• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: Herald Sun - 26/01/2006 ' Greens drop radical drugs policy'

hoptis

hoptis

Bluelight Crew
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
11,083
Greens drop radical drugs policy
Jason Frenkel
26 Jan 2006

THE Australian Greens have dropped a controversial policy to study options to supply drug users with ecstasy and marijuana.

Party leader Bob Brown said yesterday the party had backed away from the proposal after talking to drug experts.

The plan to investigate the regulated supply of illicit drugs was ridiculed by critics in the lead-up to the 2004 federal election.

It called for "the controlled availability of cannabis at appropriate venues" and "investigations of options for the regulated supply of social drugs such as ecstasy in controlled environments".

Under the Greens' revised drugs policy, decisions about harm minimisation would rest with a proposed new Australian drugs policy institute, Senator Brown said.

"The contentious past proposals to investigate options for the regulated supply of marijuana and ecstasy have gone," Senator Brown said yesterday.

"It's come after a lot of study by the Greens in reference to national experts in the field of drugs.

"It takes away the controlled- supply option that was there before with ecstasy and marijuana."

The new drugs policy, endorsed by the party's national conference in Hobart, says criminal sanctions for personal drug use should be dropped in favour of rehabilitation and harm minimisation.

It proposes a new national centre to develop drugs policy based on evidence-based trials.

"There are serious health risks associated with all drug use," Senator Brown said.

"We think people – especially young people – should be discouraged from abusing drugs, including tobacco and alcohol.

"It is harmful for your health and our policy of harm minimisation reflects that," he said.

Senator Brown accused the Herald Sun of misrepresenting the Greens' policies in an August 2004 report.

The Australian Press Council upheld a complaint against the Herald Sun in March last year over the report.
Click to expand...

From Herald Sun
 
Sad that the only prominant party with a decent drugs policy turns away from at least investigating the regulation of the recreational drugs market. I voted greens last election and I don't think I will again (not only because of this).
 
fuck, they really should make ecstasy and marijuana available, that way, when i buy weed, i dont have to goto some random street dealer and get hydro with all these other chemicals in it, i can make sure im getting good organic weed. the way god intended it.

and when i buy ecstasy.. i'll know exactly what im taking and how much of it im taking. when you buy pillz off drug dealers you have no idea what the fuck is in it.

by making drugs illegal.. they are not stopping anybody from doing them, they are not ridding the world of them, all theyre doing is handing them over to the criminals. i know for sure i would like to go into a pharmacy and buy a pill that says MDMA - 100mg on it. and with proper instructions on how to take it, what to do, and what not to do. not goto an illegal drug dealer who will jsut hand me over a pill with a picture on it, that could be cut with god knows what.
 
My advice to the Greens is to simply do what the liberals did with GST. Simply bring the policy back once elected.....

Journalist: So you've left the door open for a GST now, haven't you?

Howard: No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.

Journalist: Never ever?

Howard: Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election.

-----
A press release on the same day made the situation abundantly clear: "A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia."
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested to read some of the research that has caused this major backdown on policy.

Is it jus me or do the greens think they're bi9gger than they are? In this country they will never be in power simply because aus is too conservative. By backing down from radical policy they are gaining the respect of the conservative voters. Is this just a stunt to win more votes?

fuck in heaven
 
Flickme said:
fuck, they really should make ecstasy and marijuana available, that way, when i buy weed, i dont have to goto some random street dealer and get hydro with all these other chemicals in it, i can make sure im getting good organic weed. the way god intended it.
Click to expand...
What's your definition of "organic"?
 
The Greens still have the best drug policy in Australia - and with this amendment, I think it will be seen as more viable. The full policy is
http://greens.org.au/policies/services/drugssubstanceuseandaddiction

Although they don't mention pill testing trials, they mention almost everything else, including medical marijuana and perscribed heroin, and they reinforce the focus on harm reduction.

Yes they've moved away from legal supply of marijuana and ecstasy... however i think if there is ever a chance that regulated supply will occur in Australia, it will be with the Greens in the driver's seat.

I hope this slightly milder policy won't change many BLer's support for the Greens - I think they are just being pragmatic, and still have the best policy out there on drugs.
 
I think this is a good move for the Greens in terms of getting votes, as the majority of Australians are too ignorant at this stage to appreciate what legalisation of illicit substances would achieve. The title of this article even illustrates this. If a "radical" drugs policy is one that would regulate the quality of substances, as well as widely distribute infomation as to best avoid harm to the user, then what does that say about our current policy, where there is absolutely no quality standards and few (if any) relevent infomation made available about drug use (apart from the community, such as this site).
 
