1993 Qld Government discussion paper

[bufo marinus]

Forgot I even had this book but it's such a long winded pile of numbers and graphs and psycho babble that after flicking through a few pages again it's not hard to see why.

It highlights that pollies have had favourable info on pot for some time

 

 

This thing is 157 A4 pages thick so it will take me a while to wade back through it, but here are a few items,

 

Chapter 2 The Background to Cannabis

 

Page 9, Table 1.1 Summary of Inquiries

 

British East India

Hemp Commission 1893-94

Findings; Cannabis use more extensive than believed, and effects less than feared. Use not linked to insanity or crime. Excessive use weakens constitution and increases susceptibility to disease. No injurious effects from moderate use. Less habit forming than either opium or alcohol.

Recommendations; Ban on hemp drugs would likely do more harm than good

 

There are lots more inquiries listed, a few against cannabis, but more than half recommending some form of decriminalisation

 

Chapter 3 The Effects of Cannabis

Page 24 Psycomotor Functioning

Many studies have shown that THC is infrequently detected in the blood of dead drivers as the only drug present. In the majority of cases THC is found in combination with alcohol.

Page 26 Psychiatric Disorders

The relationship between cannabis use and the incidence of schizophrenia has been the subject of research and debate for almost 20 years. The results are still equivocal. Researchers have not been able to conduct studies that have been able to test a person's predisposition to schizophrenia prior to cannabis use. Therefore it is not possible to establish a direct relationship between cannabis use and the onset of schizophrenia.

It may be that cannabis use is a predisposing or independent risk factor in the development of schizophrenia but the scientific evidence to date is equivocal on this point.

 

Chapter 5 Cannabis Use and Attitudes to Cannabis Use

Page 41 National Campaign Against Drug Abuse survey

That there is a positive association between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs cannot be in doubt; of those who have never used cannabis, only very small proportions have used any of the other illicit drugs. However, although two variables may be connected it does not follow that one is necessarily the cause of the other. While the users of other illicit drugs have, except in the case of barbituates, almost invariably also used cannabis, it is also true that the majority of those who have tried cannabis have not tried other illicit drugs.

Page 44

The results of analysis [of more than 20 Dutch prevalence studies since 1970 and equivalent material from other jurisdictions] show that the prevalence of [Dutch] cannabis use since 1970 decreased, whereas the policy became more tolerant. Since 1979 a slight increase in the use of cannabis can be observed. A comparison with data from countries with a more restrictive policy reveals that the use of cannabis in the Netherlands is on the same level as in Sweden and Norway, but far lower than in the U.S. However the downward trend since 1984 did not occur in the Netherlands.

De facto decriminalisation of drug use does not appear to produce more cannabis use.

National household surveys [into the use of hashish and cannabis] have shown a rather stable pattern for almost 2 decades.

 

Chapter 7 Cannabis Law Enforcement

Page 76

The Committee accepts the view of it's police members that discriminatory enforcement outcomes are the product of factors such as the differential visibility of offences and offenders and not the product of any deliberate intent in either law or enforcement practice. However it must be faced that, for whatever the reasons, cannabis law enforcement does have inequitable outcomes. This raises the possibility that the enforcement of the law is widely perceived as being discriminatory, and that this has an adverse influence on respect for the law in general, as well as legislators, the judiciary, and the police service.

 

 

I will pick a few more pages out as I find them but you get the picture?

These professional pollies dismiss there own report findings, the view of their own police service, other international studies to do one thing,... Keep their grubby jobs

[pipeman]

are the police in Australia, and in particular QLD really in favour of cannabis law reform? I seriously doubt it.

 

Police like having power over people. For some its an ego trip and for others they view it as making their job easier. And anti cannabis laws are a useful tool for them to have since so many people do it.

[bufo marinus]

Are they in favour of cannabis law reform? No not out right.

This was a discussion paper with a lot of facts and figures and graphs of demographics of offenders and statistics on court appearances etc. The police would then have entered their own submission after this paper was distributed.

What was raised in a few different paragraphs via some statistics that were provided by the police and others in putting it together was that the enforcement of law was discriminatory and inequitable, and pointed to a lot of resources catching a skewed proportion of the population

 

Page 75

However, even when all these factors are taken into account, it would still seem that those apprehended for cannabis use are not representative of cannabis users generally. This is an extremely significant point; it seems inescapable that the laws pertaining to cannabis are not equitably enforced in the sense that the chances of being apprehended are closely related to the incidence of the offense. Also those who are more commonly apprehended tend to come from the less privileged social groups - the unemployed and unskilled. Their rate of apprehension may also in part be due to their increased frequency of use, but it may also be due in part to their relatively disadvantaged social position. Conversely, the rate of apprehension for other, more privileged groups is lower; for instance, the 'user' rate for both managerial/administrative and professional groups is in the order of 5-10 per cent while the apprehension rates for these groups are 0.6 per cent and 1.2 per cent respectively. Again relative rates of use may be a factor.

