A new section has begun, so send in "The Word as We'ed
Seed It!"
Let it Grow!
The School Project.
Sometimes we get these letters, and we can't help wondering.
Is it really a student at the other end and not a fame-seeking
crazed anti, or security agency spook, or shock jock, looking
for something to misrepresent in the news, corridors of power
or worse? Even then, do you answer and what do you say?
Hi i am currently doing a year 12 assignment
on the legalisation of marijuana and i was just wondering
if i could just ask you a few questions about this.
Why do you want marijuana legalised?
How will legalising the drug be of benefit?
Do you see any problems in legalising marijuana?
What are the benefits of marijuana?
How do you think the law should be changed?
Thank you for your time,
Jane
Jane (I assume)
One thing, this is my personal opinion, and not an authoritative
document. Parents always worry that their children will become
caught up in the diversionary before they have had a chance
to fully develop their identity or talents. I think young
people should avoid drugs until maturity, as they may affect
development. Many will try drugs though, despite official
disapproval or friendly advice, and the best thing to be done
for those is to provide the most accurate information possible,
so that their choices are as informed as possible.
The illegality of cannabis is not a huge injustice on the
global scale of injustices, and there are many other important
issues for young people to consider. If you are planning on
"going somewhere in life" you don't get caught up
in cannabis, that's just for us "bleeding hearts"
that worry about the effect of current laws on the less able,
because they are the ones who get targeted most. Otherwise
cannabis just isn't an "important" issue for most.
That is my bias, in plain view.
Why do you want marijuana legalised?
To quote Michael Duffy, mild mannered reporter for the Sydney
Morning Herald, a daily metropolitan newspaper (in his article
of September 7th)......:
"Three cheers for my fellow columnist Lisa Pryor,
who last week suggested we acknowledge the elephant in the
room where public debate about drugs occurs. It's time to
stand up and say illegal drug use is fun and - unless you
get caught - harmless.
Yes, there are exceptions to this. But far
fewer than if you tried to make the same claim about nicotine
or alcohol or junk food. The criminalisation of recreational
drugs will one day be looked back on with the incredulity
we now reserve for Prohibition.
The criminalisation of fun drugs is based
on claims about the harm they do, which fly in the face of
the experience of a large proportion of the population. The
six-week "drug holiday" for rugby league players
announced this week is surely an acknowledgment of just how
common and acceptable recreational drug-taking is among young
people, including very fit and healthy young people.
The persistence of drug criminalisation
reflects the self-interest of a loose coalition of politicians,
moralists and law enforcement officials, in search of headlines,
bigger budgets and more power. They've been winning the argument
for a long time now, at least in terms of public policy. What
might alter this situation?
The change will eventually come from a growing
awareness of the terrible and accelerating damage the illicit
drug economy is doing to peace and prosperity around the globe.
That trade is booming today because of the trade liberalisation
and globalisation we've experienced since the 1990s. These
have created enormous wealth, thereby expanding the markets
for fun drugs, and making it even easier for drug growers
and manufacturers in other countries to reach those markets.
This is the theory of Moises Naim, editor
of the magazine Foreign Policy. Recently Naim told me: "The
United Nations Office of Drug Control and Crime just released
a report estimating the value of the international drug trade
at $US660 billion ($800 billion) a year. It is great, it is
growing, it is diversifying, both geographically and in terms
of product lines. It's a vast industry that moves a lot of
money and has huge requirements in terms of infrastructure,
transportation and so on. All of that on a daily basis, on
a systematic basis, would be impossible without the active
complicity of governments around the world."
In many Third World countries (or "narcostates"),
governments and their agencies are now corrupted by drug traders
and their allies in politics and legitimate business activities.
This makes much of the international war against drugs - estimated
to cost $US100 million a year - an ineffectual farce.
The scale of the drug economy is only possible
because First World countries have been unable to stop the
immense craving for fun drugs among their own populations.
As Naim puts it: "The markets are massive and they're
created by state intervention [ie criminalisation]."
He believes the international drug trade
is now so big and corrosive of national sovereignty that it,
along with other cross-border crimes such as people smuggling
and money laundering, "are reconfiguring and transforming
the world's politics and economics today far more than terrorism".
Everywhere you look, the growing spread
of drugs is trashing public morality and everyday life. Naim
has written that the world is undergoing an unprecedented
pandemic of crime. In 2003 the UN reported that crime rates
were increasing almost everywhere. In cities such as Johannesburg
and Milan there have been large protest marches complaining
about rising crime. The World Bank says Latin America's economic
growth could be 8 per cent higher if its crime rates dropped.
What drives up crime? Poverty doesn't seem
to matter. Inequality and urbanisation play a part. But researchers
agree a big contributor is the combination of a high proportion
of young men, easy access to guns, and ample drugs.
The Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation leaders
this weekend ought to be talking seriously about drugs. But
of course they won't, because that would offend the United
States, whose expensive and long-running war on drugs is possibly
the greatest public policy failure of all time.
The latest issue of Foreign Policy has an
article on this by Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy
Alliance, which argues for decriminalisation. He notes that
the number of Americans incarcerated for US drug-law violations
has increased from 50,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today. The US,
with five per cent of the world's population, has 25 per cent
of its prisoners.
