Nimbin HEMP Embassy

December 2008 : The AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) is currently doing another membership check in response to our appeal against the previous check, where not enough members confirmed that they were members. As a result we failed the membership test instituted under Howard for parties without sitting members.

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Pre-empted by Federal Law

*Washington, DC* -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not pre-empted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

2,700-year-old marijuana found in Chinese tomb

Stash seems to have been intended for buried shaman to use in the afterlife
Nov 27, 2008 01:23 PM

OTTAWA – Researchers say they have located the world's oldest stash of marijuana, in a tomb in a remote part of China.

The cache of cannabis is about 2,700 years old and was clearly ``cultivated for psychoactive purposes," rather than as fibre for clothing or as food, says a research paper in the Journal of Experimental Botany.

The 789 grams of dried cannabis was buried alongside a light-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian man, likely a shaman of the Gushi culture, near Turpan in northwestern China.

The extremely dry conditions and alkaline soil acted as preservatives, allowing a team of scientists to carefully analyze the stash, which still looked green though it had lost its distinctive odour.

"To our knowledge, these investigations provide the oldest documentation of cannabis as a pharmacologically active agent," says the newly published paper, whose lead author was American neurologist Dr. Ethan B. Russo.

Remnants of cannabis have been found in ancient Egypt and other sites, and the substance has been referred to by authors such as the Greek historian Herodotus. But the tomb stash is the oldest so far that could be thoroughly tested for its properties.

The 18 researchers, most of them based in China, subjected the cannabis to a battery of tests, including carbon dating and genetic analysis. Scientists also tried to germinate 100 of the seeds found in the cache, without success.

The marijuana was found to have a relatively high content of THC, the main active ingredient in cannabis, but the sample was too old to determine a precise percentage.

Researchers also could not determine whether the cannabis was smoked or ingested, as there were no pipes or other clues in the tomb of the shaman, who was about 45 years old.

The large cache was contained in a leather basket and in a wooden bowl, and was likely meant to be used by the shaman in the afterlife.

"This materially is unequivocally cannabis, and no material has previously had this degree of analysis possible," Russo said in an interview from Missoula, Mont.

"It was common practice in burials to provide materials needed for the afterlife. No hemp or seeds were provided for fabric or food. Rather, cannabis as medicine or for visionary purposes was supplied."

The tomb also contained bridles, archery equipment and a harp, confirming the man's high social standing.

Russo is a full-time consultant with GW Pharmaceuticals, which makes Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine approved in Canada for pain linked to multiple sclerosis and cancer.

The company operates a cannabis-testing laboratory at a secret location in southern England to monitor crop quality for producing Sativex, and allowed Russo use of the facility for tests on 11 grams of the tomb cannabis.

Researchers needed about 10 months to cut red tape barring the transfer of the cannabis to England from China, Russo said.

The inter-disciplinary study was published this week by the British-based botany journal, which uses independent reviewers to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of all submitted papers.

The substance has been found in two of the 500 Gushi tombs excavated so far in northwestern China, indicating that cannabis was either restricted for use by a few individuals or was administered as a medicine to others through shamans, Russo said.

"It certainly does indicate that cannabis has been used by man for a variety of purposes for thousands of years."

Russo, who had a neurology practice for 20 years, has previously published studies examining the history of cannabis.

"I hope we can avoid some of the political liabilities of the issue," he said, referring to his latest paper.

The region of China where the tomb is located, Xinjiang, is considered an original source of many cannabis strains worldwide.

Legislative Council – Thursday, 27th November, 2008 – page 1052
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (PALLIATIVE USE OF CANNABIS) AMENDMENT BILL 2008

