Cannabis law reform

[sasscot]

My girlfriend got raided a few weeks ago and has to go to court in a week for a coffee grinder (deemed a 'drug thing'). That was all they found and the cops said that it had been used for cannabis and issued a notice to appear in court. This is was in the middle of flooding, because they had nothing better to do with police time in a state emergency... Anyway she wrote into parliament about cannabis prohibition.

The first letter sent to parliament:

There has been a prohibition on the use of cannabis in Queensland since 1937. I would like to enquire about the exact reasons for this decision. From what I have read from the information of that particular era a lot of misinformation and unfounded claims used as the first reasons for prohibition.

I am interested to know what the first reasons used to create the legislation were as well as the reasons used now for the continuation of cannabis prohibition. Where would I be able to obtain this information?

Response:

Thank you for your recent request for information relating to the prohibition of cannabis in Queensland. You asked for information on the reasons behind its prohibition in Queensland in 1937, and for information on its continued prohibition.

Cannabis was first prohibited in Queensland in 1937 under the Health Act 1937. In addition to prohibiting the sale and use of dangerous drugs (including cannabis), the Act touched on a wide variety of issues such as venereal disease, communicable diseases, hospitals, food purity and poisons.

In my research I have read through the parliamentary debates for the passage of this Act, but have not found any discussion of the prohibition of cannabis. Parliamentary debate over the Act focussed on other issues, such as venereal disease and hospitals.

I have also looked at Queensland newspapers around the time of the passage of the Act (November 11 1937). I found 1 article that discussed the Bill, but similar to the parliamentary debate, this article focussed on other issues contained in the Bill. Unfortunately I was unable to find any other information of use on this issue. Should your constituent wish to conduct further research into newspapers from this period, they can be viewed at http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper?q=

With regard to the current rationale for the prohibition, it appears that harm minimisation forms the basis for current drug policy. I have attached a past Parliamentary Library briefing paper, which provides more detailed information.

So in other words there really isn't too much about the reasons for Cannabis prohibition and as for the continuation for harm reduction, well it doesn't appear to be working. Instead prohibition is fueling a black market which does result in crime.

[sasscot]

This letter was then written back to the Queensland government in response to the reason cited for Cannabis Prohibition:

Thank you kindly for the information provided. Please send this letter onto the relevant government departments. In response to the information I have received on cannabis prohibition reasoning, I would like to discuss the issue further.

I am wondering with the reasons stated why alcohol is not prohibited? Alcohol is an intoxicating drug that is by far more of a cost on society and has actually claimed many lives where as cannabis has not. As for the association with mental illness, not every person that smokes cannabis develops a mental illness, just as not everyone who drinks alcohol will commit a crime on it or become depressed. The reality is though that alcohol intoxication and crime has a significant correlation, far beyond possible connection that might made of cannabis intoxication.

The main crime and cost to society associated with cannabis is through the prohibition of it. There is crime because there is a black market for trading cannabis because of its prohibition, not so much because of people being under the influence of cannabis. Whereas alcohol has a well documented connection with violent crimes, injuries, and illness and driving offenses.

Alcohol is also known to be linked with depression in chronic users. There are far more severe effects on the physical body from alcohol. I have spoken with doctors who confirm that alcohol when excessively consumed damages nearly every organ in the body. Cannabis does not. So why isn't the government doing more about alcohol if the grounds of cannabis and other scheduled herbs for that matter such as salvia divinorum are less so than those for alcohol.

I am interested to know if the government plans to prohibit any more herbs that have been generally unknown to the public and have caused little or no harm? Salvia divinorum is rather unknown to the general public and has never been known to result in a death and has little if no harm on the physical body. Has anyone in Australia been treated for psychosis or any other mental illness as a direct result of consuming only salvia divinorum? I am curious as to why the government continues to take such an inconsistent approach to the law as it leads the public to viewing the law with disrepute?

