WA PASSES NEW CANNABIS BILL

[Tom]

Still, keeping within the 30g limit is enough for the average user as represented in NDRI figures

Only if he/she is buying instead of growing, this limit supports the illicit drug trade, we do not.

[pipeman]

1 ounce dried and cured that you are smoking from plus 2-3 wet ounces you just harvested.

 

Heh, good point. Still, keeping within the 30g limit is enough for the average user as represented in NDRI figures and that was my original point, the 30g/month was pure speculation and I didn't mean to commit to this.

point is, this is at the lower end of the scale IMO, and in the opinion of a lot of people here. we are not talking about people who have a puff of a joint whenever one shows up at a party, we are talking about people who grow and consume pot on a regular and permanent basis.

 

we will not resolve the accuracy of your research figures here as you've pointed out. But the other issue which needs to be addressed is that there needs to be two sets of posession laws, one for buyers and one for growers. I'm sure you'll agree that growing your own is preferable than buying off dealers, both for the consumer and the government. So if you are buying you can do so in regular small amounts and the 30g limit is not an issue. However as you now see, a grower who smokes a similar amount will need to have a stash of several ounces, and in reality often in excess of a pound at certain times. So these limits are really discouraging and punishing personal growers and making it easier for people to stick to buying from their dealers. Surely you see this isn't the right way to go?

[Guest BudWaver]

But what you seem to be misrepresenting here is that 30 grams you are talking about here can only be achieved by growing more than the specified number of plants previously indicated....or obtaining clones from someone who doesnt mind getting done for having over the number of afforementioned specified plants....

 

An ounce a month....sheesh thats nothing...do a side by side comparison with alochol consumed per month by the non toking individuals....3-4 bottles per night times 30 nights...90 botttles a month or nearly 4 cartons of alcohol.....does that make then an alcoholic?

 

Simply relying on figures from govt sources and non personally expereinced information is not entirely wrong but it is misleading....

 

Tolerance levels go up for alcohol and mj....I dont personally smoke a lot...and would probably go thru an oz a month...or two oz if Im socialising a lot with friends...but it pales in comparosion with freinds of mine who will go thru an oz a week easily...but are largely limited by their budgets...

 

Circular arguments here....

[Luke Skywalker]

Okay, I haven't made a reply here for a while, so I think I'll just throw in a few replies to your statements, Aussie Activist...

 

Right... firstly...

No I don't  Prove it. We need more data, until then this is the best we have. Agreed?

 

No. It's not the best we have because the research is horrendously biased. If this research is based upon figures gleaned from those who have been busted for possesion and growing and lumps them all together to try and deduce a profile of the avg user/grower it's set itself up to fail... big surprise. Growers who grow for their own personal use are completely different in usage rates to those who may buy for recreational use. Those who buy it are paying obscene amounts for what is usually lesser quality weed, or at the least of variable quality, it may or may not be treated with all kinds of unhealthy pesticides and even adulterants, (although that's fairly rare, it has been known to happen...) and the avg user is at the mercy of an illegal market serviced mainly by criminal organisations growing commercial crops. A home personal use grower is able to completely control the quality and knows exactly what goes into it. The cannabis produced by an avg home grower is usually of much higher quality and thc content than your avg deal through a friend of a friend.... This research it would appear by your statements is lumping the grower who produces their own pot for their own consumption in with the user in a pub who goes to a dealer to get it, this is not accurate, and can never be. So once again, no, I do not agree that it is the best we have as far as research goes.... it would appear to have been deliberately flawed in the first place. I am aware of a British researcher who is actually going out and contacting the growers themselves via a similar site to this one, based in the UK... I made a thread about it here, and it's this kind of direct research we need people to be doing and distributing. The amount of people who are caught for growing their own dope in no possible way reflects the realities of the industry and personal growing. Please don't put this reasearch forward as anything more than what it is, flawed and unrepresentative.

 

Okay, let's see....

