New Vic drug law

[Torsten]

This week the vic parliament has been debating a new drugs bill that will introduce lots of new substances AND for the first tiem ever will introduce an analogues clause into Vic drug law. The bill passed the lower house, but hit a technical delay in the upper house. Parliament is now adjourned for xmas and won't open again till feb 4 2014. So if you live in vic, make the most of the lack of an analogues clause for the next 2 months.

will post text of the bill once it is law and will summarise it then.

[Amazonian]

Thanks Torsten. Without threads like this, i wouldn't know what was going on.

[Halif]

Even with threads like this, I still don't know what's going on.

I mean, I understand what's being said. I just don't understand the laws.

Different laws for different states. Plants are now illegal it seems - virtually all of them. Synthetic cannabis seems to be more open for discussion of regulating sales than the simple growing of plants.

This approach Australia is taking - more and more laws which are increasingly broad and generalised - begs the question: Does the government have the resources to follow through with even a fraction of the shit they're proposing is illegal?

I'm no anarchist. I obey common sense rules which make life nicer for people. I don't drive intoxicated. I don't throw rubbish on the street. I treat everyone with the same basic respect that I'd like to be shown.

In the past when I messed around with RCs, I posted about it on BlueLight so people would have a clue, because the media can't report a single sentence accurately and only make things harder to understand. I'm doing a public service in telling people how to do things safely if they insist on doing them.

Do I want a medal? No. The thanks that I've recieved in private messages is encouragement enough.

For every new law that comes in, and for every new development regarding ISPs and agencies data mining in an attempt to control EVERYTHING, the less respect I have for the powers that be. I don't want a revolution. I can't be bothered. The authorities are making it hard enough for themselves. At this rate, they'll need to have two officers per citizen to keep us all suppressed. Heaven forbid someone should grow a plant in their garden or take a drug.

It would be nice to see people with actual life experience and compassion in places of authority -not to run around treating people like stupid animals that need to be herded, but to offer guidance and information that is understandable. That's too much to ask, isn't it?

Call me Pollyanna. The people who hold the majority of power and control are not worth listening to. THey don't know anything about themselves. They are dangerously ignorant and should be treated in the same way as a frightened lost dog with big teeth - keep your distance because they are scared and confused, don't antagonise them. They are suffering, too.

[AnthromorphicGerbil]

[edit] Apologies to the creator of this thread for getting off topic. Although I stand by my sentiment I would not be offended at all if my remarks were fully deleted or moved somewhere else to keep the momentum of the original topic. I would do it but I dunno how.

I'm no anarchist. I obey common sense rules which make life nicer for people. I don't drive intoxicated. I don't throw rubbish on the street. I treat everyone with the same basic respect that I'd like to be shown.

[end quote]

You give me the impression that you have a mistaken interpretation of what Anarchy or an Anarchist is while at the same time having some of the best attributes of what makes an anarchist. However, I can understand why, with all these fake anarchist groups being set up to run around and behave unruly, disrespectful and unlawful to prove that Anarchy is bad and a delusional ideal. Not to mention all the website repeating the old fearful political adage that anarchy would lead to chaos on the streets which people thought was the actual definition of Anarchy. True Anarchy is none of these things and it behaves in manner of self rule rather than big brother rule.

Anarchy: the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups

Edited December 14, 2013 by AnthromorphicGerbil

[ballzac]

At the risk of further derailing...

 

I'm no anarchist. I obey common sense rules which make life nicer for people. I don't drive intoxicated. I don't throw rubbish on the street. I treat everyone with the same basic respect that I'd like to be shown.

 

You give me the impression that you have a mistaken interpretation of what Anarchy or an Anarchist is while at the same time having some of the best attributes of what makes an anarchist. However, I can understand why, with all these fake anarchist groups being set up to run around and behave unruly, disrespectful and unlawful to prove that Anarchy is bad and a delusional ideal. Not to mention all the website repeating the old political adage that anarchy would lead to chaos on the streets which people thought was the actual definition of Anarchy. True Anarchy is none of these things and it behaves in manner of self rule rather than big brother rule.

