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

[synchromesh]

This I too find interesting,I've typed in every conceivable phrase in the search engine and NOBODY has put up news reports,home vids...nada

 

The government should be taken to court over this. Then again, the government should be taken to court over a lot of things...

EDIT: I don't know if this has been posted yet, but:

Discussion: goverment banning thousands of plants

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=72&m=14520&dm=1&pd=2&am=14540

Looks like that Greg wanker is spreading disinfo on there as well.

Edited February 11, 2011 by synchromesh

[synchromesh]

Government to ban common garden plants

Sunday, February 6, 2011

By Kerry Smith

New federal drug laws could make thousands of native and common garden plants illegal.

The proposed legislation will place common plants under schedule II of the drug code along with plants such as marijuana and opium poppies.

The most worrying aspect of the legislation is the sheer number of plant species that will be made illegal.

Many of the substances produced by the plants are already illegal to manufacture or consume. However, there is not any significant market for making drugs from these plants and they are not sold or produced by organised crime.

Many of the targeted plants have been used for medicinal or religious purposes in the past.

For example, ayahuasca, which is made from a mixture of plants that contain the hallucinogen DMT, has been used for generations in the Amazon.

DMT is found in thousands of species of plants and is even produced in animals, including in the human brain.

Cactuses containing mescaline have also been used for religious purposes throughout North and South America.

Many Australian native plants contain high amounts of DMT, including some species of wattle and some species of phalaris grass (found in most garden lawns).

The new laws could mean that most landowners will unwittingly have a “harvestable amount” of banned plants.

It is also worrying that several endangered species of wattle will be included on the list.

It is very unlikely that anyone would try to eradicate these rare species from the wild. But the laws will make it very difficult for horticulturalists to help preserve the species.

The new law proposes to ban all plants of the genus Lophophora (or peyote cactus) even though only some of these cactuses contain mescaline.

Brugmansia and Datura (also known as Angel’s trumpet or Devil’s trumpet) are common garden plants and feature in many botanical gardens.

These plants are rarely consumed as drugs due to their extremely unpleasant and long-lasting effects.

Ephedra is derived from a herb commonly used in Chinese medicine. It was the basis for pharmaceutical drugs such as ephedrine, pseudo-ephedrine and phenylephrine.

These herbs can, in theory, be used to make amphetamines. But in reality, pharmaceutical companies and drug manufacturers create the drugs in laboratories

Khat contains cathinone — a natural stimulant considered less addictive than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

[Submissions on the proposed plant bans end on March 11.]

From GLW issue 867

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46607

[Yeti101]

I did like this suggestion from the GetUp comments:

If anyone is concerned about what plants have dmt....Here is a thought...Instead of complaining on here why dont you call brendan o'connors office and ask him for a complete list. It would make sense he has one if he is proposes this right? And if enough people call his office then they might publish it...Think outside the box people...

Call Brendan - 02) 6277 7290 (canberra) or 03) 8361 6588 (keilor office).

I'm seriously considering writing to Brendan O'Connor and/or my MP and asking for a comprehensive list of plants that contain DMT. I mean, how can I write a properly informed submission without this information? I would like to see what they know and it puts the dept in a difficult position. If the make the list too short, they look stupid. If they make the list truly comprehensive, they look very bad. If they refuse to say anything, they look dishonest/disingenuous and that would allow for another scathing critique to be added to the submission(s).

[ballzac]

Does anyone have any statistics on what proportion of methamphetamine in Australia is manufactured from locally grown Ephedra? I'm stuggling to find such information.

 

Does anyone have access to an article titled "The Sydney methamphetamine market: Patterns of supply, use, personal harms and social consequences"?

The research was funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, Commonwealth of Australia, and apparantly found that most crystal meth is imported, and most meth produced within Australia was produced using pseudoephedrine from cold and flu medications. I have looked on ISI, and googling the title returns no results. I found this reference in a nsw government pamphlet, but can't find the actual article.

By the way, is this the right thread for this sort of discussion? Everyone else seems to be discussing other avenues other than the submission itself. If other people are putting a considerable amount of effort into their submissions, then it might be more efficient for everyone to ask questions and share information about their submissions. There are at least two other threads about this topic here, so if there is a better one for this kind of discussion then fair enough, but given the title of this thread, it seems the most appropriate.

[Yeti101]

By the way, is this the right thread for this sort of discussion? Everyone else seems to be discussing other avenues other than the submission itself. If other people are putting a considerable amount of effort into their submissions, then it might be more efficient for everyone to ask questions and share information about their submissions. There are at least two other threads about this topic here, so if there is a better one for this kind of discussion then fair enough, but given the title of this thread, it seems the most appropriate.

 

I'm mainly about the submission, but I get your point - I just wanted keep all my thoughts on this in one thread. The multiple threads about this are going to cause repetition. That said,I think a thread which is a clearing house of articles, information & stats might be handy

[ballzac]

Does anyone have access to an article titled "The Sydney methamphetamine market: Patterns of supply, use, personal harms and social consequences"?

 

Sorry, I copy and pasted the title from the pamphlet before and the was no space where there should have been one, hence no google results. Here is the article in its entirety: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndlerf.gov.au%2Fpub%2FSydney_Meth_Final_Report.pdf&ei=5gtVTb_2IYn0caHO_e4M&usg=AFQjCNGb9OiMOHt2gMPAEeOky9gE18Bpng

[WoodDragon]

Although apart of me is suspicious about it's genuiness, this is still a VERY INTERESTING post just put up on GetUp!:

Just to let everyone know "Greg" works for aussie government as do I, I do not support this move but kind of have to go along with it anyway.

"Greg" is being paid to stop everyone here getting angry. I kind of feel disgusted I watched people type up that tripe being served on aussie people. You guys have no idea how bad it is going to get.

p.s hi "greg", I find you disgusting. Won't guess who I am, please stop boasting all the time we all think your gross. Run to the boss and say someone is rubbishing you creep.

It explains a lot of what has been said by "Greg" over the last few days...

It also shows that there is a government effort to mislead the public on this.

We need to step up the heat, people.

[tripsis]

I'm dubious as to whether that is genuine.

Everyone need to work on a submission of some description, so I think it more than valid that we discuss what people are planning on putting in theirs, etc.

Yeti, it would be interesting to find out if they even have a list. How could they?

[ballzac]

I feel I've made great progress with my submission. It's nowhere near finished, but it's time to open it up to a bit of constructive criticism. Yes, it's long, but I feel that's it's coherent enough to be easily read, and it will become more coherent as I work on it more. The main things I need to work on at the moment: Identifying and correcting mistakes (particular with regard to current law as I'm not well versed). Also, I want to find more references to support what I'm saying. If I am pleading for evidence based policy, then I think it's only fair that my submission is also evidence based. Some of the points I am making may be unclear, which is another thing I need feedback on. It's possible there are statements that are particularly contradictory. I will examine it carefully to remove any such aspects, but if anything jumps out at anyone, let me know. At this stage, some of the subsections are substantially shorter than others, but I will expand on those. In light of the number of sections, the discussion section will need to be longer, but I've only just started working on that. I expect to finish up at about 16 pages with 30 references or so. I was initially going to avoid including any arguments based on the failures of prohibition, but I decided there is no need to censor it. The arguments here apply to the model schedule, but apply equally to the plants that are already illegal. I don't think that fact should be avoided. If we want real change in the long term, as well as preventing the model schedule from become a reality, we can't pander too much to the propaganda.

Submission4.pdf

Submission4.pdf

Submission4.pdf

[ballzac]

Research and information I am currently trying to find:

Evidence of the success of various progressive drug policies around the world;

Data on the demographics of tropane users. Are they repeat users who grow the plants or are they one off users who procure the plants from gardens or the wild?

Are tropanes, particularly the main constituents of Brugmansia and Datura, available on the black market? If so, is it obtained from clandestine extraction from plants or diverted medical grade tropanes?

Evidence of open-ended laws of this type causing unexpected consequences.

Evidence of the legal status of a substance stifling new research.

EDIT: Also, I think I will change the bit about restricted access to khat leading to use/abuse of other substances, in particular mentioning alcoholism instead of amphetamines, because I think it is a more likely outcome of restriction and also the way I had worded it may encourage anti-drug people to associate khat with methamphetamine. Currently I'm looking for research that shows former khat users turn to alcohol as khat supplies dry up, which I feel is a likely outcome.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ballzac

[hutch]

Awesome work ballzac.....

