Tell Kevin (take 2)

[entheofarm]

Some of you may have had a chance to see the tell Kevin thread that was removed (still waiting on a reply as to why OZ)

 

this is the email I sent to Kevin Rudd

 

Subject: HUMAN RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF CHOICES AND THE COST OF PROHIBITION

 

Comment: To the Hon Kevin Rudd

 

Enough is enough Mr Rudd, My family are in fear of the police, my complaints against

the police are dealt with by the police and I have no avenue of recourse at all.

 

I have sought assistance from every possible avenue.

 

Mr Rudd it needs to stop. You need to stop it. you need to stop drug prohibition

related crimes. It is costing more than money! it is costing lives!

 

Mr Rudd I would like for you to view my court breif regarding Human rights and the

possesion of half a gram of cannabis but as a single parent pensioner who has been

refused legal aid I am unable to make the required copies for court let alone a copy

for the Prime Minister of Australia. I will not be entitled to my constitutional

rights!

 

Mr Rudd I am a very proud Australian and I love my country but I am quickly losing

faith in our policies, especially when they permit armed militants to constantly invade

my home in the pursuit of an illegal and unconstitutional war on drugs.

 

Mr Rudd if you require evidence to support my loss of faith I am happy to provide it,

But sadly by the time any one of authority gets to review it thousands of more lives

will be destroyed by the "war on drugs".

 

Please don't ignore the facts anymore, enough is enough.

 

 

Well FUCK ME! they actually replied and here it is (deleted crap about access to legal aid)

 

So please read stoners and assist in the reply I will send back (lightning where are you)

 

edit: scan is not real good so zoom in and you can read it better

Edited November 25, 2008 by entheofarm

[pisspotgrower]

IM very glad u got a reply and sorry for the situation it seems ur in. From what i got from ur reply were pretty much fucked until thoes other countries de criminalizes first and we might follow.......damm ay

[entheofarm]

no longer in that situation Paulshop, the cops withdrew the charges (see "no evidence to offer" thread)

 

Legal aid refused as they felt I had no chance of winning, well I did

[linbaba]

well people who say it can't be done should get out of the way of people who are doing it. congrats again on your victory entheofarm.

 

That letter claimed that the government supported harm minimisation policies. I fail to see how banning the sale of bongs forcing cannabis smokers to use less healthy methods such as plastic bottles and joints and also failing to have any sort of public education program on the use of vapourisers is minimising harm. Not to mention the fact that government and police policy ensures that there is no quality control on the nutrients and pesticides used to grow cannabis in the black market, and denies safe access to medicinal users.

 

Meanwhile they fill every pub and club with pokies to further strip the working man of their hard earned cash resulting in many family breakdowns. Yup thank god for our governments harm minimisation policies they really are taking good care of us.

[entheofarm]

As part of my response I will be pointing out that it is the government who has intiated the description of policy as one being "a war against drugs"

 

each time they have created drug legislation hansards show that members describe the situation as "a war on drugs"

 

notice they failed to address the key concepts of my email

 

prohibition has failed

The police are acting as militants

etc etc

 

that crap about addicts and drugs of dependence is BULLSHIT

 

EDIT: actually I should tell them I am a cannabis addict and they are required to provide me with clean bongs like they supply junkies with needles!

Edited November 25, 2008 by entheofarm

[Dragonfan]

I'd really love to read that, but I can't . . . enlarges too big for my screen and can't copy/paste it anywhere else to make it legible . . . anyway . . . as far as human rights goes the United Nations 1961 Single Convention which is the major treaty establishing global drug prohibition . . . states . . . “It is the express purpose of this treaty to (i) ensure that these drugs are readily available for medical and scientific purposes . . .” so it's complete bollocks that the Australian Government abides by the International Treaties we are signatories too . . . that's all I can say without being able to read the rest of it . . .

[entheofarm]

yeah sorry Dragonfan, I cant seem to resize the bloody thing (mods can you help)

 

Could you provide the section numbers of the treaty Dragonfan?

 

I will also be forwarding as part of the response an email from GW pharms, where they state that 1 NSW patient has been prescribed sativex.

