Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Director

Vote to support the Greens policy.

Recommended Posts

The Greens have some reasonable policies but are usually hypocritical by having other policies that are impossible to achieve because of their other policies.

 

They have gone away from the KISS system that got them the popularity in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are rabidly anti-nuclear, but pro-emissions cutting, 2 more contradictory policies.

I'm also anti-nuclear and pro-emissions cutting, but they're not contradictory.

 

You also want a war that kills 70 odd % of the worlds population I think your opinions are somewhat questionable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an entirely reasonable policy if you ask me. It's just unfortunate that it's coming from a bunch of losers who have no idea what they're on about the rest of the time.

 

Our drug policies are outdated and do not reflect the modern reality of drug use. A significant proportion of the population use drugs and it is no longer realistic to treat it as a purely criminal issue. Drug use should instead be treated as a health issue, because that is precisely what it is. Drug use causes health problems and often results from mental health problems. Many people who use drugs are merely self-medicating. Others find their life and their existence too boring (these people are also self-medicating, in a way). There are other drug users who do not have any mental health issues whatsoever and who merely use these substances for recreational purposes. The only way to stop the self-medicating users from using is to encourage them to seek psychiatric support and treatment. The only realistic way to stop the recreational users from using is ... well ... I can't actually think of one. The reason for that is the simple law of supply and demand. Supply generally follows demand and even if you try to cut supply by policing the border more and introducing stricter screening of imports, the suppliers will still find ingenious ways to break the law. In my studies of criminal law, I've read countless examples of drug smugglers very cleverly getting their product past the borders. Often, the only reason that these people are ever caught is because they piss off somebody close to their business who dobs them in. The fact is that innovation is a part of human nature. As I said, where there is demand, supply will follow.

 

Demand cannot be removed by passing a law or arresting a few people. Some people will actively resist if the law tells them to do something. There are also other people who just don't care about what the law is. The only way to reduce demand would be to change people's attitude towards psychoactives. I do not believe that this can be done to the point where everybody does not wish to take drugs. However, I do believe that the message that is being sent right now is the wrong message. People are being told that drugs are bad as a matter of fact. This just encourages people to rebel. People with questioning minds in particular will not take the government's assertions at face value; they will want to see for themselves what all the fuss is about. It is therefore stupid to keep hammering the "drugs are bad, mmkay?" message 'till the cows come home. A far better strategy is to present the facts impartially and allow people to make up their own minds. There will be a lot of people who will experiment and who may turn into occasional recreational users. There will also be a lot of people who would become addicted. However, if appropriate support would be provided, then these people would be able to overcome these issues. The crux of it is that we simply do not have an adequate mental health system anywhere in this country. Addiction is in the DSM - it is a recognised psychiatric disorder. It often stems from far deeper psychological problems. Treating it like a crime discourages treatment and merely compounds problems. Addicts fear seeking help. They're scared they'll get in trouble with the law. This causes a lot of addicts to lead a lifestyle that merely leads to more crime. With no help available, many addicts turn to activities that aren't just victimless crimes (i.e. taking drugs) but activities that harm others (robberies, burglaries, etc.). If the legal system recognised drug use as a health issue, far more people would be willing to seek help. Thus, harm minimisation, good, impartial education and a strong mental health support system are the ways to go.

 

Injecting rooms are medically monitored, so people overdosing can be attended to. They won't just rot in some alleyway. Also, the people who use them are provided with clean equipment, which minimises needle sharing and the spread of HIV/AIDS, Hep C and other blood-borne diseases. The only downside that I can think of is the fact that you wouldn't want to live next door to an injecting room or have your shop right next door. This can be easily solved. Injecting rooms can be placed in areas near night clubs, brothels, bars, etc. These are areas which tend to be heavily patrolled by police anyway. Also, the injecting rooms would not be likely to disrupt these sorts of businesses. There are therefore many reasons why injecting rooms should be looked into and very few reasons against.

 

There are also very good reasons for trialling the legalisation of common illicit drugs such as marijuana and ecstasy. These are drugs that are used by a lot of young people. They are far from harmless, but a lot of the harm that results from their use stems from their illegality. These drugs should be legalised and taxed by the government to subsidise the future health costs. That way, there will be some quality control and users will know what they're getting. Also, the use of these drugs would no longer be illegal and people who are having problems will be less fearful of seeking help.

 

I'd like to remind everybody that the illegality of illicit drugs was not originally based on any health or public safety concerns. Opium became illegal because it was the Chinese vice and because the British were scared that their young would become corrupted by unscrupulous Chinese opium dealers. Prior to that, opium was readily available and some use was acceptable, up into the highest echelons of government and aristocracy. The same applies to cocaine. I should also remind people that LSD only became illegal after the US government became concerned that people who have had an acid trip became unwilling to fight in Vietnam. The perpetuation of these policies is not a matter of public safety concern. If it was a public safety issue, then alcohol and tobacco would be banned. The perpetuation is based on false beliefs, such as the idea that everyone who has a single toke of marijuana will become a bank-robbing heroin junkie. It's about time that the world woke up to the reality and gave zero tolerance the boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an entirely reasonable policy if you ask me. It's just unfortunate that it's coming from a bunch of losers who have no idea what they're on about the rest of the time.

