It must feel like Groundhog Day today for supporters of the Greens. The mainstream media raised its voice as one today in response to the drugs policy of the party, and in particular how it would apply to ice, one of the bogey drugs of the nation over the last couple of years.
The sentence of the policy document that has been the subject of widespread condemnation is the following:
The Greens NSW will … Remove criminal sanctions for personal drug use and the possession or sale of associated implements;
Of course, the responses from the two major parties was utterly predictable; the bait was well and truly swallowed by the state’s two alternative Premiers. Iemma was reportedly appalled, labelling the policy “absurd and ridiculous and disgusting”. Peter Debnam probably decided he couldn’t match Premier Iemma in the negative adjective department but took the opportunity to condemn any MP who supported the decriminalisation of drugs like ice and the Labor Party for swapping preferences with the Greens.
Now to be fair to the Greens, first of all: of course they are being stitched up, and the intent of their policy is obviously being stretched away on a tangent. Their focus is no doubt centred upon harm minimisation in relation to drugs, which indeed is a worthy goal to pursue. What I can’t comprehend is how the Greens have managed to fall over on issues like this in every recent election campaign in living memory. There are ways to present harm minimisation policies that are smart, well considered, and that will conceivably appeal to broader Australia. This is not one of them. Open-ended statements like the ones above are positively made for wilful misinterpretation and abuse by political opponents. Rather than advancing the case for harm minimisation policies, the Greens are unintentionally setting the cause back years through their approach to the problem.
Lee Rhiannon has now challenged Premier Iemma to a public debate on the ice crisis and how best to deal with the problem. Any debate is one worth having in my view, but Rhiannon would also be well advised to have a think about how the NSW Greens have approached this difficult policy area and how they could better argue their case next time around.
Rather than cutting through, this policy framed in this way is only going to assist in cutting the Greens out of the bigger picture.
For a start, 24 016 votes for the HEMP Party in NSW at the 2004 Senate election, 22,542 of which were above the line.
Doing some VERY rough calculations as a VERY rough guide, that would be about 1/9th of a quota in the upcoming LC election. Given that the main game for the Greens is to win a few seats in the Upper House, and maybe an inner-city Lower House seat or two, it makes sense for them to appeal to those voters.
The Greens have no realistic chance of winning government, so there is no need for them to tailor their policies to the middle ground. Mind you, it would help if the Greens would send a competent hack to Nimbin to make sure that the f****** stupid hippies don’t “stuff up” their ticket http://www.hempembassy.net/hp2/ (scroll down to third story re 2004 elections) by putting Family First ahead of the Greens in their Group Voting Ticket. http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/SenateStateGroupVotingTickets-12246-NSW.htm – Group M, FF at 34-35, Greens at 39-43
The Greens have no need to convince people who would never vote for them anyway that their policies on drug legalisation/harm minimisation are acceptable. In fact, attacks such as are described in Guy’s post probably help the Greens to marshal their core voters: “Look what the mean ole gummint is saying ’bout us!”
Bit harsh Guy, to say that harm minimisation policies are setting the cause back years. How do you advance the cause if you don’t have the guts to speak about it?
OT – I found a plastic bag of a white powder in the lane – this very morning, as it happens – thru which I walked with my kid to school this morning. What do I do with it?
Comment spaminated or modded.
David Jackmanson
If you really think Ice freaks even make it to the ballot box, you really need to get out more. And that Lee Rhianon bint just gets dopier by the day. A gift to Labor, though.
It’s fairly simple really – those who stand to gain most through the criminalisation of some drugs will not tolerate any moves to reduce the huge profits currently available to them under the much-failed “war on drugs”.
Accordingly, whenever the voice of reason is raised, they will use their considerable resources in order to ensure that the status quo continues.
The interesting question to me is :-
How much do the propaganda tools of the drug cartels – in this case the Labour and Liberal parties, and in Tasmania, including the Exclusive Brethren, understand that their hysterical efforts contribute directly to the “bottom line” of the drug cartels ?
Considering that the profits available, in many cases, rival, or are of the same order of magnitude as the GNP of medium sized countries (such as Oz).
The same joke is made about pot-smokers as well, but the figures I’ve quoted above speak for themselves. It’s not ice-freaks as such, but casual users with contempt for Government fearmongering that may well vote Green, if they like what the Greens say.
The Greens are clearly trying to catch the anti-prohibition vote – and even HEMP-voting hippies who dislike ‘chemical drugs (man)’ could be offended and motivated by the ‘disgust’ expressed by the mainstream parties over ice.
That doesn’t address the question of why the Greens do what they do, unless you are suggesting that the Greens are in on it (which I think you are not).
If you have to ask.
Anyway – save it til friday night blog meet.
Stick finger in it – sniff finger then lick finger. Depending on result us eit in washing machine, in sink, or up nose.
DJ
I wasn’t trying to address the question you pose – rather the statement I quoted from the original post (hence the quotation)
.
And no, I am NOT suggesting the Greens are in on the “joke”.
It troubles me who else may be though, given the counter-intuitive (with respect to actually and realistically addressing the issue) yet so predictable, performances by the MSM and the Laborials on this issue.
As to why I think the Greens raise the issue – well, I reckon that they are expressing (accurately) the only realistic methods of addressing the drug “problem”, rather than mucking about with “2 bob each way” schemes such as “decriminalisation of xxxx (insert substance of choice).
As for the tactics, I’m pretty sure that the Greens practice truth in advertising, and that they believe that “honesty is the best policy” in this, as in other matters – it’s called “principle” I believe.
For most druggies their first step into treatment is a run-in with the law. No pain, no gain.
Yes, I get that, but the question you quoted was was “Why do the Greens fall over like this?”
Not the same as asking why prohibitionists attack the Greens.
Given that the attacks by prohibitionists that you and Guy describe are completely predictable, the question remains:
Why do the Greens do something that, (Guy asserts, and I think he is right) does very little to advance the cause of legalisation/harm minimisation?
I’d prefer ‘effectiveness’ and ‘creating a climate where one’s policy is stolen by the Government because they have no choice but to do so’ over sterile ‘principle’ any day.
DJ,
I guess we think/reason somewhat differently (surprise
).
In slow steps :
1. Question posed (quotation)
2. Answer given (rephrased) – because vested interests (drug
cartelsprofiteers ) wish to see realistic policies and methods fail, as it threatens their profits.3. Method – above mentioned profiteers activate MSM, Laborial and other lackeys to do propaganda on their behalf – desired effect, maintenance of (profitable) status quo.
4. I don’t speak for the Greens, but my opinion of the likely answer to :
is
Works for me – and I don’t agree with Guy’s assertion, BTW.
Guy,
Their policy isn’t an ‘open ended statement’ as you claim. The call for drug decriminalisation is only one part of their drug strategy as demonstrated by the link you provided. There are a number of statements contained in their mission statement that would appeal to a broad section of the community. Their overwhelming theme is to provide an evidence based approach to combating the terrible scourge of drug use.
I’m not sure what the point of your post is to be honest. Why not attack the Labor and Liberal parties for their hysterical response?
Pterosaur, Guy’s question was not:
That is, however, the question you chose to answer.
You did not answer the question that you quoted, which clearly asked why the Greens choose an ineffective (in Guy’s opinion, and mine) approach to promoting their policies.
Anyone who actually wanted to see policy change would start by analysing the way the Greens promote anti-prohibitionist policies, and ask how effective they are, given that it is a known fact that a combination of the morally and personally corrupt, the moral panickers and the genuinely concerned will attack any proposal to liberalise drug policy.
We know how these people act. The only important question is: what is the best strategy to marginalise their views and defeat them?
Your answers to questions that were not asked are, on the other hand, perfect for creating an irresponsible victim mentality that may well appeal to Greens and HEMP voters, but that will never achieve policy change.
What all these drug war warriors fail to realise is that no matter how disgusting a drug and its effects may appear to be, they are invariably made worse by the absolute prohibition of it under criminal sanction. Ice is is a disgusting drug. But the conditions of its manufacture, distribution and consumption are much worse purely by virtue of it being against the law. Is there any sensible thinking person out there who thinks that any person who is currently interested in getting ice but is unable to do so because of the prohibition on it? The truth is that the ban on ice does nothing to really restrict the availability of ice – it merely changes the conditions under which it is available. For the worse. That said, the Greens are onto to something that is, in the big scheme of history, a good, and an inevitable idea.
