• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Need help putting together legal submission to the Supreme Court

johnboy

johnboy

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 27, 1999
Messages
6,873
Just got this from our lawyers.

A very exciting opportunity has just popped up.

I've had an inside word that the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (top of the pops apart from the High Court in our system) has convened a full bench to hear two appeals on the 31st of January 2006.

The Court of Appeal doesn't convene a full bench unless it plans to make a very strong statement about what the law is, or overturn existing law.

The cases it is going to hear together are appeals based on the question of whether ecstasy, steroids and cannabis should be treated as comparably harmful to 'hard' drugs - heroin etc - for sentencing purposes. The judges in the cases under appeal said that ecstasy is a dangerous and harmful drug and people being sentenced for ecstasy should be dealt with with the same force of the law applied to those who peddle heroin.

There's this thing, very rarely used in Australia, (but often used in the USA by lobby groups) called an amicus curiae or 'friend of the court' brief. This allows a group or person to intervene in cases where they're not involved to put a point of view to the Court, based on their expertise, on an issue that would inform the court and bring information to their attention that wouldn't otherwise be put to them by the two parties. One things for sure, Judges don't know much about these drugs and could quite easily

Based on my knowledge of some of the Judges convened to hear these cases, there is a chance that they could be persuaded.
Click to expand...

Can anyone suggest any specific research, data, or just angles to look into? Post here or email me directly.
 
The first thing that popped into my mind was when they had to retract a research paper because they mixed up the samples of MDMA and amphetamine. Not sure exactly how to use this example, but maybe going along the lines that a lot of the "evidence" against MDMA is questionable (but still often used as solid facts).

Other than that, there's the sheer stats of how much MDMA enters the country or is made here, how much gets used on a weekly basis, and how few problems there are each week. And also that when there are problems they're often caused by the prohibition of the substance rather than the substance itself. The angle here would be that the common perception has been exagerated greatly, however I'm not sure how you'd need to present this in legal terms.

Dunno if that's any help at all - probably not - but if it is then bonus! :)
 
Hmmmmm,

I think the focus quite obviously has to be on various supplements wuch as anti-oxidants and 5-htp that can be used to significantly reduce neurotoxicity...ie, it is harmful, but look how much less harmful it can be if the government spent some time educating people.

Also I think a point of comparison to other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco would be very telling, but also comparison to other mundane things...how many lives do peanuts take every year?
 
My suggestions:

Affidavits from:

- Medical expert's supporting the contention that MDMA is not an inherently dangerous drug (at least in the context of "hard drugs"). This could be statistically shown by ER admissions between what is claimed to be acute poisonings caused by MDMA (temperature, high pulse/blood pressure) compared to other black market drugs and legal substances (such as aspirin, tobacco, alcohol).

Of course the rate of death caused by accute MDxx (proven cases) compared to all other drugs (legal or otherwise) would highlight even with the terrible production methods of black market MDMA that it is still an inherently safe substances.

- mental health and drug rehabilitation experts stating the statistical evidence on admissions for chronic MDMA are extremely minimal (I don't know this for fact, is it true has anyone in Australia been treated for chronic MDMA addiction/use?) compared to again legal & black market substances.

A section on how uncertain much of the evidence condemning MDMA is and the previous, famous, examples of retractions.

The key I guess to the whole matter is attacking it's classification squarely on the criteria that is used.

For example if a substance has to be shown as medically dangerous highlight the empirical evidence showing this to be not the case.

A small section on MDMA use could be managed if it's classification was lower. For example with accredited therapists, use of harm miminisation to discourage use. (for example it could be raised that testing of street level MDMA has resulted in the user disposing of a the pill rather then taking the risk of consuming what could be a bunk/mixed pill).

If a substance is dangerous because of it's affects on young minds again highlight the evidence of how 30 year old humans, who grew up taking street quality MDMA, and compare this age group/generation and in the context of people being admitted for chronic MDMA use.

