Government wants Submissions on Recreational Cannabis

[Anodyne]

I don't know the particular parties involved in this shindig, but having followed other similar processes before I'd say: keep it simple. Pretend you're trying to explain the issue to your straightlaced grandad, or the somewhat-dim guy at work. Use language that is easy to follow & difficult to misconstrue - so ditch the double-negatives & convoluted sentences. If you're having trouble structuring your thoughts then perhaps just try using the classic essay format (intro, discussion, conclusion) - it's a classic for a reason. Pick out one or two key points & repeat them throughout the document (once in each section, if you're using essay-style).

As far as what to write about, I reckon that - slim as the chances are that what we write will change anything at all - we would have the best chance if we pointed out how they, the readers personally, would benefit from such changes. I figure most of these nanny-laws represent a combination of puritanism (you shouldn't be doing anything just because it's fun) and community health cost concerns (i.e. if you fall off your bike or get lung cancer, they're the ones who have to pay your medical bills). So to convince them that these laws need changing, you need to explain why these concerns are misplaced. And how everyone, not just bare-headed pot-smoking cyclists, will be better off if the laws are changed. You have decades worth of arguments to draw on there - discussing taxation, how routes of administration affect health outcomes, and any of the other impacts of prohibition (like the possibility of criminal records & gaol for "offenders") which create an unnecessary burden on the community.

[alfamiller]

many thanks Anodyne

very helpfull, not as tricky as i thought.

appeciated

[Anodyne]

Also, try reading a few of the published submissions before you go worrying about the quality of your writing. If you can form coherent sentences & use a spellchecker, I reckon you're already out ahead of the pack.

Those published submissions concern me a little actually. Are people really that concerned about helmet laws vs all the other issues raised? I mean ok, maybe cyclist groups are more organised than us degenerate drug addicts, but it looks like more than half of the submissions are regarding helmets! Really? Of course, that's just the ones that they've decided to publish - they did say somewhere that they reserved the right not to publish all the submissions. But it's still hard to believe the ratio could be that skewed. Seems a bit fishy to me. I'm smelling another one of those scams where they play up a relatively trivial issue to distract us from the important ones. If the only letters they print are poorly-written helmet tirades, then it looks like that's all people care about. But hey, I could just be paranoid, maybe the whole system is totally fair & impartial.

[Yeti101]

I don't know about 'fair and impartial', but I'm hoping it's reasonably transparent.

On the other hand, if that's true, then this has been totally dominated by the helmet crowd. I've had a bit of a look, and they were very well organised - very quick off the mark with their submissions. And they are really into it. Example 1: I found a post about this on a Sydney cycling forum - 694 views and quite a few comments. Example 2: Article in Guardian Australia about this - over 5000 shares on twitter and facebook, and 800 comments.

Now, there are a lot of cyclists. But there a lot of people out in the community who like a toke - or would if it wasn't illegal.

I guess I'll feel better once my submission is in and published. And in the short term, I think all we can do as individuals is make sure we do our bit, however small that might seem. If I can get a couple of senators to read http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/abstract , then I'll be happy.

There are people out there whose opinions would carry some weight, and who could help steer the discussion, but I've yet to see their contributions. Maybe they really do have more important things to do. Maybe I just don't understand that great un-written rule of academia - never get involved in anything political lest one's funding get cut (Being a philosopher, I have the luxury of not having any funding, so one less worry for me )

Or maybe if you want something done...

Sigh.

I don't want to pre-empt who might end up contributing in the end. I genuinely hope beyond hope that I'm pleasantly surprised. If I'm not though, I think we should have a serious think about what we want from the future, how we might get it, and who is going to do this for us (or isn't going to, as the case may be).

The people here who are intending to contribute are doing something worthwhile, and I appreciate the effort. Keep it up people.

I've re-written this post several times in order to remove a fair bit of immoderate language as I'm getting progressively more angry. Going to stop now, before I write something I really regret.

Edit: too grumpy to spell properly

Edited August 20, 2015 by Yeti101

[Yeti101]

Last day to make a submission!

Now it's time to wait and see what the final list of contributions looks like - those that are released to the public at least - I imagine many people have elected to at least keep their names private.

[Bigred]

I have been on hemp sites and what not i plagerised you original post but all in the name of spreading the word.

