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

[mescalito]

Which one?

[WoodDragon]

She also agreed that it was a ridiculous proposal (as we all do)and a but stupid to spread this so wide to the general public for various reasons. i.e. damage to the ecology,public safety,fools going off half cocked using a little knowledge and causing damage to themselves,job losses,impingement on personal collectors...all the reasons myself and others feared by over advertising it.

Unfortunately, without widespread publicity the proposals would probably have walked in without any hiccup at all.

I'm as chagrinned as anyone that the publicity raised the profiles of possibly-active (in theory) plants, but really, what could have been done to stop the proposal without bringing it to general attention? I suspect that the bureaucrats knew that this would happen, and that it was exactly this sort blow-back that they were counting on to create a problem that didn't exist until they talked about it. They knew that they'd either succeed in 'regulating' a problem that didn't exist, or to cause it to exist if opposition to any regulation occurred.

I think what needs to happen now is that the focus needs to be directed to the AG's department for creating a problem where none existed previously, and to formalising policies that balance real risk with nonsensical ones, and that balance the rights of law abiding citizens with the need (and otherwise) of law-enforcement to do their real jobs.

This proposal is best left to die a rapid and natural death, with some expedited advice to bureaucrats, from higher-up the food chain, to be sensible about what constitutes a real risk to the Australian public. Matters pertaining to criminal income can be addressed in other ways, and toxicant issues with plants can be addressed in ways that do not enhance their appeal to people looking for a buzz.

[mescalito]

Unfortunately, without widespread publicity the proposals would probably have walked in without any hiccup at all.

I doubt it,but now we'll never know.

I'm as chagrinned as anyone that the publicity raised the profiles of possibly-active (in theory) plants, but really, what could have been done to stop the proposal without bringing it to general attention?

Umm maybe look at it in a non-linear way not blinded by fear and panic and think that everyone feels and thinks like you/us?

I suspect that the bureaucrats knew that this would happen, and that it was exactly this sort blow-back that they were counting on to create a problem that didn't exist until they talked about it. They knew that they'd either succeed in 'regulating' a problem that didn't exist, or to cause it to exist if opposition to any regulation occurred.

Think I might have alluded to this fact.

I think what needs to happen now is that the focus needs to be directed to the AG's department for creating a problem where none existed previously, and to formalising policies that balance real risk with nonsensical ones, and that balance the rights of law abiding citizens with the need (and otherwise) of law-enforcement to do their real jobs.

That would have been a better place to start IMHO.....not to comply and follow their lead.We had time but played follow the leader instead.

This proposal is best left to die a rapid and natural death, with some expedited advice to bureaucrats, from higher-up the food chain, to be sensible about what constitutes a real risk to the Australian public. Matters pertaining to criminal income can be addressed in other ways, and toxicant issues with plants can be addressed in ways that do not enhance their appeal to people looking for a buzz.

 

So now it's going to die a rapid and natural death?

I want that crystal ball dude!

Criminal Income has been pretty much shown to be non-existent with the 2 or 3 main targets.The drug stats have already shown this for years before the proposal.

I think you'll find it started higher up the food chain.Way outta reach....the rest was obvious and is already instated by other departments....most already fall into the Noxious Weeds Act.

Bar the fools, the general public knows not to mess with these toxic plants....what's a few more deaths worth in the Darwin awards?

[tripsis]

Which one?

Post # 516. Just so their names are taken out of this mess.

This was posted on the Australian Cacti Forum yesterday:

It was announced at the C.S.S.A. meeting last night....Due to the large number of negative responses to the proposed legislation it has been scrapped and will be reconsidered in its entirety.

This is yet to be officially confirmed but the person who made the announcement is very highly regarded.

It may be premature , but.... cheers!

I can't imagine this could actually be true, less than two weeks after the submission deadline. I'm hopeful though.

[Amazonian]

....Due to the large number of negative responses to the proposed legislation it has been scrapped and will be reconsidered in its entirety.

Sounds promising. Lets hope huh. . Reconsidered??? .... May still mean banning of some plants though.

[tripsis]

Yes, if true, I expect that they will revise the legislation and be more specific about what they are banning. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the more well-known Trichos are listed, along with Lophs, khat and a number of other species. What a depressing prospect...

[rahli]

Let's hope they don't also change the target of control. Maintaining a direction towards regulating materials utilized to generate funding into organized crime will steer evidence based drug scheduling away from our beloved plants. However if we as individuals become the targets of the renewed scheduling, in some ridiculous attempt by the government to save us from ourselves, this could lead the next challenge in an entirely different direction. At the least a scrapping of the schedule will buy us all a few more years unchanged.

[WoodDragon]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the more well-known Trichos are listed, along with Lophs, khat and a number of other species. What a depressing prospect...

Which is what they probably wanted all along. It's a stereotypical ambit claim.

[mescalito]

I think I might have said that too....

[applesnail]

Surely one would have to hope that some common sense is written up to preserve old specimens, some cacti gardens in victoria are over 80 years old the one in bendigo vic was established in 1933 and many that grow there, are even rare in cultivation to this day and is a very popular tourist attraction & surely if something like 10% of the whole cacti species contain some kinda misdeamenour precursor chemical, im sure some of the cacti in this garden would be surely outlawed. Also to outlaw lophs would in reality be a government infringement on there behalf to honour & preserve endangered species...so much for a sustainable future if they start banning endangered species from hobbyist and collectors alike who have dedicated there life to the preservation of many rare and endangered species. The whole proposal is sacrilege and written up to assume that we are all drug consuming or illicit manufacturers of illegal substances and I for one take great offense at this given accusation by the legislation, when in reality the majority just wanna grow plants to preserve there heritage and beautiful diversity and couldnt care less to there alkaloidal content, hell a crafty enough chemist could probably synthesise all kinds of illicit misdemeanors from a jar of marmalade or pepper shaker full of black pepper!

[shortly]

Yes, if true, I expect that they will revise the legislation and be more specific about what they are banning. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the more well-known Trichos are listed, along with Lophs, khat and a number of other species. What a depressing prospect...

 

It just means we need to be better prepared for their next attempt.

Perhaps establishing links between gardeners & garden clubs, nurseries, landscapers and anybody else who might have an interest in any aspect of horticulture.

So that we can all be called upon whenever one corner of the group is under attack from overzealous bureaucrats. Strength in numbers (of voters) and all that.

The next time this appears we need to push them down the track of "intent to use" as they were recommending for the precursors, rather than outright banning which isn't likely to end nicely for either side.

Even getting dispensation for established collections wouldn't work, it would come in and everyone would be appeased, but give it a couple of years the owners would get a tap on the shoulder to either destroy the plants or wear the consequences.

And yes it was a stereotypical ambit claim woody, but it will have been to our advantage if we use the opportunity to organize ourselves for successive attempts to remove flora from our gardens.

Edited March 25, 2011 by shortly

[Torsten]

Geez, so much misinformation.

Firstly, the minister is still vehemently defending the proposal, so there is absolutely no hint that it will be dropped. Like I've said all along, the best we can hope for is for a few sections to be amended. I don't know if it is a rumour spread so that we lay off the publicity, or if it is just some plantheads who have no idea how government works, but bottom line is that this is still very much government policy.

Secondly, mescalito, proposals that are unopposed usually sail through the legislation process with little or no amendment. proposals are released because the minister feels that they would make good laws! Why else spend millions of dollars on such a process? Your suggestion of sitting back and waiting to see what happens would have gotten us exactly those laws - there is no question about it. That's exactly what happened with the first version - how else do you think we ended up with the model chedules in th first place? If you think the result would ahve been any different this time around you're either a hopeless optimist or a complete idiot.... neither of which is helpful in the real world.

These proposals did not come out of the blue and are not 'a test to see if there is any opposition' as was suggested earlier. Most of these plants are already scheduled in some drug law in some states. The process of national harmonisation means that the rest of the states have to add to their schedules rather than any plants being taken off the already existing schedules [this is how it ALWAYS works]. So that whole argument of this opposition creating a bigger problem is just ludicrous. And you would understand that too if you'd actually read and understood the discussion paper. It states exactly why they are making this proposal. It also explains the process of the previous proposal and how it became law. It's almost like you guys haven't read the damn thing and are just making up whatever story scores the most tinfoil hat points.

Thirdly - stories of conspiracies and AFP taking pics etc make this community look ridiculous. Paranoia is a major symptom of GABA depletion/dysfunction so not surprising from mesc, but what is everyone else's excuse? get a grip folks. Why would they go to hamilton's if they can go to the botanic gardens or get one of their specialist staff or consultants to do it for them.

And lastly, why would the current mescaline wording be a better outcome than having a list of species scheduled? With the current wording all of the common mescaline sources, plus any cactus that tests positive can land you in jail, while a list of species will at least give some certainty as to what is still legal. ie would you rather lose access to all the genera listed on gardenfreedom [about a dozen?] or would you prefer if just 2 or 3 genera were listed? Keeping in mind that local seed sales, seed trades and seed imports will be covered by the law as well.

btw, if anyone still doesn't know, this proposal was commissioned by Kevin Rudd when he was PM. That's a fact. It is my conjecture that the dismal quality of this proposal was due to the leadership change and the uncertainty in the public service at the time.

I think both aspects can be exploited in the fight against it.

[tripsis]

Thirdly - stories of conspiracies and AFP taking pics etc make this community look ridiculous. Paranoia is a major symptom of GABA depletion/dysfunction so not surprising from mesc, but what is everyone else's excuse? get a grip folks. Why would they go to hamilton's if they can go to the botanic gardens or get one of their specialist staff or consultants to do it for them.

That story didn't come from mesc, it came via me, but from someone who rarely frequents the forums.

