Richard di Natale has backed another loser. He has put his money on the belief the Abdel-Magied activist had been denied entry to the U.S because she was a Mulsim, when the fact of things is that Abel-Magied tried to get into the country on a visitor's visa instead of the speaking visa that was required.

Around the same time, that raging Muslim, Molly Meldrum was also denied entry to the U.S. Molly talk it on the chin with a laugh, but di Natale had to blame politics – and in particular, Trump would, you believe, and discrimination against Muslims.

I know that the Greens don't have a lot going for them, but they could go some way to redeeming themselves by dumping di Natatle, whose buffoonery knows no bounds.

The Greens know they are on track, when a far right sympathize like ttbn has a moan about them. Richard Di Natale must be doing a good job, ttbn advises that he should be immediately replaced. Who with one of his favourites, Corny Banana or the Lovely Pauline.

The Greens must be of great concern to the far side, as they spend an inordinate amount of time and resources attacking them. Don't care what these extremists have to say, as long as they don't ignore us and keep saying something.

It reminds me of the time here in Sydney, when the Rev Fred (CDP), stood up in Parliament and loudly criticized some art gallery for displaying a nude sculpture. The day before the Rev Fred's condemnation the gallery was lucky if it got a man and his dog in to have a look. The day after, they were lined up for two city blocks to have a peep. Amazing what a little free publicity can do.

So Paul are you saying Abdel-Magied protested for the publicity; not that her denial of entry was because she entered on a tourist visa while her intent was a speaking tour of the USA?

Poor effort, Paul. Calling me 'far right’ - which is patently absurd - doesn't excuse the rantings of a fruit loop like di Natale. Doing a 'good job’? Yep. A good job of making a fool of himself and the group of people he is supposed to be leading.

di Natale and the Greens get 'attacked’ because they are good sport. No other group in politics continually whines about everyone and everything else because they are too ineffectual to make any sort of impact in their own right. They will never make an impact as their low and always falling vote attests. Negativity is their hallmark. They will be scratching to survive with Nutty Natale. Who will be next, I wonder. Andrew Bartlett. Good choice there. He sunk the Australian Democrats. Just the bloke to put the Greens out of their misery.

Oh. Now that you've put me back into 'far right’ camp, I suppose you have withdrawn my 'touch of green’ status for my opinions on live sheep exports. No doubt about it Paul, you are inconsistent, all over the place like the proverbial mad woman's poop. Perhaps you should be leading the Greens.

Hey guys - what's with all the name calling?

If you disagree with someone's opinion - provide the
evidence and refute it. Don't stoop to personal insults.
Freedom of speech and all that - remember?

Paul,

We are laughing, but not with you.

Shadow, how about providing one of you famous links from the Murdoch gutter press. Months ago you claimed an arrest in the Beat Up Bolt case was imminent. Well where is it, wrong again, do you think I care what you members of the rabid right think.

ttbn, I accept from time to time I agree with what you post. On the live sheep issue, I think you are correct.

Even another member of the far right, Mussolini, got something correct, he got the trains to run on time.

Shadow, there is still hope for you, do you know anything about train timetables?

Shadow shares his amusement with us, and for reasons known only to himself, Paul demands press links of him; and then moves onto the irrelevance of the dated Bolt-Bashing incident. The reasoning of the repartee is beyond me: perhaps it's the strain of his needing to pretend that di Natale is sane and statesman like, and Comrade Rhiannon is really a gorgeous little dolly bird.

Hi Paul,

Please accept my apology as an extreme right-winger for pointing out that Abdel-Magid attempted to enter the US on a visitor's visa, which did not allow any work or remuneration for any services, and that she attempted to enter to give a lecture or seminar (you may know much more about that than me) for which she expected to get paid. Forgive me for pointing out that that would have breached the law in any country, a 'visitor' receiving remuneration without the right papers allowing employment.

I regret terribly that sometimes the truth can be extremely right-wing. Far easier to ignore it :)

Cheers,

Joe

Paul,

Lying again!! I know that for the greens the truth is inconvenient, but your continuous telling of bald face lies is worrying.

"I never claimed that an arrest was imminent" and you have had plenty of opportunities to prove that you are not a liar and have failed.