For a long time the US and its punitive-moral
agenda has dominated the international agencies set up to
deal with drugs. But Nadelmann says this hegemony is now under
challenge for the first time. "The European Union is
demanding rigorous assessment of drug-control strategies.
Exhausted by decades of service to the US-led war on drugs,
Latin Americans are far less inclined to collaborate closely
with US drug enforcement efforts. Finally waking up to the
threat of HIV/AIDS, China, Indonesia, Vietnam and even Malaysia
are increasingly accepting of syringe-exchange and other harm
reduction programs [which the US opposes]."
This is good news even if it is only a start.
The truth is that the West's war on drugs can never be won,
because too many people don't want it to be won. And while
fun drugs do some damage, it is only a tiny fraction of the
destruction caused around the globe by drug prohibition."
I feel Michael Duffy (the above quote) does not clearly say
which drugs he considers to be not-fun drugs. I would. Heroin,
amphetamines and cocaine all have ability to trigger obsessive
compulsive addictive behaviour. While they might begin as
fun, for too many they don't continue or end that way. Hallucinogens
have always carried the risk of unique reactions in the few,
so I would always urge caution in where one chooses to experience
the drug (setting and company) and to not be cavalier about
such a step. While I feel that extra elephant also needs to
be seen, I broadly agree.
I see cannabis as a benign drug when compared,
not only to the legal alcohol and nicotine, but to a large
number of prescription drugs that are far more "mind
- altering", and carelessly prescribed. I have seen police
burst into people's homes to arrest people for cannabis use
in front of children, and people at Tuntable Falls herded
into a truck when there were insufficient paddy-wagons. Is
it really sane to imprison people because they happen to enjoy
smoking a particular herb? Cannabis users should not be automatically
classified as criminals (or as hippies either). It is no guarantee
of either.
"Conservative" people seem to fear that it would
change society, but cannabis has been prevalent in Australia
since 1970, and civilisation hasn't crumbled yet, nor would
it. I feel that it would reduce crime and opportunities for
official corruption if cannabis were a legally available substance.
"Vice" crimes (Gaming, prostitution, drugs) have
always been a source of police corruption.
Alcohol prohibition in the US led to an enormous increase
in crime and corruption, and allowed organised crime to become
established and entrenched. Despite the high moral motives
behind it, it was a practical disaster. Has cannabis prohibition
been any different? You did not ask about decriminalisation,
but I would say decriminalisation is a trojan horse that would
allow the current associated crime and corruption to continue.
How will legalising the drug be of benefit?
It will no longer be a cash cow for organised crime and source
of "black money" for intelligence agencies as it
currently is. There will be fewer people to jail, less need
for more and more prisons, and less need to expand police
departments and budgets. The "rebel" aura associated
with use will be lost. Real criminals wont have to put up
with "druggies" crowding out their jails. Real criminals
dont think "druggies" are real criminals and "bring
down the class of inmate". I agree with them on that
point.
Do you see any problems in legalising marijuana?
Only the same ones that exist for alcohol and nicotine: discouraging
use during formative years, identifying individuals for whom
the drug is medically or behaviourally inappropriate, the
usual control issues. The plastics, petroleum, and wood pulp
industries would probably continue to oppose a Hemp industry,
but it would be better for the environment if Hemp industries
were re-established.
What are the benefits of marijuana?
In terms of personal use that is a personal thing. A number
of people find it relaxes them, some say it excites them,
some say "it puts them in touch with their spiritual
side", while others will say it makes them laugh a lot
and eat too many sweet treats. I have experienced all those
characterised responses. One good use of marijuana I have
discovered that may be of use to someone else somewhere is
that if you give a violent or nuisance drunk a joint they
will usually go to sleep soon after and stop bothering people.
When people use cannabis in groups they do not normally become
boisterously agressive or behave riotously.
Think of any drug that you know of, and compare it with cannabis.
Marijuana Overdose?
There is no existing evidence of anyone dying of a marijuana
overdose. Tests performed on mice have shown that the ratio
of cannabinoids (the chemicals in marijuana that make you
high) necessary for overdose to the amount necessary for intoxication
is 40,000:1.
For comparison's sake, that ratio for alcohol is generally
between 4:1 and 10:1. Alcohol overdoses claim approximately
5,000 casualties yearly, but marijuana overdoses kill no one
as far as any official reports.
No "overdose" risk.
Brain Damage Risk?
Marijuana is psychoactive because it stimulates certain brain
receptors, but it does not produce toxins that kill them (like
alcohol), and it does not wear them out as other drugs may.
There is no evidence that marijuana use causes brain damage.
Studies performed on actual human populations will confirm
these results, even for chronic marijuana users (up to 18
joints per day) after many years of use.
In fact, following the publication of two 1977 JAMA studies,
the American Medical Association (AMA) officially announced
its support for the decriminalization of marijuana.
In reality, marijuana has the effect of slightly increasing
alpha-wave activity in your brain. Alpha waves are generally
associated with meditative and relaxed states, which are,
in turn, often associated with creativity.
Does not cause physical brain damage.
Memory Impairment?
Marijuana does impair short-term memory, but only during intoxication.
Although the authoritative studies on marijuana use seem to
agree that there is no residual impairment following intoxication,
persistent impairment of short-term memory has been noted
in chronic marijuana smokers, up to 6 and 12 weeks following
abstinence.
