Lets have an Australia wide march in each capitol city

[Stoney]

Ok this is a quick post just to say that this thread will be watched closely by mods and admin

 

im not trying to get all heavy on people in anyway i just wanna see this stay on topic and for there to be no flame posts in here the last thing i wanna see is this thread closed due to a personal flame up or personal slander

 

so if you are reading this thread and you dont wanna take part do just that

 

if you want to offer your support then again do just that

 

cheerz all and good luck with everything you are trying to accomplish

 

cheerz

[lightning]

Pipeman, I can assure you that is just litlbits way, she and I are Asperger so we come across a bit gruff at times, no offense is meant so please don't take any, I hope you guys can learn to cope with us, we are very intense we know and try to suppress it but then that is Autism for you. If ya think were getting upitty then tell us ok, we won't take offense.

 

Now back to topic I think the education approach is the best way to beat the prejudice, I don't think marches do squat except give the media a chance to spin doctor the message into oblivion.

 

the facts in the public arena can not be suppressed for ever so the more we educate the more we will win over. I think we need to stop using the slang term Marijuana and start calling it by it's botanical name "Cannabis" or common name "Hemp" so as to remove the stigma attached to it by the prohibitionists calling it a drug when it is just a medicinal herb

 

When we were busted the cops asked "where are the plants"? I responded "In the vegie garden with the rest of the herbs" they just looked at me speechless. they don't know how to deal with that approach.

my two bits worth

[pipeman]

Here is a revised version of the document Gibbo referred to. I can't take credit for it and the person who wrote it wishes to remain anonymous. But I do know at least one Doctor has reviewed it and could not fault any of the information.

 

I think its a good "summary argument" document that can be sent out. Also it might be a good idea to include a list of educational links and other reference materials as well.

 

****************************************

 

CANNABIS AND DRUG LAW REFORM

 

The original cannabis prohibition laws in the USA were introduced under the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 without the support or any consultation at all with the American Medical Association at the time. Propaganda in the news was warning of a dangerous drug called marijuana which apparently made Negroes and Mexicans rape white women, as well as look at white men in the eye for more than 3 seconds. And if white women smoked it, it made them want to have sex with black men. The desire of present day governments to demonise cannabis has not changed, their methods are just more subtle. Most Doctors at the time, including the American Medical Association, did not know that marijuana actually meant cannabis. Marijuana was a Mexican word and was not widely known in the US, which is why it was used in preference to cannabis in the news propaganda. It was not until 2 days before the Marijuana Tax Act was introduced that the AMA realised that this new legislation was actually aimed at cannabis and hemp, for reasons they did not understand.

 

The bill was initially introduced to the House Ways and Means Committee in 1937, and testimony was heard from Dr. William C. Woodward who was the official representative of the AMA. He strongly objected to the new legislation which he said was based on nothing but tabloid sensationalism, and complained that the AMA had

not been consulted during its formulation. However he was quickly dismissed as the political agenda was already set. When the Marijuana Tax Act bill came up for discussion in Congress, only one question was asked, “Did anyone consult with the AMA and get their opinion?” Representative Vinson, answering for the Ways and Means Committee replied “Yes, we have. A Dr. Wharton (mispronunciation of Woodward?) and [the AMA] are in complete agreement”, and with that incredible lie, marijuana prohibition became a part of modern culture.

 

The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer is a good book to start with if you are interested in a more detailed history and the truth about marijuana prohibition.

 

Since that time modern drug laws and the "war on drugs" culture in general has proved itself a failure. To advocate the toughening up of drug laws and an escalation of our failed drug policies in general is insanity as most logical people should now see. Unfortunately this still seems to be the only line of thinking our politicians and police force are currently open to.

 

Even if you do not agree with drug use and do not respect the right of individuals to have control of their own body, history has shown that drug prohibition does not reduce drug use in the community. And as well as not actually solving any drug problems, drug prohibition is a huge drain on tax dollars, our legal system, and our police force, not to mention the social injustice it results in.

 

Alcohol, which is legal and available in any quantity, is not only highly addictive and toxic, unlike cannabis, but consumption has a tendency to result in aggression and violence, unlike cannabis. The police have no problem with the guy buying a case of beer, but will arrest the guy they spot smoking a joint in the park. Who represents a greater risk to themselves and the community at large? Lock up the guy with the case of beer I say, that bastard is much more likely to do some serious damage before the night is out. Imagine if the predominant social lubricant of our society was cannabis instead of alcohol. The first obvious benefit would be that the police would have a lot less trouble to deal with on the average Friday and Saturday night, and there’d be a significant drop in domestic violence. Despite the paranoia that exists in our society about drugs, illegal drug use is an insignificant problem when compared to the violence, accidents, and health issues caused by alcohol.

