Law changes in NSW

[whoami]

sorry SallyD, I'm not interested in your proposal. I'm freelance and I plan to keep it that way

[J Smith]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/drugs-sold-as-food-exempt-under-new-laws-20130918-2tzow.html

[whitewind]

We've just written to The Guardian asking that it look into this.

re: Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendment (New Psychoactive and Other Substances) Bill 2013

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/380e2bd2df6e05aeca257be2001dfa34/$FILE/b2013-113-d14-House.pdf

Dear Editor,

Our association is extremely concerned about the unintended impact that the definition of substance in this bill will have on the selling and trading of plants that contain trace amounts of psychoactive compounds. While we realise there are some plants that can be used as psychoactive drugs, the bill will also capture many plants that only contain traces of these substances.

For example, a large number of native wattles contains dimetyltryptamine (DMT) or DMT analogues, native plant nurseries would be criminalised for selling these species - some of which are the most common road side and dune-care species in NSW. Many of these species were also used by indigenous communities as a food or medicine source. Many other members of the pea and bean family may contain traces of DMT or other substances listed in the schedules. These are very common garden plants or food species and it seems extremely unwise to pass a bill which unnecessarily covers otherwise useful or ornamental species.

Similarly, other plant groups could fall under this legislation. For example, cactus species (which are widely grown for their hardiness in drought and spectacular flowering) are used medicinally and as food sources, yet many cactus species contain trace amounts of mescaline and hordenine. Individually, important spices such as nutmeg and pepper may become scheduled, alongside many ornamental species within the Solanaceae family such as the common gardening plant Petunia.

Some species that are rare and endangered in their native habitat may also fall under this legislation, such as Tabernanthe iboga which could become a useful medicine for combating alcoholism and other addictions.

We have urged the government to alter the definition of 'substance' in section 36ZD so that it does not include live plants, but despite ours and many other submissions the bill was passed. This is of deep concern to many people who have botanical collections as we are frequently unsure of which species contain the illegal compounds and cannot afford to test individual plants (as some may contain none or higher levels of listed compounds than others owing to variation within the species). It has become clear that the NSW government, while trying to tackle the problem of dangerous chemical compounds from overseas, has cast it's net so broad even common gardeners will be criminalised.

In addition, the problem is compounded by the legal requirement not to discuss the chemical constituents of plants by criminalising the discussion of psychoactive compounds, thus preventing knowledgeable people people from telling others that they may be behaving illegally by accidentally growing some native species in their gardens.

To add to the problem, the term “psychtropic” is so broad it may be interpreted to cover plants such as Valerian, St. John's Wort, Rosemary and Gingko biloba which contain substances which are known to impact the mind and may, in large doses, be prone to abuse, as I have read recently with an experiment with Ginseng.

We believe the government has made a grave mistake by trying to prevent the sale and trade of plants which may have potential for abuse without specifically targetting the real problems of drug abuse – that of unknown and untested compounds being produced overseas and imported as legal highs, or even targetting specific plants of concern, such as the current ban on Cannabis, Poppy, and Coca.

We ask that The Guardian do some research into this looming problem and raise a voice of concern over the potential ramifications to ordinary gardeners and ask the government to clarify why it has introduced such a broad and confusing bill that clearly targets gardeners rather than suppliers of dangerous substances.

[whitewind]

I think it's time to make a media storm, there is some talk of this bill in the Sydney Morning Herald. Time to write to the papers.

[TommyChesnutt]

I think it's time to make a media storm, there is some talk of this bill in the Sydney Morning Herald. Time to write to the papers.

^^ Well done Whitewind,

that is very well written and in whole a great idea...

When in doubt, write the newspapers

"It has become clear that the NSW government, while trying to tackle the problem of dangerous chemical compounds from overseas, has cast it's net so broad even common gardeners will be criminalised."

That sentence could make a hot academic nerd girl moist.

Edited September 19, 2013 by hunnicutt

[whitewind]

We have also written to Sydney Botanic Garden informing them of the new legislation, other Botanic Gardens in NSW should be informed shortly, we recommend that people write to their local garden letting them know that trade in certain plants may become quite difficult in the not too distant future, and the uncertainty with alkaloid content in many species will cast further confusion on the issue.

