Update 5 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.
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”. 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.
This was only the beginning and things got worse.
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. 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. 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.
Updated 15 November 2016 –
Last week – Victoria Bills
New Cannabis Laws Pass Victoria Assembly – 10 November 2016, – ROAD LEGISLATION FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL 2016
Refusing a roadside drug test from 6 months and 12 months license ban to 2 years and 4 years. This is to align with alcohol though the Cannabis tests are viewed as mostly illegal globally, do not have anything to do with impairment only past usage that can be hours, days, or weeks. – Link – http://bit.ly/RLFMB-2016
9 November 2016,
Sentencing (Community Correction Order) and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2016– Passed Parliment 31-6, now goes to the Governer –
Introduces mandatory sentencing for NEW category 1 and category 2 offences, including rape, terrorism, and growing cannabis.- http://bit.ly/27Oct-vic-sent-bill
Updated 31 October 2016 –
Updated 5 October 2016 –
As predicted in April 2016, one of the most serious issues in the new QLD bill, “definitions”, have gone ignored by all the other submissions I have seen. Unlike, NSW, ACT, Tasmania, Victoria and the Federal Bills, QLD includes synthetics (not from a plant) as Cannabis. A dark day for Cannabis law reform in Australia and know one even understands it yet.
“Although the bill allows medical practitioners to prescribe both botanical and synthetic medicinal cannabis products, most synthetic products remain in developmental stage and are unlikely to be available for patient treatment in the foreseeable future. For this reason, it is expected that most approvals granted under the bill will be for botanically derived products”.
Updated 20 May 2016
Australia Law Reform UPDATE – Jan 2016 – May 2016
Been a busy 3 months. – There is an update coming out I have written for the Cannabis Law Report – A Global Group / Site – Watch Out For It June 2016
Bill Overview Links – – For 2016
http://bit.ly/DPSA-2015-16 Victoria DPSA Bill 2016
http://bit.ly/access-bill-exp-2016 Victoria Access Cannabis Bill 2016
http://bit.ly/Narc-2016-Exp Federal Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016 (Addresses the Federal Framework)
http://bit.ly/QLD-Cannabis-10-may-2016 Queensland Public Health (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill May 2016
SOME TOP ISSUES – May 2016
Top Victoria and Labor Issues –
The Propaganda Machine – NCPIC / Liberals
The New QLD Bill –
More below Here is a short URL for this page if you want to share 🙂 skip ahead – http://www.bit.ly/law-2016
Updated 9 Feb 2016
9 January 2016
Updated 22 Feb 2016
Recently (9 Feb 2016), Bernie Finn MP, in debate in Victorian Legislative Council on a bill that passed 33-6 of what some say was the worst written legislation they have ever seen, (including MPs and the Law Institute). It saw several new laws introduced against ALL Cannabis users. the bill itself, The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act (DPCSA) sold as 100% an ICE bill.
On the night, Bernie Finn offered many thoughts (hard to tell if representative of his party, himself or his community) He raised issues such as, “There have been no war on drugs in Australia but he thinks there should be, Cannabis users should face the gallows and the gas chambers, etc. with their women, rolls royce’s and penthouses. Obviously taking his views from TV and Movies. Not appreciative perhaps, that 10 plants is enough to be considered a trafficker in his criteria.
The DPCSA Bill 2015/2016 – (LINK http://bit.ly/DPSA-2015-16)
The debate on the bill starts around page 38, (Link http://bit.ly/Hansard-9Feb16)
9 Feb 2016 ACCESS TO MEDICINAL CANNABIS BILL 2015
Update: 4 Feb 2016
Geez, so it was announced the other day that Victoria will host synthetic cannabis CBD trials made by a company called INSYS Therapeutics a USA company founded in 1998.
As if Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes was not already confusing enough, we also have different types of synthetic cannabis.
