50,000 Signatures

[notguilty]

This is the response I recieved regarding the idea of submitting a petition to the Council for civil liberties.

"That's a very interesting idea. I see two immediate problems, firstly that you would

need a lot more than a thousand signatures to make an impact (eg 50,000), and secondly

a lot of people would be reluctant to sign for fear of police follow-up.

Current QCCL policy is for legalisation of possession for all the currently illegal

substances, plants, pills and powders. In 1993 we made extended submissions for the

legalisation of cannabis, as per below.

I would have thought Getup (http://www.getup.org.au/)would be the best way to go about

getting a really big petition. Also their petitions only show names and email

addresses.

Two other organisations interested in drug law reform are the Australian Parliamentary

Group for Drug Law Reform and the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation. I have

attached their latest newsletter.

Yours sincerely"

http://www.qccl.org.au/documents/Sub_JER_4..._Queensland.pdf

http://www.qccl.org.au/documents/Sub_PA_1N..._Queensland.pdf

General feedback on the idea please?

[Yeti101]

Working on getting something going through GetUp sounds like a very good idea, though I don't know what they will or will not support in terms of petitions. Also, for our purposes we have to be able to show that it is Australian voters signing it etc.

50 K is a lot of signatures. But if you can re-assure people that this won't/can't lead back to them and still have the petition be recognised as credible, then I think we would have a chance at collecting lots of signatures. I'd suggest that the wording of the petition not make any reference to what people might have done, just what they would like to see change.

Nice work, keep it up.

[notguilty]

I am waiting to hear back from the Council for Civil Liberties to find out if the petition is for them to take action or for them to support in the House of Representatives,

as for an e petition

Unfortunately the House of Representatives does not accept electronic

petitions at this time. However, at the beginning of this year, standing

orders (or 'rules of the House') were amended and arrangements for

petitions were changed. The Standing Committee on Petitions was also

established, to ensure that all petitions which comply with the rules

are able to be presented in the House, considered by the Committee and

responded to. More information on the work of the Committee, and the

requirements for a petition to be 'in order', is available from

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/work/petitions.htm and

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/petitions/index.htm

Should you wish to prepare a petition, I strongly recommend that you get

in touch with us prior to collecting signatures, so that you can be

assured of the petition being able to be presented to the House. Please

let me know if you are unable to access either of the websites above; I

will be happy to post paper copies of relevant documents to you.

I hope this information is of assistance. Please contact me should you

have any further queries with regard to petitioning the House of

Representatives.

Regards

Julia Morris

Inquiry Secretary

House Standing Committee on Petitions

Suite R1.43

House of Representatives

Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Ph +61 2 6277 2152

Fax +61 2 6277 4627

Email [email protected]

[Yeti101]

I think I'll leave Reptyle to his own thread.

I'm working on a the wording for a petition - not that I'm dead keen to be principle petitioner, but I'd like to put it up here for people to look at and think about. But I'm stuck on one bit. What specifically are we asking parliament to do? I think if we can be more specific than simply talking about legalisation or decriminalisation it would be helpful, especially as technically (someone correct me if I'm wrong) drug law is a state matter, but the TGA is under Federal control.

Anyway, here is what I came up with so far:

TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House to the following:

Prohibition of illicit drugs has failed. It has failed to eliminate the abuse of both illicit and licit drugs in a significant portion of the community. It criminalizes individuals who exercise the right to do as they choose with their own bodies and minds. It creates the situation where criminal cartels and terrorist organizations can extract profit from the community to advance their own ends and encourages corrupt behavior of our law enforcement officers.

Prohibition of illicit substances discriminates against citizens on the basis of cultural background, religion and ideology by making criminals of these people if they choose to use substances other than the legally sanctioned drugs for traditional, religious, spiritual or personal reasons. We believe that so long as all care is taken to minimize harm to the individual and those around them, that such activities should not be prohibited.

We the therefore ask the House to facilitate a move away from prohibition starting immediately by enacting:

 

• A rigorous review of decisions of National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee.
  
• A comprehensive overhaul of the current system of scheduling by the Therapeutic Goods Administration
  
• The replacement of the current system with a system of regulation and education that is rational, nondiscriminatory, and encourages the safe use of all drugs including those that are currently legal.
  

 

What are people's thoughts?

Also, if we get a decent number of signatures they will look at it, but I don't see it as essential as petitions with as few as 5 signatures have been tabled and been discussed at a public hearing (albeit it not for very long).

