Jump to content
The Corroboree
J Smith

Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences

Recommended Posts

I am even thinking I will contact Leon Viner who my Dad keeps telling me really runs with issues like this and makes things happen as he has a lot of contacts within the political sector!!!

Please do :D

200 signatures to form a political party...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone thinking of putting forward a submission; here is a link to Mark Newton's now infamous and scathing submission to the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety from last year regarding the internet censorship debacle. The content obviously is not relevant but it might give some inspiration and thoughts about how to layout your submission.

Internode engineer Mark Newton’s submission (PDF) to the Federal Parliamen’s Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety

Remember to address and note specific questions raised in the discussion paper instead of going into some random rant.

Edited by Dale Cooper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a bulk email about this to about a hundred nurseries around the country. I just received this reply from one:

Thanks for this very interesting information. I have forwarded to many other growers and nurseries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point that may be worth considering is that there is a certain native species that is endangered, and these laws would prevent people from attempting to propagate this plant to ensure it's survival. I'm sure you all know which one I am talking about, but there are probably more that fit into the same category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My lack of legal knowledge is hindering my understanding of the discussion paper. I was particularly confused as to why the definition of "Controlled plant" is given as "Any plant of the genus Cannabis". Sure enough, I looked at the criminal code 1995 section 314.2, and that is the only genus listed.

Why is this different to the list given in schedule 9 of the SUSDP? It almost makes sense because one is "controlled", the other is "prohibited", but then why does cannabis appear in both? Also, the SUSDP has a schedule for "controlled" as well.

From my understanding, in addition to adding currently unrestricted plants to the list, the proposed changes would add the S9 plants to the controlled plants list. I don't understand what this means. Given that they are already illegal, what would adding S. divinorum, kratom, etc. to the list of controlled plants that currently only contains cannabis actually mean?

Sorry if these are stupid questions, but the law in general tends to make no sense to me :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ballzac, the SUSMP is not law unless the states incorporate it into their state drug and therapeutics laws. Which they have in a blanket way. But that means that these laws are enforced under state law and in state courts not by feds. Even if the TGA raids someone for these thigns it is still th state health dept or attourney generals dept that prosecutes you.

The proposed legislation is a federal law that completely sidelines the states. The states have the power to create exemptions from this state law, but they generally don't.

Ona very happy note, the getUp petition is already almost halfway to the top in udner 2 days. This appears to have been almost exclusively from the ethnobotany forums and facebook so far as I've seen that this news is only just hitting the big mailing lists. I'd expect a huge boost for the petition in the next day or two as it moves further into the mainstream which could take it well past what we need. For anyoen needing to post a summary on their FB account or email list here is a template:

Our federal government is about to make drastic changes to the federal drug laws, which will include making thousands of plants illegal to possess. This will include most of our beautiful Wattles, most of our ornamental garden cacti, and many other medicinal and ritual plants. We are trying to push GetUp to pick this as their next campaign. Please go here and vote:

Each GetUp member can allocate up to 10 votes to causes.

This it the short link:

http://bit.ly/eVbxfW

GetUp is extremely successful at running campaigns and does not shy away from High Court challenges.

The detail of the proposed law is that it will criminalise:

* all plants that contain DMT ie:our beautiful wattles(our national emblem!)

* all plants that contain mescaline ie:most of our ornamental cactus

* Catha edulis

* all Brugmansia species

* all Datura species: adored by proud gardners everywhere for their beautiful flower

This will make criminals out of almost every person who has Wattles growing in their backyard as many contains DMT in small quantities. It will also cover hundreds of cactus species that contain traces of mescaline, including most of the popular ornamentals such as Echinopsis and Mammillaria. This law will criminalise more than half of australian cactus collections.

Most stupidly of all it will cover the popular ornamental Angels trumpets and the widespread weed Jimson weed.

By this time next year the weeds in your garden could be just as criminal as having Cannabis plants growing there. if you have 50 illegal plants in your garden you are facing a jail sentence and a federal drugs conviction.

These laws are based on ignorance and stupidity and must be stopped. if you are not prepared to write your own submission to the federal attorney general by March then your best contribution will be to sign up to GetUp and vote for this matter to be taken up by them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone thinking of putting forward a submission; here is a link to Mark Newton's now infamous and scathing submission to the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety from last year regarding the internet censorship debacle. The content obviously is not relevant but it might give some inspiration and thoughts about how to layout your submission.

Internode engineer Mark Newton’s submission (PDF) to the Federal Parliamen’s Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety

Remember to address and note specific questions raised in the discussion paper instead of going into some random rant.

Good suggestions, however may I add a couple.

Mark's submission lacks point structure. The peopel reading these things need to be able to refer to paragraphs by a number or they get lost easily. So, as the discussion paper already puts forward a numbering system for the questions, it would be wise to use this and put sub paragraphs below them.

Make sure that any statement made is referenced or clearly identified as not referencable. eg, if you don't have a reference then refer to 'personal communication with the source', or phrases like 'it has been suggested...'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ona very happy note, the getUp petition is already almost halfway to the top in udner 2 days. This appears to have been almost exclusively from the ethnobotany forums and facebook so far as I've seen that this news is only just hitting the big mailing lists. I'd expect a huge boost for the petition in the next day or two as it moves further into the mainstream which could take it well past what we need.

1281 votes - currently ranked 7th! Keep it coming people! This plus the submissions will make for mucho headaches in ALP land :lol:

I'll be very interested to get the Greens thoughts on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tripsis, I am so proud of you for starting this. Probably one of the fastest GetUp petitions ever. Awesome work. Wish I would have thought of it myself ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone contacted Ray from HHH about this? He can potentially reach a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, is anyone tweeting this? If so, what hashtag are you using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a twit, so no tweeting here, but it has been going nuts on FB. Ray know about it and has been sending an email we composed together out to everyone. This is only the first phase. Once GetUp picks this up I am going to focus on the science nittygritty so we have a submission ready for people to copy and paste from as they see fit. This is such an excellent opportunity to show the legislators how poorly informed their policy writers are and that the australian public will not accepts poorly made laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 votes off 6th place! Can you post the email Torsten? I am going to write my own to submit to the local paper, etc but one to forward whilst I am busy would be grand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an aboriginal garden at the Clayton campus of Monash University. The plants there all have medicinal, culinary and/or practical uses. I've been trying to figure out if any of the plants they have would be specifically at risk under the proposed changes. Here is the list: http://fsd.monash.edu.au/files/bethgottpamphlet_po.pdf

There are plenty of Acacias there, but I don't know much about the ones they have. I'm not sure exactly who created and cares for the garden, but it is obviously of some cultural significance, and I'm sure they would be opposed to these laws given that some of the plants there may be under threat.

Incidentally, there are at least two different, but equally beautiful, Brugmansia species in prime locations at the afformentioned university campus.

ballzac, the SUSMP is not law unless the states incorporate it into their state drug and therapeutics laws. Which they have in a blanket way. But that means that these laws are enforced under state law and in state courts not by feds. Even if the TGA raids someone for these thigns it is still th state health dept or attourney generals dept that prosecutes you.

Thanks for making that clear for me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 votes off 6th place! Can you post the email Torsten? I am going to write my own to submit to the local paper, etc but one to forward whilst I am busy would be grand!

see post 56. edit as needed and as current. we're now in 6th place with over 1400 votes, and all that in just 48h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we get compensation for our loss if we are forced to destroy plants that have have been obtained legally ?

I don't know if I could bring myself to destroy a healthy plant anyway, to me it would be like being asked to kill one of my kids and only keep the ones chosen by someone else. They'll have to bring their own henchmen to do the killing.

And what of people with large established trees ?

Removing a tree is a time consuming and costly exercise, removing several would be very expensive not to mention emotionally scarring, who is expected to pay for that ?

In the case of Acacias they would be destroying the habitats of countless native species as well, how does that stand from a legal perspective ?

Will removing trees contravene any council or land and environment regulations and if so will we liable for prosecution under any of those acts/regulations if we remove trees - could be a technical issue with the implementation of the bill.

end of rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Magicdirt. And what of illegal plants growing on Crown land? Are they going to spend the money required to remove large populations of these trees? And what about situations where removing a large number of trees will pose an environmental threat due to increased erosion, habitat loss, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tripsis, I am so proud of you for starting this. Probably one of the fastest GetUp petitions ever. Awesome work. Wish I would have thought of it myself ;)

I'll say, especially since he supposed to be on hols enjoying himself.

There are generally exemptions for illegal & noxious plants growing on crown land so that while most time the local or state gov will make some attempt to at least "tidy up" they do not face the same penalties if they don't get around to it.

But if the same plant "hops" the fence into your place your screwed :ana:

I'm not entirely sure how this would work with forestry plantations in QLD for example where the plantations have been sold off but the land is still crown land.

"Do we get compensation for our loss if we are forced to destroy plants that have have been obtained legally?"

Would be worth a try, after all they had a great gun buy back.

And this is likely to be just as effective :rolleyes:

"Will removing trees contravene any council or land and environment regulations and if so will we liable for prosecution under any of those acts/regulations if we remove trees"

Commonwealth law overrides state & local law so depending on how the law ends up being worded it could actually become a defence against prosecution under local & or state laws. There are already landholders keeping an eye on this with exactly that in mind.

I'm wondering if this isn't being designed for the AFP rather than specifically for the states?

After i've finished cleaning down mud & repairing bits n pieces in the aftermath the flood I'll have a dig back through hansard & see what i can find.

Edited by shortly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had experience with such proposals before in other areas of control of biological matter. One thing that people should be aware of is that the draft proposals are likely to be ambit claims, in the hope that as much can be sheduled as possible, but that the intention will be to ensure that particular species are listed no matter what.

My guess is that there will be a very small core list in soneone's drawer, and that lophs and a few trichs will be on it, and khat, along with a few of the solanaceae and the other favourites here. But by telling the Australian public that their floral emblem and stack of other stuff is safe, they'll have effectively hosed down public opposition to the rest.

Be aware of this strategy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say it woody but my gut says that Khat, sally D , a few Acacias, Lophs the bulk of Trichs will go.

Trying to cover a far more than they actually want/expect is standard practice.

If there is a fight then they gave ground (but still got want they wanted) and if there isn't any opposition all the better.

Oh well there is always plan C :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had experience with such proposals before in other areas of control of biological matter. One thing that people should be aware of is that the draft proposals are likely to be ambit claims, in the hope that as much can be sheduled as possible, but that the intention will be to ensure that particular species are listed no matter what.

My guess is that there will be a very small core list in soneone's drawer, and that lophs and a few trichs will be on it, and khat, along with a few of the solanaceae and the other favourites here. But by telling the Australian public that their floral emblem and stack of other stuff is safe, they'll have effectively hosed down public opposition to the rest.

Be aware of this strategy...

That's possible

The same tactics were used when enterprise bargaining came in and still are

We're going to take A B C D E off you

When they could only get away with taking A&C (which was all they really wanted) workers were left screwed with the pretence that they actually won something.

Typical fascist tactics

@ Shortly - Sally is already considered "evil" by our corporate controlled government (puppets)

Edited by Magicdirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all can someone explain to me what the go is with your 10 votes can they be used on the one campaign or is it you can only use 3 for each campaign.

I am trying to push this more into the main stream now. The mum and dad gardeners and commercial growers.

Now 4th at 1779 votes

Cheers

Got

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torsten, any chance of a global PM? There are apparantly over four thousand members of these boards, most of whom never post, and perhaps rarely visit the boards. It could reach a lot of allies who may otherwise not hear of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and there's probably no need because this topic will likely stay at the top for a while, but might as well sticky the thread anyway. :)

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

×