What I do when I should be studying...or not taking part in a Reality Television show
Published on August 31, 2004 By notsohighlyevolved In International
The Greens today announced that their policies would include the decriminalisation of drugs (not all, mostly that happy pill we call “e” and cannabis), an obscure push to get us out of cars and onto bikes, another hazy initiative to get us eating the Green’s beloved vegetables rather than meat, covering gender reassignment under Medicare, and, perhaps most outrageously of all, an increase in stamp duty and taxes for home buyers.

These are the statements of a noble and courageous creature. It reminds me of those wonderful silk screens you sometimes see in art galleries of Samurai impaling themselves on their own swords. In the face of defeat it is best to spill your own blood and therefore escape the ignominy of having your enemies spill it for you.

I found it surprising that an Australian political party (especially one on the rise, according to the polls), can summon the shear recklessness to state emphatically and without qualification policies that will guarantee not victory but political suicide.

Imagine! To attack the steed of our age, the power horse of our industriousness, the mighty car; to rid ourselves of its steel pipe aroma, its heart congesting congestion, its waste and its futility in the face of an oil crisis that has no cure, only an expiry date.

Imagine! To recognise addiction as a medical dilemma and recreation as capable of irresponsibility rather than criminality. To control damage rather than provide for its continuation.

Imagine! To force health upon a people who refuse to acknowledge the personal and social cost of ill health. To attack root cause rather than symptom. To enforce, through legislation, prevention rather than cure, knowing that it invariably costs less.

Imagine! To tax those who can afford it to help those who can't... and those who can (remember - you don't often make much use of infrastructure if you live in a cardboard box)

Imagine! To realise that mental anguish and alienation can sometimes require surgery to be overcome.

Imagine! To acknowledge the many economies that must be balanced – the social, the cultural, the environmental and, finally and possibly least significant, the economies of wealth – and that one must not gain precedence or domination over the others.

Imagine the Greens winning with this policy platform. Not bloody likely!

Conviction is a rare sentiment in politics and clearly goes against all the wealth of wisdom provided by our news polls. Yes, it is folly, but we would be the poorer without it.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 31, 2004
I believe they should decriminalize all drugs worldwide... that would be better for society... Instead of people getting rich off being stupid and dependant on drugs... Society would then turn to the need for real people and smarts and al the druglords would fal down eventually because there would be no more money in it... Crack-Addicts and such now hving the stuff legal would OD much easier and die....It would be a benifit to society in the long run... of course there would be some growing pains... but without a little sacrafice there can never be bliss.
on Aug 31, 2004
covering gender reassignment under Medicare

All I can say is, Green Party, what the FOCK?!

and, perhaps most outrageously of all, an increase in stamp duty and taxes for home buyers.

Hmm. Post office operates on 100% profit already, postal employees are already overpaid for what their duties entail, what is the benefit or reason for them wanting to do this? Is this supposed to help pay for all those gender reassignments?

an obscure push to get us out of cars and onto bikes

This could be a good idea, but they seriously need a very clear-cut plan that outlines how they would implement this and make it clear (i.e. "sell") this idea to taxpayers. They could easily claim the environmental, energy saving, and health benefits.

As for decriminalizing marijuana they need to be realistic with it. Decriminalize all you want on this hardly harmful little plant, but at least try to sell it with a tax to pay for those with mental and health detriments caused by it's use (rehabilitation for abusers, etc.). As for ecstasy, come on. Severe depression and possible other ill effects to the head do not for a good free drug make.
on Aug 31, 2004
Hmm. Post office operates on 100% profit already


Actually the post office operates on a 0% profit. Congress mandates that the post office break even, and though some years it makes money and some years it loses it, it on average breaks even.

Drugs should not be legalized, but rather the punishment for smoking marijuana should be fines that increase with each offense terminating in drug rehabilitiation treatment after so many offenses, then starting over again with the fines.
on Aug 31, 2004
Australia is not the US. Australia is not the US. Australia is not the US. We have no Congress and the Post Office is a not-for-profit organisation. Stamp duty is paid on housing, not stamps.

