Greens policy backs illegal drugs

[Jack]

ECSTASY and other illegal drugs would be supplied over the counter to young users in a radical policy framed by Senator Bob Brown's Greens.

Dual policy on drugs

The Greens manifesto backs official supply of the dangerous drug ecstasy as well as state-sanctioned heroin and marijuana sales at what it calls appropriate venues.

The ecstasy policy suggests distributing the drug to users while providing official information detailing the dangers of the drug.

About 15 people have died from ecstasy use since it hit Australia in the 1990s. The drug can cause severe psychological side-effects in some people.

A Herald Sun examination of Greens policies reveals other extraordinary plans for Australia including:

LAWS to force people to ride bicycles more often and eat less meat.

DRIVING farmers from their land.

MEDICARE funding for sex-change operations.

CAPITAL gains tax on the most expensive family homes.

AN OPEN door policy on asylum seekers.

With a chance to grab the balance of power in the Senate, the Greens have for the first time released a comprehensive set of policies beyond their environmental platform.

They want a welfare program that allows people to remain on higher dole payments indefinitely without any requirement to look for a job.

The Greens also want the population cut by two million, and for unspecified farms, roads and buildings to be turned back into nature.

With Senator Brown at its helm and two other MPs already in Federal Parliament, the Greens are aiming to treble their representation by installing a new senator in each state and picking up Lower House seats.

Senator Brown said yesterday he believed one million Australians would vote for the Greens at this election -- double the number of Green voters at the last election.

Senator Brown said the Greens hoped to unseat a sitting Liberal senator in the ACT, win the ALP seat of Melbourne held by Lindsay Tanner and hold the NSW seat of Cunningham.

Green critic Mike Nahan, of the Institute of Public Affairs, a Right-wing think tank, said the party was the most radical Australia had seen.

"The Greens are loopier than any party I've seen, and will be much worse than the Australian Democrats ever were," he said.

"It was OK while they were playing devil's advocate, with Bob Brown shouting from the sidelines, but now there is a real prospect of them winning the balance of power."

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday described the Greens' agenda as kooky.

"The Greens are not just about the environment," he said. "They have a whole lot of other very, very kooky policies in relation to things like drugs and all of that sort of stuff and new taxes and whatever, which people never talk about because they try and portray themselves as a one-issue party of just being warm and fuzzy about the environment."

Greens policies also include cutting Murray River irrigators by 3000 gigalitres -- or six times the size of the Sydney Harbour -- each year.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...255E661,00.html

Another One

Dual policy on drugs

BOB Brown's Greens are advocating a dual policy on drugs going into the election - a crackdown on legal and prescription drugs but a loosening up on illegal drugs.

For the first time a major political party is advocating all personal use of illegal drugs to be moved outside the criminal framework.

Marijuana, ecstasy and other unnamed drugs would be available at "appropriate venues" and in "controlled environments", according to the party's policy.

While giving the green light to marijuana, ecstasy and other drugs, Senator Brown's party appears to be alarmed about GHB and date-rape drugs.

It describes these as "drugs of concern" and says there needs to be more research and public campaigns to warn about their dangers.

Pilot programs would be undertaken to examine controlled availability of heroin to registered users from approved clinics.

Cultivation of marijuana would be regulated and a probe undertaken into the nation's police forces to reduce drug-related corruption.

Senator Brown, a trained general practitioner, would at the same time have government agencies monitor the effects of decriminalisation on young people.

Legal products such as alcohol and tobacco would come in for heavy government regulation.

Promotion of tobacco products would be banned and alcohol advertising restricted.

The Greens would introduce mandatory labelling of all alcoholic drinks with health warnings together with the number of standard drinks each bottle or can contained.

According to the Greens, drugs and substance abuse are complex issues, but the public needed to be educated on prescription and non-prescription medication.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...33^2902,00.html

[ 31. August 2004, 09:49: Message edited by: Jack ]

[reptyle]

i got goose bumps reading that.

