Tag Archives: medical cannabis

The Ongoing Confusification of Australia Cannabis Law Reform and Processes – Licensing

Help us ODC – (Office of Drug Control) – Licensing  During the Australia War on THC – 

Road Trip


 Loren Wiener
Melbourne Australia
15 July 2015

UPDATE: 16 July 2016
As I speak to others that have attended around the country I am adding on a bit here at the top in 2 new sections  –

  • Questions I  Forgot To Ask or Forgot to Mention That were Asked 

One question asked was about driving as the ODC is meeting with law enforcement. Again the pretense is there until the question is asked, “How do the RBT tests that test for THC and not impairment.

Bill Turner Weed-Czar: First you have to abide by the state laws on RBT, second this might not be an issue if there is no THC. Exactly. The first part of the question is important as RBT test for the presence of THC not impairment, secondly with THC being illegal in all aspects of this so far it is not certain if a high CBD and 1% THC would register or not, as being impaired is not the issue.

  • Now What ?

A lot may come down to what products and what demand license seekers ask for. The ODC is only responsible for putting in a framework, based on what is currently legal, however they claim should natural THC products (above 2% THC be legal the framework would support that) Answers were awkard as he did not want to get drawn anymore by the, “Well there is no THC so isn’t this really about medical hemp and not medical Cannabis”.





500 help us odc

As a Government Agency, the outcome of the ODC tour is what I like to refer to as burying us in the “Rumsfeld Inspired Variables”

There are things we now know, that we did not know and are now public. There are things we now know we do not know, and some of those are known to the ODC but not yet shared. There are things the ODC do not know so we are told they do not know. Finally, there are things we know that the ODC know, but they choose not to discuss (e.g per below on demand, natural Cannabis etc).

The ODC leads on, the registering of unregistered products, and work to the department of health working to the line management with the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) under Professor John Skerritt and Susan Ley Health Minister.

Thinking about the ODC, as I write this my mind is “miss-hearing” Joan Jett’s 1981 “Bad Reputation” lyrics, with “Where’re just dealing with a bad situation”.

In my opinion the ODC has a job to do;

Reinventing the wheel on Medical Cannabis, licensing and leaving “round” off the table.



The ODC Australia Wide Plane Trip Destinations– Where

Brisbane – Monday 11 July, 1.30pm at Capri by Fraser / Sydney – Tuesday 12 July, 1.30pm at Radisson Hotel and Suites Sydney / Hobart – Wednesday 13 July, 1.30pm at Hotel Grand Chancellor Hobart / Melbourne – Thursday 14 July, 1.30pm at Mantra on Russell
Adelaide – Friday 15 July, 1.30pm at Adina Apartment Hotel / Perth – Wednesday 20 July, 1.30pm at Mercure Perth

 Top level

  • No exports, only for now domestic use for now. – exports might follow in the future it is in the framework
  • The framework is 100% for medicinal Cannabis with no THC so far (also addressed in demand below) and made to prevent it working for or ever evolving into a recreational model ODC Weed-Czar Bill Turner was asked,

LW: When we legalised Medical Cannabis in California in 1996 (over 20 years ago), the government foresaw the possibility medical might one day evolve into also including recreational, so put in a complementary framework, that would at least allow for that.  How does your model compare to that?

 Bill Turner: <perhaps jokingly> said (and I might be slightly paraphrasing) when asked on this – “”One of the things that keeps me awake at night is that and I might be collecting taxes in a recreational model, this is the wrong forum for that sort of discussion and nothing in this framework allows for that, nothing””.

Comment: It is the largest concern they have, part of the reason why they have tried to design it that way. This is contrary to the rest of the world where they foresee, are achieving at least the possibility of an evolution from medical to recreational, and out of common sense created models that allowed for this. Australia has chosen to avoid common sense in lieu of continuing the losing war against THC.

 The model is based on some aspects of the Canada model (Comment: perhaps one of the worst models in the world today as we are seeing the impacts of it in the media).

  • The model is broken up into Cultivators and Manufacturers.
  • Patient Access is a Focus so very little is discussed about it (cynical but true)
  • All the licenses and permits work around the Narcotic Act of 1967 that was put in place to align Australia with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961
  • A lot of the model depends on determining, fulfilling and not exceeding demand.
  • Demand can only be based of course on” what is legal to provide”. If they only offer products to unicorns, demand is going to be less than if they offer to sick people and let doctors determine the ailments, based on other working models. In reality the ailments and the demographics will be very limited, so demand is viewed as VERY low.