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:42): I take this opportunity to address the criticisms that have been made of this bill by all but one of the speakers; so, I know that it will fail when we put it to the vote. I want to begin by quoting from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 to which Australia is a signatory. The preamble of this convention is in that usual UN language—recognising this, understanding that, noting this and so on. Once that has been said, it goes on to set out the actual agreements. This sort of preamble sets the picture—it is the base on which all the agreements stand. It is really important to note that one of the fundamentals of the preamble of that convention, the very second one of those, states:
...recognising 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 ...
It then goes on to the next clause, and so on, and I note the word 'must' in that. One of the many people who has been emailing me with support for this bill posed the following question to me: 'Which part of the word 'must' do our politicians not understand?' I also ask that question in relation to the word 'indispensable'.
Article 4.1(a) of this same convention states:
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 territory.
If you put those two together, this is what you get, so listen carefully:
...recognising 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, 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 territory.
The message is absolutely and abundantly clear that the signatories to this convention, despite problems that might be associated with narcotics, have an obligation to ensure availability of narcotic drugs for the relief of pain and suffering.
I am pleased that, amongst some of the contributions which were made on this bill, there was some reluctant recognition of the palliative value of cannabis—and we will talk more about those values later. As I said, I am addressing some of the criticisms of the bill, but the Hon. Ann Bressington personalised those criticisms: it was not just criticism about the bill but it was about me as well.
In her speech, she accused me of hypocrisy, undermining parents and having a shallow and meaningless approach to serious global issues. Her logic was that anyone calling for the use of cannabis for medical purposes as I am doing in this bill is (to use her words) first, encouraging our children to believe marijuana is harmless; secondly, is guilty of abusing their position; and, thirdly, being absolutely irresponsible. There is quite a leap of faith (as you would hear) from one argument to the next in that continuum, and I reject both the suppositions and the accusations.
In her concluding remarks and using the same line of argument, the Hon. Ann Bressington stated that, first, there are people who care little for our children; secondly, such people have a history of drug abuse; thirdly, these same people want to validate their lifestyles by legalising drugs; fourthly, that I ought to have known this; and, fifthly, if I did, I have therefore made a conscious decision to rely on the recruitment of our young people. I presume she means to drugs. Again I reject both her suppositions and her accusations.
The Hon. Ann Bressington claimed that the term 'war on drugs' was coined by the legalisation movement to get people on their side. I have never heard of that. Generally, it is attributed to Richard Nixon in 1971. I did a web search on that and I found hundreds of thousands of references to Richard Nixon having been the person who coined that phrase, and the only indication I could find of its being a ploy of the legalisation movement actually came from the Hon. Ann Bressington.
The Hon. Ann Bressington has accused me of picking and choosing international conventions and, by inference, ignoring the international conventions that relate to drugs. She also used the words 'using and abusing the conventions'.
What do the conventions say? Let us find out what it is that she says that I am picking and choosing, ignoring, using, abusing. There are three of them: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; the Convention on Psychotropic Substances; and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. I have already referred to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in relation to the obligation it places on signatory states to ensure the provision of narcotic drugs for the relief of pain and suffering.
Cannabis is a drug that is listed in schedule 1 of that convention, but so are morphine, pethidine and fentanyl, which are commonly used in pain relief in our hospitals. We would not deny any of those drugs to pain sufferers just because they are listed in schedule 1 of this convention, so why are we doing that with cannabis? And, for that matter, why is cannabis in the schedule, anyway? That is an important question to answer.
The fact is that it has got there almost by accident. In 1925, when the League of Nations was considering drug issues, the Egyptian delegation, more or less out of the blue, claimed that cannabis was as dangerous as opium and should be subject to the same international controls. That was immediately supported. Apart from no evidence being given, there was no prior briefing on this. Nevertheless, it was adopted, and then the various delegates in the League of Nations went back to their home countries. In Australia, for instance—and this comes from a paper by the late Robert Kendell—we have a statement from the then New South Wales under secretary from the Colonial Secretary's department. Having been to that meeting of the League of Nations in 1925, he then said:
The omission of that drug [cannabis] from the operation of the Act would have been of small moment, but having been considered by the conference as required to be included, it might perhaps be as well, if practicable, to bring it within the purview of the dangerous drug laws.
So members can see the beginning of it. Someone makes a statement, no-one questions it and it then becomes part of a mythology.
Coming back to the convention itself, though, it places the same restrictions on cannabis cultivation as it does on opium cultivation. So, there it is going back to 1925. Article 23 and article 28 require each party to establish a government agency to control cultivation. So, to some extent, Australia has failed. Cultivators must deliver their total crop to the agency which must purchase and take physical possession of it within four months after the end of the harvest. The agency then has the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale trading and maintaining stock, other than those held by manufacturers. I have no problem with that. In Tasmania, one can drive past field after field, kilometre after kilometre of opium poppies grown by the state.
The Hon. Ann Bressington is right that I am assuming that people who are given approval by a doctor to use cannabis for palliation will be able to grow their own using the existing laws about personal possession as the basis. But as happens in Australia, with the commonwealth growing opium for medicinal purposes and as per this convention, it would be perfectly proper for the state of South Australia to take responsibility for growing cannabis for medicinal purposes; after all, the Israeli government is doing just that. So, if the bill was passed, the state government would be entitled to establish such a regime and it would be absolutely in line with this convention.
The next convention is on psychotropic substances. THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, was originally placed in schedule 1 when the convention was enacted in 1972. At its 26th meeting, the World Health Organisation Expert Committee—and please note the word 'expert'—on Drug Dependence recommended that THC be transferred to schedule 2, citing its low abuse potential. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs, however, rejected the proposal. But then why would you listen to experts, when you can have a policy that is based on belief and feelings and mythology?
I will read in full article 7 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, because the Hon. Ann Bressington has asked whether I am seeking to ignore the conventions. The article says:
In respect of substances in schedule I the parties shall:
(a) prohibit all use, except for scientific and very limited medical purposes by duly authorised persons , in medical or scientific establishments which are directly under the control of their governments or specifically approved by them;
(b) require that manufacture, trade , distribution and possession be under a special licence or prior authorisation;
(c) provide for close supervision of the activities and acts mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b);
(d) restrict the amount supplied to a duly authorised person to the quantity required for his authorised purpose;
(e) require that persons performing medical or scientific functions keep records concerning the acquisition of the substances and the details of their use, such records to be preserved for at least two years after the last use recorded therein ; and
(f) prohibit export and import except when both the exporter and importer are the competent authorities or agencies of the exporting and importing country or region , respectively, or other persons or enterprises which are specifically authorised by the competent authorities of their country or region for the purpose.
The requirement of paragraph 1 of article 12 for export and import authorisations for substances in schedule II shall also apply to substances in schedule I.
Clearly (f) has nothing to do with the issue of medical cannabis, but, if anyone has listened to what I have just read out, there is nothing in my bill that is inconsistent with that particular convention. There is no picking and choosing, of which the Hon. Ann Bressington has accused me.
The third convention is the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988. That particular convention has nothing to do with the personal use of marijuana; it is about international trafficking of drugs by organised crime. I note however that article 25 says:
The provisions of this convention shall not derogate from any rights enjoyed or obligations undertaken by parties to this convention under the 1961 convention, the 1961 convention as amended and the 1971 convention.
Nevertheless, as the Hon. Ann Bressington has accused me of picking and choosing, I take the opportunity to point out that there are bigger fish than me attempting to alter some of these conventions. In 2003, a committee of the European parliament recommended repealing the 1988 convention. It found:
Despite massive deployment of police and other resources to implement the UN conventions, production and consumption of , and trafficking in , prohibited substances have increased exponentially over the past 30 years, representing what can only be described as a failure, which the police and judicial authorities also recognise as such. ..the policy of prohibiting drugs, based on the UN Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988, is the true cause of the increasing damage that the production, of, trafficking in, and sale and use of illegal substances are inflicting on whole sectors of society, on the economy and on public institutions, eroding the health, freedom and life of individuals.
This comes from a committee of the European Parliament. I think most of us know (and I think we can tell from the reactions to this bill) that politicians are mostly not brave enough to question the myths about drugs that are the basis of so many of our irrational drug laws. It is, therefore, highly significant that a parliamentary committee should make this statement.
In addition to the three conventions that I have dealt with, in June 1998 a special session of the United Nations adopted the slogan 'A drug free world—we can do it!' with the target to be reached after a 10-year war on drugs. You would have to say that it must have been a joke because, 10 years on, that war has failed abjectly. In fact, the use of drugs has increased. It failed because the mindset that led to that conference is one that treats drug use as a moral and a criminal issue and not the health issue that it is.
At the time of that special session hundreds of MPs, doctors, artists, mayors, lawyers, judges, journalists and academics from 40 countries signed a letter to the then Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, expressing concerns about where the war on drugs was leading. Fifty Australians signed this statement, including—and I hope members of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are listening to this—former premiers John Cain, Neville Wran and Rupert Hamer, observing that:
True surrender is when fear and inertia combine to shut off debate, suppress critical analysis and dismiss all alternatives to current policies.
It seems that once they are able to get away from the sensational headlines and get hold of the facts, an increasing number of people around the world are questioning the effectiveness of the war on drugs.
When laws are not working in this state we look to see why it is so and then we amend the laws, and so it should be with conventions. The UN is, in some respects, like a parliament but writ large. Just as we amend legislation so, too, at the international level, should our representatives amend international conventions as new knowledge and new situations emerge. The 1961 convention, for instance, was amended in 1972. The 2006 UNODC World Drug Report stated:
Either the gap between the letter and spirit of the Single Convention, so manifest with cannabis , needs to be bridged , or parties to the Convention need to discuss refining the status of cannabis. So the debate is on, and has been on for a number of years now.
My bill is about the use of cannabis for medical purposes but I did note that the Hon. Ann Bressington's contribution wandered far and wide to cover all drugs and not even in a medical context—which is what this bill is about. By doing that she was able to introduce many red herrings. I do not intend to address those red herrings.
I want to address the issue of medical marijuana. In her speech the Hon. Ann Bressington seemed excited by the fact that the AMA in South Australia does not support the use of cannabis for medical purposes, as if she had revealed something that I had been concealing. To the contrary, on the first occasion when I introduced this bill, two months earlier than the bill we are debating today, I mentioned twice that this was the case.
The Hon. Ann Bressington says that she contacted the Multiple Sclerosis Society in Adelaide to ask whether it supported the use of medical marijuana, and of course it said no. Organisations such as this are dependent, at least in part, upon government funding, and when the government of the day has a so-called 'tough on drugs' policy it makes it difficult for many people in those organisations to speak out. That the Multiple Sclerosis Society said no does not diminish the fact that many people—
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is implying that organisations lied to the parliament. They knew it was a parliamentary—
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): What is your point of order?
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That the honourable member is implying that organisations out there have lied.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: There is no point of order; sit down.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting President; I may call on it again if the voice behind me keeps interjecting. The fact that the Multiple Sclerosis Society said that it does not support the use of medical marijuana does not diminish the fact that many people with multiple sclerosis use cannabis to alleviate their symptoms. The evidence of the capacity for cannabis to relieve symptoms of many illnesses is growing—and yes, as some members have said, the evidence is sometimes anecdotal. This is because, in a catch 22 situation, it is sometimes difficult for researchers to undertake work at universities because ethics committees say to them, 'This is an illicit substance; therefore, we will not approve your research.' However, despite those restrictions being in place at some institutions, in other scientific and open-minded institutions questioning is powering away.
Here in South Australia we go back as far as 1971 when we had a Royal Commission into the Non-medical Use of Drugs, known as the Sackville report. In July 1995 a select committee of this parliament—comprising one Democrat, two Labor and two Liberal MPs—unanimously recommended the regulated availability of cannabis with strict controls, and this included a trial for medical purposes. Still in South Australia, we had Mike Rann's drug summit in 2002, the recommendations of which he has mostly ignored.
The policies we have in place in South Australia are much more likely to push our children into the arms of drug lords. Successive governments have handed over the supply of cannabis to organised crime, increasing their profitability along the way—the exact opposite of what a wise drug policy would do. We have to begin recognising that the opposite of 'tough on drugs' is not 'soft on drugs' but 'sensible on drugs'. That is what I am; I am 'sensible on drugs'.
A number of speakers raised the hoary chestnut of a cannabis psychosis link. There are claims—I think they have been made in this chamber a number of times on numerous bills—that, as a result of the use of hydroponic cannabis, we now have a much stronger version than the backyard version. However, when you think about it, members in this place have been responsible for that happening by making it tougher for people to grow their own plants. Those people then go out and buy it off the streets, and they buy the hydroponically-grown cannabis. So if members have a concern that the cannabis is growing stronger they should look to themselves, because they have created the situation—in fact, most of the members in this chamber are responsible for that situation. I would hardly describe this as successful policy.
The extra strength is conjectured to be part of a link between cannabis use and psychosis. I think it was about a month ago that the Beckley Foundation published a report from the Global Cannabis Commission. It was written by five leading marijuana and drug policy researchers, including Benedikt Fischer of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, and three Australians: Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland; Simon Lenton of the National Drug Research Institute at the Curtin Institute of Technology; and Robin Room of the University of Melbourne. Added to getting some outside advice and extra research were a number of other researchers, including two members of the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, David Nutt, the incoming chair of the ACMD and Professor of Psychopharmacology at Bristol University, and Leslie Iversen, Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University. I will not read you much of this report, because it printed out about three centimetres thick, but I will mention one comment only from Iversen. He noted:
The lack of any evidence of increased rates of psychosis following large increases in marijuana use ...' convinced [ the ACMD ] that cause and effect has not been proven ' .
There is a link, but it is not a proven cause. Mark Weiser, Director of the Department of Psychology at Sheba Medical Centre in Israel, recently produced information on this. I will quote the final sentence of an abstract of one of his papers. He states:
Thus an alternative explanation of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia might be that pathology of the cannabinoid system in schizophrenia patients is associated with both increased rates of cannabis use and increased risk for schizophrenia, without cannabis being a causal factor in schizophrenia.
The ultimate rationale for the Hon. Ann Bressington's position is a version of 'we are sending the wrong message to our young people', yet we do not take that view when it comes to the nexus between morphine and heroin. I have never heard it said that, because morphine is used in hospitals to relieve severe pain, we are placing children at risk; yet, the evidence of deaths from different drugs shows that morphine is a far more dangerous drug than cannabis.
The Hon. Ann Bressington asked whether anyone in this chamber believes that their children or grandchildren would be better off using drugs. It is a nonsense question. I do not believe that anybody in this chamber would be, and it is certainly not what I am about. This approach, while creating the impression that I want children to use illicit drugs, is not what this bill is about, either.
Once again, as I did when I introduced this bill in July and again when I reintroduced it in September, I will explain what this bill is about. I am not sure where the confusion lies. The purpose of this bill is to allow a qualified medical practitioner to sign a palliative cannabis certificate for a patient who she or he deems could have symptoms of specified illnesses or diseases palliated by the use of cannabis. I gave examples in my speeches, on both occasions, of the sorts of conditions that can have symptoms alleviated by cannabis. If the bill were to pass, the government in its wisdom would determine which illnesses this might apply to. This is a bill that amends the Controlled Substances Act, and that has regulation making powers that could accomplish that.
Had I gone through the process of specifying the illnesses, the symptoms and the diseases, I am sure that would have been used as another red herring to try to argue flaws in this bill; so, I did not attempt to do that. I thought, this government, should the bill pass, will work out maybe two or three that it might be prepared to allow it to be used for.
The Hon. Ann Bressington gave an example of a doctor in the US abusing the Californian legislation, I think, as proof that we should not allow it here. That particular example she gave concerned a doctor who prescribed cannabis to a young woman with sore feet. Now, that does not in any way invalidate what I am attempting to do in this legislation, because sore feet would not comply. If the government came up with a list of regulations of the conditions under which doctors would be able to give a cannabis certificate, sore feet would not be on the list. I have absolute confidence that Michael Atkinson, for example, would not allow sore feet as one of the symptoms.
You have to remember that, under this legislation, when a doctor has given out a cannabis certificate, that doctor has to provide to the authorities a copy of the cannabis certificate within seven days of issuing it.
If he or she lies about what has been done, they face a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up two years. Throwing in a story about one aberrant doctor in California does not in any way negate what this bill is trying to do. Most doctors are responsible. Every now and then irresponsible ones come along and they are dealt with by the Medical Board and in some cases they are dealt with by our courts system.
The Hon. Ann Bressington says that the evidence is not there to support the palliative use of cannabis. I draw attention to a statement incorporated in the citizen's right of reply in yesterday's Hansard from Dr David Caldicott, who was—
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: On a point of order, sir, if I cannot make a response to that right of reply, why can the honourable member? It's not to be debated.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! What is your point of order, Ms Bressington?
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That she is bringing up something outside this debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: Your point is relevance?
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That's it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: I rule against it—there is no point of order.
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am sure you would.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Dr David Caldicott in that statement accused the Hon. Ann Bressington of grossly misrepresenting science and called upon this chamber to ensure that a modicum of scientific honesty be maintained. There is not too much to ask in granting those particular requests but, despite what the Hon. Ann Bressington says, the reality is that the evidence for the palliative use of cannabis keeps growing.
Just one week ago new research from Ohio University, albeit on rats at this stage, revealed that cannabis may be able to delay the onset of Alzheimer's. They found that cannabis cut inflammation in the brains of the rats and that it could even trigger production of new neurones in the brain.
One of the more interesting things I have come across (and a lot of people in the world who have been trying to get legal medical marijuana are very angry about this) was uncovered only two months ago. It turns out that the US government has a patent on cannabis.
The Hon. A. Bressington: Why?
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Oh, wait until you hear the answers, Ms Bressington.
The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No, no, wait and hear. US Patent No.6630507 was issued on 7 October 2003. It has been kept hidden for five years, and it has only been the assiduous work of people trying to get marijuana legalised for medical use that has uncovered this. The application went in on 2 February 2001. Here is the abstract:
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of a wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present in vention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH3 and COCH3.
The inventors—and I dislike that word because it is like a version of plant-variety rights—are: Hampson, Aidan J.; Axelrod, Julius; and, Grimaldi, Maurizio. The assignee is the United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services. So, the US government knows the medical value of this substance.
I want to read also—this is quite extensive, but worthwhile hearing—the definition of oxidative associated diseases. These are some of the things with which cannabis can deal.
`Oxidative associated diseases ' refers to pathological conditions that result at least in part from the production of or exposure to free radicals, particularly oxyradicals , or reactive oxygen species. It is evident to those of skill in the art that most pathological conditions are multifactorial , and that assigning or identifying the predominant causal factors for any particular condition is frequently difficult. For these reasons, the term 'free radical associated disease' encompasses pathological states that are recognised as con ditions in which free radicals or ROS contribute to the pathology of the disease , or wherein administration of a free radical inhibitor, scavenger or catalyst is shown to produce detectable benefit by decreasing symptoms, increasing survival , or providing other detectable clinical benefits in treating or preventing the pathological state.
Oxidative associated diseases include, without limitation, free radical associated diseases , such as ischemia, ischemic reperfusion injury, inflammatory diseases, systemic lupus erythematosis, myocardial ischemia or infarction, cerebrovascular accidents ( such as thromboembolic or haemorrhagic stroke ) that can lead to ischemia or an infarct in the brain, operative ischemia, traumatic haemorrhage (for example, a hypervolemic stroke) that can lead to CNS hypoxia or anoxia, spinal cord trauma, Down's syndrome, Crohn's disease, autoimmune diseases (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis or diabetes), cataract formation, uveitis, emphysema, gastric ulcers, oxygen toxicity, neoplasia, undesired cellular apoptosis, radiation sickness and others.
The present invention is believed to be particularly beneficial in the treatment of oxidative associated diseases of the CNS because of the ability of the cannabinoids to cross the blood brain barrier and exert their antioxidant effects in the brain. In particular embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition of the present invention is used for preventing, arresting or treating neurological damage in Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and HIV dementia, autoimmune neurodegeneration of the type that can occur in encephalitis, and hypoxic or anoxic neuronal damage that can result from apnea, respiratory arrest or cardiac arrest and anoxia caused by drowning, brain surgery or trauma such as concussion or spinal cord shock.
What is interesting about that list is that many of those illnesses, symptoms and conditions that I have just read out that this patent recognises can be treated with the use of cannabinoids are exactly the conditions that the people who are trying to get medical marijuana are treating when they can get hold of the cannabis to treat those symptoms. To tell us that the science is not there is totally inaccurate.
The Hon. A. Bressington: Who says that?
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: As a means—
The Hon. A. Bressington: Who said the science is not there?
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: You did.
The Hon. A. Bressington: I did not.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: You did.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order! The Hon. Ms Kanck knows better than that. Do not respond to interjections. We will be here all night otherwise.
The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:
The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would be inclined to wonder, after finding out that the US has sat on this patent now for five years—given that they have continued to pursue people who use marijuana and, in some cases, in some countries, that has resulted in some extraordinary penal provisions—why they have kept it quiet. You would have to wonder why it is—
The Hon. A. Bressington: It's on the public record.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It is on the public record, Ms Bressington, and that is why I am reading it and making sure it is on the record here so that members know that this is the case.
The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Mr Acting President, I wonder whether you could give me some protection from this person behind me. I am finding it a little difficult to—
The ACTING PRESIDENT: I would like to but I have almost given up trying. The Hon. Ms Bressington will allow the Hon. Ms Kanck to finish her contribution in silence. It would help us all.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Thank you, Mr Acting President. It does seem strange to me that the United States is pursuing people who use cannabis, making it illegal in so many countries with all of those penal provisions, yet they have a patent out like this. You have to think: if you could stop people growing it and they can start putting their version of it (whatever it is) onto the market, then they have the market sewn up to deal with all of those conditions.
I think it is important to also recognise the cost that is associated with the pharmaceutical drugs; that is, the ones that are provided to us by drug companies. As a means of dealing with nausea, for instance, for people with cancer or AIDS, the use of cannabis is highly effective. Pharmaceutical anti-nausea drugs cost something like 100 to 1,000 times more than marijuana for a sufferer. In this case there is not even a taxpayer subsidy if we were to pass this bill. It would cost the taxpayer zilch.
I know that there is a reasonable number of MPs across the board in Australia who support drug law reform. I do not know what the numbers are at the moment, but going back two or three years ago I was aware of about 12 members in this parliament who were members of the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform.
What is needed now is courage. Having been in the firing line a few times for statements that I have made about drugs, because I am advocating drug law reform, I know that it takes courage. In the hope of assisting future legislators, I draw attention to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Drug Strategy Household Survey. It has asked these particular questions twice: in 2004 and 2007. There has been a slight increase for both answers in that three-year period. I believe the sample number was 23,000, so for those who understand statistics, that is a highly significant database to draw on.
They were asked two questions: one was assessing how they felt about a change in legislation permitting the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In 2004 the percentage in support was 67.5 per cent, going up to 68.6 per cent in 2007, and then when they were asked whether they supported a clinical trial for people to use marijuana to treat medical conditions, in 2004 it went from 73.5 per cent of the survey respondents to 73.6 per cent. So, there is actually extraordinary support out there in the community.
I offer that to members here. If you are one of those who is a member of the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform, you can go out on a limb and know that the public supports you. Yes, you will get the bigots who will go on to an Adelaide Now website and write virulent stuff, and you might even get some people in here who will say virulent stuff, but the public is behind you if you do it.
This is a compassionate measure. I ask why we should deny people who have exhausted all other pharmaceutical measures what might be the only drug left that might work for them. That seems to me to be inhumane. Under this legislation, if somebody uses it and it does not work then the medical practitioner who has given the cannabis certificate can revoke it.
When I introduced this bill two months ago I began by saying, 'This bill is not about how we approach illicit drugs, rather it is about how we ought to use science to assess the medical benefit of a drug, in this case cannabis.' Some of the speeches we have heard opposing this measure have not brought that science to bear in their arguments and that is unfortunate. We cannot make our decisions based on reports from Channel 9, for instance, which was cited by one of the speakers.
Ultimately, the science is there. The international conventions say that we must make such drugs available for medical use. The US government, because it knows just how good the palliative use of cannabis is, has patented it. The public is behind the use of medical marijuana. All that is missing now is courage by politicians. Unfortunately, I know that this bill is going to fail when it goes to the vote because within this chamber and within this parliament we lack that widespread courage.
Second reading negatived.

