NEWS: The Age - 18/07/2006 'Greens offer heroin in rehab plan'

[ilikeacid]

^ The winds are changing! There was a picture of the Greens MP for the City of Melb on the front page of the age today. People are starting to see the insanity of harsh drug policies - at least at an urban level.

Maybe if the balance of power goes the greens way they can stop for good the use of sniffer dogs to target users in public palces..

This is a real possibility people, Victoria dosn't currently have a sniffer dog 'act', so if someone finally does bring this issue up in court and a judge goes the way of the NSW and QLD judges - which is a real possibility - we could see legislation being introduced into parliment by ALP or LIBs. If the Greens do get a hold of the balance of power there's no way it will pass.. liberty just might still have a chance!
In Novemeber - if you hate sniffer dogs ruining peoples lives, and cops being granted more powers - Vote greens!

 

[Miss Peks]

I'm going to have to see if I can vote from over here. Don't have to, but for something like this I definitely think it's a must.

I really like the way that the Greens think, they've always for the most part been a lot more progressive in their way of thinking than the other parties. It's quite obvious that the current stance on the "war on drugs" is never going to work, so why not try something different!

 

[(Wordy)]

The Greens already had my vote, but their drug policy just serves to reinforce my belief that a vote for the Greens is the only sensible option - in both the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly.

 

[ilikeacid]

^ U win at being Trippy

 

[(Wordy)]

I do?

 

[Tronica]

Yes, the Greens have my vote and I hope they have yours too

I will be attending the State Election Campaign Launch on Sunday (with Bob Brown). I shall report back!

[edit: well not *with* Bob Brown... but he'll be speaking there]

 

[phase_dancer]

...I shall report back!

Please do Tronica. I'm a committed Greens supporter. My only hope is that the Greens dedicate their preferences to something other than the Coalition.

A little off topic...

The recent Qld state election followed in the footsteps of the public outcry concerning the Mary River dam proposal, which saw the Greens candidate Jennie Harvie give preferences to Liberal, which of course resulted in a local with an eh, hmm... past...... being elected. The ethically sound and popular ex labour member for this area who had been sacked pre-election (due to her firm standing against the proposed dam) ran as an independent.

She missed out by 377 votes.

I hate to say it, but by voting for the Greens in this case, I actually served to help elect a Lib representative. Still, without a primary swing, the Greens don't gain any ground. So I really hope that the Greens candidates give all their preferences - state and federally - to one of the lesser parties. The Greens also need a really phat election budget IMO, a necessary evil I'm afraid. It might even be seen to go against some of the principles they stand for e.g. moderation, minimizing energy & waste etc, but in this day and age where the "richest man wins", any campaign with a chance needs to match the in your face campaigns employed by the political giants.

 

[Tronica]

Think Long Term: Vote Green!

Phase_dancer: am I right in saying that we can choose our own preferences in the polling booths (even though it takes a bit more effort/thought?). Think through these issues on the day and make sure preferences go as *you* decide rather than leaving it to your preferred party who may have different reasons for brokering preference deals...

So, feedback from this morning as promised:

The Greens Victoria Campaign Launch was well attended - certainly a success there. Key candidates introduced themselves and spoke about Greens policies especially those in portfolios they represented, and then we heard from Bob Brown - a very stirring speech. The campaign advertisements and slogans/logos were there too. The program also began with a group of youngsters aged between 7 and 14 years, who each spoke about their vision of a Green Australia, which were certainly stirring - and a good reminder of who we are voting for whenever we vote: not only ourselves, but our children (future children in my case) and future generations beyond that.

The Greens slogan for this campaign is 'Think long term' (re health, education, climate change, etc etc). It's a timely message and one that perhaps Victorians are ready to embrace this time, given the urgency of these issues is clear now more than ever before (we can thank Al Gore for part of that).

As for their drug policy, the man representing Health and Drugs is Dr Richard Di Natale . He spoke very well and appears very passionate about getting sensible drug policy into a working reality. I've dug up a little more information about the man... he is actually the most likely Green candidate to get into parliament. He runs for the seat of Melbourne, and at the last election, only just lost to Bronwyn Pyke (current health minister) link. He is a medical doctor with a public health research and policy background, and is associated with the Australian International Health Institute at the University of Melbourne.

The Greens drug policy is focused on the very important issues of compassion towards drug addicted people by providing them with evidence-based treatments and treating drug use as a health (rather than a legal or moral) issue. I hope to get some more information from Richard about how the policy related to drug users who don't fall into this category - eg, recreational users. Clearly the Greens drug policy is better simply by promising to bring in only civil penalties for possession offences. I do think that should Richard win his seat (and there is a very good possibility he will!) other activities in the best interests of recreational drug users may also be more possible.