Chances are anyone who votes for the Greens will either be voting for them because the Democrats have self-destructed and they don't want to vote for the major parties, or they like one of the candidates. I'll probably vote green in my electorate because a) it won't make a difference and the local Green candidate is extremely committed to the constituents in local politics and probably would be as a national rep as well. The Greens will never hold power so their crazy policies won't really matter as they'll just vote like a more rapidly leftist Labor.
on Sep 01, 2004
I believe they should decriminalize all drugs worldwide... that would be better for society


While i agree with this statement with qualifications, i cannot agree with the following:

Crack-Addicts and such now hving the stuff legal would OD much easier and die....


This is several, but not many, degrees below saying that chemotherapy should be withheld so cancer sufferers make us feel uncomfortable for the least possible amount of time.

All I can say is, Green Party, what the FOCK?!


Trust me Deference, that sentiment is being echoed like a Barney Gumble belch in a canyon.

Hmm. Post office operates on 100% profit already, postal employees are already overpaid for what their duties entail, what is the benefit or reason for them wanting to do this? Is this supposed to help pay for all those gender reassignments?


Stamp Duty is a tax on the purchase of a home or property. And yes, all those gender reassignments are going to have to be funded by something. I find the thought of button down, rural, conservative Australians subsidising the wish fulfilment of a Sydneysider drag queen more than a little amusing.

They could easily claim the environmental, energy saving, and health benefits.


Many of us have been trying this for years. Australians seem to be preternaturally attached to their cars. Even the thought of $3 per litre at the pumps and a 5.7ltr engine consuming all that hard earned money at a prodigious rate doesn't seem to faze them. I think someone is going to have to win an election with the promise of free petrol and cheeseburgers to all and then, as tradition dictates, break the promise and ban both.

As for ecstasy, come on. Severe depression and possible other ill effects to the head do not for a good free drug make.


The 9 - 5 workday often leads to the same symptoms (and sometimes a little massacre on the side), but without all the smiling. Oh well, i guess we'll just have to criminalise it

Drugs should not be legalized, but rather the punishment for smoking marijuana should be fines that increase with each offense terminating in drug rehabilitiation treatment after so many offenses, then starting over again with the fines.


Can't say that i agree, but it's a lot better than anything in practice now. At the very least this is one of the most reasonable and rational proposal from the side of the fence that does not agree with decriminalisation.

Chances are anyone who votes for the Greens will either be voting for them because the Democrats have self-destructed and they don't want to vote for the major parties, or they like one of the candidates.


Unfortunately, how true. I think i'll vote for them because i actually agree with them, but i am one of the rare few. I will be more than interested in which ways the preferences swing.

The Greens will never hold power so their crazy policies won't really matter as they'll just vote like a more rapidly leftist Labour.


I'm not so sure about this. The Greens have many a time been in a position to make or break a piece of legislation trying to pass on through the senate. They don't need many seats, just enough (depending on how many labour and the coalition win) to hold the balance of power in the senate.

Thanks for all your comments.

Marco
on Sep 01, 2004
Sandy2:

My post office comment was made in ignorance, I had the U.S. post office in mind (go figure). It stands to reason that when all your expenses are paid for by the state then you make more than enough back on your service to cover costs that you are operating on or near a 100% profit margin.

In regards to the marijuana issue, what are your reasons for not wanting the little plant to be available to the public? The health risks are minimal, the effects of laws against users are more detrimental than any effect of the use, and government could use any funds it could get by taxing it. I'm interested in your response.

