What has caused the hard attitude to MJ in Oz?

[Rocker]

What has caused the hard attitude to MJ in Oz?

 

I don’t profess to have the answers but I think kids ‘using’ is just one of the ingredients.

I notice MJ is mentioned a lot in domestic violence issues and other hostile situations police confront.

More than likely this is the usual crap but it’s put out that way.

 

Only a few months ago a bong could be bought at markets or at tobacconists and for the last 27 years that was the way it was.

Today in QLD you will not see a bong anywhere.

 

There has always been raids on cannabis growers but this year there seem to be more that ever.

Am I just imagining this or have police efforts stepped up a gear or two?

 

What do you think? What’s going on? What’s behind this?

 

Why are some other countries becoming more tolerant or even enlightened with MJ and here we are going back to the dark ages.

[mullray]

Yep first your gums rot, then your teeth fall out then before you know it you're senile (or psychotic) without a bong.

 

I'm from WA and we've seen the same thing only perhaps it was very bad a few years ago, very very bad a couple of years ago and now just plain bad, bad bad.

 

Here's my thoughts on this:

 

1) Cops have got more resources than before - they have become more cunning and adaptive to policing drugs - they are busting more people, spending more time on surveillance and have become ever more sophisticated in intelligence gathering methods

2) We have just had 11 years of a tyrant running the country where zero tolerance in general has pervaded on many issues (eat shit and die Howard - may you fry in hell for the evil you have unleashed)

3) The world has shifted into an age of neo conservatism where scum like bush in general have scrapped decency, fairness, much of the legal system and basic human rights

4) There has been a definite and concerted push against cannabis ... it has become highly demonised as a very dangerous drug - the Howard Government and others had a lot to do with this

5) My personal belief is that the legalisation movement is/was making too much headway in North America and this undermines all prohibition. The US Federal Government in collusion with others needed to undermine the legalisation movement = mj was the obvious target

[Guest niall]

Drug Free Australia has been quite active and gained Federal funding. Anti-cannabis campaigners have made good use of the media - they've leapt on dubious research and started collaborating and organising themselves in each State and at a national level. The Liberal Federal Government managed to block all progress in medicinal cannabis in NSW, and got Maj. Brian Watters appointed to the INCB. Harm Minimisation has been under constant attack in the media and in politics - researchers and proponents of harm minimisation and regulation have been under constant barrage and ridicule from religious zealots using every dirty trick in the book to confuse and misdirect their efforts, waste their time and suck up as many resources and positive morale as possible. Then there was a sudden push to adopt the terminology "drug prevention" in co-ordination with DFA and Howard.

 

It's a co-ordinated, funded effort. It's still grass-roots, but it doesn't take a lot to sway the Media. If there was any opposition to them at all, from us, we would be able to balance the debate significantly.

[freddie]

What has caused the hard attitude to MJ in Oz?

 

John Howard.

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

Oldrocker, speaking of qld specifically, seems like there's a bust in every street latey ey.. it's definately more than the usual this year, there's no question about that at all.

 

In fact I was speaking with a fella who owns a shop and had just served some undercover drug squad detectives before I walked into his business so he said. He told me the cops were speaking a tale of woe, because they'd busted someone with a million dollars worth of grass growing in their garage (yeah right..) and were sick of arresting all these guys and no-one ever going to jail. It's not that way I see it, seems like a million dollars worth of dope (what a wet dream) would get ya locked up pretty good.

 

But the point is, this fella telling me about it was straight as a die, and not in the scene, yet there he was talking about the high level of activety in the drug bust world.

 

keep ya head down.

 

rob

[Rocker]

We have a couple of things going for us.

 

1 There are roughly two million users in OZ. Cannbis is the most popular recreational drug.

 

2 Prohibition has never worked anywhere at any time in history. Even in the worst of oppresive regimes opposition still flourished and often prevailed.

 

We have hope. More importantly we are right in our thinking.

[mullray]

Drug Free Australia has been quite active and gained Federal funding. Anti-cannabis campaigners have made good use of the media - they've leapt on dubious research and started collaborating and organising themselves in each State and at a national level. The Liberal Federal Government managed to block all progress in medicinal cannabis in NSW, and got Maj. Brian Watters appointed to the INCB. Harm Minimisation has been under constant attack in the media and in politics - researchers and proponents of harm minimisation and regulation have been under constant barrage and ridicule from religious zealots using every dirty trick in the book to confuse and misdirect their efforts, waste their time and suck up as many resources and positive morale as possible. Then there was a sudden push to adopt the terminology "drug prevention" in co-ordination with DFA and Howard.

 

It's a co-ordinated, funded effort. It's still grass-roots, but it doesn't take a lot to sway the Media. If there was any opposition to them at all, from us, we would be able to balance the debate significantly.

 

I don't share your optimism nor do I see it as grass roots. It is hard/impossible to mention the INCB and grass roots in the same statement. The INCB administers and monitors the single narcotics convention - the US Federal Government has its claws into the INCB and much of what we have seen of late relates to this.