[lightning]

Entheo

 

The appropriate references are in my brief. Use them.

as far as the government not being the ones who call it a War on Drugs I would refer them to the parliament(senate) report chaired by Bronwyn Bishop titled "The winnable war on drugs" kid of says it all I would have thought.

give em heaps

[entheofarm]

cheers lightning (do you mind if I borrow some points from the brief?)

 

heres what I have so far (it's a work in progress)

 

 

 

To the HON Kevin Rudd MP, the Hon Robert McCelland MP and Maryann Brooke

 

Dear Maryann,

 

Thank you kindly for your response dated 20th November 2008. The response provided has raised further issues of concern and points that I am seeking to clarify.

 

1. The description of Australian policies being a “war on drugs” is a description that has been established by the parliament (senate) report chaired by Bronwyn Bishop titled "The winnable war on drugs" and other members of State parliament. I have provided the following quotes to support this. It should further be noted that under the Australian Constitution States are not permitted to raise armies yet the States have described the enacting of legislation as a “WAR” and have authorised the Police to take part in this so called "WAR", hence my accusation that the Police are acting as militants when they invade my home armed with guns.

 

14 Feb 2008 Drugs Misuse Amendment Bill 265

 

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib)

I thank the Queensland Police Service and other law enforcement agencies whose officers put their lives on the line every day in the war on drugs. I thank the state health workers who deal with the end result of drug addiction on a daily basis. I say to the families of Queensland that the Queensland coalition is committed to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of every Queenslander. It is for this reason that I support the Drugs Misuse Amendment Bill.

 

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (3.19 pm): I, too, wish to speak to the Drugs Misuse Amendment Bill 2007, and I endorse the remarks of the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Caloundra, particularly the comments he just concluded with. I hope everyone in this chamber echoes those sentiments just expressed by the shadow Attorney-General. The war on drugs is one we cannot let up on.

I want to put on the record this afternoon that I congratulate the Attorney-General on bringing this legislation to the chamber. Hopefully it will be passed here today and that will put people who want to traffic illicit drugs on notice that this government, the legislators of Queensland, mean business in this war—and I will always call it a war—

 

2. Through your own admission Australia is required to enact legislation to comply with international treaties which we are a party to yet the Australian government has failed to comply with these treaties by enacting federal laws that comply with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Specifically The Single Convention repeatedly affirms the importance of medical use of controlled substances. The Preamble notes 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". Articles 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 19, and 49 contain provisions relating to "medical and scientific" use of controlled substances. In almost all cases, parties are permitted to allow dispensation and use of controlled substances under a prescription, subject to record-keeping requirements and other restrictions.

 

The Single Convention unambiguously condemns drug addiction, however, stating that "addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind". It takes a prohibitionist approach to the problem of drug addiction, attempting to stop all non-medical, non-scientific use of narcotic drugs. Article 4 requires nations to limit use and possession of drugs to medicinal and scientific purposes. Article 49 allows countries to phase out coca leaf chewing, opium smoking, and other traditional drug uses gradually, but provides that "the use of cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible."

 

The discontinuation of these prohibited uses is intended to be achieved by cutting off supply. Rather than calling on nations to prosecute drug users, the treaty focuses on traffickers and producers.

 

Australian laws are not consistent with this treaty as you have claimed.

 

3. The use of Cannabis is not a high risk activity as you have stated in your response, With the exception of the Howard Government report “The winnable drug war” every report to a Parliament of Australia has concluded Medical Cannabis should be available to a select group of patients for whom it represents the only viable treatment. The use of Cannabis is not proven to contribute to social, economic and personal harm as you have claimed.

 

4. The Government has not taken a balanced approach to the use of Cannabis as you have claimed, harm reduction methods for Heroin users allows them access to safer methods for administering the drug (needle exchange) whilst Cannabis users are denied the right to safer methods of use due to state legislation prohibiting water pipes and other utensils that reduce health risks associated with smoking Cannabis.

[lightning]

Good one entheo, feel free to quote me at any time from anything I have posted including the brief, same to everyone else, I just want these laws gone and do not care who gets there first I claim no copyright on what I have posted and consider it "Public Domain".

The wider the truth about the laws gets spread amongst the population the better for all and the sooner we win hearts and minds and free all the plants for anyone's use as they were intended.

 

entheo your doc reads well go for it give them heaps