The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Victoria's failure to protect its most disadvantaged citizens is a major vulnerability > Comments

Victoria's failure to protect its most disadvantaged citizens is a major vulnerability : Comments

By Jaime de-Loma Osorio Ricon, published 1/10/2015

DOTE2015 also confirms the enduring cumulative social disadvantage of a small number of localities across Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Jaime, how long have you had this feeling of entitlement to order people around as if they were herds of milking-cattle owned by you and the State, and have you sought professional help for it?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 1 October 2015 10:59:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a load of socialist baloney, Jaime de Loma Osario Ricon.

Unsurprisingly, Jaime is a social worker who wants more taxpayer money so he can do more social work. Naturally, he presents this as a way of saving taxpayer money. Just cough up more dough and we can send less people to prison. Then comes the usual spiel, which nobody but a socialist believes, that all we have to do is legalise drugs and things will be better.

To begin with Jaime, certain ethnicities, one of which you are a member, are very disproportionately represented in very serious criminal behaviour, especially drug trafficking. The best way to prevent rising drug abuse is to introduce a much more discriminatory immigration policy, which excludes those ethnicities already notorious for their very high rates of criminal behaviour and welfare dependency. But you won't support that, will you? The more dysfunctional minorities, the more work for social workers. And you want your entire extended family to come to Australia, because the Yanks are fed up of Hispanic minorities causing mayhem in the USA, and they won't let you into America.

Another way to reduce drug related crime, is to prevent any media from presenting drug abuse and serious criminal behaviour to our young people as fun and fashionable behaviour. That means banning any pop (and especially rap songs) songs which promote violence, misogyny, and serious drug abuse. Next comes the movie industry which promotes a drug abuse lifestyle as adventurous and fun. If we as a society claim to be outraged at the effects of the drug "ice" on our communities, why in heaven's name did we allow a TV show like Breaking Bad to be shown on prime time TV? It is incredible that we have no hesitation in banning cigarette advertising, then we allow out entertainment media to use on screen heroes to promote drug abuse. Then we wonder why there are now so many "incidental" smoking scenes in movies.

It just goes to show how cigarette manufacturing executives are some much more smarter than today's "intellectuals" .
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 2 October 2015 4:42:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My only non-prescription drug is coffee. I started drinking it because I thought it would make me cool. Now I drink up to four cups a day. If the government tried to take my coffee away, yes, I'd buy it illegally at an inflated price, and I'd accept the risk.

This article is complete common sense. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of prohibition in the US between 1920-1933 will understand that however you feel about some aspects of human behaviour, legislating against things like addiction just won't work. That's partly because the drugs (e.g. alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, ice) create a physical craving, so people want them more than they want a lot of other things that might be offered as substitutes. But also, the law's the opposite of a deterrent: it creates a culture around drugs, and makes people want these things more. Regulation (e.g. plain packaging, age restrictions) are the best that can be hoped for - along with regarding drug use as a condition or a health issue, not a crime. Look to Portugal for a really enlightened and workable approach.

There's nothing in this opinion piece that doesn't make perfect sense. And clearly the author knows from his daily experience what the problems (and solutions) are.
Posted by Nancy Elgato, Friday, 2 October 2015 8:44:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very worthwhile insight from someone who obviously knows what he's talking about from years of direct experience.

It's pretty obvious that the current approach is not working, so it has to be time to try something new.

Decriminalisation, a shift to harm-reduction and diverting funds from enforcement/punishment to rehabilitation, can no longer be written-off as radical or risky. There is solid proof that it is effective, evidence-based policy. We just need good leadership to help the electorate understand that and quell the moral panic.

Portugal is a great case study.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
Posted by Wollemi Pine, Friday, 2 October 2015 9:11:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would agree with the regulation of prohibited drugs.

How long is it now that drugs have been illegal, and what has that rule proved.

The law can not be enforced , so regulation is the only way to go. These drug addicts are a dead loss, in police and medical terms.
The best idea would be to regulate so the pushers are off the street, at the same time you are accessing and have advantage with the addicts.

