Back in August 2023, a Green called Cate Faehrmann called for cocaine to be made available to drug users under a government controlled market.

In October of that year, the ABC announced that the ACT had decriminalised small amounts of illicit drugs like cocaine, heroine and ice. The attorney general in the ACT is a Green.

Nothing much seems to have been said about this appalling situation until yesterday, when I received a newsletter from ‘Advance’ suggesting that “The Greens in 2024 want cocaine to be as available as a six-pack of beer”.

“Cocaine should be available ‘like alcohol’, say the Greens. With the help of the government-regulated market mentioned above.

Anyone who believes that the Greens are still just tree-hugging ratbags are sorely mistaken.

The ACT Greens website talks about “a more compassionate, evidence-based approach” to drugs.

Hmm!

I suspect that ‘Advance’ has reintroduced this idea of the Greens as part of the put-Greens-last campaign; but, as a conservative organisation (they did the hard yakka on the NO Voice campaign) that's their job.

And, given that a Labor/Green coalition might be needed to get the disintegrating Albanese government another term, voters need to know what Green really means these days.

So many solutions have been offered regarding
our rising drug problem.

1) Tougher penalties to deter both suppliers and consumers.

2) Others argue that the answer lies in not more law
enforcement and penalties, but less.

3) Still others want to "legalize" drugs. In essence,
repeal and disband the current drug law and enforcement
mechanisms in much the same way as the US abandoned its
brief experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

The problem of drug abuse and its related crimes are
issues that require dissection and scrutiny.

There's been no detailed assessment of
the operations we currently have, or of the
meaning of drug legalization. What would legalization
involve? Costs, benefits, trade-offs?

We need to meet the challenges ahead. And there's no better
time than now for a fundamental assessment of whether our
existing responses to this problem are sufficient.

And if not, what should be done?

Well in principle I agree that it is none of the state's business to control people's health, and even if some idiots choose to take horrible drugs like cocaine, etc., then they should still retain the freedom to poison themselves.

But I find it hypocritical when groups campaign for legalising highly toxic drugs while saying nothing about benign and helpful medicines.

Why is it that one can freely obtain a poison like alcohol at the local bottle shop, but needs to see a doctor to obtain life-saving antibiotics and has to do so repeatedly every month or two just to obtain the medicines for their chronic illness which they need to take for the rest of their life?

Yes, I believe in freedom, but even within freedom there are priorities, and some have got them upside down.

More clap-trap from the rabid right, regurgitated by an equally extreme right wing poster. 'Advance' will say anything to promote the propaganda of the extreme.

'Advance’ suggesting that “The Greens in 2024 want cocaine to be as available as a six-pack of beer”. Anyone can "suggest" what they like, I suggest those behind 'Advance' and their supporters want people imprisoned if they don't agree with the 'Advance' line of political clap-trap.

On drug reform, its way over due, the existing approach of punitive action through law enforcement clearly is not working. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours of law enforcement resources has resulted in a growing social problem, with even more crime. The big drug that cause the majority of social problems in society, alcohol, is legal.

The right hasn't pushed for the government to sell cocaine and other drugs. It's the ultra-Left Greens who want that. It can't be denied: even the resident Green loon can't deny it. It is Green policy to legalise cocaine, ice. They have called for it. Not Advance. Not not the right.

Rubbishing the right is not going to change what the appalling Australian Greens want to happen.

The Soviets encouraged Russia to wipe themselves out with vodka. The Australian Greens want to hook Australians on illegal drugs.

What a disgraceful lot they are. Give me the right any day.

ttbn,

I rubbish the claim that; "The Greens in 2024 want cocaine to be as available as a six-pack of beer”. you provide no evidence of that. What has been tried and clearly doesn't work is punitive action through law enforcement alone to control drug use, legal and illegal. With your conservative attitude of maintaining the status quo, it shows a lack of understanding on your part of what is a social problem. I'm not in favour of an open slather, uncontrolled approach to drug use, nor am I in favour of total prohibition, the answer lies somewhere in between. Targeting the end user for punishment through the legal system does not negate the problem, it only consumes resources that could be better deployed elsewhere. Target the suppliers in organise crime is absolutely necessary, and should be continued, but that alone wont eradicate the social problems of drug addiction.

