Jump to content
The Corroboree
Torsten

Law changes in NSW

Recommended Posts

has or is AQIS planning on restricting all of the seeds of affected plants it currently allows?

Nope not at all they only police their corner (Biosecurity Act 2012 Act, (still in transition from the old quarantine act & Export control Act) imported foods & a few sections of a coupla other acts) Although if they become aware of an issue that is policed by another agency they are required to inform that agency prior to the goods being released.

From ICON "It is the importer’s responsibility to identify and to ensure it has complied with, all requirements of any other regulatory and advisory bodies prior to and after importation including the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Department of Health and Ageing, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and any State agencies such as Departments of Agriculture and Health and Environmental Protection authorities."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope not at all they only police their corner (Biosecurity Act 2012 Act, (still in transition from the old quarantine act & Export control Act) imported foods & a few sections of a coupla other acts) Although if they become aware of an issue that is policed by another agency they are required to inform that agency prior to the goods being released.

From ICON "It is the importer’s responsibility to identify and to ensure it has complied with, all requirements of any other regulatory and advisory bodies prior to and after importation including the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Department of Health and Ageing, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and any State agencies such as Departments of Agriculture and Health and Environmental Protection authorities."

Seems like too much effort for most people to bother checking with all those departments. Or maybe that is the plan........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I wasn't too keen on this article I suppose they had to quote ministers in the interest of fairness, and I'm happy they got a couple of quotes from scientists and anti-prohibitionists, but I thought the article was a bit garbled. There was no real clarity on what the new legislation actually does it just suggests that there is some controversy, nicely gilded over by the pollies. At least they covered it, and it was on the front page of the web edition, though it would have been better if opened for comments so we could explain just how fucked it is.

Edited by whitewind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure both sides of politics as well as families across the community will be more than happy to pay more taxes to pay to enforce their new toy & then continue to pay to incarcerate anyone unlucky enough to run foul of the NSW constabulary.

I love these kinds of laws, they just keep on giving and giving. Well until the grubbyment go's bankrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominic Perrottet, the face of reason...

print.jpg

If anyone sees this man out jogging in Castle Hill you could try approaching him with a counterargument, the irrefutable... ROSHAMBO!

Edited by Anodyne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, Dominic was one of the most curious people in the NSW drug enquiry. He was very interested in harm minimisation and in a regulated market. As a career politician I doubt he will make any courageous moves in this term, but I could really see him backing the NZ approach in a future term - if the government allowed him to vote that way.

I just think it is hilarious that he was the chair of the synthetic drugs enquiry which focussed on cannabinoid agonists and his surname is perottet. :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mutant said:

strange country you got there...

whoami said:

nothing strange about the country mate.....just the friggin government

I say, yeah, they came through timespace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know, I retract my angry words. :)

I'd been trying to figure out why that name sounded familiar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I noticed that as the bill has now been passed, the link in the OP has expired - is this the correct link to the new one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stepping back and looking at the issue from a different angle, it's kind of cool to see the amount of research that has been poured into making analogues to get around the law. It's quite a smorgasbord out there, and I guess we have only the legislators to thank for it.

Oh, the irony of it all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is, the more illegal it all gets the less likely you are to know what the fuck it is you're taking.

Make plants legal.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a letter from Anthony Roberts, minister for fair trading, in response to an email I sent when this all kicked off. The text in bold interests me, because it implies that the ownership of the relevant plants is arguably legal, as long as you don't process them.

