opendecisions.net

I think the draft model schedules should be scrapped.

There's already sufficient laws to pursue commercial drug distributers in the 'criminal economy', and to meet our international obligations.

I'm particularly concerned about the plans to ban un innumerable and undefined swathe of native australian plants.

For one thing, I think some of these plants (those bearing mescaline, DMT and salvinorin), far from presenting any harm to individuals who use them responsibly, actually represent great potential benefit to the wider community. If, despite all commonsense, these model schedules are formally instituted, then the legitimate uses of religious practice (broadly defined to encompass all sacramental consumption) and research (broadly defined to encompass personal assays) must be explicitly recognised and protected.

ADCA’s response to the Discussion Paper for the Implementation of model schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences

Dear Ms Chidgey

The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) is the national peak, non-government organisation (NGO) representing the interests of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) sector, providing a single voice for people working to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and other drugs.

To the Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O'Connor MP

I am not a drug user/taker (apart from prescription drugs, over the counter drugs, the occassional coffee and alcohol. I have tried a puff of marijuana maybe twice in my life (I am 34), and I have never had even a puff of a cigarette). However I am a concerned citizen. I do not believe legislation (and if enforcement is able to be adequately and systematically enforced) to ban species of plants is based on rational or evidence based policies.

What do I mean by rational policy/legislation? "A policy is rational if it realises the desired goals; rationality is determined by the outcomes of the decision process, not by people's intentions". (Clark, T.W. [2002], The Policy Process - A practical guide for natural resource professionals, Yale University Press, New Haven & Loudon)

Dear Minister,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation. I have an ongoing research interest in medicinal plants, particularly those from East Asia, and in the discovery of new therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The comments in this submission are my personal comments and do not represent the views of any group or institution.

Issues with the consultation process and form of the Discussion Paper.

The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association (VAADA) is the peak body for alcohol and other drug
(AOD) services in Victoria. We provide advocacy, leadership, information and representation on AOD
issues both within and beyond the AOD sector.

As a state-wide peak organisation, VAADA has a broad constituency. Our membership and
stakeholders include ‘drug specific’ organisations, consumer advocacy organisations, hospitals,
community health centres, primary health organisations, disability services, religious affiliated
services, general youth services, local government and others, as well as interested individuals.

VAADA’s Board is elected from the membership and comprises a range of expertise in the provision
and management of AOD services and related services.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy - Macquarie University
Jacob Potkonyak & Daniel Freeman

MUSRA Office, Level 1, Building C10A
Macquarie University, NSW, 2109

ssdp.mq@gmail.com

******************************************************************
Abstract

To the Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O'Connor MP

I am writing to express my disgust and dismay at not only the existence, but especially the content, of the latest proposal in this area.

To the Minister for Justice,

Regarding the submission request for the "Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences"

In response to Question K:

(i) How should legitimate uses, for example medical, industrial or scientific uses, involving consumption be protected?

(ii) Which substances, in addition to GBL, have legitimate medical, industry, scientific and research applications which may require defences to be made available?

(iii) How should a legitimate use provision be constructed?

I respond: Given the number of demonstrated medical uses (see maps.org) for a number of the named drugs, the legislation should be worded in such a way that ANY substance can be permitted under legitimate use clauses, rather than having to create a clause that excludes only a specific substance.

To the Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O'Connor MP.

I wish to make a submission regarding the "Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences" proposal. My submission incorporates a pro forma used by others, because I consider these points to be worthy of acknowledgement, but I also include some material of my own that I would like to see addressed.

1) In response to question E of the discussion paper I would like to submit that:

a) I oppose any further scheduling of any plants.

b) Those plants that are of concern in regards to drug trafficking and organised crime are already scheduled and any further scheduling will only confuse matters, while criminalising normal behaviour of law abiding citizens.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am replying to the call for comment on proposed Implementation of model schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences published on the Attorney-General’s component of the Australian Government website. I strongly disagree with the proposed model schedules, in particular to the extended list of controlled plants. The central issues I can see are simple, and are summarized below:

This proposed legislation is not only redundant considering existing laws regarding scheduled drugs contained in currently unscheduled plants, but ultimately causes far more public harm than it proposes to circumvent.

If impeding the criminal economy is the aim of this current proposal, I find it astounding that one would think it will be at all helped by potentially expanding such an economy through additional law.

By prohibiting substances and their sources, the onus of control is abandoned to the discretion of those in the legal underworld that have the money and power to make significant profits off an illegal trade created and ironically sanctioned by law. Thus, the criminal economy is further empowered rather than hindered by providing further profit motive.

Dear Assistant Secretary,
I write to you as in regards to the Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences.
I am a concerned stakeholder, being an ethnobotanist (someone who studies the uses of plants by humans, including the chemistry and pharmacology of plants), avid gardener, and amateur herbalist. I have a keen interest in human rights and liberties, and due to this combination, I have noticed many things in the proposed legislation under discussion that I find alarming and poorly informed. My primary interest is with the plant offences, and extends to some of the drug and precursor offences due to the way in which they may be interpreted to apply to plants or plant products which should not be subject to criminal legislation.
Please see the following pages for my submission.

Assistant Secretary
Criminal Law and Law Enforcement Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

7th March 2011

Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences

Dear Madam or Sir,

I wish to comment on two categories of issues in the proposed legislation. I write as a retired Senior Research Scientist and Director of Botanic Gardens and Public Programs at the Botanic Gardens Trust, Sydney, though these views are not expressed on behalf of that organization. I also write as an authority on the genus Brugmansia (Hay et al., 2011) which is included in the draft model schedules of controlled plants.

1.The expanded list of plant and fungi species under the model schedule for controlled plants.

Model schedules in Criminal Code

Consultation on implementation of model drug schedules for Commonwealth
serious drug offences

I disagree with your department's proposal to expand the
plant schedules in the Criminal Code. Scheduling decisions are non-trivial and
must balance complex and competing interests. I argue below that your
department does not have the capacity to make sound effective evidence-based
scheduling decisions, and that you should not make scheduling decisions in
isolation and disconnected from the essential purpose of scheduling, which is
to reduce harm and risk.

get a grip Brendan or take the plane back to Ireland.I emigrated here 4 years ago.its a beautiful country.everything that exists in this permaculture is relienent on itself and its relatives .the birds and animals all coexist to and we the population get to enjoy the fundamental outcome of this creation. please dont go down this road.for all our sakes

thanks Derek

derekaustralia@yahoo.com

Submissions may also be submitted in hard copy, addressed to:
Assistant Secretary
Criminal Law and Law Enforcement Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

To the Minister for Justice, the Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP
Criminal.Law@ag.gov.au

‘CONSULTATION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MODEL DRUG SCHEDULES FOR COMMONWEALTH SERIOUS DRUG OFFENCES’.

Dear Minister

My God, my wattle tree is now illegal

Dear Minister O'Connor,
Criminal.Law@ag.gov.au. (Does not appear to be a valid email address)
Emailed 23rd February 2011

My objection to your proposal are based on four main areas and are reporduced on my website http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Psychology/Hallucinogenic.html

1. Religious Objections
2. The complexity of organic chemistry
3. Legal objections
4. Civil liberties objections.

Response to the call for submissions to the consultation on implementing model drug schedules for Commonwealth serious drug offences.