Bill Turner said, “The reports that we are limiting growers/cultivators, or manufacture numbers is 100% incorrect”. However, he said multiple times estimations on demand are very low. But did not quite go on to say that it is because they are greatly limiting who can get it and for what ailments.

Why Cannabis is a bigger concern than opium to the ODC and Government?
Mr Turner has mentioned a few times that diversion (losing product) is a bigger concern with Cannabis than opium as you can take cannabis and smoke it, steal it etc easier and to a larger audience but the process for making opium into something you would consume is secondary / more difficult.  More so than that there have been very few deaths reported in the media out of the Tasmania opium fields, and theft of poppies is supposed to be reported proactively and why local “thieves” are reported to be stealing plants less obvious and even leaving farmers cash for stolen plants per the newspaper story, so Cannabis would be on another level. This is why they also favor indoor vs outdoor grows, but not sure how to manage it on the security side.

 Note: So I do not over paraphrase more to the background to this update, I defer to the ODC email on where the background info is for this

It will be published on ComLaw at the following address: https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C1967A00053 . Note Subject to requirements, access to medicinal cannabis products is available through existing mechanisms such as the Special Access Scheme: https://www.tga.gov.au/form/special-access-scheme
Subject to approval under the Special Access Scheme or Authorised Prescriber, your Doctor may apply on your behalf to import medicinal cannabis products. Details of the import process may be found here: http://www.tga.gov.au/importing-narcotic-psychotropic-and-precursor-substances-special-access-scheme-only

Office of Drug Control
Australian Government Department of Health
Email: mcs@health.gov.au

Note: Licenses can only be legally issued for what is legal. Sounds simple, this was not discussed much. They said nothing is off the table for licensing but do not say that only full spectrum Cannabis with above 2% THC is available via an R&D license and all those are on an even closer case by case basis.

I recall the VLRC (Victoria Law Review Commission) a perhaps very ethical group assigned to essentially validate what the Victorian Government had told them to do and help create a scheme of offering Medical Cannabis to their selected few deserving but extremely low numbers and preferably with no THC. In the case of the VLRC they went beyond the remit and made other suggestions that were quickly discarded. The number one use of medicinal Cannabis globally is pain relief, the item missing off all Cannabis trials and product focusing is pain relief with natural Cannabis with THC. Currently states have issued licenses for growing products like hemp, but not Cannabis. Within the new scope of the new Weed-Czar at the ODC Bill Turner will oversee all licensing. Simply put the ODC is following aspects of the messed up some aspects of the current Canada model, that meets the Australian model of being controlled by the government, Here, there are there are Cultivators, and Manufacturers.

It is quite simple in concept for the ODC, manufacturers/ cultivators assess the demand cultivators must work with manufacturers and vice versa unless they are the same.

Based on the ODC rules to stay in line with UN prohibition, demand is an important thing to quantify. This is the entire basis of licensing and permits of which there are a plenty. Bill Turner simply put it that  no product; GMO, low THC, high CBD, high THC is off the table nor are the ailments that products will be allowed to be addressed, Unless they are illegal. Thus the first hurdle.

In no states is pain management (the number one use of medical Cannabis globally) allowed. In state Victoria it is an exceptional circumstance case and must be approved by a doctor, and with likely more paperwork than they should have to deal with. It is hinted doctors are not encouraged to prescribe or offer medical Cannabis but as a last resort. Keeping in mind they cannot offer something that is illegal either, Catch-22 number 1 of which there is plenty. So if say state Victoria only allows certain ailments to have medical Cannabis and that is 1% of demand yet the other 99% might have consideration then how do you manage demand calculations accurately. I asked Bill Turner that question.

LW: Mr Turner, a big aspect of all of this is managing and determining demand, yet in state Victoria pain relief (the number one use of medical Cannabis globally is only allowed by SAS (special access scheme). How would folks be able to determine demand if the demand is so restricted and unknown specific to the SAS.  It was acknowledged as an issue.

