Jump to content
The Corroboree

Recommended Posts

I'm sick of the tiptoe around the issue/incremental steps approach . When is someone going to have the balls to stare down the naysayers? We need a Justin Trudeau.

I can't see Turnbull or shorten growing a pair. Even the greens aren't taking a strong enough stand. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greens have improved recently - suspect this has come from the bottom up rather than their elected members. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think they're pussyfooting around. They want decriminalisation but this won't bring the full range of benefits to the community. Supply will still be unregulated black market economy that avoids taxation and the legit jobs won't be there. 

Legalisation is the only way to go. Grow your own for personal use free from constraints, but if you want to sell to Joe Public, then licensing and regulation like any other industry would apply. That would create jobs in horticulture, labs for testing, industry regulators, retailers etc....

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need to convince me :) Yep, its a sad day when a party is branded as radical because they formally drop their commitment to keeping illegal drugs illegal and want to look at actual evidence. 

 

In other news, The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation in Canada is out: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/task-force-marijuana-groupe-etude/framework-cadre/index-eng.php Looks to be interesting reading. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing that link yeti. That's a great framework from the skim read I just did. A commonsense approach sorely lacking here and most places...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Don't need to convince me :) 

 

 

Exactly.  This is pretty much the least useful place to campaign on the internet.  It's not like there are minds to change.

 

Great place to discuss and organise reform efforts though.

 

Of the MPs I've emailed recently a few said constituents rarely if ever bring this up.

 

Having said that I think gay marriage is holding up cannabis reform because the public can only consider one social issue at a time.  Unfortunately weed is further up the pyramid of Maslow's reform hierarchy and I can't see cannabis reform happening before gay marriage is settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No money in gay marriage bro, well not like legal cannabis. Whole different ball game, pun intended :wink:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Having said that I think gay marriage is holding up cannabis reform because the public can only consider one social issue at a time.  Unfortunately weed is further up the pyramid of Maslow's reform hierarchy and I can't see cannabis reform happening before gay marriage is settled.

 

Bingo! That and Aussies get fatigued really fast with political issues that remain unresolved 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I just read somewhere the DEA scheduled CBD now as sched 1? Wonder what this'll mean to Aust 

Wow, when I first read that I thought it must be a typo or that maybe I was misremembering which direction the US drug schedules ran in... what with all their states approving medical cannabis all over the place, I felt certain that the intent of any CBD re-scheduling must surely be to drop it down from "restricted" or "no medical use" to "prescription-only", as we've done here. But no, it seems that they've actually done the opposite. What the actual fuck?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that it's a 'clarification rather than a new law' - basically CBD (or any cannabis deriviative) is and always was considered by the DEA to be a (US) Schedule I substance. What this actually means for the industry, and for those who benefit from the CBD products remains to be seen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I've read that it's a 'clarification rather than a new law' - basically CBD (or any cannabis deriviative) is and always was considered by the DEA to be a (US) Schedule I substance. What this actually means for the industry, and for those who benefit from the CBD products remains to be seen.

Yes but this is why I'm so baffled. Isn't there a different schedule which is for restricted-but-medicinally-useful drugs such as morphine? Isn't that the distinction between S1 & S2? That S1 is for "no accepted medical use" and S2 is "we think this drug has abuse potential but it also has therapeutic potential, or at the very least it might and we're going with these lesser restrictions so that researchers can actually access these materials to bloody well find out for us whether or not it has medicinal value"? And in the light of the recent medical-marijuana boom in the States, wouldn't that (S2) be the more appropriate schedule here?

 

As I understand it, the FDA isn't satisfied from the existing body of research into medicinal cannabis/cannabinoids that they should be rescheduled to S3. And while I'm not up-to-date with that research, that does seem like a fair point. From their point of view, they want studies that look into the efficacy of particular compounds or preparations of compounds, so they can then compare those to the conventional meds for that condition. While a plant or plant extract might be a whole mash of different things, and more to the point, not consistent in composition - different harvests or varieties might have wildly differing ratios & concentrations of the active compounds. Which makes life hard if you're the FDA who is trying to work out how to glean meaningful data from studies which use a whole range of different preparations, taken by different ROAs, and then attempt to condense that down to any kind of useful numbers about dosages, and then find companies that are willing to produce consistent preparations which match the FDA recommendations... so I do concede the point that this is tricky business.

 

But the point where they totally lose me is where they go "well, we aren't satisfied that the current scientific data supports a recommendation of using medicinal marijuana products to treat condition X, so instead of putting these things into S2 (a highly-restricted but still accessible schedule where researchers might be able to get hold of those materials to answer those questions that we said needed answering before we would approve this) - instead we decided to leave it in S1, the most restrictive category which is typically used for drugs where we have already made the decision that they have no medicinal value. Have fun getting ethics permission for those studies now, suckaz!"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you study law to escape it, or implement?

My reasoning *ahem* is of course in the direction of new drug laws and what they mean to the community.

NOOIT!

Edited by manu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Do you study law to escape it, or implement?

 

 A little from column A, a little from column B :) . Personally, I'd rather change the law than break it - not just because I'm too soft to go to jail. If we have to have laws (and whether or not we do is a discussion for the philosophy sub-forum), I just think they may as well be fair and reasonable. 

 

It's a funny situation in the US, and increasingly in Canada, in that lots of people and businesses seem to be openly breaking the law (as it's on the books anyway) - like Marc Emery in Montreal. That's the sort of thing that really scares the shit out of governments - when lots of people just decide they are going to do what they think is right, in a perfectly orderly and businesslike fashion. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Tell that to the background PM Corey Bernadi.

 

I suspect he wouldn't approve of weed...I really wish the liberal party would split into a conservative party and fiscally conservative party officially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ and this is why quicker is better. The sooner the facade of "diligent" preparation for legalisation is dropped and we just do it, the better. People will continue to fall victim to these shit laws in the meantime, and it has the potential for MORE people to fall foul because they have some vague idea that it is all OK now because of the buzz around it atm. The cops don't agree, and would still love to take your shit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://hightimes.com/news/israel-moves-to-decriminalize-recreational-cannabis/

 

Good news, because with all the conflict over there peeps need to chill da fuck out and forget some of the crazy shit that has been going on.

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

×