I believe the Australian Law Reform Commission may be able to provide not only information on creating the brief (or at the very least you can rip off one of their previous brief formats) but even content.

Didn't the AMA also do a massive submission to parliament regarding the health consequences of classifying drugs as illegal? I am sure they have a lot of material that could be utilized (with their permission of course) or at the very least re-written.

Also is there not a study on the average user of MDMA. Couldn't it be argued (since this will playing into the prejudices of our society) that the average user is a white/blue collar type, unlikely to commit any other crimes, who are otherwise productive citizens critical for the continued propagation of our society and that by classifying MDMA to the same level of "hard drugs" they are essentially condemning the people who make up one of the most productive portions of our society.
 
Last edited:
Congrats Johnboy, great work again! I will be searching to help with any submissions. Keep us all posted on how this goes!
 
This is sounding alarm bells with me. Last week Jonny Howard said he wanted to get harsh on Weed laws. This might be the first thing on makeing the laws harder of all things.......
 
static_mind said:
This is sounding alarm bells with me. Last week Jonny Howard said he wanted to get harsh on Weed laws. This might be the first thing on makeing the laws harder of all things.......
Click to expand...

Do you have a news link?
 
also point out that for alot pharm's, the "acceptible death rate" is way higher than MDMA. I.E. more people die from legal drugs and thier interactions than from (ecstacy + herion + amphetamines + pot) put together.

here's a list of the amounts of people that have died in each country from prescription drugs : (its a bit old) http://web.archive.org/web/20040211214045/http://www.honeri.org/ADR.html

here's a breakdown of deaths in the US http://bbsnews.net/drug-deaths.html

here's a table on the ratio of causes of death (illegal drugs aint on there, might be under poisonings?) http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/ron_law_tables/tabella.html

here's the marijuana vs. pharms numbers : http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/pop/deathreports.htm#totals

also, i swear blind that on the sbs drugs debate show, one of the researchers said that mj psychosis only effects 2% of people with a particular gene - but that is not in the transcript?! i know it was said because i had a long conversation about it with my girlfriend as soon as it was said.

also, you must stress that people need to be educated as to when enough is enough, just like with alchohol. personal responsibility is the panacea we are looking for.

hope that helps.
 
The treatment data from the National Minimum Dataset will show very low numbers of people presenting for "treatment" for their problematic use of ecstasy. Have a look at the data cubes here -> National Minimum Dataset

Also, DUMA (Drug Use Monitoring in Australia) seems to think it can monitor the drug / crime nexus by urine testing inmates of various watchouses around the country. MDMA rates very low there, possibly helping bolster the point that users of MDMA are rarely involved in other types of crime. 2004 DUMA report is here.

This point can also be drawn from the various IDRS PDI reports, which all show low levels of criminal activity amongst people who use MDMA. The PDI data also captures some of the physical side effects reported by ecstasy users - and these are generally quite mild.

Good luck :)
 
by the way johnboy - do you want specific help in writing up the brief - as in a draft and then your group would finalise it? What was the format you were thinking of? Did you want Bluelighters to make a contributions (i.e. a section on a particular angle) that could be worked into the brief?

With enlightens links to the medical world would your organisation obtain the affidavits (which support our opinion) or do you want a BLighter to give it a go and just start door knocking researchers and practitioners in the field relevant to drugs and ecstasy?
 
We are looking for suggestions, ideas, angles, rather than written briefs at this point in time.
 
Well The laws have gone up...

25 years max now for Amphetamine Manufacture... Thats intense, people get away with murder to only serve 3 years... and if people use drugs properly and the labs are *making them properly* than there are no deaths... Hence why we have to *stress this alot* get HARM MINIMISATION out of the shadow, we need someone in parliament on our side (not legalising team) the Harm Minimisation team... Pitty Peter Garret is on the Labour party, nothing they say can happen, we need a LIBERALITE!!!

