Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences

[Yeti101]

do you suppose it would be worth contacting these guys:

Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation

http://adlrf.org.au/charter/

 

I think so. Again, it's important that this not be perceived as being about 'drugs'. But these people may well be very interested in the "inadvertent criminalisation" aspect. On reflection I think they should be looking at all of the proposed changes anyway, so definitely contact them.

[ballzac]

I wonder if the Australian Sex Party would be worth contacting. Their current policy on drugs is

Decriminalisation, not legalisation, of purchase, possession and consumption of all drugs for personal use, such quantity to be defined as an amount equal or less than 14 day’s supply for one person.

Infractions are to be treated in an administrative framework and not in the criminal justice system.

Immediate cessation of the use of drug sniffer dogs in public.

Legalise and regulate cannabis for specified medical uses.

Trafficking and dealing in drugs to remain a criminal offence.

Supply of any drugs to a minor is to be a criminal offence.

Laboratory quality drug testing stations to be provided at all music festivals and the like.

Subsidised and high quality drug testing kits to be made available through pharmacies, age restricted premises and mobile distribution centres.

Legalise and increase the number of medically supervised injecting rooms

Legalise the prescription of heroin to registered and habitual users.

 

[qualia]

I think so. Again, it's important that this not be perceived as being about 'drugs'. But these people may well be very interested in the "inadvertent criminalisation" aspect. On reflection I think they should be looking at all of the proposed changes anyway, so definitely contact them.

 

sure. but about the drugs, the model specifically states that it's purpose is prevent the proceeds of drugs going to organised crime

"The Government recently declared its commitment to target the criminal

economy at the launch of the Organised Crime Strategic Framework.2 One means of achieving this

outcome is by targeting one of the primary markets of organised crime – the importation, domestic

production and distribution of illicit drugs."

so to me, their whole proposal is based on stopping drugs, which evidently they think brugmansia and acacia are reasonable targets to prevent organised crime. at least, this is one of my arguments, that these plants are in no way used to fund organised crime. still, i do get that it shouldn't be about "legalise drugs", rather than the above.

[WoodDragon]

do you suppose it would be worth contacting these guys:

Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation

http://adlrf.org.au/charter/

Qualia.

I've already contacted them, even though they're largely cannabis-focussed, but I reckon that it couldn't hurt if they heard from more people. They'd probably be gratified to know that there is a lot of grassroots support.

I explicitly pointed out that I am simply a legitimate collector of plants rare in horticulture, but that I would be seen as a criminal under the changes, and be forced to destroy my plants and my hobby in order to conform with the 'law'.

I've been tempted to contact Bob Brown about this too, especially as his medical background would give him a good understanding of the silliness of the proposed changes. I'm not sure though what the direction of the political wind would be on this - the Coalition might side with any Greens move to scupper the proposal if Abbott thought that he could make the government look silly, but then again he is as conservative as they come and I reckon that he'd happily schedule bananadine and dragibus if he ever heard about them.

Maybe we need to contribute to election campaigns...

[WoodDragon]

the model specifically states that it's purpose is prevent the proceeds of drugs going to organised crime

"The Government recently declared its commitment to target the criminal

economy at the launch of the Organised Crime Strategic Framework.2 One means of achieving this

outcome is by targeting one of the primary markets of organised crime – the importation, domestic

production and distribution of illicit drugs."

so to me, their whole proposal is based on stopping drugs, which evidently they think brugmansia and acacia are reasonable targets to prevent organised crime. at least, this is one of my arguments, that these plants are in no way used to fund organised crime.

And this is why the proposal is so illogical and internally inconsistent. None of the species included represents an easy source of criminal income, because they are not ammenable to profit. Where opium poppies are easy to germinate on a mass scale, and quickly mature to give an easily harvestable raw product, acacias and cacti are by comparison very slow growing, and the return of active constituents as a ratio of biomass is much lower. And plants like brugs are simply not desirable as drugs when there are easily available and much more 'friendly' hallucinogens like LSD available.

This proposal is the same as scheduling bristlecone pines as a noxious weed.

[ballzac]

...then of course there's the obvious point that banning plants/substances is the only way to ensure that proceeds from the sale ends up in the hands of criminals. Still, I feel this point would be better left untouched as agreeing with this would open up a can of worms that no politician/bureaucrat would want to deal with.

