Jump to content
The Corroboree
Torsten

anyone willing to do on-camera interview about ayahuasca?

Recommended Posts

But its good to know you're out there, if we ever need a neuropsychopharmacologist :)

Actually, when do we ever *not* need a neuropsychopharmacologist? Stick around :D

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should do a satirical parody of that story and sneak into a supermarket with a hidden camera of the sugar aisle, then they could come home and spread it on the table and demonise that. If it had similar title it could come up as a similar clip in the side panel of the youtube page.

The only difference is they wouldn't need a doctor to lie about the detrimental effects of sugar.

I can just imagine the words you'd get to take out of context and make the head of woolworths look like "Sugar Kingpin" if you questioned them. :devil:

 

60 minutes did the story about a month or 2 back sally....sugar is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mindless scavengers!

first piece of "news" i have endured in about 3 years, how refreshing. :/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, man, they make it sound as if Torsten is growing the equivalent of some massive cannabis grow up. I laughed hard at the part about it him and the nursery being so secretive and sneaky. Yeah, he's so secretive that he makes a publicly available online nursery and forum, which doesn't require onion routing to access and that includes a map and directions to his business as well as the BSB and account number of his ANZ bank account. They'll never find Torsten and his evil lair now!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-2263-0-72032000-1344266469_thumb.jp

Meh what were you worried about? LOL :P

next on 7 NEWBZ the drug thats outlawed overseas & availabe at every Bottleo & owners say theres nothing lawmakerz can do about it cause their lobbyists are one step ahead...

post-2263-0-72032000-1344266469_thumb.jpg

post-2263-0-72032000-1344266469_thumb.jpg

Edited by shruman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that was fun let's do it again

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that there was misinformation & misrepresentation in the report, but mainly not as bad as I thought it would be. Perhaps the letter at 5:30 had some effect; Mike Duffy understands the use of lawyers - he was only too happy to sue Media Watch over the Delhi fiasco

I am a little freaked out by the comment of NSW Attorney-General, Greg Smith: "We are concerned at stamping them out as much as possible or restricting their use or growth." That said, from the way the piece was cut together, I could not be 100% sure what exactly he was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a little freaked out by the comment of NSW Attorney-General, Greg Smith: "We are concerned at stamping them out as much as possible or restricting their use or growth." That said, from the way the piece was cut together, I could not be 100% sure what exactly he was referring to.

 

Athletes taking growth hormones? People growing bonsai trees?

Edited by SYNeR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the aftermath of this negative press, and for the benefit of new members, visitors and interested parties, there are a number of wonderful books and documentaries on Ayahuasca that are well worth reading/watching. If you've seen any or found any good books, maybe you could add them to this thread, or begin a new thread with them all listed and have it pinned - to help show the appropriate contextual use of this amazing plant:

- Vine of the soul

- Jungle Trip

- Jan Kounen's: Shamanism Other Worlds -

- Bouncing Bear Productions: Manifesting the mind -

- Shamans of the Amazon (2002)

- Ayahuasca - the man who drank the universe

There are so many more. I have a list at home and I'll add them to this thread or a new thread specifically for informative documentaries on Ayahuasca and the shamanistic rituals that surround its use.

As an aside and somewhat related - I find it interesting that Thailand has the most successful drug rehabilitation clinics in the world, and they rely on using massive doses of nicotine to cause the participant to repeatedly purge. There is a striking similarity between Thailand's effective drug rehabilitation techniques and the use of Ayahuasca with it's purgative effects for cleansing. The Ayahuasca vine is a very effective emetic. Ipecac syrup has also found a very important place in todays society - and you guessed it, it is plant based.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i learned a lot of this utter bullshit, and know now, how to try to defame a person.

i would like to do the same to the bald guy from ch7, who thinks he, is sooo good, specialy about, the stockmarket and investments.

i just round up all the peole who lost, lot's of money because of him, and than in the backround we show, people stashing money in there own pockets.

once i met a aya&dmt friendly medicinal doctor, so they are around.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that reporter is maybe the first person ever to go to SABN to buy these plants to use as drugs in some way.. he sure sounded more interested in the possibility to make drugs than to grow plants didnt he? looks to me like that reporter went plant shopping with a clear intent to produce or consume an illegal compound/s. that saddens me as it brings bad name to all us people that are connected to our land - naturists =)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Ghostly :) I wouldn't be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didnt like that report at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

felt like my IQ dropped a few points watching it...is that why they were warning about possible brain damage?

