Law changes in NSW

[Weirdo]

All I was doing was defending my country (regardless of the governing body) against a non-Australian who has probably never been here and wouldn't have a clue about the place beyond what the N.S.W. government is implementing re the new drug laws. That's great coming from the citizen of a failed nation. I feel great compassion for the Greek people and their plight and I would never make fun of them for that and would appreciate a similar attitude to be reciprocated. Of course I know that the population puts governments in power, but what government honours it's promises in the long term. All governments reneg on their promises eventually and no longer represent the people who put them in power. Obviously some individuals can't fathom that.

I love this country i was born in and If anyone hangs shit on it (regardless of who is running it) he or she can expect to get that shit tossed back at them.

Nice debate btw, keep it rolling.

Since when has Greece been an African country?......derr pardon my Australian ignorance

[shortly]

Many (including me) suggest that in a democracy the Government is a reflection of the populace.

I'd argue that rather than living in a democracy we actually live in a corporatocracy.

[DiscoStu]

coprophagocracy - a political system whereby everyone eats shit.

[IndianDreaming]

Torsten, on 22 Sept 2013 - 3:10 PM, said:

IndianDreaming, before youc all something unfeasible or impossible you should look at what is currently happening in NZ and inform yourself of the details. Synth drugs willl be sold in a regulated system there after harm testing. This is the system being proposed by some of the greens and the sex party here. Even the head of the NSW drug squad is in favour of it. It would see low risk synths on the market at precisely measured doses of pharm grade materials. Testing costs between 100k to 1 million and is the financial responsibility of the supplier. In NZ the same rules apply to natural substances, but this is a mistake and the local efforts do not mirror that as they are not driven by the same motives as NZ was.

The definition of low risk is pretty solid too. It is the same animal testing that allows medications to proceed to phase 1 clinical trials. There are fairly exact limits or what is acceptable. Psychoactivity itself is removed from those limits [usually this is a dead end for medicines]. The government now no longer has a say in what is approved and what is not. That decision is made by a panel of scientists who MUST approve the drug if it passes the safety tests. Safety test are dose related. So a drug at 5mg may be approved, but may fail at 10mg, etc.

You are still thinking in a paradigm that is a decade old. Things have moved very fast lately and the options from 10 years ago simply would not work the same way anymore. There is a serious push in at least 3 states to move to a regulated market, with all the benefits this brings. It is a far better model than simply decriminalising as it has all of those benefits as well as purity control, source monitoring, outlet monitoring and tax income - the same way that alcohol and tobacco work.

Torsten: I can't see the benefit of regulating synthetics. The whole synthetic market is driven by the lack of properly regulated natural substances. The synthetic market would dwindle or wouldn't be here at all if people had access to a few natural alternatives that wouldn't land them in jail.

$100k - $1M for testing means Pharma-Joe is the only person that's going to be putting products out in the market. Which IMO means more pills for people to become absent minded on. Look at what they've done with anti-depressants so far, make billions out of them because every man and his dog is on them. So putting the choice of which chemicals to research and deploy into the hands of Pharma-Joe is another step backwards in my mind.

Taking the government approval out and putting the risk assessment in the hands of scientists is definitely leaps and bounds in the right direction.

And yes - I should research more before posting on such a touchy subject, as I know very little about the NZ proposals, but from what I've read, it looks to me like its only going to give Pharma-Joe more power, the tax man more money and still leave the people with limited options when choosing to manage their own health.

[mutant]

Weirdo>

The whole greece being an african country is a joke dissing and making fun of greece. You can make fun of greece, as hard as you can. No patriotical bullshit get in my way. You can cry all you want about poor Greece. I dont. We had 10% of the population voting for a nazi party ? let them have it: after the last political murder from fascists in greece, you can have all mothers in greece worried about the potential of their son being some kind of enemy to the right wing: a hippie, a left wing, an antifascist, a homopsexual - heck even wearing a punk band T-shirt is a risk some times. Let them feel what fascist horror means.

Same of all shit same for government.

And far as me knowing my ozzie shit, yeah never been there, but I have been talking and reading in this forum since 2007, so I know a whole lot more for your country than the average man who hasn't been there does - especially the 'community' shits.

*****

one last note on topic

Torsten is right: apart from interpretation of law, there is the matter of the precedent. After the first few precedents, the interpretation of the law can follow the precedents more or less, depenging on each case and law ethics (precedents) in each state / country.