 

[hoptis]

VEC: How to vote correctly

For the Upper House, you can just choose to put a '1' to give your vote to a party; the party will then direct preferences.

Or by voting below the line, you can number all the candidates in order of preference or just the first five.

Also, if you're interested in who your party is directing preferences to, details are release mid-November.

All parties have to lodge their preference deals in the form of a group voting ticket with the Victorian Electoral Commission by noon on November 12, which will give some indication of who is likely to get elected and what deals have been done.

The Age

 

[phase_dancer]

Thanks for the feedback Tronica. A fair and sensible drug policy is what most of us want and it would seem the Greens are closest to it at this stage. I just hope their pre-election campaign is to be well thought through.

Behind every good sheep dog there's a great master. Apart from the candidates themselves, who are the Greens' electoral strategists - apart their regular advisors, do they even have any?

Phase_dancer: am I right in saying that we can choose our own preferences in the polling booths

I always vote the long way round using the voter preference method. So perhaps in regards to the Qld state election I wasn't so instrumental in electing the undesirable. But he got in nonetheless, grrrr... (shakes fist)

 

[hoptis]

Greens tell Labor: no Family First
Peter Ker
October 30, 2006

LABOR could lose a swag of Greens Party preferences in its most marginal seats at next month's state election if it agrees to a preference deal with the conservative Family First party.

<snipped>

The Age

 

[Tronica]

Thanks for info on voting correctly Hoptis. I just find it interesting that preferences are so important yet we all can choose our own. I guess this means that most people allow their party to choose for them, hence why they make all the difference...

Phase_dancer, I don't know who their strategists are. What I have found so far being a member is that the grass roots organisation is encouraged - people are encouraged to come forward and help with all aspects of running the party including policy making. It shows in that the health spokeperson (Di Natale) actually works in public health, and so he personally is involved in the making of policies. Not your standard model for political representatives! (I like it!)

 

[Tronica]

A hurricane warning signals rising temperatures

The basic gist of it is that both the Greens and Family First launched their policy campaigns yesterday, and that the Greens focused on their actual policies whereas Family First launched a campaign against the Greens... drugs being one of the main target points, and will be for the duration of this battle I'm sure!

 

[(Wordy)]

So I really hope that the Greens candidates give all their preferences - state and federally - to one of the lesser parties.

No doubt you're aware that in terms of the lower houses, in most electorates that wouldn't make any difference. It would depend entirely on which order the Labor and Coalition candidates were preferenced, since in most cases they would be the only ones counted. The only exceptions to this would be electorates where independents or minor parties poll strongly.

On the other hand, it certainly will make a difference in terms of upper houses where voting is proportional. The Victorian Legislative Council now falls into this category - which can only be seen as a big plus for democracy!

The Greens tend to allocate preferences on an electorate-by-electorate basis anyway, rather than a "one-size-fits-all" policy. This is partly in order to give their own candidates the best chance of getting elected (based on analysis of past voting patterns in each electorate), but may also depend on other factors, such as the track record of individual candidates, and their stance on issues which are important to the Greens.

 

[phase_dancer]

On the other hand, it certainly will make a difference in terms of upper houses where voting is proportional. The Victorian Legislative Council now falls into this category - which can only be seen as a big plus for democracy!

Pity such a system wasn't in Qld Wordy. Our recent state election involved a ballot vote only i.e. one paper listing candidates 1-6... there's been no equivalent of the upper house in Qld since its abolition in 1922, although the issue has been debated.

Political Minds Gather for Queensland Upper House Debate

As for Family First; family always comes first and foremost among our circles. So we certainly don't feel there's any need for a political party to tell us how we should be doing it. Looking at their stance on various issues/ policies, I personally think this party would have more aptly named "Family Fist"

from Tronica's link;

The Greens, said Senator Brown, were an antidote to "this age of reckless me-now-ism". There was $1 billion pledged to state schools, a two-thirds cut to poker machine numbers and a focus on the climatic crisis.
Every upper house candidate spoke, each detailing elements of a program gathered under the catchphrase "Think long term". Which didn't exclude certain short-term imperatives: COLOR=darkblue]"Put Family First dead last," urged candidate Marcus Ward.[/COLOR]

Reducing the number of poker machines and allocating more for public schools is a far more responsible position to take, particularly in relation to families.

Here Senator Fielding approached the heart of his text, which was not the detailed policy position of Family First, but the insidious program of radical social policy apparently harboured by the Greens, a program concealed behind an anodyne public preference for "cute trees and animals".

I for one would certainly choose a radical shift in social policy over any continuation (or worse) of current government policy.

..."The Greens are anti-business. ("No!")