If 6 to 12 weeks is not deemed "long term", no long
term memory damage. (Bad for exams though.)
So if you have legal drugs like the ones we do have, why is
cannabis classified legally as a narcotic? Tradition? It just
seems hopelessly inappropriate to me.
Medically, cannabis has been found to discourage the cancers
that tobacco encourages, and a few other cancers as well,
under laboratory conditions. It is an antiemetic (e.g., reduces
nausea with chemotherapy), decreases pain sensation, increases
appetite (e.g., in patients with cancer or AIDS), tremor reduction,
relaxant, antispasmodic, anticonvulsant, treatment of glaucoma
(reduces intra-ocular eyeball pressure), and "reduces
spasticity".
How do you think the law should be changed?
I think cannabis should be legally available from tobacconists
and approved outlets; regulated, graded, packaged and taxed,
but an individual citizen should still be allowed to grow
a few plants for personal use and/or for personal gardening
satisfaction.
Medically I could not deny the use of it to
people in certain situations. I think people undergoing treatments
that make them nauseous (e.g. AIDS and cancer) should be allowed
to use cannabis if they wish, anyone dying of an otherwise
untreatable disease, people with cerebral palsy or degenerative
diseases of the central nervous system, people with intractable
pain who do not like opiate derived painkillers, cases like
those.
At the same time I think the uses of the low
THC industrial hemp plant should be re-explored and encouraged
as a way of reducing greenhouse gases. It was banned as a
commercial plant, supposedly because of its "narcotic"
effect, but some feel that Hemp was actively demonised by
it's emerging competitors, the wood pulp, petrochemical and
synthetics industries, seeking commercial advantage. In any
event, it is an extremely useful and versatile plant with
a range of uses, and the industrial variety has so little
THC in it, its not worth smoking.
Another thing is that NSW state laws regarding cannabis and
driving are out of proportion to the effect of the drug. While
alcohol tends to make one incautious and overconfident, cannabis
tends to make users under confident and over cautious. The
test used finds metabolites no longer affecting the user,
so the use of such tests seems a bit premature, but in any
event I feel the penalties are not proportionate.
That's how I see it.
(In doing any project "Google"
is your best friend. Type in the thing you want to know about,
and you will be overwhelmed with information on that "thing"
to sort through. Hempembassy.net has a lot of information
bearing on cannabis. http://archives.hempembassy.net/hempe/risks.html
The actual risks of cannabis use.
This page, http://archives.hempembassy.net/hempe/totality.html,
has a list of all pages on the website with a short description
of each one.)
Too much?
A random Hemp Embassy member/volunteer.
"Just like the birds, humanity needs both wings
to fly: the left and the right wing. When they are beating
in unison, we soar."
Greens MP Lee Rhiannon - 30
August 2007
New crime stats show
dramatic drop in arrests of drug dealers and traffickers
Greens MP and health spokesperson Lee
Rhiannon says Premier Iemma should stop crowing about today’s
crime figures which show a disturbing drop in the number of
drug dealing and trafficking offences being reported to NSW
Police.
“The new figures show that the
‘Mr Bigs’ of the drug world are increasingly escaping
detection,” Ms Rhiannon said.
“The statistics suggest police
resources are concentrated on catching small time, drug users
not the commercial suppliers of illicit drugs.
“Premier Iemma should make the
first task of new Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione reviewing
why the force is having less success in catching suppliers.
“Today’s Bureau of Crime
Statistics figures show the number of incidents reported to
NSW Police for ‘dealing and trafficking’ in narcotics,
amphetamines and ecstasy has dropped by 44.5 percent over
the last 24 months.
“Dealing and trafficking in cocaine,
cannabis and ecstacy has remained stable.
“While it may be easier for police
to target small time drug users, catching the big suppliers
is the most effective way of minimising harm from illicit
drugs.
“Cracking down on individual
users will never effectively remove drugs from our streets.
“These crime figures suggest
the Iemma government is losing the war on illicit drugs and
that police are being less successful in netting commercial
suppliers.
“The Greens renew our call for
the government to purse the big drug dealers while investing
in drug treatment and rehabilitation programs,” Ms Rhiannon
said..
July 2007: We have had media and politicians
willfully distort Nimbin in the past, and now we have members
of the police force playing the same type of distortionist
politics. It was disappointing press this week, with a couple
of articles vilifying our village. I disagreed strongly with
a number of points. The mental health "problems"
that live in Nimbin were sent here by the local health services
when Richmond Clinic let most of their patients out under
the guise of policy reform. There are no "gangs".
There is no rising tide of violence. These are falsehoods.
One only has to look at the crime statistics for the region,
and in particular, Nimbin compared to other locations to see
for oneself. Certainly "the town" has not broken
the law. What an insulting and careless assertion, condemning
a whole village for the alleged actions of a few individuals.
One also has to wonder precisely what is meant by "a
New York-style 'broken windows' approach is the only way to
smash a culture he said is destroying social order in Nimbin".
Destroying social order? This is alarming nonsense from someone
in authority. The release is a very "political"
and if the Northern Star report and Ackerman's vilification
in the Telegraph were just a ploy to increase police allocations
for this region, it might not be that much of a matter of
concern, but in the serial government witch hunts of the last
decade there is a disturbing trend. Vilification followed
by interventionist crackdowns of little benefit.