Other Maybe Relevant Things

  • The ODC sees a large demand for a matchmaking system as growers have not known manufacturers before and visa verse. I saw this first hand with money folks, growers, and manufacturers not know many of each other, and some are further down the path than others.
  • Also remember the license were recently controlled 100% by the states.
  • There is a separate hemp industry that is also impacted in all of this in that industrial hemp is NOT medical Cannabis and vice versa. This means separate licenses if doing both, different standards and different rules per state.
  • License Forms will be available by 30 October and they will start accepting them on 30 October.
  • Bill Turner is a nice guy but said if you are planning to apply for a license do not tell me of anything you do or have done that would cause you to fail to get a license. I cannot “un-hear” what you tell me. A true point that for many if they are doing anything illegal they would be hindered in getting a license.
  • Type of products offered – GMO is still on the table they have no issue with it, but not pushing or supporting it that is not their job.
  • Obtaining Seeds – Legal seeds are another issue, The USA as it is illegal federally cannot or will not issue export permits.

Does the new ODC processes, licenses, and departmnet “evolve” Australia in getting medical cannabis to sick people legally? No, not really, currently there are no legal uses for Cannabis with THC, this means there is no legal demand and no licenses. But this is not the ODC’s job, nor is it their job to tell people the truth on any issues that government policy does not want them to tell us. However they are quick to point out the framework does allow for product with THC in it when it is legal.











Queensland Medical Cannabis Law Reform April 2016 – More of the Same – That is Not Good News

Queensland Medical Cannabis Law Reform April 2016 – More of the Same – That is Not Good News

April 2016
Loren W

Updated October 2016 –
As predicted in April 2016, one of the most serious issues in the new 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.

Here is the updated bill – http://bit.ly/QLD-Bill-Oct2016
her is the updated explanatory notes showing synthetics that act like Cannabis are now Cannabis – http://www.bit.ly/exp-QLD-Bill-Oct2016

From April 2016 and unedited


From the beginning the new bill is greatly flawed. First up is the discussion paper – http://www.bit.ly/QLD-disc the timeline for public consumption and feedback is quite short. Despite the positive media spins and discussions, focus was raised on pharmaceutical products, such as nabixamols (also known as Sativex), Drobabinol and Nabilone. All these products are either new or have failed various trials so far as they are not a natural Cannabis but a modified GMO. This means the medicines are about 90% less effective than traditional Cannabis/Marijuana, due to various factors addressed around the “entourage effect”. The paper then goes on to mention Cannabis “products”. It also mentions all cannabis products must be imported. It also mentions it expects usage to be low, and demand for the product to be low as well.

Much of the discussion paper and the Bill treat access tougher than that of other drugs including opiates, and in other instances the same as opiates where Cannabis has never seen a death due to over dosages.

The Public Health (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2016 – http://bit.ly/QLD-mc-apr2016


There is a lack of formality in the writing of some aspects of the bill – (e.g. Safeguards for seized “things”), but over detailed in others.

Definitions – The bill it itself is blessed with issues around purposeful bad or improper definitions – In Federal and Vic bills they have struggled to date with using good definitions as well and apparently on purpose. The use of the word marijuana (a name for the product cannabis with a THC above 3% per the TGA but normally 10% or higher) has been abandoned in favor of the word Cannabis. Unfortunately, when manipulated or redefined “cannabis” can mean GMO (genetically modified organism) cannabis, industrial hemp, marijuana, or pharmaceutical products that contain only extracts of Cannabis). Like federal and Victoria state definitions, it has created the word Cannabis to include all of these. This means uses of the words “medical Cannabis”  (or Cannabis anything) is not well defined to protect the public in knowing what they are getting or what is being discussed.  The definition used is from the 1937 UN doctrines and not used in Australia by the TGA for decades (per the TGA).  Pharmacies again are the only avenue of consideration ignoring the best products for physical and mental use based on the experiences outside Australia of Europe, Asia, and North America.