 

Alcohol prohibition in the USA (which was born out of the same culture as drug prohibition) was not only a failure but gave money and power to organised crime. Unfortunately modern society has failed to pay attention to this glaring example of the stupidity of prohibition. Drug prohibition, as did alcohol prohibition, achieves nothing other than punishing users, profiting criminals, and making drugs more readily available to children. If you believe drug use should be minimised logic dictates you would support legalisation to ensure that drugs remain under the control of medical professionals, rather than criminals.

 

Alcohol prohibition also serves to highlight the incredible ability of “democratic” governments to legislate both against the will of the people and against the greater good of the people at the same time, and also the willingness of police forces to support and enforce such laws without question. Police never object to laws which give them extra power, and naturally will fight to ensure the laws stay as they are so they don’t lose any of that power. This is often the biggest obstacle to law reform. Drug users were and are in the minority so drug prohibition laws were never reversed and unfortunately remain part of our culture. Furthermore the police often discourage drug law reform activists by using the very laws they are protesting against to persecute them, as well as applying political and media influence. Fortunately there seems to be some indication that police force culture around the world is realising the “war on drugs” approach has failed and the best way to control drug use is to legalise and regulate (see following websites). It is important to get the police on side in the fight for law reform due to their significant political influence. Hopefully, logic and common sense will win the argument eventually.

 

www.leap.cc www.eddie.gn.apc.org

 

Drugs should be a health care issue, not a criminal issue. The criminal status of drugs actually creates health and social problems as drug users tend to be reclusive and paranoid. Sometimes this is due to the type of drug they like to use, but a lot of the time it’s the unjust laws and threat of punishment which is constantly hanging over their heads. Legalisation of drugs would allow users to be open with their habits without fear of persecution, which is important to maintain mental health, minimise stress, and most importantly maintain feedback regarding their drug use. Keeping drug use private is an easy way to develop abuse issues and slip into social isolation, and this is exactly what drug prohibition laws encourage drug users to do.

 

A lot of the social problems related to drug use are created by the drug laws themselves. Even if all drugs were to become legal drug use would not significantly increase. On the other hand black market drugs would be eliminated. Criminal drug dealers would be out of business. Drug users would not be socially isolated. Safe, cheap, quality controlled drugs could be dispensed from chemists, and the government would collect a tax on sales to fund regulation of the industry. We do not fear the guy picking up a case of beer, so why should we fear the guy picking up a bag of grass?

 

Most drug crime is a result of people that cannot afford their habit, a problem that would not exist with legalisation. Also as well as saving tax payer’s dollars that were previously used to persecute drug users, the government will be collecting tax on cannabis sales, as well as the whole cannabis industry, which currently operates as a black market denying the government a significant source of revenue. Legalisation would also help with the education and regulation of cannabis growers to minimise potentially unsafe practices in terms of the application of nutrients and pesticides when growing, which cannabis users currently have no protection against.

 

Doctors in Australia can prescribe narcotics, chemotherapy, and many other deadly and addictive treatments, but not cannabis. Why? Cannabis is less physically addictive than either tobacco or alcohol, less damaging to your health, and certainly much less addictive than any narcotic.

 

As well as being much less harmful and addictive than most other legal and illegal drugs cannabis has many medicinal applications and is often used by cancer and aids patients as it has the added benefits of stimulating appetite and reducing nausea caused by chemotherapy and other prescription drugs. And other than pain relief, it’s also been found to be an effective treatment for other specific medical conditions, such as glaucoma. Its legal status restricts and often prevents any legitimate research despite the constant patient and Doctor testimonials from all over the world praising its benefits. It is hard to understand why Australian governments will not allow Doctors the option of prescribing this medicine when the case for medicinal marijuana is so strong that even countries which currently maintain anti marijuana laws also have medicinal marijuana programs. The two most prominent examples are the USA and Canada. Interestingly, there has recently been a legal challenge to all marijuana possession laws in Canada, as two judges have declared cannabis prohibition laws unconstitutional. More information on this can be found at www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca

 

Cannabis can be consumed by methods other than smoking which are completely harmless to your health, such as vapourisation, food, and tinctures. This fact is often ignored by government funded research which persists in drawing attention to the unhealthy practice of smoking cannabis, which in reality is an irrelevant issue to legalisation. We can only hope that Mr. Rudd and the Labour government will start focusing on harm minimisation education rather than scare mongering and propaganda which was the strategy of the Howard government.

