G A N J A Army Aust

17/06/2026

17/06/2026

See y’all in 6 days time xx leave me a comment for when we come out 🙂

16/06/2026

Last stint before we arrive NYX Festival

Thanks to The H**p Couturier for allowing us to tag long 🙂

15/06/2026

So a two and a half hour stop on the freeway just an hour from our first destination grrrrr truck fire ! Poor truckers can caught fire and caused quite the commotion 😉

15/06/2026

Saw these weird plants on our trip … not sure what to call them 😉

14/06/2026

NYX Festival we are on our way !!

13/06/2026

Not cannabis related but this little fellow spent the day with the g***a army 🙂 I call him g***amoth

11/06/2026

Cannabix has now commercially launched its Ma*****na Breath Test (MBT), but it is not an impairment test. It is designed to detect recent cannabis use by measuring Delta-9 THC in breath samples, generally within about 4 hours of consumption, rather than detecting cannabis use from days or weeks ago.

Key points:

* Cannabix’s system collects a breath sample and preserves it for laboratory analysis using LC-MS (liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry), a forensic testing method.
* The company states the test is intended to identify recent use, not impairment.
* Cannabix began a commercial rollout in 2026 and has announced deliveries to construction, manufacturing, and workplace testing clients.
* The company claims the technology can detect Delta-9 THC in breath within approximately four hours after use.

For cannabis law reform advocates, one of the interesting aspects is that breath-based detection is moving closer to measuring recent consumption rather than simply detecting inactive THC metabolites that can remain in the body for days or weeks. However, Cannabix itself explicitly states that its test does not determine whether a person is impaired or how impaired they are.

That distinction is important in the NSW driving-law debate because:

* Presence testing asks: “Has THC been detected?”
* Recent-use testing asks: “Has cannabis likely been consumed recently?”
* Impairment testing asks: “Is the driver actually impaired right now?”

Those are three very different questions, and Cannabix is currently aimed at the middle one, not the third.

11/06/2026

The new NSW medicinal cannabis driving laws are being celebrated as a big win.

And yes, for many patients they are a step in the right direction.

But I won't be signing the register.

Why?

Because no other group of Australians taking prescribed medication has to place their name on a government register just to avoid being automatically treated as a criminal.

If I take prescription opioids, sleeping tablets, anti-anxiety medication or other medicines that can affect driving, I am judged on impairment.

With cannabis, I am still being asked to identify myself, register myself and accept a separate set of rules.

That's not equality.

That's discrimination with extra paperwork.

And there's another issue that doesn't sit right with me.

By putting your name on a cannabis driver register, you're effectively identifying yourself as a medicinal cannabis patient. Many people will ask what protections exist to ensure that information is never used to single out or target drivers for additional scrutiny.

Whether that concern is justified or not, people shouldn't have to weigh up privacy concerns just to access the same treatment under the law as everyone else.

The conversation should never have been about whether medicinal cannabis patients deserve special treatment.

The conversation should have been about whether all drivers should be assessed on impairment rather than the mere presence of a substance.

The new system moves away from automatic punishment, and that's welcome.

But it doesn't fully solve the problem.

It creates a category of "approved cannabis users" while everyone else remains subject to the same presence-based approach.

Rights shouldn't depend on being on a list.

Road safety matters. Impaired driving should never be acceptable, regardless of whether the cause is cannabis, alcohol, prescription medication, fatigue or anything else.

But if the goal is fairness, then the standard should be simple:

Judge drivers on impairment.

Not presence.

Not prescriptions.

Not registration status.

Until then, this feels less like a step forward and more like a step sideways.

For the plant.
For the people.
For fairness.