So, do we support a watered down version of the preferred future? I guess we have to this stage. Just as long as any such policy also fully addresses individual rights, workplace reform, health issues, and most importantly, a complete social reform package that prioritizes harm minimisation equally alongside supply and demand reduction.

This can only be done if there's also radical change to approaches used to educate on drug issues. Peer education needs to be prioritised, as does debate on appropriate topics for school education. This will effectively amount to everchanging drug policies, as changes in sociological trends in other areas will also influence use patterns, including the types of drugs that will used - which may differ somewhat from the Pot, E and whizz "standards" currently seen.

A broad health program needs to see those involved with drug use become completely familiar with all current types of drugs, from a drug's origin to it's pharmacology. Health workers, poisons advice personnel, medical students, Dr's and nurses, event security and paramedics; basically anyone involved in toxicology, emergency work or recreational areas where drugs are consumed. Simply addressing these health related areas alone constitutes a degree of radical policy change.
 
I would like to see the Greens Drug policy fleshed out (and all the other parties for that matter). The good thing about the Greens is that, being a "grass roots" party, they rely a lot of volunteers within their member base. I've just joined The Greens and was sent a lot of information about working groups I could join if I was prepared to volunteer and input in areas where I could be useful.

So my thoughts are to actually volunteer to do further policy research to contribute to their drugs policies. I agree with phase_dancer that peer education ought to be prioritised - there is a lot of research that backs up peer education as the best way to communicate harm reduction messages. It's one of the only credible ways! Yet peer ed programs are grossly underfunded.... so there are so many improvements that can be made, this being only one.

I was also impressed today with political poll I saw in the Age (doesn't seem to be on the equivalent online site) - which showed that among 18-25 yr olds, 19% would vote Green primary vote. It has climbed to 11% across all ages (about double in cities than in rural locations, and strongly related to being younger in age). Ok, so we are not going to have a Green government in next election, but I think it's possible in the next two decades. Hopefully it won't be too late to save our social systems and our environment by then ... !
 
The Greens' best bet in the next couple of decades would be to form a coalition with a minority Labour government, similar to what happened with the Greens in Germany.

As for the drugs policy, it was the only sensible option really, after all the bullshit with the Herald-Sun misrepresenting the Greens' drug policy before the last federal election. But even in its 'correct' form I think it marked the Greens as 'kooky' (to borrow John Howard's term) to sections of the general public.
 
(Wordy) said:
The Greens' best bet in the next couple of decades would be to form a coalition with a minority Labour government, similar to what happened with the Greens in Germany.
Click to expand...

I don't think this would work. Regaerless of their other sensible policies the green's primary policy base is their environmental policies and sometimes they get a little carried away in this regard. I think that they would be a little to radical for the proletarian base that labour's support comes from.
 
Backflip by Greens on marijuana
By SUE NEALES
07 Feb 2006

THE Tasmanian Greens party has axed its long-held policy calling for the legalisation of marijuana in a major policy backflip designed to win mainstream votes.

Instead, Greens justice spokesman Nick McKim has called for tough new criminal sanctions to be introduced for the trafficking of illegal drugs.

Mr McKim acknowledged that the policy somersault meant there was now little difference between the Greens' drugs policy and that of the Labor Government.

He also made no apology for the drugs policy change, admitting it was a vote-catching exercise to win seats at the state election.

Mr McKim also said a new policy that was hard on drug traffickers while aimed at minimising harm for drug users eliminated the chance opposing political parties would use the Greens' traditionally soft drugs stance to smear the party and its candidates.

At the last federal election, false political propaganda was spread about the Greens party's lax attitude to marijuana, which is believed to have severely hampered its election efforts.

"We're here to get as many votes as we can, so we can put in place our public policies on a number of issues," Mr McKim said.

"We want a mature debate about the issue of drug use.

The major planks of the new drugs policy are:

  • Criminal sanctions including imprisonment for drug traffickers.
  • The personal use of drugs be treated as a health issue.
  • Recognition that there are serious health risks in all drug use, including alcohol and tobacco.
  • A compassionate approach be taken to people with health problems as a result of personal drug use.
Click to expand...

From The Mercury

This seems to signal another change of direction for the Greens, even though it appears specifically aimed at Tasmanian votes in the lead up to their state election. The sentence in bold that I've highlighted above is particularly discouraging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top