[Torsten]

gosh, they make it sound like it's a bad thing

[Salviador]

Pity about the rest of their civil liberty renouncing campaign, some of those policies looked really good...

Additionally contrary to the greens I think that utilised correctly ghb could be the safest of all drugs seeing as its a neurotransmitter and all (http://www.idmu.co.uk/ghb2003.htm , http://www.qhi.co.uk/features/feat_003.asp)

It just seems like they are really going for the fringe/psycho vote, dissapointing really.

Which means ill be voting for them

:D

[hairyplant]

It is nice to see some actual thought patterns firing in Oz politics, whether people like them or not... although I will be more than surprised if in my life time any of these green policies come into play, as we all know that ain't the way the world turns or where we're heading... hmmm how is it that you spell utopia

As for the previous comment about GHB, I think Salviador you should be v careful. Anyone experienced with GHB knows that it is a dangerous drug, and relatively small doses can f**k people up. In the last few years, 9/10 times when an ambulance has rocked up at a rave, you could pretty much bet that it was G related. All it takes is inexperience, or a wasted mind that forgets when their last dose was (seen it too many times!! ) for the risk to be high (pardon pun)

anyone thinking about using GHB, 1-4 or GBL should read this first: http://www.bluelight.nu/vb/showthread.php?...did=111881&r=71

ps. sorry for moving off topic, Go Greens!! :D :D

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Salviador:

Pity about the rest of their civil liberty renouncing campaign, some of those policies looked really good...

With increase in population and the resultant increase in detrimental effect on society, no party can really justify not to restrict civil liberties. What you need to look at is where these civil liberties are restricted and if these specific ones are as important as others.

For example, lib/nat hail personal freedoms, but they took our guns, spied on us, restricted the internet, restricted porn, banned gay marrriages, etc. Others might advertise the fact that they will keep a child sex offender register, stop 4WDing in National Parks, limit your choice to pump kilos of lead and sulphuric acid onto the road every year, take away your choice of environmentally and socially damaging consumer products, etc.

Which of the green policies did you find particularly problematic?

It will be interesting to see how the greens perform as part of a government. In germany we had high hopes for them, but when it came to it they kinda flunked. AS green idealists age they seem to get rather conservative in many aspects. Germany under green left has some of the tightest herbal and ethnobotanical restrictions of any european country, even though they were one of the first countries to decriminalise small possession.

Whatever happens in Oz, it surely won't be as bad as 4 years of Costello.

[hairyplant]

Ohh, and aren't we all pleased to see the good old shit journalism of the Herald Sun, soooooo looking foward to seeing more of it in the next month .

Here is the media release from Bob's office after the Herald Sun and liberal party statements:

 

quote:

---

MEDIA RELEASE – Bob Brown

 

Australian Greens Senator for Tasmania

 

31 August 2004

 

Liberals, Herald Sun fit up Greens

 

In a dirty tricks start to the Howard government's campaign, the Prime Minister's fae claim of 'kooky' Greens' drugs policy yesterday has been followed up by:

 

-A Victorian Liberals dossier with false claims on the Greens drugs and other policies; and

 

-The Melbourne Herald Sun following suite with a story which is concocted to be anti-Green. The newspaper did not contact Senator Brown about the story but took comments from the pro-Liberal Institute of Public Affairs.

 

Releasing the Greens across-the-board policy volume today, Greens Senator Bob Brown said the Liberals and Herald Sun claim on Greens drug policy are wrong and deliberately aimed to deceive voters. Senator Brown challenged the Prime Minister t o a debate on all policies including drugs.

 

The Greens, like a number of senior police and medical experts, back a policy of harm minimisation with drugs. This includes medically-controlled access to drugs because it reduces the damage to both user and wider society.

 

Senator Brown said the Herald Sun's Gerard McManus had misinformed readers in a way which indicates the Murdoch press has gone beyond critic to concoct false policy in its anti-Green bias.

---

and....

