The Victorian government is banning the sale of bongs in the state from new years day next year. A tip if you want to buy one, they’ll only be in shops for 3 more months.

Obviously this isn’t going to stop people smoking cannabis, and the government knows this, but they say the ban will send a message to Victorians that drug use is not on.

Interestingly though, the government have decided not to ban hookah pipes.

Here at the Sex Party office, we’re wondering – is there really that much of a difference between a bong and a hookah pipe? (We have included the definition of each piece below.) Really, wouldn’t you just add a piece of hose to a bong and voila! it’s a hookah pipe?

So in light of this observation, we’ve started this blog on the Vic bong bill. We are asking you to comment with your suggestions or send in your pictures or videos on how to turn a bong into a hookah pipe to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it (anonymously if you like). We'll put them up here. Let's show the government how ridiculous this legislation is.

Here’s what we think: seeing as this ban isn’t going to stop people smoking cannabis, and it’s not going to stop people selling objects that are almost exactly the same as bongs, we really can’t see how there could be any point to this ban. There's no justification for banning bongs and taking away yet another one of our personal freedoms.

Cannabis water pipe means a device—
(a) capable of being used or intended to be used for the purposes of introducing into the body of a person cannabis or other drugs of dependence by the drawing of smoke or fumes resulting from heating or burning the cannabis or other drug through water or another liquid in the device, commonly known as a "bong"; or

(b) that is intended to be used as a device referred to in paragraph (a) but is not capable of being so used because it needs adjustment, modification or addition— but does not include a hookah;

Hookah means a fully assembled device—
(a) used for smoking a substance consisting of tobacco, molasses, fruit, herbs or flavouring, whether the substance contains all or any combination of them, by the drawing of smoke or fumes resulting from heating or burning the substance in the device through water or another liquid in the device; and

(b) that has one or more openings and one or more flexible hoses, each with a mouthpiece through which the smoke or fumes are drawn.

We look forward to your submissions.

COMMENTS RECEIVED

FIRSTLY: What I want to comment on [anonymously please] is the lip gloss of this "Pre-Rudd/appease the psuedo-xtian coalition" policy, it's overtones to the original Edgar J. Hoverism that saw marijuana classed under the poisons act and the total incompetence of "Social Engineering with a generalised [as in anesthetic] conscience" and the utter futility of The Little Push Bike League versus The Nanny State election we are heading for:

1: That the problem with marijuana is that it is classed with heroin the currency of the illegal arms trade is a result of E.J. Hoover's poisons act is commonly understood.

2: That marijuana fields with a history sometimes thousands of years deep in culture were uprooted for opium production has been clearly documented in post-Vietnam exposes.

3: That "Hydro"came about in the battle for bulk weight versus resale value and that heroin, coke, crack, ice etc etc etc won the battle has lumbered two generations of youth with chemically and socially induced psychosis and that all the "so-called experts could do is give a term "Bi-Polar" is the problem with having people who are scientifically inept form policies that create legislation which is totally ignorant of the relationship between legislation and progressively positive social policy outcomes is "Self Evident Truth."

4: That the Totally Reactive State of Politics is geared towards "where the deer and the antelope play" regardless of constant protest from all levels of society gives rise to the question

"Where are their minds actually at?"

SECONDLY: I would like to initiate a constructive debate to form a policy that will produce a Socially Positive Outcome WITHOUT legislating our liberty.

The social facts are that the Clayton's Bong is made from an orchy bottle and a garden hose, chewing gum and silver foil, no prize for guessing the age group.

The scientific facts are that the above petro-chemical polymers break down under heat and render their molecular substance to the THC laden smoke which then passes through water and being basically a non metal combusted in air and passed through water this is the basic definition of an acid. In this case Carboxcilic Acid. Whereas the huge majority of the water compared to the molecular size of the combusted material lowers the Ph, in the case of the micro droplets that are carried with the smoke including the chemicals from the tailor made cigarette [spin] and the molecular breakdown of the polymers this is not so insignificant and a bigger health concern than smoking or drinking.

THAT BANNING THE SALE OF GLASS AND PORCELAIN SMOKING IMPLEMENTS WILL INCREASE THE SALE {THEREFORE GST} OF ORCHY BOTTLES AND GARDEN HOSE is something this writer is pissed about.

Compared to "Getting High" it is my own opinion that what the kids are forced to smoke by virtue of years of ignorant stupidity in government has become the post-modern "metho and boot polish" reminiscent of the original prohibition.

That represents my position in the debate, it is my hope and expectation that other positions could be initially represented and that we could converge on a sensible Alter-modern Australian position geared towards intelligent, informed and well researched policy on Substance Abuse in Fox Time, and the rites of passage of occidental youth.

Yours in Civil Liberty

Anon.