How far will neo-conservatives go to promote and affirm their
own prejudices?
It's a worry for anyone who values individual freedom.
**********************
ZERO TOLERANCE ON CHOICE IN NIMBIN. - Our answer
to Supt.Lyon’s ‘Roar‘.
Report from Northern Star Echo with our comments:
It (Nimbin) is the town that has continued to break the law
with its laissez-faire attitude to drugs.
Not quite. It’s actually the town that has continued
to resist drug apartheid policy and war waged against ordinary
Australians in the name of ‘drug supremacy’ -
the drugs with the buzzword ‘legal’ attached,
that is.
But after years of open drug dealing on the streets as well
as a rising tide of violence, police have had enough.”
After years of open drug of choice dealing on the streets,
and in drug dealing establishments (whether the drug is buzzword
‘legal’ or ‘illegal’- it makes no
never-mind, drugs are drugs), while not giving a damn that
ABUSE is the rising tide and violence is only a part of it,
Police have had enough of any drug and drug dealer that comes
into direct or indirect competition with the Drug cartels/
Drug Lords of the drugs Ethanol, Nicotine and caffeine (never
mind the drug flood from Big Pharma, that they tell us are
essential medications when anyone with a clue know would know
that they’re drugs).
Local Area Commander Bruce Lyons, the man in charge of policing
the far North Coast town, is now taking a zero tolerance policy
to drugs.
Local Area Commander Bruce Lyons, the man in charge of eradicating
use and choice in the far North Coast town (under the guise
of the Corporate Organised Protection Squad - C.O.P.S) - is
now taking a zero tolerance policy to selective, individual
drugs of choice, while allowing, advocating and standing side
by side with some of the biggest drug dealers/drug cartels/drug
lords (albeit calling them Licensees and ‘drink’/’beverage’
manufacturers).
He is fed up with the decades-old drug culture, which has
brought with it a series of social problems including high
rates of mental health and homelessness.
He is fed up with the decades-old Cannabis race culture,
as this herbal race is the standard of Nimbin. However, when
it comes to the ethanol drug culture which has brought with
it a series, nay - a FLOOD - of social problems, including
60 medical conditions, thousands dead per year, tens of thousands
hospitalised per year, 84% of street and pub assaults, 74%
of domestic violence, 45% of reported child abuse, countless
man hours lost per year through neuro-toxic acetaldehyde poisoning
(lovingly called a ‘hangover’) etc. Etc. And so
forth.
Remembering, of course, that ethanol contributes to high
rates of negative forms of mental, psychological, neuro-logical,
and physical health problems as well as homelessness. So…why
is he only targeting selective drugs of choice and not the
abuse that manifests and constantly jumps back and forth between
the buzzword ‘legal’ and buzzword ‘illegal’
drugs, as if it doesn’t even recognise them? That’s
because - ABUSE DOES NOT recognise them. The Criteria of Harm
does not recognise them, in fact the only thing that recognises
social segregation against use and choice when it comes to
a policy, is APARTHEID. (A policy of social segregation upon
individual and collective coverings defined by differential
and/or preferential treatment. The ‘our drugs all good,
your drugs all bad’ policy that Mr. Lyons is trying
to push, that Mr. Pyne is flogging through sport, and that
is eating through not only Australian respect, but through
all of our resources. Ethanol is the drug of choice for problems
in this country. Even Police Commissioner Ken Moroney personally
stated, “I believe that alcohol is a greater problem,
an even greater menace, than the illicit drug problem”.
Now considering that ethanol is only one drug of choice,
and there are hundreds of so-called ‘illicit drugs’,
one would have thought that the main onus of drug targeting
would be the drug consumed by 84% of the population and abused
by 64% of it!
After petitioning the Government for more resources………”
Meanwhile, Police have been stating for quite a while now
that their resources are constantly being depleted, thanks
to the abuse of the drug ethanol, also called ethyl alcohol,
street names ‘grog’, ‘booze’, ‘piss’,
‘plonk’ etc.
….Superintendent Lyons will be boosting the police
station's staff from four to nine officers in the coming months
in a push to drive the drugs out of town.”
Rather, in a push to drive selective drugs of choice out
of town, and replace them with as many attractive forms of
ethanol, nicotine and caffeine that now target all ages through
sport, fashion, celebrity, politics, family events, mascots,
slogans, toys and other drug propaganda and paraphernalia,
which includes the FLOOD of ethanol drug ads in my letterbox
every week telling me to ‘Double Up’ on (under
the Criteria of harm) a ‘neurotoxic Class A drug on
par with heroin!’
The crackdown has earned the ire of some residents - who
claim the bigger force is overkill for a town with a population
of 500.
Of course it is. When one can’t even call out a local
policeman in a small city of 10,000 (like ours) for domestic
violence or street brawls (all ethanol related) because “Sorry,
we don’t have enough resources” ( ‘…….because
we’re wasting them targeting individual Australians
for their individual belief when it comes to their drug of
choice and the human right of use……’).
But Supt Lyons was adamant a New York-style "broken
windows" approach is the only way to smash a culture
he said is destroying social order in Nimbin.