 

Abstaining from cannabis after long periods of chronic use can result in an agitated state of mind and trouble sleeping which passes after a couple of weeks or less. Even the heaviest users rarely experience withdrawal symptoms more severe than that, which is still much milder than most other drug withdrawals. Some even argue that cannabis is less addictive than caffeine. Also a lot of cannabis smokers use tobacco in their mix, so often confuse tobacco withdrawal with cannabis withdrawal. If our Doctors were properly educated about cannabis perhaps they would be able to effectively advise users on harm minimisation, which would help prevent the instances of tobacco dependency associated with cannabis use, which users then mistake for cannabis withdrawal when they try to quit.

 

It should be noted that smoking tobacco with cannabis can be even more damaging than smoking tobacco alone, because when smoked with cannabis it is drawn deep into the lungs and held in for a period of time. For this reason smoking cannabis with tobacco or “spin” is very unhealthy and should be avoided. Unfortunately important

harm minimisation advice such as this is often lost or not even attempted amid the ignorant reefer madness style propaganda which is mostly initiated by politicians and police for some cheap publicity and to justify their actions.

 

Under the Howard government the media and police began to refer to cannabis gardens as “drug labs” and a pipe with drippers was a “sophisticated irrigation system” and hydroponic nutrients were “dangerous chemicals”. Junk science, buzz words, and general scare tactics were and are regularly used in news reports in an attempt to demonise cannabis and frighten the general public. It makes for good headlines after all so the media are happy to play along. Fortunately, due to the educational power of the internet, it has become easier for like minded people to connect and pool their knowledge which in turn has served to highlight the ridiculous propaganda that appears in the news and trashy current affair style TV shows regarding cannabis.

 

I would be very interested to study any peer reviewed scientific research which shows a cause and effect relationship between cannabis and mental illness. Cannabis has been commonly used for thousands of years and governments all over the world over the past 50 years have thrown massive amounts of money at anti cannabis research. Given these circumstances, if cannabis did cause mental illness, there would be conclusive evidence of it by now, and there isn’t. As all long term users know (which is often 20+ years of continual use) even chronic cannabis use does not cause mental illness. There can be psychological and social problems caused by cannabis abuse, but many activities have this potential, such as eating junk food and watching TV all day, which is much unhealthier than a cannabis addiction.

 

Some mentally ill people do use cannabis as they find it an effective form of self medication, rightly or wrongly. Doctors often mistake this association with cause and effect, and of course never get to see the majority of cannabis users who don’t have any mental health issues and therefore don’t see Doctors on a regular basis. And if they do, often their cannabis use goes unmentioned, as it is irrelevant. It’s true that cannabis use can aggravate existing mental conditions in some people, particularly schizophrenics, however this is an issue that should be dealt with between Doctor and patient on a case by case basis. Besides, making cannabis illegal is not going to stop mentally ill people from using it, and if it did, they’d probably go down to the bottle shop to pick up a bottle of scotch instead. Is that a better outcome? And despite the fact there are even greater associations with both tobacco and alcohol use and mental illness we don’t have Anna Coran telling us that tobacco causes mental illness do we? When sensationalism is your business, cannabis is a lot more useful than tobacco, and the truth is easy to step over.

 

Drug related research usually involves an amount of money to be paid to participants. As soon as word gets out every junkie around will front up and say whatever they have to say to get their $30 so they can go buy another hit of whatever it is they are on. On the other hand cannabis users who have jobs and busy lives are not likely to take part in such research, because they don’t have the time, they don’t need the $30, and they are concerned about outing themselves. Also, cannabis is often blamed when in fact the patient in question has been on a cocktail of legal and illegal drugs for many years. And no doubt an alcoholic who also ticked the cannabis box will appear under the cannabis statistics as well, even though it’s much more likely that alcohol is the main problem.

 

Criminal organisations which currently profit from drug supply, as well as pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco companies (which some argue are also criminal organisations) stand to lose a lot of revenue if cannabis is legalised, which is why they provide funding and exercise political and media influence to ensure prohibition laws remain. Therefore it’s important to examine the source of funding and methodology for all research reports, as well as the scientific basis behind media reports (which is often non existent), before accepting any information regarding cannabis at face value, because this is much more a political issue than a scientific issue.

 

People often scoff at the garbage that comes out of the government and current affairs shows regarding issues they have a thorough knowledge about, but curiously seem to blindly accept information from the same sources regarding issues they know virtually nothing about. Government information deserves scrutiny, not trust, as history has shown us on a wide range of issues. Also it is up to activists to push Doctors and Police to support drug law reform. They won’t do it themselves as it’s generally not in their best interests and because of the political problems it will cause.

 

It is impossible to have a fatal or even dangerous cannabis overdose. Even the most extreme cannabis overdose will result in no more than a case of the spins, feeling like shit and spewing up for a few hours, and it’s very rare for even that to happen, and in any case it’s certainly a lot safer than overdosing on alcohol. No death in recorded medical history has ever been attributed to cannabis. The same cannot be said for alcohol, or aspirin, or even peanut butter for that matter. This is why propaganda regarding “super skunk” and increasingly potent hydroponic cannabis strains is nonsense. How can potent cannabis be dangerous when it is impossible to overdose? The truth is the more potent the plant is the less of it you need to smoke/consume to obtain the desired effect, and obviously the less you smoke the healthier you are. This is also the reason knowledgeable cannabis users prefer to use vapourisers and extracted forms of the cannabis plant such as hash or cannabutter because these methods are healthier than simply smoking the dried plant matter.

 

Politics have and continue to dictate our drug laws, not medical evidence. Until we change the law to return drug users to the care of medical professionals rather than police, judges and bikie gangs the many direct and indirect problems caused by our drug prohibition laws will continue to compound.

 

When zero tolerance advocates are confronted with the evidence that cannabis is relatively harmless they usually turn to the gateway drug theory to justify their position. Just because most people who are into harder drugs have also tried cannabis does not indicate cannabis is a gateway drug, no more than caffeine is a gateway drug to alcohol, just because most alcoholics have also tried caffeine. It stands to reason anyone on a particular substance has tried most other “softer” substances, but this does not indicate that one was a gateway to the other.

 

The crackdown on cannabis is helping to increase the popularity of harder and more dangerous drugs, particularly in pill form. Cannabis is bulky and smelly which makes it harder to move and use in public and easier for police to detect or find in a search. It also takes a long time to grow so supply is not always readily available. The current legal environment is encouraging dealers to abandon cannabis, which is relatively harmless, and turn to pushing pills and powders which are much more addictive and dangerous, but easier to conceal and move. The sad truth is it’s easier to score dangerous synthetic drugs like ICE than it is to score a bag of grass these days.

 

The idea of the following table is not only to compare the health risks of different substances commonly consumed but to highlight what effect the laws have on drug availability. Reality is when compared to either alcohol, tobacco, or fast food, cannabis is both less addictive and less harmful.

 

 

If you are against drug use, irrespective of your reasons, logic dictates that you would be advocating laws which provide the most control over drug distribution to the public, and that is legalisation and regulation. Drug prohibition is handing control over to criminals, and is not preventing supply to the public. This is not an opinion, it is a fact of modern history.

 

When a law fails in its objective, and is causing more harm than it prevents, don’t you think it should be changed?

 

This document is primarily aimed at cannabis law reform, but includes arguments for the legalisation of all drugs, as these arguments also apply to cannabis. The goal of this document is to get you thinking about the issue, do your own research, and convince yourself of the truth. Please forward this document to as many people as possible.

[HighRising]

Personally - I don't think protest or letters are going to do shit. It's all been done before. As long as it's all words and airy fairy stuff they will continue to ignore it, it's low dangling political fruit they can milk for all it's worth. Being vocal about legalisation works into their hands; you give them an easy voice to argue against that appeals to a minority. Having a well written argument is no use, these people aren't operating on logic - it's like arguing with a racist, nothing you will say will change their mind

 

What has worked everywhere else is people just very openly doing it anyways. Growing, smoking, mercy groups etc. Then people see that the police reaction is much worse than the supposed crime. For the most part, people caught are quietly going into the night with heavy fines at the moment. Think Ghandi and the salt march. Just brazenly get everyone doing it and let them come get us all, and when there is too many to deal with things change. Public stuff. I've always loved the idea of getting a few dozen people walking around in the middle of the CBD with a sandwich board reading "FREE JOINTS" giving them out and making a scene when the cops drag you away. Then after they let you out do it again. . just an idea

 

revolution happens on the streets, not in govt

 

Stuff like that, that will actually open people's eyes and make them think about what is actually going on will make the difference imho

 

just my $0.02c remember

Edited February 21, 2008 by HighRising

[Luke Skywalker]

HighRising, aside from the fact that the creators of this post wanted to avoid people just saying "it won't work you're all kidding yourselves", don't you think that we've already come a great deal of distance simply through the slow but concerted efforts of those with the information and knowledge disseminating the pro-cannabis arguments?

 

It's a long way from the days of yore when cannabis was viewed by the general public as responsible for all kinds of social ills, and quite likely to make people into violent criminals... you now quite often hear politicians admitting use (even if it is only during university, what a great excuse that one is...) where before it would be a hanging offence for anyone in high station to admit such an act?