No wonder the greens are so untrustworthy.

Paul's comment, "di Natale must be doing something right", to have the loony right wingers on here all puffed up and panting was accurate, except he chose the wrong topic and thread to make the statement.

The fact is, according to US customs, Yassmin Abdel-Magied was doing a speaking tour and was therefore on the wrong visa.

If you watch any of the border control shows from all countries they are all very strict on such things and rightly so.

Yassmin Abdel-Magied like everyone on the planet should be treated exactly as everyone else and therefore she was denied entry.

Could there be other circumstances not told to us?...Of course, but the visa thing seems a pretty open and shut case and she had the wrong one.

Be careful what you say though Paul.. When some of these people hyperventilate they might actually fluke getting some extra oxygen to their brains...and that could cause a disaster for them... They may actually think!

Australia needs a third party and the Greens are doing a great job!

Hyperventilate on that losers from the right...lmao

I bet Paul is laughing loudly that such a simple comment has you all panting and sucking in the big ones...lmao I know I am...lol

Op2,

"......lmao I know I am...lol"

Well, if you didn't know that your behind was about to fall off, who would?

Of course The Donald is not going to be to receptive to someone like Yassmin Abdel-Magied with her controversial views. In The Donald's eyes Yassmin would fail on several counts. She is a woman, well not the type that stimulates The Donald, a Muslim, now that is a big no no, and she is intelligent to boot, another failing.

Anyway, there are bigger fish to fry. The Greens through the leader Richard Di Natale has called for the legalizing of cannabis use for Australians over the age of 18. Seen as a sensible move to take the drug out of the control of criminal dealers. I am sure even the forums hard right contributors will support this proposal. Prohibition has failed. the drug is in common everyday use by many Australians.

//I am sure even the forums hard right contributors will support this proposal.//

I'm not so sure, Paul. It would mean supporting law-abiding farmers over outlaw bikie gangs.... can you really our resident Tories getting behind our farmers like that?

Hi Paul,

That's an interesting argument, legalising marijuana even though it may - who knows for sure - cause psychosis and mental impairment later in life. . And surely it should apply to other offences too ? Domestic violence seems to be always with us, criminal punishment doesn't seem to work. So why not legalise it ? That would save a huge number of people from being punished for what is probably an unavoidable psychological condition anyway, the desire to dominate. Let's call for the legalisation of domestic violence ! When do we want it ? Now !

Thanks, Paul, your logic is impeccable. Who could possibly disagree ?

Cheers,

Joe

//That's an interesting argument, legalising marijuana even though it may - who knows for sure - cause psychosis and mental impairment later in life//

So, not like alcohol then. [sarcasm]

Toni, well at least we have tobacco as an alternative healthy legal drug. Joe will agree, no one was ever harmed by having a pack of fags a day. [sarcasm]

Toni,

I've had to deal with individuals who were intoxicated on grog and those who were on a cloud through the "Leaf", the latter were much more amenable to reason.
The particular cases that come to mind both wanted to walk to New Zealand or somewhere else East of Middle Head Beach (North Coast, NSW).
The one on the grog had to be forcibly restrained, there were other incidents involving other people and alcohol won hands down for violence.

Hi Paul,

As a light smoker, I'm all for the most rigorous controlling of tobacco; and of alcohol, for that matter. I'm not sure if smoking affects non-smokers to the same extent, perhaps not, so the main damage from smoking is to the smokers themselves; they pay the price for their addiction.

Alcoholics and ordinary drunks certainly do damage to themselves but worse, they do harm to others. As a light drinker, I would be happy if being drunk and disorderly, particularly drunk and violently disorderly, was an offence, if it isn't already.

Is that what you meant ? So we are in total agreement then ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

I see the harm that all drugs do, both the legal and illegal. I am very much anti drug, I don't smoke, but do drink in moderation. In the case of the drug marijuana it has become so socially acceptable, particularly among the young, that they do not see its use as "illegal".
What Di Natale and the Greens are saying is the anti marijuana strategy we have in place now is not working, prohibition has failed. We need to look at the reality and move to control the supply and use of the drug in legal ways.

