Kava to become S4 [prescription only]

[Torsten]

The following kava amendment will take effect on 1st of august 2008. I think it pretty much covers all kava supply and there do not seem to be any loopholes.

It dumps all kava powder into S4 unless it is in an approved preparation that conforms to the limits below. I think this effectively limits the availability of kava to pharmaceutical preparations only and prohibits any traditional or other use.

If you do see loopholes in this please discuss them privately with the relevant people [vendors, importers etc] but do not post them. We don't want to make it any easier for them.

======================================================

PIPER METHYSTICUM (kava) in preparations for human use except when included on

the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods in preparations:

(a) for oral use when present in tablet, capsule or teabag form

that is labelled with a recommended maximum daily dose

of 250 mg or less of kavalactones, and;

(i) the tablet or capsule form contains 125 mg or less

of kavalactones per tablet or capsule; or

(ii) the amount of dried whole or peeled rhizome in

the teabag does not exceed 3 g;

and, where containing more than 25 mg of kavalactones

per dose, compliant with the requirements of the Required

Advisory Statements for Medicine Labels;

( in topical preparations for use on the rectum, vagina or

throat containing dried whole or peeled rhizome or

containing aqueous dispersions or aqueous extracts of

whole of peeled rhizome; or

( c) in dermal preparations.

[Auxin]

 

Why does your government have such a hardon over restricting kava?

[Conan Troutman]

Whata farkn joke...fuckers wont get away with this

[shruman]

They do'nt Auxin, they do have a hard on for repressing our indigenous peoples, did I say repressing I meant protecting.

I thought this had already happened?, silly me, When i thought it happened I got a script from my Doc, he said as long as it was'nt illegal he was happy to right me one.

The only TGA approved Kava medication are those 2000mg (I think they ere 2000?) Thompsons pills & thats what he wrote me a script for.

[hebrew]

mate this is fucked i think it is time to stock up while you can for fucks sake

it gets worse

[XipeTotec]

.

Edited April 9, 2008 by XipeTotec

[XipeTotec]

.

Edited April 9, 2008 by XipeTotec

[Auxin]

 

 

it is time to stock up while you can

Not exactly a sustainable solution, simply stocking up before the ban. The stuff will grow there right?

[hebrew]

well i doubt it will grow here in melbourne, i am curious if it would though

[shruman]

Top end ony realy, they are very tropical.

[Auxin]

Someone needs to work out how to make them seed so they can be bred for different environments...

... Rocket pants would be nice too, and probably just as hard Still worth a shot.

[hebrew]

i know...i hope people up north are growing these plants and growing in large numbers.

[Vertmorpheus]

Kodeine Konstruct Kills Kava?

Disgusting... really disgusting.

I was diag'd with juvenile arthritis as a kid...about 8 or 9.. walked like a crab on stilts for a few months first... anyways it all got sorted eventually with accupuncture (really!) but in the meantime the "orthodox" advice was to drink massive amounts of this orange flavoured codeine syrup. Flintstones chewable morphine time, really.

That "they" will happily pump a tiny growing liver full of that shit, no questions, but prohibit fully grown adults from sitting down for length periods, quietly smiling and making chit chat.... it's mentally ill.

Some kind of enormous State Sized Antipsychotic Suppository is needed here...the only problem would be working out which arsehole to stick it up first.

With a bit of fiddling I reckon I could get kava to grow passably well around here... certainly lousy with tropicals in general but esp rainforest border things...dunno how it would like winter but thats what cutting right back and building a tent are for I spose... plants are much too pricey though, anytime I manage to find em I'm broke and you guys know my stance on actually paying for plants haha.

This and other similar legal moves of recent times have nothing to do with safety, nothing to do with society, and everything to do with the people that tend to use them and what the state thinks of them...and vice versa... in a way its completely twisted as it becomes a battle of the community minded... just differing ideals of community (ie Family First party vs Everyone First Party).

But nevermind... its for our own good right kids... if the news really bums you out and makes your aches n pains flare up, pop into the local chemist...they'll happily give you a big box of happy yellow codeine tabs for dirt cheap, no questions asked other than "have you taken these before?".

One box of codeine + paracetamol if taken all at once would stand a reasonable chance of making you very sick, or even killing someone... whereas I reckon you'd purge or something before you could absorb enough real,traditional kava (vs extracts) to do much in the way of real damage. It's also something that I can't see kids finding very palatable, unlike the sugar coated M&M lookalikes sold as Nurofen Plus. Kava in its raw state would be more of a suffocation hazard than a chemical risk.And it supports dying island economies... maybe thats it... send islands broke as possible then offer them fuck all for the minerals or oil you just happen to discover in their backyards in a few decades time. If they haven't sunk under the ocean by then anyway.

