You are right Rob, the ALP doesn't have a clear harm minimisation drugs policy at all. This is what we assume the Greens federal senators are suggesting that the Australian Greens Party adopts. Less is better as it doesn't confuse anyone. The only difference between the Greens and the major parties is that the other parties demonstrate Greens policy without having policies, and the Greens wear the policy on their sleeve. The outcome is similar. Yet the "war on drugs" is a smokescrean to give more police powers and funding. Insurance companies like this, it looks good on paper.

It will be interesting what Tanya Plibersek, MP for Sydney ALP has to say on Saturday at the Wayside Chapel. It is possible that Tanya Plibersek might also back harm minimalisation experts from St Vincents Hospital. In this seat, it would be the popular choice. If so, this could become a cross partisan debate between Sydney representatives and representatives from other parts of Australia.

In this part of Sydney, we are confronted with more drug users than anywhere else in Australia. We have more stakeholders here trying to remedy the problem.

Residents who have to live with failed police tactics. Residents in Kings Cross, Darlinghurst and Potts Point and Elizabeth Bay (2011, 2010) know how bad it is when you can't even trust your own police. When the war on drugs fails, all you have left is a messy war zone.

This is going right out on a limb, but might just appeal to voters:

1. Criminalise drugs but have minimal consequences for all but dealers. (eg, register of drug users based on being caught with them or in your system, police followup check on a random basis to retest and search for drugs - say 5 vists in the following year and 2 the year after)

2. Skip the next tax cut and use the money to offer a bonus to the drug-free. Say $1000/pa if you have never been convicted of using drugs, $500 if have have been but have been clear based on the random checks for 2 years and nothing if not clean.

Not massive amounts of money invidually, but rewards those who do the right thing, and gives incentive to get back on track even if you do slip up. Probably affordable if you limit it to those over 16 (think of those that experiment between 16 and 18) and those under 65 (anyone older is old enough to be responsible for themselves).

Repeat offenders would wholly disqualify themselves if they were caught using say more than 5 times in a lifetime.

If used in conjunction with other measures this could be quite effective, and if it saves money in the health system and eventually in policing and jails, then will go a long way towards paying for itself.

How about just hanging dealers, after a fair trial of course.