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?