In response to your answer, Marco, on ecstacy use, I'm right there with you in jest, but in truth, at least someone is gaining something much more tangible from a job, such small things as sustenance, a roof over your head, etc. . Ecstacy, on the other hand can only be used in moderate dosages with little frequency, it is abused far too easily and users often die of dehydration before they eventually succumb to the depressive bouts that come after just a few years of solid use. This is because of the drugs innate ability to open the floodgates of serotonin in the head, but after repeated use, these break down, then the feel good natural drug of the body is forever depleted or lost totally and the poor soul(s) suffer depressive episodes the likes not many have not seen.
on Sep 01, 2004
In response to your answer, Marco, on ecstacy use, I'm right there with you in jest, but in truth, at least someone is gaining something much more tangible from a job, such small things as sustenance, a roof over your head, etc. . Ecstacy, on the other hand can only be used in moderate dosages with little frequency, it is abused far too easily and users often die of dehydration before they eventually succumb to the depressive bouts that come after just a few years of solid use. This is because of the drugs innate ability to open the floodgates of serotonin in the head, but after repeated use, these break down, then the feel good natural drug of the body is forever depleted or lost totally and the poor soul(s) suffer depressive episodes the likes not many have not seen.


Deference - thank you for seeing my comment as it should have been - in jest. But as a regular witness of ecstacy use for the last 6-7 years, i would have to say that the case for death caused by dehydration and overheating is overstated. With reponsible usage, the probability of this occuring is statistically insignificant.

There is a stronger case for a causal relationship between prolonged and intensive ecstasy use and clinical depression, but there is also a case for the use of MDMA as a theraputic drug. In fact there was early promise in clinical trials, but alas those trials were shut down due to a hasty criminalisation before research and extensive medical consultation could occur.

I am also aware of the irreparable neuronal damage that is caused by ecstasy, but i am also aware of the same type of (and far more extensive) damage inflicted by alcohol. Prohibition gave us an early taste of what criminalisation can accomplish and just as i don't believe criminalisation is the way for alcohol, neither do i believe it's the proper path for other illicit substances.

As a note: My comment on work was in jest, but i am sure that, if we had a joint look at the literature, work related factors have a far greater bearing on the prevalence and distribution of depression.

Marco
on Sep 01, 2004
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, I am certain that the use of actual MDMA (not the sometimes questionable street pills one may get that sometimes include crack, DZM, etc.) in some theraputical environments is actually beneficial, but, I agree, we need to spend more time researching the drug itself. I understand that there was some research and even prescription of the drug in the early and mid-seventies.

Yes, alcohol has many risks, but the fact that it is often not as immediate and the fact that it takes quite a bit more effort to tear oneself down with the drug makes it less harmful than MDMA.

As for work, I am concerned that today's environment is not particularly conducive to a well adjusted human being, be that as it may, it probably is not wise to compound that by some overly risky endeavors. I've also been around x, tried it myself and observed others. You are correct that the government and media did overstate the dehydration issue as most ravers carry nothing but water with them and x use is less harmful due to the efforts of such organizations as RaveSafe, with their free water and test kits. Some of these individuals that I know did abuse the drug and within a span of two years experienced profound problems in their daily life and are all bouncing in and out of rehab. and counseling. One guy I know is taking some sort of drug to help with the problems of abuse of x. There will always be sob stories in every circumstance, drugs or no drugs, but it would be most responsible of society to fully know of the properties of certain drugs before legalizing their use. As you can tell by my stance on marijuana, I stand by that.
on Sep 01, 2004
but it would be most responsible of society to fully know of the properties of certain drugs before legalizing their use.


It seems that we're both trying to cross the same river but starting from different shores.

I have seen you commenting in little-whips current thread in politics (the monster with 71 replys and counting), i was going to enter the fray but thought better of it. It's too late at night to get grazes on my metaphorical knee.

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments

Marco
on Sep 01, 2004
In regards to the marijuana issue, what are your reasons for not wanting the little plant to be available to the public? The health risks are minimal, the effects of laws against users are more detrimental than any effect of the use, and government could use any funds it could get by taxing it. I'm interested in your response.