Does this have anything to do with prejudice of religious and/or spiritual beliefs? British settlers most of whom were Christian consumed alcohol as part of religious and cultural practice. Many other herbs of intoxication that the British have found throughout the world they have tried to or have prohibited. Every race on the planet except for Eskimos has found at least one conscious altering plant or substance, Eskimos had nothing locally available. When the British spread out across the world they tried to eradicate other religions and cultural practices including the ritual use of herbs.

So is this the continuation of the witch hunts? In England when the Roman Christian movement swept across the nation the witch hunts began. They accused those who stayed with their original native pagan culture and were condemned as “witches” and “sorcerers”. These were people who used herbs for rituals and medicines. They were called evil and burned, drowned or hanged (makes you wonder who was “evil”). The thing is though, Christianity out of Judaism when around 1AD Jesus started his teaching. Before this Romans were a mix of Pagan religions. Then Christianity began and within the two thousand years that followed bloody battles have been fought. First the Pagans executed the Christians, until Christianity became the religion of Rome at which point the Pagans where then executed by the Christians. Persons practicing Pagan rituals were persecuted, and this included the use of ritual herbs.

A very similar story then spread throughout the world. For example much later in time, the Spanish invaded the Maya people and destroyed their books; they too tried to eradicate all Maya cultural practices including the ritual use of salvia divinorum calling the plant and the people who used it evil even though the Spanish were cruelly killing the Maya. Also when the British invaded America, the Native American Indians were persecuted for their Shamanism and peyote was condemned and prohibited. Yet the Christians pushed their alcoholic beverages throughout the world and said that it was okay. Even today many Australian laws are reminiscent of the former British Christian rule. Australian politician commonly make reference to Christian beliefs and attend church services.

Shamans have for thousands of years all around the world used a wide variety of conscious altering herbs for ritual and healing purposes quite peacefully. Why are the British (and by proxy their invaded colony America) allowed to prejudice the world through threats of trade sanctions to ban all other cultures ritual herbs? Alcohol has been one of the most detrimental substances of all the ones in question. This is not to the inclusion of manufactured drugs such as pharmaceuticals, cocaine, MDMA, heroin and amphetamines as they are a different subject matter to that of which I am referring.

Shamans as well as other spiritualist have used a wide variety of herbs as part of their culture and spiritual practices. How would Christians feel if they were told that alcohol is now prohibited and they cannot use wine in their services? Why should shamanic herbs be any different? Rastafarians have also raised this point with cannabis many times. Why condemn people for their personal choice of spiritual practices when these practices do not harm other persons? No real risk to society has been produced in any documentation that I have been provided with on the subject of cannabis use or salvia divinorum use, sassafras or even dimethyltryptamine containing plants for that matter. There is no other person in any way adversely affected through the user actions. Would you impose fines on people for excessively consuming sugary substances which have resulted in the person developing type II diabetes?

Cannabis legislation was also influenced by corporations in America who were heavily vested in wood plantations, the chemicals being sold to the wood and cotton plantations and the development of nylon. The key player with those industries was DuPont which was run by Andrew Melon. His nephew Harry Anslinger made quite a career for himself when he and his uncle hatched the plan to use racial prejudice that existed in America at the time against Mexicans to prohibited cannabis and hemp along with it (even though hemp has a very low THC content it is still illegal to grow in America). Harry Anslinger was placed in charge of the newly formed government department known as the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

The campaign was started against cannabis with the name ‘marijuana’ used to get people onside playing on the racial prejudice of the American people at the time and to hide the intention of prohibiting hemp which was widely used for textiles and medicine at the time. The Bill was nearly passed before anyone had released what actually being prohibiting. The campaign involved using the influence of William R Hearst, who not only owned a large newspaper business, but also a permit to harvest 100,000 trees to turn into newspapers and used DuPont chemicals. William R Hearst ran newspaper articles stating outlandish claims like; ‘new killer drug marijuana’ and other comments like’ just one puff of a marijuana cigarette and you could become insane and murderous’.

