Jump to content
The Corroboree
J Smith

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

Recommended Posts

We also need to be careful not to be hikacked by the cannabis legalisation lobby. we should focus on the proposed changes, not on legalising everything, as this will marginalise us with the mainstream.

This is a very good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the relevant links on a very frequented website: Reddit. They do well to generate interest.

I've already seen a jump in the number of votes. Just because we are at no.1 doesn't mean we will stay there!

Please post to any other suitable websites/forums you may visit.

xo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just alerted today tonight to the issue, and am going to be bombing gardening sites like gardening Australia etc with the plant issue tomorrow arvo...

Edited by gilligan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I've done Gardening Australia, but the more hits better, yeah ?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just alerted today tonight to the issue

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cos i fuckin felt like it ballzac - do I really need to explain?... Asked if they might be interested in reviewing the topic, with a focus on possible business losses, the fact the native emblem is at risk of illegalisation not to mention heaps of other day to day plants. Referenced get up, and that it's garnered significant support in the lastfew days, so is a contentious issue, maybe worthy of coverage.

At this stage, it's better to get it out there than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If TT go all right-wing on the matter and exaggerate the chemistry aspect of the plants, it might be worth trying to see if ACA will pick up the other side. The real story here is that this is a non-problem that's wasting tax-payer money and reducing the average citizen's freedoms, and that should trump any scary story about things in plants that most people will never have heard of.

One of the GetUp! posts linked to this:

10clslf.jpg

It's interesting to note that paracetamol toxicity (in terms of the ratio of fatal to effective dose) is around that of heroin, or less, depending on the medical dosage used over, say, a 24 hour period.

Who's trying to get paracetamol (or nutmeg) off the supermarket shelves?

Edited by WoodDragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cos i fuckin felt like it ballzac - do I really need to explain?

No need to get upset. I think it was a fair enough question.

I personally think that if TT has any interest in the story at all, they will be going with the "dangerous drugs easily obtainable at local nursery" side of the story. They will go in with a hidden camera (with fish-eye lense of course) and play dramatic music while they purchase a brugmansia from a hippy, or perhaps a bogan. Perhaps they'll have stock footage of 'dirty foreigners' chewing khat.

All I'm saying is that there are plenty in the media less biased than today tonight. What we need at the moment is an intelligent evaluation of the facts, not scare tactics or dramatisation.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah well, it's done now...

Not sure which news outlet would be best suited to deal with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would issues with the Proposed Model Schedule of Controlled Plants (Part B ) be best dealt with in question E or Question L?

Edited by Yeti101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it depend on the specific issues? Some points, but not all, will fall under question L, for example. Unless I misunderstand your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have to caution about involving media at this stage. media want a story. we don't have much of a story yet and no one to tell it. the other side certainly has a story and also professional people to tell that story. we could be off to a bad start. I am sure that in the next week or two there will be some attention crystallising out of what has been going on eg maybe from the nursery association, maybe botanic gardens, etc. We should also know by then if GetUp picks it up. if all that fails we need to organise ourselves, but that can be done in a couple of days.

Approaching media outlets that like to run anti-drug hype based pieces is definitely not a good idea at this point. For all the reasons Ballzac pointed out. Please do not forget that a lot of the substance and herb schedling is a direct result of these media pieces. In Brisbane the Courier mail is singlehandedly responsible for the changes in pill press legislation for example, while it was the media in adelaide that got catha scheduled there. I would be very surprised if TT does a piece that helps us. I think gilligan just scored what would be called an own-goal ;) [and yes, maybe you should justify yourself if this ends up being the thing that sinks this campaign before it even starts].

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i noticed there was no mention of anadenanthera colubrina, seeing as the actual plant contains no dmt will it come under these laws aswell (they specifically mention peregrina, but no colubrina)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need someone who could go on national telly and radio (are there any genuine & popular current affairs or similar programs apart from on the ABC?) and look credible & appeal to ppl
I couldn't help thinking of Caldicott when I read this :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. I mean I doubt that TT is really that consistent with their bias; they cover the dangers of fluoride in water and toothpaste and then go through a top ten toothpastes with no mention of their fluoride content. They just run whatever is sensational and gets them ratings.

I think with the amount of businesses that would loose out, the need to deforest native trees (including our national emblem) and the costs and impossibility of implementing such legislation which would turn any conservationist with a native collection into a criminal is pretty alarming news! I mean, would one then need a license to be a "collector" or what? I'm getting pretty revved up and I'm usually extremely placid, I think this would be great sensationalist pro common sense propaganda, it might be good for them for a change. ...unless they're part of the conspiracy to lobotmise the human mind and wouldn't run with anything like this.

I like the idea that if one of the major current affair shows runs with the anti-drug hysteria the other could balance that with some common sense (doubtful I know).

Oh yeah, one of these shows is running (or already has) a story about the evils of aspartame! See, these shows aren't all that bad ...I'd still never watch them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T... I went nowhere near the dr.ug side of it, as said it was from possible business losses, native plants being criminalized etc. I see no own goal in that. Fair call re media biasing though.

Fuck off back to your apathy box Gilligan, this wars got enough soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the proposed changes is, according to the discussion paper, to "target the criminal economy...by targeting...the importation, domestic

production and distribution of illicit drugs".

The subtext, one would assume, is that people may be using these plants to achieve altered states, and that such states are immoral and/or dangerous. I'm just wondering how critical we should assume the above quote to be. In science or philosophy, an invalid premise would invalidate the entire paper. This is not science or philosophy though. Obviously the specific questions in the paper need to be addressed, but I'm just wondering how much weight the more legally inclined among us would suggest should be placed on the actual justification for the paper laid out in the introduction?

