Greens new policies (2 Viewers)

[thorrnydevil]

LS: cannabis is not physiologically addictive. Anything can become habitual, but THC does not create a dependency.

Jago: Eccies are 'harmless' if prepped properly. The risk is when they are cut with other drugs, combined with other drugs or taken irresponsibly (like anything). I think there's too much control in society based on an assumption of how one ought to behave. Give me free will and independence please.

mmm...death sounds really good to me!

 

[cayte]

mmm...death sounds really good to me!

I think you'd find a very low number of ecstasy users actually die as a result. I don't have any stats, but stats are bullshit anyway.

 

[Paz]

When everything is legal, there will obviously be less crime :uhhuh:. Its not pleasant, trust me.

What you fail to see is that the legalisation of drugs like marijuana has a range of benefits. For example, as well as making these drugs safer (through centralised distribution), the rate of associated crimes will decrease.

The Greens' drug policy isn't a simple, one -dimensional approach, which is what many ppl seem to think.

Zero tolerance has been proven relatively ineffective, while many Scandinavian countries have experienced extensive success with legalisation.

 

[Enlightened_One]

That kind of dogmatic, narrow mindset just shows you are a very ignorant person.
Every further comment you make in this thread only seeks to highlight your subpar intelligence.

Thankyou, I'm sorry we can't all be as intelligent and enlightened as you (hence the fallicy, and ultimately the satirical nature of my name). However, I was not making apolitical point, otherwise I would have said so.
My abhorrence of drugs is a personal belief. It's my personal opinion and I'm entitled to it. You probably have your own, which is get stoned every time possible, and your entitled to it. Whether it's right or wrong is not my call.
Still, questions should be raised when druggos can get free needles yet genuine suffers, like diabetics, have to pay for these.

However, when it comes to politics, people are ultimately influenced by their personal morals, beliefs and values, and that's as it should be, to an extent. However, the ultimate point of government is to regulate society. Society expects it's members to be functioning, contributing, and law abiding.
Hence the reasons drugs are illegal because they create people who are useless o society, and kill others (which means they're still useless to society as well). Governments try to do what's best for society which is why they make the policies they do. Of course perosnal interest usually stems idealists.

Now, As a wise person said "Stats are bullshit", and to that I agree. However, the best data for anyone is personal experience, what you see and what you hear. I've seen to many decent people, and some I didn't like but felt sorry for anyway, end up fucked up because of drugs.
That is why I take such a stance on drugs. Now, as it is zero tolernace doesn't work because it's almost impossible to implement. But legalisation won't change much, just more people will end up with blood shot eyes and fucked prospects, except they'll do it legally. Sure the crime rate would go down. But while we're at it why not legalise murder and larceny. Think of how low the crime rate would be then.


Oh, and for the record, those drug injecting rooms did nothing good, so what makes anyone think similair measures would.

 

[Ziff]

Asquithian already refuted your claim concerning "why not legalise murder and larceny. Think of how low the crime rate would be then". I think you also make the mistake of misunderstanding the difference between legalisation, tolerance and decriminalisation. I also think you don't differenciate between different types of drugs and their social affects.

Yes, the crime of possession, use etc will be gone.

But the other crimes related to hard drugs such as murder, larceny, theft, break and enter, assault, pimping, car jacking, receiving, etc will go down because rather than these drug addicts being controlled by their drug suppliers and their drug habits, the government will be in a better position to provide treatment to these people whilst it distributes the drugs to them.

When talking about drugs it's probably also important to separate the drugs, some drugs e.g. Marijuana are not as much of a social problem in regards to aquistorial crime as hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine etc. (In Britain they use a class system - Class A, B, C etc.).

Personally, I don't think that removing drug offences for hard drugs from the books is a good idea as it will seem like the government is condoning the use of drugs. At the same time I realise that zero tolerance is completely useless and some form of harm minimisation is the way to go. In NSW we have a system of Drug Courts (for Youth and Adults) in Western Sydney which instead of channelling drug addicts straight into the prison system try to get them into alternative programmes such as rehabilitiation in an attempt to reform them and turn them into functional members of society. This isn't a very publicised or accessible programme (because it only applies to Western Sydney) but from what I have read it does seem to be working reasonably well. It sadly does operate under the auspices of the criminal system but at least it's an attempt to try and force these people into treatment programmes.

The social problems caused by marijuana and ecstacy aren't usually related to violence, theft, these sort of things and it doesn't really act as a gateway drug which is why I think the Dutch model is probably working for these. Hard drugs however, cause massive social problems and this is where treatment rather than treating the people like criminals should be the prefered method. In fact, treatment should be offered, I'd even go as far as saying at times forced upon anyone who abuses drugs.