 

Our drug policies are outdated and do not reflect the modern reality of drug use. A significant proportion of the population use drugs and it is no longer realistic to treat it as a purely criminal issue. Drug use should instead be treated as a health issue, because that is precisely what it is. Drug use causes health problems and often results from mental health problems. Many people who use drugs are merely self-medicating. Others find their life and their existence too boring (these people are also self-medicating, in a way). There are other drug users who do not have any mental health issues whatsoever and who merely use these substances for recreational purposes. The only way to stop the self-medicating users from using is to encourage them to seek psychiatric support and treatment. The only realistic way to stop the recreational users from using is ... well ... I can't actually think of one. The reason for that is the simple law of supply and demand. Supply generally follows demand and even if you try to cut supply by policing the border more and introducing stricter screening of imports, the suppliers will still find ingenious ways to break the law. In my studies of criminal law, I've read countless examples of drug smugglers very cleverly getting their product past the borders. Often, the only reason that these people are ever caught is because they piss off somebody close to their business who dobs them in. The fact is that innovation is a part of human nature. As I said, where there is demand, supply will follow.

 

Demand cannot be removed by passing a law or arresting a few people. Some people will actively resist if the law tells them to do something. There are also other people who just don't care about what the law is. The only way to reduce demand would be to change people's attitude towards psychoactives. I do not believe that this can be done to the point where everybody does not wish to take drugs. However, I do believe that the message that is being sent right now is the wrong message. People are being told that drugs are bad as a matter of fact. This just encourages people to rebel. People with questioning minds in particular will not take the government's assertions at face value; they will want to see for themselves what all the fuss is about. It is therefore stupid to keep hammering the "drugs are bad, mmkay?" message 'till the cows come home. A far better strategy is to present the facts impartially and allow people to make up their own minds. There will be a lot of people who will experiment and who may turn into occasional recreational users. There will also be a lot of people who would become addicted. However, if appropriate support would be provided, then these people would be able to overcome these issues. The crux of it is that we simply do not have an adequate mental health system anywhere in this country. Addiction is in the DSM - it is a recognised psychiatric disorder. It often stems from far deeper psychological problems. Treating it like a crime discourages treatment and merely compounds problems. Addicts fear seeking help. They're scared they'll get in trouble with the law. This causes a lot of addicts to lead a lifestyle that merely leads to more crime. With no help available, many addicts turn to activities that aren't just victimless crimes (i.e. taking drugs) but activities that harm others (robberies, burglaries, etc.). If the legal system recognised drug use as a health issue, far more people would be willing to seek help. Thus, harm minimisation, good, impartial education and a strong mental health support system are the ways to go.

 

Injecting rooms are medically monitored, so people overdosing can be attended to. They won't just rot in some alleyway. Also, the people who use them are provided with clean equipment, which minimises needle sharing and the spread of HIV/AIDS, Hep C and other blood-borne diseases. The only downside that I can think of is the fact that you wouldn't want to live next door to an injecting room or have your shop right next door. This can be easily solved. Injecting rooms can be placed in areas near night clubs, brothels, bars, etc. These are areas which tend to be heavily patrolled by police anyway. Also, the injecting rooms would not be likely to disrupt these sorts of businesses. There are therefore many reasons why injecting rooms should be looked into and very few reasons against.

 

There are also very good reasons for trialling the legalisation of common illicit drugs such as marijuana and ecstasy. These are drugs that are used by a lot of young people. They are far from harmless, but a lot of the harm that results from their use stems from their illegality. These drugs should be legalised and taxed by the government to subsidise the future health costs. That way, there will be some quality control and users will know what they're getting. Also, the use of these drugs would no longer be illegal and people who are having problems will be less fearful of seeking help.

 

I'd like to remind everybody that the illegality of illicit drugs was not originally based on any health or public safety concerns. Opium became illegal because it was the Chinese vice and because the British were scared that their young would become corrupted by unscrupulous Chinese opium dealers. Prior to that, opium was readily available and some use was acceptable, up into the highest echelons of government and aristocracy. The same applies to cocaine. I should also remind people that LSD only became illegal after the US government became concerned that people who have had an acid trip became unwilling to fight in Vietnam. The perpetuation of these policies is not a matter of public safety concern. If it was a public safety issue, then alcohol and tobacco would be banned. The perpetuation is based on false beliefs, such as the idea that everyone who has a single toke of marijuana will become a bank-robbing heroin junkie. It's about time that the world woke up to the reality and gave zero tolerance the boot.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are rabidly anti-nuclear, but pro-emissions cutting, 2 more contradictory policies.

