ACT to decriminalize illicit drugs

[Plantris]

Maybe someone else has already posted this in another section. 

 

But yeah, as of October 28, possession of small quantities of illicit drugs will only attract max penalty of $160. It sounds like the gist is that if you get caught, you get fined, or go through a program of some sort. 

 

I must say I am surprised. Police will still have power to arrest and send to court, but the max penalty remains the same. No jail. 

 

Crazy times

Edited August 31, 2023 by Plantris

[fyzygy]

$160 is nothing to a federal politician (who gets an allowance of several hundreds of dollars per night they have to stay in Canberra -- even if they already own a second home there). 

$160 will hit an unemployed person pretty hard. 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by fyzygy

[Plantris]

Still a big step forward. 

Big difference between $160 and potential jail time. 

But yes I imagine $160 would hit someone with little income pretty hard

[Ishmael Fleishman]

...

Edited August 16 by Ishmael Fleishman
link

[fyzygy]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/03/act-drug-decriminalisation-laws-drug-tourism

 

 

It's ironic, prescription drugs are a leading global cause of death and disability, alongside unsafe patient care ... and that was before the pandemic. 

 

[Plantris]

For cocaine its 1.5 grams, I think the same for MDMA, amphetamine 

 

Not sure on the others but it was a similar equivalent

 

 

[fyzygy]

1 hour ago, Plantris said:

For cocaine its 1.5 grams

Irrespective of purity? I suspect that in the poor end of town, people are snorting mostly paracetamol. 

[Ishmael Fleishman]

...

Edited August 16 by Ishmael Fleishman

[Plantris]

On 04/09/2023 at 3:41 PM, fyzygy said:

Irrespective of purity? I suspect that in the poor end of town, people are snorting mostly paracetamol. 

I'm not too sure mate, but I would imagine so. Ie; you get caught with a substance deemed to be cocaine,  cant have more than 1.5g total. 

 

I see your logic though, could actually be alot less than 1.5g of coke. Would be keen to know if anyone finds out. 

[Yeti101]

Important to note the threshold amounts don’t entirely make sense. For example, the threshold for psilocybin is 1.5 grams, no matter what form it’s in. ACT uses what are sometimes called “container” laws, this means that getting caught with 1 gram of pure psilocybin puts you under the threshold, but 2 grams of wet P. subaeruginosa would technically put you over. 
 

And yes, fines are regressive in the sense that they hit people with less money much harder - doubly so when you consider that the police will confiscate whatever you’ve just been caught with. 

[-RC-]

Commentors above have asked reasonable questions which, if the laws were based on reason/scientific evidence/and or harm, would ostensibly have reasonable answers.

 

But that assumption, that drug law is somewhat based on logic, is naive in the extreme. 

 

This recent article examines how religion and racism form a large and foundational part of our drug laws globally, particularly when considering 'alien' drugs, like psychedelics and most 'New World' substances, bar cocaine.

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20503245231198526 

 

Don't expect reason to be accepted when laws fly in the face of it 

[fyzygy]

^ Maybe this explains why the conservatives -- notorious racist and monotheist ideologues -- are trying to override the proposed ACT reforms at the Commonwealth level. 

 

Khat is another classic instance of (ethnoracial) demonisation of a "public health" (if not spiritual) menace. 

 

According to Rätsch, even the Bavarian "purity law," regulating the ingredients of beer, had a strong religious motivation -- to suppress paganism, as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot 

 

But let's not forget, the ever-present profit motive. Big Pharma (and its handmaiden, the TGA) always has a say in Oz drug policy, to be sure. 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by fyzygy

[Yeti101]

On 21/9/2023 at 10:35 AM, -RC- said:

Commentors above have asked reasonable questions which, if the laws were based on reason/scientific evidence/and or harm, would ostensibly have reasonable answers.

 

But that assumption, that drug law is somewhat based on logic, is naive in the extreme. 

 

This recent article examines how religion and racism form a large and foundational part of our drug laws globally, particularly when considering 'alien' drugs, like psychedelics and most 'New World' substances, bar cocaine.

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20503245231198526 

 

Don't expect reason to be accepted when laws fly in the face of it 

 

I think we all know the root of existing drug laws isn’t reason, it’s power, specifically the misuse of it. In any case I think it important that folk understand the detail of what’s happening in the ACT. 

 

On 21/9/2023 at 11:08 AM, fyzygy said:

^ Maybe this explains why the conservatives -- notorious racist and monotheist ideologues -- are trying to override the proposed ACT reforms at the Commonwealth level. 

 

Khat is another classic instance of (ethnoracial) demonisation of a "public health" (if not spiritual) menace. 

 

According to Rätsch, even the Bavarian "purity law," regulating the ingredients of beer, had a strong religious motivation -- to suppress paganism, as mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinheitsgebot 

 

But let's not forget, the ever-present profit motive. Big Pharma (and its handmaiden, the TGA) always has a say in Oz drug policy, to be sure. 

 

 

 

TGA and big Pharma, for sure, and the medical/psychiatric establishment too. But don’t forget the role the police play in all of this. IMO, the final version of these laws has their fingerprints all over it.