I think that the sort of people who fall into using any sort of drugs consistently and constantly e.g. smoking marijuana all the time or very often, using drugs whenever you go to a party, being addicted to any drugs etc have serious and ingrained mental problems that the government and health system should be focusing on treating, establishing support services for and so on rather than treating as a criminal activity along the lines of assault, murder, larceny etc.

So outright legalisation I don't think is the best idea, but if it came to the crunch I would say that decriminalisation of some drugs that don't cause massive social problems with a vigorous treatment programme would be the best option. Whilst the softer drugs don't cause criminal social problems there has been scientific evidence that marijuana can increase the risk or even trigger psychotic episodes and schizophrenia. So no matter how you look at it all drugs cause social problems, just in different ways and in different quantities, but past experience has made it clear that zero tolerence just doesn't work.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Thankyou, I'm sorry we can't all be as intelligent and enlightened as you (hence the fallicy, and ultimately the satirical nature of my name). However, I was not making apolitical point, otherwise I would have said so.
My abhorrence of drugs is a personal belief. It's my personal opinion and I'm entitled to it. You probably have your own, which is get stoned every time possible, and your entitled to it. Whether it's right or wrong is not my call.
Still, questions should be raised when druggos can get free needles yet genuine suffers, like diabetics, have to pay for these.

However, when it comes to politics, people are ultimately influenced by their personal morals, beliefs and values, and that's as it should be, to an extent. However, the ultimate point of government is to regulate society. Society expects it's members to be functioning, contributing, and law abiding.
Hence the reasons drugs are illegal because they create people who are useless o society, and kill others (which means they're still useless to society as well). Governments try to do what's best for society which is why they make the policies they do. Of course perosnal interest usually stems idealists.

Now, As a wise person said "Stats are bullshit", and to that I agree. However, the best data for anyone is personal experience, what you see and what you hear. I've seen to many decent people, and some I didn't like but felt sorry for anyway, end up fucked up because of drugs.
That is why I take such a stance on drugs. Now, as it is zero tolernace doesn't work because it's almost impossible to implement. But legalisation won't change much, just more people will end up with blood shot eyes and fucked prospects, except they'll do it legally. Sure the crime rate would go down. But while we're at it why not legalise murder and larceny. Think of how low the crime rate would be then.


Oh, and for the record, those drug injecting rooms did nothing good, so what makes anyone think similair measures would.

Here here...I totally agree.

 

[Enlightened_One]

...harm minimisation...not zero tolerence...

people have to recognise that drugs will always be in society...to pretend they dont exist and that you can get rid of the problem by simply making it strictly illegal is really myoptic...it just results in so many problems...

interestingly coffee is perfectly legal...interestingly chocolate was illegal a few hundred years ago because it was considered bad for you...

no wait ...sugar is bad for you...why dont be have a zero tolerence on that...

sure some drugs have very bad effects on the people...

I don't know about coffee, but sugar isn't intially bad for you. Sugar actually creates energy. Unused energy becomes fat. Fat builds up and clogs your arteries and eventually affacts your heart. So sugar is only bad if you have heaps and don't burn it off. And sugar has positive effects because it creates energy. Marijuana has no positive effects. It doesn't create energy and it has no nutritional value.

...harm minimisation...not zero tolerence...

people have to recognise that drugs will always be in society...to pretend they dont exist and that you can get rid of the problem by simply making it strictly illegal is really myoptic...it just results in so many problems...


what is the goal of zero tolerence? Are we punishing the drug users? What for? Shouldnt we be trying to minimise the harm on the users and society? Did you know drug users come from society? if we dont make an effort to reduce harm they impact on our lives...Dont people deserve a 2nd chance? Dont people deserve the right not to contract HIV? Dont people deserve the right for their schools not to have needles lying around? Dont people know that if you dont give out free needles people share needles and are more likely to imject in more marginal areas such as schools?...and due to the risk of being caught tend to discard their needles after one session with themselves or another person?

There shouldn't be needles lying around in the first place. The biggest problem with any approach to drugs is that it is concentrated only on the end result - the strung out bastard who steals something etc. The real source of the problem is never addressed.
Yes druggos ought to be cleaned up, but at the same time they ought to be given a choice of aiding police or copping the full brunt of the law. The best possible way of preventing drugs is to stop the source which are not only the little dealers, but their dealers, the big time dealers and eventually the importers themselves and the bastards growing the shit.


And by the way you didn't mention why druggos, most who choose to use drugs, and some who commit far more serious crimes are supplied free with needles when genuine suffers, such as diabetics, have to pay for theirs.


