This legislation is merely the lazy, incompetent lawyers trying to have a catch all law. The idea being as soon as something comes up they can just proscribe it quickly. Note the recent fertizer chemical that can be a drug and is bought over the internet.
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.

"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

Sounds like the climate change beasts can't wait to eat some body.

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.

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!

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.

Another example of legislation being drafted by people who do not accept responsiblity for the results of their actions... and probably don't care as well. Any means to justify the ends

What else would you expect from a bunch of thugs?
That's what the government is. Period. Their only "legitimacy" is having the armed police force under their command and they have just one purpose in life: to show us who's the boss.

I personally detest drugs, never used any, never even considered, but if you allow the government to get at the throats of others for what's dear to them, don't cry fie when tomorrow they get at your own throat for what's dear to you.

Civil disobedience is the only way to respond. Law shmaw!

Civil disobedience is for mugs; it gives the State another licence to persecute you in the name of Laura Norder. More effective alternatives are:

(1) Teach defendants not only to defend themselves but also to make counterclaims which, if successful, would have unacceptable consequences for the State, and not to break off the counterattack until the State breaks off the original attack (see my comment above, and http://is.gd/dr8vL). When governments know that prosecutions involve the risk of counterclaims, they won't prosecute without a very good reason. That's as it should be.

(2) Teach prospective jurors of their power to acquit in the teeth of the "law" and the facts (cf. http://is.gd/5VcX86 and http://bit.ly/97kFUt).

When governments know that they can't make or propose outrageous laws without giving oxygen to proponents of (1) and (2), governments will be more reluctant to make or propose outrageous laws. That too is as it should be.

Drugs cost the tax payer. If you want to use drugs, never use rehab, that costs the tax payer. If you want to use drugs make sure they kill you, that is far cheaper for the tax payer.

This does sound almost too bizarre. It is not as though there are hordes of cacti drug cartels or a plethora of datura bong fests that would have caused a blip on the law enforcement/health policy radar. What on earth precipitated this proposal?

BUT wait for it....in fact it is too bizarre to be true:

"But a spokesman from the Attorney-General’s Department said claims that backyard plants would be banned or their growers prosecuted were “simply not true”.

http://preston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/weeding-out-criminals/

But wait...there's more:

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Consultationsreformsandreviews_ConsultationonimplementationofmodeldrugschedulesforCommonwealthseriousdrugoffences?open&query=plants

Plants and fungi are on the list for potential banned substances but I will wait and see what the submissions and outcomes are before going out and pulling up the daisies.

"Drugs cost the tax payer. If you want to use drugs, never use rehab, that costs the tax payer."

Agreed, unless of course the drug-user wants (and can afford) to pay for it themselves.

Who ever asked for my consent as a tax-payer to pay for the, often repetitive, hotel-fees of others? If I were to go on holiday or on a retreat to recharge my own batteries, nobody else would be paying for that!

The unions plus green labor have conspired to force up housing values in the greater brisbane area by some 215% over their last 10years of public administration.

This agenda is pushed by the large global corps like Monsanto.Obama wants to legalise a medicinal form of marijuana that would be a GMO sterile version.All other strains would be illegal.Just like all the other legal drugs,it is about cornering the market.

The cost of Rehab is miniscule compared to the economic and social cost of prohibition. The cost of needless incarceration and enforcement is massive by comparison Yuyustu. You sound like a classic red wine expert.

Of course your working on the false assumption that drug experiences corrupt and alcohol doesn't. This is the type anti-substance reactionary waffle that you find at the end of every bar in Australia. The destruction of brain cells along the road to alcoholism entrench the type of small minded views you express as well.

You model your understanding of alternative recreational substances based upon your understanding of alcohol ,the most devastating and harmful of recreational substances. It is an enebrient, something by definition that renders it user out of control. Not all substances are enebriating only a very small number. In reality the most cost effective thing we could do for our society is "to only allow alcohol to be consumed in a controlled environment" thereby eliminating the cost of enebriated users causing havoc.

Of course if drugs were legal, crims would have to go back to robbing banks and the popularity of alcohol would quickly wain because is at the bottom end of recreational substance experiences anyway. It is in fact not very good and the most immediately harmful and socially damaging of all drugs if the truth be known.

Dear Thinker 2,

I do not drink alcohol, I do not use drugs, I believe that both are bad for you, but I do not support the prohibition of either in any shape or form.

People are responsible for their own lives. No government has the right to tell us what we may and may not do. All I was asking in my previous post was: "If you make poor choices, please don't send me the bill".

yuyutsu
if you can post a link to the number of people entering rehab for mescaline use in 2009 - 2010 i'd be most appreciative

Sorry Juan, I have no such knowledge, drugs are just not part of my life. The topic of this thread is not specifically about drugs, but about the government who so much likes to see drugs in each of the 10 directions, that they are happy to spoil innocent people's nice backyard gradens. After all, so many beaurocrats make a living out of "the war of drugs" and so many more (mainly being the politicians' and beaurocarts' family and friends) are still queuing behind for similar jobs that you cannot just allow them to go unemployed... If there aren't enough drugs around, they will invent them!

This has got to be Australia's laziest Government ever. If they can't use it to introduce a new tax, they'll seek to illegalise it.

How about some real work on the issue instead of postering the ever ignorant loony lobby groups for change. Let's look at drug taking as a health issue rather than going all fascist and banning any plant with a minuscule of DMT or mescaline even though the level is far too low cause an effect. And while we're at it, let's allow farmers to grow as much hemp as they commercially can.

If only we could illegalise stupid politicians.

The reversal of the onus of proof in the name of the "war on drugs" is INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULE OF LAW: http://is.gd/LJzDGQ .