[Torsten]

Torsten: I can't see the benefit of regulating synthetics. The whole synthetic market is driven by the lack of properly regulated natural substances. The synthetic market would dwindle or wouldn't be here at all if people had access to a few natural alternatives that wouldn't land them in jail.

$100k - $1M for testing means Pharma-Joe is the only person that's going to be putting products out in the market.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, my position is that there should be NO regulation of natural substances, but that synthetics should nonetheless remain available in a regulated market. That's the big mistake they made in NZ.

Can you explain to me how allowing natural substances will remove the ecstacy [& related substances] market? Maybe you are only thinking of synthetic cannabinoids? Again, I suggest you keep up as the issue has moved on a long way from there. In fact the first try at regulating a substance in NZ was mephedrone a few years ago.

Most of the people who are interested in regulating synths are in it to set a precedent. After all, once you have a regulated market of synth cannabinoids and they are accepted as social tonics, how can you logically continue to deny access to cannabis? I think that is still the end goal for many substances. In some countries it may even cause a problem in the way punishment is given as the consequences must be commensurate to the crime. It will be difficult to maintain the image of evil cannabis if regulated synth cannabinoids are being used safely.

No signatory to the single convention can legalise drugs listed in the convention with great consequences [especially for a country like australia]. however, regulating a supply of new drugs is in no way prohibited by the convention. It's the thin end of the wedge ;)

You are also wrong in regards to Pharma Joe. The NZ legislation was driven from within the synthetic recreational drugs industry and the first license applications are also from within that industry. The pharm industry has not shown any interest - in fact they are generally against it.

[Weirdo]

Mutant, I don't understand why you wish only bad things for your country. It seems to me that you are emotionally troubled to the point where you only feel disdain for the world and all who live in it.

Mate, I've lived in this country since 1954 and I've seen quite a bit of it. I have also been to other countries which I have enjoyed immensely because of the people and cultures I experienced. I still communicate with friends I made overseas many years ago. I have an emotional connection to this fantastic place and anyone who attempts to belittle it because he or she has no respect for anything, can expect to receive some flak. I do not denigrate any nation out of respect for the decent people who live in them.

Respect is the key my friend.....try some and make a difference.

[mimzy]

I can't stand the natural is better arguement. There are psychoactives that are derived synthetically, and those derived from plant/animal sources. They're all just chemicals made of the same atoms arranged differently. Just because a drug is made in a lab doesnt mean it is worse for you, in fact there are even benefits in controlling dosage and limiting unwanted side-products. There are advantages to using drugs that have had a long follow-up period and are known to be relatively safe, and many of these are derived from plant/animal sources; pot, magic mushrooms etc, but please don't mistake them for being better than synthetically derived drugs. Who knows, someone might invent the Huxley's soma in a lab sometime soon!

[IndianDreaming]

Torsten: All good points. I can see there's a lot more to the situation than I had read into it. I hadn't considered the fact that regulating the new could open the channels to regulating the old. It seems like a roundabout way to skin the cat considering other countries have managed to cut straight to the chase with natural cannabinoids, but if that's the only way forward then I can see good reason to push for it.

I agree, natural substance availability wouldn't change the E market much, but it would make available other options such as a dab of sassafras on the legs whilst dancing instead of popping a pill, chewing a few ephedra sticks instead of insufflation of unknown white powders etc...

Mimzy: The angle of natural from my perspective is not the molecular makeup of the substance, synth/natural are the same molecules, its the long history of human use of natural substances that can prove a certain level of safety without all the expense and testing of new molecules. But I can see now that the legislation is so ingrained and multinational that it's going to take moving on with the new to be able to revisit the old.

[Torsten]

Torsten: All good points. I can see there's a lot more to the situation than I had read into it. I hadn't considered the fact that regulating the new could open the channels to regulating the old. It seems like a roundabout way to skin the cat considering other countries have managed to cut straight to the chase with natural cannabinoids, but if that's the only way forward then I can see good reason to push for it.

Actually, if you look carefully, no western COUNTRY has legalised cannabis. The fact that a few states within a country have done so is a very different matter. The country itself is still a signatory to the single convention and as such you won't see the federal cannabis law changed in the USA anytime soon. All other countries merely decriminalised drugs.

And you can't take countries like venezuela etc as example because they are quite disconnected from the USA, so they don't really care. Australia is in the unfortunate position of being the main producer of legal opioids in the world, which is done under license from the UN and could be withdrawn with pressure from the USA.

So the step to fully legalise some drugs on a national level the way NZ is doing is actually wholly unique in the west and is a viable way to get some progress.