You mention drugs in schools, and how safe injecting rooms will encourage those people who use needles in schools to use them away from schools. But the people using needles in schools are school kids, some not old enough to drink or drive and whatever, yet they should be allowed to safely inject drugs.
Legalising drugs will only make it easier for kids to get hold of them, just like they do alcohol. And if drugs become legal they just become another way for people to become addicted and then they have to resort to other means to pay for their addiction.
Gambling and alcohol is legal, yet addictive. Families are constantly broken apart, and crimes are often caused, by the need to pay for these legal addictions. Legalising drugs will just add another legally addictive way to fuck yourself up.

 

[patlaw]

im sorry enlightened one but NXFM isn't exactly a reliable news source! Theit top news headline generally goes along the lines of "Lopez follows Janet's example as her tit falls out of her Academy Awards gown" NXFM, excellent radio station, none better, but i wouldn't go quoting their news headlines.

Onanother note though, I think everybody needs to be aware that the Greens are going to go towards eliminating HECS fees. We represent a significant amount of the population and if we can get out that the greens are gonna do this then we might all have a greater chance of going to uni. I'm at the borderline where ill prob be able to get a good enough UAI to do what i want but won;t be able to afford it. The greens aren't all tree huggin hippies!

 

[thorrnydevil]

im sorry enlightened one but NXFM isn't exactly a reliable news source! Theit top news headline generally goes along the lines of "Lopez follows Janet's example as her tit falls out of her Academy Awards gown" NXFM, excellent radio station, none better, but i wouldn't go quoting their news headlines.

Onanother note though, I think everybody needs to be aware that the Greens are going to go towards eliminating HECS fees. We represent a significant amount of the population and if we can get out that the greens are gonna do this then we might all have a greater chance of going to uni. I'm at the borderline where ill prob be able to get a good enough UAI to do what i want but won;t be able to afford it. The greens aren't all tree huggin hippies!

No they wont, it'd be impossible. And unfortunately, we don't represent a large amount of the population. In fact, less than 10% in some areas.

 

[inasero]

They want Marijuana and ecstasy to be sold over the counter (that'll get them support from Nimbin among other places). They also want people to ride more bikes, and eat less meat.

they should legalise marijuana only for pharmacautical use and as a schedule 8 drug. yes we need more bikes. yes we should all eat less meat.

so so far im all for them

 

[Ziff]

I've just lost total respect for you.
Amsterdam is a country filled with child prostitution, drugs, slavery... it represents everything that is bad about man kind.

If they make 'social' drugs legal, I'm sure that date rape will go up - education levels will go down - depression levels will go up.

Yes, Amsterdam is a country...

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't even bother opening your mouth/typing and go away...

 

[Ziff]

Most arrogant statement i've ever recieved.

Hint: Amsterdam is not a country.

And their quality of life is very good too:
http://www.mercerhr.com/pressreleas...0;jsessionid=3B4GL11E50MC0AAJAADQOCAKMZSI4I2C

Don't see how that makes it a depraved place at all?

 

[thorrnydevil]

I really don't know what to say about this post.

Just copying this extract from an anthro assignment i did last semester:

"
Since 1976, the Dutch have created a soft policy on drugs, whereby a blind eye is turned on minor possession and cultivation. Licensed coffee shops are permitted to sell small quantities of cannabis under strict conditions. In 2001, such a policy was explained by the Dutch Justice Minister, “We have the rule that the process of law should not harm society more than the crime itself”. The policy includes the demand of a widespread education campaign to discourage drug use. It should be noted that as a result of this liberalistic approach, that in the Netherlands, cannabis use is shown to steadily decline after adolescence and that the overall scale of use is similar to its neighbouring countries that stand by prohibition. These same countries have argued that by decriminalizing marijuana, hard-drug use will be on the rise as per the gateway theory. According to numerous studies, the opposite is true. Just over 75% of Dutch cannabis users have never further experimented with hard drugs.
"

The typical demographic for party-drug users is that of tertiary educated 20-25year olds who hold down a job and/or are continuing studies.

As to the rest of the post.. I won't even start on that, given that no factual basis has been given nor attempted. Wild and uncalculated speculations need SOME kind of foundation to be worth arguing.

This is off the topic a bit, but I think we should harsher penalties for suppliers over the users.

But yes, zero tolerance will never work, but, we don't want to make it totally available to the general public. Could you imagine how many pharmacies would get knocked over by people with no prescription?

