whoami Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) ^ naw, you will mimzy!! they'll never completely stop people from growing whatever plants they like. it might be harder to obtain plants from a nursery or on the internet, but people will still trade them. especially if you live rural its extremely unlikely they'd ever catch you. I was able to obtain my plants from someone in person before i even knew this website existed, as I'm sure many people have done, you could do that too its not illegal till you get caught and we got a mighty big country here ^_^ just keep your ear to the ground and don't let anyone tell you its not possible Edited September 17, 2013 by whoami 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
upside Posted September 17, 2013 I feel with the interest of western culture and ayauhasca, especially the fact quite a few people are attending ceremonies in other countries,, a shift in consciousness is slowly happening on a larger scale,, even war veterans are advocating the benefits of rebuilding thought patterns to help overcome PTSD with the use of psychoactives. Victims of sexual abuse have moved forward after learning how to see their very unfortunate circumstance(s) in another perspective after MDMA or DMT. Why would our leaders who are representing us, not want to help its citizens? Seems like a desperate clutch at control and power to me. Funny tho, as they could really take control and regulate while they make a shit load of money. But to make such a change, that would mean admitting they were wrong..... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOnThen Posted September 17, 2013 I have read through this amendment bill a couple of times that Torsten posted in his first post and unless I am missing something it doesn't say you cant grow plants. It is saying that you cannot advertise, sell or grow it for consumption. It would be up to the courts to decide if you were growing for that purpose and they would need proof of intent. This is were incriminating yourself on here would become a minefield as a post here could change the courts opinion on your intent. 36ZF Offence of supplying or manufacturing psychoactive substances (1) A person must not manufacture or knowingly take part in the manufacture ofa psychoactive substance for supply to another person: (a) knowing that it is being supplied to the person primarily for humanconsumption or for supply by that person to another person for thatpurpose, orb being reckless as to whether it is being so supplied.Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. (2) A person must not supply a psychoactive substance: (a) knowing that it is being acquired primarily for human consumption, orb being reckless as to whether it is being so acquired.Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. (3) A court may be satisfied that a person knowingly or recklessly manufacturedor supplied a psychoactive substance despite a usage instruction concerningthe substance (given in any manner, way, medium or form) that indicates thatit is not a psychoactive substance or is not intended for human consumption. (4) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, the court may have regardto the following in determining whether a person knew or was reckless as towhether a substance was being acquired or supplied primarily for humanconsumption: (a) any advertising matter published or displayed by the person, or usageinstruction concerning the substance given by the person, whetherbefore or after the commencement of this subsection, that indicates thatthe substance:(i) has or may have a psychoactive effect, or(ii) has or may have a similar effect to a prohibited drug or may beused in a similar way to a prohibited drug, b whether it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to find that thesubstance concerned was being manufactured or supplied for a lawfulpurpose. (5) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters that the court may consider. Don't shoot me I am trying to look at this in the way a cacti association would look at it. Cheers Got 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shortly Posted September 17, 2013 it doesn't say you cant grow plants. It is saying that you cannot advertise, sell or grow it for consumption. This is the kicker, the cost of proving ones innocence is financially crippling for most people, and the DPP is well aware of it and often use it to their advantage. It would be interesting to see their stats on the suicide rate of people in the lead up to prosecution, at a guess it would have to be at least 25 time the national average. I do know they regularly drop solid proceedings due to the defendants death or worse. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3lliot Posted September 17, 2013 It is saying that you cannot ... grow it for consumption. That's effectively saying you can't grow it though. Sure you could get away with one or two, and just claim that you like the plants, but any more than that & it'll be obvious to the cops & the court that you were growing it for consumption. Of course they would have to prove that, somehow. but the risk of legal action will be enough to stop people cultivating. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) I would be keen for a second opinion on: 36ZG Prohibition of advertising of psychoactive substances A person is guilty of an offence if the person publishes or displays in any manner, way, medium or form any advertisement: (a) knowing or being reckless as to whether the advertisement promotes, or apparently promotes, directly or indirectly, the consumption, supply or sale of a substance for its psychoactive effects, and (b ) providing information on how or where the psychoactive substance may be acquired. Where advertisement is defined as: advertisement means: (a) any words, whether written or spoken, or (b ) any pictorial representation or design, or (c ) any other representation by any means at all. Edited September 17, 2013 by Yeti101 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3lliot Posted September 17, 2013 if the person publishes or displays | in any manner, way, medium or form | apparently promotes | the consumption | of a substance for its psychoactive effects So anyone that ever writes anything like 'yay mushrooms are cool' in a forum, on facebook, in an email, anywhere, or even SAYS that verbally, is guilty & can be sent away for 2 years...?