Everyone has to agree, making drugs illegal has not worked at all . Neither did prohibition of alcohol.

Instead of alcohol being an illegal substance the govt; now relies on it.
Posted by doog, Friday, 2 October 2015 2:14:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Careful there Jaime, it sounds like a bad case of over servicing there. We should cut the budget for such frivolous activity.

You do make a good case for prisons to be made a hell of a lot less pleasant places. If half the old lags are coming back regularly for a bit of rest & recreation, when ripping off the public becomes too tiring.

Those huge prison costs are a good argument for a return to a chain gang system. Say 10 to a chain, issued with picks & shovels, we could rent them out to road builders. 2 or 3 chains could probably replace a bulldozer & save a lot of emissions

Oh, & if that criminal woman has a toddler, it should immediately be removed, & be given in adoption to someone prepared to put in the effort to raise it properly.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 2 October 2015 6:03:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia as a nation has a duty of care to protect the most productive and valuable members of it's society, not the other way around. The concept that "the rich" should subsidise "the poor" is a good principle only up to a point. That point, is when unproductive " poor" realise that they can sponge off the productive "rich" forever, and the numbers of "poor" just keep increasing through immigration and birth rate differentials, (along with their political clout) until the "rich" get sick and tired of being ripped off. At that point, the productive "rich" (read "anyone who gets up every morning and goes to work") will flee the place, and go to some other place where productive people are welcome. Look at Detroit USA, and learn from history.

The problem for productive people, is that we are running out of places to go once the unproductive increase their population and take over political control. What Jaime de-Loma Osario Ricon and his social worker socialist friends are doing, is essentially running a protection racket. He is saying that productive people must fork over more dough, or he and his co workers will not be able to keep the unproductive and counter productive ratbags we fear and loathe under control.

Jaime's claim that legalising drugs is better than prohibition can be seen as Jaime and his co workers touting for work. Legalising extremely addictive drugs will mean a vast increase in addicts and in other counter productive dysfunctionals. That will necessitate a vast increase in the numbers of police officers, prison guards, lawyers, and of course social workers to deal with the increase. "Buggins Law of Social Workers" states that "Social problems increase in direct proportion to the number of social workers employed to solve them."

That may be good for Jaime and the public service, but bad for the prosperity of our nation. Sooner or later, Australia will revert to a totally dysfunctional and bankrupt society, the sort of place which Jaime fled from in the first place. Where will you go to after you have ruined Australia, Jaime?
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 4 October 2015 5:15:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr LEGO,

This article was an attempt to contribute to public debate about an issue that I consider very important. I would welcome any attempt from your part to address the arguments used in my piece using evidence or logic.

Unfortunately you seem to prefer personal attacks, generalisations and wrong assumptions. I am not a social worker, I do not consider myself to be a socialist and I definitely did not flee my country of origin. I also feel I have reasonably contributed to this country's society since I have been here, even if you clearly would prefer for migrants of certain ethnic origins to be prevented from settling in Australia.

In relation to the point you make about the consequences of legalisation, there is a mounting body of evidence indicating that rates of drug abuse have decreased in those jurisdictions that have attempted to regulate rather than to prohibit drug consumption. Portugal as a recent example and Holland as a more established one are two examples that come to mind.

Best regards,

Jaime de Loma-Osorio
Posted by Legolas, Sunday, 4 October 2015 11:05:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego Do you think the status quo is ok. No need for a system change.

I think it best to strive for a solution rather than do what is being done now. Which is not solving the scourge of illicit drugs.
Drugs worth multi millions selling on the streets is never going to stop while that sort of money is to be had.

How do you know numbers will increase if the substance was controlled.

Once users are in an environment of not buying of the street. You have control of human flesh to manipulate.

Besides that the relevant authorities could be self funded. With no correction in action we are going to be paying forever for the misery that is caused by drugs being available on the street, plus the costs of the authorities trying to alleviate the problem as is.
Posted by doog, Sunday, 4 October 2015 11:21:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Osario.

I treat with suspicion and deep mistrust any public servant such as yourself, who wants more money to solve Australia's social problems. Public servants presenting their own departments self interest in terms of high minded idealism is a very effective tactic, and it does work very well will naive young idealists like Susie and Doog, but it won't work with me.

And of course I prefer that migrants from failed, dysfunctional and alien societies to be prevented from immigrating to my country. Multiculturalism is exactly like Socialism, how many times does it need to fail before "intelligent" people realise that it does not work? The importation of some ethnic groups into western societies has been a social and economic catastrophe. That is self evident and beyond dispute. The suburbs these ethnicities inhabit become ghettoes with high rates of criminal behaviour, welfare dependency, and now terrorism. If you really want to reduce crime, support a more discriminatory migration policy which excludes the most troublesome minorities. But you won't do that, will you? If you supported such a commonsense solution, which would not cost the Australian taxpayer a penny, your own staff at the Banksia Gardens Community Service Centre would burn you at the stake for conduct unbecoming a trendy, left wing, ideological zealot.

Holland legalised marijuana and the last I heard, they were backpeddalling and trying to stop "drug tourist" non citizens from coming to Holland to get stoned. All that their stupid policies did was make Holland attractive as a tourist destination to the sort of people they prefer to keep out of the place. Nobody is stupid enough to legalise physically addictive drugs, because even socialists are smart enough to figure out the consequences if they did. Whatever statistics you claim support your case, I would treat with as much distain as the climate statistics from the Climategate guys at the East Anglia Climate Research Institute.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 4 October 2015 8:41:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Doog.

No, I do not support the status quo. Most illegal drug abuse in Australian society is a product of our failed immigration policies, coupled with our failure to effectively control the entertainment media which is now the unofficial advertising arm of the illegal drug industry.

Vietnamese, Arab, and Chinese, and are very disproportionately represented in drug trafficking, according to ABS statistics concerning "Prisoners by country of birth." The Vietnamese Sydney suburb of Cabramatta and the Vietnamese Brisbane suburb of Springvale are Australia's heroin capitols. You could argue that Australia once had a moral obligation to take Vietnamese refugees from South Vietnam, and I would agree with you. But due to the very high incidence of Vietnamese drug trafficking, it is insanity to keep importing people from that country. Deporting those guilty of serious criminal behaviour is the most efffective way of preventing Vietnamese crime. Assassinated Labor MP Peter Newman once declared that "deportation is the only thing the Vietnamese criminals fear."

If we ban advertising for cigarettes, why do we tolerate a pop music industry which quite openly promotes drug abuse to our youngest generation? Overdose deaths among pop stars is now so common that you can hardly be considered a serious pop star unless you have OD'd. Some pop songs contain direct references supporting drug abuse. Songs are named ECSTASY by Bone, Thugs, and Harmony. LET'S GET HIGH by Dr Dre. Youth disk jockeys constantly make casual references to illegal drugs, implying that drug taking is fashionable and cool. One Australian magazine listed the most fashionable nightclubs in Perth, where the cities fashionable young set could be seen dancing to the music, "clutching their water bottles."

Singapore does not seem to have a serious problem with drugs, but then again, the Singaporeans are smart enough to hang those who kill their kids with drugs.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 4 October 2015 9:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego The country is failing to protect people from drugs. The question is what do you suggest we do about it.

Your anti immigration stance does not solve any problem.
Posted by doog, Monday, 5 October 2015 1:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You've got this just about right LEGO, but there is one important point to add to your "Buggins Law of Social Workers" where social workers augment the problem.

The fact is that the number of social problems has to increase every year to fill the case book of every social worker graduated from a university each year.

To improve this we must totally defund humanities departments in all universities. We all ready have more social workers than we can afford, or could possibly ever use productively this centaury.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy