Drug Law Reform Australia - will be standing for senate in September!

[thestudent14]

Fuck yeah, good form bluelighters and great work at the Drug Law Reform party for getting the ball rolling.

I wouldn't be suprised if they do better then expected at the election. I have plenty of friends who I'm sure would see the name and tick it just for kicks =)

 

[thestudent14]

Media Release: Drug Law Reform Party Registers with AEC, 10th May 2013
It is Official! We’re about to have a party....Australia’s own Drug Law Reform Party!

Thanks to an overwhelming response from their recent membership drive, the newly incorporated Drug Law Reform Australia has the numbers to register as a political party for the next Federal Election.

According to Greg Chipp, President of Drug Law Reform Australia, “We’ve garnered 750 signups in three months with 550 members confirmed on the electoral roll. We’re currently submitting our application as this is well in excess of the Australian Electoral Commission’s requirements.” The AEC registration process will take about 10 weeks.

“We are more than a political party; we are now a political movement.” Mr Chipp proclaimed. “Thanks to the overwhelming response from the Australian public, we have won the right to put the words ‘Drug Law Reform’ on 13 million ballot papers in the September Federal Election.”

Greg Denham, newly elected Vice-President of Drug Law Reform Australia and a former Senior Sergeant in the Victoria Police, agrees stating “We aim to become the lightning rod for serious community discussion about the catastrophic failure of current drug policies. We'll keep making a noise until the mainstream parties also realise that this is a neglected issue that affects all Australians.”

The first order of business for Australia’s newest political force is a call for expressions of interest from potential Senate candidates.

“Our success depends on good people, preferably those with an existing public profile who are prepared to step up and carry this much maligned cause forward”, Mr Chipp asserts. “It’s a role well suited to retired police officers, judges, lawyers, teachers, academics, healthcare professionals or former politicians - those that know the true cost of the failed war on drugs.” he added.

About Drug Law Reform Australia

Drug Law Reform Australia exists to raise awareness of the ongoing harm being done to our children, families, institutions, and society in general, by the current harm maximising drug laws.

The party maintains that drug use can be dangerous and problematic drug abuse is a major health concern, however criminalising drug use does more harm than good.

Drug Law Reform Australia believes that the focus of drug policy in Australia must shift from law enforcement and policing to health strategies.

With these reforms, the huge amount of public money currently squandered on the failed ‘War on Drugs’ can be re-allocated to improving health services for those struggling with dependency.

For media enquiries, please call Greg Chipp on 0417 773 372, or Greg Denham on 0424 193 857.

http://www.druglawreform.com.au/content/media-releases

 

[poledriver]

^ I got the same thing in an email recently, plus a few more things that were not mentioned in your post there -

Fundraising

Fundraising needs to be a priority...it affects everything else we plan to do.

We’re currently looking for anyone with previous fundraising experience who would be willing to take on this challenging role.

State group coordinators

At the very least we will require local coordinators and/or candidate support committees in each state/territory. If you are interested in convening a local group please get in touch.

Volunteers

We are looking for people with social media, internet marketing, graphic design, copyrighting, public relations, media-relations, journalist or legal skills.

If you are committed to Drug Law reform and have some time available please make contact detailing your area of interest and skills.

Technical

We are retooling our website for the coming campaign and will need software developers in the coming months to fully utilise this resource.

If you have internet programming skills and know PHP, Drupal or CiviCRM (this is our CRM membership management software) then let us know.

If you can help us in one of these areas and are prepared to volunteer a bit of your time to a good cause, then get in touch....

We’ll keep working to build a bigger and better campaign but we still need your help.

Let's make our voices heard leading up to the September Federal Election.

Sincerely,

Greg Chipp
President/Convener
Drug Law Reform Australia inc.
Phone: 0417 773 372

 

[Tronica]

That's great that Greg Denham is involved. He's a local advocate for harm reduction, e.g. injecting centres in Richmond area, in Melbourne. Hopefully they will get a few more ex law enforcement people joining too. It's powerful when law enforcement stand up against their role in prohibition.

 

[thestudent14]

^ Yeah if LEAP-Australia get involved which you would think they should as this party is exactly the kind of thing they've been pushing for.

 

[Divine Moments]

Great to see this going ahead :D

 

[Nozphexezora]

Is my Engrish correct? I see a few other things as well, I may be incorrect, but oh well.

Don't forget these ones;

Their tough on crime rhetoric, trivializes the problem.

They're tough on crime rhetoric and trivilialising the problem.

...does not protect our children from illicit drugs or drug addiction.

...does not protect our children from illicit drugs nor drug addiction.

It fuels corruption of our democratic institutions...

It fuels corruption among our democratic institution(?)


Oh screw it, I'll just proofread the whole thing below;




Drug Law Reform Australia is one of Australia's most recent political force.

Contrary to what the established title may suggest, the Drug Law Reform political party is not "pro-drugs", instead the member(s) support decriminalisation, regulation and harm minimisation of alcohol, tobacco, narcotics and other regulated drugs. The party is calling for the end of the so called “war on drugs”, as the current prohibition has been unsuccessful in protecting our children from illicit drugs and drug addiction. Instead, the current policies in place has not only failed Australia, but it continues to fuel corruption in our democratic society and feeds billions of dollars to criminals and other egocentric organisations whose businesses are destroying the welfare of many Australians.

As a political movement, the Drug Law Reform seeks representation in Parliament in order to deliver a more beneficial reform, as the name suggests, as the two major parties are incapable of solving this national problem. The primary political parties continue to admit that the current "War on Drugs" is a nation-wide problem both financially and politically, and instead they simply sweep the issue under the rug. The party differs from existing parties in the sense that we do not aspire to control entire divisions of policy, but to solely pursue the area of drug law reform that is nationally more productive than the failed drug-related policies currently in place.