Bastards... Whats next? Green Tea?

VM

[Guest Øskorei]

This is fucking stupid.

[Francois le Danque]

yes this is fucking stupid. being fucking stupid is the new black, didn't anyone tell you?

does this affect the 2kg import restriction? is this still allowed and will it be after august 1st?

[PhantomTurkey]

That's pathetic.

Why are they pointing the finger at Kava when it's alcohol that is the real problem?

[MindExpansion]

Hahah phantomturkey, exactly wat i was about to say.

The government imposes these regulations on the nation for what? Because they cant profit off it.

They slap a tax on alcohol and cigarettes and my god what that tax is worth! (Cigarettes in bali are AU$1 a pack, here they are $13, catch my drift?)

And thousands of people die every year in this country alone of smoking related illnesses, and the violence and damage that results from alcohol not to mention the health consequences, results in thousands of deaths and millions spent in repairations (As i have mentioned in another post, a funny representation of this situation is 'The Streets' song, 'The Irony of it All', very funny and very true and clever).

Theyre solution to the tobacco problem is pictures on the pack of gross stuff, does anyone here know anyone who quit because of that? friends of mine who smoke cigarettes used to collect the pictures like trading cards! trying to get the grossest picture was the aim and their ace of spades was the dead fetus (Sick i know but it shows the 'tremendous' effect this government initiative had)

yet things that cause next to no harm like kava, and even things like marijuana (which yes does have many many risks but can it be said that it poses more of a threat to health or society than alcohol? i pose this question to you, how many stoners do you know that go out and try to start fights on the w.e vs those who get blind drunk?) are classed in the higherst schedule (with mj not kava) and made highly illegal. The same can be said for many of these substances. Kevin Rudd and every member of his government is probably happy to drink alcohol but because it has been around in the western world for so long it is completely accepted, yet these 'drugs' with CENTURIES of history of use are completely banned because the europeans who came here had never heard of them before and probably associated them with 'evil blacks' and such ignorance, yet these are the drugs that cleanse ones soul and in no crazy manner, drifting off into a personal reflection on life hardly seems as dangerous to any other person as getting maggot drunk and running around agro trying to have a biff.

Yet still, those who use substances the ancestors of those now running our country didn't deem 'acceptable' (Probably because they didnt know about them, imagine if three hundred years ago a king of england hadve injested some kava rather than a cup of wine, do you think we'd be in the same situation now? i think not!) are now deemed dangers to societies, 'druggies' and outcast by those who are 'clean "i only ever drink, Drugs? NEVER, drugs are for scum, im no druggie fiend!"' Well fuck them, fuck the lot of them, who are they to rule that those who seek a different side of life, a deeper understanding of the world and themself, are 'dirty'. The controlling pigs who sit on their high horse with their wine and cigars/cigarettes, all paid for off the taxes paid by those who have become addicts of their endorsed products (alcohol and tobacco) and are now gripped by among the worst addictions possible. Yet are they going to ban cigarrettes? FUCK NO, the revenue they would lose would not to them be worth the lives they would save and the health they would create.

They obviously havent thought enough about the fact that the money they lose would probably be made up by the savings they would reap in the health sector, or the law and order sector when it comes to alcohol, not to mention the fact that kevin rudd would never do something so electorally suicidal! Every smoker in the country would have him out, hed probably be assasinated by some distraught pack-a day smoker who is finally coming down after a thirty year nicotiene buzz.

The one question id LOVE to demand an answer from the government of, is WHY kava, WHY mj, WHY salvia d, WHY LSD, why these drugs which when used sensibly, which, lets me totally honest they USUALLY are, are not terribly harmful relative to others which are allowed (alc and tob)! WHY NOT cigarettes, WHY NOT, alcohol. Sure the fools raise the price of 'alcopops' so young girs wont get drunk, id like to alert the IDIOTS to something i call REALITY! Those girs wont stop drinking or drink less, it is cheaper to buy a bottle of vodka and a bottle of lemonade. In REALITY they will probably end up drinking more because they wont have that potion control, sure the drinks were strong but girls knew how many they needed, they could say i need 4 bottles and ill be tanked. Silly to get so blind yes, but now they will be saying lets get a bottle of vodka between 2 and then suddenly they reach the bottom and think 'oh god, we finished it hehe' and ten minutes later one is passed out in some guys bedroom at a party with a drunken boy on top of them and the other is throwing up while passed out on the bathroom floor.