Btw, the driver behind the legislation in NZ also likes ethnobotany, so the idea is to have a fund set aside that is topped up by profits from synthetics to do the same safety testing on plants. If the market is profitable then I am sure a number of plants will quickly follow onot the list of permitted ones. I still think this was the wrong way to go. Most psychoactive plants are very mild and should have been excluded from the beginning, but that would have caused inconsistencies with the underlying concept, which is that drug regulation has been removed from the hands of the government and has been put into the hands of scientists, with a low level of risk being accepted.

Mimzy: Historical use of natural substances has pretty much already performed the basic safety testing, so I think natural substances with a good history are one step ahead. I think that's what most people mean by natural. I don't think they mean the most recent natural discovery that has had no historical use. I think the same as we exclude established foods from safety testing we should also exclude established natural psychoactives from such testing.

None of that contradicts anything you said and I actually agree with you that there are great advantages to many synthetics.

[C_T]

i thought nz first legal party pills were bzp and that wasnt hidden, it was on the label and legal, talking years and years ago

[Rum and Monkeys]

I've got a position available for a troll - shoot me your cv.

I hereby volunteer my ability to annoy you in every thread you ever comment on, or create ;)

[Sallubrious]

Yes!

I told PH I'd have my own troll by the end of the month in this post here.

If I played my guitar on youtube I'd have a fucking army of trolls.

[Torsten]

Update on the NSW laws:

There is still a lot of confusion about the NSW laws that went through parliament last week and will most likely come into force today (friday 27/9/2013) at 2pm when the NSW gazette is released. Much of the bill is quite controversial and ambiguous, and there is no concensus between lawyers. However, here is my interpretation of it:

The possession and sale of S9 (TGA) substances is now illegal in NSW. This includes kratom & Salvia divinorum. Whether TGA schedules apply to live plants is arguable. To my knowledge no one has ever been charged for live plants of species that are named in S9, depite many states having enforced S9 for quite a few years.

The selling and advertising of any substance that has a significant psychoactive effect is also now illegal, regardless of the scheduled status of the substance. This includes inactive substances that are presented as being psychoactive. No one really knows what 'significant' means, except that we can be sure the currently popular cannabinoid agonists and strong stimulants & psychedelics like nBOMe are certainly significant. If it gets you smashed then it is significant.

However, plants and plant extracts are exempt from the new 'psychoactive substances' legislation. This is the bit that has caused the most confusion because on one hand the bill has put plants into the drugs act, but at the same time it has exempted them. Lawyers have been chasing their own tails over this, but my personal interpretation is that the plants and plant products were specifically and intentionally exempt (rather than by accident, as believed by some lawyers). All statements from the minister indicate that he knows exactly that that exemption is there and is not an oversight. Lawyers who were told about the plant concerns *after* they had given their interpretation of the bill felt there was no reason for concern.

There is still some ambiguity as to why 'plants...' were included in the definitions of the main act rather than in the new bill's section 2C, and this was widely interpreted to mean that the new definition of substance (including plants) now applies to the full act. It now seems clear that this is not the case as it directly conflicts with the existing definition (which was not removed). I am sure that the inclusion of 'plants...' in the main definition section is there so that it can be applied to the associated regulations of the act, but it is still limited by all the exemptions as provided under the original definition in 2C. In short, I do not believe live plants that contain traces of S1 substances or any other psychoactive substances (as per new definition) are affected by the bill.

This means that legality of possession of wattles, cacti, etc is the same as before. As plants are exempt from the full section 2C of the new bill I also do not believe that advertising them as psychoactive is illegal (although this was never regarded as a wise thing to do anyway).

Some people have also worried that the new restrictions on publishing promotional material for 'psychoactive substances' extends to discussions of psychoactive plants on facebook or internet forums. This is plainly incorrect as plants and plant products are entirely exempt from this section of the bill.

So it appears nothing has changed for plant collectors and herbalists except the expected S9 restrictions.

Please also note that the government has announced they will add 40 new substances to the NSW drug schedules. There has been no indication of what these might be and they may well include plants or plant derived substances. The schedules are amended by regulation so can be done without going through parliament, ie they are virtually instant. They may well be published at the same time as the bill today, or they may come any time thereafter. Keep a look out for updates.

Share widely to help clear up confusion.

[Torsten]

i thought nz first legal party pills were bzp and that wasnt hidden, it was on the label and legal, talking years and years ago

Yes it was, however like so many other products that was legal because it had not created enough attention to make it politically necessary to prohibit it.