Dr. Woodward a medical physician stepped forward and asked congress question why they were being referred to newspaper actual as cited reasons rather than actual medical studies. He argued that cannabis had been used medicinally for a very long time and the alleged ‘evidence’ (being made up newspaper stories) was completely unfounded and inaccurate. With the research done in the time since then, it has been shown that the claims made at the time were completely incorrect.

If cannabis prohibition lives on now in light of this solely through idea of harm reduction to the user, than harsh penalties that are currently in place are entirely inappropriate and a waste of tax payer dollars. Actually the prohibition laws on cannabis currently cause the harm to society. Even when the money in revenue from fines is weighed against the cost of enforcing cannabis prohibition, the tax payers wear a large bill. If cannabis were legalized, there would no longer be a black market for it, not the crime associated with the black market. The revenue raised in tax from the legitimate sale of cannabis (persons over age 21). Even the acknowledgement of medical potential should be given at least a little more thought given it has over two thousand years of history being used for medicinal and cultural purposes.

More information on the history of cannabis prohibition can be found on these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

http://www.medical-marijuana-hut.com/history-of-marijuana-prohibition.html

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cannabis-facts-information/83764-history-cannabis-prohibition-1937-1962-a.html

I think the current policy in regards to herbs and alcohol is very inconsistent and illogical. The tax payers of Australia currently spend into the billions on drug prohibition and a very large portion of that is used on cannabis prohibition. For at least the last fifteen years there has been Queensland government commissioned reports on the impacts of cannabis use in Queensland that suggest cannabis prohibition is more costly than effective and more importantly that Queensland cannabis legislation should at the very least be brought into line with the other states of Australia and reduce the penalties for personal possession. I found this government report particularly insightful.

http://www.qccl.org.au/documents/Sub_PA_1Nov93_Cannabis_Law_in_Queensland.pdf

I would like to highlight a few things from this document;

• The onus should not be on those favouring law reform to demonstrate that cannabis is harmless and, in particular, that it has no adverse health effects. To create such an onus is unfair and wrong in principle. All substances have some side effects, especially if used to excess. A simple illustration is soft drink which may cause tooth decay and have other ill effects, especially if consumed to excess. But no one seriously contemplates a prohibition on the manufacture, sale and consumption of soft drink. Similarly, the consumption of alcohol, especially if used to excess, has health effects and anti social consequences. However, users of alcohol are subject to formal control only for defined public behaviour. By contrast, the use of cannabis is subject to prohibition, irrespective of the behaviour which that drug induces. This approach misses the mark of social concern, and results in imposing control on many persons who have posed little risk to self or society and have not exhibited behaviour of the kind which normally warrants application of the criminal law. (See generally the Shafer Commission page 249).

• “Anyone who pushes law anti order as a way to solve the illegal drug problem just doesn't understand or they are either an idiot or a liar. More than 57 percent of people up to the age of 25 have experimented or have been exposed to cannabis - that means more than 50 percent of Australians are criminals. The law is a joke when it is ignored by that many people (Courier Mail, 18/2/89)."

• The principle that the criminal law should not govern private behaviour which causes no harm to others has widespread acceptance. Indeed, one of the functions of law in a civilised community is to secure a sphere of self-determination for individuals to act. The right of the individual to self-determination is recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The imposition of the criminal law is justified by the idea of preventing harm to others. The mere possibility of harm to others is not normally sufficient unless the harm in contemplation is very serious. When one applies these principles to drug-taking in private, the advocates of imposing the criminal law must identify a "harm" which justifies criminalizing such activity. The fact that such drug taking may have adverse consequences for an individual's health does not justify the imposition of the criminal law. If this were so, the consumption of alcohol or tobacco would be prohibited by the criminal law. But whereas the consumption of alcohol and tobacco and numerous other drugs has been well demonstrated to cause adverse health effects, cannabis has not been demonstrated to cause such harm (see the review of the literature in Appendix A to the Discussion Paper).

