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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

[NEWS] Steps to ban 'drug' plants alarm hobby gardeners

poledriver

poledriver

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
11,543
A CONTROVERSIAL proposal to ban many familiar backyard plants and trees, including angel's trumpet and a large number of wattles, has outraged gardeners and nursery owners.

The federal government says the plants should be prohibited because they could be used to make illegal drugs.

Among the species on the blacklist are many common cactuses containing tiny amounts of mescaline, leading some hobbyists to fear they could be charged under drug laws.

Advertisement: Story continues below
"In our cactus clubs probably 50 per cent of our members are 50 or 60 years of age," said April Hamilton, the secretary of the Cactus and Succulent Society of NSW. "We grow these plants because we love them, not because there is some mystical meaning in them. Some of our members are worried that they are going to end up going to jail over this."

The dramatically widened list of controlled plants, contained in a discussion paper issued by the Attorney-General's department, would put widespread species such as the leopard tree and the gossamer wattle in the same category as cannabis and magic mushrooms.

"This is a stupid, broad-brush, knee-jerk piece of legislation made by people who have absolutely no idea of botany and who have done no research into the incredible spectrum of plants that would be affected by it," said Robyn Francis, a permaculture expert and author.

Many of the critics argue the schedule is framed too widely, particularly where it seeks to ban any plant containing Dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, a psychedelic drug used in rituals by some South American tribes.

DMT occurs in small quantities in a vast number of plants, particularly wattles, but it is far from clear which individual species are affected.

"There is not a lot of scientific evidence out there on what plants contain nasties such as DMT," said Anthony Kachenko, the national environmental and technical policy manager at Nursery and Garden Industry Australia.

"If they are wanting us to pinpoint what plants to remove from sale or from gardens or cultivation, we wouldn't know where to start.''

"This is a blanket ban that captures a whole swag of plants commonly grown in nurseries across Australia and also sold in retail outlets. They have gone about it the wrong way without any thought for the ramifications."

A spokeswoman for the Justice Minister, Brendan O'Connor, said claims that plants could be banned or growers prosecuted were "ridiculous".

"However, the Commonwealth's drug laws target people who are involved in the illicit drug trade and that will continue to be the case," she said.
Click to expand...

here
 
"However, the Commonwealth's drug laws target people who are involved in the illicit drug trade and that will continue to be the case," she said.
Click to expand...

and thus government justifies its behaviour on the basis that if its about drugs they're free to be fucking dickheads.

just another reason to vote green. in fact i would be extremely disappointed if any bluelighter doesn't vote green.
 
"In our cactus clubs probably 50 per cent of our members are 50 or 60 years of age," said April Hamilton, the secretary of the Cactus and Succulent Society of NSW. "We grow these plants because we love them, not because there is some mystical meaning in them. Some of our members are worried that they are going to end up going to jail over this."
Click to expand...

This is who we need. Old 'respectable' hobby gardeners that people will actually listen to.


chugs said:
just another reason to vote green. in fact i would be extremely disappointed if any bluelighter doesn't vote green.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. The Greens' social policies are even better than their environmental policies.
 
As good as the Greens drug policy is I just could never vote for them!

They are basically a communist party.
 
There are better parties with even better ideas about drug use however not very likely to succeed so Greens would be the less wasted vote.

I seriously doubt this law will pass, there will be too many groups against it.
 
^ It is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous when you consider the fact that there is almost no 'drug trade' in the compounds from these plants especially when compared to drugs such as cannabis, heroin, methamphetamine... DMT and mescaline are just not that widely used.
 
And even when they are used, I'd say their negative social impact is minimal :/
 
nin015 said:
As good as the Greens drug policy is I just could never vote for them!

They are basically a communist party.
Click to expand...

They even mention on their own website they want "global governance" when you ask most Greens about it though there like "ohh but that isn't what you think it means".
 
nothing to say other than this is bullshit. why must this country take backward step after backward step when it comes to a rational and progressive approach to drug use
 
I dont want to turn this into a political debate (or do I?) BUT

nin015 said:
As good as the Greens drug policy is I just could never vote for them!

They are basically a communist party.
Click to expand...

