Friendly warning and disclaimer: These forums are provided for the thousands victims of prohibition who form the pot community of Aotearoa for discussion of marijuana-related issues. NORML reserve the right to delete off-topic posts. The views expressed in any forum are solely those of the contributor and not necessarily approved or endorsed by NORML New Zealand Inc.
Italy decriminalises/cannabis in NZ 100% legal Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:38 pm
Wasn't Italy once facist? I though NZ was thought of as Green
Maybe NZ needs a new political party...the AFP....Anti Facism Party. With any such party, the number one policy would have to be 'independance from the USA'.
So lets get this straight...whoops....straight ...Russia has decriminalised personal quantities of all drugs, as has Portugal..Spain has decriminalised cannabis, so has Holland, so has Switzerland...In Britain possesion is a non arrestable offense. Even in some states of Austrailia cannabis is decriminalised.
If you look at the statistics of those prosecuted for cannabis offenses in countries where cannabis is still illegal, as compared to the number of prosecutions in NZ for cannabis offences, it is quite clear that NZ is still in the dark ages with regard to that.
When was the last time you saw a debate on TV about cannabis? NZ won't even legalise medical use...the pharmaceutical companies and associated drug pushing leaches(advertising their drugs on TV) will have their way....Sativex or other wise.
One would have thought, and even expected, with the Greens in parliament that this issue would have been raised much more than it has. But alas, the courtezans are too busy flying to London for cocktail parties while the vets stay home.
Cannabis is non other than a human rights issue yet when was this ever put before the courts? Shame on you complient, apathetic legal elites notwithstanding the NZDF and the like.
Don't forget, the medicines act, states quite clearly that all herbs are legal, regardless if some quasi legal jargon makes claim to the idea that cannabis is an exception as put forward in the misuse of drugs act. In order that the misuse of drugs act was actually rellavent in relation to the medicines act, the medicines act would need to be appropriately adjusted to specify 'all herbs except for cannabis', other wise the term 'all herbs' is all but meaningless. And if you look toward what would have been the spirit of the medicines act in saying 'all herbs', the intentions were clear enough...plants in their raw form cannot be deemed demon weeds according to United States doctrine.
Rome - Italy's government on Monday doubled the amount of cannabis people can possess without risking prosecution and announced a major overhaul of the laws on narcotics use.
Causing an outcry from the centre-right opposition, but joy from campaigners for drugs liberalisation, Health Minister Livia Turco said the maximum amount of marijuana to be considered for "personal use" would be doubled to 1 gram in terms of its active ingredient.
That would allow for possession of up to around 40 joints, the health ministry said.
"I intervened so thousands of young people don't have to go to jail or suffer a criminal proceeding for smoking a joint," said Turco, a member of the largest government party, the Democrats of the Left.
Turco said the law, which will come into effect as soon it is published in Italy's official journal, was an interim step to a full overhauling of the drugs law passed by the previous government of former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.
Parliament was suspended briefly after uproar broke out when one leftist member announced he had planted cannabis seeds in the chamber's gardens - a claim he later admitted was merely a provocation to the centre-right opposition.
"I've planted some marijuana seeds in the flower beds in the chamber of deputies' courtyard. And they've already started sprouting over the last few days," said Communist Refoundation lawmaker Francesco Caruso.
Caruso, also a well-known figure in Italy's anti-globalisation movement, said he was just trying to advertise a pro-cannabis protest day on November 25 when activists will plant the drug in public places.
For decades, Italy has swung between liberal to repressive laws on drugs - an issue which sharply divides left and right.
Carlo Giovanardi, the centrist former minister who co-sponsored the law under Berlusconi that cracked down on drugs and which will now be revised, said Monday's measure would decriminalise the possession of 40 joints.
"We thought that around 20 joints was already a very generous limit to distinguish between personal use and pushing," he said.
"Raising the limit to 40 joints is a danger and deprived of any scientific basis. It's a mistaken and morally harmful signal to our young people."
Last edited by Neuron on Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total
Joined: Aug 23, 2005 Posts: 2313 Location: Queensland
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:04 pm
Very Informative Neuron.
So if a cop busts me, I can legally contest this 'minor detail' in court Vs the crown?
"I'm sorry "Most Honourable Judge" but the Medicines Act 1840AD (hehe) states that ALL herbs are legal. I therefore have no case to answer for nor no criminal offence to account for either. Have a nice day".
I wish.....
But it's got to be legally contestable right?
