Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
DiscoStu

it's a good new fashioned book burning!

Recommended Posts

so i saw this on Big-T's facebook page,

https://www.facebook.com/DrugLawReformAustralia/photos/a.336436286483012.1073741829.293609644099010/810766482383321/?type=3&fref=nf&pnref=story

An unpublicised amendment to the “Ice” legislation makes it a crime, punishable by 5 years jail, to possess information about cultivating a drug of dependence (aka Cannabis).
Surely this form of censorship is a bridge too far in the escalating war on drugs?
What do you think?

what exactly is a drug of dependence? does this mean my Stamets Mushroom Cultivator book will land me in jail? what about gottlieb's Peyote and Other Psychoactive Cacti, or even trouts notes? silly law if you ask me

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

silly?

damn scary!

but I think or at least hope the enforcement officials go after real crims and not avid gardeners just to boost the publics belief in such a law being effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its interesting as i have purchased, and have received from others, books that would definitely warrant burning now but were purchased from major chain bookstores in suburban shopping centres...

I wonder if they are aware of this new legislation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree disostu.

All the plants i grow are legal in my state and have no intention to break the law. This dosnt stop my reading intrests in grow and making certain things. I try not to save these articles and posts to my computer but isn't everything saved somewhere now for 2 years anyway.

Shit, i think i even have the high times site in my bookmarks.

Pfft to it all

My2cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is a quote of the actual legislation, then it seems pretty retarded. How does one "cultivate a drug"? And why call them "drugs of dependence" rather than simply "illicit substances"?

As for the law itself (I can't see the fb page, is it a state or federal thing?), I wonder if they still have to demonstrate "intent" to actually charge you? For instance I'm pretty sure my mum has a bunch of old pharmacopoeias with instructions for making opium & cannabis tinctures, but without intent to manufacture (eg. a bunch of those plants in her garden) would they really throw her in jail for five years? I don't see it.

It kinda sounds like they've just added drug literature to their list of watched items along with large flasks & other equipment which tends to be used for drug manufacture. Maybe we can just sign an end user declaration when we buy our copies of Stamets :P

Edited by Anodyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they don't criminalize tin foil hats and dreadlocks or me and my partner are going to leave two wonderfull child specimens to orphanage!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they don't criminalize tin foil hats and dreadlocks or me and my partner are going to leave two wonderfull child specimens to orphanage!

I must have missed the part of the legislation where they intend to execute offenders. Keep your hat on it's not that bad yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but if I do serve a sentence I'll have to leave my hat at the kiosk for who knows how long.

I probably wwon't fit in without my tin foil hat damnit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the gov gave me a loan last year to study western herbal medicine.

the gov even paid me fortnightly to assist my studies.

I spent lots of that money buying any and every book I could find on herbal/plant medicine.

how do you spell conundrum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's spelt "fucked".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obviously not the primary intention of this legislation to prosecute people for information regarding the cultivation of cannabis or psychedelics.

They want to add charges onto or charge people based on the suspicion of manufacturing amphetamines or mdxx. Now people can and will get charged with this who are just going about their business maybe growing a few plants but you'd have to be fairly unlucky.

Nobody here is a real target and in the unlikely event police do knock on your door I think an informative book could go either way, left up to the cops discretion or lack thereof.

These laws are shit,but hardly the end of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really? you might say that when making cacti illegal due to substance laws the primary intention is not to harm normal gardeners, but there's been stories here of people's entire gardens being taken and destroyed.

the point is it doesn't matter what the "primary intention" is, it's a bullshit law and shouldn't be there in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, like the VLAD laws in QLD who's supposedly primary aim was "OMCs" has been applied to many other people and groups. And the police like the extra power. I heard the other day they started applying it to kiddy porners, which on the surface is all well and good, but the argument was that they started doing that to shore up their own interests in keeping the legislation going and not repealed. Which politician is going to come out as tacitly supporting child porn? The point being, what comes out of politicians mouths is not to be believed. If they only wanted legislation to work in a specific way, on a specific group of people, they would of worded it in such a way to only achieve that end not in these broad catchalls.

And the police in general won't care either, if the legislation supports them whacking on more charges for someone they decide to target then they will do so as leverage. As they do with VLAD.

Edited by simhanada
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and don't like it either. However, I don't see the point in stressing unless there is an effective way to challenge such laws. Does anyone have the ear of sympathetic legislator with any sway?

All I can see that can be done is keep calm and carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be no point stressing, but there is a point being aware of the bounds of such legislation & how it is likely to be used. If you like to read, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. The bill led me to the original Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 which it's an amendment of. Here are the salient bits (emphasis mine):

71E Possession of document containing information about trafficking or cultivating a drug of dependence
(1) A person who, without being authorised by or licensed under this Act or the regulations to do so or otherwise without a reasonable excuse, possesses a document containing instructions for the trafficking or cultivation of a drug of dependence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 600 penalty units or level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum) or both.

71F Publication of document containing instructions
(1) A person who, without being authorised by or licensed under this Act or the regulations to do so or otherwise without a reasonable excuse, publishes a document containing instructions for the trafficking or cultivation of a drug of dependence—
(a) with the intention that the instructions will be used by another person for the purposes of the trafficking or cultivation of a drug of dependence; or

(B) knowing or being reckless as to whether the instructions will be used by another person for the purpose of the trafficking or cultivation of a drug of dependence—
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 1200 penalty units or level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum) or both.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is irrelevant whether the document or the instructions contained in the document actually work to traffick or cultivate a drug of dependence. (3) For the purposes of this section, publish includes sell, offer for sale, let on hire, exhibit, display, distribute and demonstrate.

Humorous phrasing aside, that is actually much worse than I expected. Is this limited to Victoria, does anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get behind those vpn's peeps, post haste

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to fry chicken laced with lemon juice. makes you feel like your on speed.

thinking about buying jamie olivers next book...

not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I show someone my book on growing coffee beans I could get sent up the river ?

I wonder how that applies to electronic communications ie. web forums.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point sally.

stu???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how that applies to electronic communications ie. web forums.

I was curious about that too - here's their definition of "document" used in that legislation:

document includes, in addition to a document in writing

(a) any book, map, plan, graph or drawing;

(B) any photograph;

© any label, marking or other writing which identifies or describes anything of which it forms part, or to which it is attached by any means whatsoever;

(d) any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom;

(e) any film (including microfilm), negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and

(f) anything whatsoever on which is marked any words, figures, letters or symbols which are capable of carrying a definite meaning to persons conversant with them;

Which then leads you to their definition of "writing":

"writing" includes all modes of representing or reproducing words, figures or symbols in a visible form and expressions referring to writing shall be construed accordingly.

... and "person":

"person" includes a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;

So even if you have your non-profit company print off your purely pictorial instructions for "cultivating a drug of dependence", eg. growing trichocereus, then if you have been "reckless as to whether those instructions will be used by another person" for nefarious purposes, (i.e. if anyone might ever read them & then do something naughty) then you are guilty under this law. Not as regards coffee though. Ironically, given the caffeine-dependence of this country, caffeine is not on their list of "drugs of dependence". You can find the original here (starting on page 238) if you're interested - it's a long list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me that politics are more interested in drug cultivation than those who are actually cultivating. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get behind those vpn's peeps, post haste

Agreed, and also keep any sensitive e-books encrypted. Micro SD's are also your friend.

Shame that won't work with physical books. I guess everyone who's got one has to dispose of your encyclopedia of psychoactive plants now. :BANGHEAD2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×