No new schedulings

[Torsten]

The TGA did not look at any of our friends at the June meeting. I thought this was noteworthy

There are some changes to nicotine laws and also to ethyl chloride, but neither are really that interesting.

[Benzito]

Thankyou Gaia! :D

[-YT-]

Nice :D Heres a noobish question lol T how often do the TGA hold meetings concerning Schedulings?

[ 11. August 2005, 09:13: Message edited by: Young Tripper ]

[bloodbob]

3 or 4 times a year I belive.

[occidentalis]

Dragibus is still free .

[Torsten]

4 times per year. They usually release a pre meeting gazette a couple of weeks before and a post meeting gazette 6 weeks after.

[caludia]

who are these bureaucrats anyway? academics?

[apothecary]

Careful mate, "these people" are people who are of a far higher calibre than us, you definitely shouldn't think or question!

If they were just regular people who were gonna die one day, whos shit stank the same as everyone else, and had ten fingers and ten toes, would they have the balls to dictate what we are allowed and not allowed to do to ourselves?

Of course not! Thus by logical reduction, these people must be omniescent godlike creatures.

[ 12. August 2005, 04:44: Message edited by: apothecary ]

[caludia]

isn't it astonishing that unelected, unrepresentative, and probably substantially uninformed people can make decisions which restrict the civil liberties of law abiding citizens?

I wonder if all these bureaucrats sat down and drank kratom tea before they decided to recommend to schedule it? Unlikely. Yet what could be more informative and relevant to that process than actually experiencing the herb in question?

My own opinion is that when unelected, unrepresentative people start affecting the lives of the citizenry, the citizenry has every right to expose (personally) these people, one by one and individually, and to subject them to rigorous scrutiny in the same way that politicians are subjected to personal scrutiny.

If you do anything in your life which has a blanket effect over the civil liberties that others enjoy, whether that be in a lawmaking capacity or simply as a member of an "advisory board" or as an "expert", you deserve every bit of personal scrutiny that comes your way.

Am i being too harsh do you reckon? Maybe, i don't know.

[-YT-]

"isn't it astonishing that unelected, unrepresentative, and probably substantially uninformed people can make decisions which restrict the civil liberties of law abiding citizens"

Its a joke gone wrong i imagine....

[ 12. August 2005, 09:17: Message edited by: Young Tripper ]

[Torsten]

The panel is made up of 8 appointees and 8 elected members. The appointees are selected by the government and include representatives of the police, health department, etc.

The 'elected' members are actually not elected as such. The seats are nominated to an agency and then the agency elects their representative. eg the Australian Medical Association has a seat. This seat is filled by an election within the AMA. Ditto for the dental assoc, veterinary assoc, etc.

The alternative therapeutics group is represented by just one seat. Last time I checked this was occupied by a representative of Bullivant's Health Foods - one of the worlds largest supplement manufacturer (incl "Natures Way" and many other brands). Bullivants is the closest thing you could get to a pharmaceutical corporation. Essentially the alternative therapies industry has NO representation unless it involves BIG BUCKS.

[caludia]

i'd like to know their names, qualifications, experience, etc. Especially of the 8 government appointees. Is that info public? i am WAY too lazy to UTFSE

[Jesus On Peyote]

Bring em down,bring em all down !

[caludia]

or at least, make them more accountable to the public, whose basic civil rights they curtail... (even though none of them have been properly elected)

[Torsten]

that info is public - you just have to find it.

Our rights are curtailed by beurocrats every day and in most cases we don't mind too much. The beurocrats kinda make sure that society keeps functioning as a whole, especially in densely populated areas. They don't need to be elected, because it is the elected officials who give them the authority. Our federal and state governemnts cannot shirk the responsibility for what these people do, so if you have an issue with the TGA then take it to lil johnny, or if you don't like our drug laws then take is to your premier.

[caludia]

there aren't many bureaucrats, apart from judges (who interpret laws made by parliament), who have the power to curtail civil rights in a profound way.

Yes, they exist. But bureaucrats do more administration than anything else. This is a case where unelected bureaucrats make recommendations which curtail civil rights. Therefore, regardless of who apopinted them, they should be held accountable for their recommendations.

[caludia]

oh, and bob carr didn't read the last letter i sent him For that matter, neither did peter garrett.

[Hagakure]

we really need someone in the public eye representative of the drug taking community.

[Torsten]

burocrats make decisions that curtail (and often protect) our rights in quite dramatic ways.

The vast majority (probably as high as 99%) of decisions in local councils are made by burocrats, with the councillors being held accountable.

The EPA sets limits for things under their control.

Airport and harbour authorities make many of their own rules.

The fundamental problem with the TGA is that it was designed to deal with therapeutic matters and not with drug matters. The federal government should have never tried to take that power away from the states in this defacto way. The TGA should have never gotten involved in herbal matters either apart from stipulating labelling. Really, when it comes down to it, we should have no substance withheld from us, but accurate and honest labelling should be strictly enforced.

