Legalizing Salvia D

[ballzac]

some good points. Maybe if all the old ladies that have papavers and nicotianas in their yards were approached and told that their beautiful plants were actually illegal, a bit more support could be gained for the cause. It could also be pointed out that if laws keep getting stricter, their brugmansias, acacias, passifloras, leonotis...etc. could eventually be on the list.

[JDanger]

academic abbreviations shouldnt make for a better argument.

You're right, but in my experience, "Phd" goes quite a way in influencing public opinion. Not as much as a behind-the-scenes media monopoly, but still. Also, I'm pretty sure the NCIPC is little more than a propaganda factory. Wouldn't it be nice to have the money to spin equal amounts of more enlightening shit?

@ Yeti: I am also working on it. Might not be the most influential of fields, but those 3 magic letters silence a lot of sheep.

As far as illicit lifestyles are concerned, I'm pretty sure homosexuality was against the law until relatively recently. Alcohol prohibition was reversed in the US, so it's possible that plant-based substances could go the same way. Ayahuasca's recently become a matter of cultural heritage in Peru, and Australia's all about multiculturalism, right? Are there any Peruvians in the house?

I'm down for starting a group, as long as it's done well. I think for now we should look at compiling a coherent list of pro-ethno literature and work out some kind of solid, structured argument. I'm sure there's buckets of info out there, it just has to be organised effectively. Once adequate discussion has begun, I would guess the formation of a recognised non-profit organisation complete with specialist advisors covering a range of disciplines would be the next logical step in focussing the pressure at a particular political/legislative point.

[edit] Spelling. Also, @ Ballzac-- such legislation could theoretically lead to the extinction of a large number of species. We could even make an environmental point, no?

Edited August 13, 2008 by JDanger

[ballzac]

I think the first thing that would need to be done is to figure out exactly what we want achieved. I know it seems rather obvious, but there is a lot of disagreement even within the ethnobotany community. e.g. some of us believe that it is a basic human right to be able to posess and use ANY mind altering substance if it is done responsibly. Others believe that more dangerous chemicals like 'ice' and heroin should still be illegal (although I suspect those people are not fully aware of the statistics related to prohibition of these substances). Still I don't think a movement that included a plan to legalise 'ice' would gain much public support, even if the evidence showed that it would reduce crime and the harm done to users etc. Is it just that we want all plants to be legal to grow? If so, how do we justify legalising the growing of plants which can be used to produce substances which we are happy to keep illegal?

There are many more details to be worked out, and the main aims of the group need to be explicitly stated before anyone starts working on the arguments. Having said that, I think what's being discussed is fantastic, and I am certainly up for getting involved in this.

[JDanger]

Thanks Ballzac, that's what I was trying to get at. A unified aim, so to speak.

I for one think we have a better chance of making it legal to grow and consume substances directly from plants only, rather than attempting to legalise all forms of synthesised psychoactives. There are still many fine details to work out in this regard though, eg. mescaline extraction from cacti, salvia extracts, etc. Although I think if we simply make it legal to grow alkaloid-containing plants for personal use, a blind eye is likely to be turned to anyone cooking up a trich in the privacy of their own home.

[ballzac]

I think if we simply make it legal to grow alkaloid-containing plants for personal use, a blind eye is likely to be turned to anyone cooking up a trich in the privacy of their own home.

Yes, and opponents will know this too, and it will be one of their main arguments AGAINST the legalisation of these plants.

[MindExpansion]

What we need are historical examples where something that was illegal became legal. If we can get our heads around what causes community attitudes to change, then perhaps we can do something. If the broader community accepts that something should not be illegal, even if many of them still think it immoral, then the way is paved for the laws restricting it to be removed.

I think that the example of alcohol prohibition in America would be a good one because it is quite well known, and because near everyone in this country of 'true blue aussies' would be so against such laws against alcohol. I am sure there are other examples around but this one is just so prominent and relevant. An example argument targeted at the public would be "Imagine if going to the bottle shop, buying a bottle of nice wine, going home and enjoying it over dinner was against the law, well this was once the case. So how do those people in this country who peacefully consume plant based substances in their own home feel?" I mean that is a bit of a simplification but you can see the comparison I am trying to draw so they can know how it feels.