[gtarman]

"It has become clear that the NSW government, while trying to tackle the problem of dangerous chemical compounds from overseas, has cast it's net so broad even common gardeners will be criminalised."

That sentence could make a hot academic nerd girl moist.

Not if she's the kind of girl who values correct grammar

[TommyChesnutt]

"it's", its, either way man the guy is gunna get laid.

[IndianDreaming]

I normally make it a point to stay out of politics, because I'm extremely bad at it and I feel its a man made problem in a natural world, but I received a response to an email I sent and it made me extremely frustrated. This is from a person that's supposed to represent us and I really feel like he's missed the goal posts by a good half an oval. I've added what I think should be the appropriate response, and please correct me if you think I'm not on the playing field...

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your email and for sharing your thoughts with me regarding the new laws extending the State ban on 'synthetic drugs' (any chemical constituent of a plant that resembles a scheduled drug). I understand your concerns that there is a risk that the scope of the new Bill could have unintended consequences on the trade of herbs and natural extracts. The Greens share your concerns and I, with my colleagues, voted against this legislation.(Nice work, I approve)

Synthetic drugs pose a significant health risk (To which drugs is he referring? Pharmaceuticals are synthetic... plant based chemicals are not), I agree that the solution is not as simple as banning all substances outright. However a knee jerk comprehensive ban will only exacerbate the current synthetic drug problem by placing the decisions of quality control in the hands of criminals who are not concerned with the potential health risks of the product or whether they are selling to children as well as adults. (Agreed - good point)

For this reason I am strongly opposed to the new Drugs and Poisons Legislation Amendments. (Yay! Me too!)

A rational (?) approach to the dangers posed by synthetic drugs would be to actively regulate the legal sale of 'synthetic' (natural) substances so that the State can monitor the level of toxicity and dosage to a “low risk” level. (This is entirely infeasible due to the cost of TGA approval, no one is going to pay to get approval for any of the enlightening 'drugs', the natural 'drugs' have stood the test of time and have countless studies approving their safety already) This approach has recently begun in New Zealand and a reframed and improved regulations and tax levies imposed on alcohol or tobacco.

An excellent argument in favour of rational regulation of synthetic drugs was made in the 10 August 2013 edition of The Economist. It said in part:

“The arguments for legalisation—that it protects consumers, shuts out criminals and saves money while raising tax—are familiar to readers of this newspaper. Yet it requires careful regulation to ensure that its outcome is not worse than widely ignored prohibition. New Zealand must now get the details right. The government has yet to define “low risk” (Well that's a shifting goalpost if I've ever seen one). Set the bar too high and the policy will be prohibition by another name; too low and potentially lethal products will be on sale legally. (They are already, in the form of alcohol and tobacco, but consistency is hardly a feature of drug policy.) Nor does anybody know what level of taxation will most effectively deter consumption without encouraging a black market. Similar debates are under way in Uruguay, which is poised to legalise cannabis, and in Colorado and Washington state in America, which voted to do so last year.

These tricky questions may look like weaknesses in the policy. In fact, they are its strength. While New Zealand and Uruguay are discussing what level of toxicity or what dosage is acceptable, every other country is leaving the matter to drug dealers, who do not care about quality control and who peddle to children on the same terms as adults. As New Zealand ponders what rate of tax to levy, in the rest of the world the business is tax-free. A hard road lies ahead for New Zealand and its fellow policy innovators. But every dilemma they face is a reminder that, unlike other jurisdictions, through government they are regulating the drugs business, not the gangs.”

The Greens will continue to work towards an evidence-based and harm-reduction solution to synthetic drugs. Such an approach would not in any way encroach on the legitimate business activities of people such as yourself who deal with natural herbs and extracts as a 'long-established addition to traditional western medicine' (wtf??? Addition to western medicine? Which came first, the pill or the leaf?) . Should you want to find out more on the topic, you may be interest to read Greens MP John Kaye’s speech in Parliament on 18 September 2013.

Thank you again for contacting my office and if you would like further information or any clarification, then please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Regards,

Our Greens member that seems to think Synthetic Drugs should be regulated, but hasn't considered the fact that the age old ban on natural drugs might need to be revisited to get rid of the 'Synthetic' problem that has come about because of the aforementioned dullard approach to natural drugs medicine

As I mentioned, I'm not a great politician, and this bloke seems to have his heart in the right place, but surely it doesn't take a rocket scientist to go - "oh, hang on, maybe all this could just go away if we followed America like we usually do and take a look at regulating natural substances instead of banning everything that can make you have a really nice day" I'm sure he's doing his best given the circumstances, but the wording of his email made me think he's only thinking little picture stuff, to keep him in office and on a nice salary.

