Discussion of Australia's Illegal Plants is Legal

[hoodoo]

This is somewhat off topic, and I am not referring to any point made on this thread. A few times people on web forums have mentioned that I am not supposed to discuss such and such an illegal plant or substance. I am not sure why.

I also recall Torsten saying that I am indeed allowed to discuss such and such a plant and I take that to mean substance as well, such as 2C-I, heroin or any other substance which is illegal in Australia. Discussing in of itself, what one knows or read here or elsewhere is not a crime, as long as what one talks about does not indicate partaking in the illicit usage, consumption, extraction etc., of such substances.

The fascists overseers of the Australian people can NOT tell me what I can write on the World Wide Web, so please do not let them think they have this power. In addition, Australian laws are not applicable where I live.

Discussion of plants that are illegal in Australia, or anywhere is protected under free speech as far as I know, in most civilized countries. Australia has a longer, ever more rapidly growing list of forbidden plants than even the draconian US and the last thing anyone should want is to let the Australian nation dictate what an international group of ethnobotanists can discuss on any internationally open discussion forum.

As far as I know, to this date, nothing has changed in this manner, freedom still exists to discuss every topic that I have discussed. Oddly, more than once, people have asked me to censure my comments regarding substances whichare illegal intheir country. Moreover, thousands of people, including Hoffman and Shulgin freely discuss LSD and other substances on forums, in journals and elsewhere, to this day as they have for decades, regardless of the particular laws regulating the substance itself, in the nations they reside. Discussion of a particular plant's chemical constituents, the physiological properties of the plants or substances on humans and other creatures, whether as double blind studies written up in journal articles or in private subjective reports from Erowid or other sources, are not illegal activities in of themselves.

People who discuss their own activity while possessing illegal plant materials in their presence, may well be breaking their local laws if they have no special license to do so. If you are such a person, consider editting your own discussion rather than suggesting that others who have nothing to do with your possibly illegal activity, should cease to discuss the entire topic.

I think the Australian fascists would love to censure much of what people say regarding the psychoactive plants and this is a great place to keep them from doing that. As everyone knows, government overseers have already imposed harsh penalties onto people for possessing so many plants and substances, and forums like this are one of the few refuges to keep the knowledge about these materials alive, so there is no reason to play into their effort to ever widen their control by prohibiting the discussion which takes place here, stored only in harmless phantom electromagnetic print or held in our concious and subconcious minds.

The internet is one of the last vestiges of freedom in the world and while we should beware that such postings allow the overseers access to obtain and hold permanent records of individual's written comments, opinions and said activities, in the end, this new found, 20 year old world wide web may well become the only platform in which freedom of speech can continue unmolested regardless of the overseer's attempts to censure us. ^_^

[Hagakure]

i disagree with this statement

The internet is one of the last vestiges of freedom in the world

the internet is the beginning of a new kind of freedom for the world.

never before has the ordinary citizen had such a strong voice or such power - it will only grow aswell.

dont wanna hijack the thread here though.

[Torsten]

You are mostly correct.

It is right that discussion of plants and drugs is not in itself illegal, however incriminating yourself is definitely undesirable for both the individual as well as the community.

There are broad interpretations though. While it is 100% legal to theorise about extracting 100 kilos of cactus that is growing in someone's backyard, the discussion itself is most likely enough for a search warrant. In fact they don't need a warrant as they are allowed to invade the house under 'reasonable suspicion'. A warrant might be needed for obtaining ISP records, but this should not be relied upon. So you see that discussion of 100% legal things can still land people in jail. Obviously we do not discourage such discussion, but we do discourage blatant taunting of the authorities.

The other problem is that we are not talking about speech here. Posting on a forum is actually not speech, but publishing. And the rules for publishing are very different than for speech. In fact, theoretically under current australian laws all ISPs that allow access to SAB forums are breaking the law by 'importing scheduled material' (all published material detailing the act of drug taking or drug preparation is scheduled under the customs act). However these laws do not have teeth and they would collapse the australian porn industry. They were a token law attached by the government to appease a senator so he would vote for the privatisation of our telecommunications giant. But just because a law is not used does not mean this will always be so.

So you are technically wrong with your assumption of free speech, but in practise we can get a way with a lot. While this forum cannot be shut down in the US as far as I understand, it can certainly be prevented from being accessible from australia.

The other problem is media. We do not want to be the webpage that gets splashed in the 6pm news after someone gets busted doing something stupid or illegal and we would like to be able to show that we attempt to keep discussions scientific, aimed at harm minimisation, and legal. Really, this was never meant to be a tripper's weekend boasting site. It was designed to collect and expand information on ethnobotany. It has gone a lot further than that already, but that does not mean it should lose it's focus.

Sometimes we will ask people to edit simply for appearance's sake. I mean, what's a bit of rewording going to hurt? And how much shit coud happen without it! We rarely ask anyone to remove something entirely. In fact, I don't think we have ever done that except when it was an outright incrimination.

WE are in this for the long haul. We have no interest in being the next hive or synthetikal, hopping from IP to IP and provider to provider just to escape the snoops. And we are also not in a country where free speech is 100% or where justice is even close to 100%. Much depends on perceptions and sitting below the radar. It has worked so far and I have no intentions of changing this approach. I doubt there is anyone on these forums who has as good a grasp on the laws affecting this community as I have. Not even my barrister has a handle on half of these issues. But it is my bread and butter as well as my passion, so I am going to apply whatever restrictions I feel are essential to keep things floating along. These might appear silly and specific at times, but then again, we are dealing with some very silly and specific laws. And don't think I like these restrictions. If I can find a way around them I will use it.

[darkstar]

Don’t rock the boat; As long as it floats we have a community and resources that could never be acquired by one individual’s work alone.

Why jeopardise all that?

There are countless sites and forums all over the net about illegal activates and rampant pharmaceutical abuse, I like the fact this forum is enlightened, civilized & will correct you if you accidentally mess up!

(Rather than taking you down in flames )

Just like Torsten pointed out, there was some nasty fallout from the hive becoming rampant with incriminating evidence. And who really wants some misguided boys in blue, with a warrant, redecorating your place?

[Amulte]

i think youd find that one's who say "dont talk about that" are the ones that are breaking the law and dont want any unwanted attention. i mean, if one is innocent for comiting a drug act, or somthing of the like, then why get upset at others discussing?

that last line of mine didnt make much sense. but you remember when you were a little kid. one time you may have been doing somthing you knew your mother wouldnt like. and she has absolutly no idea your doing it untill she walks by and you jump up say "i wasnt doing anything". ya see what im getting at there.

But yeah, ive even discussed illegal drugs with coppers, and i can tell you i was not arrested for it.

One thing ive been thinking of is the use of illegal drugs. i know posession, manufacture and trafficing are illegal but what about the use of an illegal drug? i mean, if you possessed, manufactured or trafficed drugs in the past you could still get arrested. but if i walk into the cop shop and say i wanna turn myself in cuz i smoke weed or shoot up they will laugh at me. ive never seen somone arrested for PAST drug USE. ive even seen coppers catch junkies in the act and just told them to move along.

i guess its one of those laws that are flexible and most coppers would bother enforcing in most cases, thats a guess anyway.

accually i was wrong, in the 70's John Sinclare was arrested. 10 years in jail for 2 joints. but apon reflection he was jailed for possession, not use.

im not saying that the site should change in anyway, just let each to their own but respect others wishes at the same time.

accually i think there was a heated debate some months ago now.

yes it was quite heated.

[Torsten]

Amulte, the discretionary powers cops have had for the last few years give people a sense that what they are doing is legal, but that isn't so. 15 years ago people used to get arrested for consumption all the time. I mean virtually ALL the time, because if one cop would let you go then the other could be done for failing his duties. Discretionary powers lull us into a sense that we have rights whereas we don't. Kinda like decriminalisation.

I think your logic about only those who break the law being the ones who hush others is also flawed. Most of the people who do dodgy stuff (as I can see from what they post on other forums) do not reprimand people here. Most of the cautions come from the mods and people who've been here a long long time. They are just protecting what they hold dear. Most of them are past their high risk dodgy stuff phase in life. Maybe that's the problem..... maybe we are just getting too old and don't push the envelope as far as possible anymore. But I am fine with that. This forum serves its designed purpose and if there are needs it doesn't fill then there are other forums who might pick up on that.