I'm also anti-nuclear and pro-emissions cutting, but they're not contradictory.

 

That's actually a fair and good point.

 

It's not. It sounds like it, but it's actually physically impossible to cut emissions, maintain our level of technology use and immigration and not move to nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Greens want to increase immigration.

 

In fact, that idiot Hansen-Young wants Australia to take all the worlds refugees.

 

I don't think even Bob Brown is real keen on that either but hasn't slapped her down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are rabidly anti-nuclear, but pro-emissions cutting, 2 more contradictory policies.

I'm also anti-nuclear and pro-emissions cutting, but they're not contradictory.

 

You also want a war that kills 70 odd % of the worlds population I think your opinions are somewhat questionable...

 

Not necessarily a war. Illness would do the job just fine.

 

 

They are rabidly anti-nuclear, but pro-emissions cutting, 2 more contradictory policies.

I'm also anti-nuclear and pro-emissions cutting, but they're not contradictory.

 

That's actually a fair and good point.

 

It's not. It sounds like it, but it's actually physically impossible to cut emissions, maintain our level of technology use and immigration and not move to nuclear power.

 

Exactly! And that leaves other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! And that leaves other options.

We are operating in reality. Not in 1shot's head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! And that leaves other options.

We are operating in reality. Not in 1shot's head.

 

Therein lies the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! And that leaves other options.

We are operating in reality. Not in 1shot's head.

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

And since we are operating in reality, the position of supporting emissions cuts, being anti-nuclear and with consideration of the reality that even if we cut immigration, it will still continue and given that we will continue using more and more enrgy as more and more appliances permeat the average home - the statement becomes nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! And that leaves other options.

We are operating in reality. Not in 1shot's head.

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

And since we are operating in reality, the position of supporting emissions cuts, being anti-nuclear and with consideration of the reality that even if we cut immigration, it will still continue and given that we will continue using more and more enrgy as more and more appliances permeat the average home - the statement becomes nonsensical.

 

It does? I don't believe so. I know that we will continue to use more and more energy and that even when we've converted to nuclear energy that our emissions levels will continue to rise.

 

I can still wish and speak out against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does? I don't believe so. I know that we will continue to use more and more energy and that even when we've converted to nuclear energy that our emissions levels will continue to rise.

True. It will. But it will take several centuries for it to get back to the present levels, even assuming for a population increase, after the initial post-conversion-to-nuclear drop of emissions by a factor of about 65%.

 

I can still wish and speak out against them.

You can, but please use facts. Not the Dreamtime.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does? I don't believe so. I know that we will continue to use more and more energy and that even when we've converted to nuclear energy that our emissions levels will continue to rise.

True. It will. But it will take several centuries for it to get back to the present levels, even assuming for a population increase, after the initial post-conversion-to-nuclear drop of emissions by a factor of about 65%.

 

I can still wish and speak out against them.

You can, but please use facts.

Which facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only short and reasonable path to cutting emissions is nuclear. It is the only one which has any chance of success.

 

Other than the nuclear proliferation arguments, I find none of the rest of the objections to it hold water. Our current main source of power, coal, currently emits more radioactive materials than nuclear plants would.. and nuclear waste is captured and either recycled or stored safely, compared to being pumped into the air.

 

A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.[21] In comparison, a 1,000 MW nuclear plant will generate about 500 pounds of plutonium and 30 short tons of high-level radioactive controlled waste.[22] Just one accident like Chernobyl can release 35 times as much radiation in 10 days as the total radioactive emissions from coal power plants on the entire planet Earth over the course of a century. The Chernobyl accident is estimated to have released 25–50 million curies (1–2 exabecquerels) IAEA estimations) or even 100 million curies (4 EBq) of radioactivity[citation needed], whereas the collective radioactivity resulting from all coal burning worldwide between 1937 and 2040 is estimated to be 2,700,00 curies or 0.101 EBq).[21]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_p...nmental_impacts

Edited by Mauzl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an entirely reasonable policy if you ask me. It's just unfortunate that it's coming from a bunch of losers who have no idea what they're on about the rest of the time.

 

...

Great post. Haven't seen you around in a while, you're influence and style has been missed :)

Edited by tastywheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that the Greens don't realize that if they revised a few of their policies, such as their anti-science dogma-based policies on nuclear power, uranium mining and genetic engineering, they would see a significant increase in the people who would be prepared to vote for them, as this thread has demonstrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you couldn't actually remove those policies from the Greens without killing them. What we need is a sensible third party that supports rational, libertarian policies.

The Liberals are certainly not rational under Abbot and can't seem to bother formulating any policy at all. Labor is beginning to turn into Ingsoc (or should that be Ozsoc?). There needs to be a sensible third party. What a shame the Democrats have died, at least there was a capacity to change their policies if they turned out to be nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×