[hutch]

btw, if anyone still doesn't know, this proposal was commissioned by Kevin Rudd when he was PM. That's a fact. It is my conjecture that the dismal quality of this proposal was due to the leadership change and the uncertainty in the public service at the time.

I think both aspects can be exploited in the fight against it.

 

That's a fact. It is my conjecture that the dismal quality of this proposal was due to the leadership. End of sentence....

[Yeti101]

If I could direct people to have a gander at Brendan O'Connor's facebook page, scroll down and look for the conversation with 'Dom Minns'. I can't tell if the minister's fb admin is actually that stupid or they are fishing for information (possibly incriminating?).

Edit: the more I look at this, the stupider it seems. Please guys, give me a second opinion of what is going on here.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Yeti101

[Yeti101]

For those who want a taste of ministerial ignorance*:

#

XXXXXXX I know you're a busy man and thanks for your time. But seriously, just read the Wikipedia entry for Acacias then reference P38, Part B, Item 9 of your own proposal.

23 February at 21:06

#

Brendan O'Connor MP

I see where the confusion lies. The reference you give is to a category of plants containing DMT, a psychoactive compound from which a drug can be made. The compound is already illegal in many other countries. Some of these plants include a couple of varieties of acacias. However, none of these acacias (a genus) are native to Australia, so it's not correct to think that people won't be able to keep native wattles, of the kind that grow wild in Australia anyway, legally. The plants containing DMT are simply members of the same genus and so have 'acacia' at the beginning of their latin names. (Admin)

*Actually staffer ignorance, but you get the point.

[ballzac]

It's unfortunate that a facebook comment from the minister prior to the laws coming into effect would not be an effective defense in court

Here's the link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brendan-OConnor-MP/287789063686

[bℓσωηG]

these pollies are maggots pure and simple

[tripsis]

That is incredibly stupid. Surely there's a way for the idiocy of the government to be used against them?

And lastly, why would the current mescaline wording be a better outcome than having a list of species scheduled? With the current wording all of the common mescaline sources, plus any cactus that tests positive can land you in jail, while a list of species will at least give some certainty as to what is still legal. ie would you rather lose access to all the genera listed on gardenfreedom [about a dozen?] or would you prefer if just 2 or 3 genera were listed? Keeping in mind that local seed sales, seed trades and seed imports will be covered by the law as well.

Torsten, you're in a better position then most, in terms of understanding how the laws work and how proposals are passed into law (or not). In your opinion, do you think it is likely that at least the more common and well known ethnobotanicals will be illegal despite the submissions received from the public? In my eyes, it seems almost certain that many plants will still become illegal, but perhaps I'm just being pessimistic.

Edited March 28, 2011 by tripsis

[Torsten]

In your opinion, do you think it is likely that at least the more common and well known ethnobotanicals will be illegal despite the submissions received from the public? In my eyes, it seems almost certain that many plants will still become illegal, but perhaps I'm just being pessimistic.

 

In my opinion the boat has sailed on kratom, salvia and ephedra. The first two are already illegal under different federal laws and all state laws anyway. Ephedra is illegal under customs and I think some state law, and the feds have been itching to nail this one, so I doubt there will be any leeway on that. I'd also expect catha to go through - not because of the existing consumption, but because of a different reason which I won't elaborate too much here, but is related to the push behind ephedra scheduling.

I think that brug and datura will be taken off the list.

The rest is really anyone's guess, though I feel that there seems to be a strong push to get the 'contains dmt/mescaline' wording through, which is a really big problem. It basically means that the more you know about plant pharmacology the less plants you can risk growing.

I think Loph will remain, and if they change the wording then some Trichs might end up on there - maybe even the whole genus.

I am really at a bit of a loss with this. I keep thinking that the minister's office is getting a handle on some of the implications, but then I read stuff like that reply to Dom and it leaves me scratching my head. The only way to solve that problem will be to have detailed scrutiny in the committee process in parliament by a member who actually understand the issue.

[shortly]

Apart from a couple of members there seemed to be very little knowledge of the proposal by CSSQ members.

As one member put it: It would be easy to make a small fortune making mescaline tabs to sell; you take a $500 plus plant, chop it up & extract to stuff out of it to make your $50 tablet.

How do you make a small fortune making mescaline? Start with a large fortune

[qualia]

so, the greens still hold the balance of power in the senate right?

so, hopefully the bill wont go through unamended, is there any way

to who did what in the process of having the bill go to parliament?

(i.e. who voted unopposed, who suggests amendments etc)

[qualia]

oh and is there any possibility to post the comments from that facebook page?

i'm not a member and don't intend on becoming one, but i'm still curious to see what is being said

[Yeti101]

Hey Torsten, check out GetUp coming to Brendan's rescue on FB!

[Foo]

Oh well by the looks of that the likes of Myrtillocactus, Trichs, Brugs & even the native daturas could be a no go zone.

 

is Myrtillocactus even active? I was under the impression that it wasnt.