Drugs & the Federal Election 2007

[hoptis]

A federal election is due later this year.

Family First slams Greens deals
Selina Mitchell
April 16, 2007

THE Liberal and Labor parties have been told it would be absurd for them to direct preferences to the Greens in the federal election because it would be sending children the message it was acceptable to use drugs.

In an attempt to gain crucial support for his party at the next election, expected in October or November, Family First's only federal representative, Steve Fielding, has warned the major parties against any association with the Greens.

In response to Greens leader Bob Brown's call for Labor preferences, Senator Fielding said the Greens were pushing dangerous views on drugs and had no sensible policies on families or small business.

A party that promoted extremism should not be allowed to hold the balance of power and any mainstream party that supported the Greens would be tainted by association, he said.

His attack continues the escalating battle between the two parties for inheritance of third-party status from the Democrats, amid expectation that the Democrats would struggle to win support in this year's election. The non-government parties are keen to warn voters against repeating the 2004 election result, which left the Senate in the Coalition's control.

Senator Brown warned last week there would be open revolt among Labor's rank and file if the ALP gave preferences to the conservative Family First.

He said the Greens would offer to direct preferences to Labor in return for help winning the balance of power.

A spokeswoman for Senator Brown said the Greens' drugs policy had changed since the last election and involved a harm-minimisation approach. The policy did not support legalising drugs but it did promote needle- and syringe-exchange programs.

Senator Fielding said a leopard did not change its spots.

"Despite the extreme Greens' latest marketing attempts to make themselves more presentable, the fundamentals haven't changed," he said.

"The extreme Greens are still pushing their dangerous policies to provide free heroin to addicts, open shooting galleries across the country and abolish criminal sanctions for drug users."

Senator Fielding said his record showed he voted on issues on their merit, rather than along party lines. He has been campaigning strongly on issues such as petrol tax and the sale of Qantas in an effort to broaden his party's appeal.

At the 2004 election, Family First won 1.8 per cent of the national vote in the Senate. It did not run in the Northern Territory or ACT. The Greens won 7 per cent of the vote while the Democrats crashed to 2 per cent.

In apparent support for Senator Fielding, federal Minister for Ageing Christopher Pyne said the Greens still condoned consuming illicit substances.

The Australian

 

[psytaco]

'A party that promoted extremism should not be allowed to hold the balance of power and any mainstream party that supported the Greens would be tainted by association, he said.'

Oh the irony that A Family First should say this! I'll take socialist, environmental views over a conservative party that is homophobic and against abortion.

 

[MR Candyslut]

^ i know! Oh the irony.

Senator Fielding states he has been campaigning on issues regarding Qantas and petrol tax to broaden their party's appeal.

Just one question though, Senator Fuckding:

"Does a leopard ever change its spots?"

There is so much more i could say. But i am sure it is just preaching to the converted. So i won't.

 

[Insane Platypus]

THE Liberal and Labor parties have been told it would be absurd for them to direct preferences to the Greens in the federal election because it would be sending children the message it was acceptable to use drugs.

Sorry Senator Fielding, 7-8% worth of preferences is more important than the kiddies. Nice attempt at relevance though.

It should be a fun and dirty election campaign. Insensible drug policies are going to be thrown all over the place but oh well, that's the way it is at the moment. The pendulum will swing back down the track.

 

[ilikeacid]

Urge to kill rising..

Thank god this is coming straight from Murdoch's favorite comoflarged tabloid, The Australian, and not coming from some reputable news source

Feilding sickens me! There is such an undercurrent of intolerance, fear and hatred to his approach to Federal politics - it's the only way he knows how to get his name into the papers.

There is so much more i could say. But i am sure it is just preaching to the converted. So i won't.

^same goes for me... *Smashes the screen*

 

[hoptis]

So this thread died in the arse a bit but now the election is over, what are the developments from the viewpoint of drug policy?

I note that both Abbot and Pyne are running for leader and deputy leader of the Opposition respectively, imagine those two running the country one day.

On the winning side, the new cabinet is to be announced by Labor on Thursday, is Nicola Roxon likely to be the new Health Minister?