I agree with all the above, however there are some problems asosciated with the legalization of a currently banned substance. First of all, legalizing just marijuana would not get rid of drug wars and drug lords and intercity gangs, because since marijuana is a fairly inexpensive drug, and the real gangs deal in cocaine mostly. Second, a state would have to make a constitutional ammendment specifically legalizing marijuana or other drugs, and then the federal government would sue the state and the matter would go before the supreme court, at which time the supreme court would decide whether states could legalize drugs. If they opinioned in favor of the state, then that would be fine. Otherwise, a federal constitutional ammendment would be nessicary. There is no way that 2/3 of the house will approve a law specifically leaving the right to use marijuana up to states.

On the other hand, it would be very easy to change the punishments asosicated with the use of non-society damaging drugs, such as marijuana.
Yes, alcohol has many risks, but the fact that it is often not as immediate and the fact that it takes quite a bit more effort to tear oneself down with the drug makes it less harmful than MDMA.


Alcohol also has many researched benifits, one of the more important dramatically reducing the risk for a heart attack.
on Sep 01, 2004
You are correct. I admit, I split hairs quite often, as well. I like to find those subtle differences where we disagree as I find them vastly more interesting.
on Sep 01, 2004
First of all, legalizing just marijuana would not get rid of drug wars and drug lords and intercity gangs, because since marijuana is a fairly inexpensive drug, and the real gangs deal in cocaine mostly

I'm not saying that legalizing marijuana would cut down on such crime, you are correct in what you say. My meaning is that when someone is penalized by the law for possession of marijuana (for example) the effect it has upon them is much worse than anything the herb might do. Either the fine is exorbitant or someone could suffer under a "third strike" law or even be unable to continue or even begin their higher education (if one has a drug related crime on their record, excepting dwi, of course, they can be denied student loans or aid). This is what I mean when I say that the laws against this particular drug are much more harmful than any effect of the drug itself.

As for amendments to state constitutions and the federal government getting involved, I don't know if that is the only way to go about dealing with legal aspects of this issue. I think the best public policy with marijuana is decriminalization. Make it a misdemeanor to possess in public, the same as a parking ticket. Those underage (18 and under) would be guilty of Minor In Possession, those driving under the influence get a dui. The ceiling on the latter two should be $90.00 adjusted with inflation every ten years. This is easy to do at the local level and I believe this is how it should be treated, the people should have the voice.

Alcohol also has many researched benifits, one of the more important dramatically reducing the risk for a heart attack.

Marijuana also alleviates pain like any good drug (in some, not all cases), there have been many claims as to the remedial benefits of marijuana, but I don't know of any that have been rigorously tested ('cause we aren't given the chance!). I hear you on the alcohol, though, very true. Something akin to 3 or 4 glasses of wine a week?


Thank you for your response!

on Sep 01, 2004
Misdemeanor is a good Idea, I think anyway to less-criminalize it would be great, but the word "decriminalize" has bad connotations with congress so they would never go for that. Same for the president or a state congress etc.
on Sep 01, 2004
As Libertarian, I remain a decrim advocate. This is as far as I go in agreeing with Greens.

As for the push for bikes, it sounds nice, but in the American Southwest, as well as many other places, it is highly impractical. I live in an area where a trip to WalMart is a 15 mile round trip, and, without the capacity to carry several gallons of water, could well be a fatal one as well, in 115 degree summer heat.

We try to minimize our use of the car, but there are times when it is the most practical means of transportation. I really can't envision a return to wagon trains for westward bound settlers, and certainly know it is impractical.
on Sep 01, 2004
. First of all, legalizing just marijuana would not get rid of drug wars and drug lords and intercity gangs, because since marijuana is a fairly inexpensive drug, and the real gangs deal in cocaine mostly.


No, you are right about that. BUT...the majority of incarcerated Americans are incarcerated for drug offenses, and the majority of those offenses are marijuana related. Put simply, the anti Marijuana laws haven't worked (teen marijuana use averages around 70% in some areas), and have only led to prison overcrowding, and early release of violent offenders. Since the recidivism rate of violent offenders is frighteningly high, it seems to me that we need to seriously rethink the "war on drugs", and see what we can do to ensure Americans that rapists, murderers, etc, are put safely away where their victims don't have to live in perpetual fear of where/when they will strike again.
2 Pages1 2