Note: The Government (Federal and in Victoria) are looking to fix the nasty sounding synthetic cannabis and use the words ” CANNABIS PRODUCT”. Per previous Bills (below) since 2014, I have been flagging the weird definitions being used for Cannabis. The definitions were never in Bills or Acts (those make the laws). They were in opinion reports, or comments attached to the Bills and Acts. Opinions are not normally addressed in Bills and Acts, However in recent Bills and Acts (December 2015) these bad definitions showed up or were hidden from plain site (see below). This means where they said in an opinion paper that “Cannabis Indica and Ruderalis do not exist (Indica and Ruderalis are two of the known sub-genus / strains of Cannabis the other being Cannabis Sativa) it is a weird thing to miss define, but is shows up 4-5 times now… back to synthetic cannabis
What Is Synthetic Cannabis ? –
I recently (today) asked / teased the NCPIC (government propaganda folks against all Cannabis), I asked, “If the synthetic Cannabis they (as part of the government) are going on TV to warn people about that are killing Australian Children is the same synthetic Cannabis that they are supporting to be used on Australian Children that is also untested, their answer was, “No, these are entirely different untested products made from unknown chemicals. For more information: visit our website……
That answer sums up the problem, and re-asks the question What is Synthetic Cannabis?
Folks could argue there is no such thing as synthetic Cannabis not really. The closest thing to synthetic Cannabis are the products being sold as ‘Herbal Incense’ synthetic cannabis but do not contain CBD or THC, or mimic them very well but some smell and taste sort of like Cannabis. Now if you understand that Panadol / Paracetamol, works by targeting the human ECS (endocannabinoid system) as real Cannabis does, other drugs do as well, as does herbal incense type synthetic cannabis … phew..
So what is the synthetic Cannabis being used in the trials exactly ?– We are not 100% sure what it is. Say What ? Pure CBD with less than .5% THC could be industrial hemp or Cannabis, we do not know yet, but likely industrial Cannabis.
What is the Difference between Industrial Hemp/Cannabis and Cannabis Sativa, Indica, etc. ? – Easy– Industrial Hemp has less THC (normally less than 2.5%) compare to 10% or higher THC in Cannabis ( Sativa, Indica or Ruderalis)
Is the CBD potency in Industrial Hemp and the CBD potency in regular Cannabis Different ? Yes, big time. THC in full spectrum Cannabis normally is in the ratio of 10-20:1 to CBD. That is normally 1 part CBD to 10 to 20 parts THC. So if the CBD is high (no pun intended) then it is normally industrial hemp, if the THC is high then it is ALWAYS (not) Industrial Hemp Cannabis.
What about the Oils? – Oils often concentrate potency by a factor of say 5x (500%). That is Cannabis that has an initial potency of 15% THC and 1% CBD might once made into oil be 75-95% THC and 5% CBD depending on the initial potency of the Cannabis. There has been work to create lower THC and higher CBD strains, but some have involved hybrids of regular Cannabis and Industrial Hemp Cannabis, and though produced exciting results initially the low amounts of THC combined with a natural tolerance built up by patients, means many quit achieving results if the THC was too low, and in the case of seizures they returned, and when a stronger THC potency was used, the seizures stopped again.
Can you just take out the CBD from the Regular Cannabis – BINGO !
You now have synthetic Cannabis – The trouble is in 1968 and 2011 they discovered something called the Entourage Effect of the human body and of Cannabis. This meant that when you messed with the natural formulation of THC and Cannabis ratios, it also messed with the other 500 compounds including another 80+ cannabinoids and thus the results of the medicine not working as well.
But you can also take just the CBD from Industrial Hemp Cannabis – Yes!
So why mess with the Ratios (Shakespeare?) and why make synthetic Cannabis? – Money ! – Pharma cannot patent an herb, but they can patent a process and a processed product, thus pharmaceutical / synthetic Cannabis is born.
