What can I/We do to help legalize cannabis in Australia?

[ConvexConepiece]

There are a few valid reasons why authorities dismiss our wish to legalise Cannabis and its all very well to say we want legalisation .. but how, and in what form ? ,

so its up to us to develop a template for a workable law that the general population would find coherant, acceptable, and workable ..

 

In the past as many have witnessed Sth Australias' experimental attempts to de-criminalise Cannabis pretty much fucked up and resulted in SA becoming labeled the 'Marijuana Capital" of Oz, such reputations are most distasteful to general community and an anathema to all politicains ...

why did this happen , well it seems the SA became the goose laying golden eggs that every surronding state wanted , along with the natural enterpise of ppl who harnessed the relaxed laws to make huge profits ..

so whatever new law we propose must be national right accross Aust.

 

Another major concern amongst the general community is the world-wide reported effects of Cannabis upon the treasures of our life, our children .. its pretty irrelevant whether the reports are right or wrong because it has become so entrenched today that it would be easier to make laws that go a long way towards keeping Cannabis out of young ppls reach, ...

at present there is no way of proving or disproving the validity of these claims which link Cannabis use to schizophrenia ,

so whatever new laws we might propose they must have real and apparent safegards for the youth ..

 

I reckon 'Cannabis Growers Licence' would be one method of controlling and monitoring the use of the herb , and after all the authorities do feel so much more secure when they have control and oversight of what is going on in any given community pursuits ,

as much as we all hate Big Brother looking over our shoulder iam sure we are going to have to give ground on our God-given right to cultivate and use this wonderful herb if we have any chance of being able to pursue our hobby without fear of being branded criminal and facing imprisonment ..

 

there ... ive run outta ideas for now

 

Frazzle, you do bring up a couple of interesting points, the first big one is that we would need to be protesting with exactly what we were hoping to achieve in mind... we would have to make it very clear to them what we wanted to achieve and be very sensible about what we asked for. I think a good guideline to start with is using their own classification of what is currently called 'personal use' as the base - ie. a half dozen or even less would be acceptable because lets face it, you can supply yourself indefinately from a few good sized plants if you know how to grow.

 

As for the effects of cannabis on children in particular, not only do I know of parents who allow their children to smoke because they feel their children are better off with it instead of being on dexamphetamine or similar, but lets face it - alcohol is much more of a problem among youths and always will be due to its availability, and effects which can render young people completely unaware of their actions which in my mind is far more dangerous and surely the public would have to see that.

 

As for schizophrenia, well I think thats the big myth they keep floating around to keep stomping us down. I dont believe there has been any medical studies that proved this myth? ofcourse im willing to be told im wrong but I think merely pointing out that there are plenty of schizophrenics who have never smoked cannabis and that whos to say they didnt already have it?

 

I remember I read a scientific experiment where (and dont quote me on numbers), but as an experiment, scientists got 100 odd volunteers, some regular smokers, some never smoked before, asked them to fill out some personal information about themselves for their survey, and then split them into groups of 5 or 10 i think it was. They then gave half the groups real cannabis to smoke, and half a placebo. They then deliberately tried to provoke a violent reaction from all of the groups by specifically telling them that what they answered on their survey was not good enough or something - ie. they psychologically provoked the groups. Guess what the results were? it was very clear the stoned guys were more like huh? and shrugged it off, continuing to laugh amongst themselves. The same couldn't be said for the groups who had the placebo....

 

It is things like this that we need to get some research material on and present our side of the argument in a most efficient and as factual as possible manner to not leave them with the avenue of putting users down to 'schizophrenics waiting to happen'.

 

I think in this day and age, even nonsmokers know this sorta stuff is bullshit.... everyone knows a smoker, and if you dont then your most likely a hermit living by yourself. Common sense will have to prevail!

 

And I do like the idea of a medicalal license - if it would only take a trip to a doctor/psychiatrist or whatever and to ensure them that you know the risks, and that you sign off on knowing what your getting yourself into, that it shouldnt be too difficult to get a said license for personal use and growing, and sure you may be on their register but so long as you didnt grow more than the law you shouldnt have a problem....

[littlbit]

The only way we will win this argument is to make then honor the Treaties on Human Rights, Single Treaty on Narcotics and of course our own constitution. Now we know we can win if we all fight the same fight, that is why the Canadian laws have been thrown out, and given they are a Commonwealth country we can use their case laws to help us here.

 

It is very involved, but simply put they when signing to the Single Treaty on Narcotics said that they would provide Cannabis and Opium for Medical use, now since they have not lived up to the treaty they are in breach. They are also in breach of the Human Rights Accord they signed us all up for too, so they are in deep do-do if we all handle it the right way.