The fact that an individual's conduct has adverse health consequences and the potential to impose a burden on the health system does not justify use the criminal law. For example, deaths in Australia from skin cancer due to excessive exposure to the sun occur at over three times the rate of deaths from the use of all opiates, but sunbaking is not an offence!

It may well be asked in those circumstances why the prohibition on cannabis was introduced.

So if this legislation founded on lies, racism and religious prejudice is only being kept in force today for harm reduction purpose, why is personal cannabis possession a criminal offence? Harm reduction is the only reason that I found cited in the information I have received from parliamentary discussions and it usually not grounds for criminalization unless the harm is considered significant (cannabis does not fit the usual criteria used for this description, neither does salvia divinorum). I see it highly unlikely that the information talked about on venereal diseases as applicable in regards to cannabis, and the other little bits of information contained within in the Bill; government commissioned reports; and discussion papers that give details on the particulars of cannabis and the reasoning for its inclusion as a scheduled substance refers to concerns over mental health.

I would have personally thought harm reduction might be more in line with offering people help if they require or request it, instead of the government imposing fines upon personal users. The government sends police to invade the privacy of persons suspected of using cannabis, and then significant fines are imposed if charges are laid, and the community is encouraged to ridicule persons identified as cannabis users. This is to spite that fact the only person to have been allegedly harm is the user themselves. This does not seem like harm reduction. Going on this philosophy of ‘harm reduction’ should we be fining obese persons for the harm they have inflicted upon their body, their mental health and the very real burden on the health care system as a direct result of their eating habits?

[LikeAshesWeFade]

WOW! What a read! you have some bloody fantastic points there mate, the sad thing is that we are only the minority in this twisted system! I do pray that one day they will come to their senses and enough evidence will be shown to prove that Cannabis is a completely harmless drug.

Same goes for 5-HTP(soon to be controlled), Kava etc. They prohibit these herbs because of the simple fact that there is more evidence coming out of the woodworks that is proving them to be more efficient than benzo's and some anti-depressants, which in-turn is ruining the chances of pharma companies making more money from us, yet they are quick to turn a blind eye to the fact that they are destroying our bodies and getting us addicted 10x more than Cannabis, 5-HTP, Kava and all alike ever would!

It's a saaad twisted world we live in dude!

Edited February 1, 2011 by LikeAshesWeFade

[Rabaelthazar]

Well written letter. Your girl gets Rabaelthazar's stamp of delivery.

[Sheather]

First of all, welcome to the Corroboree Sasscot! (EDIT: Though it seems you joined around three months ago)

I'm looking forward to seeing the response to these logical arguments and neat research. I'm surprised she got a response at all. (Although I fear it won't be as I hope, sweep it under the rug or somesuch.)

I hope something like this can open their eyes though. It would be nice to not be condemned for utilizing relatively harmless plants in medicinal or recreational manners. Thanks for the food for thought.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Sheather

[gogogadget]

+1 "LikeAshesWeFade" when we learn that the government just doesn't listen, the better off we will be, their to set in their own ways to see their doing this world more damage than good.

[kindness]

the sad thing is that we are only the minority in this twisted system!

 

Funny thing is I don't think pot smokers are that much of a minority - even then I'm talking about daily users. If I was to consider a 'pot user' to be anyone who has tried / used it more than once in their life then it is definitely the majority of people.

I know that the criminalisation of pot use / growing / possession is going to change in my lifetime. I don't agree with decriminalisation, its a start I guess but I can't see anything other than full legalisation of ganja working.