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted September 17, 2013 List of banned topics in NSW.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted September 17, 2013 GoOnThen, as I said, this is a convoluted bill. I have read it many times and discover new things about it each time. The main issue is schedule 1 item 1 of the bill, which amends the main definitions of the act [rather than just the definitions of section 2C] to mean that 'substance' now includes plants, fungi and natural organisms. The fact that is is referred to in section 3 of the act means it applies to the full act, not just the new sections added by the bill. So whereas before the defintiion of substance was "includes preparation and admixture and all salts, isomers, esters or ethers of any substance and all salts of those isomers, esters and ethers." Now substance also includes plants, fungi and natural organisms. if it wasn't for schedule1 item 1 of the bill I would not be overly concerned about it as the definitions would then merely apply to section 2C which only applies to supply [incl sale, swap, donate], advertising, publishing etc. But once you amend the definition of the at rather than the definitions of a subsection, that definition applies to the full act. Our recommendation to the government is to at the very least remove schedule 1 item 1 of the bill entirely so as to allow possession of cacti etc. But ultimately the subdefinition in section 36ZD should be amended to remove plants. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted September 17, 2013 As for the forums, there are many options and we certainly won't shut down. The forums are not owned by the business, so are not promoting any products, which is the main issue of this legislation. I will look at the other implications later and will find solutions. eg the forum could simply be owned by someone outside of NSW to get around the restrictions. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted September 17, 2013 The NSW drug bill affecting plants has just passed the lower house. Any letter writing should now go to MLCs or to the sponsor of the bill [the minister for fair trading]. This will all be over in the next 48h, so please hurry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mimzy Posted September 17, 2013 I wrote to Anthony Roberts, hopefully he comes to his senses! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paradox Posted September 17, 2013 T can you give some advice to a noob? i just wrote to anthony roberts.. but which are the relevant mlc's to write? all of these? http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentLCMembers forgive my ignorance Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sallubrious Posted September 17, 2013 If this legislation goes through theoretically they could start raiding and prosecuting people that had been law abiding citizens until the time the legislation had passed. Would we expect a grace period or an amnesty like we saw with the gun buyback scheme when the changes to the laws about the semi-automatic firearms passed ? If people cut down cactus to remove it are they going to be guilty of preparing an illicit substance? This is how democracy turns into fascism- in the act of protecting people they are using such broad terms that can be interpreted to make almost anyone a criminal. They've failed with the prohibition of pot, speed, heroine, coke, lsd, and ecstasy but they think that adding a whole lot more substances to that list will succeed. Prohibition has never worked for anything, I can't see how it will now. A blanket ban everything is going to make many of these substances street drugs and before long it will be controlled by organised crime syndicates, like all the other drugs. As the rest of world is starting to see the light and relax drug laws NSW is going the other way and turning into fascist state. This has many parallels to the Kaiser and the Fuhrers' style of protective nationalism. Give up your rights to be protected. If you don't agree you can go to gaol. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted September 18, 2013 Legislation Review Committee was no help either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Francois le Danque Posted September 18, 2013 Give up your rights to be protected. If you don't agree you can go to gaol. ...go directly to gaol. Do not collect psychoactive plants. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quarterflesh Posted September 18, 2013 I think your all panicking way to much, cops have got better things to do then keep an eagle eye out for a random cactus that might be growing in your yard, and i dont think your neighbors will give a fuck and dob you in for your 10 foot pedro thats been there for the last 20 years. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3lliot Posted September 18, 2013 Here's an update from the EGA: UPDATE! Attack on plants by NSW government. We need help today.The Bill is rushing through NSW Parliament as I write. We urgently need to CALL and EMAIL our local members, Ministers, Shadow Ministers and other politicians, asking:- that they send the Bill to Committee for careful review, and- for a process of community consultation. We have attached a PDF document with instructions, links to contact details, and speaking notes. http://www.entheo.net/files/webfiles/raise_your_voice_against_the_drugs_and_poisons_bill.