Really, it seems odd to me that such a comprehensive proposal could be laid out with very little justification in the paper itself. The justification that is given, as I implied above, would be very easy to prove invalid. Is there some justification laid out somewhere previously? Or does the paper not require justification? It seems crazy to have this huge list of changes, and questions as to what will or won't work, without actually giving much of a reason for it all.

Apart from just curiosity, answers to these questions are really important to consider in writing a submission. When I started writing, I took that introduction, and started listing reasons that the means proposed will not achieve the desired end. It feels like anything else is straying off topic, but if I'm misunderstanding the way these things work, it would be a big mistake to miss tackling the 'real' issues here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much enthusiam, but the media is a dangerous beast. Tne biggest problem is that when they can't get enough info and pics of one side they'll just pick the other side. But once they pick a side they usually don't let go. hence my suggestion to make sure we have a comprehensive information source set up that is bullet proof.

And yes, ballzac the good Dr would be ideal. however given how much he hates emo's chewing brugmansia I am not sure he would be wanting to help us on that part :wink: . I'll find out though as I intend to ask him once I have more material ready. would be nice to have his opinion in a submission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted on the Australian section of the Dave's Garden forums. There are four threads on page 1 there about Brugmansias, that's 10% of the threads. Hopefully it catches some attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yes, ballzac the good Dr would be ideal. however given how much he hates emo's chewing brugmansia I am not sure he would be wanting to help us on that part :wink: . I'll find out though as I intend to ask him once I have more material ready. would be nice to have his opinion in a submission.

Frankly, I hate the idea of emos chewing brug too. But is there any evidence that scheduling a common ornamental plant will prevent such intoxication? I suspect that the very act of puttng forward this proposal will ensure that more emos, than otherwise would, will start chewing, and that not a single dollar of of the "criminal economy" will be affected. The only people who will be exposed to charges of committing crime will be disaffected people who probably require drug education, or innocent gardeners and business people who harm no-one. It will do nothing to prevent real crime: it will only manufacture a perception of crime where previously none existed.

And as I and many others have repeated noted before, if there was any serious intent to minimise toxicological harm to the community, there are far, far better ways to achieve this.

If there's one good thing to come out of this, it is the opportunity to follow the paper trail to the waste-of-space pencil-pushers and bureaucratic shit-stirrers who are obviously under-worked, and likely over-paid. Let's find them, and divert their salaries to any of hundred and thousands of more worthy projects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this law does come into effect it will force many previously law abiding folk to illegally harvest their plants in an attempt to no longer have them in their possession. Not only will they be guilty of growing the plants but harvesting them and possessing illegal drug material. Appeasing these inane laws, if they somehow come into effect, will result in law abiding folk guilty of breaking more laws then people who choose to ignore or remain oblivious to them. If the government does somehow manage to educate every Australian gardener on which plants are illegal to grow it would have to be the most effective drug campaign ever run. Good to see the government spending millions out of their drug harm reduction funding on information of little consequence to the health and safety of the nation.

For the vast minority of people with these plants in their possession for illegal use, this flood of harvested material could trigger exactly what the government doesn't want, but in their shortsightedness created unto themselves. I am not aware of these plants contributing to organized crime and I will be extremely disappointed if the governments actions directly result in the criminalization of these plants and thus result in them being abused for monetary gain. It will then be easier and of less legal consequence for people that wish to continue using the banned herbs to purchase them from criminal elements, thus contributing money into organized crime instead of growing their own personal supply.

These laws, if set in place, will unwittingly created exactly what the government is seeking to avoid. It will create a problem where one currently does not exist.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rahli...what they will do is create the illicit markets that are not there at the moment...We don't have enough jails to make this law...I can see a lot of potential revenue in fines but I for one won't pay so they better have room for me in their inn......mad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's one good thing to come out of this, it is the opportunity to follow the paper trail to the waste-of-space pencil-pushers and bureaucratic shit-stirrers who are obviously under-worked, and likely over-paid. Let's find them, and divert their salaries to any of hundred and thousands of more worthy projects.

Thats what we need to be concentrating, bury the bastards in paperwork.thats what they get paid for after all.

And the social network & getup campaigns are a close second in importance at this point.

I still think we need to be prepared & polished for a media campaign although TT would not be my choice of out lets, but still. I believe a media campaign in our favor would be far more effective when the draft legislation is actually scheduled to go to the senate, not while it is still a discussion paper, just my 2c worth.

Hutch they are a wake up to people choosing to stay in their inns are have been introducing measures to "recover public monies" such as the seizure of goods & forfeiture of driving licences etc.

And yes it will create new illicit markets that they can then ask for more funding to stamp out. Is this starting to look like Ouroboros to anyone else?

The normal modus operandi with new or greatly expanded laws like this is to nab a couple of high profile people, prosecute them the the nth degree with lots of media attention to scare the crap outa ppl so the general populous will become compliant.

Usually the only time the public service don't push for a "full weight of the law conviction" is when there is either political pressure (not that "that" would ever happen) or more commonly they feel the pollies went too far with the law & they are concerned of a public backlash & risk having their new law getting repealed or amended & not to their liking, "better to only use parts rather than loose the lot".

They know perfectly well they don't have the resources to police this so they use fear, its worked for rulers & gubberments thousands of years & it will work now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you suppose it would be worth contacting these guys:

Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation

http://adlrf.org.au/charter/

seems exactly the sort of political clout we need..

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

×