NEWS: Daily Telegraph; Ecstacy Sold Over the Counter

In todays daily telegraph:
Full story here

HIDDEN POLICY ON DRUGS
02mar03
ECSTASY and speed would be freely available over the counter under a radical NSW Greens policy.
And heroin would be given to registered addicts in regulated quantities for use in a string of safe injecting rooms across the state.
The party wants to remove criminal penalties for personal drug use and establish licensed drug outlets to import, manufacture and sell drugs.
Details of the controversial policy are not included in the party's campaign literature for the March 22 state election, where the Greens are expected to receive their largest ever share of the vote in NSW.
Instead, the party is promoting its policies on education, development, the environment and against the war with Iraq.
However, the drug liberalisation plan has been official party policy since last September and was updated in January.
The Greens are hoping to win their first ever NSW Lower House seat – in Port Jackson – with candidate Jamie Parker.
Mr Parker yesterday stood by the policy, which he said was aimed at generating debate.
"It is clear current drug prohibition laws are not working," he said.
"The policy is about regulated and medically-supervised distribution. We need to reform our drug laws."
NSW Greens convenor Geoff Ash said the party believed drug use was a health rather than a criminal issue.
"It is the party's view that prohibition has failed," Mr Ash said.
"We'd rather have regulation."
The policy was revealed last week during an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph into the State's fastest growing political party.
The policy supports monitored provision of specified drugs in regulated quantities which would carry labelling explaining side effects.
So called "party drugs", including ecstasy and speed, would be sold in licensed drug shops by medically-qualified staff at prices which would undercut the black market.
Heroin would be available to registered users in regulated quantities and a string of safe injecting rooms would be set up across the state.
Police sniffer dogs would be banned and police would be forbidden from using helicopters to search for marijuana crops on the grounds that they invade privacy, create noise pollution and cause livestock to panic.
Ahh.....can I get 2 glow sticks wit that? (Just kid!)
Obviously the chances of the Greens actually getting into power and implenting these policies are close to nil, but at least its a start!
I was surprised the by the way the Tele actually reported on the story. They seemed to take a fairly neutral stand point on the issue, and the only time they were negative was when describing the greens concealment of these policies. In the editorial at the back Brian Watters ventures his opinion again.....its true he doesn't seem to have fucking clue.
[ 02 March 2003: Message edited by: pinkanga ]

Click to expand...

The television report was neutral because they know that the Greens have no chance in hell of implementing such laws anytime soon. However we can always hope.

in his book "High Society", Ben Elton imagines a british parliamentarian putting forward a bill to legalise ALL drugs
**SPOILERS AHEAD!!**.
his arguments that regulation is better than prohibition *almost* create a change in law, but it all falls to shit when the pollie gets busted doing coke while having an affair with his secretary.
*END SPOILERS*
but yeah it was an interesting idea and it's good to see some new and progressive drug policy ideas from a fairly mainstream political group for a change...

I still wouldn't trust 9/10ths of the population to handle 1/10th of all available (current) illicit drugs

This was a very interesting article, and I have to admit that my eyes lit up when I saw the headline on today's front page (probably cos it was my first day back in the country after 2 months overseas) but anyway, the article also stated that

So called "party drugs" including ecstasy and speed, would be sold in licensed drug shops by medically qualified staff at prices which would undercut the black market
Now, if we hypothesise that this actually happened, what do you think it would do to the illegal drug trade ?

Click to expand...

^^^
I really think it would cause a lot of organised crime to fuck up for a while, seeing that they get a lot of their money from drugs. It would take a few years for them to change their illegal activites to something else for profit.

regarding the drug issue. do you think that the people up the top controlling the drugs, illegal that is, have a say, or at least an influence in the legal - politcal - issue of drug legalisation???
i would be suprised if they didnt.

