Is Pot lawful in australia?

[High Country]

Peasants.
Yes of course its your right and duty to protect the home.
Your home is your castle.
Well not yours maybe.
But it is in the law.
Its a very big deal to come onto your private property uninvited.
Its a crime as a matter of fact.

Its also a crime to obey unlawful government.

I read the responses here and realise that the majority of you are drug fucked self lobotomising halfwits. Who probably are criminals in every sense.

And if that applies to you, please dont address me or respond to me.

for the rest of you who have the self possession to know in your gut that you can grow any damn thing you like because you're nobody's cattle, I'm happy to share / debate.

`

Have a little read through this....Crimes Act....pretty much the same in every state.

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt6.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/A57E26DFDAB404DCCA257975000569FB/$FILE/58-6231aa229A%20authorised.pdf

If you can understand it....wake up to yourself.

 

[rantan]

Peasants.
Its also a crime to obey unlawful government.

Isaih, i think you are making the rules up as you go
and it sounds like fair dinkum mumbo-jumbo
just take that one quoted sentence, its a conundrum in itself!

nevertheless your input is entertaining if nothing else

 

[gaiusmarius]

like i said before, even if todays rulers don't follow the law and invent shit as they go, to better be able to rule over their subjects. it seems wrong to me, things should be more like talked about in this thread. being told what you can grow and smoke by some rules i never agreed to is wrong and any true human knows that it's wrong, it feels wrong. so just because we are not truly free in this regard doesn't make it good and right. there might be some errors in some of the premises made in this thread, but much of the information is correct historically speaking. so while i don't recommend anyone using this thread as a defense, i think people should still be able to learn a lot from it. it should open your eyes to the injustice that is the system of legislation and regulation outside the common law. further more i never understood how you can have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but then can not smoke cannabis to help you pursue happiness in your personal life? also how can we say we have freedom of religion, when the holy books tell us that we are to use every seed bearing tree and shrub? then the rules say we can't use cannabis, it's plainly ridiculous.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Common law and natural law trumps all.

That is all....

 

[hard rain]

like i said before, even if todays rulers don't follow the law and invent shit as they go, to better be able to rule over their subjects. it seems wrong to me, things should be more like talked about in this thread. being told what you can grow and smoke by some rules i never agreed to is wrong and any true human knows that it's wrong, it feels wrong. so just because we are not truly free in this regard doesn't make it good and right. there might be some errors in some of the premises made in this thread, but much of the information is correct historically speaking. so while i don't recommend anyone using this thread as a defense, i think people should still be able to learn a lot from it. it should open your eyes to the injustice that is the system of legislation and regulation outside the common law. further more i never understood how you can have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but then can not smoke cannabis to help you pursue happiness in your personal life? also how can we say we have freedom of religion, when the holy books tell us that we are to use every seed bearing tree and shrub? then the rules say we can't use cannabis, it's plainly ridiculous.

No one here would disagree that the laws are wrong. However legislation trumps Common Law. It has for centuries. If you want laws changed, then change legislation.

The historical information is in this thread is not accurate. Not even close.

There is no "right to pursue happiness" that I am aware of? This is an Australian forum not American. Nor is there any law that tells us we can "use any seed bearing tree".

Gaiusmarius, I see that you are a super moderator. How about a bit of fair, unbiased moderation? How the hell is Isaih getting away with statements like this:
"I read the responses here and realise that the majority of you are drug fucked self lobotomising halfwits. Who probably are criminals in every sense."
Yet you delete Elmer buds response. WTF!

 

[MJBadger]

Bloody religion , catholics are as bad as all the other feckers , fecking children , fecking up the world . Only read page one got here & found MJ is still illegal in Oz .

 

[gaiusmarius]

No one here would disagree that the laws are wrong. However legislation trumps Common Law. It has for centuries. If you want laws changed, then change legislation.

The historical information is in this thread is not accurate. Not even close.