They are to the 'left' of Labor and the Coalition on economic and social policy (which I think is a good thing) but they are nowhere near as far to the left as the Labor Party has been historically let alone "communist" (that word has lost all meaning considering the huge range of ideologies that have called themselves or been accused of being "communist").

Mario_x86_64 said:
They even mention on their own website they want "global governance" when you ask most Greens about it though there like "ohh but that isn't what you think it means".
Click to expand...

Well if you're scared of it its probably not what you think it means.

From what I can gather from their website they just want the current UN model except that it actually has teeth to enforce decisions and findings of international courts and they want the Permanent 5 members of the Security Council to lose their veto power (which pretty much crippled the Security Council during the Cold War as the US would veto anything the USSR wanted and vice versa and continues to give the P5 nations hugely undemocratic power over the rest of us) and require that Security Council decisions are given the ok by the General Assembly - again making it more democratic and giving Australia more of a say.
 
The angel trumpet family of plants brugmasia/datura are already banned under weed laws in many states. I remember even the council used to plant brugs on the footpaths, but not any more.

I think it will be great if they ban the wattle. This story will go mainstream then. Such would be the ridicule.
 
We should be able to discuss and debate issues, laws, whatever the circumstance may be and come to a conclusion as a group after carefully considering the pros and cons of whatever the situation may be, instead of being controlled like chickens with their heads cut off and not be allowed the choice of choosing our own answers.
 
MySecret said:
We should be able to discuss and debate issues, laws, whatever the circumstance may be and come to a conclusion as a group after carefully considering the pros and cons of whatever the situation may be, instead of being controlled like chickens with their heads cut off and not be allowed the choice of choosing our own answers.
Click to expand...

Do you mean some sort of direct democracy? I used to be a big fan of the idea of everyone in Australia voting on whether to pass each piece of legislation that the political parties drafted and proposed. With the internet and/or permanent electronic polling booths it would be doable.

The majority of peoples' opinions on most isses scare me too much though so I dont know if I agree with it anymore. I think drug legislation and especially penalties would be more harsh if it went to a vote but I could be wrong.
 
I'm not saying a majority vote on laws or anything, but I am just saying that we should discuss the pros and cons before we immediately dismiss on something that could prove to be quite beneficial. For example, marijuana. Marijuana has thousands of uses. You can make oil, fabrics, rope, it shrinks brain tumors, prevents strokes for people who have had them often, and helps with cancer.

A clinical review in the October 2003 issue of the prestigious journal Nature Reviews Cancer that concluded that cannabinoids’ "favorable drug safety profile" and proven ability to inhibit tumor growth make them desirable agents in the treatment of cancer. According to the review’s author, tumors inhibited by cannabinoids include: lung carcinoma, glioma, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (a malignant tumor originating in the autonomic nervous system or the adrenal medulla and occurring chiefly in infants and young children).

We have spent millions on trying to find a cure for cancer and undergoing an operation for tumor removal has to be very expensive.

Here is the article on strokes and marijuana.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1418.html
*HERE IS THE INTERESTING PART* The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study. For three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression.

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: THC (marijuana) helps cure cancer says Harvard study | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study#ixzz1H7znN7bA

Why undergo chemotheraphy treatment that is painful and harmful when we can smoke nature's natural herb instead?
 
Now, this is a great debate and I believe the pros significantly outweigh the cons on this particular issue. Other issues, well, lets discuss them and come to a conclusion.
 
Why undergo chemotheraphy treatment that is painful and harmful when we can smoke nature's natural herb instead?
Click to expand...

Few have championed the cause for cannabis more than I have, yet I find that a ridiculous question. You are comparing a treatment (chemotherapy) associated with many thousands of human case studies - that demonstrate it's relative effectiveness - with a study done on mice with implanted human cancer cells. Far from what I'd call extensive research.

And for what it's worth, I know of heavy pot smokers who have died of lung cancer. Yes there may have been other mitigating circumstances, but pot didn't save these people. Many more studies need to be done before it's announced to be an effective cancer preventative/treatment in humans. Sure Cannabidiol has been shown to have anti tumour properties, and it quite likely does have effect on lessening the severity of some strokes, but to be suggesting it's - at this stage - a valid replacement for chemotherapy, is something else all together...

Audio d/l from abc national program "Banned Plants" aired on the 9th, available here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top