It should be noted that the term “decriminalisation” is something of a misnomer, as cannabis possession is still sanctioned by criminal law in these jurisdictions. With respect to cannabis possession, the term “decriminalisation” has generally been used to describe laws which reduce penalties for small amounts for personal use to penalties other than imprisonment. Even under these so-called decriminalisation laws, the possession of cannabis is against the law, albeit subject to a maximum penalty of a fine only. Therefore, in evaluating the impact of such measures it is important to note that we are only dealing with the impact of reducing penalties rather than the impact of eliminating penalties altogether.

The New Zealand Law Commission has issued Terms of Reference for its review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Significantly, the review will go back to founding principles. Why do we even have drug laws? What is the point? What substances should be included, and should there be penalties at all?

If you have an opinion about cannabis prohibition and how we can out of this mess, now is your chance to get involved and have your say.

The Commission will review the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and make proposals for a new legislative regime consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations concerning illegal and other drugs.

(a) Whether the legislative regime should reflect the principle of harm minimisation underpinning the National Drug Policy;

(e) Whether drugs should continue to be subject to the current classification system or should be categorised by some alternative process or mechanism;

(f) If a classification system for categorising drugs is retained, is the current placement of substances appropriate;

(h) Whether the existing statutory dealing presumption should continue to apply in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hansen case;

(i) Whether the enforcement powers proposed by the Commission in its report on Search and Surveillance Powers are adequate to investigate drug offences;

(j) What legislative framework provides the most suitable structure to reflect the linkages between drugs and other similar substances;

(k) Which agency or agencies should be responsible for the administration of the legislative regime.

It is not intended that the Commission will make recommendations with respect to the regulation of alcohol or tobacco in undertaking this review.

So there you have it. The Commission is expected to call for public submissions soon, so get your thinking cap on now. For more information, see the Law Commission's website:

A member of a US group of current, former and retired law enforcement officials is touring New Zealand to raise awareness of the failures of prohibition, as well as offer solutions that have proven to be successful.

Jerry Paradis, retired Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, Canada, and now board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) recently stated that “from a court perspective, prohibition diminishes all the participants: the judges, by requiring them to park their common sense at home; the prosecutors, who know full well that what they’re doing is futile and damaging; and the police who, because these are victimless crimes, have to resort to two very problematic investigative approaches: the search and the snitch”.

The War on Drugs has cost US taxpayers over a trillion dollars and arrested nearly 40 million nonviolent drug offenders; the United States boasts the highest prison population in the world. Where has this gotten the United States? The War on Drugs is a manifest failure, and has only compounded the societal problems associated with drugs.