I don't smoke pot anymore coz it made me really lazy and at times very paranoid, (probably too much THC and not enough CBD in the strains I was smoking due to the nature of commercial growing) however I would still consider participating in rallies and the like for the legalisation of ganja... I just wonder if many actual pot smokers would turn up or if they would either forget that is what they were going to do or not be bothered getting up off the couch

I really liked what was said in the initial letter and also the beginning of the second, to be honest though I think drifting into discussion about religion etc detracted from the validity of arguments already made.

[sasscot]

@ Kindness:

Even though the letter is mostly about cannabis law reform she was trying to highlight the context of how and why the laws were brought about in the first place. These reasons are embedded in mostly corporate interests, but religious and racial prejudice has been a part too and this needed to be explained. Especially as it is not just cannabis that has been prohibited. My girlfriend is a Shaman so there are many herbs she is interested in that are now prohibited. This is the reason why she is fighting for it, not just to 'get high' (although anyone who wants to just get high should be able to if we can drink alcohol which is far more damaging to both physical and psychological health).

In regards to the CBD content of cannabis, this has been an interesting area of research. As it is being investigated the link between CBD off-setting the negative psychological affects of THC. If the government legalized cannabis, then true harm reduction could be achieved (if that is really what they set out to do, which it is not...). Not to mention the loss of the black market trade would reduce crime. The police would have more time and reasources for real crime... Yeah there are a whole lot of reasons to cite for why to legalize cannabis and the government knows them. They are restricting our freedom and right to alter ones consciousness. Something that humans have done for as long as we have walked on the earth.

@ LikeAshesWeFade, yes it is a twisted world we live in. There are more and more herbs being prohibited every year. Another reason why the other herbs are talked about in the letter. My girlfriend is wondering where will it end? She doesn't want to loose her medicinal herb garden either and restrictions are being placed on more and more herbs. A lot of controversy was caused over restricting kava and slavia divinorum shouldn't be illegal at all. Anyway, just got to try and get people to stand up and say to the government, YOU CANT IGNORE US ANY LONGER!! To do that we need as many people in action as possible. Even if it is just to keep writing letters to them. Peace

[The Dude]

Excellent letter! Just a couple spelling and grammar issues. No biggie. gogogadget said it best, they just don't care anyway, you probably won't get your point across. Worth a try I suppose, but really we gotta stop asking for permission and just take it.

These people are meant to represent us, the public, not private interests. They are meant to serve us, not private interests. If all of this is not the case then they've failed their duty and deserve to be fired from their job, and it's us who must fire them as they work for us. The only way to do this is to stop paying their wages (including lobbyist "gifts"), and the only way to do this is through global non compliance (it must be global as these private interests are also global), once their source of power is cut off then these omnipotent giants of industry, who we must always ask for permission to live freely will be irrelevant.

It's like you see an obstacle, a wall in front of you, you can walk around, or ...

Edited February 8, 2011 by The Dude

[sasscot]

I very much agree The Dude. We have been trying to get people to take a stand, not just on this but a wide range of issues like fluoride etc. The letters are just a part of trying to pursue every possible avenue for change, but more direct action is definitely needed. My girlfriend and myself are working our way towards self sufficiency where we do not require anything from the system, nor contribute to it (which deprives the power to it). The more people that join us in this which others are, the more impact this will have. We will help out each other, trade services and goods and live with the land, rather than abusing it. Cannabis along with many other herbs are gifts of the earth and we don't need to ask anyone for permission. We are all children of the earth, not the government.

[Neoshaman]

I've always wondered is there even a constitutional basis for Governments in this country to have the ability to ban plants or is it something we've blindly accepted on the basis of boarder protection/ harm minimisation when they have no real right to

[sasscot]

No mortal or even group of mortals such as a government has the right to dictate and determine what plants can and can't grow on this earth but they do it anyway. Communicating with the plant entities can be quite enlightening. When people are enlightened to the truth they become hard to "control". It seems like most things come down to a struggle for power. We can move beyond this if we all stop giving up our power to others.

[Bigred]

bump