NORML

[4:20]

NORML is the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. it is a organization for the USA, which has been around since the 60's or 70's. i forget. but if there is anyone who is interested in reforming the law against pot visit www.norml.org or you can just post you interest on this forum. if you are in the QLD i am starting up a chapter of thhe organization, so let me know if you are intersted

[pipeman]

NORML is the national organization for the reform of marijuana laws. it is a organization for the USA, which has been around since the 60's or 70's. i forget. but  if there is anyone who is interested in reforming the law against pot visit www.norml.org or you can just post you interest on this forum. if you are in the QLD i am starting up a chapter of thhe organization, so let me know if you are intersted

I might be interested. Exactly what type of things would this organisation do to promote legalisation?

[Ferre]

To see what they all do, I would say have a peep at their website, I took this banner of my site to show ya how they campain, just click the banner.

 

http://www.clubs.nl/ClubsData/67948/links/mrrat_norml.gif

 

http://www.norml.org/share/norml_button-100w.gif

[sols]

g'day; i'm interested in knowing more, on condition that NORML is not only giving info for when you get busted.

most sites i've seen only give info for what not to say to police at time of bust.

i'd love to know reason for NORML closing down their Australian branch years ago.

at the moment Australia has no reform organisation doing anything constructive at all.

 

re SA laws...i saw no protests at all about new legislation, what is SA hemp reform doing?

unless we get media attention, our opinions wont get heard.

 

 

so yes, i am interested

[Eddie E]

at the moment Australia has no reform organisation doing anything constructive at all.

..................... Then, to be blunt, it's about time you had!

 

Regards

Eddie

[Tom]

..................... Then, to be blunt, it's about time you had!

 

The prohibition of cannabis is a state matter and not federal, this means that you really need a branch or an organisation in each state or territory, all with different laws and political views and we have too many dinosaurs in state parliaments to get the necessary legislation passed into law.

 

If we want to change the cannabis laws then we are going to have to change the people that make the laws.

 

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/coolgleamA.gif http://64.207.13.28/mysmilies/otn/glasses/smokin.gif

[Eddie E]

The prohibition of cannabis is a state matter and not federal, this means that you really need a branch or an organisation in each state or territory, all with different laws and political views and we have too many dinosaurs in state parliaments to get the necessary legislation passed into law.

 

If we want to change the cannabis laws then we are going to have to change the people that make the laws.

 

OK, (Eddie steps back three paces.)

 

I got three problems with my continued postings

1 I’m an ex- head of drug squad

2 I’m a hell of a long way away and

3 I’m English!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So, the technique for getting out from under impending criticism is to be humble, apologetic and self-deprecating.

 

Like everyone else, I’m an end-product of my upbringing and experiences, and that includes almost twenty years of lobbying towards legalisation, across the board and not just cannabis, in the UK. That process started well before my involvement. But about ten years ago there was an effort to identify why so little progress was being made with the debate. We had the traditional marches, regular articles in the press, regular surveys about drug use, the frequent harsh reports about kids use and the punishments deemed appropriate, the youngsters kicked out of school, …….. and all this in a country allegedly tolerant of personal freedoms and individual choices.

 

We knew that a fair percentage of the community were using cannabis, we also knew that a majority had tried it at some time. Even the occasional Members of Parliament spoke in favour, but we were making no headway. One of the problems was that the various lobby groups, acutely aware that there were limited sources of funding, were actually competing with each other to make the loudest noise, to come up with the latest gimmick and to grab the best headlines. The regular marches brought demonstrators into conflict with authority and provided hundreds of column inches about the type of people, those ‘activists’, that marched.

 

Despite the research showing that almost half the population were using cannabis on an irregular basis the general population was receiving an image of all users as ‘left wing, liberal anti-authority, drop-out, anti work, laid back, casually, if not scruffily, dressed, individuals who were intent on getting authority to allow something that the majority of the population knew little of, and cared less about. It was realised that cannabis use was not perceived as ‘respectable’ and could not, therefore, be supported as ‘acceptable’.

 

The turning pint was the creation of a national ‘base’ of organisation that countered adverse publicity, that placed the best placed lobby organisation into the media spotlight and attempted to get authoritative research going on angles that would expose drug (cannabis) use as not as dangerous as was being portrayed. At the same time there was an effort to move the public face of ‘lobbying’ away from confrontation and towards a situation where support for a policy change did not appear to be support for increased use.

 

When that position became established it made it possible for individuals, who had given the matter much thought, to actually come out and give reasoned argument towards a policy change, towards a more compassionate approach and towards support for basic individual liberties without having to be seen as simply supporting an anti-authority wing of liberalism. It allowed a host of individuals within the media, Government, policing, further education, economics, religion, health and a collection of other disciplines to make their researched and justified views known without immediately being seen as encouraging use. Legalisation was also seen as a tool to avoid many of the problems of both drug abuse and problems of prohibition. In effect, legalisation became respectable.

 

The creation of a small liaison group, holding the respect of all the lobbying groups, allowed a reduction in competing activities and it worked as a clearing house for everyone to consult. That debate has now spread to be Europe wide with a new ‘liaison’ group emerging. Voices may be right but they need to be co-ordinated and they need to establish the respect of the legislature and government.