Rumours keep circulating that the Hemp Embassy is being closed down. This isn't true. The Hemp Bar has been closed, and the Museum would have to undergo a radical transformation to stay open. We are supposed to find out this week when the Museum landlord visits whether this is possible.

'That which is prohibited cannot be regulated'. There are thus advantages for governments in moving toward a regime of regulated legal availability under strict controls, using the variety of mechanisms available to regulate a
legal market, such as taxation, availability controls, minimum legal age for use and purchase, labeling and potency limits. Another alternative, which minimizes the risk of promoting cannabis use, is to allow only small scale cannabis production for one's own use or gifts to others.

There are four main choices for a government seeking to make cannabis available in a regulated market in the context of the international conventions:
(1) In some countries (those that follow the expediency principle), it is possible to meet the letter of the international conventions while allowing de facto legal access. The Dutch model is an example......

The Big Question: Is it time the world forgot about cannabis in its war against drugs?
By Michael McCarthy
Friday, 3 October 2008

Why are we asking this now?
Because yesterday a British think-tank published a report for next year's United Nations Strategic Drug Policy Review, suggesting that a decriminalised, regulated market in cannabis would cause less harm than the prohibition of the drug currently in force across most of the world.

What is the UN review?
It is an examination of progress made since the international community, at a special session of the UN General Assembly in New York in June 1998, agreed a 10-year programme of activity for the control of illegal drug use and markets – the "war on drugs". It is thought unlikely that enormous progress will be reported in 2009, as many drugs are purer, cheaper, and more widely available than ever before. Experts on drug policy are therefore looking again at the alternative to prohibition which is always in the background, but which no office-holding politician hoping for re-election appears able to contemplate - legalisation.

What exactly is the think-tank report?
It is the Global Cannabis Commission report, launched at a conference in the House of Lords yesterday and prepared for the Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust "set up to promote the investigation of consciousness and its altered states from the perspectives of science, health, politics and history." The report, put together by a specially-commissioned international group of academics and experts in drug policy analysis, attempts to put the issue of cannabis in a global perspective with a comprehensive view of the evidence, so that governments can move beyond what is termed "the present stalemate in cannabis policy."

Which stalemate is this?
Cannabis is used worldwide by "a conservatively estimated 160m people", according to the report, so it can hardly be said that prohibiting it is successful – and increasingly, nations cannot agree on the way forward. Some countries take a hard line – in the US, about three-quarters of a million citizens are arrested every year for cannabis possession – while other countries have considerably relaxed their penalties or their enforcement policies (Until recently Britain could have been put into this category. Four years ago we downgraded dope from a class B to a class C drug – until in May, the Home Office, clearly at Gordon Brown's behest and in the face of official advice to the contrary, retightened the policy and made it class B once again, after fears in some quarters that stronger versions of the drug were leading to more harmful effects.) But internationally, cannabis is considered an outlawed substance, so changing the official regime is everywhere difficult.

Why does the report suggest cannabis should be legalised?
It argues that although cannabis can have a damaging effect in health and on mental health, it is actually far less damaging than alcohol and tobacco. "Historically, there have only been two deaths worldwide attributed to cannabis, whereas alcohol and tobacco together are responsible for an estimated 150,000 deaths per annum in the UK alone," the report alleges.

Much of the harm associated with cannabis use is "the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment," the report says, claiming that policies which control cannabis, whether draconian or liberal, appear to have little impact on the prevalence of consumption. It offers the alternative of a legal but properly regulated market.

"In an alternative system of regulated availability, market controls such as taxation, minimum age requirements, labelling and potency limits are available to minimise the harms associated with cannabis use," it says, claiming that through a regulated market young people could be protected from the increasingly potent forms of the drug, such as skunk.

Wouldn't the legalisation of cannabis pave the way to the legalisation of all drugs?
It might well do, which is why, no matter what the relative harm of dope may be compared to cigarettes or whisky, a move to end prohibition would be stoutly resisted by opponents of liberalising the drug laws, and welcomed by those who would like to see liberalisation brought in. For it is the issue of prohibition itself, rather than the issue of cannabis, which is really at the heart of the argument. The drugs-liberalisation pressure group Transform yesterday welcomed the Global Cannabis Commission's call for legalisation, but said it would also welcome its now being applied to heroin and cocaine.

Why is prohibition at the heart of the argument?
Simple economics, say its opponents. It is simply a matter of supply and demand. If you squeeze the supply of a much-desired commodity – especially an addictive one – its price will rise sharply, and in an unregulated market, it can go sky-high. It then becomes too expensive for addicts for buy, and so they turn to crime or social deviancy on a large scale to feed their habits – burglary, shoplifting, prostitution. At the international scale, the profits are such that the trade is taken over by organised crime and whole countries are destabilised.

So just how big are the profits?
Transform's Danny Kushlick says: "In the cocaine and heroin trade, the profit margin is anything between 2,000 and 3,000 per cent, which enables organised criminals to turn what are effectively vegetables into commodities worth literally more than their weight in gold." A large number of prominent and entirely respectable economists have bought this argument, and insist that drugs prohibition is entirely counter-productive, just as alcohol prohibition was in the US in the 1920s - until it was eventually repealed.

They range from Milton Friedman, the US guru of the free market, to Adair Turner, former director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, current chairman of the Government's Climate Change Committee and forthcoming chairman of the Financial Services Authority. A lot of senior scientists are also strongly in favour of drugs legalisation.

Wouldn't the legalisation of cannabis or indeed any drug just lead people down the path to addiction?
That is certainly the position of its opponents; it is more or less the position of the Government and of the Tory opposition. Economists might be in favour; politicians are very wary of legalising drugs. There seems to be no widespread popular call for it. Its proponents say that although more people might become drug users, the harm done would be far less than the benefit gained by taking the world's Mafias and local criminals out of the equation.

So what are the chances that cannabis will cease to be internationally outlawed?
With the US running the show? Don't hold your breath.

Should cannabis be legalised on a world scale?
Yes...
* It would immediately take the supply of the drug out of the hands of violent criminal syndicates.
* Compared to alcohol and tobacco, which are freely available, Cannabis is not very harmful anyway.
* Any increased use of the drug would be greatly outweighed by the benefits gained.
No...
* It would be a first step to more widespread, and potentially disastrous, liberalisation of other drugs.
* It would lead to a great increase in use, which might put people on a "slippery slope" to harder drugs.
* Some forms of cannabis are very harmful and have been implicated as a cause of mental health problems.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower April 16, 1953

A report on cannabis prepared for next year's UN drug policy review will suggest that a "regulated market" would cause less harm than the current international prohibition. The report, which is likely to reopen the debate about cannabis laws, suggests that controls such as taxation, minimum age requirements and labelling could be explored.

The Global Cannabis Commission report, which will be launched today at a conference in the House of Lords, has reached conclusions which its authors suggest "challenge the received wisdom concerning cannabis". It was carried out for the Beckley foundation, a UN-accredited NGO, for the 2009 UN strategic drug policy review.

There are, according to the report, now more than 160 million users of the drug worldwide. "Although cannabis can have a negative impact on health, including mental health, in terms of relative harms it is considerably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco," according to the report. "Historically, there have only been two deaths worldwide attributed to cannabis, whereas alcohol and tobacco together are responsible for an estimated 150,000 deaths per annum in the UK alone."

The report, compiled by a group of scientists, academics and drug policy experts, suggests that much of the harm associated with cannabis use is "the result of prohibition itself, particularly the social harms arising from arrest and imprisonment." Policies that control cannabis, whether draconian or liberal, appear to have little impact on the prevalence of consumption, it concluded.

It claimed that only through a regulated market could young people be protected from the increasingly potent forms of cannabis, such as skunk. It is intended that the report will form a blueprint for nations seeking to develop a "more rational and effective approach to the control of cannabis".

The authors suggest there is evidence that "the current system of cannabis regulation is not working, and ... there needs to be a serious rethink if we are to minimise the harms caused by cannabis use."

Last night, the report was welcomed by drug law reform organisations. "The Beckley foundation are to be congratulated for the clarity of their call for cannabis supply to be brought within government control," said Danny Kushlick of Transform. "We look forward to the same analysis being applied to heroin and cocaine."

The report is being launched at a two-day conference, which will be attended by leading figures in the drugs policy world.

The conclusions are unlikely to be embraced by the government or the Conservative party, both of which are opposed to relaxing restrictions on cannabis use.

As a result of legal advice, we have elected to remove some material from this page, but affirm our support of Mark Heinrich aka Smokin Moose and our belief in his integrity.

The short version of that legal advice: prolonged public internet spats are counterproductive to all parties.

Anatomy of a Historic Bust - Smokin Moose raided by Australian Federal Police

Today Prime TV and Local Area Commander Bruce Lyons, hot on the heels of the much publicised closures of the Hemp Bar (closed) and Nimbin Museum (imminent) walked and talked Cullen Street applauding himself and handing out flyers as he went.....

Nothing is said of alcohol fuelled violence, or non existent late night weekend policing of said associated violence consistently asked for by the Nimbin community. Is alcohol included at all in his "harder drugs" assessment? Can you smell political scapegoating and posturing here?

Want to make people feel safe: target thugs more than drugs. Get the balance right.

There is info that suggests that the CBD (Cannabidiol) component of cannabis could have antipsychotic effects while the THC component can make you feel para sometimes. It has not been conclusively tested though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4104702.stm

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17759420

Leaf has more CBD, and heads have more THC, but there are many other active components as yet relatively uninvestigated.

ROYAL COMMISSION
INTO THE
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE SERVICE
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME I: CORRUPTION
VOLUME II: REFORM
Commissioner:The Hon Justice JRT Wood
May 1997

Hand delivered Monday 25th August, and one was delivered to the Museum owner in Sydney as well. On our reading of the act, they can only close you down for a maximum of 72 hours a week, and the Museum's Sydney owner having no real knowledge of what allegedly goes on here would be unlikely to be held liable for costs, but the owners of the premises concerned have little stomach for opposing the applications, and who could blame them. We live in intimidating times.

In the earlier closure there was no provision for the occupants to attend court, or oppose the application. We were left standing outside the court building, our legal counsel unaware that we could not attend while the decision was made.