Many people claim to have sent in or checked it out .Hope they take it seriously

[Yeti101]

Thanks man, I really appreciate your help - no sweat about the plagiarism either

[Anodyne]

I literally scribbled this on the back of an envelope on the trainride home so don't expect a masterpiece, but if anyone is having trouble writing something & wants to submit it, they are welcome:

I am writing to address reference (f) - any & all measures which restrict personal choice ‘for the individual’s own good’, as being an umbrella clause for discussing (a) through (e) also. We are taking what should be lifestyle choices - issues of personal freedom & common sense - and turning them into criminal matters. I would argue that such measures are unnecessary, offensive, and do not reflect the true risks & costs associated with the behaviours they address.

Let’s look at what purpose these measures serve. Laws which prohibit certain types of risky behaviour may lower some financial costs to the community - if people are smoking less, for instance, then the healthcare costs of treating smoking-related illness may be lower as a result. However if this is the justification being used, then such claims should be supported by clear scientific evidence. There should be proof that behaviour X leads to consequence Y. Furthermore, there should be an assessment of any side-effects of such prohibition - so it might be counterproductive to restrict one behaviour if it will just be replaced with another behaviour with equal (or higher) social costs. In the case of marijuana prohibition for example, the case is anything but clear-cut, and deserves a complete review to consider more recent scientific studies of health effects, and an assessment of the social & medical side-effects of this prohibition.

So that is my first point, that such measures should at least make sense from a harm-reduction standpoint. And as complex as that may be, the next point is even trickier: where do we draw the line? People engage in all kinds of ‘risky’ behaviours which are unregulated - individual choices which may have consequences on society as a whole. I personally might find it offensive that my taxes help to buy blood-pressure meds & heart surgeries for people who refuse to eat a healthy diet, but I would not want to see those people jailed or restricted from working with children. And yet for some other lifestyle choices, whose social impacts are no greater than those of obesity, this seems to be perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps more productive than prohibiting products & behaviours which we see as risky, would be to educate people. For certain activities, we allow adults to engage in them anyway so long as they are adequately educated about risks & safe procedure, for example driving a car. Other activities such as recreational marijuana use could easily follow the same model. Similarly, doctors already must complete patient education to inform them of the risks of certain medications & procedures. Instead of simply banning medical marijuana, patients could complete an education program that ‘licences’ them to make an informed choice on this matter. I believe that people do make stupid choices, but that this can often be attributed to an incomplete or faulty understanding of consequences. And of that, the laws themselves can also be guilty.

[alfamiller]

hey thats quite good, much better than the dribble i came up with.

well done

[Yeti101]

Don't be too hard on yourself alfamiller, you should read some of what the committee has accepted. Just keep it simple and to the point (advice that I myself completely failed to follow, but that's beside the point ). Don't be intimidated. You've got a right to contribute to this.

I was just thinking, there isn't always a 'next time', but I think there will be other opportunities.

Some of them we will make for ourselves.

[-RC-]

I guess now we wait and see...

[Anodyne]

Aww, but I want a just & rational society nowww!

[Distracted]

Well I submitted my essay last night...

hmm

hope you guys all did the right thing.

[Yeti101]

Me too

Thanks Distracted

[Yeti101]

OK, bit of an important update:

The committee has extended the closing date for submissions to 18 September 2015.

However, the committee will accept submissions received after that date where they address specific inquiry terms of reference in accordance with the committee work plan as follows:


5 October 2015
Bicycle helmet laws (term d)


4 November 2015
Sale and service of alcohol (term b )


30 November 2015
Sale and use of marijuana and associated products (term c)


4 January 2016
Sale and use of tobacco and nicotine and e-cigarettes (term a)


1 February 2016
Classification of publications, films and computer games (term e)


1 March 2016
Any other measures introduced to restrict personal choice (term f)

So if anyone, including those of us who went to the effort of getting their submissions in on time, has anything to add, there is plenty of opportunity to do so.

If anyone feels (as I do) like taking a more pro-active approach in making sure people are aware of this, and getting some more submissions that are not about helmets ( ), I think there is an opportunity for that too.

[Strontium Dawg]

Lol, read submission number 61 for a good laugh.