Anarchy: the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups

I agree with you that anarchy is often misunderstood. The form of anarchy that grew out of a particular sub-culture of the punk movement is probably more closely related to libertinism than to true anarchy. However, the traits that you identify as "some of the best attributes of what makes an anarchist" are actually the examples of what would make good attributes of typical members of a society built on anarchy. There is a subtle difference. It doesn't matter how many 'good anarchists' there are, if we have a society unbounded by governmental control, then almost every member would need to cooperate in this system. We essentially started with anarcho-primitivism, and as societies grew larger, we ended up with dictatorships, which is simply a result of the undeniable fact that there exist in the world people who are selfish and power-hungry. Eventually, we evolved to a point where we have democratically elected governments, and despite the significant shortcomings of this system, it is preferable to the dictatorships that arise out of anarchy. Anarchy is a Utopian dream that would work perfectly in a society comprised of exactly one person, but the larger and larger a society gets, the less and less viable it becomes. Anarchist theory should not be misrepresented, but I don't think it's constructive to idealise or romanticise it either.

[AnthromorphicGerbil]

In a broad general respect doing what we know is right and what does not harm others or interfere with the lives of others directly in the process are the best traits of an anarchist because it keeps the respectful harmony of existence amongst peers.

Evolved to democracy? If you mean control has evolved to histories most clever form of delusional illusions. An oligarchy elected in a two party dominated circus with a few extra clowns on the side to give the illusion of choice, of which one of the dominating parties always gets elected by telling lies that they don't intend or know they cannot keep . Given that we started in Anarchy I would have to say that it sounds more like a de-evolution. But then a pyramid scheme does look like a rage up their at the top. Must be very tempting.

The only reason why anarchy could not work atm is because the critical mass of people who believe and propagandize the belief that it cannot work is so rife that of course it could never work the way things are currently. It would require a massive paradigm shit and re-education on an epic scale. But it is not impossible. We never would have dared sail around the planet for fear of falling off the ledge at the edge of the world if we accepted the belief that the earth was flat. Popular belief thought it was lunacy that man could fly with the birds. Al it took was a belief, effort and a demonstration that those things can be achieved and from that initial transformation and subsequent re-telling of the events and the re-education of the minds of the people over time the impossible became the possible and the next thing you know we are sending people into space...... public transport (big mistake taking combustion over electric in the very early nineteen hundreds). Look at all our "technology" today. All examples of things that were once impossible and only things that crazy useless dreamers sat around fantasising about.

How can "self rule based on agreements reached between various groups" work if a controlling government run education system, including the private schools (backed up by the media) that are also, one way or another, under the rule of government, makes sure that everyone is taught to believe that they are not intelligent enough or responsible enough to live in harmony with each other and therefore need to be controlled by a body of government all their lives and furthermore those controlling measure need to be expanded to keep people "happy & safe" from there own potential folly.

Yes everyone in the anarchistic society would have to cooperate for it too work. But If a people can learn to be controlled and docile to a system of control then they can also learn or be taught just as easily (in a healthy environment) to live peacefully with each other without being forced to do so. However, given that we are so heavily indoctrinated into this control system and so inundated with toxic brain fogging chemicals and additives, I concede that it would take a serious shift of change to ever even see a glimpse of anarchy taking root not even counting the fearful opposition the very idea instils amongst the "educated" populace who are more concerned about making sure their debt repayments are made on time.

Also if 99% of the population can keep 1% of that population in a state of eternal luxury then I am sure that 100% of the people could manage to keep themselves in the very least a state of basic necessities eternally (however long that is).

We only have lack due to greed as supply and demand is an illusion to keep prices high by keeping supply low.

Edited December 14, 2013 by AnthromorphicGerbil

[ballzac]

 

In a broad general respect doing what we know is right and what does not harm others or interfere with the lives of others directly in the process are the best traits of an anarchist because it keeps the respectful harmony of existence amongst peers.

As I said, there is a difference between an anarchist and a citizen of an anarchist society. The traits that would make a person a good citizen of an anarchist society is not the same thing as what makes a good anarchist, whatever that is.

 

Evolved to democracy? If you mean control has evolved to histories most clever form of delusional illusions. An oligarchy elected in a two party dominated circus with a few extra clowns on the side to give the illusion of choice, of which one of the dominating parties always gets elected by telling lies that they don't intend or know they cannot keep . Given that we started in Anarchy I would have to say that it sounds more like a de-evolution. But then a pyramid scheme does look like a rage up their at the top. Must be very tempting.

There are plenty of countries that do not have democracy. If you would prefer to live in one of those, there's not a lot stopping you, apart from the fact that they're mostly terrible places with atrocious human rights records.

 

The only reason why anarchy could not work atm is because the critical mass of people who believe and propagandize the belief that it cannot work is so rife that of course it could never work the way things are currently. It would require a massive paradigm shit and re-education on an epic scale. But it is not impossible.