The Cannabis Race Culture is not destroying the social order
in Nimbin. ABUSE combined with disrespect, combined with apartheid
law/prohibition of use and choice, is destroying not only
the social order in Nimbin, but Australia and worldwide. And
what is Supt. Lyon’s answer to it? “A ‘New
York style “broken windows” approach’ with
the mandate of smashing cannabis culture, which WILL be replaced
with Australia’s/Ethanolia’s Ethanol drug culture,
complete with mascots. Eradicate the Plantem and relace him
with Bundy Bear riding a Bottle of Bundy through the main
street as he and his bottle has ‘now’ replaced
Nimbin’s Big joint. “Etho! Etho! Etho! Oy! Oy!
Oy!”
Abuse is being wielded by the Police to try and smash a culture
(’broken windows approach“)………!
But I guess they don’t see it like that. Abuse is legal,
as long as it has the ‘buzzword’ ‘legal’
and ‘by law’ attached.
“I'm passionate about fixing the problem because, unless
we deal with all the social problems, the town will continue
to see the consequences of drug addiction.” Supt Lyons,
who has been in charge of the far North Coast for three years,
said.
Supt Lyons says he is passionate about fixing the problem,
but he doesn’t know what the problem is. The problem
is ABUSE and it doesn’t care if the drug is legal or
illegal. ABUSE causes all the social problems, not the drug,
and the consequences of abusive drug addiction are dire indeed.
But for him to target use and choice is the same as Hitler
targeting the Jews because he believed they were the problem.
If Supt Lyons has been in charge of the Far North Coast Police
for 3 years, then he’d have to know that ABUSE is rife
in ALL sectors of drugs and lifestyles and he’s targeting
only use and choice on selective drugs. No wonder he’s
been getting a lot of criticism. But we personally prefer
constructive criticism and Zero Tolerance is not an answer
to any choice, save for abuse.
"I have been getting a lot of criticism about this approach
but there is a silent majority in Nimbin talking to me saying
they want change and change is what needs to happen."
And what do they want to change? Well, that would be the
culture of ABUSE and not drugs per se, as the silent majority
are also drug takers (albeit hiding behind the buzzword ‘legal’
to excuse their drug consumption….sometimes in abuse
and addiction)
For years gangs have intimidated and assaulted those police
who have been shutting down the drug dealing.
This is a two part issue. 1) The greatest gift ever given
to criminals on both sides of the licit/illicit Great Australian/
World Divide was the gift of Prohibition on selective use
and choice. Government’s basically gave anyone who wanted
to be a criminal on both sides of the law, carte blanche.
On one side, “we can deal to anyone we like and we can
advocate our drugs even to children as young as two through
the mediums of media, sport, celebrity, fashion, music, politics
and fun family events etc - i.e. Monday Night Football is
now called Bundy Night Football with all the advertising they
can muster to target all ages equally.” Legal Drug Lords
love apartheid, it means THEY can do what they like. It even
means that they can call the drugs they deal nothing but a
drink or a beverage and they can call their own drug dealers,
licensees.
While…..on the other side, it’s “thanks
to prohibition, drugs are now one hell of a commodity and
can earn us lots of money. So, if we enslave people, abuse
people, target, intimidate and assault people, who cares?
We’ve already been segregated and called criminals whether
we use or abuse, so who gives a damn. “In for a penny,
in for a pound”.
Five security cameras were installed along Nimbin's main
street in 2005 at a cost of about $40,000.
$40,000 worth of cameras. We hope for that price that they
actually filmed real crime like assault, rape, wanton destruction,
burglary, etc, instead of just targeting drug dealers that
should be dealing inside a respectable drug dealership, just
like ethanol drug dealers, caffeine drug dealers, nicotine
drug dealers and pharmaceutical drug dealers are supposed
to be doing, even though they (buzzword ‘legals’)
show blatant disrespect and abuse when it comes to their drug
dealing and pushing practices.
However, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,
as there are SOME who are respectful and responsible ‘legal’
drug dealers.
But that only pushed drug pushers into the back alleys where
they use friends as police lookouts while they continue to
peddle drugs.
Qstn: Seeing as Australia is supposed to believe in a ‘fair
go’ for all, and Johnny is constantly touting the right
of competition, why would people want any other drug than
Govvy’s Big 3 (ethanol, nicotine and caffeine). Could
it be that the above 3 are not the only drugs of choice in
Australia anymore? (Remembering, of course, that Cannabis
and ethanol came to Australia at the same time). Could it
be that some Australians would like a different drug of choice
than the one that is constantly touted as ‘all good’
or “the best start to the morning’ etc?…or
the latest ‘joke’ “therapeutic nicotine”
- a neurotoxic, highly addictive drug! Which is why, when
it comes to the two newest Drug Lords for nicotine (Nicorette
and Nicabate) our statement is simple, “Nicorette, Nicorette,
it’s still a drug, don’t forget” and “Nicabate,
Nicabate. Realize it’s a drug before it’s too
late”.
Undercover police have conducted many operations in Nimbin
over the years but Supt Lyons wants to let drug dealers know
police will now be on the streets.
Supt. Lyons now wants to let drug dealers know Police will
now be on the streets. So, ‘Achtung, any drug dealer,
except the 4 biggest Drug dealing Collectives/Cartels in Australia
(Big Nico, Big Etho, Big Pharma and Big Caff/TMX).