 

There are still plenty of wowsers, sure, and in the end, it's still illegal and we haven't freed the weed so to speak. But without the actions of the many who argue the points with those who take the anti-cannabis stance, we'd be a heck of a lot worse off today.

 

Most people see cannabis as a "soft" drug, (and regardless of my personal views on that distinction), that's an opinion that 40 years ago you would have been laughed at in most sections of society except those who knew the truth... So we've come a looooong way through arguing the case is what I'm saying.

 

And on the open usage, I would suggest that it pretty much is openly used nowadays, with only a minor note to discretion. The avg joe blow won't crucify you for offering them a joint, even if they don't smoke themselves. Usually it's a polite, no thanks, not my thing.... Of course there are still many who are paranoid and quite frankly they have a point. But go to almost any open-air event or concert nowadays and regardless of the so called no drugs policies, the gentle aroma of cannabis is quite often detected at such places....

 

Revolutions might happen in the streets, but we're not after a bringing down of the basic governmental system here, just moving what is at present regarded as a prohibited but largely tolerated soft drug into a regulated marketplace rather than leaving it to the black market.

 

Nevada had a vote on regulation last year I think, and had ad campaigns and everything. Even though the proposition didn't pass, it was a remarkable result, something like 40:60. Which shows that there is a substantial proportion, at least in that state of the US, that regard cannabis legalisation/decriminalisation and regulation as a truly viable option for society. I was having a look at some figures from the NDRI pages and they paint a more conservative view amongst their respondents to surveys, but the point is that with education and positive campaigning on the issues you can get to places you thought you never could....

 

I thoroughly believe that credibility amongst the pro-legalisation and regulation movements is sorely lacking due to one thing: public relations. Which is essentially image. Australia already has a few professors and doctors out there fighting the good fight and standing up for the facts, but they need substantial organisation and respect. Of course the opponents of this will try and smear you, but the only way to defeat this is to point to the facts and play the ball, not the man. They'll try almost anything, the anti-drugs movement is small really, but very vocal and have claimed the moral high-ground. We need to take it back....

 

And just on that little table that's been posted, what are "legal narcotics"? I think that's a little vauge... There was a british piece of research that tabled up all the licit and illegal recreational drugs and put them in a grading from least to most dangerous with lots of things taken into account like addictiveness potential, immediate and long term harms, illegality etc.... Worth digging up IMO and perhaps adapting for this kind of table? Just a thought.

 

IMHO

[Reverend]

Everyone has an opinion of what should be done, but we are human and as such it is better to agree to dis agree.

Oh what was the outcome of your court case last year?

[67Special]

To keep the resource side of this topic structured, you may want to consider starting another thread with a more appropriate title and as people post relevant links or documents, the topic starter can edit them into the 1st post... that way everything can be found on the 1st page of the thread and once it's stickied it'll be much easier for new guests/members to find it.

 

Personally, I see no reason why this site shouldn't be the starting place of a fresh movement for law reform... the slogan says it all Uniting Australias Cannabis Culture

 

I'm not sure if Getup.org would be interested in running a petition based campaign for Cannabis Law Reform, but they could at least advise us how to do it ourselves. They've used some pretty unique strategies to pressure Government on a whole range of issues in recent years, often with positive results.

 

 

I was going to offer my handsome image to be your poster-boy ...but I look too much like a 'hippy'

I'll probably stay away from any public protests too, lest I further worsen the stoner image

 

[littlbit]

67Special I like that it makes sense, I really have never been involved in anything like this before and feel like a fish out of water right now, you all have much more experience with this world than me.

 

Luke I understand to what you are saying.

 

Pipeman if I am sounding like a school teacher, I am sorry that is not my intent, I really struggle at the best of times dealing with people let alone trying to get together a campaign to fight for something I believe in.

 

If others feel they can do something better or irritate people less, please do so, I will not be offended at all.

[Indycar]

You think you got issues lookin' like a hippie, 67S

 

Try livin' the life, lookin' like Professor Julius Sumner Miller on crack.

 

 

I don't do crack, but sure would act like him if he was on it.

 

EDIT: On a serious note.

 

I tend to think the 'fresh' new approach would require shitloads of $$$ for a saturation advertising campaign. Bit like the previous gov did with 'Work Choices' 'n 'Tough on Drugs' campaigns. And run with the campaign, prior to the next drug summit, whenever it maybe. personally letter drops here 'n there and a stroll in each capital city would hardly create a ripple. But that's just my personal opinion. Others with more faith could probably take it futher.

 

Edited February 21, 2008 by Indycar

[nouseforaname]

hey,

started a thread to dump links and info.. Info dump