Edit: I made lots of edits, because I'm drinking heavily taxed and legal Gin at the moment, and it has 'significantly' impaired my mood, motor function, and probably my liver...

Edited September 20, 2013 by IndianDreaming

[Sallubrious]

People like that don't have the balls to raise any logical solutions to problems like this Indian, It's a good point though. They are chasing elusive trivial compounds but at the same time they are ignoring the elephant in the room - marijuana. It's seems like once they get on the gravy train they are quite happy to go with flow and cash in.

NSW is going control mad, now they have also banned drawing hopscotch grids. So if a child draws a hopscotch grid without prior consent from the owner of the path or their council they could be up for fine of $440 - I think it was $440 there were several different fines quoted by the corporate media yesterday.

The legislation was designed mostly for vandals destroying property with graffiti. Which is fair enough it costs the state a fortune to clean it off trains and other state property but the loosely worded legislation has put people doing totally harmless acts in a vulnerable position. It's all very similar to the legislation being discussed in this thread.

Surely this is incompetence - they are ushering in a police state with these poorly worded laws.

I typed NSW hopscotch ban into a search engine last night and the first hit was a story about the NSW ban on synthetic drugs.

From Yahoo 7 News

http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/newshome/18995721/nsw-law-to-ban-synthetic-drugs-passed/

Legislation outlawing synthetic psychoactive substances has passed through NSW parliament despite claims it was so badly drafted it could "criminalise the Botanic Gardens Trust".

The government bill banning synthetic drugs with psychoactive properties passed through the Upper House without amendments on Wednesday evening.

In one of the few voices of dissent, Labor MP Amanda Fazio said the bill was so poorly worded it potentially stood to criminalise a number of plants that include chemicals now prohibited under the bill.

"A (cactus) society would be equated with a cartel of drug dealers because of the stupid way in which this legislation have been drafted," she said.

"What are we doing with this legislation? We are criminalising the Botanic Garden's Trust."

Responding to murmurings in the house as to whether or not she was crazy, she said "No, this bill is crazy".

But Liberal Matthew Mason-Cox said a regulation has been included in the bill so that, if necessary, plants and other substances can be specifically exempt.

"This is an exhaustive approach to correct any unintended consequences if they arise."

Under the bill introduced to parliament last week, penalties for those nabbed manufacturing or supplying synthetic drugs include up to two years imprisonment and a fine of more than $2000.

Someone caught possessing them could face up to a year in jail and more than $2000 in fines.

In announcing the bill, the government said that it would also outlaw drugs not yet developed by grouping substances into families, such as synthetic cannabinoids.

This will prevent manufacturers simply tweaking compounds in an attempt to circumvent the ban, the government says.

Another 40 substances will also be added to the prohibited drugs list - but products such as alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, foods and herbal items will be exempt.

[Glass Roots]

maybe all this could just go away if we followed America like we usually do and take a look at regulating natural substances instead of banning everything that can make you have a really nice day"

Not sure if you're referring to the the recent statement by our federal government stating that they would defer marijuana law/regulation to the states (therefore allowing it to be legal if a state chooses to, which 2 have so far). Besides this, our government hasn't really allowed regulation of other natural substances. The only two reasons I can think of that certain plants aren't completely banned is probably because there is so few people using them/aware of them and because it would be extremely difficult to eradicate certain active plants.

For instance mimosa's, acacia's, phalaris, etc.

I do agree though, that the recent memo by the Department of Justice is a VERY big step into a positive direction for regulation (this will also be a good example to use for future decriminalization of other plants/substances when it comes to taxes and such).

Link to memo: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

[Torsten]

IndianDreaming, before youc all something unfeasible or impossible you should look at what is currently happening in NZ and inform yourself of the details. Synth drugs willl be sold in a regulated system there after harm testing. This is the system being proposed by some of the greens and the sex party here. Even the head of the NSW drug squad is in favour of it. It would see low risk synths on the market at precisely measured doses of pharm grade materials. Testing costs between 100k to 1 million and is the financial responsibility of the supplier. In NZ the same rules apply to natural substances, but this is a mistake and the local efforts do not mirror that as they are not driven by the same motives as NZ was.