Agreed - to a point. It complicates things, but you guys are seriously not the average cannabis user/grower

 

I would like to know what you base that last statement on... Let me guess, the NDRI research? hmmmm.... I think I've been over this.... I'm a pensioner, mid twenties, and I smoke daily to help with sciatica and depression. I grow just enough for myself, because I don't have many friends who smoke, and neither does my partner... Under this legistlation I am a criminal, and I don't by any stretch of the imagination imagine that I am anything but a marginally gifted amatuer who is growing at about the lowest end of the scale possible. Your statements about throwing away weed are just stupid. Sure, I could possibly stick to these unbelievably ridiculous guidelines based on a basically flawed premise, but I'd be growing such shit pot that I'd be better off going to see a dealer. And if I do grow, I'm now more likely to get a harsh sentence if I'm caught because I grow plants in the real world, not the world of fairies. And don't say that this legistlation now makes it easier for growers out there in the vast majority, because if I'm at the lower end of the personal growth and consumption for those who choose not to be slaves to prohibition and criminal gangs, then everone above me is a Mr Big compared to me... And if they should get busted, they'll end up being called commercial cultivators who deal in the courts.... because they have a set of kitchen scales 20 ft away in their kitchen which are used for cooking and their gf does beading and holds them in the same little baggies...

 

*pant* *pant*

 

Look, I know that you want things much better than this legistlation offers, but you seem to think that this legistlation will make us better off in some way, when we've collectively shown this not to be the case.... Has anyone ever questioned the research at NDRI on these issues of how a personal grower is actually able to stay within the CIN? I doubt it, I doubt it a lot. This has been put up by researchers, who are in all likelihood earnest in their attempts to reform the ridiculousness of prohibition, but are completely clueless as to the realities of growing for personal consuption. Which is what this legistlation is supposed to be about, isn't it? Reducing the effects of prohibition upon those who use and grow?

 

Is there a chance that you can show us a link to the actual research papers which were used as the basis for formulating these apparently arbritrary limits? If there's anything on the net about the actual debate and end discussions regarding what limits should be set, that'd be great too...

 

Aussie Activist, I know that most of the points I'm making to you now may seem a little harsh, and whilst I can totally respect your desire to reform the laws, I think you should hang around and learn a little more about the realities of growing ganga in Australia. You have spent so much time in books and papers which talk about how they'd like us to grow, rather than looking into the way it's actually done, and this has tainted your view of the community somewhat. The American and Australian growing experiences are two completely different things. You'll be working that out soon, I think, after spending some time here.

 

I look forward to your reply Aussie Activist, and I hope you can learn a lot from us about what cannabis growing is really all about, and what would actually reduce the harm vis-a-vis prohibition and law enforcement to us.

[white_cluster]

Aussie activist your a good fella, dont get me wrong and Im glad you didnt take any attacks to heart because I think you will be a valuable member of this site. regardless of your growing experience.

 

I hope you stay here for the long run, and together we can help you become the all-knowing super activist who will lead us to victory of the evil-doers.

 

Saying that when I got to this site originally I was amazed at the small amount guys smoke here. I smoke too much, i am a potaholic you could say, I harvest avg 24oz of perso every 12 weeks, but when I first got here I also had another crop which would give me another 12oz or so. So was smoking around 2-3oz a week, but thats my decision noone elses.

 

I was as ignorant as you, but the opposite, Being from northern NSW I was amazed that normal people with jobs smoked cannabis and so little of it.

 

Which makes me believe your side of the story a bit, I mean millions of people drink beer, but I'm sure the average home-brewer drinks alot more than the average after-work pub-goer. I doubt the average beer drinker would bother joining a Beer-site. but none the less its not illegal to brew yourself a ton of beer and drink yourself to death.

[Guest niall]

Right... firstly...

No I don't  Prove it. We need more data, until then this is the best we have. Agreed?