The government has one major problem in dealing with drugs, THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THEM, to them there is a blanket statement that holds true for all drugs. (Except of course alcohol and tobacco, notice how most people will say 'drugs and alcohol', every time i hear it i want to slap them and say 'you mean drugs', alcohol is a toxic drug, highly toxic in fact relative to many being discussed here.) And that is that 'drugs' (-alcohol and tobacco) are really really bad, they are dangerous and scummy and should be banned. They dont understand anything about the way the drugs are taken, what effect they have, peoples reasons for using them, why it is likely that these drugs are going to be used responsibly, and what benifits the substances might have, and in many cases have had for many hundreds of years since long before the day that fat englishman took a sip of the first alcohol offered to him and said 'mmm this is good, everyone should try this'. They need an advisor with experience, but that would mean a druggie, and they could never be seen to have a druggy as an advisor because druggys are scum, so for now they will make the judgements by information fed to them by people who also have no practical knowledge of the use of many of these substances, and thus they will continue to make highly misinformed decisions and be SUPPORTED in this by the public who now mostly share the idea that drugs are bad and associated with crime and scum, i mean sure there are some which should be banned (IMHO meth is dangerous and so can be many of the other amphetamines), but we arent talking about them here, we are talking about drugs with a long history of purposeful use which are now being outlawed because rudd wants his people (i,e the general public) to see him as 'anti drug' and hence 'anti scum' and 'anti crime', yet at the same time he has to be seen as pro alcohol, but not pro binge drinking, and pro-cigarettes but anti-cigarette at the same time. Sticky situation but no excuse for STUPID decisions.

Peace...wonder how many people read all that, i could go one for pages and pages, would love to sit down with whoever makes these decisions and have a solid mature discussion with them about it.

Mind

Edited May 16, 2008 by MindExpansion

[Auxin]

I dont think you understand how the system works, Mind.

You say they ditch things like kava because they cant profit on them by heavy taxation. Thats the root of your mistake. See, kava and marijuana for example can be taxed just as heavily as tobacco and alcohol but the profit stops there. With alcohol and tobacco the so called 'costs' of health care and fighting petty violence are profit to the blokes in charge! Think about it, whos money does the government spend? Thats right, the taxpayers- Not theirs! And what do they try to spend it on? Their uncle bobs pharmaceutical megacorporation to heal the smokers. Cousin daves police equiptment manufacturing plant to arrest those dastardly drunks. Auntie angelas surveilance camera factory to catch the speeders.

Tobacco is a drug that makes people sick to profit the medicine monopolies.

Alcohol is a drug to make people into semicoherent violent petty criminals to pour money into fighting and to keep the larger populous distracted from the abuses of those who engineer and maintain a society where people are programmed to self destruct to give the repairman someone to charge.

How would kava profit them? Taxes only. Kava drinkers would just sit back, sing songs, and tell stories.

How would marijuana profit them? Taxes only. And candy sales. Pot smokers would just mellow out, eat sweets, finger paint their abnormally inexpensive cars, and make poor attempts at weaving baskets from the grass in their lawn.

Mercilessly destroying people and getting others to pay you to clean up the mess is where the moneys at.

[MindExpansion]

How would marijuana profit them? Taxes only. And candy sales. Pot smokers would just mellow out, eat sweets, finger paint their abnormally inexpensive cars, and make poor attempts at weaving baskets from the grass in their lawn.

Hahahah that is ahah really funny, i like it, and even funnier because a mate of mine did paint his shitty little car all sorts of colours and covered it with TAZOS inside and out, it was hilarious. Not to mention another guy i know getting whacked and making a time machine out of his car, painted all over it, bright crazy colours, took apart a computer and stuck bits and pieces all over and through the car, and the next day realised what he had done, that was one of the funniest things ive ever seen. But back on topic, the way youve described the situation is somewhat of a conspiracy theory and im not sure i entirely agree. I do believe that some insider deals go down, for example im sure many members of parliament have shares in telstra as they wouldve been the first to know about its privatisation, and i think that plays a significant role in why telstra, despite appaling service are still essentially in charge of the countries telecommunications, and why Mr Rudd pulled optus, who have gone out of their way to be better than telstra, from the braodband contract to the remote areas of australis, and put telstra back on the contract. But to the extent of the security camera thing, i mean your probably exaggerating but i dont think that plays such a role. I personally believe that they would rather spend the tax payers money on other stuff, but alcohol and tobacco companys hold such power, and also and i think this is the crucial bit, every politician we elect is a COWARD. They get into power telling people what they want to hear, then they generally do whatever they can to try and ensure re-election, banning alcohol and tobacco would be a surefire and super fast way to commit political suicide in a country of drinkers and to a lesser extent smokers. Due to this they are more willing to let slide the significant danger they put society in by allowing cigarettes and alcohol, than to commit this political suicide.

