T.G.A. Application for Medical Cannabis

[littlbit]

Special Access Scheme

Summary: The Special Access Scheme refers to arrangements which provide for the import and/or supply of an unapproved therapeutic good for a single patient, on a case by case basis.

 

 

T.G.A. Form

http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/pdf/unapproved/sascatb.pdf

 

 

I have already written to the State and Federal Health Ministers and asked for the list of approved doctors and suppliers as guarinteed under -

 

First Schedule—Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs, 1961

Section 4

PREAMBLE

The Parties,

Concerned with the health and welfare of mankind,

Recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes,

 

who else is willing to ask the same question?

[grace]

Australia was party to the signing of the document in question, but this means little unless it is ratified with Australian legislation.

 

 

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is attached as the First Schedule to the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967 (Cth).

 

<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/nda1967160/sch1.html>

 

Welcome to OS

[Mr Biggles]

Ta Grace.

 

B.

[konflikt]

please lord free us

[littlbit]

This form will be used in our defence as we have been asked over and over again if we have applied. Given that State Labor governments have made sure that if you admit to your doctor that you use Cannabis for any reason they should report that to Government there is no way in Victoria we can get anyone to sign and we have tried to source anyone who can.

 

The very fact that they have the form says they know that they are to have it available for medical as with any other medication in the same group, so regardless of what people say we can at least push the disproportionate attitude to these laws.

 

The more people who apply the more we put pressure on Government to listen and change.

 

It is up to all of us if we are ever going to see the end to this WAR.

[lightning]

Single treaty Article 4 - General Obligations states:

 

 

 

 

1. The Parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary:

 

 

 

 

a) To give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories; and

 

To co-operate with other States in the execution of the provisions of this Convention;

 

and

 

1. Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.
   

 

 

Article 28 - Control of cannabis provides:

 

1. If a Party permits the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin, it shall apply thereto the system of controls as provided in article 23 respecting the control of the opium poppy.

 

2. This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes.

 

3. The Parties shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant.

 

 

 

 

The Australian Government has by implementing a zero tolerance, total prohibitionist approach to implementation of the treaty has abdicated it's responsibility to “Control” the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs specified under the treaty leaving it to the Criminal consortia of the world to meet the market demand which undoubtedly exists^{1 2}, By the Governments own admission³ they “control” approximately 10% of the supply through seizure. That equals 90% lack of control of supply. Certainly a failure to meet the obligation to “Limit Exclusively” as required by the Treaty.

 

Point two raises interesting issues re industrial hemp too, banning a food crop being illegal and all but that is another argument

 

The preamble statment of Must is also an obligation which is confirmed by the "To medical and scientific purposes" statement in Art4 So the statement of not being able to hold them to every word of the treaty is rather lame imho, they try to hold us to it constantly, so one set of rules or no rules, their choice.

 

Oh that's right they involked the rules of WAR didn't they...... maybe they should reread the Geneva conventions. I'm sure Carl Williams would like to know PsOW are entitled to red cross medical packages to supply the medicines for their addictions. Could become a bit embarrassing for the govt... bugger

 

1 Table 6 Drugs recently used, proportion of Population, The social costs of drug abuse in Australia, National Drug Strategy Monograph series.

 

2WHO report 2008 World Drug usage

 

3Cannabis in Australia Use, supply, harms, and responses Monograph series No. 57

[lightning]

vic law

 

The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 does not contain a "purposes" or "objects" section, the Act's purpose is not expressly stated in the Act. The Acts Interpretation Act s 14A(2) permits the application of s14A(1) to the interpretation of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

 

The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 is divided into 12 parts of which Part V is applicable to this case.

 

1. Acts Interpretation Act 1954
   

1. Section 14 - Material that is, and is not, part of an Act
   

1. Section 14A - Interpretation best achieving Act's purpose
   

Section 14A of the Acts Interpretation Act provides:

 

(1) In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, the

 

interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the Act is to be preferred to any other interpretation.

 

(2) Subsection (1) does not create or extend criminal liability, but applies whether or not the Act's purpose is expressly stated in the Act.

 

The reference in the wording of s 14A to the interpretation that will best achieve the purpose of the Act was considered by the High Court in Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd.¹ It was held by Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ with whom Brennan and Deane JJ² agreed that the section under consideration in that case³ only required the adoption of "a construction that would promote the purpose or object" of the Act. It did not require the adoption of a construction that would "best achieve the purpose or object of the Act."⁴

 

1. 
   
   1. 
      
   2. Section 14B - Use of extrinsic material in interpretation of an Act
      

In order to determine the purpose or object of the Act, that is the mischief that the statute was intended to remedy, consideration should be given to extrinsic materials as permitted under s 14B of the Acts Interpretation Act.⁵

 

Section 14B of the Acts Interpretation Act provides that consideration may be given to extrinsic material to assist in the interpretation of a statute. Extrinsic material includes the speech made to the Legislative Assembly by the member in moving a motion that the Bill be read a second time and a treaty or other international agreement that is mentioned in the Act.

 

1. 
   
   

   The formulation of a general principle of statutory interpretation by reference to international obligations was considered in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, ⁶ Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ⁷ said:

    

   "[C]ourts should, in a case of ambiguity, favour a construction of a Commonwealth statute which accords with the obligations of Australia under an international treaty."

    

   The footnote supporting that proposition referred to what was said by Lord Diplock⁸ in Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd:⁹

    

   "t is a principle of construction of United Kingdom statutes ... that the words of a statute passed after the Treaty has been signed and dealing with the subject matter of the international obligation of the United Kingdom, are to be construed, if they are reasonably capable of bearing such a meaning, as intended to carry out the obligation, and not to be inconsistent with it."

    

   In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh,¹⁰ Mason CJ and Deane J¹¹ said:

    

   "Where a statute or subordinate legislation is ambiguous, the courts should favour that construction which accords with Australia's obligations under a treaty or international convention to which Australia is a party, at least in those cases in which the legislation is enacted after, or in contemplation of, entry into, or ratification of, the relevant international instrument. That is because Parliament, prima facie, intends to give effect to Australia's obligations under international law."

    

   The qualification in that passage is consistent with what Mason CJ¹² had earlier said in Yager v The Queen:¹³

    

   "There is no basis on which the provisions of an international convention can control or influence the meaning of words or expressions used in a statute, unless it appears that the statute was intended to give effect to the convention, in which event it is legitimate to resort to the convention to resolve an ambiguity in the statute."

    

   Therefore to find out whether any mischief under the treaty has occurred we must look to the purposes of the treaty which is to prevent illicit trafficking and misuse not to torture the sick and dying.

    

   So they can be held to the treaty the high court said so....

    

   1 Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd 1990 170 CLR 249.

    

   2 Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd 1990 170 CLR 249 at 489.

    

   3 Section 35C Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic).

    

   4 Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd 1990 170 CLR 249 at 489.

    

   5 Attorney General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436.

    

   6 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1.

    

   7 Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration (1992) 176 CLR 1 at 38.

    

   8 Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751 at 771.

    

   9 Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751.

    

   10 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh 1995 183 CLR 273.

    

   11 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh 1995 183 CLR 273 at 287.

    

   12 Yager v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 28 at 43-44.

    

   13 Yager v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 28.

International Treaties
Edited September 10, 2008 by lightning