 

No. It's not the best we have because the research is horrendously biased. If this research is based upon figures gleaned from those who have been busted for possesion and growing and lumps them all together to try and deduce a profile of the avg user/grower it's set itself up to fail... big surprise. Growers who grow for their own personal use are completely different in usage rates to those who may buy for recreational use. Those who buy it are paying obscene amounts for what is usually lesser quality weed, or at the least of variable quality, it may or may not be treated with all kinds of unhealthy pesticides and even adulterants, (although that's fairly rare, it has been known to happen...) and the avg user is at the mercy of an illegal market serviced mainly by criminal organisations growing commercial crops. A home personal use grower is able to completely control the quality and knows exactly what goes into it. The cannabis produced by an avg home grower is usually of much higher quality and thc content than your avg deal through a friend of a friend.... This research it would appear by your statements is lumping the grower who produces their own pot for their own consumption in with the user in a pub who goes to a dealer to get it, this is not accurate, and can never be. So once again, no, I do not agree that it is the best we have as far as research goes.... it would appear to have been deliberately flawed in the first place. I am aware of a British researcher who is actually going out and contacting the growers themselves via a similar site to this one, based in the UK... I made a thread about it here, and it's this kind of direct research we need people to be doing and distributing. The amount of people who are caught for growing their own dope in no possible way reflects the realities of the industry and personal growing. Please don't put this reasearch forward as anything more than what it is, flawed and unrepresentative.

 

I agree, you don't seem to be getting my point. There are no other figures, this is all we have. Until there is another set of WA/Australian figures, this is the best we have - as far as verifiable, measurable data. You guys have given me a completely different picture, but you can't prove it to the extent required to actually change the law or call the NDRI data into question. You admit this, that we need to be doing direct surveys - but you're talking about the validity of the data, and I no longer am. I was merely making the point in that last post that this is the only data we have, and the only data the Government has, and the only data that actually matters as far as the law is concerned.

 

If it's truly flawed, and from all of your posts it does seem to be the lower end of the scale, it needs to be disputed with quality data. How that can be done under prohibition, I don't know - I don't think it will be possible until tolerance increases and stigma decreases significantly, or more of you guys start getting busted and appearing in the data. Maybe it needs to be challenged in the courts, but that would also require hard data to support the claim that it wasn't a unique situation for this grower.

 

Neither of us have the real answer here, if anything it lies somewhere in between and neither of us can prove it either way. Agree?

 

Your statements about throwing away weed are just stupid.  Sure, I could possibly stick to these unbelievably ridiculous guidelines based on a basically flawed premise, but I'd be growing such shit pot that I'd be better off going to see a dealer.

 

So you agree that it is possible? If you read my post, that's my point exactly - that it is possible, if not realistic or attractive.

 

We're having two separate conversations here man, you're not focusing on what I'm actually saying but the general gist of what I'm saying. I thought I was being as clear as possible, that's why I kept those responses short earlier on in the thread. I was making a single point with each, that there is no other data and that it is possible to stay within the limits. That's all. I agree with the rest, it just wasn't what I was talking about.

 

Is there a chance that you can show us a link to the actual research papers which were used as the basis for formulating these apparently arbritrary limits?  If there's anything on the net about the actual debate and end discussions regarding what limits should be set, that'd be great too...

 

They're not available online but you may be able to find summaries or extracts at http://curtin.edu.au/centre/ndri/. I bought copies of most of their publications, the one I've been referring to is "The Social Impact of a Minor Cannabis Offence Under Strict Prohibition - The Case of Western Australia". They've got a lot of other publications, comparing SA to WA etc. Really worth a read, I recommend them even if you think their data collection is biased. Another of theirs is "The Regulation of Cannabis Possession, Use and Supply" - which recommends a legislative model for Victoria from a few years back, $50 fine for 10 plants (<=3 flowering or >50cm) or 25g dried, $150 for same plants and up to 50g dried.

 

Maybe some of you guys should contact Simon Lenton and other people at NDRI and recommend they re-evaluate their dry weight yields per plant, the minimum required for personal use based on consumption patterns, average consumption rates etc. Hopefully they could focus on this as the Cannabis Control Bill is monitored over the years - seized amounts and plants, new data on average use etc.

