle behind propaganda, except it would be glossing over some of the facts and logic and replacing them with BS - see previous example of 'Your Brain on Ecstasy').

I've probably come across like I've got a split personality but I feel that it is both worthwhile and futile to fight the WOD. That said, I think it is much more worthwhile than futile, so after all that - BUGGER THE WAR ON DRUGS!

EDIT: Yeti:

"Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse"

Prof David Nutt, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury and Prof Colin Blakemore, The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9566, 24 March 2007-30 March 2007, Pages 1047-1053.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...1e5ba85078e08ff

(This is the one Ace was referring to in the salvia thread)

Nah I think that might be something else. The one I am referring to above is a new(ish?) documentary by BBC's Horizon (see my link). Not sure if they are the same?

Edited August 18, 2008 by Ace

[MindExpansion]

Great articles on the other thread yeti, the one on scale looks great (just read abstracts, not much time right now). I was thinking of writing up a survey on drug use and distributing it via facebook, myspace and other similar sites. Then use SPSS to look at the data. I thought I'd ask though, it might be a bit out of reach or pointless but I was thinking questions about what drugs, how often, if the current legal status of the drugs bother those who use, if they think they would use more if the drug was available from a pharmacy, if they would go to illegal dealers if they were restricted to a certain number of doses in the month etc., if they have ever been presented with safe use advice, if they have ever sought safe use advice, why they use, where they use, and give a form of the Fagerstrom test to assess addiction to a certain degree.

Any comments on that as an idea?

Peace,

Mind

[Teotzlcoatl]

Claiming religous/cultural use is the only path I can see to legalization.

[ballzac]

Unlikely in Australia...unless your religion is footy and the sacrament is VB.

[t st tantra]

surely it can be argued that the use of some/most entheogens in the present and for thousands of years proves that they are not dangerous.

[my personal view,this culture may be more harmful to the entheogen user than visa versa.]

t s t .

[Yeti101]

EDIT: Yeti:

Nah I think that might be something else. The one I am referring to above is a new(ish?) documentary by BBC's Horizon (see my link). Not sure if they are the same?

In research circles last year is new(ish). Depending on your specific area, anything up to 5 years old can be considered recent. That and the list of 14 and the ranking the were given is very similar if not identical. I'd be really surprised if there were not a connection between the two things.

Nice idea Mind, PM me if you want to talk specific researchy stuff.

@ Teotz': Religious/cultural use might work in the USA, but I think it unlikely to cut the mustard here, by itself at least.

Which brings me to t st tantra's point: For conservatives this isn't just about physical harm. They see it as changing (they say damaging) the very fabric of the society we live in here by allowing individuals to participate in practices either inherently immoral and/or irreducibly and irrevocably damaging to society at large. That's why they aren't concerned with the physical harm that tobacco and alcohol cause. Of course, even this is inconsistent - alcohol does damage society. Anyone who has had an alcoholic family member will vouch for that.

[MindExpansion]

Claiming religous/cultural use is the only path I can see to legalization.

I agree with B and Yeti. This probably has next to no hope unless you have an argument I haven't thought of...and even then (still, best of luck to Niall and his friend).

Which brings me to t st tantra's point: For conservatives this isn't just about physical harm. They see it as changing (they say damaging) the very fabric of the society we live in here by allowing individuals to participate in practices either inherently immoral and/or irreducibly and irrevocably damaging to society at large. That's why they aren't concerned with the physical harm that tobacco and alcohol cause. Of course, even this is inconsistent - alcohol does damage society. Anyone who has had an alcoholic family member will vouch for that.

Totally agree, if it was just about physical harm many of the scheduled substances wouldn't be scheduled and tobacco and alcohol would have to be, its an idealogical thing based on nothing but...well ideology.

Peace,

Mind

[t st tantra]

who was talking physical harm?i meant not dangerous in any/all senses and especially not dangerous to the society.

peyote using societies were happy enough with peyote to fight for its legalisation.

shroom and salvia using groups in mexico had no issues with their plants, keeping them secret until last century.

iboga using societies still use iboga.

likewise ayahausca is still being used with no problems.

sometimes these societies assumed the images of christianity to keep their entheogen use as that was more valuable to them than mere imagery.

or if you like the entheogens were found to work just as well with christianity as with their previous belief systems.

prob not expessing myself well but do you see my drift..............the societies using entheogens dont have trouble with them, its a construct.

and this use has often been continuous for thousands of years without problems.the societies using entheogens are happy with them!

one of the big thing about drugs being illegal is it places people outside of the support of society.i believe a society which includes and supports its drug users has less problems than one which makes them outcastes hiding their issues.

[depression etc in our society is often because our society is sick not necessarily the individual.]

t s t .

Edited August 19, 2008 by t st tantra