Lets have an Australia wide march in each capitol city

[lightning]

All the arguments that are put up against medical cannabis are what makes the religous argument the only one that can actually win in the end. which is why we have gone there, it will be interesting to see how we go in Nov. but I believe the High Court has little choice but to find in our favour.

 

The single treaty does not make exemption for religous use which renders it in conflict with the human right accords and the UN Charter both of which predate the treaty and so it is subject to them not the other way round. The single treaty also states that any penal provisions are subject to the constitutional limitations of the signing party, And as the OZ constitution states the government is prohibited from passing a law the impedes the free expression of religous belief. The penal provisions are invalid to prevent use of the plant for religous expression.

 

time will tell

[Rocker]

All I can say is whatever route provides the best chance for cannabis then go for it.

Be prepared for a hard row to hoe though because I feel where ever a loop hole is found governments will move swiftly to close it.

 

It seems to me there are people who have us in their sights and they aren't going to give up easily.

 

Can someone provide more information or links providing more detail on the High Court and religous angle.

On the surface it seems promising.

 

I've just about had my allotted time on this planet but I want to see all the younger people here get a fair go.

 

I find the growing lack of privacy in the modern world alarming.

[mullray]

All the arguments that are put up against medical cannabis are what makes the religous argument the only one that can actually win in the end. which is why we have gone there, it will be interesting to see how we go in Nov. but I believe the High Court has little choice but to find in our favour.

 

The single treaty does not make exemption for religous use which renders it in conflict with the human right accords and the UN Charter both of which predate the treaty and so it is subject to them not the other way round. The single treaty also states that any penal provisions are subject to the constitutional limitations of the signing party, And as the OZ constitution states the government is prohibited from passing a law the impedes the free expression of religous belief. The penal provisions are invalid to prevent use of the plant for religous expression.

 

time will tell

 

Good luck with it and certainly this argument has been used in courts to good effect on rare occasions. However, one must realise the law is far more complex then it immediately appears and can be changed according to the constitution. What this means is that if a group or individual finds a loophole in the law that law can be readily changed at statute level. In order for this to occur, normally where religious groups and their rights are concerned, they would lobby against laws that effect their religious doctrine and the religious lobby is quite powerful in this country. And here is the problem. The religious right certainly aren't going to support the right to use cannabis on the part of a minority who claim they have the right to under their religious doctrine. Instead they are likely to lobby the other way and legislators under Australian statute law then close this loophole because they a) can b)know that it will not lose them the next election c) know that they will actually win votes due to the nature of the legislation and d) would argue they have a moral responsibility to create legislation that outlaws a dangerous illegal drug - therefore under Australian statute law cannabis is outlawed full stop and it cannot be argued its use is for religious purposes (which may be taken into account but will not be seen as lawful).

[lightning]

I am aiming to post a new thread in the next few days with the religous arguments and international law issues all laid out with links to the relevent documents so the pro's and con's can be debated, I am currently working on it

 

To change the constitution the government MUST go to the people with a referendum,

I just don't see the OZ people giving up their right to freedom of religion, given it is the right to believe or not believe

 

If we get it through in the courts the Governnment will be screwed short of a referendum

Edited February 28, 2008 by lightning

[mullray]

It sounds like a great way to get publicity but who are the lawyers advising you and how much are they charging?

 

Basically you have state and federal law (not to mention by-laws ---- localised council which have no importance in this case) and you have international law. Where treaties are in place it is the role of a signatory member to this international law to abide by the terms outlined in the treaty. However, beyond this, federal law can also put in place laws through statute that go beyond the gamut of the treaty and international law has no bearing on this as each country determines their own legal system with full rights to do this outside of the breach of international law. This is what all the hooha is about with Canada and Holland and the UK and others. They arguably went outside of the single convention and were called to be. Holland by the EU (they were forced to make concessions to become a member), Canada by the US through the INCB and the UK, while not a member, has been vigorously attacked by the UNODC, the WHO and the INCB for their stance on cannabis. While the UK is acting within their rights this has now become an election issue and the government there looks set to roll back the class c classification of cannabis.

 

It will be a very interesting court case and I am looking forward to seeing it play out. There may be some legal basis but there is so much that would be required in terms of precedent (common law) and statute law to argue this case as constitutional rights. Great idea though but be prepared for the government to throw walls of lawyers at this and for the INCB and the WHO to become involved with all that entails.

 

Good on you!!

Edited February 28, 2008 by mullray

[mull]

Scuse the bump here, not sure where best to put this. Way to much for me to go through fully. Have a wade if you care to. Picked out some cannabits of interest. Deep breath...feel the love

 

 

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100890.pdf

 

page 31 "According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), marijuana potency has increased sharply. Of great concern is the high potency, indoor-grown cannabis produced on a large scale in Canada and grown in laboratory conditions using specialized timers, ventilation, moveable lights on tracks, nutrients sprayed on exposed roots and special fertilizer that maximize THC levels. A portion of U.S. domestic production is also grown under these “hydroponic” conditions. The result is a particularly powerful, dangerous, and addictive drug. Despite suggestions that marijuana use has no long-term consequences, the latest scientific information indicates that marijuana use is a common first step to the abuse of more serious drugs, and that the drug itself is associated with learning difficulties, memory disturbances, and schizophrenia."

 

Broken record..Perhaps they mean the drug exaggeration agency??

 

 

page 285 "Australia I. Summary

Australia is a committed partner in international efforts to combat illicit drugs. Domestically, Australian government policies are designed to address fully both the law enforcement needs and the demand reduction sides of the equation. Australian law enforcement agencies work closely with their U.S. counterparts in Australia and the United States, and have a robust and growing law enforcement liaison structure in numerous overseas posts where they also work closely with U.S. counterparts."

 

 

page 286 some interesting reading on this page also worth a look in regard to vested opium production in tassie..

 

"Law Enforcement Efforts.

Responsibility for counternarcotics efforts is divided among the Federal Government, primarily the AFP, the Australian Customs Service (ACS), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), in addition to state/territorial police services."

 

"IV. U.S. Policy Initiatives and Programs Bilateral and Multilateral Cooperation. The United States undertakes a broad and vigorous program of counternarcotics activities in Australia, enjoying close working relationships with Australian counterparts at the policy making and working levels. There is an active collaboration in investigating, disrupting, and dismantling international illicit drug trafficking organizations. The United States and Australia cooperate under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines these objectives. U.S. and Australian law enforcement agencies also have agreements in place concerning the conduct of bilateral investigations and the exchange of intelligence information on narcotics traffickers. Both sides continue to pursue closer relations, primarily in the area of information sharing. The Road Ahead. Australia continues to take a leadership position in the international fight against drug trafficking in its domestic, regional and worldwide activities. The expanded Operational Response Group allows them to have greater participation in regional law and order activities and stabilization efforts. Strong bilateral relations between Australia and the U.S. on counternarcotics issues are confidently expected to continue."

 

 

Ok, really should have said, this is going to be like pushing elephant shit uphill with a toothpick.

[mullray]

Our user names are confusing me

 

There's a lot of this stuff that places links to the US FED gov and their nazi ideology being related to the reefer madness campaign. Also worth looking at is DEA reports from the late nineties until 2002 where it is clear the US intent is to go after the Canadians, med groups and anyone else who threatens the great American way (Reports/research within the last week found the US has the highest percentage incarceration rate of any country in the world with 1/100 of their citizens imprisoned - the land of the free and the home of the brave

 

Anyways now that Howard is where he should have been 10 years ago (yesterdays news and best forgotten) and Bush is left a sad parody of a US president there may be a natural change in world events and politics. The age of evil is over.

 

Barak Obama looks set to lead the Democrats to the election and that can only be a good thing. The only problem is now - will racist white America vote for a black man or will they vote Republican (even though the Republicans have destroyed their economy and taken them war).

[Rocker]

Lets face in the USA is home to just about the most violent society on Earth.

And here they are trying to tell everyone else how to live.

 

I cannot understand where their fanatical opposition to cannabis comes from.

I suppose they are zealouts when it comes to the 'cannabis is bad' mantra.

 

If only those in authority would think before they speak instead of repeating the same tired old bullshit.

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

I was reading the article put up on page three or so relating the toubles prohibiting pot causes as parellel to prohibiting booze.

 

It made me remember an incident that got very little press in the world, but just a little research will show what I'll write here actually happened.

 

It was in the 80s I think, and the Canadian government, in an attempt to make people give up smoking cigarettes, increased the tax on smokes, in some provinces as much as 700%!!

While this was not outright prohibition, that was the required effect and in fact the practicle outcome. people simply couldn;t afford cigarettes. It was effectively a monetary enforced prohibition.

 

Quickly, underground networks traditionally used to smuggle cocaine and heroin into Canada were being utilised to smuggle cigarettes, and fast "runner" type boats were being used on a the lakes and rivers seperating Canada with USA to avoid customs . These cigarette runners equipt their boats with heavy machine guns, and apparently heavy gun battles could be heard in the night as they crossed the border with simple tabbacco.

 

A CCTV evidence showed of one case at least where a person was robbing a convenience store, ignoring the cash register, and demanded all the cigarettes. One person was shot and killed for the cigarettes inthe robbery. This one incident caught on film reflect endless incidents of antedotal stories of the same thing happening right across the country.

 

Suveys done among people asking questions regarding their attitudes to laws Re: customs etc and cigarettes showed overwhelmingly that every day citzens (not hardened criminals) saw nothing wrong with lieing on declarations to smuggle cigarettes into the country after visiting USA, they also acknowledged they would and do, readily buy cigarettes from criminal sources no matter how they were aquired, and would break the law as needed to access cheap cigarettes. In short, ordinary people who ad never considered crime were acting criminally with accelaerting mindset on how to beat ther law. They had turned cigarette smokers into crims.

 

Grass, booze, cocaine, heroin....they all carry a degree of stigma to people who think their poo doesn;t stink, I suppose they assume these drugs are all mind changing substances and must have somethign to do with the criminal activity that accompanies the scene. But when simple baccy is prohibited, even by simple excesive price, the same results occur. Even though cigarettes are drugs too, no-one could ever claim it caused immoral behaviour facilitating criminal bahviour. It shows how such actions on the part of the government turn every day people into criminals who loose respect for the law imediately.

 

It opens people to the world of crime, I'm sure many of us have stories of knowing of criminal activities (not pot related) that we'd have never been exposed to, nor even met people who would indugle in such things if pot had not been banned. The massive social disorder trying to ban cigarettes in Canada should be the fore-front of our arguement of what prohibition does to society.

 

 

cheers

rob

[Tyrantz]

wow this thread is gettin serious should just send it to kevin rudd (btw doesnt he look like Mr Sheen) i think there aremany ways you can go about ending prohibition. however it will require excessive organising seriously this will piss alot of people off and they will try and take any one down who is involved in the movement. I mean the catholics are still spending millions trying prohibit abortions. in my view the idea that prohibition is a violation of human rights and freedom sways me the most but each to there own but im allways up for a loud protesting march VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!its a war baby...