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted September 18, 2013 I think your all panicking way to much, cops have got better things to do then keep an eagle eye out for a random cactus that might be growing in your yard, and i dont think your neighbors will give a fuck and dob you in for your 10 foot pedro thats been there for the last 20 years. explain that to the people in WA, SA and Qld who have already been charged and convicted under similar laws there! I think it is a bit naive to make such a statement when we already know that there are such cases in other states. No one is saying that the cops will raid every garden next week. The law will be applied selectively and where it suits. eg to give cops access or leverage. It may also be applied to taking out whole networks, such as via ebay [as has happened with poppy seed cultivation and export there before]. The bill passed this evening without amendments. I will compose a detailed advice in the next few days. This bill will not be used to immediately target individuals, but could be used to take out suppliers asap. There will be no grace period. Individuals probably don't need to worry about this until some precedent cases have been set. There is also still some ambiguity as to how far the bill will affect mere possession as opposed to supply [where supply includes swaps, gifts, trades, and sales]. And I haven't even looked at the implications of the advertising and publishing clauses yet. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mimzy Posted September 18, 2013 Such a fucking bummer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted September 18, 2013 Things may not be as bad as they seem. The lawyers are very divided on this, but in general make claims much worse than my interpretation. I have to be careful about giving any advice that is contrary to lawyer's statements. We are still waiting for some guidance from the minister on this. This law is a pig's breakfast. It is possibly the worst written piece of legislation I have ever seen. No one has been able to interpret it with any certainty. I now personally do not believe plant possession is affected. I am also growing more confident that plant sales are not affected as long as no mention of psychoactivity is made AND there is no possible suggestion of consumption [regardless of disclaimers stating so]. I also think that herbs and herbal products are exempt from the new laws as long as they do not contain S9 [TGA] or S1 [NSW drugs] AND are not advertised as psychoactive. I have read that legislation about 40 times now and am slowly beginning to see why certain things are where and how they are. Once you get the feel for the structure you also see the reasoning, ie you see where they hit a roadblock and then hastily fixed it by slotting a fix in somewhere without regard for the consequences it might have there. The problem with this mess is that while it may not have aimed at plants, it has certainly left a lot of ambiguity and hence no certainty if it ever went to court. Again, I must repeat that multiple legal advice says that ALL of my new interpretation is wrong. But that's not the first time ;) Friends from the EGA policy group, sex party, and HHH have been working tirelessly to make sense of all this while also fighting the bill, so as a group effort hopefully we can work this out soon. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sallubrious Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) There doesn't seem to any moves by the police to act on the new legislation yet, as far as plants go anyway. The police were next door this morning and they saw my trichs but weren't interested. I meant to get up early and cut them down but I was woken up by the doors slamming on a bull box. Maybe the police are waiting on legal advice too, with the legislation being so ambiguous and loosely worded it could turn out to be a nightmare for the dpp if it does get tested in court. It could turn into a protracted debate about definitions and some of the wording regarding free speech it could even be challenged in the high court on constitutional grounds. If they don't apply the law with just cause it could be a legal nightmare. Edited September 18, 2013 by SallyD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
planthelper Posted September 18, 2013 I haven't read all the posts yet, but I will in given time. not for legal counsil: if you are a serious cacti collector, and grow those plants, I doubt you will get punished hardly, if they catch you it's likely, they often will let you go with a slap on the wrist. that's because many judges are not stupid, and can well see, that there was no intention of causing harm, by growing those wonderful plants. in the beginnings of this forum, I once posted a story, I read in a sience fiction book (mark brandis die Spiegel erde, title paraphrased) and in this book, all plants have been made illegal, and totally removed from society, the only people who have accsess to nature are, the politicians and the sienticts. mark brandis breaks into the world, which still features nature, and shows the heroine of the book the plants and nature. at the end of the book the heroine, get's executed because the police finds a single harmless leaf in her pocket, her last words are, it was worth it, to see nature. I am lucky to live now... 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoami Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) woah woo eowo considering cutting down yer plants already!? geez, I think quarterflesh is right hahaha. I would have thought people here would be more in touch with their inner rebel than that xD Edited September 18, 2013 by whoami Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sallubrious Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) woah woo eowo considering cutting down yer plants already!? geez, I think quarterflesh is right hahaha. I would have thought people here would be more in touch with their inner rebel than that xD I've got a position available for a troll - shoot me your cv. You'll have to lift your game a bit though, I expect my underhanded snipes to be delivered with eloquent wit. Edited September 19, 2013 by SallyD 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites