Jump to content
The Corroboree
Yeti101

Senate 'Nanny State' Inqury

Recommended Posts

As discussed here http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41776&p=508566 , our glorious Senate Economics References Committee is (still) taking submissions on: An inquiry into measures introduced to restrict personal choice 'for the individual's own good'.

For those who missed it last time, the interesting terms of reference are:

The economic and social impact of legislation, policies or Commonwealth guidelines, with particular reference to:
c. the sale and use of marijuana and associated products, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of users and non-users;
(30 November 2015)
and
f. any other measures introduced to restrict personal choice 'for the individual‘s own good‘.
(1 March 2016)

Full terms of reference here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice/Terms_of_Reference

If you want to have your opinions/arguments etc. heard, you’ve got at least until September 18, or longer, depending on which term of reference you want to address. Full list of dates here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice

Of the contributions so far, a lot are from disgruntled cyclists, which is great for them, though there are an increasing number of pretty sensible contributions on range of issues. I would still like to see a broader range of submissions from people interested in a change in some ‘measures’ that are inflicted on us ‘for our own good’.

I’ve encouraged people here to send something in (as I have) and I know that some have answered that call – thanks!

What we need to do now though is make sure this reaches as many of the right people as possible. With that in mind, one of the things I want to use this thread for is coordinating which some of the communication around this. Eg: which forums has this been posted on and are there others which we have missed? Which organisations or businesses (especially those with good mailing lists) have been contacted about this?

To start you off, I know that there are threads on the Shroomery and Ozstoners – I have no idea about any of the others.

I was also thinking about cross-posting the fuck out of this on reddit – the inquiry is only mentioned once that I could find. But I’m new there, and not sure how best to tackle it (any advice gratefully accepted). If nothing else we could certainly coordinate on up-voting any relevant posts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my very modest submission has been accepted - and the number of not-totally-insane submissions is growing - though they are still dwarfed by helmet and now e-cig/vaping related arguments. I've seen at last one from an MD (anesthesiologist at that) who supports decriminalisation or legalisation, and Ray Thorpe has got his submission accepted as well.

Edit: Parliamentary Privilege!

Your submission is protected by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities attached to the Parliament or its members and others necessary for the discharge of the parliamentary functions without obstruction and fear of prosecution. This means that you cannot be prosecuted or disadvantaged because of anything you have provided in evidence, or because you gave such evidence. If you believe that anyone has disadvantaged you in any way as a result of the submission you have made, please advise the Secretariat.

Edited by Yeti101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit i didn't know that, i ended up censoring my name when asked by some doctor senator secretary or something via email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a huge problem - you can choose to not have your name published (which I completely understand) - is that what they were asking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i included a bunch of personal details and incriminating evidence in my submission then elected to have it all public but received this email.

Alternatively, the committee can consider accepting submissions as ‘name withheld’ or ‘confidential’. If a submission is accepted as name withheld, it is uploaded to the inquiry webpage but all references to the submitters name are removed. If a submission is accepted as confidential, the submission is allocated a submission number but is not uploaded to the inquiry webpage.

Ultimately, the decision of how to treat a submission is made by the committee. However, the committee will consider submitters preferences with regard to this.

Can you please advise as to how you would prefer your submission to be treated?


Yours sincerely,
Jane Thomson

The weird this is she addressed me as 'Ms'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd. I didn't get the same message. But I never asked for confidentiality. I know they are reading everything people put in - maybe they thought that you forgot to choose the 'name withheld' option. I have seen a number where the name is not published - not all about cannabis either.

I would add that even if your contribution is published with your name withheld, you are still protected by parliamentary privilege (I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good submissions coming in recently - if any of those are from members here, thanks! Also some (IMHO) astoundingly misguided and odd submissions - like the one that implies domestic violence deaths would be reduced by allowing people to carry concealed firearms, or the person who almost didn't move to Australia due to our helmet laws. There was a public hearing, some of which sounded distinctly insane, but I didn't have time to watch the live stream - will have to wait until the transcript/hansard is out before seeing how it went.

Official closing date for submissions is tomorrow - unless you are putting something in that specifically addresses one of the terms of reference. as I said in #1, it's 30 November for cannabis-related submissions and 1 March for the 'any other' category - just make sure that you make it really clear which term of reference you are writing about.

Also, I can't remember if I mentioned that you can always add to your existing submission of you want to (presumably in line with those dates mentioned above) - though if you've put 1 thing in, you've still done way more than most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interim report of of this committee is out http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice/Interim_Report_c

 

I know it's not a total blockbuster in terms of excitement - especially the recommendations, but it's a start. Even a recommendation that governments should take a hard look at more progressive policies is a step forward. I note also that even the dissenting Liberal senator was in favour of medical cannabis - again, this might seem lame, but coming from a conservative that's something. 

 

 Time to get to work on our respective state legislatures. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

views and recommendations point 3.19 really does appear to be the cop out.....

I'll do a ex-gov tear down when I am twiddling me thumbs  (have done "dirty" work before...lol), really not impressed at first glance though and to be honest looked like a complete waste of taxpayers money. *NO I will take that back, its at least somewhat a discussion.

 

My hat does go off to those that took the time to make submissions, but a whole lot more goes on in the machines to get change. It really is not the oxygen thieves that change stuff, and even more so if coming back to State level.

 

I'm in a bit of pain and well jaded, so apologies yeti for my negativity.

 

Edited by waterboy 2.0
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, 3.19 - 

The committee notes that relaxation of laws in relation to marijuana would be more difficult to achieve at a Commonwealth level rather than by the States, given Australia's adoption of a number of international treaties. 

This is what I put together from what the TGA people said and the questions the senators asked: Growing legit poppies for commercial opiate production is worth about $200 million per year. Our ability to participate in the legit market is sanctioned by a not-so-progressive International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). If we were to legalise at any level, but especially at a Federal level, then this INCB could say we were in breach of the Single Convention and revoke or curtail our share of the worldwide opiate quota. Since other countries are jealous of our approx 50% share of the licit world market, there would be considerable back-room pressure to screw us if the opportunity arose.  

 

So, difficulty with international treaties =  threat to $$$ and tasmanian rural votes. 

 

Look, I'm not the only one who is disappointed. VAADA - the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association - is pretty pissed about being quoted out of context to justify a lack of action. 

 

The committee did cherry-pick the evidence to try to suit themselves. What is good is that the evidence was, for the most part, so reasonable, that they could not make a super-negative conclusion. 

 

It was an interesting process, and I'm glad I was involved. Next time something comes up at a state level, I, and other members, will be ready. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun times. :)

 

It's a Senate Inquiry at the end of the day, and the Senate doesn't make 'donations' to the two major political parties in our country...

 

Other peopl-rations do. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing else, we can ask governments to enact the recommendation of the committee:

 

that the Australian Government, in conjunction with the states and territories, undertake an objective assessment of prohibition, decriminalisation, limited deregulation and legalisation, including a full cost-benefit analysis, based on the outcomes of these options in other parts of the world. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* fark WB you were in a cnut of a mood, good thing you didnt fill it full of fcks *

 

Yes there is some , dare I say, "perceived" international blackmail going on....

Theres a few states making a move for that coin now, we do dominate, that said they've just cut next seasons quota back again out of interest. 

 

My thoughts are in reality its bullshit this "perceived" backlash, but it is a very pervasive stance.....

Its held a few industries back.

 

I did see some numbers/reference from VAADA that made me turn my head sideways a little.

Thanks for your feedback there yeti:wink:, and that really does clarify a few points for me.

 

All committees do cherry-pick, most have the outcome intent premeditated. Doesnt mean they can always get that through.

That said my reading so far is they HAVE done themselves some "injustice":) I

 

YES. if it was wall to wall whack-job  submissions they would have had "good" material to work with (which is common  across "democracy" at work alas and possibly an agenda) .

 

Policy people (lol...who are very "different/special") within the departments at "war" (relevant to point 3.23 The recomendation) and "minders" (advisors) are good ears to get,They are the grease of the machine. Policy folk can be hard to get to, and there is a reason for that..... it can done though.

 

The fact they were forced into it speaks volumes, and their response by recomending infected it with bureacratosis shows the level of fear.... senator Edwards has shown his stripes IMO.

 

 

 

Edited by waterboy 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big props to yeti for bringing this to our attention and other contributors.

 

It's always better to do something rather than sit back and be cynical.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

something like this has a good effect:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/31597717/sydney-hosts-medical-cannabis-symposium/

 

got to make them squirm, actually did anyone mention this:

http://www.unitedincompassion.com.au/2016-symposium.html

Edit- they had a pretty good line-up

 

Edited by waterboy 2.0
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I thought that looked good. I wasn't sad that Mike Baird got a few heckles either. 

 

Anyway, the original inquiry is wrapped up - probably indefinitely due to the early election. Now I guess it's time to slowly & painfully get reform on the agenda at the state level - even a conversation about reform would be a step forward for NSW! If and when I become aware of any new coordinated actions in this area, I will pass the information on (though Responsible Choice or Glaukus will probably beat me to it).

 

In the meantime: 

  • write to your MPs (I'm thinking of doing some stock letters that people could use).
  • think about throwing a high preference or two toward progressive parties at the election - (oh -  we should do a drug-reform how-to-vote!)
  • If you're a student, join/start a chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) - not enough of these in Australia!
  •  Support the work of people like Alex Wodak, David Caldicott, Stephen Bright etc.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ this.

 

Failing that, just talk about cannabis with people. Get conversations happening. We all use drugs, we just think we don't. "Gotta have my coffee before I do anything..." :wink:

 

If you feel that you don't have the info or background to stand your ground in a convo (not argue and condemn or ridicule the other person) visit my website for a bit of an intro:

 

www.responsiblechoice.com.au  (Australia specific)

  • Like 4

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

×