_______

NSW
The Hon Anthony Roberts MP
Minister for Fair Trading
GOVERNMENT
Dear [3lliot]
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Act 2013.
The new law bans the manufacture, advertising and supply of psychoactive substances in NSW, with appropriate exemptions. The focus of these new laws is on the kinds of unregulated chemical substances that have been of significant concern to the community.
This is reflected in the definition of 'psychoactive effect', which requires a significant change to a person's perception, mood, and thoughts or for the substance to be addictive. This means the law only captures products that have a significant effect on your central nervous system but not those products that may only make you feel good when you eat them. The law also clearly exempts certain products to ensure that legitimate products that may contain some mild psychoactive substances are not inadvertently prohibited, including:
• food within the meaning of the Food Act 2003;
• any plant or fungus, or extract of a plant or fungus, that is not or does not contain a substance already prohibited by schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (prohibited drugs), noting that schedule 1 substances are also excluded; and
• goods that are registered or exempt from registration under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth).
This will exempt the vast majority of herbal products. A market has existed for some years for 100% natural herbal products, which are not prohibited under any existing legislation, and might be marketed as relaxing teas or sleeping aids. Of course, herbal products that contain prohibited drugs to any extent will remain illegal. This has not changed. Similarly, a herbal product to which a psychoactive substance has been added will be illegal, for example a tea
laced with synthetic drugs. This is entirely consistent with community concerns, and the NSW Government's intention.
In relation to concerns about selling and buying certain plants and cacti, the law only prohibits the manufacture and sale of substances for human consumption. Generally, nurseries do not sell cacti or wattles for human consumption. However if a person was to process the cactus or plant to extract a psychoactive substance, they may be committing an offence of manufacturing a psychoactive or prohibited substance.
Thank you for your interest in this important community safety issue.
Yours sincerely
Anthony Roberts MP
Minister for Fair Trading
6 December 2013
GPO Box 5341, SYDNEY NSW 2001
Phone: (02) 9228 5276 Fax: (02) 9228 4236 Email: [email protected] .au
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a child I wondered what the police and law makers would do if everyone obeyed the law and they didn't have anyone to arrest. [edit] or fine

Will the public really see what our moron lawmakers are all about or will they just change the channel? Time to make some noise.

I have a pitch for the tv networks. Its a game show called "Who wants to be a brain dead state controlled zombie"

What happens is all citizens have a "hot seat" delivered to their home, for which they are extended a line of high interest credit that they most likely never pay off till the day they die, as well as some cctv cameras so they can be connected to the network for their glorious day on the telly. On that day the network sends agents around to strap you into your seat and connect it to the mains. Every time you answer an un-Australian question correctly you get an electric shock. Every time you answer a state sanctioned you beaut true blue aussie question right you get an electric shock. If you make it to the final state sanctioned you beaut true blue aussie question and answer it correctly you get full shock therapy (the electricity bill will be enormous but hey we have to save the planet from us evil humans) and a lifetime supply of psychotropic drugs as deemed appropriate. Then you get assigned to your new job at the ministry of stamp licking and get to wear a special hat. A glorious government job where all official government correspondence gets stamps stuck on them by the official stamp lickers wearing really special hats.

Roger McRant...... Over and oooouuuuuttttt.................

Edited by michael1968

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article in The Age today about the banning of a synthetic cannabinoid product called 'Marley'. Interesting thing was that the slant of the article was about the futility of banning the active substances in these branded smoking things, and how the NZ model of putting the onus of proving safety of the product onto the distributor was a more realistic approach.

I've seen similar articles a few times over the last few months. Seems like the mainstream media is focusing on more sensible options, which is good but also strange. It's strange because while mainstream media articles are more frequently quoting experts who are in favour of meeting synthetic smoking crud halfway, the law-makers seem to be more aggressively trying to ban natural, benign, and (literally) garden variety plants.

The complexity (and ridiculousness) of the situation increasingly makes me think that I'll just quietly do whatever I want, as I've done for the last couple of decades without any problems. As far as I'm concerned, for the average person - and in this case by 'average' I mean someone not in the business of selling or trading either plants or synthetics - these "laws" aren't worth paying attention to.

In theory, the idea of banning nature makes me angry... but in practice it hasn't made a jot of difference to the world I live in. For the entirety of my current incarnation on Earth, marijuana has been illegal or controlled and potentially can get you into trouble, but it's always been around and in some circles I've been in is as common as having a beer.

  • Like 1

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

×