[WoodDragon]

...then of course there's the obvious point that banning plants/substances is the only way to ensure that proceeds from the sale ends up in the hands of criminals. Still, I feel this point would be better left untouched as agreeing with this would open up a can of worms that no politician/bureaucrat would want to deal with.

I'm not so sure, Ballzac. The message really is that the government will be manufacturing a criminal 'problem' where currently none exists at all. Of course, this is exactly what government and the bureaucracy want - to create a reason for their existence where there was no reason before. If that becomes public knowledge the government and the bureaucracy should be on their back feet trying to properly rationalise such stupid proposals.

As to the drug/toxicity side of things, I keep being drawn to the fact that nutmeg is more freely available, and far more toxic than the range of species listed, and no pencil-pusher seems to think that it's a problem...

[WoodDragon]

Hypothetically speaking, if the proposal passes as is, what are the implications for sites such as this one? Could Torsten be raided and forced to hand over his records of all people who have ever traded or spoken about any of the listed species? Indeed, could anyone who has registered on the Corroborree be accused of holding information on and "instructions for commercial cultivation of controlled plants"?

[ballzac]

I'm not so sure, Ballzac. The message really is that the government will be manufacturing a criminal 'problem' where currently none exists at all. Of course, this is exactly what government and the bureaucracy want - to create a reason for their existence where there was no reason before. If that becomes public knowledge the government and the bureaucracy should be on their back feet trying to properly rationalise such stupid proposals.

 

But if one were to actually take their justification and logically develop a policy out of it, that policy would be to legalise every single illegal plant and substance. However, this argument would fall on deaf ears as it always has.

As to the drug/toxicity side of things, I keep being drawn to the fact that nutmeg is more freely available, and far more toxic than the range of species listed, and no pencil-pusher seems to think that it's a problem...

 

I used to reference Brugmansia in making that exact point

[WoodDragon]

Ballzac.

This is why the name Homo sapiens is actually inappropriate for our species. There's nothing wise about us at all.

[JDanger]

NM

Edited January 25, 2011 by JDanger

[JDanger]

I wonder if the Australian Sex Party would be worth contacting. Their current policy on drugs is

 

The VIC Democrats released an even better policy in December which they claim would "halve crime". They might be better since the Dems already have people in office (I think).

[s4L]

There was a story on the front cover of mX today 'Wattle be next'. It basically explained the proposed changes saying that it would be illegal to wear a sprig of wattle on Australia day, and how ridiculous the laws would be etc. This would have raised the awareness quite a bit.

[tripsis]

This momentum is beautiful, this community is beautiful. I love it and feel privileged to be a part of such an amazing group of people.

I can't believe the GetUp suggestion is ranked 1st! In something like 10 days. It's truly incredible. I hope they take it up. I wish I have had more time to write it out better and make the information in it more accurate and complete, but it will do now.

It's really great to see how we're banding together like this. Shows that if we were pushed, we would stand up and fight.

MX took it up! That's incredible. Everyone will be talking about it now. :D

[tripsis]

Oh and Kahuin, you're a legend. Good on you mate, keep up the excellent work!

[qualia]

I'm not so sure, Ballzac. The message really is that the government will be manufacturing a criminal 'problem' where currently none exists at all. Of course, this is exactly what government and the bureaucracy want - to create a reason for their existence where there was no reason before. If that becomes public knowledge the government and the bureaucracy should be on their back feet trying to properly rationalise such stupid proposals.

 

i hope so, i wrote to greens senator adam bandt and listed this as one of the points (that outlawing the plants will put profits into organised crime). I requested his opinion on the matter but on second thoughts i don't think he'll respond, i suppose the greens don't want a "leaked email scandal".

stoked too about mx, i don't read it but it's cool nonetheless.

[qualia]

i predict this to be picked up by the rest of the news media in a few weeks,

i guess nows the time for that charismatic leader?

[klip247]

This is completely ridiculous to say the least...

[WoodDragon]

This appeared on the GetUp! petition about 5 hours ago:

Spokeswoman for the Acting Minister for Home Affairs

Hello,

Just to clear up a few things here is a statement from the Acting Minister for Home Affairs:

Implementing nationally consistent lists of illegal drugs and drug ingredients is important to stopping the drug trade across Australia.

We recognise that some ingredients used for manufacturing illegal drugs are contained in commonly occurring plants.

However, claims that backyard plants will be banned or their growers prosecuted are ridiculous.

The Commonwealth’s drug laws target people who are involved in the illicit drug trade. This will continue to be the case.

Most of the substances to be included on the new lists are already deemed to be illegal and have been for some time.

I'm not sure if this is a genuine posting, but it is certainly a misleading one.

The problem isn't that "[m]"ost of the substances to be included on the new lists are already deemed to be illegal", it's that hundreds of species of plants not currently listed in Schedule II are proposed to be placed there, either specifically by name, or by virtue of the fact that they contain listed substances or the precursors for these substances. These plants include Mammilaria, brugs, lophs, khat, ornamental daturas, and acacias, amongst many other species.

None of these species are of any use in organised crime, so why are they being targeted?

[WoodDragon]

With respect to my previous post, it has the ring of officiousness typical of politicians.

If this really is the minister, I would like to ask him if my lophs, brugs, wattles, etc. are safe from being banned. If not, why? And if not, why then did he issue the statement that he did?

Edited January 25, 2011 by WoodDragon

[Torsten]

wooddragon, I think they are still unaware of what this is actually about. they probably think that the protest is about substances that are being scheduled and how these could have impact on plant possession. eg ephedrine being scheduled does not make Sida plants illegal to possess. However, we are protesting specifically about the plants that are named in the new schedules, eg 'all dmt containing plants', 'all mescaline containing plants', 'brugmansia & Datura'.

We have to be careful not to be derailed like that. This is not about dmt being scheduled - as this has been for along time and has had no effect on posessing dmt containing plant. This is about those specific phrases.

If that above statement is for real [which I doubt] then it shows they don't actually have a handle on what they are proposing.

[WoodDragon]

If that above statement is for real [which I doubt] then it shows they don't actually have a handle on what they are proposing.

The more I think about it, and even though it sounds official, the more I too am firming in my suspicion that "Spokewoman's" post is bogus.

There are some pretty ordinary grammatical oddities in it that would not be used by a trained spokesperson. And in Canberra it would be a "spokesperson", not a "spokeswoman". And they wouldn't use the word "ridiculous". And I doubt that it would appear first on GetUp! or similar pages - they'd go through normal, mainstream channels.

If it is from the minister's office, then their level of media savvy has dropped through the floor.

I suspect that this has come from an anti-drugs crusader, or similar conservative wowser. Or just a numpty shit-stirrer. Whomever it was though, as Torsten said, we have to be very careful that such statements aren't used to obfuscate the underlying challenge to plant growers that this proposal presents.

Whatever the source and the motivation, the sort of nonsensical argument put forward by the "Spokeswoman" represents a big obstacle to getting serious understanding across. We need to ensure that we have effective counters at the ready whenever and wherever such distraction popsup.

Edited January 25, 2011 by WoodDragon

[tripsis]

Yes, it does seem unlikely that a spokeperson for the government would bother to post on a GetUp page. Still, enough people have reacted to the comment, taking it apart that it will only serve to further create opposition to these proposed changes.

I noticed that the mental health issue that was recently at the top of the duggestions has been taken up as a campaign. I also noticed that several other suggestions that have been taken up have not have particularly high numbers of votes or supporters, so the GetUp admin choose based on more than just popularity. I wonder if they will take up this suggestion, even if it keeps growing, or whether there's something about it that doesn't agree with them?

[shortly]

Whilst i wouldn't discount the possibility of a departmental spokesperson bothering to post on a GetUp page in an attempt to hose down a potentially awkward issue, particularly if it were the first place brought to their attention. Not to mention that Getup is gaining a reputation for being a pain in the ass. The other possibility that it could be a junior staffer acting without departmental approval.

However as woody said "

There are some pretty ordinary grammatical oddities in it that would not be used by a trained spokesperson. And in Canberra it would be a "spokesperson", not a "spokeswoman". And they wouldn't use the word "ridiculous".

Extremely poor wording if it were from a professional PR person so my moneys on an anti-drugs crusader.

[ballzac]

...or a clever one of us.