A government law vs a government law? _________________ Hardcore 4 Cannabis since 2004
--------------------------------------
Vote ALCP in 2008!
So if a cop busts me, I can legally contest this 'minor detail' in court Vs the crown?
"I'm sorry "Most Honourable Judge" but the Medicines Act 1840AD (hehe) states that ALL herbs are legal. I therefore have no case to answer for nor no criminal offence to account for either. Have a nice day".
I wish.....
But it's got to be legally contestable right?
A government law vs a government law?
At least it will give the judge a headache.....
Neuron, again another excellent post.
Nice to see the Democrats running the US now, expect changes to their drug laws as well _________________ A pain free day the marijuana way.
^I wouldn't be so sure about that, when Clinton was in office he signed some very harsh drug laws...'democrat/republican'...same party...'one party'. Still, who knows huh I heard Iraq was liberated
As for the medicines act, here is the rellavent information.
>>>>>>>>>>>Medicines Act 1981
Part 2 Dealings with medicines and medical devices (s 17 to s [49A)
Exemptions
28 Exemptions in respect of herbal remedies
(1)Notwithstanding section 17 of this Act, but subject to the other provisions of this Act and to any regulations made under this Act, any person may, in the course of a business carried on by that person, manufacture, pack, and label, or sell or supply, any herbal remedy for administration to a particular person after being requested by or on behalf of that person to use his own judgment as to the treatment required.
(2)Notwithstanding anything in sections 17 and 20 to 24 of this Act, but subject to the other provisions of this Act and to any regulations made under this Act, any person may manufacture, pack, and label any herbal remedy, and sell or supply any herbal remedy, if the remedy is or is to be sold or supplied—
(a)Under a designation that specifies only the plant from which it is made and the process to which the plant has been subjected during the production of the remedy, and does not apply any other name to the remedy; and
(b)Without any written recommendation (whether by means of a labelled container or package or a leaflet or in any other way) as to the use of the remedy.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
According to this^, not only is cannabis 'legal', it is 'legal to package and sell' aswell.
If you read the 'Medicines act 1981', further 'provisions' endeavour to distinguish or illustrate how the 'Medicines act 1981' should be 'interpreted' in relation to the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' as follows.
>>>>>>>109Relationship with Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
(1)Subject to subsection (3) of this section, in the case of a medicine that is a controlled drug within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, the prohibitions, conditions, and requirements contained in or imposed under this Act shall be in addition to the prohibitions, conditions, and requirements contained in or imposed under that Act to the extent that they are not inconsistent therewith.
(2)Nothing in section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 shall authorise any person to prescribe, manufacture, pack, label, sell by wholesale or retail, administer, procure, receive, store, use, or otherwise have in that person's possession any medicine contrary to the provisions of this Act.
(3)So long as a person is authorised by a licence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to manufacture, pack, or sell by wholesale or retail, any controlled drug that is a medicine, that person shall be deemed to be licensed under this Act to manufacture, pack, or sell by wholesale or retail, as the case may require, that medicine, and, if that person is so authorised to procure, receive, store, use or otherwise have in his possession any such controlled drug, that person shall, for the purposes of section 43 of this Act, be deemed to have a reasonable excuse for such procurement, receipt, storage, use, or other possession, as the case may require.
(4)Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, this Act shall be read subject to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and, in the event of any 'inconsistency' between the provisions of that Act and the provisions of this Act, or between the provisions of any regulations made under that Act and the provisions of any regulations made under this Act, the provisions of that Act and of the regulations made under that Act shall prevail.<<<<<<
This^ last sub-section(4) of the the 'medicines act 1981' is typically written in such way as to be as 'confusing' as possible to laymen. But what it supposedly means, cutting through the legal bullshit, is that if there is any 'inconsistency' between the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975', and the 'Medicines act 1981', then the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' will be deemed to be the prevailing authority...ie cannabis is 'illegal' regardless of what the medicines act says about 'all herbs'.
I think if one were to read both acts, on the one hand the 'Medicines act 1981' says 'all herbs' are 'legal', and then on the other hand in the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' cannabis is specified as being 'illegal'. Quite cleary what this reflects in not an 'inconsistency' at all but polar opposites. 'All herbs' can only refer to one thing as outlined in the 'Medicines act 1981'. It cannot mean 'some herbs'.
So which is it? Seems to me that cannabis, being a 'herb', in its 'natural state', is 100% legal according to the 'Medicines act 1981'.
Now if you take a look at the first provision of the 'Medicines act 1981' in relation to the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975'
>>>>> (1)Subject to subsection (3) of this section, in the case of a medicine that is a controlled drug within the meaning of the 'Misuse of Drugs Act 1975', the prohibitions, conditions, and requirements contained in or imposed under this Act(medicines act) shall be in addition to the prohibitions, conditions, and requirements contained in or imposed under that Act to the extent that they are not inconsistent therewith.<<<<<<
Well quite clearly one of the conditions of the 'Medicines act 1981' is that 'all herbs' are 'legal' so there is a glaring contradiction/inconsistency. In other words, in this provision(1) of the 'Medicines act 1981' it states quite clearly that if there is an 'inconsistency' between the 'Medicines act 1981' and the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' the 'conditions' as outlined in the 'Medicines act 1981' should prevail...because the two acts are extremly 'inconsistent therewith'.
Now I know that this legal jargon is difficult for many to get their heads around but if you study it hard enough you will see quite clearly that both of these acts 'contradict' each other, to such extent, that should a person face criminal proceedings in respect of possesion of cannabis, or even sale of cannabis, then a defense based upon the 'rights' given unto citezens of NZ as prescribed by the 'Medicines act 1981' should at least be a firm basis with which to defend oneself.
When you get 'contradictions', and such glaringly obvious ones at that, between acts of parliament, sometimes the legal fraternity, judges, will decide which act is more robust and therefore lawful. The legal terms used in such a process are the 'literal rule', the 'golden rule' and the 'mischief rule'. Which rule is applied? Any ones guess, but any one can research those terms further should they feel the need.
More details of how the acts should be interpreted was in the past contained within the 'Acts interpretations act 1908' I believe, but it seems to have been removed, so I assume another 'act' has replaced it. If any one knows the new name of that 'act' I would be interested to know what it is.
It is also interesting that the 'Medicines act 1981' is 'binding' on the crown, where as the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975', while it is also 'binding' has a provision which makes allowance whereby the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' may not be binding on the crown should any issue arise which would necessitate that. This fact alone gives more weight to the 'Medicines act 1981' over the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975'. In other words, if I could put it this way, the 'Medicines act' should be more robust and have more authority in that it specifically states that 'all herbs' are legal and this act is binding on the crown 100% regardless of the provision contained within the 'Medicines act 1981' which in a very 'obtuse' way states that the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' shall be the prevailing authority should any inconsistency between the two arise.
Its is generally, 'supposedly' , understood in legal terms, that how the acts of parliament are interpreted should be according to certain 'presumptions'. Some of these 'presumptions' are contained below.
1. Later acts, ie the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975', 'do not' impliedly repeal earlier acts, such as the 'Medicines act 1981'. Inconsistent acts must be reconciled where ever possible.
2.'Very clear words' are necessary before an act is interpreted in such way that the liberty of individual citezens is restricted.(In other words, the medicines act 1981, in 'clear concise language' says herbs are 100% legal, but the 'provision' with regard to the contradiction between that and the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' is written in language that only the legal elite or others who nutted it out, could even come close to understanding. Indeed, that 'inconsistency' between those two acts is all but 'unintelligable' to most citezens. Funny how the lawyers themselves have done jack shit and allowed their clients to be taken like lambs to the slaughter even when these two said acts are so 'inconsistent' and 'contradictory' and have most often been interpreted with extreme bias against the defendant facing cannabis charges.
3. Acts which provide for punishments are 'strickly' interpreted in favour of citezens. I myself assume this means the defendant?.
If you half got your head around any of that, there is also, as a side line, the idea that 'cannabis' in reference to the 'Misuse of drugs act 1975' is a 'controlled drug'. I'd have thought that there must be some differentiation between 'drugs' and 'herbs'. So cannabis 'cannot' in fact be a 'controlled drug' at all because it is a 'herb', 'a plant', and in its unrefined natural state is 100% legal. Just like opium poppies(herb) are legal, but heroin(drug) is not.
A while back in Switzerland, those neutral Suisse , they never did like the idea of war, especially on its own citezens...well a loop hole was found in their legislation something along the lines that 'cannabis' was defined as being a 'narcotic'. So someone challenged this and it was found that cannabis is not at all a narcotic, so effectivly cannabis is 'virtually' legal in Switzerland. Certainly their people have not war waged upon them for cannabis...one only need compare cannabis prosecution statistics between Switzerland and NZ to see which counrty likes to persecute its citezens more on the basis that these cannabis fiends are either witchs or niggers. Then again, the lawyers over there take their professions seriously and would not stand by while a man is persecuted needlessly on the basis of American hysteria, propoganda and imperial inquisition.