The Police have turned their focus to the landlords of two iconic Nimbin tourist attractions. Letters were hand delivered to the landlords of the Museum and HEMP Bar giving them only a couple of days to act (copy above).

"We are at the end of a very long journey," said Max Stone of the H*E*M*P Bar. "A journey that started in the NSW Governments back yard at the 1999 Drug Summit. Pot smokers, alienated across Australia, will remember our colourful Cannabus with the Big Joint on the roof leaving Nimbin after the MardiGrass with a mandate from the people: To get cannabis law reform onto the agenda of the Drug Summit."

Max went on, "Who can forget the cannabus blocking the F1 peak hour traffic when it broke a universal joint at sunrise on the morning of Bob Carrs Summit opening. Or the amazing sight of the Big Joint floating on Sydney Harbour during the 2000 Sydney Olympics right outside Kirribilli house?"

Max said "At the Drug Summit we pleaded to be allowed to implement a cannabis café model for Nimbin. We wanted to take a world leading approach to the cannabis conundrum, to create the model which would be the envy of the world. We did it anyway, nd it worked way beyond expectations! Hundreds and thousands of people from all cultures and countries on earth showed their support for our stance on law reform and most importantly street dealing was reduced to an unnoticeable level."

It worked so well, that the local Member of Parliament Thomas George went to the Police Minister who ordered the raids which finished the vulnerable protest, but the point had been made and remains clear today. The illegal trade of cannabis is a dominant force in Nimbin and as we saw during the latest Mardigrass, closing the HEMP Bar and Museum will do little to help. It will, however, have a big impact on Nimbin’s international tourist reputation and daily visitation.

H*E*M*P Bar evolved into a cannabis activist information portal which occupies a unique position in Australian Internet History, truly one of earths most enduring and loved websites featuring live web cameras since April 20th in 2000.

The H*E*M*P Bar will formally end its 8 year live protest at 4.20 Friday afternoon so as not to compromise the position our landlords are in. The protest will continue outside the premises with talk even of a barefoot activists walk to carry the Big Joint to Canberra….further info www.nimbinHEMPbar.com 66890391, Embassy 66891842 or 66890326, Museum 66891123 www.bigjoint.org archives.hempembassy.net

Nimbin Museums landlord lives in Sydney, apparently he’s never been to Nimbin, waiting to hear from him….Michael Balderstone says, "It’s extremely disappointing the Police have chosen this direction, with no consultation and not really dealing with the issue which is causing the problems. The Museum will be a real loss to a lot of people. It is the nearest thing to a home many have and certainly means a lot to many as a daily meeting place . Hopefully we can negotiate keeping the Museum alive…but maybe I have to go.”

I had an appointment today with Lismore police, Area Commander Bluey Lyons, Crime Manager Stephen Clark, and the applicant, Detective Sargent Michael Smith who is threatening the Museum’s landlord with the Restricted Premises Act 1943.

It was agreed that we had common ground in that we all wanted “a Nimbin where mums and dads can walk with their kiddies without seeing any drug dealing” (Bluey’s words). The mutual understanding finished there though, because we had entirely different approaches to achieving that.

I think we need regulated cannabis cafes or a cannabis market place, and an attitude that drug use is a health issue. The police believe in the war on drugs despite making no impact, or even going backwards, with street cameras live to their police station in Nimbin and nine permanent officers in the tiny village.

As we have warned from Nimbin for over a decade, the increased policing of easy to bust cannabis has helped create a new illegal pharmaceutical drug industry with an unending supply of almost invisible, odourless pills with no quality control. At least with organic outdoor grown cannabis which Nimbin is famous for you know what you’re getting.

I also talked to the landlord of the Museum today. I expect an eviction letter soon giving me one month’s notice. The police appear to have made this conditional if the landlord wants to avoid court and potential costs. They are also asking that the new tenants of the Museum building install surveillance cameras covering every room and the extensive back yard. Police want access to this footage at any time, perhaps if it was all live on the net they would be satisfied.

It makes little sense even when you realize this discussion with the Crown Prosecutor, is happening in Sydney where the Museum landlord lives. He has never been to Nimbin.

If the community is keen enough for the Museum to stay alive, we may find a willing taker but it is very disappointing we had no say in any discussions, because after all we do by far the majority of the police work in the village which resembles a refugee camp from the war on drugs. In fact the feeling in town is that closing the Museum will do little to stop any drug dealing but have a major impact on tourism.

And anyway, if they can’t keep drug dealing out of jails, which are surely on CCTV, how can we be expected to?

LAST WEEKS MEDIA ETC…………MUSEUM OFFERS TO CLOSE FOR A MONTH TO ASSIST POLICE

The Nimbin Museum is a cultural icon in the tiny Northern NSW village inland from Byron Bay, internationally famous for its alternative culture.

Police have put the squeeze on the Museum’s landlord to evict the curator Michael Balderstone because of drug supply on the premises. He says in response to the threat of the Museum closure, “We offer to close the Museum for a month to see what difference it makes to drug dealing in the village. It is offensive for police to suggest we haven’t tried our hardest to keep dealing out of the Museum since we began here over twenty years ago.

It has been an impossible chore and caused more than one nervous breakdown for Museum volunteers. We have never stopped policing the dealing and extremely difficult behaviour associated with it, in and around the Museum, as the police themselves are rarely here. The many police I have had to work with for two decades all know how much I and the Museum volunteers have tried to stop drug dealing in the Museum.”

“In the month we are closed I ask that artists be allowed to work inside to restore some of the damage done to exhibits by the young, disrespectful, alienated, angry and paranoid youth who risk jail daily in Nimbin just to sell a bit of pot. Why?”

Elspeth Jones, almost a resident artist and exhausted dealer ‘thrower outerer’ says, “The Museum is a gathering place for the community.

Every day we welcome many people to the Museum, both visitors and locals. Our youth, young children with ever extending families and their elders share tables, pots of tea and good conversation with people from all over the world. It is really a place for cultural exchange, education and for breaking down barriers. It has become such a popular attraction because visitors ultimately want to see a place where the locals are getting on with their lives, where they can meet with the people who make Nimbin such a colourful and different place and feel part of it. They see Nimbin warts and all, and mostly love it”.

“We aim to maintain a friendly atmosphere inside, and have never denied entry to the police. They become in a way part of it, we have on display the ins and outs of prohibition to all. Visitors can see for themselves that the war on drugs is futile, and our endeavours to curb the dealing around the Museum and indeed throughout Nimbin have been as successful as the war on drugs world wide.”, said Elspeth

“The permanent closure of the Museum would create a huge gap in village life, scattering and diluting the alternative and indiginous culture here even further. We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face, creating a dull “Everytown” where tourists eat and leave none the wiser.”

I went to Lismore Courthouse this morning and left the letter below for the Judge. I’ll send a copy to Emma Sullivan at the Crown Solicitor’s Office

I also went next door and left a note and copy for Detective Sargeant Michael Smith, who I’ve known for twenty years.

I’m offering to close the Museum for a month to see what difference it makes to Nimbin’s drug dealing. I also ask that artists be allowed to work inside during this time to restore some of the damage done to exhibits and paintings by the young, disrespectful, angry and paranoid youth who risk jail daily in Nimbin, and we have to deal with on a daily basis. I think the police are trying to make you and I responsible for this which is unfair.

Prefer to talk to you on the phone to try and sort this out. I have lots of upset people and free legal help offers. We all want to fix the ugly dealing scene in Nimbin, but not at the expense of our best attractions.

I began my life in Nimbin over 20 years ago when I rented the Museum shopfront as a second hand, antique shop. Dealing of illegal drugs was a small issue then in the village, but even then a divisive one. As tourism grew and the popularity of cannabis spread, so the dealing grew along with the shops in the town, now nearly all dependent on the tourist trade.

Over the now I5 years that I have operated the Museum as a tourism enterprise, my assistants and I have strived tirelessly to keep drug dealing off the premises. This has often been at great personal risk and many volunteers have quit because of the abuse copped in the process. There are numerous signs throughout the Museums 8 rooms saying ‘no dealing’, and even detailed, large writing explaining our predicament and asking for co-operation. Of course many of the young men dealing cannot read! The police are fully aware of all this and I have always tried to communicate openly and honestly with them for approximately twenty years. All that time I've been a member of the Police Community Consultation Committee.

The big change came when CCTV cameras were installed in the street, live to the police station, several years ago. Displacement is a well documented consequence, but it was accepted that this would eventuate, and it did. All over town, everywhere the cameras don't cover, the dealing moved there. This included inside the Museum and in the extensive unfenced backyard and adjoining block, none of which is on camera, nor in my lease.

So it seems totally unfair that the Museum, Nirnbin's main tourist attraction, is threatened because the more tourism grows here, and the more police stop walking the beat like they had to before the cameras, the worse the situation is getting. It doesn’t help that Nimbin has a closed Youth Club and SK8 Park, and the Museum building used to house the youth club.

Also, dealing occurs all over Nimbin and yet the police continue to target the two business premises, Hemp Bar and the Museum, who have both been lawfully and actively lobbying for cannabis law reform. The very reason we have been calling for a trial of licensed cannabis cafes is to deal with this impossible and longstanding situation. We have an implied constitutional right to political association and freedom of speech. The oppressive and unconscionable use of this legislation by the police in this matter is a burden on our rights I believe. I invite you to visit the Museum and Hemp Embassy’s websites, see links below.

Since the closure of the Museum at MardiGrass this year, May 3 & 4, Nimbin's busiest weekend of the year, we have strived conscientiously to keep the dealing outside the premises and have succeeded mostly because the dealers take our threats more seriously now because we have a copy of the affidavit and police DVD of the April 1st raid. Police have observed this change and there has not been any supply charges that I am aware of over the previous 4 months. This can be confirmed by police records.

Before we reopened after that weekend closure I purposefully went to the police station to discuss what was expected from me by the police and was told by Detective Sergeant Michael Smith and the local Sergeant Mat Johnson, who agreed that the eradication of drug dealing from Nimbin was an impossible objective, and that I should just continue “to do my best and try and keep the dealing outside". I have engaged in an endless dialogue with the Police including the Area Commander about how to make Nimbin more peaceful and how to deal with the illegal cannabis trade and the people attracted to it. It is disappointing that the police recently ceased to include me in any discussions and there is no acknowledgement of the more than reasonable effort we make everyday.