 

Note Canada (Marc Emery etc), Note the UK (massive media demonising mj), note Australia and others and you see a clear picture that goes well beyond grass roots and Australia's boarders.

 

Other than this, who owns and controls the media? How many media statements that aren't conservative mainstream and often hype get air play through the various media mechanisms? Those who have spoken out and have a media voice have quickly been gagged (or busted as is the case with Marc Emery and others) - there have been many cases of this in the past 10 years.

 

I'm not saying that releasing statements is futile, just don't expect a level headed view of research to make print where the drug debate is concerned. The media aren't into level headed facts; they want hype that sells papers, puts the fear of god into people and supports their bosses commitments to various party lines and allegiances.

 

Not to say keep up the good fight but see it for what it is.

[Guest niall]

I don't share your optimism nor do I see it as grass roots. It is hard/impossible to mention the INCB and grass roots in the same statement.

 

Actually that was me being quite pessimistic, and the INCB and grass roots statements weren't really related - by grass roots I'm talking about DFA and their contacts. Well, maybe not grass roots exactly, what I'm trying to demonstrate is that really - without funding - there's not much to them. They engage as cheaply as they can - by making good use of the media, and by arguing with researchers and pro-regulation advocates on the Net and in print. They've been working to unite and enlist the various groups around Australia, to co-ordinate their attack, but now that they're being funded it's really starting to bite.

 

My only optimism is that the media can be used for our purposes as well - relatively cheaply and effectively as there is simply no opposition to what the other side is saying, they've got free reign and are believed because it's sensational and no-one is keeping them honest.

 

I'm not saying that releasing statements is futile, just don't expect a level headed view of research to make print where the drug debate is concerned. The media aren't into level headed facts; they want hype that sells papers, puts the fear of god into people and supports their bosses commitments to various party lines and allegiances.

 

Well, I tend to disagree - the media can be used in the same way by us, with sensational claims but based on fact such as pipeman's fave "cannabis cures cancer" etc. There is a lot of positive research that doesn't get any coverage simply because no-one is jumping up and down about it, as soon as a negative story comes out you've got *both* the media and the prohibitionists jumping on it. The media can use the story as they have contacts that they can seek comment from.

 

Can we have a revolutionary impact this way? No, but we can make much more noise and impact than we currently are - i.e. none. If we are available for comment, represented by a *respectable* non-profit cannabis user/grower association, then the media will make use of us with many cannabis stories. But we can also initiate many stories of our own, bringing events and research to their attention by way of media releases and our own stunts and circus tricks.

 

That would only be a start, but it's a good start imho.

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

When thinking about why the media doesn't print "our side" rember it'sillegalfor themedia, tv, radio, or print to "promote the use of drugs". This is obviously being less imposed lately, with shows like "weeds", "trailer park boys" etc.. but until not too long ago, drugs had to be portrayed in the media as evil and bad, with no exceptions. It's the law, or at least "was". I'm pretty sure it still is, and while the media have pushed the edges with situation comedies etc, I don't imagine too many well paid editors and TV execs will risk loosing their jobs for the promotion of pot law reform.

 

If you think back to the 80s when one of the editors of the AUstralian was blacklisted (I forget his name, he started the underground mag "the eye"), you'll see editors print what they do not only for money (the biggest reason), but they can be black banned from their job for breaking the law.

He didn't get blacklisted for drug law talk, but for ignoring gov direictives in many areas.

 

cheers

rob

 

PS sometimes we fall into slumber, believeing we have "Free media" like USA, we don't. It is controlled.

Here's a short "out take" of a report on these issues in Australia

 

Right to Know Campaign

 

The uncoordinated Federal and State developments in Shield Laws is occurring as the ‘Right to Know Campaign’ commences. A coalition of media industry groups has selected the former ICAC and Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner Irene Moss to head up an ‘extensive review of free speech in Australia’. Her inquiry will examine issues such as court-ordered suppression orders, privacy, and restrictions on what can be reported in the media. The inquiry will also ‘form the basis for a national lobbying campaign’ on behalf of the media into restrictions on reporting (The Australian, 24 May 2007).

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

Here's the full Audit,and although lots of it is more informative regarding the last Government's knack to shut people out of the information loop regarding policy, but it does touch on general freedom of speech concerns in Australia. Chapter 2 pages 25-27 inclusive are pretty eye opening.

In it (chapter 3),we're rated on one scale of 195 countries at 39 off the pace.Behind Taiwan, Costa Rica, Soviet bloc countries..

A more conservative rating was 29th out of 169 countries. Apparently we slipped 12 places between 2002 and 2006, what happened to bring this about? And who?

 

 

The audit says "the absence of an explicit protection of free speech sets Australia apart from other commonwealth countries such as the UK, NZ,Canada as well as the United States" (page 27 of the report.)

 

 

Audit on free speech in Australia

 

I don't think the first step to promoting our side of the drug debate starts with us "using" the media. It's a step behind that I fear.We need to have the right to use the media before we can. Perhaps we should be taking the debate to Irene Moss and asking how to proceed to be given that right? I think she's some kind of onbudsman for the subject

 

rob