[Yeti101]

That's really good ballzac!

You are right about needing more data/references to back up your section on datura/brugmansia/tropanes too. If I find a decent reference I'll let you know.

Even though this law is (officially) about growing and not consumption it does remind me of the Louisiana laws that made pretty much everything illegal if intended for human consumption. I'll chuck the links for those up in my blog, along with anything else that seems even half-relevant.

[tripsis]

Remarkable ballzac! That is an incredible amount of work so far. I look forward to seeing the final product. That is the sort of submission that would be good to email around, getting people who can't be bothered writing one to just send it in with their name, etc.

[ballzac]

Does that really work? I know they're meant to count each one as a separate submission, but if they recieve 100 that are identical, they'll probably treat it more like a petition with 100 signatures. But certainly happy for anyone to use what they can if it helps.

[tripsis]

I'm not really sure. It seems to work with organisations like GetUp, Avaaz, etc., but who really knows? I would think that if they just treated all identical submissions as the one submission, such organisations would make little progress (which sometimes they do). If each submission is individually sent, identical or not, I would have thought they would see it as more as an organised submission coming from many people, perhaps like a group submission. Not saying that we should all just copy and paste the one submission, but if it means people who would otherwise not bother at all might make a submission, it must be a better than the alternative.

[ballzac]

I also think there should be a skeleton submission, which just has headings and people fill in the details with their own data, for those who are too busy to work on a submission from scratch but want to use their own words. Mine has too many headings for that kind of thing though. If anyone has a submission with broader headings, it would be good to put it up so that people can remove the body of each section and replace it with their own thoughts.

[hutch]

I also think there should be a skeleton submission, which just has headings and people fill in the details with their own data, for those who are too busy to work on a submission from scratch but want to use their own words. Mine has too many headings for that kind of thing though. If anyone has a submission with broader headings, it would be good to put it up so that people can remove the body of each section and replace it with their own thoughts.

 

Thats probably a better Idea....a mix and match recipe of facts facts and more facts....

If there is anything I can help research on behalf of any one else, contribute to the fact finding mission so to speak. Just point me in the direction you would like me to go.....only too happy to help....the actual submission would be a bit beyond me but I don't mind researching.

Hutch

[ballzac]

the actual submission would be a bit beyond me

 

I think the fact that there is no format specified for submissions means that you can pretty much write anything. I don't think it needs to be too formal. If you have an opinion on the proposal, then frame it as such, and tell them what you think. While I think submissions that come across as serious research may be the most effective, it is better to say something than nothing. Really, none of us know what sort of submissions will have the greatest impact, and the more submissions they receive the better.

[Torsten]

Does that really work? I know they're meant to count each one as a separate submission, but if they recieve 100 that are identical, they'll probably treat it more like a petition with 100 signatures. But certainly happy for anyone to use what they can if it helps.

 

identical submissions are counted separately, however if you want to be sure it helps to make small edits to any of the templates that are floating around. That way it is no longer identical.

The minister doesn't get to see the submissions. Public servants will summarise the submissions and present a summary. This is important to keep in mind because emotional off topic text will simply be filtered and will never reach any target. In fact it may obscure the real message. the best way to make submissions is to keep them concise, numbered and on topic [from their perspective]. most importantly make sure to directly use the numbers/letters on the proposal and reply to them

Presenting a whole heap of identical submissions actually makes the task of summarising them easier as the public servant only needs to think about one of them and can then extract the desired information from each of the following ones much faster. Large numbers of identical submissions may in fact influence the way a summary is written. I mean, if you are a public servant tasked with summarising, would you spend time on building a point template or would you use one of the point templates provided to you?

Please beware of submission templates that go off topic, get emotional, or ramble. if you feel a submission template has some good points, but also has some that repeat then have a look and see if you can prune some. This submission request is not the time to question general policy such as the WOD, medical pot, etc.

Topics such as 'does the punishment fit the drug damage' [ie hallucinogens are safer than alcohol] are marginally helpful at best.

If you feel you need to make all those off topic statements then please at least put the concise replies to the specific questions posed in the proposal at the top of your submission as otherwise your submission may not even achieve the minimum effect needed to be counted.