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, eatingsand, a very fine point i missed. thanks. =)

well if i do end up with brain damage caused by media (likely) i can always rely on a job as a reporter (providing i have ENOUGH brain damage to lose all sence of morrals and honor).. good to have options LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn T, you didn't happen to record the conversation with them? That would've been a nice silver bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I didn't think it was illegal. I thought that in your own home, you surely have a right to record your own conversations?

Maybe they would say "owner declined to interview" if your terms were that you can also record the interview. I'll find a way around this. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.austlii.e...act/sda1999210/

^^ There's the surveillance act for Vic - A mate of mine needed this info when installing cameras in his work shed on his property to catch employees stealing... The mandatory sign out the front stopped the stealing anyway...

It's easy to read - have a peek - This covers law enforcement related tracking and surveillance, I'm pretty sure it applies to private installations too but that may be in another act.

Here's the NSW one: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/sessionalview/sessional/TITLE/Surveillance%20Devices%20Act%202007%20No%2064.pdf

Just search the net for 'surveillance act <your state goes here>'

There's some fairly obvious restrictions (even within your own home) such as recording in the loo, shower etc... especially if you have renters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on whether you go by state law or federal law (and probably which state if going by state law) if what I've been told is correct (and IIRC). When I broke up with my ex, she took out an interim intervention order against me, and then started calling me constantly, so I recorded every conversation, which included things like her telling me that she didn't want to take out an intervention order and that her Mum made her do it, when I told her she shouldn't be calling me if there's an intervention order.

Anyway, I can't remember which one was which, but several lawyers told me that it's up to the discretion of the magistrate whether they go by state or federal law, and that will determine whether I can use the recordings in court or not. When I went to court to prevent her turning the interim intervention order into a final order, the magistrate allowed me to introduce the recordings as evidence, but wasn't really interested in what they showed anyway, lol. She basically said if there was even a small possibility that I am a danger to her then it really doesn't matter her reason for applying initially, as the order is there as a 'just in case' protection anyway. :scratchhead: And she said that any concerns I had about having an unwarranted intervention order out against me were unfounded because it's not like a conviction and has no effect as long as I don't breach the conditions. I later discovered that having had a final intervention order against you ever makes it really hard to get a weapons permit. Not something I really care about, but I'm wondering what else the magistrate neglected to mention. Another weird thing was that the intervention order only goes one way, so it turns out that I was breaking the law when she turned up at my house bashing on my door for an hour, and ended up having to get my own intervention order against her to prevent it happening again.

Sorry for the OT, but yeah, it seems to be a little bit more complicated than you might expect. But, as long as you're also a party to the conversation, there are certainly circumstances where the recording can be used in court.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the uploads guys. very helpful.

stuff like the secretive hidden farm are completely made up, but sadly not things with any legal merit. as usual the legal issues are really abstract and counterintuitive - but there are plenty to get on with.

The reporter brought the plants back. said he couldn't take them all on the plane. but he kept the cactus. WTF? still had it in the car to the airport, so looks like it was going back to sydney with him. I guess he figured the aya plants weren't enough to brew up, but the cactus was ;)

 

Couldn't you get them for libel

Let's face it they did make alot of false untrue statements that could potentially harm your reputation

By basically making you out to be some kind of drug dealer with this so called secret garden of dangerous plants wich can aparantly cause brain damage

and as someone else said thier showing of syringes being sold as if people are wacking up cactus juice

The so called secret hidden camera footage you are doing nothing wrong no laws are being broken

There is clearly malicious intent

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh ok that's good to know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 3 possible angles, but 2 of them are unlikely to work.

1) loss of business. needs to be backed up by financials, so didn't happen.

2) defamation of character. you have to show that this has an impact, but because most of what was said was merely exaggerated and out of context, it doesn't add up to good evidence of defamation.

3) invasion of privacy. this is the one we are going for, but the legal folks don't seem to be much in a hurry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just found out earlier whilst buying herbs for my lamb roast. Could have been worse t, could have been me giving the interview. However everyone else ( straight ) I know doesn't seem to watch the news. I guess 7 news is just becoming stoner humor, probably their target audience. Sales should skyrocket.

You should have let Pauly off his chain.

Edited by incognito
  • Like 2

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

×