[notguilty]

I am unable to be the principle petitioner or the public face of the petition, I want to be but their is a small issue that prevents me from being such and would bring into question the credibility of the petition. Like I said to my local member give me someone worth voting for and I will.

Oh, I can hear it already, "you don't vote so you can't give political opinions", I agree, so I will not offer political opinions. I would vote for me though

Just a thought, what if we approached it from a spiritual point and leave religion out of it? We the people seek the protection for spiritual practice?

And if you feel like condemning me for anything I say please do, it keeps the discussions flowing.

Also I think the TGA itself is illegal and I don't think a self appointed body should have any involvement.

WHAT IS THE HEART OF THE MATTER? WHAT CAN WE ALL AGREE ON?

[Yeti101]

The spiritual angle is all well and good, but you have to justify the principle "that people should be allowed to use certain things (plants/drugs ect) to explore their spirituality" to people who see no value in any spirituality at all except possibly their own. They don't think that any spiritual practice actually happens outside their own church, if at all. Conservative Christian politicians might spin you a nice yarn, but deep down if you confront them with this they will think you deluded, heathen or both. It is a good element of the argument, but I don't think it carries enough political weight by itself. That's why I included it, but tried to cover a broad range of reasons for change.

Also I think the TGA itself is illegal and I don't think a self appointed body should have any involvement.

I'm not a massive fan of them either, but realistically, some committee/group/advisory council is always going to be deciding these things, and whoever it is will be appointed by the government of the day - unless we move to something like the US model, and the decisions are made by the politicians.

Did you think my proposal a bad one?

[notguilty]

Shit no! no proposal is a bad one.

As for proposals I have one and I seek a person to second

Torsten is herby nominated as the head of the committee for a petition regarding this matter

seconded?

Edited September 5, 2008 by entheofarm

[Yeti101]

Rather than speculate about what Torsten will do or not, I'll let him speak for himself.

Speaking for myself though, I didn't second diddly squat! Sorry T

I'm not even convinced we need a committee or even that it would achieve much (or are you just taking the piss?). We don't need to form a bureaucracy in order to discuss options and consult each others opinions. Besides, this idea that the whole process will go better for us if we just launch one really good petition is just an assumption (isn't it?). At a wild guess I'd say it is going to take lots of petitions, lots of letters to our respective MP's, lots of letters to the TGA, letters to the editor, articles, protests and a stack of luck besides. Why is a petition endorsed by some ad hoc committee we throw together better than one sponsored by an individual but created in consultation with the community?

Edit: Back to the point - what do people think of my proposal? (look up a few posts)

Edited September 5, 2008 by Yeti101

[notguilty]

yeah my bad, but I do believe torsten and people whose lives revolve around this issue are the most qualified to comment.

And I will let Torsten speak for himself here.

My goal is to get a small committee together to represent the majority in WORDING the petition, should I just nominate reptyle?

Letters have been sent, educating them has failed.

It may be just a matter of requesting uniform federal laws?

Leave the wording open so as not to isolate any group?

all are just suggestions people and any nomination for anything carries as much weight as a feather, I just want the learned people to unite on a single goal.

Yeah fair enough, just read through the crap I wrote, no need for a head of anything, just a committee of learned people on the wording. Not saying that there is anything wrong with yeti101s' or reptyles' petition I would sign both.

This is another email I sent *YAWN*

There is discussions taking place regarding the petition and the wording of such,

general consensus is to go along the reccomendation of the QCCL, personally I don't

agree but will support,

20 plants? really? is the council not making reccomendations they know will be refused,

who the f%$k needs twenty plants? lets be realistic. even an outdoor grower can tell

you that is excessive for personal use!

What consultation has the council undertaken in forming their views?

A question I would like to put to you is why Haneef, as an individual case, has the

councils support yet thousands are prosecuted on cannabis and prohibited plant related

charges not realising you exist, how can it not be individualy dealt with when

civilians have no idea you exist? why was haneef so special?

I request the council partake in forums on ozstoners and the corroboree at

shamin-australis (excuse my spelling) and other relevant forums and notify your

position when partaking in discussions, is this not the reason the council exists?

Assistance with the wording of a petition to request uniform federal drug REGULATIONS

is keenly sought and eagerly awaited.

