The Forum > Article Comments > There are drugs at the bottom of your garden > Comments
There are drugs at the bottom of your garden : Comments
By David Leyonhjelm and Roy Ellery, published 10/3/2011A proposal to schedule thousands of common garden plants as prohibited drugs could turn ordinary gardeners into criminals.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 10 March 2011 7:31:20 AM
| |
"Do not worry these same lazy-arsed lawyers are backed by even lazier Public Servants so not much will be done." - that depends on how it's implemented.
At a guess producers/wholesalers would just find it easier not to deal with any plants even close to the species known to contain the chemicals. If you add in an approval process then the approvers might not bother doing the approvals. What if there is a cop or public servant who needs to give approval for importation of a species ( or some other step )? R0bert Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 10 March 2011 7:46:19 AM
| |
Sounds like the climate change beasts can't wait to eat some body.
Posted by Dallas, Thursday, 10 March 2011 9:21:14 AM
| |
Some species of marijuana have been approved for production of fibre. They contain delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in minute amounts. The principle was accepted that given the problems in extracting sufficient psychoactive material the plant represented immeasurably small risk.
In NSW the Department of Agriculture in its infinite wisdom decreed minimum subdivision of rural lands around Bathurst. This was done by a Public Servant who ‘read a book’ and came to a conclusion. It took a ministerial review to undo the damage of an ill founded policy. No evidence supporting the decision existed outside this individual’s reading. Evidence as to relationship between area, agricultural viability and social significance was not produced, made public or debated. The debate needs to start with an argument as to when risk becomes unacceptable; and that has to be based on practicalities not musings of an ‘office dweller’. The very real issue here is the AG and the process of legislation is the area of significant damage. Whilst gardeners and sellers will suffer the real damage is the loss of credibility in the process of justice. Justice which needlessly criminalises people becomes a mockery. Law and justice is a safety net for human behaviour, it sets a lower limit. It can never drive excellence in behaviour. Posted by Cronus, Thursday, 10 March 2011 9:24:54 AM
| |
Is this for real?
Have the initiators heard of American prohibition in the 1930s and its disastrous results? Have they looked at the costs of the War Against Drugs and its abject failure? Have they heard that the legalisation of cannabis in the United States is gathering momentum? Have they heard of the Nanny State which wants to protect us all from ourselves? They are running with the ball - but they are going in the wrong direction! Posted by Stan1, Thursday, 10 March 2011 9:34:34 AM
| |
Fear not. If you are being threatened with a federal conviction over some harmless thing in your garden, you have nothing further to lose by suing the Commonwealth for loss of employment opportunities caused by the obligation on employers to collect GST and personal income tax at their own expense, in contravention of s.82 of the Constitution, which says that tax-collection costs are the responsibility of the Commonwealth (http://is.gd/erqeD). And of course you have the right to demand vindication by refusing to settle the constitutional claim without a public admission that the tax system is indeed unconstitutional. You can even link the constitutional case to the drug case by saying that you need the s.82 compensation to pay for your defence or to pay a fine in the event of your conviction.
And you can point out that by refusing to SETTLE the constitutional case without an admission of unconstitutionality, you don't lose the option of dropping the constitutional case WITHOUT PREJUDICE if circumstances change -- e.g. if the Commonwealth has the decency and common sense to drop the charge(s) and compensate you for all costs, expenses, inconveniences and stresses suffered in connection therewith. Rather than run the risk of having most of the federal tax system declared unconstitutional as currently and hitherto implemented, the Commonwealth might decide that discretion is the better part of malice. Posted by grputland, Thursday, 10 March 2011 10:29:28 AM
|
Do not worry these same lazy-arsed lawyers are backed by even lazier Public Servants so not much will be done.
Personally I think we should all be allowed to take whatever drugs we want. Just make it illegal to whine about it when it all goes horribly wrong or use "drugs" as any sort legal defence.