I was referring to mephedrone. That was already illegal, but Matt managed to get a customs and health dept permit for running a 'clinical trial'. The clinical trial consisted of singing up on line to become a member and then be available for feedback and also to report adverse events. It took a few months for the auhtorities to wake up to what was going on ;) Hence it was the first attempt at regulated supply.

[mimzy]

Yes it was, however like so many other products that was legal because it had not created enough attention to make it politically necessary to prohibit it.

I was referring to mephedrone. That was already illegal, but Matt managed to get a customs and health dept permit for running a 'clinical trial'. The clinical trial consisted of singing up on line to become a member and then be available for feedback and also to report adverse events. It took a few months for the auhtorities to wake up to what was going on ;) Hence it was the first attempt at regulated supply

Did he ever publish anything? Does he still have that data? From what I've seen in the literature there is very little data on the adverse event rate of mephedrone, let alone other synthetics. I was doing a PhD in clinical epidemiology for a little while before I switched over to neuroscience, I'd love to know more about the 'study'

[Torsten]

no, I don't think it was about the data. It was more about the business and the concept.

[mutant]

Actually, if you look carefully, no western COUNTRY has legalised cannabis.

wut??? what about Czech republic, Switzerland and Holland ?? You will say they are not fully legal, but regulated... So is tobacco and alcohol, more or less.

The selling and advertising of any substance that has a significant psychoactive effect is also now illegal, regardless of the scheduled status of the substance.

????

so goodbuy to advertisements of booze, smokes and black (true) tea ??

what about real chocolate?

OFFTOPIC (trolling the fuck outta every smartass that gets in my way):

weirdo>

it seems 50 or so years living in that country and your travel abroad didn't make you less idiot

fuck australia & fuck greece

Patriots are the most idiotic people on earth.

Proud of Australia?? I thought it was a nation formed my the outcasts and prisoners of UK.

now gimme a little more of that flak, ... cause yeah, I got emotional problems and I am gonna party all week in your internet carcass

how do you like that ?

[TommyChesnutt]

From what I've seen in the literature there is very little data on the adverse event rate of mephedrone, let alone other synthetics.

I should be creating a separate thread i think here, but if i may just jut in quick - Mephedrone has actually presented itself as being a behavior changing substance, consistent with addiction and otherwise long-term binging. When easily accessible, responsible use has been reported as difficult to achieve..

Additionally, i think there were some memory problems reported long-term... I... uh, can't remember the details though. (kidding)

Otherwise THRILLED that my remaining cacti specimens get to enjoy spring in their nice warm pots, and don't have to get given away or sold.. thank you Torsten for the constant update and care put in to warning and informing the community.

[Torsten]

wut??? what about Czech republic, Switzerland and Holland ?? You will say they are not fully legal, but regulated... So is tobacco and alcohol, more or less.

so goodbuy to advertisements of booze, smokes and black (true) tea ??

what about real chocolate?

This topic is confusing enough without foreigners [and by that I mean anyone outside NSW] entering the discussion late and missing what has already been cleared up. Food, tobacco and alcohol are exempt, among several other things.

Switzerland and Holland decriminalised. Not sure about Czech Rep, but probably also decriminalised. That's exactly the point I was making. Signatories to the convention can't legalise cannabis - the best they can do is decriminalise. Pay attention to the detail of what i posted if you want to discuss detail

[Weirdo]

mutant

my my you are an angry girl aren't you?

[IndianDreaming]

Update on the NSW laws:

However, plants and plant extracts are exempt from the new 'psychoactive substances' legislation.

Would bitter orange extract and hence Octopamine fall into this category?

[zelly]

That's effectively saying you can't grow it though. Sure you could get away with one or two, and just claim that you like the plants, but any more than that & it'll be obvious to the cops & the court that you were growing it for consumption.

Of course they would have to prove that, somehow. but the risk of legal action will be enough to stop people cultivating.

Or you could be growing them explicitly to cross breed them, where the more you have the better for breeding purposes.

Along the same thought process, has or is AQIS planning on restricting all of the seeds of affected plants it currently allows?

[theuserformallyknownasd00d]

Great question zelly, my first thoughts is of coarse somewhere along the line.. But how longs the line...

[Torsten]

Would bitter orange extract and hence Octopamine fall into this category?

It's all a little unclear right now. If you are going to test that area then I suggest to make sure you don't fall foul of TGA labelling requirements etc.