SpecTBK
 
Possibly explore the process of how the Kings Cross "Shooting Gallery" came about. Harm minimisation/reduction verses drug related harm. Arguments for and against the centre and the results several years down the track. I suppose what I'm trying to say; are there comparable arguments from a health, legal and ethical stand point in what you are trying to achieve to the establishment of that centre.
 
If the new abortion pill comes through it might be useful to point out that the Government is willing to allow the use of a drug that has a simmiler fatality rate (to the mother) as the surgury alternitive. Then it could be usefull to then point out that Viagra has an even higher fatality rate then the Abortion pill. Thats if my memory serves me correct. This is stll current news so have a looksie on the TV.
 
Try the following papers:

http://www.maps.org/mdma/rd011604.html
http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/ps/webfiles/faculty/kleiman/proposed_therapeutic.pdf

http://www.brightsurf.com/item.php?ASIN=0892818573
The book is great too.

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v21/n4/full/1395395a.html
An examination of these data, however, indicate that while multiple oral doses of 5 mg/kg MDMA produced a large depletion of serotonin in all regions examined, a single oral dose produced no change in the frontal cortex, hippocampus, putamen, or caudate, and only a small change in the thalamus and hypothalamus.
Click to expand...

http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/revision.html

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/erike7.html

Enjoy!
 
I think its worth stressing that MDMA is not addictive in the sense of cocaine or heroin or weed - it doesnt lend itself to daily use (i include weed because it definitely lends itself to daily use, at least in 'some' users). IMHO it is more than fair to say that alcohol lends itself to daily use moreso than ecstasy, and ecstasy is no more condusive to habituation ( i.e. use every weekend) than alcohol.

I have a feeling i got the link originally somewhere on this site, to an ABC america documentary by (the recently deceased) Peter Jennings, 'Ecstasy Rising'.
Just as far as ideas for content go... Deals with the rise of ecstasy as a social drug, the false claims used to bolster the argument that it's unsafe, & the successful use of ecstasy in psychotherapy before its scheduling. includes interviews with Alexander Shulgin and a pre-scheduling ecstasy 'dealer' pioneer. summary Here
Video Here

I'm guessing any drive past rescheduling (to decriminalising/legalising) is out of the scope of this particular hearing, but i'll have a stab anyway. What about the idea that the illegality of the substance is responsible for the total lack of quality/quantity control of pills? I was in court once and the judge actually mentioned to me (the defendant) that she had recently been to the funeral of a young person who died trying ecstacy for the first time. I doubt the legitimacy of this claim (not the WHOLE story rather that the judge would be privy to the real *fact* that it REALLY WAS the deceased's only experience), but it illustrates a good point. the sheer abundance of information tells us that you effectively could not fit a fatal dose of MDMA into a standard sized street pill. This also shows that the (assumption ahead) average judge has no idea that this is the case, and that adulterated pills are a very real and dangerous threat.
Illegality is also responsible for the very clandestine nature of ecstasy, ergo the extreme lack of knowledge about it (Bluelight readers are not a majority im sure). This is because the position is that if it is illegal, you shouldnt be doing it, so you don't need to know about it. If all users were aware of the limits of mdma + proper safe pre and postloading procedures + unsafe interactions (viagra, MAOI's etc) through proper open dispursal of information, this coupled with clean/known quantities of MDMA would make the actual safety issues related to MDMA use virtually nil, no?


( Probably for its own thread, an idea for a later battle and maybe a step too far trying to convince a panel of judges of the fact... but this report makes a lot of mention of the people who claim MDMA is beneficial, theraputically. The wording of the scheduling in australia is to the effect that drugs are illicit because of their lack of beneficial application & abuse potential. The theraputic research of MDMA was all but obliterated by its scheduling - no real determination of any possible benefit has ever really been possible, but wouldnt a notion to the contrary support its movement to a prescription or limited supply schedule rather than its current state/national schedule?)
 
Unless you're qualilfied as a scientist/doctor or at least someone working in a relavant field, they will most likely disregard any scientific evidence you put forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top