[caludia]

yes i see what you are saying. i don't know anything about the TGA, but from what you say, i totally agree with the problem being the separation of recreational drugs from therapeutic medications. and yes bureaucrats in the RTA for example have the power to "recommend" (decide) that the speed limit in a certain street is too high or low for example, which affects the behaviour of all the people in that area.

but in my opinion there is a fundamental difference between being told "you cant pump mercury into this here lake" or "you can't exceed 50km/h on this patch of road" to being told "you can't grow this plant or put the leaves into your mouth".

there is a line in pihkal about "my body is a sovereign state, its borders and my own, and in my body, i am the sovereign power" or something to that effect.

this is different to being told "careful not to exceed 50km/h, there's an old folks home in this street"

therefore the "experts" who make these recommendations SHOULD be held accountable. You can't pin everything on the Premier or the Prime Minister. The Bureaucracy is HUGE. and the individuals involved in the bureaucracy should be accountable to the public whose lives they effect, whether they work or consult for the TGA, the RTA, the EPA, or the friggin ABC

now i know the issue & laws are more complicated than this, but let's say as a silly example, that the law just says "16 Experts and Public Officers shall decide when a plant or substance therein is Undesirable to the Public Welfare". OK, so although philosophically you may disagree with that law, you can probably also agree that there are cases where this law WILL result in a GOOD decision to outlaw something (for example, theoretically, something powerfully destructive qand addictive. this is just a theoretical example)

So given the above scenario, if these Experts recommend to schedule something that many people DONT think should be scheduled, who should be held accountable? The federal government? Well, yes. I agree. But REALISTICALLY, the people making the recommendations are the bureaucrats. John Howard doesn't know what Kratom is. Realistically, the Feds won't change their law because we write an email to the local member. But maybe the individual TGA "experts" will feel a little more accountable (and be a little more careful) when making their next bunch of recommendations?

maybe just a difference in personal politics here, i dont know. i am anti-bureacracy. my main political nightmare is living in Russia in the 1960s :D

[ 14. August 2005, 20:48: Message edited by: RimbaudRambo ]

[Torsten]

in the US many officials are elected. In switzerland almost all public servants are elected (even teachers). This means that everything becomes a popularity contest and the individual ambitions feed any hype and hysteria that is needed to attain the position. I don't think australia is a mature enough society to even attempt this. In the US it is a major focus for corruption and untruths. In switzerland it is somehow working, but the swiss have a very different attitude to just about everything, so what works there is rarely a model for anywhere else.

I fully agree that the TGA should be accountable. But personally I think it needs to held accountable primarily via an independent review body. At the moment the TGA reviews itself - a scenario that simply cannot work for such a powerful body where such huge financial interests are involved.

I too believe we have a sovereign right over our bodies, which is why I believe the TGA's role should be in labelling and education rather than in crontrol. It's not like their pissy laws are having much of an impact anyway.

I read the other day that the drug agency in germany can schedule a compound without democratic process, but that such a schedule can be upheld for no longer than a year. After this maximum period it either expires or has to go before parliament to become law.

This seems to me to be incorporate the 'best' of both worlds from a government perspective. The govvy doesn't get bogged down in red tape when urgent decision need to be made to 'protect the population', while the population is protected from an overzealous agency by a sunset clause.

[teonanacatl]

write a letter of complaint, one letter is worth 100 people.

[Thelema]

HI,

given the rich correspondence I have had over the years with the TGA and NDPSC with regard to kratom and Salvia (oh yeah remember THAT far back?!) I have a few observations that might be of interest.

1) It greatly intrigues me that the alternative therapeutics chair of the TGA is head of Bullivants. Even if the NEW chairholder isn't, the observation is that this person has/had a major conflict of interest between the operation of his business and the institution of public policy. I plan to get an answer to this.

2) The TGA is not bound to review itself - though it IS true that a subject in review is autochthonous. (fuck ive been waiting 3 years to use that word) ie. they review themselves.

3) From what Ive gathered from general public sheets, and personal correspondences, the outlook of the TGA and NDPSC is particularly closed to the realization of cognitive liberty, a term which I hope any ethnohead realizes the full import of. These people are our antipodes in that vast space, and the real question should be why they have all the power whilst we have so little. Or is it really the other way around?

everything is so confusing today, topics erupt multiple topics that spawn an exponential rain upon my brain.

[Legba]

what are the guidelines that these authorities are following?

do they identify plants open to abuse that may result in harm, and then schedule them? but nicotine and alcohol totally eclipse all other substances in this regard. so what is their agenda?

is it that public oppinion can sway their decision? perhaps it is a web involving pharmceutical companies or those with the money to manipulate such situations to monopolise and capitalise? have they evolved into a bunch of ignorant pen pushers who do their jobs, despite having little knowledge of the subject material involved?

maybe a blend of all the above and more....and how sad would that be

[Anodyne]

Bacchant - I need answers to a lot of questions about the TGA myself, but I can tell you the criteria they consider when scheduling a drug/plant. They are:

*the potential hazards associated with the use of a substance

*the extent & patterns of use of a substance

*the potential for abuse of a substance

*the need for access to a substance, taking into account its toxicity compared with other substances available for a similar purpose

*any other matters that the Committee considers necessary to protect public health, including the risks (whether imminent or long-term) of death, illness or injury resulting from its use

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they consider all of these fairly. When putting kratom in S9, the 2 main pieces of evidence that kratom had a "potential for abuse" were a 30-year-old, biased study of kratom "addicts" by a Thai doctor, and info from a bunch of bunch of websites. The dozens of studies suggesting a wide range of medicinal uses were completely ignored, except to say that all the conditions which could be helped by kratom could also be treated by something else.