I agree that 9/10ths of the population wouldn't be able to handle 1/10th of all available (illicit drugs.......but whos to say that this problem would even come up. I agre even more with what alot of people predict, which is that the overall consumption of drugs wouldnt rise that much. Its not as if its hard to score ATM.......most people either know a dealer or know someone who knows a dealer etc, so if they want drugs they can get 'em. I dont think the legality of these drugs will increase the amount of users that much. IMHo anyway!
Hey DQ, that was a cool book hey...

i think the legality of drugs would definately increase the levels of users. for one, the average joe blow whos parents are either conservative or just not knowledgable, think drugs are bad because theyre told that drus are bad, by the law. if all of a sudden you dont get into trouble because of them, parents would not look so far down upon the issue.
look at alcohol, everybody knows it can cause drastic damage but nobody thinks it is bad, except in the worse case scenarios, because it is legal.
disregarding that issue, i read this article with a touch of anger because the media have highlighted this point which, as far as im concerned its a good idea considering the current lack of progress so why not give it a go, will be looked upon as atrocious to all anti-drug conservatives. unfortunately, i think this issue will reduce some of the greens votes, if not at least put slightly dent their reputation.
good luck to the greens for taking a stand and attempting to make a change - hey with the way things are going, any change is a good change.
[ 03 March 2003: Message edited by: melancholic ]

I can say this about the greens - they've got my vote

And another thing, how the hell are they going to be able to get MDMA legally sold over the counter (on any conditions?) The patent for MDMA ran out in 1934 or so, and for a drug/chemical to be tested and legally produced it must be patented. And since something cannot be patented again, it is legally impossible to get MDMA produced legally let alone sold? I do not think the party has done much/any research on this topic and maybe hoping that the 'drug vote' will help their cause.
Sorry for bad wording, my head feels like it is about to explode and I don't have any cold/flu tablets left and I feel too shit to drive to a chemist. *sneezes*

Grrrr, this article REALLY REALLY pissed me off because it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Greens legalising drugs, (because there is no way the could implement such radical policies in the course of one parliamentary term) it's about the Greens becoming a political force in NSW due to the peoples CONTEMPT for the Liberal parties support for war and the Labour parties impotent refusal to do anything about it.
It's just dirty politics and a slander campaign, the major parties are terrified that the Greens are gaining support so they use the issue of drugs and all the fear-mongering and stereotypes that surround it to justify changing their preferences and scare Mr and Mrs middle australia away from voting for the Greens (and doing something positive for the world).
The fact that they asked all the Greens MP's to take a drug test is disgusting, implying that because they feel that the best way to reduce drug related harm is to remove the black market and improve education, then obviously they must be druggies, 'pushing' these 'brain frying chemicals' (to quote Bob Carr). Fuck, even if you have used drugs does that make your opinion on the issue less relevant than soemone operating from a position of ignorance?
Typical dirty politics from the major parties, as pushed by the right wing media, and the scary thing is no one will realise this is about the war and the Liberal parties attempts to discredit other political parties who vocally oppose them, and not this fear of a dystopian future where kids buy smack at the local pharmacy.
Grrrr (rant ends)
BTW, spread the word to friends family and everyone, vote Green because they're the only party with policies not stuck in the 1950's, and not trying to push Australia into america's quest for global fossil fuel domination.

oh and another quote that pisseed me off was "these drugs destroy people" and while i do agree they have the capacity to, and do destroy some people, these are in the minority, and are probably fewer than those destroyed by alcohol...

Originally posted by wazza:

The patent for MDMA ran out in 1934 or so, and for a drug/chemical to be tested and legally produced it must be patented.
Do you mean patented for a specific use? I'm reasonably sure you can patent a drug more than once if it is for a different use.
I'm not sure this story will gain the Greens any new votes, but I don't think it was meant to. Still, it will stimulate debate which is the whole point of a party like the Greens anyway.

Click to expand...