The summary will look something like this. obviously many pages long, but this is just to show the style and how it affects the reader.

The main concern by respondents [425] was the addition of plant species containing traces of dmt or mescaline. While a small minority [28] mainly consisting of cactus collectors supported the proposal for dmt scheduling, they were strongly opposed to the mescaline proposal.

A large number of submissions [352] opposed all new plant schedulings, but many [285] of these also voiced their opposition to drug control in general.

see that last sentence how it reads really badly to someone who never actually sees the submissions? You want to avoid your submission being in that group.

I hate to say it, but it is best to try and write the submission by pretending you like what they are doing, but they have just gone too far on a couple of points. These will have the most impact.

[Torsten]

the actual submission would be a bit beyond me but I don't mind researching.

Hutch

 

There are a few templates floating about. One via happy high herbs, another on the gardenfreedom site, and others floating around on FB. All of them could do with shortening, so feel free to simply delete thigns that you don't like before submitting them. you can submit via those sites or from your own email. From those templates you can also see that they are not very formal. It's the structure and content that counts. Don't be shy. Each submission is counted and the more submission the better.

[WoodDragon]

I hate to say it, but it is best to try and write the submission by pretending you like what they are doing, but they have just gone too far on a couple of points.

I actually started with that idea in mind, having wrangled with bureaucracy in the past, but by the time I remove my "couple of points" from the proposal there's not much of it left!

Still, Torsten's point absolutely stands. Politeness wins the day here, and cranky submissions just help the pencil-pushers work out what the "undesirables" want.

[hutch]

There are a few templates floating about. One via happy high herbs, another on the gardenfreedom site, and others floating around on FB. All of them could do with shortening, so feel free to simply delete thigns that you don't like before submitting them. you can submit via those sites or from your own email. From those templates you can also see that they are not very formal. It's the structure and content that counts. Don't be shy. Each submission is counted and the more submission the better.

 

Thanks Torsten...I will do that.....I was feeling a bit useless....

[ballzac]

I actually started with that idea in mind, having wrangled with bureaucracy in the past, but by the time I remove my "couple of points" from the proposal there's not much of it left!

Still, Torsten's point absolutely stands. Politeness wins the day here, and cranky submissions just help the pencil-pushers work out what the "undesirables" want.

 

That was my problem too. It is exactly for the reasons that Torsten mentions that I was going to avoid any mention of prohibitionist policies in general, but it is impossible to write a meaningful and evidence based submission without the evidence leading to the conclusion that prohibition does not work. I still managed to leave out any mention of freedom of rights because obviously they don't give a shit about our rights. However, framing drugs within our society as a public health issue is a stance that does often get support. I realise that this is their game, and if we want to win, we need to beat them at their own game. However, pandering to them by saying something like "DMT is a terribly dangerous drug that needs to be eradicated to protect out children, however banning the possession of DMT containing plants will not help achieve this noble aim" just feels wrong. It is the bullshit they peddle that annoys me the most and I don't want to get caught up in the politics of using lies and misinformation to achieve an aim.

[Torsten]

ballzac, your submission is a little different. there are quite a few poeple who are making very substantial scientificaly based submissions where they back their statements with research results. That's different than just providing an opinion on the drug war for example. I did not want to dissuade YOU from going down that path! I have just seen quite a few submissions that people might have spent a lot of passionate time on, but that will probably be completely wasted because of the emotional and non-factual approach they took.

So let me rephrase. if you are going to write a a submission with all statements backed by research findings, then go whatever direction you like. But if you are going to make a submission that is emotional and not referenced then please stay on topic, concise and play their game.

[ballzac]

Ah, I get ya. Yeah, when I said that personal opinion is probably fine if you frame it as such, I was thinking things like "I'm a small nursery operator and I feel that the proposed laws with affect my livelihood because of blah blah blah", or "I am an avid gardener. I have read the proposal and noticed that many of the plants on the list are ones that I enjoy to grow...blah blah blah". But yes, I can see how easily an emotive submission that mentions the war on drugs could come across as "I'm a drug-fucked hippy and you conformist cunts should keep out of my drug-fucked hippy business". While I certainly think it's a fair enough point, it's not gonna win us any friends in the Attorney General's office.