Please consider our situation in any decisions which you are required to make in relation to the Nimbin Museum. Please also note that I have only been given a few days notice on this matter the affect of which will have a major long term impact on Nimbin tourism and the many volunteers involved in keeping the Museum operational. As the occupant of the premises I ask to be given a say in the matter when it is heard. Please advise us of any hearings or how I should go about getting heard.

I have been advised that undercover police have been offered marijuana in the Museum since the MardiGrass, the fresh evidence, and wonder why they didn’t arrest these people. I cannot do their job for them.

The Museum won a major North Coast Tourism Award some years back and has an international reputation for it’s extraordinary art, murals, sculptures etc. Our joy is welcoming visitors from across the planet who come in busloads daily. I understand the police are just trying to do their job but I believe they will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case. And it is not adressing the issue of the dealers who will remain everywhere else in town.

Wishing you could find the time and come and see the situation for yourself. My landlord lives in Sydney and has never been to Nimbin. I am a good tenant, always pay the rent on time and maintain the old and leaking building at my own expense usually.

P.S. I offer to close the Museum for a month to see if it helps stop the drug dealing in Nimbin.

"Stoners in the Mist"
A spoof on Gorillas in the Mist, a 1988 film on mountain gorillas in the Congo

I've been reading a lot about Nimbin, and the great work for hemp you do there, I also want change, so I spend too much time on this computer, however it is working we are all getting connected, and there is a legalize hemp/cannabis/marijuana/ganja etc in every country,so I really do I like the idea of a sort of cyberspace alliance; with about 165 million of us using , with the right timing, we have got change!

My friend and college, also fellow band member Chris Baldwin, who is more news worthy than I.

I've worked with in UK coffeeshops ( yes we are fighting for them), and he is on my latest video with the young lady they call Cannabis Granny,

who has been fighting medical need over here, with another medical providing group called THC4MS,

Cannabis Granny is doing a tour with a gentlemen called Howard Marks soon, in the UK.

Hi All,

I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce ourselves to you.

Weed World magazine has been published since 1993 and is already established as Europes largest circulation International Cannabis Lifestyle magazine, (our next target is Canada and the States from where we already have a rapidly growing subscription).

In addition to the magazine, (which is a bi-monthly publication), we also stage an annual exposition - the International Hemp & Hydroponics Fayre. This is the largest event of its kind in Europe and attracts a whole host of individuals from around the world - public, trade, speakers and exhibitors. This years event is being staged in London and will provide another chance for companies to demonstrate their innovative and highly prestigious goods and services directly to their prime markets.

Both magazine and events are geared toward reaching and informing the millions of both medical and recreational cannabis users around the world. The magazine is perfect bound, 132 pages, full colour, and glossy throughout. Its many articles and features include a growing section, competitions, new product reviews, music and dvd reviews, alternative healing articles, cartoons and all the very latest topical marijuana and hemp news from around the globe. With highly competitive advertising rates and a service second to none, our aim is to please!

Why not log onto our web-site and take a look at the magazine online? We offer a free review service, so if you have any new products etc, Weed World is your platform!

If you have any questions, regarding anything whatsoever, then please do contact us!

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Keep Smiling,

Dave Alexander.

Telephone 0044 (0)1974 821518

Magazine website http://www.weedworld.co.uk/

Hemp & Hydro Expo http://www.ukhempexpo.co.uk/

Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults (Introduced in House)

H. R. 5843
To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes.

April 17, 2008
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the `Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults'.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no penalty may be imposed under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use, or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use. For the purposes of this section, possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana shall be presumed to be for personal use, as shall the not-for-profit transfer of one ounce or less of marijuana, except that the civil penalty provided in section 405 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844a) may be imposed for the public use of marijuana if the amount of the penalty does not exceed $100.

MORE than a third of people who present at Sydney emergency departments after smoking cannabis are violent and half have mental health problems such as severe anxiety and suicidal thoughts, shattering the image that dope smokers are relaxed and sleepy, researchers have found.

The data, collected by the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre at the University of NSW, indicates that cannabis users can be as aggressive as crystal methamphetamine users, with almost one in four men and one in three women being violent toward hospital staff or injuring themselves after acting aggressively.

Almost 12 per cent were considered a suicide risk. "It flies in the face of what people typically think of cannabis - that it is a natural herb that makes people mellow," the centre's director, Jan Copeland, said yesterday. "The reality is that it can make people highly agitated and trigger acute episodes of anxiety."

She said the study, which covered two hospitals from 2004 to 2006, revealed that more than 9 per cent of cannabis users had depression or bipolar disorder, 5 per cent had schizophrenia and 4 per cent had paranoia and a history of self-harm.

"It's the first time we have ever gathered this data and it is highly surprising. It's apparent that we need a higher level of early intervention to pick up these problems before they get to the emergency department," Professor Copeland said. The head of emergency at St Vincent's hospital, Gordian Fulde, said yesterday most people still believed marijuana was a soft drug, but "the old image of feeling sleepy and having the munchies after you've had a smoke is entirely inappropriate for modern-day marijuana".

"The grass we smoked in the '60s could have been lawn clippings compared to this completely different breed of nasty cat," he said. "With hydroponic cannabis, the levels of THC [the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol] can be tenfold what they are in normal cannabis, so we are seeing some very, very serious fallout."

Dr Fulde said users rarely needed sedation. "They can be quite aggressive, lose their inhibitions and get very paranoid like ice users, causing massive problems for staff, but a person getting nasty on ganja is still not quite as bad as a person getting nasty on ice."

Oh my god! How wrong could you be? Does anyone seriously believe this? Time warp propaganda, straight out of the Thirties.

Professor Jan Copeland of the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre UNSW, and Gordian Fulde, Head of Emergency at St Vincents hospital have been cited as sources by Kate Benson. Far be it for me to suggest a Cannabis Prevention body might have an axe to grind. I cannot remotely agree with the "study", or the personal opinion at the end. This goes way beyond anything on the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre website.

We are not in a position to credibly refute this in the media. It would be seen as Government health body versus anecdotal hippies and vested interest versus vested interest.

I'd like to see the study. Can anyone get a copy? No. It's not released yet. How convenient.

Their 'statistics' do not match my own thirty six years of observation and experience. I would suggest ringing the Lismore and Nimbin emergency departments to see if they would verify this view. I would be very surprised if they did. Certainly I could be accused of a "knee jerk" reaction by anyone without experience, but think the article perhaps "politically" inspired, playing to conservative elements for funding. Of course, I can't prove anything, it's just my belief.

I don't know what their data criteria were, and which two hospitals they chose, but am extremely sceptical of their conclusions. I know I am not a "health professional", but have lived within the drug using fraternity for a long while. I haven't seen the level of reaction cited with cannabis alone as used by a sane human being. I have known people to try cannabis and feel paranoid, so they don't continue with it, but they rarely "flip out" about it. Some don't like the initial increase in heart rate. Psychiatric patients often self-medicate too. Was there a causal connection between cannabis and the patient's problems or was just any mention in case notes sufficient? Do the percentages overlap? Were these patients tested to see what other drugs were in their systems, or was a patient statement the only source? It is normal user practice to claim the least indictable drug rather than confess something more serious. Culturally, we white folk are blamers and blame shifters. "It wasn't me; it was (insert excuse)" and we are all accomplices in this at times.

Very few health or science professionals want to endorse or defend cannabis because of the career damage that could result in the "War on Drugs" climate. Like a real war, the first casualty of the "War on Drugs" was truth. It was an open licence to lie "in the interests of society". A professional criticism of the study by a "neutral" party would be the best outcome, but its more likely Ms Devine will give it another trumpet shortly.

I have not seen anyone become violent as a result of cannabis use. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I have not seen it myself. Speed and Alcohol are the usual aggravators of the violent drug behaviour that I've seen. I have handed joints to drunken bikies crashing a hippy party to pacify the situation. The aggro one's that were too drunk went to sleep or outside to puke, and the remainder joined us in good spirit. All we had to do was share our pot and the gig was good. I have known violent types to smoke, and not seem to change either way. Pot was adopted initially by a generation who wanted wars to end. The demographic has blurred since. I don't think cannabis has any bearing on acts of violence, except to perhaps diminish the likelihood. People "overdosing" on cookies are suggestible, and quite open to the idea that orange juice will make them feel better, and often agree that it has helped after. Having a sleep is best. Lethargy passes. Violence is hardly an option there.

I don't believe Dr Fulde is right about potency being tenfold. The National Cannabis Prevention Information Centre doesn't agree either. See what they reckon.

In 1970 Adelaide you could buy a matchbox of leaf for $10. I will concede that it was about as potent as his lawn clippings. I got no discernible effect from it. By 1971 you could get an ounce of mixed leaf and unmanicured head for thirty dollars. (Potency doubled?) Of course you could still unwittingly buy pot cut with peppermint tea, oregano or parsley if you didn't know better. There were also occasional imports of strong cannabis and hashish, sometimes just as good as hydro today. (Anyone remember zombie weed?) It wasn't till 1972 that I finally recognised an effect and felt "stoned". There were "drought" periods too. The clientele was neither established nor discerning, but was slowly learning. In 1975 ounces of seeded heads were readily available. By 1978 the new marketing buzzword was "sinsemilla" (seedless heads). Average potency of the market product had already increased significantly and the price was rising. Leaf still had a market price. Hydro came in the eighties. The annual Xmas drought ceased. Dealers claimed it was stronger, and it should be, getting more sun than a normal sunny day every day, and having all nutritional requirements met, but not ten times stronger. 1.5 to 2 times maybe, but shorter acting. In 1986 the first hydro I tried, you could be "off your head" having a cone at the beginning of lunch break and be functional again by the time you got back. Good for office workers. Leaf became almost worthless, and nowadays used in cookies if used at all. If you compared leafy crap to good hydro you might get "tenfold", but it would be misleading to use such a comparison as cannabis of that impotency was only available for a year or so, thirty six or more years ago, depending which Australian capital city you lived in.

Analysis of bush and hydro cannabis done in 2001 didn't agree with ten times stronger. Some of the bush was stronger than some of the hydro too. In reality, there are no seed strains called bush or hydro, and it would be more accurate to compare sativa and indica. The chunky indica doesn't like getting wet at harvest, being too susceptible to moulds, while the sativa strains are not as quick to go mouldy. So most hydro is indica, and most bush dope is sativa.