Approval for Use – the requirements for usage, is onerous and disproportionate compared to other medications, where personal circumstances, criminal history reports, police approval, and the number of experts and levels of approval are disproportionate to a medicine that has never seen a documented over dose in hundreds of years. It was commented recently it will be easier to get a gun legally than to get medical cannabis legally. References are then made back to following TGA guidelines. Those TGA guidelines have been in place for decades and to date it is not believed. Identity Cards–  will be issued to all authorized individuals giving way to privacy concerns and the logistics, of the cards and of course how pharmacies will be getting what-ever product is agreed to. Additional Police Empowerment – Is addressed in the bill from home and workplace entry, to having to identify yourself as a cannabis user if pulled over by the police for a 100% non-related matter, additional seizure of property guidelines etc. New Penalties for Illegal Use – Though the scope of the bill does not address specific products that will be used, it does specify new penalties for illegal use of all Cannabis that is higher than was previously. Protection from officials from civil prosecution in all matters of Cannabis, confiscations etc.



Australia Legalizes Framework For Medical Cannabis – Minus the Cannabis

800 scary

Updated: 26 Feb 2016 –
On 26 November 2015, several media outlets were contacted in Victoria including the ProjectTV. What was explained were concerns that a new bill being sold in Australia as an ICE bill was about to introduce new laws against medical cannabis users. No media outlets chose to fact check the story verified by the LIV (Law Institute Victoria) and other MPs as correct. The author of the bill Wade Noonan MP stepped down on 8 Feb 2016 and the bill was passed with little debate on 9 Feb 2016 by 33-6.  Since that passing there have been various state and federal activities all without transparency or clarity.

Melbourne Australia
24 Feb 2016 

In an astounding case of WTF? The unsuspecting public and ministers have saluted their new bill. It gives praise to the great response of many that used “illegal’ cannabis including flower, tinctures, oils etc, they have now legalised it. Minus the Cannabis flower, tinctures, and oils.

It goes something like this, Many forget the pharmaceutical industry and lobby is deeply embedded in the Australia Government http://bit.ly/pharma-gov and have had 20 years since Medical Cannabis was legalised in California to prepare for this.


Recently when an MP was asked if he was for or against medical cannabis is said unashamedly, it depends if Novartis says it is or not. Novartis are the 2nd largest Pharmaceutical Company in the world worth around $107Billion AUD.

Novartis is the sole distributor of products by GW UK in Australia (fulfilled by Bayer in the USA).

GW UK in 2011 on discovering that some of the over 100 cannabinoids and 400 enzymes in Cannabis did some pretty good things, went on dissecting the elements and patented them and their extraction process into medicine for trial. Sativex was the first one that has fialed in some trials. It uses an unnatural mix of THC and CBD. Epidiloex the latest drug being tested in Australia has no THC and has seen deaths during trials in the USA.

Synthetic Cannabis Extracts like Sativex, CBDv, and Epidiloex are too new and too untested to be trialed on our children Full cannabis products have been used for many years with no deaths and been legal for over 20 years in the USA


Australia Cannabis Law Reform Edition January 2017

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 b3bill, (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.

Here is the updated bill – http://bit.ly/QLD-Bill-Oct2016
Here are the updated explanatory notes showing synthetics that act like Cannabis are now Cannabis – http://www.bit.ly/exp-QLD-Bill-Oct2016

“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


Top Victoria and Labor Issues –



The Propaganda Machine – NCPIC / Liberals 

500 ncpic


The New QLD Bill –

500 qld

More below Here is a short URL for this page if you want to share 🙂 skip ahead – http://www.bit.ly/law-2016

Comments welcome, more Cannabis news on http://www.twiw.tv and on the Facebook page

fb 500 issue




Updated 9 Feb 2016

9 January 2016
Melbourne Victoria

801 twiw jan

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





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:
    • Definitions
    • Restriction of Access 
    • Definitions

    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.





>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>END >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


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.

    Federal Bills


  • 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?



Protesting The Lies Against Cannabis 7 October 2015

500 rally final











Who Are We  Peacefully Protesting / Rallying Against ?  –

Who Are the NCPIC ?
The NCPIC – National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre are part of the Department of Health Australia, their job and mandate, as their name says is to prevent the usage of Cannabis even for medical use of sick children based on per their own words, “With ‘evidence-based’ information”. 

So could lies and fake stories still be considered ‘Evidence Based Information’. 
Yes, poor quality evidence based information for sure.

Why the Weird Date and Time ? 
The NCPIC is having an International Cannabis Conference ($500 a head)  at the address on the card on the day, that is 100% anti-Cannabis (ironic).