Note: Caffeine’s true name is tri-methyl-xanthine,
so why is our Government and its vested interests trying constantly
to get kids hooked on this legal ‘meth’ i.e. “Don’t
take meth, except tri-meth of the xanthine chemical stimulant
group”?
During the Mardi Grass festival in May 109 people were arrested
for drugs and bad behaviour.
During the Mardi Grass Cannabis Race Festival, a festival
dedicated to the Race Cannabis and its 4 pheno-types (sativa,
indica, ruderalis and henep) 109 people were arrested (some
for their individual drug of choice and others for abusive
behaviour).
Of those, 57 were cautioned while the rest faced court and
criminal charges.
Of those, 57 Australians were cautioned about not taking
their drug of choice and getting on Govvy’s big 3 instead…or
else! While, the rest faced court and criminal charges. Most
probably for drug dealing. Meanwhile, ethanol, caffeine and
nicotine drug dealers got away scott free and if anyone watches
the local news report, that shows the police looking down
on the Mardi Grass marchers from the local Ethanol Drug dealing
and consumption establishment. Why didn’t they target
them? Why didn’t they also target the Ethanol drug dealers
for allowing the consumers to get drugged off their tree on
the drug ethanol, then tell them they can’t sell them
anymore and to get out! It would be interesting to see which
drug consumers (regardless of the drugs) were part of the
abusive anti-social behaviour. Every time we see the word
‘anti-social’ behaviour being touted in any of
our news reports, it’s to do with the abuse of the drug
ethanol, which is why for the last 3 years we have called
this form of abuse - ethanol social behaviour, as ethanol
drug abuse is now classed as a social ‘norm’ while
people are denied their human right of selective individual
use and choice when it comes to drug taking, whether recreational,
medicinal or spiritual.
"In the past, undercover drug units have turned (Nimbin's
drug culture) upside down and left, then its reverted back
to normal," he said.
“In the past, undercover competition eradication drug
units have turned Nimbin’s Cannabis culture (and other
drug culture) upside down and left, then it’s reverted
back to normal”. Damn…you would have thought this
would actually have given Supt. Lyons a clue that people want
different drugs of choice, not just the ones that Supt. Lyons
and others say are ‘okay for you’.
"I want local police to deal with the problem and become
part of the community because if they do that they will get
the respect.
“I want local police to deal with the problem”….so
do we. The problem is ABUSE and the other problem is P.O.L.I.C.E.
(which is Protecting Ordinary Liberated Individual Citizens
Equally) being eradicated and replaced with C.O.P.S. (Corporate
Organised Protection Squads/ Competition Eradicators). If
they (the Police) truly show respect, which means ‘to
look again at your actions in regards to yourself and others’,
then they will get the respect they deserve. But, at the moment,
the police care more about the buzzwords ‘legal’
and ‘illegal’ than the Criteria that governs all
drugs….the CRITERIA OF HARM. That Criteria is mortality,
morbidity, toxicity, addictiveness and relationship with crime.
This Criteria does not segregate between drugs of choice,
but it does help us gain an understanding of drugs of choice
and exposes the difference between the principles of use vs
abuse. Our Government seems to think that we are kindergarteners
and have not reached the age of individual decision making
and reason even once we get to 18. This is partially why the
Criteria of Harm has been either suppressed or eradicated
in favour of the ‘our drugs all good, your drugs all
bad’ drug apartheid policy we have in Australia today.
The other part is as follows:
“When Governments and Political parties, who are bought
and sponsored by Drug Lords/Cartels, write drug policy…it’s
a safe bet that the policy is written in favour of that particular
Drug Lord/Cartel and the Drug/s that they create, advocate
and deal”. Can anyone prove us wrong in this regard?
We have taken the time to go through all drug policies in
Australia and they seem to mimic a lot of facist, apartheid,
truly Nazi-onal, socialist policies. On the illicit side they
start off with as much discrimination, prejudice, bias and
hatred as possible i.e. ‘The Dickhead and Loser Campaign”,
while on the legal side, they start off with not only praising
the drug and its drug lords, but stating how wonderful a thing
it is to have this drug and its culture in every aspect of
Australian culture. Then they go on to talking about excessive
’drinking,’ binge ’drinking’, ‘drinking’
to excess etc.etc. as if they’re not even talking about
Australia’s favourite Class A drug of choice. W.A.G.A.S.I.L.
has been our statement when it comes to the legal drug cartels
getting away with murder (literally) in this country and worldwide.
W.A.G.A.S.I.L. stands for, “Who Actually Gives A Shit,
It’s Legal”.
"It's not about police continuing to use the law to
fix the problems of Nimbin, its going to take a lot more than
that (to end the drug culture)."
First of all, Police wield and manipulate the law, just like
Politicians do, with no true benefit which is what ‘use’
means. The law must be changed if we are ever to fix the problem
of abuse in Australia….never mind Nimbin! And, if Supt..
Bruce Lyons believes that he has the right to end particular
cultures he doesn’t like, he is sadly mistaken. Culture
eradication is cultural genocide and that is a crime against
humanity. What we need to target in this country is the cultivated
culture of ABUSE that freely grows in this country on both
sides of the licit/illicit divide.