Instead of having it in pharmacies we need things like methadone clinics.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Everyone should be entitled to their own opinion, but the crux of drug prohibition is that removes that right. You are quick to label drug users just like the media loves to portray them.. There are many recreational drug users out there whose goal is not to "get stoned every time possible". The problem with the drug image is that it is taboo, and so we really only hear the bad stories. I myself was once convinced that heroin is a shocking drug that turns people into slum-ridden trainwrecks. While I would never personally use heroin, I found out that the kings-cross style heroin user makes up for 5% of all users. The fact is, there are many people out there who use with some moderation and of whom you could never tell are users. Same goes with softer drugs. Of course you will notice the stoners, but you will never notice the people who love to use drugs occasionally and of whose drug use is not a crucial element in their life.

Have you noticed how someone who smokes pot once a fortnight would be instantly called a stoner rather than "someone who smokes pot"? Parallel this with alcohol. Someone who gets drunk every weekend is called a drinker. It is only when they start excessively drinking on their own that they are termed an alcoholic.



One of the biggest problems with modern society is that (perhaps because of increased work hours) parents are relying on the government to do the parenting. If someone gets injured at school, the law considers the school at fault. The law is being developed into a social blanket to nurture citizens, removing the sense of self-responsibility in life. Our consumer driven world is constantly seeking less responsibility and more luxury (ironically the same motive of many drug users). If the true reason behind prohibition was "they create people who are useless to society and kill others" then why not ban nicotine and alcohol, granted they have a strong social history? There is an instant connection in the minds of voters when they hear about a strong stance on drugs. I don't want my son or daughter on drugs ---> therefore laws must be put in place and enforced. The fact is, drug prohibition has unarguably been a detriment to society. The percentage ratio of money put into enforcement vs education is rediculous and yet enforcement throughout the world is a lost battle. The "HUGE" drug busts boasted by police are still within the single digit percentage of total drugs in society at any one time.

Can we not trust people to think for themselves? Do we really need to "protect" people from drugs? Unfortunately, in many cases, yes. This is because the drug cases we hear about are mostly people who are uneducated about drugs. School drug education is a crock of propoganda and the "Just say no" policy offers nothing to the curious. The extent of education in this drug taboo society is that "Drugs will kill you or make you fail at life". So when someone actually tries their first joint (possibly due to drunken stupor), they can't identify with the drug stereotype. They say to themselves, "Hang on? I'm still doing well at school/work/life". What they haven't learnt is moderation or harm minimization, so this new found rebellion to drug law often becomes a regrettable one that snowballs into drug ABuse.




First of all, australia's fairly liberal approach to heroin injecting rooms and other harm minimization features involving needles can be commended for keeping our HIV percentage unbelievably low! They have certainly achieved a lot!

People all around the world are ruining their lives with alcohol, drugs, fast food, tv, sleeping around, reckless driving. The key element here is that each situation is fine in itself but but when abused or used in a harmful way, they cause problems.

The notion and definition of "crime" is subjective. If we made cheese illegal, perhaps crime rates would rise and you would become a criminal! I personally believe that a crime cannot be committed if there are no victims. People do argue that drug use has victims that not only involve the user, such as violence and driving under the influence. But it is these acts themselves that should be considered the crime, and not the drug use itself. To bring back the alcohol vs other drugs debate, when you knock back a beer, that itself should not and is not considered a crime. Getting drunk and racking street signs IS!

Finally, in the overall history of humanity, drug prohibition has been around for only a miniscule part of it. The mentality that "I will not do drugs because it is against the law" is both shallow and widespread. We should change the mentality to "I will not to drugs, or if i do I will use them responsibly because I do not wish to harmy myself".

Just imagine this situation. It's a saturday afternoon and your dealer comes around with the big mac. You've had a busy day and are craving this burger. You are overall fit and eat well most of the week, but you like to let your diet go just one day a week. As you pay the money the police intercept and you go to jail. Fast food is bad for you.

I'm not reading all that, but I get the gist. I don't look to the media for my portrayal of drug users, I look at people I know who use them. If I really only hear the bad stories what are the good stories? Johnny was stoned on the weekend and he didn't kill himself - is that a good story?
Perhaps it ought to be a personal decision but the people who influence children are not usually their parents but their peers, and it only takes on bad bastard to ruin the lot.
The reason why we can't band nicotine and alcohol is that they are already too ingrained in our society. Eventually the time will come when they will be outlawed. As it is though, we have to accept them because there is nothing that can be done about them, but we can prevent drugs before they become ingrained in society.

 

[ellymelly]

I don't believe I need to post anything beyond my signature on the topic of the Greens and their policies.

 

[paper cup]

I've just lost total respect for you.
Amsterdam is a country filled with child prostitution, drugs, slavery... it represents everything that is bad about man kind.

If they make 'social' drugs legal, I'm sure that date rape will go up - education levels will go down - depression levels will go up.

amsterdam....is....a...city...in....a country...called...the netherlands.