The definition of low risk is pretty solid too. It is the same animal testing that allows medications to proceed to phase 1 clinical trials. There are fairly exact limits or what is acceptable. Psychoactivity itself is removed from those limits [usually this is a dead end for medicines]. The government now no longer has a say in what is approved and what is not. That decision is made by a panel of scientists who MUST approve the drug if it passes the safety tests. Safety test are dose related. So a drug at 5mg may be approved, but may fail at 10mg, etc.

You are still thinking in a paradigm that is a decade old. Things have moved very fast lately and the options from 10 years ago simply would not work the same way anymore. There is a serious push in at least 3 states to move to a regulated market, with all the benefits this brings. It is a far better model than simply decriminalising as it has all of those benefits as well as purity control, source monitoring, outlet monitoring and tax income - the same way that alcohol and tobacco work.

[DiscoStu]

hi, qualia here (i locked myself out of my old account, nvm)

but is there a way to pre-emp such a law as this being passed in victoria? i mean, vic drug laws basically say that whatever is on the fed list is on the vic list, except afew things (salvia etc.).

so in preparation for vic state taking up these laws (i can't see that they won't) what is the best way to try and pre-empt it? there's a minority parliament in vic atm but apparently labor and libs block voted to pass these laws so basically writing to politicians is pointless. i also wrote to msm but they just ran "scare stories" about the plants in question the next day.....msm is as corrupt as the politicians.....

[InnerPathsToOuterSpace]

IndianDreaming, before youc all something unfeasible or impossible you should look at what is currently happening in NZ and inform yourself of the details. Synth drugs willl be sold in a regulated system there after harm testing. This is the system being proposed by some of the greens and the sex party here. Even the head of the NSW drug squad is in favour of it. It would see low risk synths on the market at precisely measured doses of pharm grade materials. Testing costs between 100k to 1 million and is the financial responsibility of the supplier. In NZ the same rules apply to natural substances, but this is a mistake and the local efforts do not mirror that as they are not driven by the same motives as NZ was.

The definition of low risk is pretty solid too. It is the same animal testing that allows medications to proceed to phase 1 clinical trials. There are fairly exact limits or what is acceptable. Psychoactivity itself is removed from those limits [usually this is a dead end for medicines]. The government now no longer has a say in what is approved and what is not. That decision is made by a panel of scientists who MUST approve the drug if it passes the safety tests. Safety test are dose related. So a drug at 5mg may be approved, but may fail at 10mg, etc.

You are still thinking in a paradigm that is a decade old. Things have moved very fast lately and the options from 10 years ago simply would not work the same way anymore. There is a serious push in at least 3 states to move to a regulated market, with all the benefits this brings. It is a far better model than simply decriminalising as it has all of those benefits as well as purity control, source monitoring, outlet monitoring and tax income - the same way that alcohol and tobacco work.

I like the sound of this approach. Great to know there is a solid push for this in three states... a push in the right direction at least.

[mutant]

selling, intending to consume and even knowing the content are the main keys here when legally interpreting such cases

Trichocerei cannot be banned from horticulture - me thinks....

strange country you got there...

thankfully, some fine ozzie clones are outside oz...

good luck

[Weirdo]

nothing strange about the country mate.....just the friggin government

[tarenna]

nothing strange about the country mate.....just the friggin government

Many (including me) suggest that in a democracy the Government is a reflection of the populace.

[3lliot]

Government is a reflection of the populace.

'A distorted reflection of the largest vaguely coherent contingent of the populace' might be more accurate.

[tarenna]

'A distorted reflection of the largest vaguely coherent contingent of the populace' might be more accurate.

That is one view - but I contend that in the majority Australians are entirely oblivious to the realities of the universe (and probably incapable of arriving at a realistic perspective on such), spoon-fed tripe by a cabal of dodgy media outlets and driven to consume inanely by the messages delivered by these systems..

3lliot, I hope you would agree that this sounds a lot like our Government??