Just to give you some perspective at least three of my neighbours smoke weed. If I wanted some I could get it from them, or from the pub down the road. They have it home delivered by taxi! If I was to call the local cop shop and report; "Officer, my neighbours are in their backyard smoking cannabis!", the copper would say "And what do you want us to do about it."

I wonder if di Natale smokes weed himself, of is he just wanting everybody else to be off their trolley enough to vote Green.

My only objection to the legalising of weed is how it affects people's actions in day to day life.

Having spent some time with people who smoke I noticed that they just seemed peacefully drunk.

There is the problem.

Obviously this wasn't a scientific study but I noticed that they would have been incapable of driving a car, or any other vehicle for that matter. It was very much like watching a drunk.

Also what affect will smoking dope have on children? We know that alcohol in the home can be a major cause of child neglect and worse, so how will dope be any different?

Do we really need another mind altering substance in society?

People will grab all sorts of statistics to justify their position but often these presentations are tainted.

For instance in the USA, in states where weed has been decriminalised, the movement of illegal weed has dropped to half. Well der... Whilst this is a good outcome, because people now have their own little weed plants, how does this protect children and others in our community when they jump in a car when the munchies hit?

Personally I have never tried the stuff but from observation I am most concerned about proper studies being done first in Australia.

I don't have a concern over medical marijuana except also for the above

Come, come, ttbn, you vote for Corny Banana and the Lovely Pauline, and you are right, far right, out of the trolley.

Op2,

I'm with you on marijuana, having spent a lot of time in communities where smoking it was the norm.
I never saw any violence induced by it, but we non-users often had to do the driving and were always watchful where the axes, chainsaws and whipper-snippers were concerned.

Hashbrowns on the menu were OK it was the green cookies that had to be avoided, I almost ate one but was stopped before taking a bite; it was my general experience that users, when aware of a non-user, would always do the right thing and give a warning also they'd nearly always light up on one's lee side so that one didn't get the secondhand smoke, which could be quite powerful.

Issy, if you want to share a joint with Op2 and he/she is willing I'm not against it, as you said "I'm with you on marijuana" that's cool. I can see you were into the 1960's counter culture, alternate lifestyle, spent a bit of time out Nimbin way did you, "having spent a lot of time in communities where smoking it was the norm". ha ha.

I have known a lot of 'pot heads' myself, and I totally agree they are "peacefully drunk" much more tolerable than most 'piss heads'. BTW I haven't smoked weed in years myself, and I was never more than a social smoker. I don't defend it as harmless, its not. Although having some recent experience with medical cannabis, I can see the positive use there.

What I see both in my family and in the broader community is that the social use of marijuana, particularly by the young, is to them totally acceptable, as acceptable as alcohol is to us. Its impossible to enforce prohibition (as the Yanks once famously found out) when people do not see themselves as law breakers. With prohibition comes the criminal involvement, organized crime. Plus society pours in millions trying to combat a ever growing problem without success, when those resources could be better spent elsewhere.

In my experience, I never came across a case of a dysfunctional family with family violence, with one of the causes being the over use of marijuana, though plenty involving alcohol abuse.

Highly amusing how people who often chunter on about the 'science being in' on things like the global warming/expensive electricity scam who totally ignore the science that proves just how damaging weed is the the human brain, especially to the brains under 25 years of age. I have a 28 year old granddaughter who ruined her life with the stuff. She is schizophrenic, and will be on medication, and the dole, for the rest of her life. Her second daughter, 8 years old, is a very disturbed little girl because of her mother's addiction and the fact that her blow-in, feral father was also a schizo thanks to the weed.

So up yours, di Natale, and up yours OLO plonkers who think marijuana is good for bit of harmless relaxation. You are dispicable people or, at the very least, ignoramuses who need to get out more.

ttbn, no argument from me I just posted " I don't defend it (marijuana) as harmless, its not."

You either have not read what Di Natale said, or you misunderstand, or for your own political motives you misrepresent it. All your "up yours" bunk is nonsense. If the girl had been addicted to legal alcohol she would be no better off. But one bad bad, does not make another bad good.
Read the statement before you throw stones.

Hi everyone,
Regarding cannabis I think it would be mindful to start with the 'Harm Principle', that says people should be free to live as they choose so long as it does not harm others, as well as all the 'Pro's and Con's'.

My main argument in support of cannabis use is this:
That people struggling through relationship / emotional issues be given the CHOICE to use cannabis rather than alcohol. The only legal option is alcohol (or prescription anti-depressants) and that in my opinion isn't doing the greater community any favors.

But cannabis can and does induce schizophrenia in some people, but as far as I know there's no way identify who those people at risk are exactly. If we are to contemplate legalising it, research must be done to get to the bottom of it, it'd be negligent not to do so, as some people would become more 'at risk' if legalisation went ahead.

In the bigger picture, I believe there's two main issues which will cross paths at some point in the future, one is the push for a cashless society, and the other is the sale and use of illegal drugs.
I think at some point a lot of drugs might end up becoming legalised, regulated (and quality control) and sold by government.

Regarding the Greens supporting this issue, well we probably should've seen it coming. I'm fairly sure this is one of GetUp! and Soros agenda's and that Soros may have some interests in the cannabis business.

Amen to that, Paul.
I've never smoked marijuana as I didn't come into contact with it until after I'd given up smoking, for the umpteenth but finally successful time; had I still been smoking I'd probably have given it a go.
I have been around Nimbin etc. but spent my initial time with the alternatives at Middle Head Beach over the course of the Sand Mining Protest in 1980

See 1980 in this timeline: http://www.teachingheritage.nsw.edu.au/section03/timeenviron.php

That's not me on the Cross but I helped to put him up there.

Paul,

That's a cunning little artifice of yours: someone says something you don't like, and you pronounce that they haven't read or understood the 'truth' of the matter. I suppose that that works on some people.

I thought that someone might benefit from my first hand experience of what marijuana can do, but you of course don't need to learn anything, and I can't see why you would even comment. Your reference to alcohol has no bearing whatsoever on the subject.

As I understand it Mr Di Natale is for the legalisation
of marijuana predominantly because he wants to take it
out of the hands of criminal syndicates and gangs so
that they don't control the market - and have it in a
tightly controlled health market.

It is a debate worth having.

Having said that, however, I'm not sure where I stand on
this issue. I've read all the pros and cons of legalisation.
But I'm not fully convinced that carte blanche legalisation
is the answer because the drug does have different effects
on different people. That's why we have certain drugs that
are available by prescription only - under the guidance of
a doctor. The side effects of any drug can have serious
repercussions for some people. Allowing the drug to be used
for medicinal purposes is a different issue - especially
if it can help people such as cancer patients to cope.

As far as Yassmin not being allowed entry into the
US? The lady in question should not have risked
trying to get into the country on a tourist visa
if she was serious about keeping her speaking engagement.
She should not have chanced it, even though she's done
this previously. All new American President's desire
a fresh start, regarding both domestic policies and
foreign diplomacy. That's part of the reason that
people elect new leaders, they want change. Therefore
either the lady herself, or her advisers should have
been warned about checking her visa before attempting to
enter the country. Mr di Natale would have been wise not
to comment.

Paul,

It's a her on the Cross. my memory just kicked in.

Hi Foxy, thanks for joining the conversation, the Greens are not proposing that marijuana should be available from the lolly counter at the corner store.
What we have is a large section of the community, probably several million people, from a cross section, that use marijuana for recreational purposes. They do not perceive themselves as doing anything wrong. There are laws in place that prohibit the drugs supply and use. Laws that require lots of resources to enforce, in my lifetime with 60 years of prohibition, law enforcement has not been effective in curtailing either the supply or the use of marijuana. All that prohibition has succeeded in doing is bring the criminal element into the equation, and we know what that does. Criminals do not limit themselves to the marijuana market, they have used profits from that area to finance the supply of hard drugs and other criminal activity. The criminals like the present arrangement, it works in their favour.
If we are willing to admit our failure, then we can look at the alternatives, and unfortunate the reality is the only alternative is the legal control of the supply and use of the drug. That's what The Greens are on about. If I had a magic wand, alcohol would disappear, tobacco would disappear, and all those illegal drugs including marijuana would also disappear, I would be a real wowser, but unfortunately there is no magic wand, and what we have to do is pull our heads out of the sand, and make the best of a bad situation.