Kind regards

Edited September 5, 2008 by entheofarm

[notguilty]

Another option is to just take the matter to court on a civil basis? faster results?

Yeti101 I like the petition but the more words the more oppurtunity they have to attack it.

And why does it have to have anything to do with use? Just the fact I can't legally own peyote is a joke

how stupid are the laws in Qld? I can have a trich as long as I don't consume it but can't posses peyote at all! who comes up with this shit?

[notguilty]

Taken from http://www.ffdlr.org.au

We recognise that the present prohibition policies:

* are not preventing the use and abuse of illegal drugs;

* do not protect our young people, their families or their friends from related tragedy;

* cause unintended harm and limit harm reduction strategies;

* marginalise and stigmatise people in our community;

* work against the application of human rights for dependent drug users;

* impede the development of beneficial medical applications of illegal drugs;

* put the control of illegal drugs outside the law;

* create the conditions for a black market that enriches criminals and promotes the distribution of the drugs;

* fund terrorist activities;

* waste enormous economic resources.

Further we resolve to promote:

* activities that raise awareness of the issues;

* activities that will overcome stereotyping and marginalisation;

* education programs that are directed toward reducing harm and minimising abuse;

* standards and accreditation for drug treatments and interventions;

* provision of adequate and well resourced drug treatments and interventions;

* the important role of families in drug treatment and rehabilitation;

* the search for better drug policies based on evidence;

* cautious and well-researched steps toward changing laws so that they cause less harm;

* removal of criminal sanctions for personal use of currently illegal drugs.

A few alterations to the wording?

[niall]

What's the goal of the petition?

Personally I think every plant and drug should be regulated as appropriate. That may be 'free availability' and just basic quality control like lettuce, kitchen herbs and tea; or it may require scheduling and prescription, distribution by pharmacies, herbalists or suitably qualified people.

Outright prohibition is not appropriate regulation, that's complete abdication of control.

I think it would be easier for us to agree on a goal by leaving specific plants and drugs out of the debate. Everything could be regulated as appropriate: with full investigation, due process, public consultation, and evidence. Based on science, not moralistic dogma and belief.

I'd gladly sign a petition worded along those lines, and I think many more members of the public (and our community) would do the same. There's no stygma attached to this as we're not talking about specific substances but a principle of public policy and legislation based on science and evidence. If one substance needs to be tightly controlled, fine, but we can't group all of these many substances into a couple of broad categories without appropriate provision for scientific and medical use. The Single Convention is pretty clear about this - these substancs must be made available for scientific and medical use, and the intention of the Treaty is to combat misuse, abuse and trafficking. Not all use, but misuse and abuse. Not cultivation in small, private kitchen and apothecary gardens for horticultural purposes. Not for sharing a flower with a friend.

Similarly, the TGA needs to be reigned in and complete transparency and scrutiny given to the public and interested parties. I'd also sign a petition on this topic.

But we'd have great difficulty getting 50,000 verifiable signatures (i.e. names and addresses) to "legalise drugs". We need to adopt common-sense terminology - these items should be regulated, as appropriate. Let the chips fall where they may, but they all need to be appraised based on science and the facts, their actual impact to individual and public health, to society as a whole, and in the context that prohibition is the absolute worst of all possible 'regulatory' approaches.

Just IMHO :-)

[Ace]

Niall has hit the nail on the head. There's no point in making some petition up if it doesnt make sense and if people think its primary objective is to legalise drugs. Its about regulating them using scientific strategies and based on scientific research, not stereotypes, dogma, ignorance, etc. To legalise all drugs with no sensible approach other than free reign for everyone to use, there would of course be problems (imagine buying a bag of smack at your local corner store!). But by regulating them they can eradicate the most damaging aspects of current illict use - mainly that which comes of dodgy material being passed off as other stuff, as well as being able to accurately label dosages (eliminating the chances of mislabelling and ODing). It would also aid to eradicate the traffickers and dealers who are more interested in a quick buck than the safety and well being of their customers. All this can be fixed if the Gov wants to take a huge step - but I (and many) feel it will have to be taken at some point or another.

[notguilty]

"regulated as appropriate: with full investigation, due process, public consultation, and evidence. Based on science, not moralistic dogma and belief"

I like the wording niall, a lot!

Yes I agree, niall hit it squarely on the head, but regulation of everything? what a task.

keep in mind for the petition to be accepted it only requires the signature not the full name and address.