What's your opinion?

Dear Paul,

If I understood you correctly, you still believe that it is OK for states to tell people what they may or may not consume and what they may or may not produce - only that telling people what they may not consume is not very effective/practical, so you rather have the states concentrate on the production side?

Paul

“Rubbish” describes all your squawking. You think that rubbishing other posters is going to shut them up. You rubbish conservatism as being something shameful, when conservatives are proud to be such and see it as the only thing that can combat Green Left communism.

I note that the Greens had their vote halved in the EU elections. And they are more ‘normal’ than the Australian lunatics.

Statistics show that even the under-24s moved to the right.

I don't have to supply any evidence of a statement by someone else. The evidence of the Greens wanting to deal in drugs is on their own websites. Hard drugs have been made legal by Greens in ACT.

What ‘works or doesn't work’ with illegal drugs is beside the point. The Greens have decriminalised drugs in the ACT; the Greens want the federal government to flog drugs to addicts all over Australia.

The policing of drugs in Australia is just as effective as the policing of any other crimes committed. There will always be crime.

The dangerous Greens’ idea of legalising crime is ridiculous and as threatening to society as all their other whacky policies on everything.

You can't bullsh.t your way out of this one.

I find it passing strange that the left want to legalise via regulation drugs like cocaine while at the same time launching a jihad against the entirely safe, and often therapeutic, vaping.

Its very clear that the war on drugs is a failure and has been both clear and a failure for many decades.

Even back in the 1990s I was reading books from law-enforcement officials in the US saying the war was lost and needed to be stopped. So my own view is that there ought not be any restrictions on drug use - or more precisely the restrictions ought to mirror those of alcohol.

We ought to have a system where drugs of all types can be freely bought and sold by regulated businesses and the quality of those drugs be thoroughly vetted and verified by appropriate agencies - just like alcohol. Like alcohol people would be restricted as to how much they could consume while doing other activities - eg driving.

The result would be that the illegal trades would disappear overnight. Prices would stabilise and the strength of the drugs controlled. Its estimated that 30% of all law enforcement is devoted to the war on drugs. That 30% could be reallocated to more fruitful and necessary endeavours. Its estimated that home insurance costs would fall by 37% if the crime associated with maintenance of drug habits were to cease.

All this would be predicated on governments and other organisations ensuring the populace were fully appraised of the dangers of drug taking - just as we do with tobacco. But, in a free society, once a person has all the required information, they ought to be free to put whatever they want in the body. "My body, my choice".

But it'll never happen. There's massive graft and corruption in the system around drugs and the powers that be don't really want to see an end to that.

I hope it will "never happen".

Booze is bad. Smoking is bad. So, let's have all other drugs on the go as well. Of course people who don't do drugs now because they are illegal won't try them out and get addicted - much!

People thinking along those lines are just as mad and bad as the Greens.

The human brain takes 25 years to mature.

Economist Peter Smith reckons that Greens’ brains are stuck at 12 years; Laborites stuck at 16-17 years, and wet Liberals at 18-20 years.

Arrested development is responsible for the wackadoodle ideas around these days.

Examples of these ideas are the NDIS, Bowen's delusion about renewable energy, and now, the 12 year old Greens idea for the government to become drug pushers.

By all means lets all believe that the future is
bleak and that any activity, event, or any attempt
to try and face our drug problem challenges
or any attempt to solve them
will all go badly.

Lets blame the Greens/ Labor/ Independents,
and all those people who
act in a certain way that doesn't conform

Lets live in the past - rather than opening our minds
to a range of possibilities available.

Lets try not to see anything good or constructive
in others or in their
ideas and suggestions.

And see where that gets us.

If we're going to target just some political parties -
shouldn't we criticize and hold them all accountable?

Of course, its easy to claim that legalising drugs will cause bad things to happen. Yes, some people who haven't tried cocaine or speed or ecstasy or dope will have access to it and try it. And yes, for some of those people, the result will be less than optimal. So if you want to see only the downside, then that's what you'll see.