[-YT-]

GO THE GREENS i think their policies are Choice (well not all) but they really wanna change OZ conserve the enviroment, cut back pollution legallise Drugs, change taxes its almost perfect.About the drugs if these substances were to become legal and controled like the Government to would almost certainly put a stop to many criminal related activities and OD's because doeses could be cut back, and a plus on economy but would it bring a drug tax??

[Shayman]

Would it bring a tax?

I will happily pay tax for the freedom to make my own choices.

-Shayman

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`

°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤

http://www.geocities.com/salviacrusaders/

[ 31. August 2004, 18:50: Message edited by: Shayman ]

[Rev]

I wish them the best but im really torn

We just cant let howard win again and its scarily close - really scary

I dont know how id feel if i voted green and as a result the libs or nats won

Im in a country electorate with the Libs running it, and national candidates sitting too so i think id better vote Labour first over Greens if i really want to have an effect

In the senate ill gladly vote green

[Salviador]

To jack re ghb being potentially dangerous. You're right i do tend to balance out the radical claims of the anti-drug lobbies. However its sorta related to education as well... perhaps better for another thread

-To T re offensive ideals:to force people to ride bicycles more often and eat less meat, i spose thats what really irked me. It should be peoples choices who make their choices based on reliable information rather than adverts and general capitalistic mechanisms of info spreading, again maybe another topic

MOST RELEVANTLY HOWEVER

Forgive me psychonauts for i have sinned; i saw a current affair on channel nine tonight!

1) 76% trust howard over latham mind you there would be a fair deal of sampling error there...

2)They interviewed Bob, who informed people that what the herald said was mostly incorrect- briefly - no open door policy, only to those who are not trying to deceive the govt- as for farmers working with them to improve farming technology/efficiency

3) Bob Challenged Howard on national tv to a debate !!!! Gosh I would like to see that

So it seems that at best the list was negatively geared and a worst some was of it was outright creative writing

Politics has never excited me quite like this before, I'm much more partial to good ol' Bob now

[ramon]

I dont know how id feel if i voted green and as a result the libs or nats won

Im in a country electorate with the Libs running it, and national candidates sitting too so i think id better vote Labour first over Greens if

If you allocate your preferences so as to vote for the greens first and Labor second then you would in no way be contibuting to another Howard victory. ( If I understand how preferential voting works )

[Guest electro]

yay for greens policies - im so voting for them, and numbering the boxes all the way down till i hit liberal then one nation !

not that i think it will make a difference, regardless of how we vote we still end up with one of the two faces of the two party system ... labour & liberal - the two headed singular beast ...

i see no difference except what class they are pitching at labour - both going for the middle class swing votes with liberal more upper class focussed and labour aimed at the working class (lol sorry, have been studying my gf's sociaology units) lol

re hairyplant

"As for the previous comment about GHB, I think Salviador you should be v careful. Anyone experienced with GHB knows that it is a dangerous drug, and relatively small doses can f**k people up. In the last few years, 9/10 times when an ambulance has rocked up at a rave, you could pretty much bet that it was G related."

funny how when it was legal it had been used for OVER 30 years as an anastetic and in some countries trialed as an antidepressant with good results with NO recorded adverse reactions ... as soon as it went blackmarket no one knew how much they were eating or that mixing with other cns depressantss is lethal and surprise surprise - people start dying from it ... yay for drug controls that kill people ! :/ hrm.. it is a very safe drug if you a know exactly how much you are getting, dont mix it with ANYTHING - especially not opiates or alcohol and c) keep track of dosage properly ....

also as far as im aware the dosage is not actually relatively small .. its actually fkin massive, it just doesnt look like it coz its dissolved in liquid - crappy arsed cooks who cant get the hygroscopic salt to xtalise im sure decided to market it in liquid form .. it is actually a multiple gram dose (eg 3grams) but the range between "high" and "sleep inducing" is small - 100mg or so which is very difficult to measure in water seeing as each ml of water can hold over a gram of salt - that is the scary part.