Now allow us to demonstrate exactly the difference between
USE and ABUSE.
USE is the beneficial application and/or action of something.
Respectful use is to look again at your actions, to make doubly
sure that what you are doing is truly beneficial to you and
others.
ABUSE, on the other hand, is the destroyer. It is the perversion
of action and application. Abuse does not care what drug you
take, what breed, nationality or tribe you come from, whether
you’re rich or poor, whether you have good standing
in the community or living on the streets - Abuse can, so
it does. And the only thing that can stop abuse is the individual
decision of respectful use.
If you put your drug of choice before your family - you are
an abuser. Family comes first.
If you put your drug of choice before your own safety - you
are an abuser. Safety comes first.
If you put your drug of choice before your work - you are
an abuser. Work comes first.
If you put your drug of choice before your friends - you
are an abuser. Friendship comes first.
If you put your drug of choice before your relationship/marriage
- you are an abuser. Relationships/Marriage comes first.
If you put your drug of choice before your rent, mortgage,
and bills - you are an abuser. These things come first.
If you put your drug of choice before your nutrition, you
are an abuser. Nutrients for the body come fist, as all drugs
(regardless of buzzwords) burn nutrients and devour your nutrients.
“Drugs - if you don’t eat, they eat you”.
People take illicit drugs for the same reasons they take
so-called ‘legals’. For recreation, medicine,
spirituality/meditation and escape. People like the social
aspect. People like the cultural aspect. These things are
not bad/abusive aspects when it comes to drugs of choice.
The only thing that is, is ABUSE. So, ‘Whatever your
drug of choice, please, for your sake and others, respect
what you use and choose not to abuse. Use is your right -
abuse is not!” Yet, they are both choices.
April, 2006 Michael Balderston quoted in the Lismore Northern
Star….
Mr Balderstone said the prosecution of easy-to-bust cannabis
users had helped the rapid expansion in the use of pills and
chemical powders like ice.
"Even at Mardi Grass, the more they pursue the smell
of cannabis the more people will pop an odourless pill and
drink more legal alcohol“
Every time a drug of choice is targeted and removed, another
(usually more dangerous one) takes its place. Cannabis and
caffeine are Class C drugs for a reason. But pills, ‘ice’,
ethanol, nicotine etc. are all Class A and B for a reason
and that reason can be judged under the Criteria of Harm involved
instead of just what we have at the moment with Government
and vested interests prejudicing themselves against selective,
individual drugs of choice. By the way, every time a member
of the Cannabis race gets hunted down and eradicated/genocided,
another legal drug gets its wings as well as, of course, the
chemicalised clones of the Cannabis race - Hydro. We personally
don’t even want these chemicals in our food, but nearly
all food nowadays is grown with the same stuff we are supposed
to be horrified about when we see it being applied in a Hydro
House or some other drug lab. Meanwhile, when it comes to
Hydro House vs Your House in chemicals, there’s not
much difference and the only difference between a Supermarket
aisle and a hydro house/drug lab is that there are more toxic
chemicals in the Supermarket aisle and all these toxic chemicals
are being pushed, advertised and advocated to all ages 7 days
a week, 365 days a year in every medium.
Quote: Dr. A.C. Germann - Prof. emeritus of the Dept. of
Criminal Justice, California.
“It is a national embarrassment that many of our approaches
to drug use and drug abuses (at least he knows there’s
a difference between use and abuse) remain so puerile, ignorant
and vindictive. We need truthful information about responsible
drug use, and irresponsible drug abuse, of both licit and
illicit drugs, so called. We need alternatives to the repressive
and demonising application of Police, Prosecution and Prison,
and to consider reasoned and compassionate uses (benefit)
of education, treatment and rehabilitation. Such alternatives
would clearly demonstrate that policies of Zero Tolerance
are counter productive, worsen a horrible situation, waste
public monies, corrupt agencies, and serve only the interests
of the Drug Conglomerates, the Prison/Criminal Justice Industrial
Complex and unfair Agency Forfeiture Acquisitions .
The repetitive refrain (and one that our politicians wield
on a constant basis) “We need to hire more police, pass
tougher laws, get tougher judges, pass longer sentences and
build more jails and prisons” is a popular and Addictive
ditty, but unrealistic and self-defeating, and a politically
mandated loyalty oath.
We seem unable to learn from the painful history of Alcohol
Prohibition”.
The Hemparty is on the road again. We are looking for people
who can keep their electoral details up to date, and who are
unafraid to answer the AEC letters that will be sent to a
random 20 HEMP Party members to verify our membership.
Using their well honed Truth Overboard tactics, the
conservative pollies are trying to convince an experienced
public that today's cannabis isn’t the same drug that
has so consistently failed to hurt anyone. Our own Thomas
George tried to label potheads as rioters in Parliament in
2006. Now we are getting a Howard Bong Ban?
"The early models of the Drugwipe screening test have
also been evaluated in several
studies conducted in the late 1990’s. While very few
false positives or negatives were
found when testing for cocaine and amphetamines, a high rate
of false positives was found
for opiates (35%). The results for cannabinoids were the poorest
with high proportions of
false negatives (40%) and a false positive rate as high as
28% in one study (see Mura et al.,
2000). The detection limits of the device for THC were however
not specified. Again using
an early model Drugwipe device, a study by Samyn and van Haeren
(2000) sampled 27
participants who displayed signs of intoxication, of whom
15 reported recent use of
cannabis. The stated surface sensitivity of the device was
50 ng/ml for THC. Samyn and
van Haeren (2000) reported three false positives and nine
false negatives from the 15 who
reported recent cannabis use. It was suggested at that time
that new antibodies with a
higher sensitivity for THC were required to improve the Drugwipe
test for cannabis (Mura
et al., 2000; Samyn & van Haeren, 2000)."