I'd much prefer "denting" the current economy with a sound environmental plan than to wait for total recession in a few years because too little is done now. For what it's worth, perhaps a word by William S Burroughs will be seen as an apt reminder of the strongly religious element behind the FFP

"If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing. His word isn't worth shit. Not with the good lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal"

 

[(Wordy)]

Looking at their stance on various issues/ policies, I personally think this party would have more aptly named "Family Fist"

Haha... good call!

(and lol at the Burroughs quote)

 

[ilikeacid]

personally think this party would have more aptly named "Family Fist"

Here Here! :D

I have the feeling the moving tide of suburban environmentalism is definitely putting the greens in one of their most powerful positions they have ever occupied in the run up to this election. People are seeing the environmental changes in every day life and its creating high levels of concern amongst a much border range of society, something that the greens should harness while they have the chance.

I've been to see a lecture from Bob Brown recently and I must say it was one of the most moving speeches I've ever seen in my life, which is funny because Bob is not exactly a mega charismatic politician and he didn't use any slogans or emotive rhetoric - still, I nearly came to tears just hearing a poli recognise some of the major systemic problems that our society is facing..

Sadly the Greens can't openly run on the social policies we here all believe in.. people are too afraid by the scary slogans the Libs and Family Fist trumpet out loud in ways that I'm sure any NAZI propagandist would be proud.. Luckily for us though the FF got it right, their 'loopy' social agendas do lurk in the background

 

[hoptis]

Liberals take hard line on 'soft' drugs

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has promised a zero-tolerance drugs policy, including a ban on bongs and large cigarette papers used to roll joints.
Photo: AP

Mathew Murphy
November 20, 2006

MINIMUM sentences for drug traffickers and a specialist unit to treat "ice" addicts are the cornerstones of the Liberals' policy to crack down on drugs.

A 200-bed drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre for prisoners would also be set up.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said a Liberal government would take a tough line on drugs and seek to change the culture surrounding "recreational drugs", which he described as the scourge of our society.

"The message to the community is: we are not going to tolerate it any more. Drugs are dangerous, dabbling in drugs is dangerous, and young people need to get the message," he said. "We are not going to cope if we continue to simply put around the message that it's OK to dabble or it's OK to use recreational drugs — there is no such thing."

Bongs and large cigarette papers used for rolling joints would be banned, and $4 million would be spent teaching students about the dangers of cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamines.

Mr Baillieu said a Liberal government would consult with the Sentencing Advisory Council to establish a minimum sentence for drug trafficking.

A $4.8 million detox unit with 20 beds, including a six-bed psychiatric emergency clinic, would be set up to treat amphetamine addicts, especially those addicted to "ice", or crystal methamphetamine.

"There are too many drug-affected patients mixed in with others and we need an intensive unit," Mr Baillieu said.

He said the Liberals could also commit $10 million to a 200-bed drug and alcohol rehabilitation correctional facility to ensure prisoners convicted of serious drug crimes did not mix with minor drug offenders.

Premier Steve Bracks said the Government had already imposed tough laws to crack down on drugs and he had no plans to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug peddlers because such a policy would not work.

With FARRAH TOMAZIN

The Age

 

[ilikeacid]

^ This story was quite interesting since that on the same double page spread there were also statistics of the greens primary vote increasing substantially (from 10-13% ) and the news that the liberals are giving their preferences to the Greens in the lower houses seats of Melbourne and Richmond where the greens are expecting a 40% primary vote in each! (GO MELB CITY! )

So here's the logic:
Libs= NO Drugs, No tolerance
Greens= Soft on drugs
Libs + Greens in preference deal = the sky must be about to fall!

No wonder the Nationals are starting add campaigns that claim the libs have no REAL moral core - rather they just want power.. so they will sell their soul if it might force out their bigger rival (Labor)

The thing about mandatory sentencing is a big mistake, both politically and logically. No one really wants this for anything, its simply a shortcut to thinking and a bogus political tactic. Hopefully it sinks that Beillu guy more than his million dollar stock portfolio already has 8)

The countdown is on, only a week until the Greens hold the balance of power, sniffer dogs in public - #1 target

 

[Tronica]

I actually read that in the four seats that Greens could potentially take from Labor in the lower house (inner city melb seats), the Liberals have actually decided to preference Labor ahead of the Greens to essentially eliminate this chance.

See Voting moves to hit Nats, Greens

This is really unfortunate for the Greens, but kind of makes sense in terms of the Liberals - who would see that since they have no chance of winning these seats, they should at least support candidates with policies that threaten their own less (ie. Labor).

I also received a Greens members list email categorically stating that the Greens have not preferenced the Liberals anywhere; as usual the media is just spreading lies. What they have done is fielded a split ticket in particular seats (half preferences Labor, other half Liberal). This favours neither major party.