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the United States by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments. - Wikipedia

In the US there is an annual gathering of Rainbow People, in a National Park. For the last few years the County Sheriffs and Forest Service Law Enforcement officers have tried to forcibly remove people, using tasers even.

2007 - Dressed in flak jackets and armed with handguns and several semi-automatic rifles, Rio Arriba County sheriff's deputies and Forest Service Law Enforcement officers raid a regional Rainbow Family gathering because the group's size dictates the needs for a special permit.

"We were attending the 2008 Gathering in Wyoming - staying in Kiddie Village. During the pre-dinner prayer circle I noticed Sherriffs sprinkled through the woods between us and dinner. They arrested a mother and attempted to take custody of a child. We reacted nonviolently however this was what happenned. More to come later - Shot by Linnea Dahl"

Nick Brash - cannabis campaigner and community artist dies aged 54 after brief illness.

Nick Brash, Illawarra cannabis campaigner who in the 1980s ran for the NSW upper house representing The Australian Marijuana Party (AMP) has passed away in Sydney's St George Hospital of heart failure. Nick suffered a heart attack just after 7 am on Friday 13th June 2008 just prior to planned cardiac surgery to replace an aortic valve damaged by a recent infection. He was being seen by medical team when he arrested but unfortunately was unable to be revived despite their best efforts. He had been ill for only a few weeks and his passing comes as a shock to his family and all who knew him.

Nick is survived by his son Jack, partner Sharyn Lacey, his siblings and many nieces & nephews. Greg, one of Nick's brothers lives locally in the Jiggi Valley and another brother, Justin, has been politically active in recent history as a medical cannabis patient.

The sale of equipment used to consume illegal drugs - such as bongs and cocaine kits - has been banned in South Australia from Sunday.

State Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said it could no longer be tolerated that the tools of illicit drug use were freely available from dedicated drug-device shops, tobacconists and some franchise outlets.

"Allowing the devices of illegal drug use to be marketed openly is an affront to the laws of this state," he said in a statement.

"It normalises the use of illicit drugs, particularly in the minds of impressionable young people."

The Summary Offences (Drug Paraphernalia) Amendment Act 2008 outlaws the sale of bongs, cocaine kits, hash pipes, hookahs, and ice pipes, with offenders facing maximum penalties of up to $50,000 or two years' jail.

Mr Atkinson said under previous laws it was difficult to prove that a retailer intended the items to be used to prepare or consume an illicit drug.

The state government of South Australia has made the possession of lights, reflectors, and associated equipment that can be used for growing marijuana a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison. Also included in the list of proscribed horticultural items are carbon filters, evaporators, heating tools, stirrers, funnels, and flasks. Under the new statute, people caught in possession of such items will have to prove they have a legitimate reason for having them or face criminal penalties.

The move is the latest effort by the state government to crack down on marijuana cultivation there. It also reflects the peculiar Australian obsession with "hydroponic" marijuana, which in the land Down Under is widely considered to be somehow different and more dangerous than marijuana grown by other means.

"These are the tools of the lucrative but deadly drug trade," said state Attorney General Michael Atkinson in remarks reported by Adelaide Now. "They're used in sophisticated set-ups and two-bit backyard operations alike.
This government will prosecute anyone who has these illegal drug-making devices -- unless they can give a good explanation."

Atkinson scoffed at the notion anyone would be using such equipment for anything other than growing pot. "With the amount of hydroponic equipment being sold, you would think South Australia was the hydroponic tomato capital of Australia," he said. "Alas, we do not produce as many hydroponic tomatoes as hydroponic cannabis."

Atkinson said banning such equipment was the best way to attack the drug trade, which he characterized as dominated by biker gangs. "It's no secret that those who have these items aren't planning to bake biscuits for the Girl Guides," he said. The move will "make a big dent" against pot growing, he promised.

Regulated Legalisation has become a section of its own, and is now included in the links header at the top of this page.

Europe: Austrian Parliament Okays Medical Marijuana, But Only State Agency Can Grow It

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #543, 18th July '08
The Austrian parliament approved a bill July 9 that allows for the cultivation of marijuana for medical and scientific purposes, Agence France-Presse reported. But the bill gives the exclusive right to grow marijuana to a health and food safety agency under the control of the Health Ministry.

Still, it is progress, said Michael Bach, president of the Austrian pain studies association OeSG. "Any initiative that makes it possible to develop and provide new drugs for pain therapy is welcome," he said. "Substances drawn from cannabis have been used for medical purposes more and more in the last few years," he added.

It is unclear whether or how quickly this move will result in the provision of medical marijuana to patients or whether it signals a softening of official attitudes toward medical marijuana users. Currently, possession or sales of marijuana will get you six months in prison in Austria.

Dutch-State Earns a Massive 400 Million Euros a Year from Cannabis Coffee-Shops

AMSTERDAM - The Dutch state earns 400 million Euros annually in tax revenues from 'coffee shops,' as the Dutch cannabis cafes are called. Sales in the sector total around 2 billion Euros, according to conservative estimates by TV programme "Reporter".

Reporter calculates that the some 730 coffee shops in the Netherlands sell around 265,000 kilos of hashish and cannabis annually. That’s 265 ton's of cannabis. WOW!

The bulk of this is grown in the Netherlands. Although coffee-shop owners do not have to pay VAT, the tax service does calculate income tax at the highest rate of around 52 percent.

In fixing the tax rate, the tax service assumes that the selling price of weed is twice the purchasing price.

In Amsterdam, where coffee shops often have non-price-conscious foreign tourists as customers, the taxman actually applies gross profit margins of 150 to 180 percent.

The finance ministry claimed in a reaction that it does not know how much tax the 730 coffee-shops pay. Nice "out"!

Tax inspectors who wish to remain anonymous suggest "they do not want to know about it in The Hague, as it is all much too politically sensitive," according to Reporter.

The report reveals that sales of hashish imported from abroad are much smaller than sales of home-grown grass. More cannabis is actually produced in the Netherlands than is consumed domestically. An estimated 60 percent of the cannabis is exported; no tax is levied on this.

"As export product, Dutch cannabis comes second or third after cucumbers and tomatoes. Germany and the United Kingdom are big customers," said police commissioner Max Daniel, responsible for combating the organised crime behind cannabis-growing.

Although police destroy 15 cannabis nurseries daily, the raids have no effect on the supply but only on the price of the cannabis. The growers want compensation for the bigger chance of being caught in the price they get for their grass. And the tax service benefits from this too, the reportage reveals.

There is to be a Protest at the Lismore Courthouse on the 28th April starting at 10:00 am to draw attention to the ridiculous overkill of the recent Police raid of Nimbin. These are two of the three defendants it took 50 police seven hours to apprehend. Where are the "eight arrests"? Bring your banners and signs to expose their waste of resources on a political media stunt.

In April 2006 this letter was published in the Northern Star. Nothing has improved.

Dear Ed
I refer to recent NS headlines regarding the upcoming MardiGrass. Firstly, I acknowledge that the interviewed officers may have been asked loaded questions. However, I wish to make a few pertinent points in this endless debate:
The police service should not claim community support if they don’t have it/can’t prove it. I remember the infamous El Dockin operation in Nimbin where senior police spokesmen claimed community support. My household survey of Nimbin (answered by 8 out of every 10 households) indicated that the local community most assuredly did not support those police activities. My finding were supported by the numerous complaints to the Ombudsman, and to the media (including the NS), and by an article published at the time in a law journal (The Death of Community Policing by a local lawyer). The police then claimed support from local businesses, but that was quickly disputed when the Chamber of Commerce surveyed Nimbin businesses, who almost unanimously called for police to be ‘less heavy-handed’.
Furthermore, most Australians don’t particularly care about pot smokers either (eg see the Aus gvt’s National Drug Strategy household surveys). We have quite a list of crimes that do concern us, notably child abuse in all its forms, all crimes of violence, property crime, etc. The NSW Police Service should adjust its priorities to better reflect community concerns. Perhaps packing a tiny village with up to 10,000 happy revellers is a nuisance to some, but it is not a crime. There is no doubt that trips to the north coast, motel stays, and easy targets are a soft policing option, but they cost taxpayers’ money, and utilize officers and other resources that would be better spent tackling serious crime. Aside from some pot smoking, the crime rate is low or nonexistent during the festival despite the thousands of visitors.

Finally, the MardiGrass is an established, major Australian festival. It is much more than a drug protest rally. It is a celebration by the alternative culture who settled, and forever changed, the north coast of NSW. Cannabis is symbolic of much that distinguished the ‘new settlers’ from the established farming community, and it was always their weak spot. Because it was an integral part of the counter-culture cannabis made the ‘damned hippies’ an easy target during police operations that often escalated into Drug Wars (eg who remembers the skull & crossbones on the police helicopter? the grandmothers carted off the multiple occupancy for a couple of plants? .. for those who don’t remember, the NS covered it all in the 70s, 80s & 90s). And one only has to attend a MardiGrass today to see the culture on parade—they dress up as fairies and plants, put on face paint, play lots of musical instruments, display their arts and crafts, and generally enjoy themselves whilst spreading values of peace, tolerance, sustainability .. in fact pretty much what they first did in 1973 at the Aquarius festival, except that they keep their clothes on.

So for heavens sake, readjust priorities and allocate resources where the community wants them. As an alternative to drug wars against largely law-abiding and productive communities, police should be trained in, and rewarded with promotions for, their community policing activities; community policing involves law enforcement officers working with communities, in a partnership, to address each community’s specific local concerns. It is an effective, and sensible, use of resources.

All self recognised Knights Hemplar and Dharma Farmers are called on a Religious Crusade to Nimbin, home of the Church of the Holy Smoke, to all meet there on the First Weekend in May, in the Year Sixteen of our MardiGrass, to participate in all the Sacred Ceremonies of the Holy Smoke, and smoke the Pipes of Peace.

It is Thirty Nine Years since the Death of Hippie in San Francisco; followed by the Resurrection of his Spirit in a thousand smiling faces. That Smile spread through the Sandstone Nations in a Decade of Optimism. Since then the Fog of Mammon has spread. Still we perform the Ceremonies and remember the Martyrs imprisoned for their private observances.