Hi paul,

Interesting logic: does it apply to domestic violence e as well ? After all, domestic violence has been with us (or more usually with women) forever, so why all the effort trying to stamp it out - why not just legalise it ? Anyway, marijuana just makes you a bit more relaxed and dopey, a bit like quaaludes, you know, the date-rape drug.

But as you suggest, if a crime is impossible to eradicate, why not just let it go ? Rape, murder and bank corruption seem to be ineradicable, so why not just run with them ? All that would save expenditure on police, jails, rehabilitation programs (which rarely work anyway) and the courts.

Don't you love progressive legal philosophy ?

Cheers,

Joe

“They do not perceive themselves as doing anything wrong.”

Come on! They don't see breaking the law as 'doing anything wrong'? Using “marijuana for recreational purposes”? Using mind-altering substances because they can't handle life is what they are doing. And, it's not criminals that the average person has to worry about: it's weak, pathetic drug and alcohol users who are the biggest threat to us, mainly on the roads. RBT police are not testing for marijuana for the fun of it. As many, if not more, drivers are being pinged for marijuana use as they are for alcohol.

This business about illegality not controlling the use of drugs is is piss weak; legalising it is going to solve the problem – how? The government will tax it, and just like alcohol, there will be even more of it around. Governments will be encouraging it for the money, while still hypocritically talking about 'moderation'.

As for the medicinal properties of marijuana – bulldust. If there was any truth in it, pharmaceutical companies would have tied up licences to produce it in prescription only form years ago.

Marijuana is a very, very dangerous substance, up there with alcohol, which is legal, and we see every day the havoc that wreaks on innocent lives because it is poison to the brain.

And dropkicks like Di Natale want another legalised life and home wrecker; and he has dropkick supporters. No, they are more than dropkicks, they are evil.

Hi Joe, throwing in those red herrings is nonsense, it might deliver a degree of smugness for you, but does nothing to deal with the growing problems caused by a prohibition on marijuana. To be consistent you must support a prohibition on alcohol and tobacco. The harm cause by those two legal drugs is irrefutable, so strong legal measures need to be taken to stop their use. Agree?

"Rape, murder and bank corruption seem to be ineradicable" the majority of perpetrators are caught and punished, not the case with dope suppliers or users.

Why not use the same argument for speeding on the roads? Most speeding offences are never prosecuted, those that are, are relatively few in number, and many road users continue to speed. The fact is the government believes the amount of resources put in to combat the crime is appropriate to the desired outcome. That is not an over excessive amount of speeding, and not overly costly enforcement, fines see to that. A happy balance, not the case with marijuana. Not to mention the community outrage should you decriminalise those offences you put forward. Again not the case with marijuana.

One positive that would come from the decriminalizing of marijuana would be the removal of the necessity for legal hunters in State Forests to report finds of crops of the drug to police.

As it stands at the moment when a hunter coming across such a crop, he (she) is in the horns of a dilemma; if the crop is under surveillance then he is going to be asked why he didn't report the find.
The hunter, therefore, takes a position reading on the Satnav and phones the relevant police (providing that there is coverage).

'Tis said that this is one of the reasons that the Greens oppose hunting in State Forests, it harms their mates' productivity.

Dear Paul,

My older brother had smoked pot all of his life.
He used to be have his own band in the sixties,
(made several records) -
and the Bee Gees were once his back-up singers.
He was a very strong part of the early music industry
in this country. He now lives in Byron Bay.

Anyway, to make a long story short - he gave up
smoking pot a few years back,
because he'd developed a heart condition.
He's had a triple-by-pass, and today suffers from all
sorts of ailments including sleep apnea.
His health is not the best and it concerns me greatly
as he's such a lovely gentle bloke.

Perhaps now you will understand my concern about having
marijuana legalised. It does appear to have consequences.
I think that any drug that is addictive - be it on
prescription or not - should be monitored and used safely
under the care of a medical professional

//Interesting logic//

Interesting logic indeed, Joe. Your position would seem to be that prohibition of grass is a fine thing because grass is potentially harmful, albeit only directly to the user, and we should prohibit things that are harmful. Which is not an unreasonable position to take.

I just don't understand why you don't think alcohol should be prohibited in the same way, given that from a medical point of view it carries considerably greater risk of harm for the user than marijuana, and also that, like the drug 'ice', makes those intoxicated considerably more prone to extreme violence and risk-taking behaviour.