[hoodoo]

Torsten has never asked me to edit anything, although other people have. I have never discussed any creative chemistry either, as I am not knowledgeable in that area. One example of what I am thinking about is a comment posted on kratom thread which detailed recent kratom consumption, in my case, that did not occur in Australia nor anywhere where the material is scheduled. I do not live in the US either, by the way although like the US, Kratom is legal where I live. Someone said we should not be discussing a material that is already scheduled. I think it is particularly evil that Australia hastily scheduled the material in the first place, without a full understanding of it's potential benefits, not could they have done any truly indepth study of it's potential hazards in such a short time period. They clearly overstepped the rights of the nation's people without concrete scientific basis. Why? Due to that old puritanical fear that there might become another popular euphoriant that society can use to make them feel good.

To the best of my knowledge, the core of many drug prohibition laws, cannabis is probably the best example, is based on the fact that some people feel good from it and not because they are worried about how it might harm those users. The powers that be do not want anyone to be able to become happier in anyway unprescribed by their current system, they want to hold every single reign, be sure the populous works hard 4o hour weeks in businesses own by the elite, the masses must be too tired to think when they get home from work, and expect no more than a profitable (and often harmful number of corporate prescribed alcoholic drinks, and finally, stare in idiocy at a TV full of twisted philosphies which further support the exisiting elite, while being taught what material things they must go out and buy to ensure a minimal static happiness, while in their short free time off periods. Every detail of which they strictly orchestrate, from the number of work hours per week to what is a minimum wage.

Yet I have never seen any scientific proof that being happy from a non presribed euphoriant is in itself a danger to anyone, although that is really what they are afraid of most, that someone gets their kicks from something that is not profitable to them. Worse yet, is a drug with side effects which make someone not want to work so hard anymore. The person lose the desire to buy all the corporate offered "fun things," and skip Disneyland and Foster Beer, Football and as I said, TV. Shit! Profits would fall!

[hoodoo]

Surely, the establishment blitzes the media with disinformative disproportionate details of addiction, heart trouble, schizophrenia and other psychotic reactions and so forth from the non-prescribed fun things and they claim that it is only those dangers that they are protectings the populous from. If so, then being happily addicted to TV would also be outlawed. Surely if world governments undertook a rational risk analysis to study the hazards of such and such a number of hours of watching TV or going for a ride in a car, (radiation from TVs damages the eyes and can lead to health problems such as obesity) then we all know they would come up with lots more hazards related to the prescribed fun things. The number of hours gvernment sponsored scientists are paid to find things wrong with recreational drugs is a thousand fold more than the time they spend in any overall comparison, and in addition, they wholey fail to study the benefits with such vigor. So the whole anti-euphoria aspect of the drug campaign is self serving bullshit.

Furthermore, imprisoning a euphoriant drug user who is guilty of no other crime, into a place where the extraordinary likelihood of a rapid health decline, occuring as depression, psychosis, as well as placing the individual into a setting full of physical abuse from prison guards and violent inmates, clearly can not be for the betterment of the health of such people. yet, they say their goal is harm reduction. Iwon't even get into the logic of the fallacy of deterrents.

The overbound, ignorant arrogance of anyone consdiering arresting other people who take part in discussing kratom use outside of Australia, is ludicrous and near impossible for me to beleive! But from what I have read here at Sab regarding the endless "scheduling" frenzy that is going on in Australia, I can not completely discount the possibility. Does it really violate some laws? If so, it is time to buy a private island, then again, Cuba has a netherworld called Guantanamo, so nix the island idea!

If I write to a friend in Saudi and tell her that I drank a beer tonight, and we discuss how I felt, can we both be part of some crime, enough to warrant out arrests?

Ifso, I think two things are clearly way out of wack, first, the fact that I discussed using katom where it is legal. Secondly, it may be informative and important for anyone, anywhere in the world to learn how that material affects people and what uses or problems might ensue from it's consumption. Stifling anecdotal reports on it's use as an aid to end opiate addiction could hardly serve anyone in Australia anywhere. Furthermore, discussing kratom on an ongoing thread can not implicate anyone in Australia in anyway as far as I can tell, regardless of whether it is spoken or printed.

I tried to give an analogous example of people discussing past use of LSD, such as Hoffman, when it was legal (imagine if someone in Australia wants to arrest Hoffman as he arrives at the airport for absorbing LSD through his fingers in Germany half a century ago!)