 

Yes, responsibility for drug policy falls to State and Territory but under the ‘guidance’ of the federal co-ordination. The work that was done in the 80’s ………….

“Australia’s drug policy underwent a major shift with the inception of National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) in 1985. The punitive approach was dropped and replaced with a focus on public health and harm reduction. The NCADA stressed that drug use should be treated primarily as a health issue. Drug policy authority was placed under the Federal Department of Health rather than the Federal Attorney General’s Department, due at least in part to the emergence of HIV/AIDS. The new program involved a partnership between the Commonwealth (or federal government), States and Territories.”

……………… delegated the responsibilities but maintained the co-ordination role by retaining federal research, co-ordinating committees and the ability for the ‘boss’ to be able talk about ‘Australian Policy’. That federal ‘whip hand’ was more in evidence by the late 90’s ……………

“. In June 1999, Commonwealth, State and Territory health and law enforcement Ministers agreed on a national approach to the development of a treatment instead of incarceration initiative designed to divert illicit drug users from the criminal justice system into education and treatment. Diversion is not considered appropriate for trafficking offences. “

 

It does appear, from a distance, like the opposition is organised at a national level and that it would be ‘difficult’ for an individual State to make any dramatic changes without federal approval. Indeed most assessments of State initiatives fall back on examining the different results of individual State changes (albeit minor) to come to some conclusion………………..

e.g.” A comparative study of minor marijuana offenders in South Australia and Western Australia concluded that both the CEN scheme and the more punitive prohibition approach had little deterrent effect upon marijuana users. However, the adverse social consequences of a marijuana conviction far outweighed those of receiving an expiation notice. A significantly higher proportion of those apprehended for marijuana use in Western Australia reported problems with employment, further involvement with the criminal justice system, as well as accommodation and relationship problems. There has been strong support by law enforcement for the CEN scheme. The scheme has proven to be relatively cost-effective and far more cost-effective than prohibition would have been.”

 

Now I know this is a long post but it leaves me with a few outstanding questions and you are much closer to the problem.

1 Do you think that if you persuaded any individual State to try cannabis legalisation that it would be allowed to do so by the federal government?

2 Do you think that you have any chance of getting representation at State level on a ‘one cause’ election ticket?

3 Do you know of any politician, whether at State or Federal level, that would not grab the chance for additional votes if he/she saw legalisation of cannabis as an attractive, respectable, vote getting proposition?

 

If, and I guess I would answer that way, you think that all three questions should be answered with a ‘no’ then you have to support the aim of changes of policy with some form of federal co-ordination – just like the government. It doesn’t need to be big, nor brash, nor high profile – just respected, trusted and dependable.

 

Do I need to retreat more fully, or do I need to move to the sunshine to carry on the debate?

 

Regards

Eddie (places crash helmet in place).

[4:20]

The only way to chnge the laws, is to get out in force. In seattle we have hempfest durring hempfest we gathered like 250,000 signitures, which put a referendum on the ballot to lower possesion of marijuanna below "j-walking" as a priority. it is a small step, but it is a step. i don't expect weed to be legal in my life time, but i will work to have the foundations in place. All that is needed is people, and time. i personal think that australia is in a better postion for legaliztion ove the USA for Australia has not had the negitive enforcment of the US. Look at thhe de-criminalztion acts form the ACT and SA. If you want herb to be legal then we must get up get out and get noticed. I am waiting on my certifaction from NORML. When i get it, i will have moe info for everyone. till then sit baack and blaze a fat one. 420

[Guest Urbanhog]

Sometimes I feel that collecting signtures is bit of a waste of time, I think they are only great for burning papers to start the pollie's woodfires in their taxpayer paid homes..... :angry:

 

Urbanhog http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/sp/chefico.gif

[Tom]

Eddie, I meant no criticism whatsoever and I put a very high value on your input, your last post may be long but it is full of useful information that is useful to anyone interested in the legalisation of cannabis and your on-going advice in these matters would be very much appreciated, you've "been there, done that" and that is something we can't say........ yet.

 

I'll try to answer your problems and questions now:

 

1. I’m an ex- head of drug squad.

 

Fantastic, you have first hand experience in dealing with all levels, from users to the political scene.

 

2. I’m a hell of a long way away.

 

What does matter distance to the internet and as I said you've "been there, done that".

 

3 I’m English!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So what, I was born in Manchester.

 

Now the outstanding questions:

 

1 Do you think that if you persuaded any individual State to try cannabis legalisation that it would be allowed to do so by the federal government?

 

Yes, unlike the USA drug laws regarding personal use are a state matter and the federal government has little official say about it.

 

2 Do you think that you have any chance of getting representation at State level on a ‘one cause’ election ticket?

 

None whatsoever.

 

3 Do you know of any politician, whether at State or Federal level, that would not grab the chance for additional votes if he/she saw legalisation of cannabis as an attractive, respectable, vote getting proposition?

 

Some of the politicians are already there but as they do not belong to the major parties they are very poorly funded and have to rely on volunteers for much of their research and election help. Without the research they can't do much and without the election help they can't increase their party size.

 

If you do move to Australia, come to Tassie.

 

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/coolgleamA.gif http://64.207.13.28/mysmilies/otn/glasses/smokin.gif