Is it possible that the reason you think alcohol shouldn't be prohibited in the same way is because they tried that in America last century, and it was a dismal failure? That rather than stopping people from drinking, it just stopped honest businessman from turning a profit on it and allowed gangsters to line their pockets instead, with the knock on effect of making the gangsters more powerful. It did, however, make the alcohol that people were drinking more dangerous: without government regulation you can sell people any old rot-gut, because there are no standards to stipulate that your moonshine must contain less than x% methanol, and no regulation to ensure that those standards are being met. But hey, at least you're sending out a tough message on crime... sort of, if you ignore the bit where you're actually aiding & abetting organised crime.

And therein lies the crux of the problem, Joe: that by attempting to curtail the harm caused by a drug by criminalising it, you actually ending causing more harm than would be caused by legalising and regulating it. Now surely if the role of criminal law is to prevent harm, and criminalising something increases harm, the sensible thing to do is not criminalise it?

//Anyway, marijuana just makes you a bit more relaxed and dopey, a bit like quaaludes, you know, the date-rape drug.//

Ludes? Seriously? Have you been frozen in a block of ice for the past 40 years or something? Ludes aren't a thing anymore, Joe.

'The' date-rape drug these days in rohypnol. But just as with quaaludes, it's use as a date-rape drug is dwarfed by that of the most popular date-rape drug - your friend alcohol.

I've never tried ludes, but I doubt they'd have a similar effect to marijuana. Ludes are a depressant, like alcohol, and I'd make an educated guess that their effects are probably closer to alcohol intoxication - hence their popularity as a date rape drug. Pot doesn't render one insensible in the way that high dosages of depressants do.

//My older brother had smoked pot all of his life...

Anyway, to make a long story short - he gave up
smoking pot a few years back,
because he'd developed a heart condition.//

Smoking... well there's ya problem right there. Smoking anything is bad for your health. Happily, marijuana does not have to be smoked to be enjoyed: it can be ingested, which gets you high without fouling up your lungs.

Brownies, people: they're not hard to make.

Toni,

"Brownies, people: they're not hard to make."

'Greenies' is more appropriate, from what I remember of their appearance, 'Brownies' would be a bit lacking in the vital ingredient or over cooked.

'Tis said (by The Shooters and Hooters) that this is one of the reasons that the Greens oppose hunting in State Forests, it harms their mates' productivity. Another Is Miseb Porky!

Tis said those drug crops in the bush are being cultivated by so called law abiding hunters. It is then on sold to their mates in organized crime.

Foxy, and that all happened to your brother while the drug was illegal. That's not success

//'Greenies' is more appropriate, from what I remember of their appearance, 'Brownies' would be a bit lacking in the vital ingredient or over cooked.//

If your brownies are green, I'm of the opinion that your recipe doesn't have anywhere near enough cocoa in it. Unless you're making white chocolate brownies I suppose, but I dislike white chocolate so I don't.

Dear Toni,

My brother enjoyed rolling his own.

Brownies would not have appealed at all.

Dear Paul,

Part of the attraction for my brother was the
fact that it was illegal. (smile). If it wasn't for
his heart condition, I'm sure he'd still be smoking
it today.

//Brownies would not have appealed at all.//

Jesus, who doesn't like brownies? They're full of chocolatey goodness.

Not 'Hash Brownies'. *

* Entirely different to 'Hashbrowns'

Dear Toni,

Yes, but you can't smoke them.

And my brother was more interested in what he
smoked, then what he ate at that time of his
life. He's now wiser.

Sorry, Toni, I'm a bit past my use-by date :)

Okay then, marijuana has similar effects to roeys, even on women. To extend the analogy of 'let it go because we can't stop it', let's campaign to legalise roeys and date-rape, since they may always be with us. Put up with it, girls, it will probably be your fault, you should have been more careful, like your mother kept saying.

Joe

//Okay then, marijuana has similar effects to roeys//

No.

You haven't really got the hang of this whole 'fact-based argument' thing as it applies to biochemistry, have you?

Never mind, Joe. Why don't you go and have another beer? You like beer, remember?