There is no "right to pursue happiness" that I am aware of? This is an Australian forum not American. Nor is there any law that tells us we can "use any seed bearing tree".

Gaiusmarius, I see that you are a super moderator. How about a bit of fair, unbiased moderation? How the hell is Isaih getting away with statements like this:
"I read the responses here and realise that the majority of you are drug fucked self lobotomising halfwits. Who probably are criminals in every sense."
Yet you delete Elmer buds response. WTF!

i see a difference between heated debate and swearing at people and name calling, but you are correct isiah's post wasn't very nice. on the other hand he was being attacked and ridiculed.

good point about this not being the US constitution we are talking about, but these freeman ideas are alive in one way or another all over the english speaking countries. as for religious freedom, pretty much every constitution or charter of rights has that included. so to practice religious freedom you should be free to grow and harvest any seed bearing plant that you please.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

If we all stood firm and didnt comply with the police or courts we would have marijauna legalized in months not years.

Yes this isnt easy when your loss of freedom and possible bashing is at hand but people power could make it so.

Once the USA has it fully legalized (soon i believe) we will eventully catch on...

 

[High Country]

Peasants.
Yes of course its your right and duty to protect the home.
Your home is your castle.
Well not yours maybe.
But it is in the law.
Its a very big deal to come onto your private property uninvited.
Its a crime as a matter of fact.

Its also a crime to obey unlawful government.

>>>>>>>>>edited to abide by the terms of use re name calling<<<<<<<<<<<<

And if that applies to you, please dont address me or respond to me.

for the rest of you who have the self possession to know in your gut that you can grow any damn thing you like because you're nobody's cattle, I'm happy to share / debate.

`

You should spend more time growing the shit, like everyone else does on this site instead of coming on and mouthing off your SPAM religious nonsense.

 

[noyd666]

so tasy will be 100 years after everybody else when made legal, frog shit aint gonna happen.

 

[gaiusmarius]

High Country mate, i wasn't gonna get into this, but you do know that a couple of supreme court judges of the US have made it clear in the past, that you do have the right to defend yourself from illegitimate arrest, even to the point of deadly force, same with defending your home. of course in this day and age the judges make different judgments, specially when it involves leo. i'll try and find the cases i mean though.

as for the religious stuff about the vatican, there is a bunch of known evil shit done by the vatican even recently, they do have a world wide web of priests and bishops etc sworn on their lives to serve the pope, they do control many institutions of learning, hospitals, homes and they do have vast amount of influence in the world, they have amassed vast treasures and they do have a Jesuit order which is known to have been ruthless in their mission. all the stuff about the hate between Catholics and protestants up till not so long ago was totally in the open in those days. so yeah when you say something is bs, you need to be specific so it can be addressed specifically.

 

[noyd666]

we all know about the Vatican and there shirt lifting ways, money laundering etc but what do we care about us court judges. the us is in more shit than a priest with his pecker out. its not LEGAL IN AUSTRALIA END OF STORY. IF isaih BEAT THE CHARGE I SAY WELL DONE, BUT THOUSANDS HAVE NOT.

 

[Elmer Bud]

G`day Giausmarius

I apologise for the tone of my post that you deleted .
But not the message . I find it amazing that you let a poster have a soap box to preach such ridiculousness . Its a lot like pix or it didn`t happen for me .
We have a guy telling us to defy the courts and you`ll walk away scott free !??
When and if this defence is used successfully and documented . Then I will apologise to Isaih 520, until then . I think he is full of it .
and do not appreciate his tone or spread of disinformation . .

Thanks for sharin

EB .

 

[gaiusmarius]

anyone can have a sope box, thats the nature of forums.

your post was deleted because it was a personal attack. there was no content, no debate...

it's been repeated many times that this thread is not legal advise. on the other hand there is a growing movement that espouses these beliefs, yes even in Australia. if you spend some time looking you will find these people achieving things they shouldn't be, some times. the point is, right or wrong it's interesting, it does no harm, anyone reading is getting both sides. so why shouldn't he be allowed to share his beliefs, no one forces you to believe or even read, if you have such a problem with the thread topic, why bother yourself with it?

anyway this thread has been winding down for a while now, was fun while it lasted.

 

[Elmer Bud]

G`day Giasmarius

Well I bothered with it as the title got my attention .
I was willing to hear the guys story . I found it hard to believe but none the less as you say it is a forum .
When he changed tack from recanting religious politics and advice regards law to insulting . I took offence . And replied in similar language to what I saw posted ...

Thanks for sharin

EB .

 

[hard rain]

anyone can have a sope box, thats the nature of forums.

your post was deleted because it was a personal attack. there was no content, no debate...

it's been repeated many times that this thread is not legal advise. on the other hand there is a growing movement that espouses these beliefs, yes even in Australia. if you spend some time looking you will find these people achieving things they shouldn't be, some times. the point is, right or wrong it's interesting, it does no harm, anyone reading is getting both sides. so why shouldn't he be allowed to share his beliefs, no one forces you to believe or even read, if you have such a problem with the thread topic, why bother yourself with it?

anyway this thread has been winding down for a while now, was fun while it lasted.

Gaiusmarius, no this defense does not work. There are no documented examples of it working. Just examples of folk being conned by freeman proponents out to make money for themselves. I am sure I quoted this earlier but in case you missed it:

No freeman arguments have ever succeeded in court;[5] some courts have even explicitly ruled that the term "freeman on the land" has no legal significance when the argument is raised.[6] Actually using the arguments gets people into worse trouble, including fines, asset seizures, contempt convictions and criminal records. However, this doesn't stop freemen from claiming that it works.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

Here too:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/freeman-land-strategy-bullet-debt

 

[Elmer Bud]

G`day HR

Those links are a good read .
I liked this quote . It sums it up for me .

Freeman methods fail to understand that the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose it. You can argue that the authorities have no jurisdiction over you, and you can choose not to recognise their authority, but as long as the authorities have force to back up their rules they can enforce sanctions against you. Freemen would argue that this would be unlawful imprisonment — but at the end of the day you'd still be in jail.

I think its a fantasy to believe you could speak to a magistrate let alone judge in Australia about rejecting his laws and not find yourself in cuffs . Contempt of court is no joke .

Thanks for sharin

EB .

 

[High Country]

The comments of this Isiah fool are about as popular as a snake in a sleeping bag.

 

[gaiusmarius]

The comments of this Isiah fool are about as popular as a snake in a sleeping bag.

to me this is what such threads are about, hearing both sides of a given debate, in a calm and civilized manner, arguing specifics, not insulting other posters. comments like above by HC add absolutely nothing to the discussion. all they do is make the other party feel insulted.

as i said before, i don't pretend to know whether there is something to the freeman ideas or not, i do know that there is a lot of policemen and judges getting quite confused by some of this stuff, as can be seen on youtube.

of course this does not nagate this gem of a quote:

Freeman methods fail to understand that the law derives its authority from the fact that the state has the means and the will to use force to impose it. You can argue that the authorities have no jurisdiction over you, and you can choose not to recognize their authority, but as long as the authorities have force to back up their rules they can enforce sanctions against you. Freemen would argue that this would be unlawful imprisonment — but at the end of the day you'd still be in jail.

this is the one thing that gov power is backed up by, their ability to apply violence to get their way. great system eh? do as we say or we will hurt you!

like i said before, the whole idea about everyone being bound by statues and legislation involving non harmful, consensual activities is what's not logical, nor just. so yeah i'd love the freeman ideas to actually be true i will admit it. but i'm wise enough not to put my hopes on them. as a philosophy i find a lot to be admired. makes a lot of sense that we humans can not be bound without giving consent or our oath.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

If enough people started asserting their sovereignty it would work.

United we stand, divided we fall. It aint rocket science...