With Australia's help, the Drug Law Reform will endeavour in not only delivering a new reform, but in publicising the dangers and risks associated with drug use in a more informative, factual manner. The strict laws of criminalising drug offenders has done much more harm than the inherent effects of drugs themselves, and the Drug Law Reform acknowledges that the funding associated with depriving average Australian citizens of their liberty should be used for commercialising the negative effects of drugs and helping recovering drug addicts.
Three words can be used to summarise the Drug Law Reform; "treat, don't punish". The party aims to regulate and tax the sale of drugs so profits are spent on health and rehabilitation services for those affected, as well as other government expenditures such as education and transport.

Many Australians already know that drug use cannot be eradicated by the criminal justice system, but are unaware of the legitimate health concerns behind drug use due to the misinformation being propagated as an attempt to "scare" people away from drug use by major political parties. However, the criminal law, the courts and jails are not the solution to a man recovering from a drug addiction. This “Tough on Crime” solution has been tried for over 40 years, cost billions of dollars and failed. Unlike the major parties, our focus is clear; We do not stand for anything else than Drug Law Reform - and we certainly do not stand for criminalising the non-criminals.


Sorry if I ruined it, I'm just bored.

 

[thestudent14]

Their tough on crime rhetoric, trivializes the problem.

This was correct the first time, "They're tough on crime rhetoric and trivilialising the problem." - This makes less sense.

 

[poledriver]

^correct. Our side, their side etc.

 

[Nozphexezora]

This was correct the first time, "They're tough on crime rhetoric and trivilialising the problem." - This makes less sense.

I don't see how that's correct. The word "tough" is presented as a noun when following "their", and using a noun preceeding another noun makes no sense unless it has the rright prefix/suffix. "Their toughness on crime rhetoric triviliazes the problem." My statement actually does sound right, but it doesn't sound good in retrospect. Also, "toughness" doesn't sound very fluent, either, so perhaps a synonym like "stubbornness" or even "stubborn nature" sounds better. Also you don't need the comma.

 

[poledriver]

I think you are probably correct about the comma, but I'm not too sure about the rest. I just had a quick look and couldn't find where that is from (I didn't look for long).

Their tough on crime rhetoric ONLY trivializes the problem.

^ that works? But that actually sounds pretty weird, maybe 'trivializes' should be swapped with hrm say 'escalates'?

Their tough on crime rhetoric only escalates the problem.

I'm not the best at English and all the bits and pieces, but I usually notice mistakes, that one you mentioned first seems like it may be ok besides the comma. The nor one is probably right as you say, and the last one seems like you got it right as well, but I'm wondering if the 'among' should maybe be 'amongst'?

 

[thestudent14]

They're tough on crime rhetoric, makes no sense as a statement. It is their, because it's their rhetoric. They are tough on crime rhetoric is bad English. You were correct about the comma being wrong in my post though.

Any how, let not got nit picky and derail the thread which is far more important then us giving each other a lesson in English 8)

 

[Nozphexezora]

They're tough on crime rhetoric, makes no sense as a statement. It is their, because it's their rhetoric. They are tough on crime rhetoric is bad English. You were correct about the comma being wrong in my post though.

Any how, let not got nit picky and derail the thread which is far more important then us giving each other a lesson in English 8)

Can we agree that we were both wrong? "strong" is a quality, not a possessive, and "their" precedes a possessive, not a quality. "They are" precedes a quality, not a possessive; the reason why my original statement sounds wrong is because, for whatever dumb ass reason, I associated "crime rhetoric" as one phrase. If you put "their" before it because it's "their rhetoric", then "tough on" should be a phrase and be pronounced as "tough-on" - and even then it's not any familiar phrase. Even if you do use "their", it's still saying "crime rhetoric" - which makes no sense according to both you and me.

EDIT: Sorry for derailing the thread, but I have a serious habit of correcting everything grammatically. On retrospect, I was wrong and you're definitely right on account of one minor detail. It should be "Their tough-on-crime rhetoric", or alternatively "Their 'tough on crime' rhetoric"

 

[thestudent14]

Deal %) 8) 8( :D

Edit: Extra emoticons to make my post more colourful then just one word

 

[poledriver]

Any major mistakes or suggestions regarding their website, leave the details here and I'm happy to pass them along, this is what Greg wrote back to me after the last lot were submitted a while back -

I appreciate you interest and attention to detail.
If you notice any other mistakes please email me.

Maybe you could keep an eye on the site and email any suggestions?

Cheers,

Greg

http://www.druglawreform.com.au

Go through the site if you have some time and see what you think.

 

[thestudent14]

I appreciate your* interest and attention to detail.

 

[poledriver]

Indeed lol.

 

[Nozphexezora]

Indeed lol.

Just out of curiosity, was my proofreading of any use or was it just used to fulfill my boredom with enjoyment?

 

[djep]

As mentioned by someone earlier, it's great to see numerous parties having drug reform in their policies. Wouldn't it be a force to be reckoned with if these parties amalgamated. Think of the collective influence and power of The Sex Party, Secular Party, DLRP, LEAP, etc....the new coalition!

 

[poledriver]

Just out of curiosity, was my proofreading of any use or was it just used to fulfill my boredom with enjoyment?

It's of use for sure, keep an eye on it (the site) and let me know on here if there's anything you strongly think should be fixed and i'll email the suggestions off to him, or you can if you wish to as well.

Thanks.