I understand that kava and marijuana can be taxed easily but as i went on to mention, these 'drugs' are now somewhat of a social taboo, they are associated (maybe less so kava as I would imagine fewer of the general population would know about kava than MJ) with scum and druggies. As you and I have both pointed out, this is far far from the truth in most cases, but it is the way society has been programmed to see the whole drug issue. This programming did not happen for alcohol and tobacco because these were introduced to western society long before many of these other drugs, and when I say introduced I mean they were used by westerners long before many of these other substances. Many of these other 'drugs' such as kava, as i said, were probably first seen when the westerners encountered indiginous peoples, and as we know, most of the time the westerners felt superior to these natives and as such the natives' drugs were probably dismissed as 'black drugs' and thus 'filthy' (Just like to clarify that this is certainly certainly not my opinion of non-caucasion races). For these reasons long past, alcohol and tobacco (Unsure of how tobacco came to enter western society but it seems that this is an exception in that it was introduced to the west by another population, yet it was taken on board and quickly became acceptable, probably due to its mild, barely noticable effects, so people would not have seen it as so much of a drug as, say, opium [trying to pick an example that was known a comparitably long time ago to the west]). One way or another though, alcohol and tobacco have been accepted by western society for many many years, most other drugs were not, and somewhere along the line, the other drugs became illegal and as such it was 'criminals' who used them. Some of these users may have been criminal in other senses but the link between that and their drug use can in many cases not be made (there are exceptions to this, many exceptions, but again not so much for the drugs we are talking about). And so i believe now, to avoid political suicide they cannot ban alcohol and tobacco, and would not anyway for want of the revenue. But the other 'drugs' are all now considered part of the 'drug' culture which is seen as dirty and scummy, often thanks to bad press and often extreme misunderstandings about drugs like MDMA, methamphetamine etc. which causes a blanket opinion of drugs in general. Members of the government are no more knowledgable about this than the general public and so when they hear of a drug being used, even one as mild and non-threatening as kava or mj(though mj, as i said does have many risks but weight them up against alcohol and...yeh im starting to repeat myself), they decide that it has to go. And when they hear of something like salvia...*more powerful than LSD, my god we have to eradicate its use* is what must spring to mind. They probably dont understand its uses or those who use it. Nor would they understand its effects, im sure we all know from the example of the difference between the way LSD is represented to the masses and the way those who have expereienced it know it really is, that the effects of psychedelics is seriously misunderstood by the majority of the population. In fact with the example of LSD, the whole experience is misunderstood and written off as simply getting high and 'tripping out'. The spiritual and personal sides are completely unknown, and if you say to someone who hasnt tried it that it is a spiritual and learning experience, they will think you are a druggie or a hippie. Its lose lose, they dont know, and they dont seem to want to. Drugs are drugs and to them drugs are bad so drugs must go.

To recap, im not sure i agree with your theory of 'uncle bobs pharmaceuticals' and such, i mean, sure i dont know much about the whole system, but i think i have a decent theory, yours may of course also be true, and i dont doubt that there is pressure from external sources on people like the government. But lets think about thinks like amphetamine, the government could legalise and tax that, theyd make millions off tax, and have to spend millions on damage control and health care, but if your theory were 100% of the reason for alcohol and tobacco being allowed and things like kava being banned, then why would they not do this, all im saying is that the social view of drug use, IMHO, plays a great role in the situation, as do all the other things ive mentioned. Im sure your theory has validity, not to the extent you have mentioned but i take it you were exaggerating, and im sure there are 'friedly' type arrangements, not to mention the pressure im sure some of these international megacompanies put on the governement to have their way. I just believe there is much more to it Dont mean to sound like im having a go, just having what i think is a very interesting, relevant and stimulating conversation.

Peace,

Mind

[Guest Øskorei]

As at January 2008, a deck of smokes in Cambodia is no more than $1, as little as .75c in many places. Same quality, actually fresher, than the product we buy in Oz for $11+

I have always thought that marijuana might be a viable commercial product if made legal, with associated taxes etc included... you would get a better 'deal' than the present black market economy prices. And there might be some sort of regulation, or at least a quality control when it comes to consumer product. The fucking taxman could still make a fortune. One feels that the issue may well be that those silver-spooners in Parliament might see pot smokers as beholdnig an element of lucid thought.

Which makes them BAD voters who cannot be relied upon to cast their poll- ticket towards a continued conservative, latent christian social ideology. Fuck, if they made the weed legal, the wee commoners might vote for Bob Brown ! Damned if we'll have a homo party in majority seats when the country's wellbeing is at stake.

The opression we are experiencing in Australia regarding plants is likely based on the nationalist fear of dirty-hippy non-conformist minds aligning themselves to a non-party mindset that cannot be easily manipulated by media tripe.

Or perhaps, in the case of Kava, the (now buried) background screams for prohibition were spat out by members of the NT Liquor licencing board. Why the fuck let people ingest a plant material for cheap-cheap and get 'drunk' when cases/slabs of VB can be flown in? Oh yea, they've stopped booze coming into Arnhem land territories officially, but lets just see what gets through in the next two years, a shitload of highly taxed federally legal grog, or kilos of kava. Whilst neither are probably ideal for the oz indigenous communities, we all recognise the most socially damaging of the two.

[Guest Øskorei]

MindExpansion...... you wrote while I was....... but man it's refreshing to see someone who is capable of expressing thought in detail of written word. It's inevitable that you might be belittled for your opinions here (or in future), by a humourless grey-life moderator who's turned many people away, so if this ever happens (trust me, it will.. see 'vertmorpheus'... how we miss thee) just ignore it, and remember that your freedom of expression is paramount.

Anyways, good, good thread people. Food for thought.

[nabraxas]

I have always thought that marijuana might be a viable commercial product if made legal, with associated taxes etc included... you would get a better 'deal' than the present black market economy prices. And there might be some sort of regulation, or at least a quality control when it comes to consumer product.

that's unlikely. Philip Morris, which makes Marlboro, reportedly applied in 1993 to trademark the brand name "Marley", because they know that if MJ is legalised it will be companies like them who the government will sell the licenses to produce retail ready joints to.

Obviously Marleys will not be the strongest MJ, as they want you to keep smoking them not get wasted off just one, & they will either be mostly leaf --selling the leaf will be where the profit is, or they will be mostly tobacco --gotta keep the folks addicted to your primary money earner.

there is more quality control when you have a handful of illegal suppliers to choose from than when you have no choice over an industrialised product.

[MindExpansion]

Thankyou Oskorei I appreciate the support. However im afraid i have to agree with nabraxas on the issue of legalising mj.

The dealers at the moment are all trying to get the strongest product to attract business. However, if it were legalised and given to a major tobacoo company as i agree it probably would be, they would likely be using weaker gear, for two reasons, one, like nabraxas said, they would be using leaf and all to minimise waste and trying to make a weaker smoke so you had to smoke more. And two, i believe the government, as with weakening pre-mixed drinks, would insist on a fairly regulated level of THC, and im sure this would be weak for the 'protection' of the useres (and also probably to some extent because, as auxin suggested, the cigarette companies would no doubt somewhat pressure the government into making this regulation so they couldnt be criticised so much for keeping the concentration weak...god doesnt that sound like a conspiracy theory lol). The profits would be ridiculous, the quality probably weak and the government would probably maintain the illegaity of growing the plant forcing the purchase of the legal version or a continued break of the law no different to growing plants now.

The opression we are experiencing in Australia regarding plants is likely based on the nationalist fear of dirty-hippy non-conformist minds aligning themselves to a non-party mindset that cannot be easily manipulated by media tripe.

Oskorei i agree with this and think it is an additional reason with the ones i have discussed.

Im enjoying this thread, great food for thought as Oskorei put it.

Peace,

Mind

[nabraxas]

he government would probably maintain the illegaity of growing the plant forcing the purchase of the legal version or a continued break of the law no different to growing plants now.

actually there would be a difference in that once it's a taxed product, if you are caught growing it that counts as tax avoidance which carries stiffer penalties/bigger fines than a current 'cultivation' conviction.

[Auxin]

 

 

actually there would be a difference in that once it's a taxed product, if you are caught growing it that counts as tax avoidance which carries stiffer penalties/bigger fines than a current 'cultivation' conviction.

I've heard that several times before, one of the most ridiculous australian laws. But just how far do they take it in practice? Is there actually a danger of grandmothers being arrested for canning peaches from their peach trees for their use and gifts for family? (Canned peaches are a taxed product here.. and I assume there too) Similarly what if someone grew their own medicines and cured themselves of bronchitis? That would be 'evading taxes' on antibiotics et al., yes?