In summary, apprehended offenders are overwhelmingly young, single,unemployed or unskilled males. It should be noted that a similar apprehended profile appears for most other offences.

 

Page 97

Law enforcement activities are said to benefit suppliers as a group by maintaining a high level of profitability, both through the maintenance of high price levels and the removal of excess competition (those individual suppliers who are apprehended).

[Shithappens]

It highlights that pollies have had favourable info on pot for some time

 

But i bet you could count the pollies on one hand that have read it they are 2 busy sucking up to there party members to read stuff like that

[bufo marinus]

It's such a strange thing to read. It lists all of these concerns page after page but seems to always end up at the end of a section with something like 'However, our findings actually show this'

Also some of the %'s as to where all the coppers funds are going are spelt out in black and white very obviously,...

 

Page 95

Using such measures, the notional costing of criminal justice system resources devoted to drug law enforcement was $27,000,000 (See Table 7.18) - Notional Cost - Drug Law Enforcement 1991-92 - QLD

 

Page 96

Again using a simple proportioning technique, the cannabis proportion of these offences would be 94.9%, or about $25,600,00

 

 

The cops enforce the law. No if's, but's or maybe's

If the law says you can't wear an orange hat then all orange hat wearers will be apprehended, thats what they do.

I just wonder if they think the funds could be better spent in other areas?

[Indycar]

If the Qld fuzz had their fkn heads screwed on str8, they'd realize their fight against MJ in is a bigger battle then what it was back in that era. More and more people are opting to "grow their own". Generations grow up and are accepting that it isn't a big a issue as they'd (govrnment) would like it to be. Afterall, it only the government officials and so called switched on shrinks that really oppose it nowadays that are kicking up a stink.

 

Decriminalize it, and focus more on this ice epidemic if they really care about us and future generations...

[bufo marinus]

Yes they will be begging for pot to replace Ice

But I'm sure the pot smokers will pay again

 

Page 8

The evolution of the various international conventions* which are the basis of Australian Law has some significance. One salient feature of the process was that cannabis was basically treated in identical fashion to and frequently described as a narcotic. Secondly, conventions and laws did not derive from research into cannabis or it's effects and sometimes arose in spite of existing research.

 

*Shanghai Conference (on opium) 1909

*International Opium Convention 1911-12 The Hague

*International Opium Convention: Agreement Concerning the Suppression of the Manufacture of, Internal *Trade in, and Use of, Prepared Opium 1925, Geneva

*Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs 1931 Geneva

*Agreement Concerning the Suppression of Opium Smoking 1931, Bangkok

*New York Protocol 1946(ammending 1925 and 1931 conventions and agreements) New York

*Protocol Bringing Under International Control Drugs Outside of the Scope of the(1931 Convention) 1948 Paris

*Protocol for Limiting and Regulating the Cultivation of the Poppy Plant, The Production of, International and Wholesale Trade in, and Use of Opium, 1953 New York

*Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 Vienna

*Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961(Ammending Protocols 1972)

*United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 Vienna

*A general reference is Bruun, K, Pan, L., and Rexed, I. 1975, The Gentlemen's Club: International Control of Drugs and Alcohol, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Edited December 29, 2006 by bufo marinus

[bufo marinus]

If you read the list of conventions that the Australian government sent a diplomat to, you'll see most of them regarded opium!!

A point noted by the authors of this discussion paper!

 

Professor John Western, Advisory com on illicit drugs, Criminal Justice Commission

Dr Janet Irwin retired Med practitioner, Criminal Justice Commission

Dr Mary Sheehan University of Qld

Dr Peter Nelson University of New England

Robert Auldred Chief Director Alcohol and Drug Foundation Qld

Dr Adrian Reynolds 'Biala' Qld Health

Ivor Shaw Drug and Alcohol Qld Health

Trevor Carlton Kids Help Line

Det Superintendant Alan Freeman Qld Police

Inspector Tim Fenlon Qld Police

Det Inspector Roy Wall Drug Squad Qld Police

Det Sergeant Steven Tregarthen Task Force Qld Police Barrister

Phil Dickie Criminal Justice Commission

 

This paper was then sent to Ron O'Regan Q.C. CJC as well as being made available to the public for a 3 month discussion period where submissions could have been made to the above group.

Although once again they started with a bias as all submissions, like it or not, had to deal with the fact that

 

Page 102 Issues to be Addressed

Australian legislation on illicit drugs is the consequence of a series of international conventions, basically determined in the period 1911-31 but reaffirmed as recently as 1988. These conventions oblige parties to them to prohibit and enforce prohibitions on the use or non-medical use of a range of drugs and also to prohibit and enforce prohibitions on production and commerce in these drugs

 

So how the FAAAARRRK are we ever going to change ANYTHING if these KAAAAAHHHNNS have already signed our Liberty away on a series of overseas junkets dealing with farking Opium 1911-31 !!

 

We mean NOTHING to the Law. We have no voice.