I do not beleive this type of discussion in anyway rocks boats, and instead, I think censuring the last avenues of current kratom and other material's experimentation occuring outside of Australia, is instead, playing into the hands of the dictators. Do not let them have that! Such discussion is purely legal anywhere I have ever heard of, outside of maybe N. Korea or some nation where Sharia is the law of the land, as scientific discussion of events outside Australia can not hurt anyone in Australia, unless of course, people are afraid of the spread of information in itself. Now THAT couldn't be, could it?

Also, if the printed discussion of my use of kratom is an "export" of sorts, then as I think Torsten is saying, then he may be right, it could violate some Aussie law???? I have never heard of any similar laws in any modern, non-dictatorial "free" nation, but if Australia has such laws, please let me know.

And another thing..................rant rant rant..................

[Torsten]

One example of what I am thinking about is a comment posted on an ongoing thread which detailed recent kratom consumption that did not occur in Australai nor anywhere where the material is scheduled. Kratom is legal where I live.

YOu will find that there are several discussion of activities that are illegal in australia, but we welcome them on the forum as long as the poster clearly identiies that he is not in australia. I have created a special tag in your profile for just this purpose so that your location can be displayed just under your name. For appearance reasons we will still pull up anyone discussing such matters if they do not clearly state their location and thus make the discussion non-incriminating.

I see that you have not made use of this feature, so you will be treated as if you are in australia, as this is a primarily australian based forum (even if it is hosted overseas).

Someone said we should not be discussing a material that is already scheduled. I think it is particularly evil that Australia hastily sceduled the material in the first place......

Most here will agree with your disdain of the scheduling process. That definition however is not quite correct. We do not like *incriminating* discussions of scheduled substances. We would certainly not stop anyone from discussing past experiences from a time when such was legal and you will find many many threads that contains such information about salvia and kratom for example. At times one might even suspect that such events actually took place after the scheduling, but as long as it clearly states that it was before the scheduling then there is nothing illegal about it. Once again some common sense is appreciated, but in general no moderator would get heavy handed about this.

The overboudn arrogance of arresting people who take part in discussing kratom use outside of Australia, is ludicrous and ner impossible for me to beleive! But from what I have read here regarding the endless "scheduling" frenzy that is going on in Australia, I can not completely discount that it is possible. Could printing such outside of Oz discussions really violate some laws?

There are very few things that are illegal in australia and legal where actually 'committed' that can get you into trouble. Child prostitution is one, genocide is another. When I get swabbed at the airport on my way home from a 3 months rave bender in holland every piece of clothing, paper, luggage, wallet, etc etc will test positive to cannabis or powders. I just shrug and smile, telling them that that's why i go to amsterdam. There is nothing they can do about it as long as there is no actual quantity of drug on me.

Accordingly we would also not stop anyone from posting about such experiences. In fact the forums are full of people's overseas adventures.

If I write to a friend in Saudi and tell her that I drank a beer tonight, and we discuss how I felt, can we both be part of some crime, enough to warrant out arrests?

She did not touch the drug and you did not break any laws, so you are not breaking any drug laws. However, there may be laws governing communications, publishing etc.

I tried to give an analogous example of people discussing past use of LSD, such as Hoffman, when it was legal (imagine if someone in Australia wants to arrest Hoffman as he arrives at the airport for absorbing LSD through his fingers in Germany half a century ago!)

I think I have sufficiently shown that there is nothing wrong with this in terms of discussion, so there is little point in more examples. HOWEVER, do you realise that a book detailing Hofmann's adventures is in fact an illegal import into australia. This is not strictly enforced and obviously books about him are available here, but technically any publication describing the act of breaking a law is a prohibited import. I have always wondered how murder novels make it into Oz ;)

And before you rant and rave about australia's laws, you will find that most democratic countries in the world have such laws. The difference is that most never apply them, which is also almost true in australia.

Such discussion is purely legal anywhere I have ever heard of

Hmmm, the person to person discussion would indeed be legal in most countries, but the publishing of such information is actually restricted in many. Very few countries have 100% freedom of speech and virtually none have 100% freedom of publication. The real problem here is that WE view forum discussions as communications, but the law may view them as publications.

Also, if the printed discussion of my use of kratom is an "export" of sorts, then as I think Torsten is saying, then he may be right, it could violate some Aussie law???? I have never heard of any similar laws in any modern, non-dictatorial "free" nation, but if Australia has such laws, please let me know.