This quote from P39 of
Cannabis and road rafety: A review of recent epidemiological,
driver impairment, and drug screening literature
Monash University Accident Research Centre - Report
#231 [2004]
Also contains studies on the
effect of cannabis on driving skills.
Victimless Crimes
The sex industry, the drugs industry,
and the gambling industry: Governments have always struggled
with how to regulate certain pleasure seeking behaviors, especially
when they clash with religious concepts of sin, which sex,
drugs and gambling usually do. In law they they tend to come
under the general description of 'Vice', which addresses the
big three 'morality crimes'.
The problem for governments is that
these activities are not always harmful (even though they
can be), and in one form or another, they are as old as civilization
and haven't shown much sign of disappearing. People, it seems,
like pleasure and seek it out regardless of whether it is
frowned upon, or even specifically prohibited and criminalised,
as gambling drugs and sex work have been and remain to varying
degrees in different places around the world.
"Prohibition will work great injury to the
cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within
itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it
attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes
a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law
strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government
was founded."
This didn't sit easy with the current Australian government.
The Age suggests the sensationalised climate that politicians
have to work within makes them fearful of entering a rational
debate on drugs. A problem we've hit on time and time again.
However, there is a glimmer of hope. There is a train bound
for a world based on reality and a growing number of politicians
from across the political spectrum are happily taking luncheon
in the dining carriage.
This is good news because coming soon is a major new document
produced by Transform with the sole aim to aid rational debate
on drug policy. 'Tools for Debate' will be a groundbreaking
point-of-reference for anyone wishing to challenge non-rational
policy positions, no matter how emotionally persuasive the
rhetoric.
20th February '007: Peter Till,
a.k.a. Rock, the fellow who takes potted plants to court to
show how harmless they are, just got thirty days imprisonment.
Our hearts are with you Peter. Marc Emery admires your guts,
and says you're in the next Cannabis Culture magazine anyway,
due out mid March. Congrats. See you at MardiGrass!
OK, we run a shop too. Our volunteer staff have shop meetings
on Thursdays, and usually, thats when any new products are
looked at, to see if we think they are appropriate for the
Embassy.
We have been meeting the team from Arianrhod
Aromatics for awhile now, and members have been testing
their products, providing feedback. Their enthusiasm and commitment
is infectious, so we now have their products available at
the HEMP Embassy.
Drug laws 'need major
overhaul'
Current drug campaigns are
failing, the report says
Drug laws in Britain have been criticised
as being "not fit for purpose" in a major report. An investigation
by the RSA says illicit substances can be "harmless", while
drinking and smoking can cause as many problems. It says the
law has been "driven by moral panic", and suggests policy-making
should be left to drug teams and local authorities. The Home
Office says it does not accept all of the report's recommendations.
Anthony King, professor of government at Essex University,
who chaired the Commission on Illegal Drugs, said the "great
majority" of drug users did not harm themselves or others.
"Current policy is broke and needs to be fixed," he added.
The RSA's panel recommends scrapping the Misuse of Drugs Act
and replacing it with a broader Misuse of Substances Act,
and replacing the existing ABC classification system with
an "index of harms". Panel members included Deputy Assistant
Commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police. This would
extend the definition of drugs to include alcohol and tobacco
- as well as illegal substances, which the report says have
been "demonised". The report, entitled Illegal Drugs, Communities
and Public Policy, also calls for so-called "shooting galleries"
to be introduced where users can inject drugs as well as wider
access to prescription heroin. It says policy should be about
reducing harm and pursuing the criminal gangs behind the drugs
trade rather than the level of crime. If drug taking does
not harm anyone, then criminal sanctions should not be applied,
the report continues. The report says: "The evidence suggests
that a majority of people who use drugs are able to use them
without harming themselves or others. "The harmless use of
illegal drugs is thus possible, indeed common."
Having heard all the fuss and bother as the helicopters do
their raids and raise the collective heart rate, I pondered
the "buzz words", infra red detection and grid pattern
searching. The grid pattern maxinises their chances of finding
anything that might be there. That's simple.
The infra-red story was not as expected. I thought that the
infra-red was to detect plants, but it turns out that the
colour difference does not amount to a difference in infra
red wavelength. Infra red detects heat. Body heat. People
hiding in lantana. Animals. Hot sheds or buildings. Hot lights.
Lost children. Panting fugitives.
LA JOLLA, CA, August 9, 2006 - Scientists
at The Scripps Research Institute have found that the active
ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, inhibits
the formation of amyloid plaque, the primary pathological
marker for Alzheimer's disease. In fact, the study said, THC
is "a considerably superior inhibitor of [amyloid plaque]
aggregation" to several currently approved drugs for treating
the disease. . .