Greens Drug Policy from their website copied from http://www.greens.org.au/g1societyfull.htm
6. Drugs and Addiction
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
6.1 Principles
The regulation of currently illegal drugs should be moved outside the criminal framework.
In a democratic society in which diversity is accepted, each person has the opportunity to achieve personal fulfilment. It is
understood that the means and aims of fulfilment may vary between people at different stages of their lives and may, for some
people at particular times, involve the use of drugs.
Classification and regulation of drugs should be based upon known health effects with community education programmes to
make factual information freely available.
Regulation should aim to maximise individual health and social safety and well-being.
Programmes operating among users of addictive drugs should focus upon harm minimisation and increasing their life options.
6.2 Goals
The Australian Greens will work towards:
a.more appropriate classifications for drugs based upon their effects upon health;
b.wide availability of relevant information about drugs;
c.decriminalisation of drugs;
d.making the connections between addictive drug use and wider issues such as suicide, unemployment, homelessness, lack
of hope for the future;
e.solving these problems;
f.removing the focus on excessive drug use which is a symptom rather than a cause; and
g.widely available community-based counselling and support services for drug-users without condemnation, including
adequate follow-up.
6.3 Short term targets
6.3.1 Illegal drugs
The Australian Greens believe that softer, less addictive drugs should be more freely available as in the Netherlands model, as
research shows that such availability mitigates against the use of hard drugs.
The Australian Greens will work to immediately set in process the following:
a.a national approach to drug law and drug law reform;
b.an examination of the practices of police forces, with the aim of minimising drug-related corruption;
c.pilot programmes to test the effectiveness of supplying heroin to registered users;
d.an examination of methadone programmes in all states to assess health effects compared with the use of prescribed
heroin, with the aim of reducing current anomalies and opportunities for abuse in existing programmes;
e.an extension of drug-free rehabilitation programmes;
f.allowing the regulated supply of cannabis at appropriate venues while disallowing other drugs;
g.the decriminalisation, leading to eventual legalisation of cannabis cultivation and possession for personal use, while
monitoring the effects of this in relation to the health of young people; and
h.independent research into the effects of short and long term use of cannabis and other illegal drugs, including cocaine,
morphine, amphetamines, LSD, ecstasy and other drugs as they appear in youth and other subcultures.
6.3.2 Regulated drugs
The Australian Greens will work to immediately set in process the following:
a.independent research into the effects and addictive properties of drugs commonly prescribed by doctors for a wide variety
of causes from hyperactiveness in children to stress and depression in adults, with a view to greater restriction and
regulation of those, such as benzodiazepines, found to have harmful effects;
b.mandatory labelling and verbal advice by doctors as to the effects and potential for addiction of prescribed drugs; and
c.continued independent research into food additives to ascertain their health effects, both short and long term, and
ensuring the publicising of results.
6.3.3 Freely available drugs
The Australian Greens will work to immediately set in process the following:
a.taking all possible steps to reduce the 'cool' image tobacco and alcohol have, especially for young people; this will include
banning advertising of tobacco and alcohol products and eliminating opportunities for sponsorship of tobacco products
and restricting sponsorship of alcohol products;
b.ensuring that smoking does not endanger the health of others;
c.continued application of sales tax to tobacco products;
d.continued testing of alcohol levels in drivers with strong penalties for driving over the limit;
e.disallowing the use of drunkenness as an excuse to avoid retribution in crimes of violence and negligence;
f.continued restriction of sale of alcohol to people under the age of 18; and
g.treatment of people with drug-related problems.
6.3.4 Treatment of people with drug addictions
The Australian Greens will work to immediately set in process the following:
a.freely available treatment programmes with adequate follow-up; and
b.treatment programmes and facilities which sensitively cater for individuals within different groups, women and men,
including older people, parents of children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the young.

Just another thought on the chances of decriminalisation happenning:
Who is making a shitload off the current drug laws (apart from the dealers and cops)?
The Legal system. The lawyers get paid for every case they represent in court. What would they do without our loyal "criminals"?
The legal system has too many sticky fingers up high arses for the greens to implement their policies.
>Sorry, but the rant had to happen.
Peace.

Hell, I promise if any of these things ever get implemented in Australia, I will go back to my chemistry/pharmacology degree will full vigour.
You read it here first.

good point westilina. I also think that the dealers (those higher up the chain) have "too many sticky fingers up high arses" to allow such policy to become law, effectively reducing their income. The alcohol companies won't be to happy about losing their advertising rights either, and I imagine they would be able to lend a fair bit of weight to preventing this becoming law.
Also, while this would definetely be a step in the right direction, I don't much like the way the greens want to set up "hard drug" and "soft drug" classifications. I may be a minority on this, but I think all drugs should be considered similarly, and I certainly don't consider cannabis and alcohol to be "soft drugs". That said, I know who I'll be voting for come next election.

Would it really undercut the market in price... ?tax on Alchol and Tobacoo is ATM quite high...
By the tax offices own words.. $4.30 from every pack of my styvos goes to tax, at $7.90 a pack thats a high rate of tax.
Do you think any members of our Government would let a product like be Legally availble and NOT have a huge tax rate on it too??
Tax on Ciggies and Alcohol

true but I'd pay twice the price to know exactly what I'm getting.