What advantage would there be in uniform attitudes towards drug policy in all states if that policy would simply reflect Johnny's (and Brian Watters) zero-tolerance personal beliefs on the issue? At least as it is now, we have breathing room in some states.
Hoptis, I was referring more to support of Harm Reduction groups. Qld Health no longer supports the RaveSafe program (a somewhat personal gripe of mine) after 4 years of successful operations without a blemish. Other states have allocated even less to such groups.
On the other hand, Health Depts and Governments in Victoria, SA and now I've heard, also WA, are supporting or initiating Ravesafe projects in these States. Zero-tolerance needs to go, and I understand that by having different states form different policies, it will eventually allow for comparisons and judgements to be made concerning the whole matter of minimal use intolerance.
But HR groups like RaveSafe have learned to work within the present framework - they've had to to get approval. Not just from police or government, but also from promoter, managers and the punters. Trust is established between punters and ravesafers, not only because they can usually identify with Peer helpers as being "one of them", but also because RaveSafe is conforming in every way possible to ensure a minimal consequence outcome for everyone. In terms of music based cults or dissident groups endorsing government associated support organisations, society has never before known such a phenomena.
Therefore, I see some integration between state groups as being vital in bringing pressure on other states which currently don't address this important area. We'd all like to see zero tolerance abolished as policy, but regardless, there's need for Peer Assistance groups, and they are rarely affected
directly by zero-tolerance. Let's face it, if the law was truly enforced, RaveSafe as a group simply wouldn't be allowed.