But don't kid yourself that you're see the whole picture.

Making drugs illegal also has its downside. Massive crime; massive police corruption; massive levels of overdoses due to inconsistent levels of drugs in illegally sold pills. Kids dying because the pill they took today was way more potent than the pill they took last week because they are unregulated. Entire political structures set up (eg border control) to try to stop illegal importation at enormous cost to the society which in the end utterly fails in its aim to stop the trade. Drug gang wars. Addicts unable to get the help they need because they're on the wrong side of the law.

Yep, legalising drugs isn't a perfect solution. Then again, making them illegal isn't a perfect solution. In the adult world we know that it requires a choice between bad and worse.

My view is that legalisation is less bad than what we have now. Not perfect but better. Those who oppose legalisation need to explain why they are comfortable with all the detrimental societal ills that the current drug policies cause.

Number one buffoon and all round nasty "Peter Smith reckons that Greens’ brains are stuck at 12 years; Laborites stuck at 16-17 years, and wet Liberals at 18-20 years." AND ONE NATION supporters have a fully developed brain, the brain of an adult orangutan. And anyone who joined Corny Bananas AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY, unfortunately those fools, they are brain dead and poorer for the experience!

Dear Mhaze,

You wrote that you would like to see drug restrictions mirror those of alcohol.

OK, fine, then why start with legalising the bad guys' harmful drugs while helpful life-saving medicines are still restricted and require a visit to the doctor?

If adult bad guys are allowed to poison themselves just by going to a bottle shop and proving that they are over 18, then why can't good and decent citizens, Moms and Dads, get their necessary medicines just by going to a pharmacy and possibly having to prove there that they are over 18?

Nothing of course stops anyone from seeing a doctor first, if they so choose.

... Oh yeah, ordinary good people, Moms and Dads are too busy working and taking care of their families, they don't have time to lobby, to pressure, to occupy the police force and to get politicians behind them!

ACT Greens drug policy is supported by the broader community including progressive Labor and Liberal voters. But not the 'half a percent' of reactionary ratbags from the extreme right of politics.

The ACT Greens' proposal would remove all penalties for drug possession aligned with the evidence of the amounts people have for personal use. Canberrans should be supported to visit their trusted health services when they are facing drug dependency, the fear of criminalisation drives people away from support. The ACT Greens' believe that the (ACT) government should lead the community in the fight to dismantle the stigma around drugs, while retaining serious penalties for personal possession only serves to continue to stigmatise marginalised people.

It shows how the extreme will resort to a beat up, then lie and misrepresent the facts , read the opening nonsense, a total distortion. Talk of cocaine in a six pack, pure rubbish.

BTW; ttbn The Greens are not the government in the ACT, the majority of government members are Labor 10 seats, Labor is in coalition with 6 Greens, the Liberals have 9 seats.

Dear Paul,

Do the ACT Greens and/or the Greens in general, have a policy for the liberalisation of medicines which presently require a doctor's prescription?

If they do, that may encourage me to vote for them; if not - why not?

Hi Yuyutsu,

The Greens certainly have a policy of liberalisation of medicines on a needs basis. Along with accepted western medicines and practices, alternatives including herbal, Chinese, indigenous etc should be available to those so desiring. But there is always a danger of quackery in medicine, those exploiting the sick by selling false hope. The Greens encourage the sick to consult with health professionals before undertaking treatment of any kind for serious illness.

On drug taking, in my family the biggest problem has always been alcohol, and the consequences of its abuse. On "marijuana" young people don't see its use as a crime. At my home during social gatherings its consumption is allowed out doors only, smelly stuff when smoked inside the house. For me personally I abstain, although one poster on the forum refers to me as 'Nimbin Paul', me thinks the Nimbin tag is to do with drug taking, not true.

mhaze speaks a lot of sense on the subject, but his views might be a little too radical for a conservative like me. ttbn is yet to offer his opinion, preferring to quote his regular sources of buffoons. Foxy is right as she most often is.

Along with the Green Communist destructive idiocy, the West is becoming dumber:

. Aborting babies then importing foreigners to maintain a tax base
. Believing that the essential plant food CO2 causes climate change
. Believing that a country can run on renewable energy
. Believing that democracy can exist without Christianity
. Believing that humans can change their sex
. Believing it's normal to mutilate children to achieve the above
. Believing it's normal for men to play against women in sport
. Believing it's legitimate to politicise the rule of law
. Believing that the family can be destroyed without affect civilisation

Compare our “leaders” with those of the past who developed and defended the West.

. Biden with Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt
. Albanese with Hawke, Curtin, Fisher
. Sunak with Churchill and Thatcher

Some people claim that they are entitled to their opinions.
They're not. They are entitled to informed opinions.
No one is entitled to be ignorant.

Our judgements should be based on facts and we should make
honest attempts to draw our judgements based on
available factual evidence. Facts are verifiable by
research. However they need to be put into context to give
them meaning.

We should not accept half-baked opinions based on unexamined
evidence.

It's called PREJUDICE!

It has no place in serious argumentation - discussions.

Even Jaqui Lambie, mad as she is, recognises Communist China as a bully that is allowed to do as it pleases while our gutless political class clings desperately to the dictatorship for just about everything, instead of working to get us out of the unnatural relationships between a democracy and a Communist dictatorship.

Dear Foxy,

«No one is entitled to be ignorant.»

You are not very tolerant this morning, are you?

---

Dear Paul,

Drugs are not part of my life, never been.
The last time I had alcohol was when I was 21.
I never had a drinking problem, nor anyone in my family.
I find these things repulsive, yet it is none of my business when others consume them, not in my home of course.

«The Greens certainly have a policy of liberalisation of medicines on a needs basis.»

I looked up here: http://greens.org.au/policies/health
and here: http://greens.org.au/policies/drugs-substance-use-and-addiction
But found nothing relevant.

Anyway, what is "needs basis"?

Needs are subjective and relative: in ultimate terms, nobody needs anything, not even to live: of course we generally WANT to live and be healthy, even to be immortal, but where is the need?

The big danger here, is for someone else to dictate for us what we "need". As much as I could read the Greens policies, there are very little differences between them and the present situation, where governments and doctors attempt to override our sense of need with theirs. However, I will still be grateful if you can show me otherwise and point me to appropriate page(s).

A practical example:

I am getting a sore throat and fever builds up, I take the test to exclude the possibility of COVID or flu - it is negative, so I recognise it to be the usual streptococcal infection, of which the drug of choice is penicillin, which I have taken many times before with no side effects. Without antibiotics the situation could deteriorate and even become life-threatening, even waiting a few hours makes the condition more severe, but making a doctor's appointment is difficult, and going out to visit them too as my temperature is rising: if only I could ask a friend to pass by the pharmacy and get me some penicillin...

Will the Greens allow it?
Or perhaps I may instead find at home some veterinary-grade antibiotic, kept for my pet who passed away 4 years ago and use it instead?

Yuyutsu

"Will the Greens allow it".

The Greens are not in a position to allow or disallow anything. They might have some hold over the Labor Party, but even they are getting sick of them. They are already embarrassing Albanese - on top of his doing a good job of that himself.

In the recent EU elections, the Greens got a good kicking. We are not that different from Europeans so, hopefully, they will be brought to book at our next federal election. A lot of the waffle that goes on here and in social media is not reflected in the mainstream population. All is not lost.

As for your problem with the rules for prescription medicines: there are people addicted to prescription drugs too; they are sold illegally by doctor-shoppers. Some of them have ingredients used in illegal drugs. There should be no softening their, either, in my view.

Glad to see that you are not into that other legal, but dangerous and addictive drug, alcohol.

Yuyutsu,

How noticing the "tolerance" of this discussion?

I'm just reacting to it.

Hi Yuyutsu,

To give you an example, if a person has stage 4 cancer then they very well could have a need for chemotherapy, whereas a another person with lots of money has stage 2 cancer wants chemotherapy. Then give a limited supply, who in your opinion wins out the need or the want? Many pharmaceuticals are very dangers drugs, and not always appropriate in some circumstances, that's where professional medical opinion as to their use is necessary. Not sure where you are coming from, do you want these dangerous drugs as freely available as boiled lollies?

Dear Paul,

«Then give a limited supply, who in your opinion wins out the need or the want?»

Penicillin was in limited supply in 1945, not any more.

And even if something IS in short supply in Australian pharmacies, then why deny people the ability to import it themselves from overseas?

Yes, medicines can be dangerous and harmful when misused, yet helpful and life-saving when used responsibly, but cannabis, cocaine, heroin, ice, amphetamines and the like ARE harmful, extremely harmful practically always and yet you agree, even advocate, to have their use decriminalised, mirroring alcohol. Don't you find that approach inconsistent?

As far as I am concerned, everyone is sovereign over their body: I may hate seeing one harming theirs, killing theirs even, but it is never my business and I have no permission to interfere against their will.

I take it that you agree with the above regarding abortions AND regarding harmful drugs like heroin, so why such inconsistency when it comes to medicines?

Voting for a party that intends to forcefully restrict people's sovereignty over their own bodies is akin to doing so myself.
As Hillel the elder said: "That which you would hate being done unto yourself - do not do unto others".

ttbn,

Nice to see you are the head of the local cheer squad for European Nazi's and Fascists. Fortunately for us, your local branch disappeared up its own backside after the 2019 election.

Yuyutsu,

As for abortion I am not in favour of abortion on demand. I see instances where abortion for health reasons is necessary.

You shouldn't have to wait for a surgeon to perform costly open heart surgery on you, you should do it yourself, or have a friend do it for you. Are you not a "sovereign citizen"?

Dear Paul,

«As for abortion I am not in favour of abortion on demand. I see instances where abortion for health reasons is necessary.»

Thank you for clarifying: so there are points of difference between you and the Greens?

«You shouldn't have to wait for a surgeon to perform costly open heart surgery on you, you should do it yourself, or have a friend do it for you»

Since you ask, I do not recommend it, but that should be completely up to you and your friend.

However, what you advocate (freedom of obtaining and using harmful drugs by irresponsible junkies) is far more extreme in that direction than what I wrote about (freedom of obtaining and using common everyday medicines for acute and chronic illnesses by ordinary responsible Moms and Dads).

«Are you not a "sovereign citizen"?»

I am me. I do not answer to any definition.

Dear Ttbn,

«there are people addicted to prescription drugs too»

To tell you a secret, some products that are available on supermarket shelves can also be addictive.

And that is only to speak of objects of addiction that enter through the mouth - what about the others that enter through the eyes and the ears and the nose and the skin? Then what about those who are addicted to fame, fortune and power?

Addiction is part and parcel of our normal human condition: without addictions we wouldn't have come down to this world to begin with - show me someone who has no addictions whatsoever and I will prostrate flat down at the feet of that saint.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thank you for clarifying: so there are points of difference between you (Paul) and the Greens?

Absolutely, as a broad based democratic party, Greens policy is determined at the grass roots level. I would most likely agree with 90% of policy, but differ to varying degrees on the other 10%. I am "conservative" when it comes to abortion and drugs, my views differ somewhat to the general stated party policy. As it would with the majority of members, the same goes for Liberal and Labor party members, where policy is far more imposed from above than it is in the Greens. As for a totalitarian party like One Nation, that ttbn supports, they rely on the policy decisions of the cult leader, in their case its 'The Lovely Pauline' who determines party policy, the little they have disclosed.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for clarifying again - so in this particular case, these sharp inconsistencies of legalising the crazy and unequivocally severely harmful but criminalising the sensible and modest risks, are they yours or the party's?

Hi Again Yuyutsu,

With both legal and illegal drugs there are inherent dangers with their consumption, we know that for a fact. I support a strong education policy which alerts possible users to the potential dangers involved. Ignorance is often the root cause of the problems that lead to undesirable consequences. There is always a lot of misinformation about these things peddled by vested interests, and the ill-informed and gullible are easy prey for these unscrupulous operators. Do people need to be protected from themselves, possibly, do people need to be protected from others, certainly.

Well, that was a waste of time, with only the usual 3 nitwits banging on about nothing - arguing between themselves - as if that’s going to make any difference.

The one and only defender of the decadent and dangerous Greens, as always, used his standard weapon, Pauline Hanson.

How dragging up Hanson and One Nation is an excuse for the Greens' loony behaviour when One Nation has no policies on drugs is a mystery to me.

But then, everything uttered by the Communist Cranks and their supporters is a mystery to normal people.

Dear Paul,

Education against fraud and poisons is non-controversial:
I think that it is should be carried out by parents, just as been in my own case,
while you may think that it should be carried out by the state,
but in any case, children ought to have that knowledge.

- and then, make their own choices in life.

Now I note (but reserve my right to disagree) your view that people should possibly be protected [by the state] even from themselves.

Given that view, how do you reconcile on the one hand this plan of stopping to protect people [through criminal policing and prosecution] from sure and serious harm, to themselves and often to others too, while on the other hand continuing to prosecute people for benign and beneficial actions that carry much milder risks?

What principles, or the lack thereof, possibly stand behind such an obvious inconsistency?

ttbn,

The only reference I made to One Nation on this thread was after you invoked the thoughts of some dill named Peter Smith, who was calling others from the Greens, Labor and Liberal parties as being brain dead. Then you made reference to Communist China, EU elections and Jacqui Lambie. Senility does become a problem for some people.

The Green vote in Germany has dropped from 20.5% to 11.9%, dropping the Green seats in the EU parliament from 71 to 52.

When Germany's emissions dropped by 8.5%, their industrial capacity fell by 8.4%, thanks to the cost of renewable electricity prices soaring. The emissions, and the income, and the jobs have been transferred to South America, where they have more sense on electricity generation.

ttbn,

You prattle on about others not posting relevant to the topic, here is YOU banging on about the Green vote in Germany, the EU parliament and industrial capacity! What a typical dim witted Hansonite YOU are!

p/s This is the same bloke who was led up the garden path by the slick talking Corney Banana and his Australian Conservative Party in 2019. They used his donated dosh to jet set around Australia, living it up in 5 star digs at HIS expense. Then after scoring half a percent of the popular vote, they shot through leaving the poor sod high and dry, ha ha what a turkey! Been crying in your beer about your beloved conservatism ever since.

No wonder the Greens want drugs to be pushed by the government to cut out the other crooks currently doing it.

Australians spend $3.5 million every day on cocaine. 1 in 8 Australians are users.

There was a short talk on the BBC World Service last night about the
legalisation of drugs in the US.
The claim that it would put the criminals out of the business failed.
The criminal activity is even worse now as they are fighting over much
larger amounts of money.
Gang warfare is rife with many arguments solved with murder.

If 1:8 Australians use cocaine, then $3.5 million daily would be a drop in the ocean. Of the illegal drugs in use, Ice (methamphetamines) is the biggest of the hard drugs these days, Over 10 tonnes is consumed annually, mainly imported from Asia, and then often cut with legal drugs obtained from the local chemist. What's seized by law enforcement is only the tip of the iceberg. Cocaine consumption is about 4.5 tonnes, MDMA (ecstasy) about 2.5, tonnes and heroin about 1 tonne.

The illegal hard drug trade in Australia is estimated to be worth between $12 and $15 billion annually. The forum old fart likes to make the stupid claim that the Greens is involved in the legal drug trade, he is a fool. BTW The illegal tobacco trade is estimated at $600 million annually, with only $80 million being seized, and who knows how much the illegal cannabis trade is worth. $25 billion? The legal alcohol industry is around $52 billion annually, but accounts for 60% of drug hospitalisation, long term legal tobacco use adds another 20% to that figure.

Baz

As shown in the U.S, legalisation of drugs doesn't put criminals out of business because the crims are so much smarter than the politicians and bureaucrats, who just want a piece of the action.

It is standard procedure for politicians to ply their bastardry under the guise of 'doing good'.