Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Yeti101

New Federal Medical Cannabis Laws Introduced Today!

Recommended Posts

The establishment of a national cannabis cultivation scheme aims to pave the way for patients with painful and chronic conditions to access medicinal cannabis.

The proposed amendments to the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967 would allow for cultivation through a national licensing and permit scheme.

Health Minister Sussan Ley said the Government had briefed Labor and the Greens and was optimistic about receiving their support for the move.

More:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-10/medical-cannabis-cultivation-legislation-to-be-introduced/7154006

I guess this explains why MMJ Phytotech shares didn't get axed like everything else yesterday.

People should (in my opinion) consider contacting their Federal MP's and Senators to voice support for this. It isn't perfect, but it's an important step.

Edit: maybe hold off on getting too enthusiastic (as I did, sorry) until we see some details.

Edited by Yeti101
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a report on the radio this morning and some MP made a point of saying "it's not something you smoke" and the article Yeti linked says the same thing.

The article mentions a drug - Epidolex

It seems like if it's classified as medicine it has to come in a pill.

If that's the case than they haven't legalised anything they've stolen it and given it to big pharma.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would refer everyone to my previous crystal ball predictions, because I know everything about everything :rolleyes:

Dodginess, private interests, and ridiculous bureaucracy as they try to steer it all into the hands of a few... :angry:

I've heard that fucking smoking comment quite a few times now, and it displays an absolute ignorance of the various mechanisms by which cannabis can work. Some people NEED to smoke it to get the individual effect that works best for them and their condition. FUCKNNN!!!!!!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I await with bated breath. Let the magic of Mary become known and appreciated. We knew it wasn't going to be a case of "OK everyone's allowed to grow their own two plants."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like if it's classified as medicine it has to come in a pill.

Sounds like a good idea to me, Pills mean the dosage is regulated, and the medicinal compounds are pure.

Medicine needs to be dosed at specific concentrations to be effective, When one inhales smoke from burning plant material it becomes impossible to be certain, which compounds are being ingested and which compound are being destroyed by the flame, aswell as what concentrations are being absorbed. While smoking might be an effective way to get high, its never going to be an effective way to dose medicine.

Lets consider aspirin, would you prefer to pop a pill, with a standardize dose or do you want to smoke some willow bark and hope it helps your headache.

I dont think its fair or accurate to claim Big Phara is stealing anything here, Huge investments go into funding clinical trials, and large proportions of these trials never make it past the 3rd phase, which results in a massive loss to pharmaceutical companies.

A study published in 2006 estimates that costs vary from around $500 million to $2 billion depending on the therapy or the developing firm.[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16522582

Its also worth considering that these medicines will be used to treat children with epilepsy or other seizure inducing disorders, Do we really want children smoking ? Do we really want them ingesting psychoactive substances while their brains are developing? when in most cases that im aware of the compounds in Cannabis that help with seizures are not psychoactive.

I really hope Australia doesn't go down the road Canada has, where anyone can go to a doctor to get a Medical Cannabis Card which the majority are clearly using for recreational purposes. Using medicine as an excuse to justify a safe recreational drug is absurd.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all well and good but it does nothing about the criminal black market for "illicit" cannabis. Anyone growing or using without the approval of a doctor (who will then have a vested financial interest in it) it is still a criminal in the eyes of the law.

Cannabis has been smoked safely for thousands of years, the dosage is self regulated ie a user will veg out before they OD.

Why does this have to be framed in a purely medical context anyway ?

What about the debate about recreational cannabis, why can't we be doing trials into the safety of smoking organic cannabis for recreational use (including the social impacts and costs to the community) and compared to control groups and groups regularly consuming alcohol .

Humanity has been able to grow and smoke whatever we want for thousands of years, now it's coming under corporate control under the guise of medicine.

I gave up smoking pot because it's illegal, I'd much rather smoke a few cones each night than drink alcohol but the nanny state won't let me.

All this was predicted in the sixties - ie if it were legalised it would fall under corporate control.

I think it's bullshit.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we will have to see. I agree that there might (or might not) be considerable downsides. What we need to know is the size and nature of the amendments to the Narcotics Act (1967) are. Then there is still how it's applied and how the courts treat it. I would hope that the Greens wouldn't support anything that makes legalisation or decriminalisation less likely, but I agree that anything that the LibLabs support is worth close scrutiny. I will try to chase at least some of this up later today.

Weird mixed messages in that news story - note the "If states wish to decriminalise cannabis, then that's entirely a matter for them," comment. Is this an implicit green light or just something to distract the harm-reduction advocates?

The other thing is that many legalization campaigners see medical cannabis as a step towards their ultimate goal. Is this the case here? Devil is in the detail, so I should maybe put a hold on my support until we have a clearer idea of what is going on here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck getting Mike "Brady" Baird to legalise anything. He's hell bent on turning Sydney into Singapore.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recreational use IS medicinal use.

If I use a drug to reduce my stress, bolster my immune response and lift my mood is that medicinal? Or do I need to take a downer, some vit c and SSRI's before it is?

Fuck shit bullshit, but it's a start.

@ Yeti, yeah I reckon it is an implicit green light, so the race is on, and again watch em fold. I reckon either ACT or SA, who both have been a bit TOO quiet on the topic given their state laws, will be the first to go for the gold... I mean green.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Havent there been enough studies now that show one active ingredient is not much use without the other?

In any case, its a march of inches...rather than taking bold steps, we creep forward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here I was getting excited about being able to treat back pain without opiates. Not that I'll be able to do that w for much longer.

Might be a bit premature.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone read a proposal for the changes they want to make to the legislation ?

They are spinning a legalisation of cannabis but it seems to be more like they are implementing a licensing system for growing it (much like opium & tobacco) and are intending to sell a refined isolated compound.

The drug Epidolex is not and never will be cannabis. The way it's being portrayed on news reports seems like a sneaky sleight of hand with a deceptive description.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does this have to be framed in a purely medical context anyway ?

That's the million dollar question. This is the root behind so much of the unnecessary bullshit in our society. Feeling good is often frowned upon unless society has deemed the chosen method productive or in their interest (They make a profit). It's OK fo people to take antidepressants (enough for them to return to work as a good silent citizen), but not have a quiet smoko or a cuddly mung. Alcohol's apparently fine because it's not like alcohol is likely to make the average person think about the status quo and wonder if maybe the bullshit work they're doing to pay off the mortgage/big TV isn't worth dying stressed and broke?

If I want to while away my time mushing on in a forest, what's the big friggin' deal? Why must a person be "productive" in order to be a satisfactory human being?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, the Greens and some independents are pretty lukewarm on this and I intend to put my concerns to them.

The Bill, as it stands, can be found here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5609%22

It's 157 pages, so it might take me a while to get to the relevant bits. If everyone starts looking, we'll find any hidden gems sooner rather than later.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way it's being portrayed on news reports seems like a sneaky sleight of hand with a deceptive description.

I'm getting confused with all the different types of "synthetic" cannabis out there :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goddam I hate reading legislation.

Point 1 - If you are a licenced grower or manufacturer, don't break the conditions of your licence, unless you'd like to face up to 10 years jail.

Also, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is a bunch of crap.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ which brings me to the next bit of about facing we will have to see before any state hits the green light.

"We have international obligations under international law....blahblah"

Really?! I would wager that the U.S. would too, but despite being one of if, not the most, significant contributor towards said piece of shit convention almost every one of the states has at least some medical cannabis laws OR full recreational availability. :huh:

How the FUCK is it that here we are, copying them at every fucking available opportunity, but when it comes to one of the most significant money spinners they currently have in terms of state revenue, let alone the human rights and medical aspects to it, we come up with some shit like

"We need clinical trials, and to nut out the legal framework, blahblah."

IT'S BEING FUCKING DONE. Just because our media has successfully kept this from the Australian public doesn't stop it from existing. The research from around the globe is more than enough to justify cannabis' medicinal and recreational usage, and there are plenty of 'western' legislative models we can pick and choose from, for a starting point at least.

Just hurry up and rush it through already; the constant layer of ignorance being smeared over this topic is making me sick.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The controls on growing a plant are insane. It's not going to stab someone in the throat if not effectively licenced.

I can see this on a horrible histories type show in 2200. "mad millennials"

Did you know that in the 20th and 21St centuries people went to jail for cultivating a plant that doesn't cause much harm, yet allowed 24/7 drinking. Bonkers!

Says rat with sign.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"While smoking might be an effective way to get high, its never going to be an effective way to dose medicine."

The cure for arthritis is smoked. I had to give up work due to it getting to painful. I watched it swell and get more painful over 3 years before i treated it by smoking (not pot).

so there ya go, smoking WAS an "effective way to dose medicine". This method is yet to fail and has proven effective for all who have tried it.

By smoking... It's also, my discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If South Australia got it right frikking years ago, then why in 2016 cant the "smart state"? LOL.. Smart?? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking is certainly an effective ROA, just not the most efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was working in a wet area at a power station and the whole crew (2 shifts - over 60 men) all came down with a severe bronchial infection. Six of us smoked coltsfoot and we were all cured in about 4 days.

Everyone else took over a month to get over it and some that took anti-biotics ended up being hospitalised.

Sometimes smoking a weed can be more effective that anything a doctor has to offer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats interesting and a little bit surprising too :wink: Sullubrious.

I use acacia concurrens (branch bark) for all infections nowdays. Makes EVERYTHING in that field look like water. 4 days isnt bad though..

Late black tends to work in 24 hours or less. Even for serious infections. This one does in fact, "need research"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you using concurrens bark topically ghosty??

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
Sign in to follow this  

×