Make your way past the gathering Orcs. Come to the Aquarian Shrine. Celebrate with Herb and Friends. Pay Homage to the Bountiful Seed. Debate, Discuss, Learn and Socialise. Compete in the Hemp Olympix or Nimbin Cannabis Cup. March in the Anti Prohibition Procession. Be peacefully free. Make your mark in the Book of MardiGrass.

Of course, we expect exhemplary behaviour from our pilgrims. Good heart to you all.

We have built a demonstration HEMP-LIME WALL in the Hemp Embassy, under the guidance of Klara Marrosszeky. See Industrial Hemp for the history of this building technique.

The sixth annual event in August is again sponsored by the Nimbin community.

Performers have 8 minutes to perform one or more original poems, not previously performed at the NPPWC.

HEATS are held within the village of Nimbin from 11am on Saturday 2nd August 2008.

SEMI-FINALS are conducted on Sunday 3rd August from 11am, at the OASIS Cafe.

GRAND FINAL & After Party are held at the Nimbin School of Arts TOWN HALL on Sunday 3rd August at 7.30pm.

Judges will select, from the eight finalists, ONE outright winner of the $2000 prize & the World Cup. 7 Runners Up: $300 each. Peoples Choice Award: $500.

Nimbin is a small village, with a huge heart, and the people who continually support and encourage the Arts within the community are precious gems.

CHICAGO, Nov 5 (Reuters) - A study of more than 5,000 youngsters in Switzerland has found those who smoked marijuana do as well or better in some areas as those who don't, researchers said on Monday.

But the same was not true for those who used both tobacco and marijuana, who tended to be heavier users of the drug, said the report from Dr. J.C. Suris and colleagues at the University of Lausanne.

The study did not confirm the hypothesis that those who abstained from marijuana and tobacco functioned better overall, the authors said.

In fact, those who used only marijuana were "more socially driven ... significantly more likely to practice sports and they have a better relationship with their peers" than abstainers, it said.

"Moreover, even though they are more likely to skip class, they have the same level of good grades; and although they have a worse relationship with their parents, they are not more likely to be depressed" than abstainers, it added.

The study, published in the November issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, was based on a 2002 survey of 5,263 Swiss students age 16 to 20, of whom 455 smoked marijuana only, 1,703 who used both marijuana and tobacco and 3,105 who abstained from both.

The report said that while marijuana use has declined among U.S. adolescents, it has increased in recent years among the same age group in Switzerland and other European countries.

The study said that while one theory holds that using legal drugs like nicotine and alcohol opens the door to marijuana and other illegal drug use, recent research also has found marijuana may come first and it "may reinforce cigarette smoking or lead to nicotine addiction ..."

In the study, about half of the tobacco and marijuana group had used the latter drug 10 times or more in the previous month. That compared to 56 percent in the marijuana-only group who had used the drug only once or twice in the same time period.

"These findings agree with previous research indicating that (tobacco) smokers were significantly more likely to be heavy cannabis users than nonsmokers," the study concluded.

In addition, those who use only marijuana were less likely to have started using that drug before the age of 15 compared to tobacco users, and the tobacco-marijuana group was more likely to have abused alcohol, the study said.

Patients in California can now buy legal medical marijuana through a vending machine at a herbal nutrition centre in Los Angeles.

Starting this week, they will go through security, submit their prescription, pay and pick up their drugs.

Vince Mehdizadeh, Owner of Herbal Nutrition Centre said, "They'll slide a card to get into the store after hours. They'll be greeted by a security guard right there.

"They'll slide card in and they'll fingerprint in to verify that it's them. A camera takes a picture of them, verifying that they're actually at the machine. And they get the medicine and they move on."

The state will start with two prescription vending machines offering medical marijuana.

(Having checked the dictionary spelling I found I had spelt this wrongly all my life. The above spelling is correct.)

Paraphernalia is a term of art from older law. Paraphernalia was the separate property of a married woman, such as clothing and jewelry "appropriate to her station", but excluding the assets that may have been included in her dower. The term originated in Roman law, but ultimately comes from Greek (parapherna), "beyond (para) the dower (pherne)".

These sorts of property were considered the separate property of a married woman under coverture. A husband could not sell, appropriate, or convey good title to his wife's assets considered paraphernalia without her separate consent. They did not become a part of her husband's estate upon his death, and could be conveyed by a married woman's will.

According to American Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug paraphernalia is any equipment, product, or material that is modified for making, using, or concealing illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Drug paraphernalia generally fall into two categories:

User-specific products are marketed to drug users to assist them in taking or concealing illegal drugs. These products include certain pipes, smoking masks, bongs, cocaine freebase kits, syringes, marijuana grow kits, roach clips, and items such as hollowed out cosmetic cases or fake pagers used to conceal illegal drugs.

Dealer-specific products are used by drug traffickers for preparing illegal drugs for distribution at the street level. Items such as scales, vials, and baggies fall into this category. Drug paraphernalia does not include any items traditionally used with tobacco, like pipes and rolling papers.

Born in Fremantle, Western Australia in 1941 as John Kenneth Taylor, Chicken George was "a five foot warrior, a very tough man in a very little body."

George arrived in Nimbin 10 years ago after hearing about the annual Mardigrass Festival on the radio.He started out as a volunteer doing the cleaning at the Embassy and soon became the public face of the HEMP Campaign (Help End Marijuana Prohibition) by donning the green suit of The Plantem character, and becoming the second Plantem.The Plantem, ghost who tokes and hero to millions of Australian pot smokers, is based on the Lee Falk comic book character, the Phantom.

2004

We had a very Nimbin funeral, featuring Ganja Faeries flitting through the crowd, and the coffin painted with a goanna on top by Gilbert, with a rainbow and the Plantem character by Elspeth and Helen. Local police closed the street for the village funeral procession; an action that was a stark contrast to the police attitude to MardiGrass in recent years.

The procession stopped outside the Hemp Embassy where one pall bearer said, "He did a lot to bring this community together. The Plantem will never die." Then the bearers crossed the road to pause before a large cannabis plant that had mysteriously appeared in the "Blister" the night before, and after that went on to the Oasis Cafe for another respectful pause. The coffin was returned to the hearse for the journey to the cemetery, and mourners then made their own way there.

At the cemetery George's friend Doctor Budd, aka Peter Hendrix, led the tributes and read highlights from George's autobiography called "Almost, Nearly, Never."

Growing up among scenes of incredible domestic violence, the young John Taylor had shot his step-father in the arm after he saw his mother with two black eyes and two broken arms. George was totally opposed to violence against women. He spent much of his youth in boys' homes and detention centres and graduated to jail where he was known as "The Kid." Always the gentleman, an inmate once observed: "If you ever shot someone, you'd be the first to call the ambulance." Apart from his time in and out of detention, Chicken George was married three times and fathered fifteen children.He also had a love of travelling and spent many years on the road working as a carnie with various sideshows. He had a love of horses, racing and training them in WA and Victoria, his son a jockey, Australian Rules football and was the 1990 Coffs Harbour Racing Pigeon Champion. He came to Nimbin after that, often said it was his salvation, and credited his time there with turning his life around. Working at the HEMP Embassy he connected with Cassie,who has been his other half ever since. Many have met George and Cassie as they served behind the Hemp Embassy counter, with George often donning the Plantem outfit and geeing up the customers and passers-by.

His lived his live by the motto: "Never give up, never give in and you might just be OK." He will be sorely missed.

He is called the ‘Ghost Who Tokes’ by those who respect him.
For over fifteen years, the Plantem has lived in the Nimbin area of the Rainbow Region, surrounded by the Nimbinites that who have faithfully kept his the secret that the Plantem is not really immortal, but a legacy handed down from anointed one to anointed one. Calling the "Mull Cave" his home, the current Plantem, and the Plantems before him, have taken the oath that binds them to each other through time.
"I swear to devote my life to the destruction of corruption, greed, cruelty and injustice!" they cried as they formally took "The Oath of the Mull" by firelight. "And may all follow that example!"

Great story on George, but I could not help noticing that the "Northern Star" sidebar on the legend of the Phantom accompanying George's story was almost entirely incorrect. (even though the comic strip appears in that paper daily.)

The Phantom did not start in 1952 with DC Comics, but started as a daily newspaper comic strip on February 17, 1936, with the story "The Singh Brotherhood", written and initially drawn by Lee Falk. DC Comics published a Phantom comic book from 1988 to only 1990.

The comic is set in the jungles of the (fictional) African country Bangalla, where there is a myth about "The Ghost Who Walks", a powerful and indestructible guardian of the innocent. His home base is the Skull Cave in the Deep Wood, among the “pygmy poison people”, the Bandar, but he frequently travels in his fight against evildoers. Because he seems to have been around for generations, people believe him to be immortal, and he is also called “the ghost who walks”. In reality, the Phantom is descended from twenty previous generations of crime-fighters who all adopt the same costume and role. When a new Phantom takes up the role from his dying father, he swears the Oath of the Skull: "I swear to devote my life to the destruction of piracy, greed, cruelty, and injustice, in all their forms, and my sons and their sons shall follow me." Frequently the comic highlights the adventures of past Phantoms.

Today's Phantom, ‘Kit’ Walker, is the twenty-first Phantom in the line. Unlike most costumed heroes, he has no superhuman powers, relying only on his wits, physical strength, weapons skills and fearsome reputation to fight crime. His life love is Dianna Palmer, an Olympic swimming champion.

Chicken George’s Plantem was not based on the Northern Star's “fallen angel condemned to walk the Earth alone”, but a champion of human justice.

Nimbin H*E*M*P Embassy
51 Cullen St.
Nimbin NSW 2480
Ph/Fax 6689 1842
Media Centre Ph: (02) 6689 0326
archives.hempembassy.net
www.nimbinmardigrass.com

We await the emergence of a new Plantem from the Mull Cave. Long live the Plantem!

The Northern Star printed the above letter without editing it in any way on Wednesday 2nd January, 2008. Was it the power of the Phantom, Plantem, or both?

Simon Cass, 53, Grandfather, friend, Nimbin resident and past MardiGrass Organiser, accidentally fell down a cliff mid-November and died instantly. He will be sorely missed.

We acknowledge his contributions over the years, extend our condolences to family and the tribe, and grieve for him ourselves.