 

We had a meeting with a lawyer at PILCH yesterday and she is going to see what they can do to find us a barrister who can represent us using these rights we are being denied and making them accountable under the treaties. So lets see what happens now.

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

You'd think so lillbit. But some years ago I was in a "justice" type course, and was in a lecture on constitutional law when the lecturer gave us a funny story. Funny to him at least. He told of a bloke who was before the supreme court on a matter , (wouldn't say what the matter was), and it was subject to UN treaties. He claimed this invalidated the court's autonomy to hear him, and their soverignty over him in this matter.

 

He protested the court's right to charge him, as he refused to recognise the court's jurisdiction. That it was a UN matter, and supposedly higher than the supreme court, he said he demanded to be heard by the court that actually had jurisdiction, making and implementing the laws he was ultimately charged under. Kinda like a right to face his accuser type stance.

Similar sounding to what you suggest, and I agree.

 

The court didn't, telling him any more comments like that would result in contemt charges being added.

 

He was right but. The law was made by a body of people he should be able to challenge as far as I understand democracy works..but in reality it seems different. I know I don't know law but, but that's how they always explain it in the lower level law type studies I've heard.

 

cheers

rob

[littlbit]

RobbieGanjaSeed that is all true, however we are not saying that the court has not jurisdiction over us, what we are saying and it is something we have had confirmed is that we can force the court to listen to the Constitutional Laws, and we can with the right Barrister force the government to abide by the Treaties we are signatories to. That is why we have been sent to PILCH these guys have been fighting the Government on these issues for a while now and are winning many of the cases they are taking before the courts. The Judge who we faced seems to think that we have a case at law as she was the one to push the prosecutor to get us a PILCH barrister and she is forcing legal aid to get us a constitutional lawyer too.

 

Now we all know there are no guarantees in law however, it appears with what has just gone down in Canada we could very well be on the right track.

 

Lets hope :peace:

[Frazz]

Yes i see which way you are driving this lillbit and it sounds a promising angle for medical use of Cannabis and im hoping you can find that barrister you need so badly and please keep us updated ....

unfortunately i cant see that stoners would benefit from such challenges whatsoever which would be of no concern to medical users anyway ..

but what i want is legalization for every adult person to be able grow and use / enjoy Cannabis whether for pleasure, health or religious reasons regardless , surely that is not asking too much, is it ... or am i lost in my pipedreams again

no, if Amsterdam can do it then why not Oz

 

[littlbit]

Frazzle the great thing about the way things have turned out in Canada is that the entire laws have been thrown out so everyone wins.

 

Have you heard what is happening with Roc's case today?

[ConvexConepiece]

Some good news there Littlebit, thanks for enlightening us on what is happening Well I never knew that canada threw out their old laws on the matter and its great news! Maybe if our law system can finally see that canada and europe isn't full of schizophrenics we might get somewhere!

 

Is there anything we can all do to help?

[freddie]

Best of luck with what you are trying to do littlbit. And rock and radic too.

 

I wish there was a united cannabis law reform movement in Australia because it seems to me the most successful overseas models have had this. I would be interested to know how reform occurred in some the U.S. states. The hemp embassy try hard and I admire what they do but they have the wrong image to be taken seriously. Law reform would take some serious political lobbying, science, and probably paid advertising to counteract the harm done by Howards decade of misinformation.

 

I hold some hope that the Rudd government said that they would look at evidence based reforms.

[littlbit]

http://www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca/index.html

 

This is the site for all information on the fall of the laws in Canada, there is much to learn.

[Luke Skywalker]

Something I just dug up on taxation and regulation on the hemp embassy site by Wodak and Co.... v. interesting... does anyone have a link to the original convention wording?

 

Some argue that Australia’s international treaty

obligations present an insuperable obstacle to the

taxation and regulation of cannabis. However, the Single

Convention (1961), which created the framework for

contemporary prohibition, states that: ‘A party shall, if in

its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render

it the most appropriate means of protecting the public

 

ty has gradually come to accept

that some form of regulation is the least worst arrangement

for unreducible appetites the majority disdain, but

a substantial minority desire, such as gambling and

prostitution. It is time to seriously consider the hitherto

unthinkable: the least worst arrangement for cannabis is

taxation and regulation.

 

ALEX WODAK

Director, Alcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent’s Hospital,

Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia

 

ANNIE COONEY

Research Assistant, Alcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent’s

Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia

 

taken from : http://www.hempembassy.net/hempe/resources...rint%202004.pdf