Mind you the gap between "sleep" which alot of people wrongly term ghb induced coma and ACTUAL GHB inducd coma is quite large, it is another couple of grams otop of the sleep dose (which dissolved in water may be heaps of liquid or may be almost nothing) - that is until there is ANY other cns depressant, then the smallest dose can take you straight to Actual coma& or death. compare this 3gram or so dose to mescaline's 250mg dose, methamphetamine's 50mg dose, psilocin's 5mg dose and salvorin a's .25mg dose ..

moral to the story - if you want ghb, move to where it is legal, make it yourself, take the time to xtallise it so you know your actual dosage and DONT mix it with other depressants..

[ 01. September 2004, 10:03: Message edited by: electro ]

[Zu]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramon:

 

( If I understand how preferential voting works )

---

That's right. A lot of people seem to have the misunderstanding that our system works the same as the US model. In the US voting for a losing (third) candidate is a "wasted" vote. It's a crap system as it allows someone to win that doesn't have anything approaching a majority of support.

By nominating your own preferences in Australia you can give the Greens your primary votes and Labor can still reap the benefits of your second (or third) choice. Just make sure you put Lib/Nat/ One Nation last.

I am terrified at the prospect of having that little c*nt Howard back in power (just imagining the smug look on his face if he won is the stuff of my nightmares). Thankfully our voting system allows us to vote people out as much as it allows us to vote people in.

[Guest electro]

" Thankfully our voting system allows us to vote people out as much as it allows us to vote people in{"

yea but fear and propaganda manages to trick the general public into doing stupid things sometimes ... i couldnt belive it when he got in again last time after so much anger toward him ...fucking boat thing that won him more votes - he'll protect us from boat people ! .. hrm ...

*humms* the herd 77% ...

[gomaos]

My hat off to Bob Brown for openly defending the green's drug policies and standing up to the faschist liberals.

he even challenged dirty johnny to an open discussion of those policies, but that's probably never gonna happen.

i'll be voting as Electro explained.

Re GHB: it's my opinion, that when used properly, meaning NO overdose, it's completely harmless.

The media have absolutely NO clue what they are writing about.

[Torsten]

I think Reville's misconception is the biggest hurdle to political change in Australia. For decades the major parties have drummed into people that voting for minor parties is a lost vote. THIS IS A LIE!!

The preferential voting system allows you to allocate your preferences entirely to your liking, overriding any preference deals the candidate might have made with another party in that electorate, and certainly making sure that your vote is counted NO MATTER WHO WINS.

When I was doing stuff for 'young labor' we were told to drum this lie into people on the way to the poll booth, which was one of the main reasons why i left labor.

By allocating your first preference for the greens you also make sure that they receive a lot more election funding. Each vote attracts a few cents (I think it was 60c), however, a second preference doesn't.

But beware of the preferential voting method!! If you make a mistake such as ticking a box instead of numbering it, or not numbering all the boxes, then your vote is invalid. Do your homework before the election and do not trust the election officials at the booth.

None of this matter if you don't enrol to vote BTW. In case you missed it, enrolments close this week!! (will start separate thread as reminder)

[ 01. September 2004, 11:03: Message edited by: Torsten ]

[Gwydion]

Tort's right, there is a rarely spoken agreement between the major parties to wilfully maintain this ignorance. In fact, a few years back, someone tried to hand out information showing people how to put BOTH parties (Lib and Lab) last. It was entirely legal, but he was arrested and held by court order until after the election- when he was released without charge. Makes the farce a bit clearer, don't it?

Personally, I'm arguing for a vote for Socialist Alliance first, then Greens, then Labor. I don't think anyone ought to be under the illusion that Labor is any better than the Coalition- they are simply the velvet-gloved hand of exploitation to the Liberals' Gauntleted fist.

But the Greens suffer from a few problems- they lack a certain amount of internal democracy that leaves the leadership and 'right' wing in control; and they are far from formulating a serious position towards unions and the working class. This is vital if they want to truly create a sustainable society- which is a pre-requisite for true environmental sustainability. Instead, they place a lot of importance on 'encouraging' corporations to 'go green'- a top-down approach.

The Socialist Alliance is only small so far, but we do offer that broader perspective, while clearly preferencing the Greens as a progressive party over Labor.

Socialist Alliance also works alongside the Greens in movements of all sorts, and, in electorates where we are not running a candidate, we fully support the Greens, and call for a Green vote.

The point is about maximising the 'opposition'. Not just the 2-party capital 'O' Opposition, but the real, democratic expression of the political will of the people. A vote for Socialist Alliance puts more influence in the hands of the Green's left wing (as a challenge to the Eco-capitalists who run the party), as well as putting pressure (and the Fear) on the Labor Left (and Right) by showing growing support, not only for an alternative party of the environment, but for a generally progressive, environmentalist, socially just and working class political movement.

The Greens and the Socialist Alliance are nowhere near the sum of this, but are only the current electoral expressions of it. (Of course, they are not ONLY electoral).

http://www.socialist-alliance.org/

[ 03. September 2004, 16:45: Message edited by: Gwydion ]

[Rev]

Sorry to confuse

I know about the pref voting system and i use it

(BTW i put libs below one nation just so you know how muh i regard johnny)

Im just paranoid that putting labour 2nd might jeopardise the count

so plz explain whats diff 1st 2nd and 3rd are all equal value? or is the 2nd pref 1/2 the value of a first pref

This bit wasnt explained well at school

[ramon]

so plz explain whats diff 1st 2nd and 3rd are all equal value? or is the 2nd pref 1/2 the value of a first pref

 

The way I understand it. If whoever you choose first has enough votes to win then end of story.

If not your vote is given to 2nd preference.

If they have enough votes to win then once again end of story. Else you vote is given to 3rd preference

and so on

[ 02. September 2004, 00:10: Message edited by: Ramon ]

[Torsten]

what ramon said. and yes, the vote is still a full vote.

It is always a good thing to put a minor party in at number 1 knowing full well they won't win anyway. I mean, who really want's the greens to run the economy eh? So by putting the minor party first you ensure that the winning major party knows what you as a voter feel. The parties certainly look at the way people vote as much as who wins. The libs even do it within their own coalition. If they see a seat gets lots of nat votes because of a particular policy then they know this policy caused the changes. eg, many people voted 1 'one nation' in some National Party seats. So the advertising for the next election would be based very much around the issues addressed by One Nation rather than normal government policy.

Both major parties keep a database of the electoral roll, with some information fields added. As they do not fall under F.O.I. nor the privacy legislation of the private sector, they can keep records about which protests you went to, what questions you asked your member (hostile or friendly), or anything else that might help them guess at who you are voting for (things that would be illegal for any body other than apolitical party!!). One of the slimiest ways of finding out your voting preference is to send out postal vote invitations. These are filled in by the voter and sent to the party HQ who issued them. basically, if you send in your postal application on a liberal invitation to the Liberals HQ then it stands to reason that you are voting liberal. This information is maintained by the parties on these databases. And no, this is not a conspiracy story. The liberal party openly abandoned this system 8 years ago, but there is mounting evidence that it was merely substituted with a different system (last election one member sent out two different types of letters to his electorate, which were exactly the opposite of each other. The letters were targeted directly at the relevant individuals they would appeal to). The labor party never got rid of theirs.

Anyway, use your vote to send a clear message that you are not happy with the major parties and that they need to look at the minor parties for some alternate policies. As a right winger you can do that via One nation. As an environmentalist via the greens. As a leftie via the socialists. etc

In most cases these parties already have preference deals with the parties you would feel are the closest in ideals, but this is not always the case. To be certain it is best to vote all the preferences yourself just the way you want them.

For many the preference deals are quite unsuitable anyway. I have two good friends who vote liberal, but want better environmental policies. So they vote 1 Green, 2 Liberal, 3 etc etc.

Do NOT put the major party first unless you are 100% happy with them.