Why Are We Protesting- 
The NCPIC uses old research, and opinion papers that they or their friends write for them to validate their miss information, some might call it lies. – Please watch their own video and see for yourself what has inspired us, http://bit.ly/ncpic-v1

In the Video it Says Cannabis Withdrawl from Cannabis Addiction, can be cured with Sativex, What is Sativex ? 
Pharmaceutical (non natural) Cannabis

But, Is Cannabis Actually Addictive Anyhow  ? 
Good question, glad I asked. The definition most commonly accepted by addiction experts is a boiled-down version of the one laid out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR), psychiatry’s handbook of all mental conditions. By the book, addiction is the compulsive use of a substance despite ongoing negative consequences, which may lead to tolerance, and physicial withdrawal symptoms when the substance is stopped. By that definition the answer is no.

So if Cannabis is NOT addictive, as there are no physical withdrawl symptoms, then why is the NCPIC, saying you might need pharmaceutical Cannabis to get over it, and why would you. It is like drinking vodka to get over alcoholoism isn’t it? 

Exactly, (you are clever) NCPIC receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in Sativex for trial use, $270k in 2011 alone, per the NCPIC.

What Good will  protesting do?
Maybe none, but there is a lot going on with the laws, in Victoria, other states, nationally and globally, so with promise of REAL Cannabis law reform ongoing in Australia miss information causes problems, confuses everyone from the media, the public even the politicians, and can stop any REAL progress being made for a long time. Effectively we are caling BS to the lies, we want FACTS not FEAR techniques to be used. There is still real education needed.

What Group or Political Party is Sponsoring This ?
None, We are just a group of like minded friends that work across and with all the Cannabis groups in Australia, to share common goals of fixing law reform

Is Protesting Legal
Yes we even have a permit.

Do You Hate the Police and Law Enforcement ? 
We love the police, it is unfair for the police to be caught up in the confusion of the new laws that say some can be arrested, and others should not be, they are just doing their job. In the USA and the UK, law enforcement have been VERY instrumental in Cannabis law reform, and for offering their own views on why the drug wars have not worked, especially via LEAP (law enformcement against prohibition) http://www.leap.cc Sometimes there are problems with law enforcemnt potentially losing jobs, hours, or internal funding when Cannabis became legal overseas. We need to make sure that law enforcement is not penalised once they might be re-prioritised, to focus on other crimes including other drug crimes. This is why we need to fix the laws, and address things that hinder that process.

We hope to see you there.

Any questions, please leave a comment or email mailto://rally@loren.net.au

Australia Considers Legal Medical Cannabis – with a new “Cannabis Czar’

600 RCB Bill dummy dummies cannabis























The Regulator Cannabis Bill 2014 (RCB) – Cheat Sheet

 10 August 2015

  • What a surreal day, perhaps the biggest in the history of medical cannabis legalisation in Australia, and the coverage and stories in anticipation of this are few and far between, old or very thin on details or facts.  This is not surprising as miss information is intentional by some in this crazy time of medical cannabis legal reform. However the Bill has now been deferred at least a day until 11 August, but it goes like this.
  • Currently Cannabis is considered a poison in Australia and deemed as having no medical value by the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) as it schedules poisons and drugs to keep folks safe and is run by the Australia Government. Likewise, herbs such as mint and thyme are not considered poisons cannot be patented so also are not in the TGA.
  • For Cannabis to be legalised there are only 2 choices, change or amend but work within the TGA, or bypass the TGA altogether.
  • Any Bills, laws, trials tests, initiatives, or research looking to provide medical cannabis (or extracts, or synthesis) have to adhere to one of those 2 scenarios, each with a major impact on the resulting framework of legalisation.
  • Last year a group of Australia Senators lead by now Greens leader Richard Ni Natalie introduced a new cross party bill called the Regulator Cannabis Bill 2014 (I call it the weed czar bill). In respect to the TGA it looks to bypass it stating that ‘Cannabis is not a poison, has no place in the TGA as it is ‘natural’
  • Due to the complicated nature of passing a bill in Australia there are various stages, (see picture below). This is a private members Senator bill so takes low priority in the Senate. The 1st reading has taken place already, today after 14:-00 the formal report into the Bill will be handed in (tabled) with little discussion expected.
  • Early in 2015, submissions were taken in respect to the RCB. It saw individuals, groups, politicians, universities, pharmaceutical companies etc. all offer opinions on why the Bill should or should not pass. The majority of the responses were quite favorable with very little opposition. The link to all those submissions is here http://bit.ly/RCB-subs



Short Overview of the RC Bill Itself

This Bill establishes a Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis (the Regulator).