Many democratic countries have laws restricting the import of pornographic and or violent publications (in fact I think you will be hard pressed to list 5 modern democratic countries that do not have such censorship laws). Websites fall under the category of publications. I personally assume that forums also fall under publication, but I may be wrong.In australia the pron/violentce laws were simply expanded to include drugs. In other countries they might not include drugs, but may cover racism, extremism, etc. Most countries even have laws restricting the import of publications relating to past wars, their army, or the ex enemy's army.

Bottom line is that most people do not know these laws. Most aussies don't even know that there is a censoring authority in australia. Similarly most sheeple in other countries are also oblivious to the fact tht the same things happen in their countries. Just because you are not aware of such laws in your country do not assume that they do not exist. Only once you have read the customs, communications and literature acts will you have some idea. But even that is not enough as there are other such laws hidden in the most obscure places.

[Amulte]

Amulte, the discretionary powers cops have had for the last few years give people a sense that what they are doing is legal, but that isn't so. 15 years ago people used to get arrested for consumption all the time. I mean virtually ALL the time, because if one cop would let you go then the other could be done for failing his duties. Discretionary powers lull us into a sense that we have rights whereas we don't. Kinda like decriminalisation.

very good point and i can undertsnad that compleatly, even though im not that old, well older than some but not others. i drawn my response from my past encounters and the many ive heard from others who were there before.

I think your logic about only those who break the law being the ones who hush others is also flawed. Most of the people who do dodgy stuff (as I can see from what they post on other forums) do not reprimand people here. Most of the cautions come from the mods and people who've been here a long long time. They are just protecting what they hold dear. Most of them are past their high risk dodgy stuff phase in life. Maybe that's the problem..... maybe we are just getting too old and don't push the envelope as far as possible anymore. But I am fine with that. This forum serves its designed purpose and if there are needs it doesn't fill then there are other forums who might pick up on that.

Im sorry if i made it appear to be a logic which i can see now, i did phrase it so. i know there are variables to everything that can change the outcome. i myself have pondered and even, in the past, delved into things that shouldnt be looked at. and by doing so i have learnt not to look at them. so i know what you mean there. and i know what you mean about the mods giving caution to risky things, as i myself have done in the past. im ont sure what im trying to say but again, i agree with you.

Torsten has never asked me to edit anything, although other people have. I have never discussed any creative chemistry either, as I am not knowledgeable in that area. One example of what I am thinking about is a comment posted on kratom thread which detailed recent kratom consumption, in my case, that did not occur in Australia nor anywhere where the material is scheduled. I do not live in the US either, by the way although like the US, Kratom is legal where I live. Someone said we should not be discussing a material that is already scheduled. I think it is particularly evil that Australia hastily scheduled the material in the first place, without a full understanding of it's potential benefits, not could they have done any truly indepth study of it's potential hazards in such a short time period. They clearly overstepped the rights of the nation's people without concrete scientific basis. Why? Due to that old puritanical fear that there might become another popular euphoriant that society can use to make them feel good.

To the best of my knowledge, the core of many drug prohibition laws, cannabis is probably the best example, is based on the fact that some people feel good from it and not because they are worried about how it might harm those users. The powers that be do not want anyone to be able to become happier in anyway unprescribed by their current system, they want to hold every single reign, be sure the populous works hard 4o hour weeks in businesses own by the elite, the masses must be too tired to think when they get home from work, and expect no more than a profitable (and often harmful number of corporate prescribed alcoholic drinks, and finally, stare in idiocy at a TV full of twisted philosphies which further support the exisiting elite, while being taught what material things they must go out and buy to ensure a minimal static happiness, while in their short free time off periods. Every detail of which they strictly orchestrate, from the number of work hours per week to what is a minimum wage.

Yet I have never seen any scientific proof that being happy from a non presribed euphoriant is in itself a danger to anyone, although that is really what they are afraid of most, that someone gets their kicks from something that is not profitable to them. Worse yet, is a drug with side effects which make someone not want to work so hard anymore. The person lose the desire to buy all the corporate offered "fun things," and skip Disneyland and Foster Beer, Football and as I said, TV. Shit! Profits would fall!

OK. now there is too much for me to comment on but still, some very good point of veiw raised. there were three points in there i wanted to highlight but after re reading.. well lets say im finding this a good discussion.