[3lliot]

I would agree that the government, as an entity, is a soulless, greedy, power-obsessed, materialist abomination. But I don't think that really reflects the majority of the population. Most people I meet are fairly switched on, and whilst there is a huge lumpen mass happily swilling down reality tv & microwave dinners every day, there's also a lot of very clever & astute people around. it's just a shame there isn't critical mass enough to swing legislation.

also you have to bear in mind that the tripe that the lumpen masses are swilling down is strategically put in front of them by a lot of clever people who are manipulating them in order to maximise profits, & minimise awareness, thinking, and action. I would wager that the lumpen masses would be a lot less lumpen & massive if it wasn't for the deluge of high fructose media that they are constantly fed. when people are comfortable & sugar-addicted, it's hard to motivate them into thinking or doing about anything even slightly difficult. if the media was more stimulating, I'm sure the populace would be much more perky as well.

what's good these days is the decentralisation of media - the internet now provides a lot of independent sources, & I'm sure that trend will continue and eventually lead to the dissolution of things like Murdochesqe monopolies. of course there's always gonna be a percentage that love shit like that - sensationalism, angry mobs, celebs, etc. - but perhaps we're starting to see a more self-determining, autonomous society.

[tarenna]

I guess it all comes down to perspective and where and how one is connected to, or disconnected from, our society. I intentionally used the word "majority" which is what supposedly functionally underpins a "democracy"...

I still contend our Government is a reflection of the majority interests and values... I had not been into a McMansion until a few years ago - it scared me. To this day I have only ever set foot in that one.

We don't own a TV, our media input is consciously selected to filter out the bad shit - I can't stand being in the presence of commercial tv and radio or footy and the like.. Our social networks are (in my opinion) populated by aware beings - we strive to maintain such connections. But I am certain that our mob are very much in the minority. I maintain once more that our Gov is a reflection of the majority composition of society which is sucrose driven, beer swilling, tv lapping, Murdoch shaped peons..

Just my opinions and perspectives bro - developed on the back of my personal values and interests.. To each their own..

peace

[mutant]

nothing strange about the country mate.....just the friggin government

as if the government is not voted by the people

sorry mate, but australia has the strictest drug laws in the world. I somehow suspect you ozzies are a bit more druggies than the rest of the world. Maybe not. Maybe it has something to do with the origin of the country...

look there's definately something strange there.

you sound a bit like englishmen but you act a bit like americans

we greeks are strange too. we are the only african country populated by white people

****

In any case (on topic) ,

I cannot imagine how the law system could be that different in any fucking (modern) country. Drug laws are no exception.

When dealing with a plant cultivated, there has to be determined if the accused knew about the content, bought the plant knowing the content and with intention to consume.

Even in very strict lawsystems, people could be exonerated if they prove they grew plants without knowledge of content.

Of course if they find 25 books on psychoactives at your home, it would be hard to prove you didn't know. Again, this is not proof of intention of consumption, but it makes thing harder.

Edited September 23, 2013 by mutant

[space cadet swami]

I watched an interesting doco on the ABC yesterday...soon to be sold off, thx to mr. abbott. The person was addressing a sitting of younger gen X people. What he stated was, "democracy should be a case of the few serving the majority, but instead it is a case of the majority serving the few".

These are sad times we live in....I think "how sad", the people will realise only when it is too late.

Sadly most of the "fools" I've talked with regarding the recent election were mainly concerned with "turning the boat people back". If this shows anything, it points out a lack of compassion & a concern only for ones own self interest...still just a pack of racist fucks at heart. You'll get what you deserve Australia, the problem is we (the members of this forum) will have to pay for your stupidity also.

[InnerPathsToOuterSpace]

But I am certain that our mob are very much in the minority. I maintain once more that our Gov is a reflection of the majority composition of society which is sucrose driven, beer swilling, tv lapping, Murdoch shaped peons..

I generally agree with this assessment. Not that it makes the majority bad people, just uninformed and media brainwashed. I was flabbergasted that Abbott got in considering how much of a redneck he is, and unless there was some foul play in the ballot system, it means the majority voted him in and I wouldn't be surprised if a big reason for this was because of the Murdoch controlled media monopolies complete favouritism for Abbott and Rudd's portrayal in the mass media as a clown and a bad guy...

[whitewind]

Hey. If there's only 2 parties to vote for how can that possibly be a reflection of what the country really wants?

Even if you do vote for Liberals then they instigate a whole bunch of policies you never voted for or want.

Democracy my arse