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?