The Regulator will be responsible for formulating rules for licensing the production, manufacture, supply, use, experimental use and import and export of medicinal cannabis. The Regulator has powers to monitor compliance with this Bill and also to investigate breaches. A number of provisions of the Bill make it clear that the TGA does not apply to things done in accordance with licences or authorisations issued by the new Regulator of Medicinal Cannabis. However, this would not prevent pharmaceutical companies applying to the Therapeutic Goods Administration to sell medicinal cannabis instead of using the scheme established by this Bill. They will effectively have a choice about which system to use (although the cultivation of medicinal cannabis will only be covered by this Bill).

In the bill Cannabis actually IS discussed as Cannabis not a pharmaceutical extract, or synthesis of Cannabis, those per above are covered also.

The Bill Addresses the Framework Only – The Regulator does the rest.

  • Being that the bill itself addresses the appointing of the Regulator and the framework of that role, it specifically does not look to address some other very important details leaving to the Regulator or is outside the scope of this Bill.

Distribution – To be addressed by the regulator

  • Will cannabis come from local Australia growers, or be imported
  • Will cannabis be sold in pharmacies (so with very little choice of product) or via a USA dispensary type model, allowing free enterprise, taxation, and more choice.

What ailments are covered and who decides who gets Cannabis? – To be addressed by the regulator

Decriminalisation – To be addressed by separate legislation

  • Not addressed in the framework of the Bill so the Greens have suggested separate legislation to address this preferring decriminalisation to legalisation.


Competing Bills That Might Impact on the RC Bill

  • Earlier this year in Victoria, the Premier for Victorian Daniel Andrews issued a mandate to the VLRC (Victoria Law Review Commission) to make recommendations that would result in their own Bill with a promise action by end of 2015.
  • The VLRC initiative included an interesting framework document that it then set up discussions across mostly rural Victoria (attended by mostly people not local to those meetings). It now has gone national and includes work by the ALRC as well. T
  • he questions asked by the VLRC were various but mainly around how the VLRC would work within the TGA, and what Submissions were taken on this project that included many form inside and outside medical cannabis support groups and they are here. http://bit.ly/VLRC-subs . The actual VLRC paper is here http://bit.ly/VLRC-Actual . The final report on the VLRC is due by 1 September 2015 with a bill promised thereafter.
  • The VLRC goes National –
    It was reported that as expected by the VLRC the (Victoria Only) suggestions are now going to the ALRC for national considerations. This might mean a rival Bill that might not be cross party may be written as well.

Difference between the VLRC/ALRC Potential Bills vs. The Regulator Bill 2014

  • Note: It is difficult to discuss a Bill that has not been debated or addressed by changes as a result of discussions (the RC Bill) with a Bill that has not even been written yet (The VLRC/ALRC) However, we have the RC Bill and we have the VLRC paper as a benchmark and many have had discussion on both.
  • The VLRC view is they must work within the scope of the TGA (see what that means above). The VLRC has said having exceptions on Cannabis in the TGA on a state by state basis is viewed as too controversial per the view of Labor Victoria (something that is already part of the TGA framework actually) so that is what I call a BS moment..
  • The RC Bill looks to offer much better blanket usage of Medical Cannabis, and covers real cannabis and pharmaceutical variants.
  • The VLRC looks to offer very little coverage of ailments perhaps limiting to;
  • End of life, (palliative care)
  • Child epilepsy,
  • Cancer and maybe
  • Chronic pain. All of which might be treated with pharmaceutical cannabis (easier via the TGA)

Other Things to consider

  • Though the Australia Medical Association (AMA) has come out against the RC Bill, (see submissions link) they will likely support the VLRC bill, many others considered to be anti-cannabis have supported the RC Bill, as it allows use of Pharma cannabis to be considered.

What Next?

The RC Bill will make its way through Parliament, as it does the VLRC bill will likely show up in September. The next battle for legislation will be trying to keep Pharma out of it and calling BS as it appears.

comments welcome