So is Government Sponsored Synthetic Cannabis Industrial Hemp Cannabis CBD oil, or Cannabis CBD oil with low THC? – Smart Ass, — Likely Industrial Hemp, it is legal in Australia (ish) and grows faster than the fun stuff and a lot cheaper.
So is the Hemp CBD Oil with little or no THC still medicine? – Yes, but they are for different ailments, Natural CBD oil, with all the cannabinoids, but with low THC, works well on treating those with ECS Deficiency. Those with some seizure impacting conditions benefit 100% from CBD oil, but much less than those with a little more THC than is in industrial Hemp (+5% versus .5% and those with higher THC +10% benefit even more) . This means the more natural amount of THC the better the treatment.
Is the Government sponsored synthetic Cannabis safe? – Possibly not, trials have been mixed globally, and being it is about money, the best outcomes are judged often by the outcome of the trials and monetary success as a result (or not), an din the case of public companies how their stocks, and how their investors think they are doing. Neither GW UK or INSYS seem to be doing very well in that department.
What does this have to do with all the new and pending laws (Acts and Bills) on Cannabis – Companies have been sued in the USA over confusing the public between industrial Hemp CBD Oil and Cannabis CBD Oil (sometimes both are called Cannabis CBD Oil or just CBD oil), however the Australian government is trying to do the same by introducing new innocent wording like Cannabis Product, that can mean synthetic cannabis, (there are different types) , industrial cannabis or full spectrum Cannabis, in the synthetic cannabis world there are other products that might be 100% THC (called Marinol) or not CBD or THC at all (a new product called CBDv is also going to be tested). People are concerned about these hidden or confusing definitions.
What Can I do ? – get involved, tweet, Facebook email or call your MP, or the media, about why you are concerned, that is what I and others do.
Update: 3 Feb 2016 –
TGA Proposed Amendments to the Poisons Standard – ACMS and ACCS meetings.
- With the recent (2015-2016) Bills and Acts below, a lot of curious intent around careful or hidden ‘word-smithing’ and bad ‘definitions’ has emerged at a serious rate and has been flagged to MPs, Senators, and the LIV (Law Institute Victoria) is across it as well in state.
- This is careful wording that have a ‘different meaning to what you expect or multiple meanings for the same words. So a bad example is if a definition is wrong (white is a dark color and black is a light color) then it is impossible to address the implications of the bad definitions, as they continue on to impact the outcome. Sometimes when a definition is wrong and the intent of the bad definition is also not known then it is hard to guess if the definition is a mistake or intentional, whilst the result is the same. I have spoken to the TGA to see if these bad definitions impacting the results of the submission would or could possibly be addressed so the purpose of the changes can be addressed properly and I got an emphatic no, the consultation would need to address it. So as a result here is my submission with key points.
- ‘Proposed Amendments to the Poisons Standard 42ZCZK/42ZCZL of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (the Regulations). Overall there are 2 main issues in the suggested amendments:
- Restriction of Access
Currently in Australia specific to Cannabis, there is a real problem with definitions on a state and federal level. I with many others in Law reform have flagged this multiple times and was recently highlighted by the LIV in Victoria on a specific pending Bill.
In each case the definitions issues have been downplayed and mistakes made via what are regarded as “opinions” by the DOH, NDARC, AND NCPIC, so the view was there was no need to address opinions specific to the report on the Regulator of Cannabis Bill 2014/2015/2016 (or weed-czar bill).
However, these opinions and bad definitions have now created problems like in the ‘Proposed Amendments to the Poisons Standard‘ where some of the changes looking to be made, appear to be muddled and also perhaps a result of future legislation that has not been debated or passed yet in Australia. Care should be taken to not change the TGA in a way to impact Bills and Acts negatively or continue to use poor and majorly impacting definitions.
Specific Impact on the ‘Proposed Amendments to the Poisons Standard‘ – Cannabis is also the name of a botanical / genus name of Cannabis, that includes only 3 sub-species Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis. It includes roughly 85 Cannabinoids, with CBD and THC being the most well-known and approximately 500 other compounds with more being discovered. Only since 2011 with the introduction of ‘lab manufactured Cannabis products’, such as Sativex, Marinol, and more recently CBDv, and Epidiolex has this been an issue.
Also since 2011– and prior as early as 1968, it was discovered that any derivative or extraction of any cannabinoids or compounds per above not only created less than desired effects but to date are producing some harmful results in testing, whilst the same cannot be said for full spectrum Cannabis itself. This full spectrum usage is called the “Entourage Effect” and was discovered in 1968 by chemist Raphael Mechoulam and expanded in 2011 by Ethan Russo (advisor to GW UK)
‘Proposed Amendments to the Poisons Standard‘ The suggested definitions and proposed amendments look to cloud the issue further. It is suggested that any definitions impacting Cannabis be treated as such where; Full spectrum Cannabis, is addressed separately from “Botanically derived extracts (or derivatives) of cannabis” where the manipulating or ratios of cannabinoids, or other compounds in Cannabis made in the lab manipulate or exclude some cannabinoids or compounds and can be addressed more accurately.
The challenge- The difficulty is, mint itself for example is an herb and a food and I believe not covered by the TGA. Cannabis is a plant that has to date not been able to be synthesized accurately 100%. Including any definition admissions, of any medicine that includes an element of Cannabis should not be viewed the same as Cannabis itself.
- Restriction of Access
Where Cannabis or full Cannabis extracts are offered, currently federally the AMA are the only ones that can certify orders and prescriptions. It may be the case that rather than ‘orders’, or ‘prescriptions’ ‘Recommendations’ by the appropriate authorized medical practitioner may be inline, where the AMA may not allow prescriptions but the law does. As is the case in the USA where Cannabis CANNOT be prescribed, but can be recommended as it is for tens of millions.
Specific Examples – Sativex by GW UK has failed some trials globally, it is a Cannabis extract that manipulates the cannabinoid ratio (from a natural 10-20:1 to 50:50 (THC to CBD). CBDv removes CBD and THC, Marinol is pure THC, Epidiolex removes 99% of THC. With 85 cannabinoids and 500 compounds the amount of current and future variables means Cannabis should have its own definition (if it must) be in the TGA, and other non-full spectrum products treated separately especially whilst in the testing phase. If you were to remove the hops or barley from beer for instance than is it still beer?
It would be improper to not address the many Senators and MPs that have said Cannabis should not be addressed in the TGA at all.
Loren Paul Wiener
This Week in Weed TV
420 Australia Cannabis Law Reform
For the NCPIC
What is Synthetic Cannabis? –
There are 2 types of synthetic Cannabis and a few sub groups as it were. 1) Government Sponsored Synthetic Cannabis (GSSC) – pharma, and 2) Fake Street Drugs (FSD). Both are targeted to do things to the human ECS System (as is Panadol/Paracetamol) The government supported SyntheticCannabis once was Cannabis the drugs such as Kronic was not (not to be confused with the REAL Cannabis Strain or Brands of Real Cannabis called Chronic globally and dating back 20 years) – This is why we avoid the word chronic or chronic or Kronic. J
Government Sponsored Synthetic Cannabis (GSSC) – (made by GW UK) and distributed by Novartis (a $200-billion-dollar company) and INSYS Inc, have multiple products that sit under the umbrella of Synthetic Cannabis. Some contain high levels of THC (Marinol) others high levels of CBD and no THC (Insys CBD and GW UK Epidiolex) others no CBD or THC but still come from Cannabis (CBDv) by GW UK.
Does Synthetic Cannabis make you high – It depends which GSSC is being discussed per above those high in THC yes, those with no THC no. For the FSD, not necessarily some do others are fillers to be used as an alternative to tobacco that man choose to use with Real Cannabis (silly I know). Those FSD, that get you high, often even smell like Cannabis and but have no THC.
