tuition brown university Australia cannabis law reform edition january 2017

You do not need to read tea leaves to see the impact of new laws, acts, and bills, that passed in 2016 in australia nationally, to understand that things are changing for the worse if you support cannabis for medical use (different to “medical cannabis” that needs not be cannabis at all as a result of new defintions of even what cannabis is) more below on that.

It was interesting for me this year to consult (as I am sure others do) to the government in multiple bills, acts, and legislature. One on occasion I got a kind mention in the victoria senate and to my surprise, my suggested amendment added in the access to medical cannabis bill. Http://bit.Ly/hansard-lw-senate. Acceptance rate brown university my concern then as now and the purpose of my amendment was to clarify the definiton of what “medical cannabis”is. This is because it has gone from being a plant to be re-defined as a suite of products that do not need to include cannabis.

My amendment made no impact on the laws, but I hoped, that should mainstream media or others want to fact check the issue, having it on the government web site might help offer credibility. Ironically with all the amendments in the bill neither the sex party, greens or any others than the coalition and labor got any amendments, while I did. This is wrong but neither listened to me being on their side, while the coalition did though they are 100% opposed to everything I say and do really. That is irony at its best.

“I also had a very comprehensive marked-up version of the legislation from loren wiener from the australian cannabis law reform movement. His concerns were about the definition of cannabis, and these are also questions I will ask on behalf of loren in relation to the definition. His concern is that the definition of cannabis does not actually include or allow for the extent and range of types of cannabis plants there are and also the issue about the mix of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol and whether that is covered in the legislation” MP mary wooldridge victoria senate

Prior to bills being written debated and subsequently ignored, motions were already in play. A private $34m donation in NSW and an equal amount of government money, saw research begin into something called “medical cannabis”. Brown university login however defining what medical cannabis even was, seemed silly to some, but not to those like myself that had been consulting to government on the issue.

Then a much ignored video emerged from the head researcher saying that cannabis in australia was “defective” as it got people high, contained something called THC and not enough of something called CBD. The end result is they needed something with more CBD so it could be “good” cannabis. For those not accustomed to this jargon speak it was like saying the water was defective as it was clear and wet. This new “medical cannabis” was not to be cannabis at all. At best it would be pharmaceutical sprays, or pills, at worst the government was going to grow this new cannabis, that was not really cannabis but GMO hemp, that has high CBD and no THC. Unfortunately the amount of saes (serious side effects), risks of side effects with outer medications, and over doses of serotonin and deaths have gone ignored as have the tests and trials.

EXAMPLE 1- VICTORIA in the last 12 months alone in state victoria, there have been 9 new laws introduced against cannabis without the word “cannabis” even being in the bill so as to pass quietly with little debate. Both bills passed 33 and 32-6 respectively. The first bill in feb 2016, ( http://bit.Ly/DPSA-2015-16 victoria DPSA bill 2016) known as the ICE bill it was sold as just that. However it used an old reference in, ICE and other “drugs of dependence” that turns out to include cannabis. It introduced 7 laws against cannabis patients, caregivers, researchers, and growers offering 5 years for looking at websites, or emails, books, or magazines on cannabis. Brown university classics it offers 10 years for producing or sharing those same things. It changed laws of selling from 300m of a school to children to 500m of a school regardless of the age and from 15 to 20 years.

In another bill, ( http://bit.Ly/access-bill-exp-2016 victoria access cannabis bill 2016) it continued to change the definition of cannabis from a plant to a suite of pharma products that include GMO, synthetics (as not from a plant), and pharmaceuticals. The contect now being trials and tests are beginning in the future for medical cannabis where medical cannabis is no longer needs to be the plant cannabis. This is unique to the rest of the world, where cannabis is cannabis, and pharma, CBD, hemp and synthetics are all different. I got to see the process first hand as I consulted on the bill for the government, (them opposed, asking for my contrary view being for medical cannabis with cannabis ). It resulted in a nice mention in the senate, and an amendment in the bill. Brown university campus dance neither the sex party or greens unfortunately had any amendments. It made little difference, it had to do with the definition of the word cannabis. My thoughts were if mainstream media did not believe me or the LIV (law institute victoria) then they could google me and hansards and see the issue for themselves on the government own website. Media were either not interested or in the case of the theproject, did not believe me and would not fact check me to the site or to the LIV, or mps that were happy to discuss the matters.

In a 3rd bill in november 2016, ( http://bit.Ly/RLFMB-2016) and also refers to drugs of dependence, and created new categories of mandatory sentencing in a bill that introduced cannabis with rape incest, and terrorism. As mentioned both bills passed with little debate and per government mandate no media attention.