I think another argument that may have merit is the argument put forward before about the environmental implications of banning those plants as far as losing just another chunk of the diversity.

A rough list of the goals of any organisation I invisage being worth forming that may have some impact is as follows:

NOT coming across as a group of 'druggies' who just want to get high easily and legally.

Focusing on the right balance of scientific evidence showing benifits of use of these substances such as the recent research on mushrooms, or the lack of scientific evidence supporting the current legislation and the evidence regarding the social implications of the current legislation and the potential social changes resulting from a change in legislation.

Must look at both positive and negative arguments/evidence surrounding the issues of drug legislation and changes to legislation so a) when they come up with the negatives the group has good responses and it means that the group doesn't come off as a 'pro-drug' group but rather as a pro-public health group/pro-freedom of speech/civil liberty/botanicals group. c) it makes the group seem really properly informed, like they know everything the legislators know but more and the 'more' that they know makes them feel that a change of legislation is required.

The group would at some stage want endorsement from people with the letters and in positions of power, I really don't think this would be too hard, there are plenty of high standing scientists/doctors around that think current drug legislation is detrimental, also no doubt some people here have some letters/are in the process of getting them (I know I am lol)

The group would need a clear idea of what legislative changes they were lobbying. For example my vision would be to legalise all plants for legislated growth (i.e of limited numbers allowed to be grown, with the number differing for different plants) on private property for personal use, don't try and legalise extractions. And draw up a suggested set of regulations for synthetic drugs, such as the repeated limiting prescriptions (i.e go to a doc, get checked up for problems that would make MDMA use a bad idea, get educated, get a prescription for a limited number of doses within a month to be picked up in only one or two collections in the month, and let the script repeat like that for a year.) This goal would need to be discussed upon as the first matter the group tends to, then vote and after that people who are really really unhappy with the arrangement could reconsider their ideas and may have to opt out.

Based on research, reports would need to be written and presented to those in power. The importance of public backing and backing by those in some position of respectability, and also potential harnessing of the media, would be vital in having these reports read and taken seriously, and you could go from there with meetings with the relevant powers.

Love to see things happening...hope I can be a part in it if it goes ahead.

Peace,

Mind

[JDanger]

Yes, and opponents will know this too, and it will be one of their main arguments AGAINST the legalisation of these plants.

Let them ban the extract, not the plant.

I don't know if anyone here watches 'Q&A'. It's basically a live panel-style chat show on the ABC where various public figures and politicians sit on a panel and take questions from the audience regarding a variety of issues in the public domain. As I understand it, it goes straight to air, meaning there's no editing, etc. Would it be worth attempting to get on to question drug policy? Not even policy on relatively obscure plants specifically, but a general mention of the epic failure that is the War on Drugs might start some people thinking.

[MindExpansion]

I was thinking the same thing, but as an individual it means little, you just look like a druggo regardless of how much you know, which is unfortunate. It would be for the best to form a group, do the research, compile the reports, then go on shows like insight and Q&A and raise some public awareness so you will be taken seriously as an organisation.

[JDanger]

Power in numbers.

So, to begin with, this hypothetical organisation would likely be little more than a dissemination point for research and statistics?

Sounds simple enough.

What would you name it?

[MindExpansion]

Um i suppose that would be about it, also you would have to have meetings for discussions about really important decisions, but if distance is an issue you could no doubt work it out online.

A collaborative point for research, assisting each other in forming reports, a structured organisation with people coordinating rather than a free-for-all, power in numbers as you say, and moving to make legislation together based on plans formed as an organisation.

Peace,

Mind

[Yeti101]

@ Yeti: I am also working on it. Might not be the most influential of fields, but those 3 magic letters silence a lot of sheep.

I'm in Philosophy, what's your non-influential field?

So, to begin with, this hypothetical organisation would likely be little more than a dissemination point for research and statistics?

I'm not sure if anything like this already exists, but I'm sure if we look at what other sucessful non-profit interest and lobby groups have done we can find good examples to base something on. We should all look into this and get back with example of what we think works.

Um i suppose that would be about it, also you would have to have meetings for discussions about really important decisions, but if distance is an issue you could no doubt work it out online.

A collaborative point for research, assisting each other in forming reports, a structured organisation with people coordinating rather than a free-for-all, power in numbers as you say, and moving to make legislation together based on plans formed as an organisation.

Having some sort of structural coherency is obviously a good thing, but the potential for internal politics is pretty off-putting for me. Not everyone in the ethno community is able to put their personal differences aside at the best of times. I would think it vitally important that the structure and goals of such an organisation be tailored to avoid the negativity that in-fighting produces in political parties. Since what is being discussed here is more about research collaboration, lobbying and disseminating information, (rather than trying to get elected) most of the potential for real nastiness is diffused. This is also an area where we could learn from existing groups. I suspect we just have to ask. Obviously people involved need to be aware that any troll-style fucking around and making unsubstantiated claims (in public at least) about why everything should be freely available aren't going to be part of our activities. If this is going to have any chance of success, it would be a serious, realistic, living in the real world type of effort, not an opportunity for people to justify their habits or preferences by making unjustified assertions or by telling everyone how hard they tripped/nodded etc.

I really like the idea of a collaborative research effort. I have little scientific expertise compared to some people here, but if you want me to argue on the ethics/civil liberties/etc side, then I'm your man. Furthermore, close collaboration between researchers from different areas/diciplines can produce work that is more rigorous (if not actually better) than either could alone.

[MindExpansion]

No one in the world can always put aside their differences, but that is why a clear idea of goals from the outset is necessary. Politics are at play in any group so they aren't avoidable, but I hear what you're saying about minimising them.

I like the idea of looking elsewhere for examples, have to have a look around and try to find some info.

Peace,

Mind

[JDanger]

I'm in Philosophy, what's your non-influential field?

Psychology AND philosophy. High-five!

I also agree with you on your point on potential in-fighting. Baby-steps: keep it informative and nothing more for now, then see where it goes.

Also, on the point of starting public discourse, during my daily meditation session (morning shower), I got to thinking about the likelihood of holding an actual debate about drug policy reform at uni. It all played out rather nicely in my head, featuring delightful powerpoint slides highlighting the economic benefits of reform, drug war failures, etc. We (or you, dear reader) could invite politicians and conservatives then get a few high-flying pro-reform chaps (eg. Dr Alex Wodak) as well as some ethno elders (maybe) and have a good old public chat about the current situation, and what can be done to improve it.

Does that sound like something achievable?

Edited August 14, 2008 by JDanger

[MindExpansion]

Sounds easily achievable to me, but the organisation would probably want to have at least one member talk and as such it would probably be better saved until after some research and study compilation had been done. That is my opinion anyway. Does sound like it would be a good way to get noticed on the public arena, and in the academic world.

Peace,

Mind

[JDanger]

Students for Sensible Drug Policy

I was just talking about a debate in general, just to get people in the public arena talking about the issues more. Although, it would even be nice to have The Organisation host the event, rather than necessarily participating in it.

[MindExpansion]

Hey JD, that looks similar to what I was thinking of, but I don't like the students thing, it just puts a bit of a limit on the scope of the organisation and may lead to less credibility (unfortunately).

The chapter idea might be a good one.

CSDL - Campain for Sensible Drug Legislation??

Peace,

Mind

[JDanger]

I agree, it should relate to everyone.

CSDL works. Sounds better than NADWAG - National Australian Drug War Assessment Group

[MindExpansion]

What does everyone else think about a name?

Peace

Edited August 14, 2008 by MindExpansion

[misteek]

i think CSDL sounds good

[gilligan]

CSDL - Campain for Sensible Drug Legislation??

Sounds good, but you'd want to spell it right (Campaign), else you might look like an illiterate druggo. Grin.

I think the above is good in theory, but it would be one hell of a challenge.

Not to discourage, but just to put it into a realistic sense. You not only need to change the people in power, but also the general populace mindset. They'll be the people voting for the powers that be, and you would need to make sure that all parties containing the lawmakers are on the same side, else you would end up with something like the cannabis laws in WA becoming an election issue. Labour are still with their 2 bushies gets a slap on the wrist, whereas Liberals have part of their election campaign to overturn the softer laws and bring in the you cant do fucking anything or you'll get your arse kicked laws.

They pander to who they can. The populace will be the key - with major players this will help turn the tide, but bear that in mind...

Good luck

[MindExpansion]

Cheers giligan, unfortunate typo that one lol.

No discouragement taken, thus far its all theory stuff lol, no doubt it would be a challenge,

but with the right approach it may be possible to change the mindset of the population,

you just have to avoid the stereotypes and know what the public will listen to, i.e a meth addict talking for the organisation would not gain anyones support, even if they were now a doctor. at least i dont think it would, which is really unfortunate IMO but every organisation, regardless of what they're doing, faces challenges, this one might just face a somewhat bigger one than most others.

Peace,

Mind

[Vertmorpheus]

CSDL, haha... not read 1984 or dealt with the govt of late, lucky things... that's FAR too obvious and clear cut... you need to clutter it up some but NOT be seen to be putting anyone off the scent, per se... nothing dishonest, just a lil open ended and more reputable than something that contains "sensible" (which by its presence will put backs up, a certain amount of people will always think youre calling them stupid at the best of times) and "drug" which is just a BAD idea

If you're talking purely a press release factory and a few heads in a can journos can rattle if they feel like it on a slow week, you need a name that hits the right buttons... without setting off any alarms. It's all just letterheads and websites now, bugger all official sounding anybodies have an office half as impressive as their glossy mailouts in the fashionable brown envelopes anymore. 6 people can be an Association ;) Perhaps...

Australian Centre for Therapeutic Outcomes

National Health and Wellness Foundation

Australian Wellbeing Advisory Council

Natraceutical Research Institute of Australia

Probably not anything with drug, herb, fun, humanity, bastards or witchdoctor in the name... might give people the wrong impression, rather than the truth... a well intentioned provider of critical and accurate information relating to physical, emotional and social health issues of everyday Australians

All the good acros here are A, N, T, C, H, F, S... get into that S D G thing and it sounds like some kind of communist brigade or a dodgy north korean internal affairs burea

Oh yeah, and the website would need a lot of blue-white spectrum sciency pics, mixed with an even helping of naturistic macro shots of leaf veins n waterdrops, and a few happy family in sunlit fields, cornsilk hair, etc... yknow the drill. Think Family First, without the incestuous god bothering overtones. But a lil godbothering couldn't hurt either.

Maybe a bit about sensible options for managing common and debilitating conditions like chronic pain (half the adults in the room just perked their ears, eh?), anxiety disorders, sleep abnormalities, fatigue, etc (that cost the aussie economy x billion) rather than using the commonly available things (that are pricey, addictive, sometimes dodgy, made by non Aussie owned companies, and hands off for the consumer, mess up your kids, get abused by junkies, kill people, etc) that those fatcats in canberra want to keep out of the hands of ordinary hard working Australian families... so that they get rich on kickbacks from drug cos (aussies love a bit of "yeah, the bastards, my cousin had a thing once...") while you lose money from days off work, bla bla... its not like we don't already know all the buzzwords and flags people use to talk aussies into anything else, even dumb things that are bad for them. We already have a strong presence of other herbal medicines and alternative therapies, weird ethnic spices in cooking, a strong undercurrent of latent criminality (and the righteous indignation that comes with it, haha) a DIY culture and a definite swing towards all things green weird and organic.

Important to be motivated out of love for people that would be a lot better off if only they knew their options, than to either dwell on the cruelty of the current system OR go telling people theyre idiots to believe the hype, etc... start off somewhere at the level of "well you wnat the best for your kids... but whats better, the "new" way (camera cuts to blue-grey-grime spectrum shot of lil Timmy taking his Ritalin with big blank eyes all dark underneath, sitting like a frozen boy in a bubble in class in his blue grey world while the other kids are all in colour, eating his lunch of white useless bread and sugar spread, washed down with a liter of cola and some tap water with hundreds of chemicals in it) or the "old" way (shot of lil Timmy getting some decent sleep hygeine, a toxin free diet where possible, some tailored learning options and a mild herbal calming agent and some ginkgo and fish oil so his brain can actually retain something that couldnt get you high if you tried... then getting out of his bubble and getting in on the colour and fun with the other kids).... for more information, please call 13 whatever or www.wherever.com"

It doesn't have to make complete and unrelenting "sense" (watch the news, haha) to start with, its about the emotions you can trigger a mild twinge about, THEN providing your party/product/weblink as the start of the solution (all without ever saying tht anyone in particular has any sort of real "problem"). People are actually pretty bright if you give em half a chance, its just making them sit down long enough to listen to the facts relevent to making their lives happier/easier/safer, whatever. Only a nong would tell you to shut up if you mention you know somethign that'd be good for their back pain... and its easy from there to lead them around to "well, theres lots of other things too but thanks to the big boys, who think you can't be trusted, we can't use them, and now theyre getting to ban things quicker than anyone can research them".

That Sean Connery movie where he finds the ants in the fruit in some jungle that cure some disease or other (lil hazy now) was pretty popular at the time, yeah its mainly scenery, but the theme was a pretty clear one... don't burn bridges before you even take a good look at where they GO.

Yeah and no junky looking speakers... strictly middle aged bespectacled types with the factoids, young to middle aged mums and dads with their trouble lil critters, older people n boomers for quotes about affordability and safety (when I was a kid we took mustard for every damned thing and noone ever died, what nonsense!)... repackage quotes from other cronies so economists talking in black n white about days of work and chronic pain costs, bla bla... the info is all there it just needs to be put into easily digestible bite size chunks with all the gristle cut off for the hard of chewing ;)

VM

Edited August 14, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[MindExpansion]

Nice one VM, I think a social interface would be initiated after the accumulation of enough scientific basis, then we could get those psychology/social sciences boffins to target the general population. That way, with science and good social reasons (the economical benifits from a reform would also no doubt appeal to the general public) the organisation could battle it out with the scientists, the politician's and win over the public (ideally anyway )

Peace

Mind

[husk]

yeah i agree with keeping 'drugs' out of it. the term 'ethnobotanical' should be in there and 'rights' is always a good one...

if we focused on the basic right to grow a plant and then the personal use issue with a BIG emphasis on education and harm minimisation it think that would be best. the ethnobotanical growers rights group or the australian ethnobotanic gardeners society?? i truely believe there is much more to our personal and shared interests then just the chemical factor of these plants a lot of us treat our plants as we do our pets and it seems the more mature or experienced members do not over indulge in consumption if at all, so if we stress the multiple and also external uses of our plants along with the more common applications that are always shared with utmost importance to knowledge and care then i don't see why we'd need to come across as either pollies or scientists..?

http://www.hemp.on.net/final_folder/about_us/aimspolicy.html - this is the SA hemp party policy, not that we want to be a political party but it shows what their emphasis is on.

does anyone know the history of the laws concerning cannabis plant posseesion in ACT and SA. i think to be properly informed in all positive outcomes for ethno use in this country would be a good first step.

[Yeti101]

As is often the case Vert, you have given us a lot of food for thought.

I figure any name will emerge over time. It's like the title of a book/essay/artwork - usually the last thing you do before turning it loose on the world. Likewise, I think our web design can wait for the moment.

I'm going to start collecting research relevant to this whole thing. This should probably go in a new thread of some decription, but what sub-forum?