Those Swiss are funny though, to get around the law, which similar to Holland where cannabis is still in fact 'illegal', but 'quasi legal' or 'tollerated', the Swiss sell cannabis in herbal pillows...ahahaha One Swiss guy was busted with one tonne, yes one tonne of cannabis, he went on a hunger strike, and they let him go. Why is that? Maybe because it is not wise to persecute people for no good reason what so ever and make a mockery of the law not to mention ruining peoples lives.
So while the law here, between the 'Medicines act' and the 'Misuse of drugs act' is not black and white, there is certainly a good basis to launch a defense based upon the 'glaring inconsistencies' and 'confusion' between the two acts. If indeed, it is the case, that acts of parliament are interpreted in favour of citezens, especially where punishment is concerned, then quite clearly, 'all herbs' are legal...and so they should be...for when the 'Medicines act' was originally drafted well before 1981, cannabis was not illegal...the 'spirit' of the medicines act was to allow exemptions for herbs, raw plants, unadultered and unrefined plants...so that herbal practitioners could not be subject to descrimination, or monopolisations by pharmaceutical corporations, nor people persecuted and prosecuted, and especially not placed in a 'human cages' for possesion of a 'plant'.
Peace all...don't forget...tollerance is priceless. NO MORE WAR.
There are many inconsistencies in this country, take smoking for example, its ok to go to the local dairy and buy a packet of cigarettes and smoke away but as a reason to keep raw leaf illegal is it's unhealthy to smoke it....
Everything in this world comes down to money, pharmaceutical companies couldn't give a rats arse about the people they want to 'cure' its all about how much profit they can make, and if their 'drugs' cause major side effects, don't tell anyone or it will affect profits...
We are heavily controlled by the oil industry too, there are many alternatives out there including hydrogen fuel as well as bio-deisel yet we are forced to continue to buy oil based products because the oil companies keep buying up the technologies and suppress the information or work with governments to keep the likes of cannabis illegal.
So much can be made from cannabis, its safe to consume, and makes a better medicine but its illegal because our politicians are easily bought off to allow these big businesses to gain in profits.
Sure there are complications in our Acts that are there to cause confusion, the problem I see is that they can be manipulated either way and I'm sure they do manipulate it to their way of thinking.
Cannabis is listed in the controlled drug list so this allows them to throw the herbal side out the window.
The only way we will see a better system in NZ is to fight politicians with politicians ie get ALCP into government and use the coalition agreement against them.
Priority should be given to ousting those who currently oppose us, mainly Jim Anderton, his biased opinion and suicide in the family has clouded his judgement and is unfit to be in a position of Associate Health Minister - a position he sought in a coalition agreement with Labour just so he continues his control of cannabis.
Anybody who votes for Jim are just brainwashed morons. _________________ A pain free day the marijuana way.
Joined: Aug 23, 2005 Posts: 2313 Location: Queensland
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:42 pm
How long long did that take to type out Neuron?
My head hurts from reading it. I hate the law. _________________ Hardcore 4 Cannabis since 2004
--------------------------------------
Vote ALCP in 2008!
Now I know that this legal jargon is difficult for many to get their heads around but if you study it hard enough you will see quite clearly that both of these acts 'contradict' each other, to such extent, that should a person face criminal proceedings in respect of possesion of cannabis, or even sale of cannabis, then a defense based upon the 'rights' given unto citezens of NZ as prescribed by the 'Medicines act 1981' should at least be a firm basis with which to defend oneself.
When you get 'contradictions', and such glaringly obvious ones at that, between acts of parliament, sometimes the legal fraternity, judges, will decide which act is more robust and therefore lawful. The legal terms used in such a process are the 'literal rule', the 'golden rule' and the 'mischief rule'. Which rule is applied? Any ones guess, but any one can research those terms further should they feel the need.
This was covered in a legal opinion from The Director Proceedings Human Rights Commission and if they had chosen to fund the proccedings this in conjunction with part one of the human Rights Act was to be the basis of the case..
But they decided that it did not effect enough medical cannabis user to justify expendidure .. but we had a winable case..
tony.
I have posted the opinion here some time ago but cannot find it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
I heard Iraq was liberated 
One Swiss guy was busted with one tonne, yes one tonne of cannabis, he went on a hunger strike, and they let him go. Why is that? Maybe because it is not wise to persecute people for no good reason what so ever and make a mockery of the law not to mention ruining peoples lives.