Is Synthetic Cannabis Legal – Yes and no, many FSD products called themselves something else so are legal. The GSSC are legal for the most part from June 2015.
Where do people buy Synthetic Cannabis? The GSSC products are going through Bills and Acts now to be able to be provided during trials etc. on our children. The FSD can be had online, herb shops etc.
Why do people use synthetic Cannabis? – Those that use FSDs do so because the laws in Australia make it easier to get than real Cannabis (whilst real Cannabis is much safer than both the FSD and GSSC).
Is synthetic Cannabis safe? – Hard to tell, but unlike real Cannabis, GSSC, and FSD have not been around thousands of years and is not natural. There are some credible synthetic Cannabis products, but hard to which is which.
Is synthetic Cannabis addictive? – The GSSCs might be, too early to tell, FSDs might be, hard to tell.
What are the risks of synthetic Cannabis – GSSCs have had kids DIE during trials, FSDs have as well. This is why the government warning people on FSDs but supporting GSSCs is ironic, and a ‘chronic’ problem.
Other Bills, and Acts
- A reminder I with some others are 100% only on Cannabis Law Reform in Australia, using the 200,000 followers we have on twitter and others social media and websites, to try and get the word out and communicate what is going on.
- All Laws are changed only via Bills.
- So we focus on the Bills, State and Federal. We are group independent so work with (anyone) this includes the MCUA, HEMP party, and those in the same groups or opposed to those groups yet all support removing some aspect prohibition on Cannabis. I started when living in California and helping with the prop 215 stuff that resulted in legal Cannabis in 1996 before moving to Australian 10 years ago,
- I got invited to do a Cannabis tour to California and Denver last April 2015 and trying to do the same this year. I got to interview doctors, growers, politicians law reformers, law enforcement, dispensary owners, entrepreneurs and be a judge at the Cannabis Cup.
- My main focus is on Cannabis for medicinal purposes as that is the only model that I believe will work, Medical 1st. We recently saw laws in the USA fail where they tried to go direct to recreational use, and I believe the Portugal model though idealistic I and many others believe is too soon for Australia. These views obviously skews my direction and views. Some in the MCUA hate the HEMP Party, others hate the MCUA etc. many in some groups have never tried Cannabis so their views are again different as well as the knowledge base.
- Though a fan of completely legal Cannabis I tend to try to focus myself on others to what will change the laws the fastest.
- There seems to be little focus on the details around Bills. Even from politicians sometimes.
- Bills lead to laws of course new or changing existing ones.
- Currently there are 2 new Cannabis Bills in Victoria yet to be debated
- 1 new bill pending federally and 1 yet to be debated bill federally The federal government is having a bit of a pissing match with Victoria (Lab), so Victoria is not sharing with the feds, and the premier NSW is having a bit of an issue with Federal government also.
- The feds here. mainly lead by (Sussan Ley MP) has said she does not like having different State and Federal Cannabis laws so is trying to consolidate what the states do in new Federal bills.
- This happened already in October 2015 when the VLRC issued a report on Cannabis for medicinal purposes addressed various issues and less than 2 weeks later Sussan Ley was on TV mirroring most of what the Victoria VLRC report said but addressing federal aspects and promising a new Federal bill by the year end (now on slate for Feb 2016)
Victoria Bills – Introduced due to be debated / passed early Feb 2016
- The DPCSA Bill 2015/2016 – (LINK http://bit.ly/DPSA-2015-16) Victoria (Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Bill 2015 Update) When I discovered some hidden scary details I then flagged around to the ASP, Greens, LIV etc and though eventually acknowledged it has still not been addressed by the Authors in Vic or debated in Vic Senate Council as of yet. Also scary is that I and no other politicians really flagged this before me, either I discovered it (scary) or no one else that did discover it cared (scarier). I wound up speaking to the LIV and emailing all those in the Vic Senate Council to please debate this and very few responded. In a nutshell, it was sold by a passionate Daniel Andrews as new amendments to prevent ICE, it actually includes almost 200 drugs other than ICE, including Cannabis. It makes possession of a book or website, or sharing a book or website punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Likely to go federal in 2016 if it passes in Victoria. Due to be debated in December, it was deferred till the next sessions. The information is so well hidden requiring the hunting of definitions of definitions to connect the dots. Not discussed publicly by politicians or the media. Many others saying, they do not believe the Vic government would be so deceiving, but the LIV has confirmed it. So the bill is either badly worded or has dubious intent or both. I have been promised that the Bill will not go by without being debated at all.
- Access to Medical Cannabis Bill 2015/2016 – (LINK http://bit.ly/vic-bill-2016) released the last day of Vic parliament in the last hours, it addresses the framework that the VLRC suggested last October as did Sussan Ley. However, the definitions (mirroring those definitions by DNARC, NCPIC, and other anti-cannabis supporters in other Cannabis Bills, like in the report attached to the Regulator Bill) is so flawed, others have 3 different meanings, making the variables in trying to understand this bill impossible. Speaking to others I had 20 respond to the Bill and 6 detailed responses, and all concur with this. I was asked to consult on it by Leader of the Opposition Legislative Council (Libs). Due to be debated also in Feb 2016. Main Problems– Definitions .. many are very wrong, (Cannabis Indica does not exist), or offers scenarios with words that have multiple definitions for instance discussing Cannabis extracts and products, but not defining if the Cannabis in question is lab based Cannabis, (GW UK), Industrial Hemp (less than 3% THC) or full spectrum Cannabis (>3% THC). Some of these ‘foggy definitions’ have been used and flagged before to mean different things in other Bills or situations. (e.g. the Lambert Initiative referred to medical Cannabis but are using lab generated product so changed the government funded web site to use the words Cannabis Product after duress from me 🙂 In this Bill, Cannabis Product is not defined to address this but refers to a definition that does not exist. Very much a connect the dots situation much like the DPCSA Bill Note: Some media outlets are referring to this Bill as a done deal or something that will produce Cannabis for all flower etc, not the case.
- Regulator Cannabis Bill 2014/2015/2016– All but dead the cross party Bill by the Greens promised a way to address many Cannabis access issues by introducing a new regulator or Weed Czar. It is believed to be on hold whilst the Feds introduce their own Bill. However, what is interesting is the report on the Bill includes bad definitions that are now haunting the Victoria Medicinal Cannabis Bill as well.
- Susan Ley- Cannabis Bill- Due Feb 2016 – Perhaps going to be sold as the most encompassing Cannabis bill it is even believed Sussan Ley’s views are much harder than Malcolm Turnbull’s The bill will address all the issues in the Victoria Bills and address how Australia will deal with the International Acts and Treaties, from the UN and other outstanding International Acts.
- Other issues – Multiple sources report that the Libs are so worried that the Vic bills are so flawed, (they asked I told them) they are trying to address them before they do their own, but this might not be possible, a real drama for the Government. I expect some power plays on this in early Feb 2016 with other political issues taking president .. or more covertness. The feds would prefer the Vic bills are all done and dusted before she (Hon. Sussan Ley MP) does hers. As the scrutiny (hopefully) will be tougher on her then Victoria (the state) alone.
What Next –
Having contacted all the Senators in the Vic Council, some key players are stepping up. The Law Institute Victoria is across the issues but they can only flag back to other politicians If the Bill passes, without debate law suits it is believed would not look favorable on the Bill.
The Federal bill will be YUGE ! and I hope well debated.
In Victoria the amount of miss information is enormous, folks need to understand the Bills before they accept the soundbites from the Authors, that paraphrase their own Bills very professionally.
- How Law Enforcement Helped Legalize Cannabis in the USA
- Why is the Media in Australia Afraid To Talk About our Cannabis Laws ?
- Police Well Respected in Victoria by the Cannabis Community Not So Much in NSW and QLD, Why?