There have been many societies around the world with very varied social structures, but the only ones that have come close to anarchy are very small tribal cultures. Even then, there is hierarchical structure to those cultures. In every single example of larger societies, there has either been dictatorship or democracy. Large societies simply cannot exist in a state of anarchy. There are no exceptions to this rule throughout history and across cultures.

 

Yes everyone in the anarchistic society would have to cooperate for it too work. But If a people can learn to be controlled and docile to a system of control then they can also learn or be taught just as easily (in a healthy environment) to live peacefully with each other without being forced to do so.

Actually, we have the threat of incarceration for the reason that many people can't learn to be controlled. In spite of this threat, there are many people who behave in damaging ways to their fellow man. Fortunately, people who transgress in serious ways are usually caught and locked up to protect the rest of society. In a state of anarchy, the only way to deal with such people is to form vigilante justice groups. Of course, such groups intrinsically need some sort of hierarchical structure in order to operate. And there's nothing to stop such groups imposing their will on the rest of the populous...unless of course you have other vigilante groups that fight them. See where this is going? You end up with 'tribal' warfare and ultimately dictatorship. This is the default state of humanity

 

However, given that we are so heavily indoctrinated into this control system and so inundated with toxic brain fogging chemicals and additives, I concede that it would take a serious shift of change to ever even see a glimpse of anarchy taking root not even counting the fearful opposition the very idea instils amongst the "educated" populace who are more concerned about making sure their debt repayments are made on time.

It's not simply a matter of educating people. Rape, war, murder, oppression, etc. have always existed. There may be some component of human nature that is relevant to education and upbringing, but there are very fundamental aspects of human nature, such as greed, fear and anger, that are evolved, biological characteristics, which would make anarchy an impossible state for a human society to exist in.

Perhaps we should start a new thread for this?

[Halif]

Woah, I think I fucked this thread up with poor word choice. Sorry.

Michael, thanks for explaining that. I didn't have the right idea of anarchy. For some reason I associated the word with people who were actively against authority and went out of their way to make trouble.

What I wanted to say is that I'm not a person who has a disrespect for ALL rules and regulations - not a trouble-maker or 'fuck the cops' kind of dude.

I just wanted to say that I like to try and use the 'live and let live' philosophy. I want to quietly do my own thing without bothering anyone. I figure that if no one notices what I'm doing and doesn't impact on them at all, then they shouldn't complain about it. What harm is done if I smoke a joint alone in my bedroom?

Having speed limits for drivers is practical and it's easy to understand their purpose. Highly complex and ridiculously general laws (like the plants one), however, aren't worth getting upset about - or following.

Just my opinion. I didn't want to start a debate about the meaning of 'anarchy' or to undermine the effort that Torsten goes to in order to keep everyone updated on what's happening in the legal world. Apologies.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Halif

[AnthromorphicGerbil]

Nah that was me getting off topic. Sorry about that. I am not an anarchist by label either I have no political leanings really other than to live and let live and harm no one else or there life liberty and pursuits etc.

I have the same sentiment regarding plants and entheogens as you. it is just ludicrous to try and legislate growing plants and their use. Only irresponsible misuse that flows over to infringe on others lives and all that should be managed. Seriously a free man should have the right to go out and have an ayahuasca experience or a mushroom experience or whatever in a responsible setting without threat of legal punishment.

Edited December 14, 2013 by AnthromorphicGerbil

[CLICKHEREx]

http://www.legalhighsforum.com.au/showthread.php?6386-March-10-ban-for-Victoria

Today, 07:21 AM #1Anchor

leeroy

View Profile

View Forum Posts

Private Message

View Articles

Add as Contact

leeroy is online now

Legal High Connoisseur

Join Date

Sep 2012

Posts

135

Thanks

13

Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts

Mentioned

1 Post(s)

Tagged

1 Thread(s)

March 10 ban for Victoria?

Quote

Club X have told me of a March 10 ban for Vic .

Anything that mimics the effects of pot, psuedonyms ????

Any one got more info on this?

[mu!]

so.. at risk of actually getting this very dead and old thread back on topic..

Torsten, what became of this law?

[3rdI]

Bump

[Torsten]

This bill became law in mid feb 2014. Vic now has an analogues clause and also a whole lot more compounds in the schedules.

[Halif]

Thanks for your ongoing efforts to provide factual information which can help people make informed choices and be responsible for their own well-being, Torsten.

I really do appreciate it.