 

Cheers Luke

[Guest niall]

Still, keeping within the 30g limit is enough for the average user as represented in NDRI figures

Only if he/she is buying instead of growing

No! The average user that I keep referring to here is the NDRI user - the majority of them can easily grow and dry 30g at a time to cover their needs.

 

I have to make a massive apology though, I misread the data and feel like a complete dick. Sorry guys.

 

The 10g amount is the average amount purchased at a time, not the entire year's purchases. They don't have an average for the number of times they purchased, but they do have ranges:

 

NONE 10.5%, 1-2 8.8%, 3-5 12.3%, 6-10 15.8%, 11-20 8.8%, >20 43.9%

 

More than 50% are 11+ purchases, so let's say for arguments sake the average consumption/year is somewhere between 60g (6 * 10g) and 200g (20 * 10g). Say a wild approximation of 120g ~4 ounces/year.

 

That seems doable to me, harvest 30g at a time and stay eligible for a CIN. Not ideal, but possible for the people represented in this data.

 

Greater thresholds would obviously help - maybe right up to the 100g dealing limit. If 100g is dealing and 30g is personal use, what's 31-99g?

[pipeman]

here's a novel thought, how about we make it law that the cops actually to prove you are dealing before you can be charged with any offence relating to dealing. Since when are we guilty until proven innocent?

 

And australian activist, you are still confusing the issue of users vs. growers. I will make this point to you for the 3rd time. You can't simply take the average user, and make growing laws to suit them, because the average user uses much less than the average grower. You are making laws for growers based on data collected from people who don't grow! No one who grows uses only 4 ounces a year, at that poultry amount, its simply not worth the time, money, and trouble involved with growing. So, either your figures are way off, or you are using the data from a lot of people who have been pinched for simple posession/use, in which case the data is should be totally irrelavent to the legislation we are taking about.

[Chev]

If it's truly flawed, and from all of your posts it does seem to be the lower end of the scale, it needs to be disputed with quality data. How that can be done under prohibition, I don't know - I don't think it will be possible until tolerance increases and stigma decreases significantly, or more of you guys start getting busted and appearing in the data.

Yeah, well more of us guys DON'T want to start getting busted and appearing in ANY data. I think this topic is really pointless. You've just full on argued about this 10grm bullshit, and yeah you apologized, but everyone here has just wasted time and effort trying to explain this to you, and you've full on argued a point on data you had wrong in the first place. If I had more time, I'd have posted more than this, beleive me.

The average user that I keep referring to here is the NDRI user

Well, until you have something better than that to go on, without us having to have our asses busted and our gear confiscated, it's moot. And I think there are better issues to be debating over than a big fat heap of bullshit figures from the NDRI. I don't think that you are going to go very far I'm afraid. I don't know many users who smoke even that small amount weekly, so, as you can see, I think you're wasting time here. You are not going to represent the marijuana community very well at all, so leave it to someone who's had a little more experience, like 20 years more.

[Guest niall]

here's a novel thought, how about we make it law that the cops actually to prove you are dealing before you can be charged with any offence relating to dealing.  Since when are we guilty until proven innocent?

 

That was part of the Victorian NDRI model from memory - the onus was on the Police to prove you were dealing, but also on yourself to prove you were not dealing.

 

And australian activist, you are still confusing the issue of users vs. growers.  I will make this point to you for the 3rd time.  You can't simply take the average user, and make growing laws to suit them, because the average user uses much less than the average grower.

 

I got your point the first time. I'm not suggesting you can make laws on growing based on using, but they have. These laws are aimed at allowing the people they identified to grow amounts equivalent to what they were purchasing as users. Of course your usage will change if you suddenly have far more cannabis at your disposal, I've never suggested that the average user is the average grower, only that the people they are aiming this legislation at could grow those amounts for themselves.

 

You are making laws for growers based on data collected from people who don't grow!

 

No, I'm not. I'm not making laws, I'm not suggesting laws, all I've said is that the people who have been busted in the past would be covered by these laws, that it is possible for them to grow enough for their needs.

 

You guys should respond to what I actually write, and keep emphasising, instead of what you think I'm saying.