 

[decontructionist]

So this thread died in the arse a bit but now the election is over, what are the developments from the viewpoint of drug policy?

I had read this piece in Of Substance prior to the election (http://www.ofsubstance.org.au/archive/pdf/ofsubstance_2007_10.pdf#article3)
. To be quite frank it seemed that the two primary parties where proposing policy that was so similar that it seemed to pointless in making a distinction. The labour party was certainly focused on supply control, while the liberals were highlighting the epidemiological incidence data as evidence of their success. Wouldn’t amount of harm experienced be a better indicator of success? The only party that seemed to be voicing any reason was the Greens party, but how much say do they really have in terms of policy development (over policy acceptance). I still gave them my vote.

I note that both Abbot and Pyne are running for leader and deputy leader of the Opposition respectively, imagine those two running the country one day.

I don't think Pyne or Abbot have every made a single rationale or evidence based statment with regard to substance use, though they sure know how to incite the less informed public's fear.

On the winning side, the new cabinet is to be announced by Labor on Thursday, is Nicola Roxon likely to be the new Health Minister?

What would be the relevence/consequence of this? Excuse my ignorance...

 

[lil angel15]

I don't think Pyne or Abbot have every made a single rationale or evidence based statment with regard to substance use, though they sure know how to incite the less informed public's fear.

I have no doubt the non informed public will love them as leaders of the liberal party.

 

[decontructionist]

I have no doubt the non informed public will love them as leaders of the liberal party.

As most are probably well aware by now, my research focuses mainly on the way in which the use of language can prevent a message of harm minimisation and preclude any move away from the status quo. Thus, the reason that the non-informed public love them is that they provide them with conceptualisations of drugs that fit neatly into the existing dominant discourses. I have a quote from my latest piece of research by Pyne talking of cannabis - ‘if something is bad for people and wrong, it should be treated that way’ (West Australian, 14 November 2005). In this particular example it allows him to take the position of the morally righteous person, and the people lap it up since it appeals to the lowest possible denominator. That is, how can you argue against something that is morally despicable? Doing so would only mean that you have no morality!!

 

[madmick19]

Thus, the reason that the non-informed public love them is that they provide them with conceptualisations of drugs that fit neatly into the existing dominant discourses.
In this particular example it allows him to take the position of the morally righteous person, and the people lap it up since it appeals to the lowest possible denominator. That is, how can you argue against something that is morally despicable? Doing so would only mean that you have no morality!!

its going to be interesting tho when the real ATS use figures nationally are released, there are anecdotal evidence that nearly 45% of the population have used ATS if so i wonder how this shaming effect will engage with nearly half a nation.

decon - i would love to read youre discourse stuff sounds great

 

[decontructionist]

its going to be interesting tho when the real ATS use figures nationally are released, there are anecdotal evidence that nearly 45% of the population have used ATS if so i wonder how this shaming effect will engage with nearly half a nation.

decon - i would love to read youre discourse stuff sounds great

In terms of the example of moral discourse, then I think your use of the word 'shame' perfectly describes a potential reactions to the release of this data (i.e., “This drug scourge is infiltrating the morality of Australia with almost 40% of Australians now admitting use of…”). Those that have used cannot coherently reply to this within the moral discourse since they are voiceless as moral lower class citizens. Only those who have not been morally corrupted (or have seen the light and repented) can assume the powerful authoritarian position of the righteous.

But there are many other dominant discourses that might be used to frame the results. For example, the medical model, which shares some similarities with the moral in that primacy is given to the substance might be used. An example, of this portray would be: “Leading Australian psychiatrists are calling for a radical review of mental health care … [with] the nation’s mental health crisis … bring driven by epidemic rates of methamphetamine use.” (The Australian, July 29, 2005).

I would love to share with you my research, however, I want to retain (as best I can) my anonymity so that I feel I am able to speak my mind more freely and perhaps include personal experience without fear of retribution. I am reasonably young (late 20s) and have only been at my university for 2 years so I don’t want to rock the boat too much – yet!! Of all the boards I am a member of, this is the one I am most afraid of (and why I have only recently joined), since it is close to home and trawled by too many people that I don’t want to be chummy with (i.e., police, media, etc.).

 

[hoptis]

What would be the relevence/consequence of this? Excuse my ignorance...

While I'm sure that any difference between the two parties on drug policy would only vary by a matter of degree, I'd like to at least know which mouthpiece of the party I'll be getting my regular dose of propaganda from in future.

When you look at what the likes of Bishop, Pyne, Abbot and even Howard towards the end were able to contribute to the drugs debate in this country over the last 12 years, regardless of what we here think, the message that government puts out is unfortunately still what many average Australians will take heed of when being "educated" about drugs.

 

[marklar_the_23rd]

i wonder if what got alcohol prohibition repealed can be used again? juries refusing to convict ,... etc etc...

 

[peaked]

Probably not. Alcohol prohibition only lasted a matter of years, with the majority of people presumably able to remember a time when it was legal. It would have been painfully obvious to everyone that, during prohobition, alcohol was still abundant, and the crime was greatly increased because of its black market status.

While drugs today are both abundant and responsible for increases in crime, the majority of people assume it is best they are illegal, because many don't truly understand what effects the drugs have. All they know is what they have been told their entire lives, which is of a negative view towards all drugs (apart from of course alcohol). For most people, there has never been a time when drugs were legal, and the mere thought seems ludicrous to them, because after all, the drugs are so "dangerous" to be illegal in the first place 8)

 

[lil angel15]

WHAT'S THE FUTURE HOLD?
by Paul Dillon

With a new Prime Minister elected it is going to be interesting what the future holds in the alcohol and other drugs area. The issue was conspicuous in its absence over the past six weeks with neither party really ever raising the issue – obviously in a time where interest rates are going up and the Australian people are becoming more concerned about global warming it simply wasn’t seen as a vote winner.

John Howard launched the National Illicit Drug Strategy “Tough on Drugs” policy in November 1997 and it has continued to receive a great deal of attention since that time. Although we continue to have a harm minimisation approach to drug use in this country this policy has focused strongly on reducing the supply of illicit drugs. Since its launch, the Australian Government has committed more than $1 billion to the Strategy – a phenomenal amount of money. Much of the money of course has gone into funding measures being implemented by the law enforcement agencies enabling them to police Australia’s borders and providing them with new technology and increased staffing.

One of the major criticisms of the policy has been that it has failed to address the issue of alcohol misuse in this country. Although alcohol continues to be one of our biggest drug-related problems, causing over half of the drug-related deaths of young people in Australia, it was not even mentioned in the pamphlet that was sent out to households right across the country earlier this year. The alcohol lobby is extremely powerful and does not want to see their product go the same way that tobacco has done over the past 20 years. There has been much criticism of both of the leading political parties for accepting money from alcohol companies and a widespread belief that this has been why alcohol has not been given the profile it should have in the last few years.

Will there be any tremendous change in the direction of alcohol and other drug policy under Kevin Rudd? I would be very surprised if we see much change at all initially. Cutting funding to law enforcement and giving more emphasis to demand and harm reduction strategies is definitely not a vote winner. They would be regarded as going soft on drugs and no political party could survive that. It would be great to see some leadership around the misuse of alcohol though – it’s just a matter of wait and see.

Remember: if you do not want any negative consequences, do not use the drug and, no matter how many times you have used a substance, never be blasé.

Sydney Star Observer

 

[ilikeacid]

There is some talk of Malcombe Turnbull running for leader of the libs. He is WAY more socially progressive than Pyne or Abbot. Turnbull as opposition leader could be the beginning of the relaxation of the ZERO TOLERANCE policy that has plagued our country for the past 10 years, there could be some interesting changes ahead.

Oh and just because I've been away all weekend and they closed the politics thread in AUS social... NO MORE HOWARD!! SO AWESOME!

 

[madmick19]

some days i really love paul dillion

 

[Splatt]

hes never done or said anything wrong in my opinion.. i think he's a top bloke.
i think the problem with his interviews with the media (newspapers/tabloids) is they are often edited to shit and it looks like he's saying something he's not...