Anyway….
Cheers….
DJ – you are complicating this way too much. The Greens are simply stating their policy. This is nothing to do with prohibition. This is about harm minimisation.
FXH – thanks, but I’ll have to bring it along next time – so as you can run me thru the procedure correctly. It could be good night.
Stick it up your arse. Works just as well… But whatever you do, don’t hand it in to the cops. They will only use it themselves.
Cheers…
DJ
If you are incapable of understanding my reasoning, then that’s your problem, not mine.
I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you as you persist in being obtuse, and IMO, once again are allowing your ideological blinkers to blind you to contributions that do not toe the “party line” you seem to adhere to.
wbb, I’m following up what I think is Guy’s point:
Why do the Greens persist with ineffective ways of promoting their policies?
I understand exactly what you have said, Pterosaur. It’s just that I’m criticising it. The two concepts are rather different.
How is it obtuse to point out the fact that you did not answer the question that was asked?
And to point out the fact that, instead, you talked about something that any competent politician interested in anti-prohibition or harm-minimisation should already know and account for when planning strategy?
Sorry? Insisting that measuring the effectiveness of a political party’s actions is a good thing is the same as wearing ‘ideological blinkers’?
Well if believing in getting results, instead of making pious declarations of good intent, is ‘ideological’, colour me that.
Perhaps you could tell me more about this ‘party line’ and how it applies here?
Thanks Mick, it’s gone in the bin. Sorry FXH.
Well to answer that we need the policy.
Now DJ – which bit is ineffective and why?
“The Greens are clearly trying to catch the anti-prohibition vote – and even HEMP-voting hippies who dislike ‘chemical drugs (man)’ could be offended and motivated by the ‘disgust’ expressed by the mainstream parties over ice.”
It always depresses me how people are so used to cynical politics that they can’t contemplate that the Greens might be advocating such a policy because they genuinely believe it’s the right thing to do. That it’s the best way to save lives.
They’re not trying to pander to a special druggie clique of voters. They’re arguing a case which they – and people who work in the field, doctors, nurses, social workers, lawyers, even police etc – think will work better than the hardline “war on drugs” does. (Unless the major parties’ aim is to fill prisons with addicts and turn them into hard-core criminals who offend against the rest of us.)
Of course, arguing on principle makes the Greens an easy target for drive-by attacks – so long as the major parties resist the challenge to have a real debate on the subject…
The bit where they don’t go out and explain these policies over and over and over in hundreds of small public meetings, and win support among ordinary, non-political people who, for reasons of their own, mistrust the idea of liberalising drug laws, and are easily swayed by hypocritical, corrupt, wowserish and fearful prohibitionists.
It’s nothing to do with their policies, and everything to do with the way they leave themselves and the policies open to attack.
So why not find a more effective way of arguing the principles, then? Is it virtuous to knowingly make yourself and your policies an easy target?
Slightly off topic but it does have the same feeling of ground hog day for the green vs development vote in Tasmania again
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21382697-1702,00.html
How do you know the Greens aren’t running a community based campaign, David? Neither of us are in NSW.
That’s true Kim, but no one here who disagrees with me is arguing (yet, at least) that they are. The focus here has been on complaining about the predictable response of the prohibitionists and the political establishment.
If I’m wrong, and they are running such a campaign, then the attacks on the Greens by prohibitionists will have less effect than I think.
Nor is there any such campaign listed on the NSW Greens campaigns page.
I’m not sure that the influence of the mass media has been incorporated into this thought. One can go to advocate something to as many people as possible individually and it can be all undone by one front page article. This is just the nature of the society in which we live, not something that I desire.
David, your synopsis of the point I was trying to get across is spot on. It’s fairly obvious that both Labor and the Liberals are taking the easy, populist road on this issue, which is unfortunate and also worthy of some condemnation. But these battles are won and lost and moved forward by inches, not by sweeping statements suggesting that everything from the abuse of prescription drugs to cocaine will not be subject to some form of punishment.
wbb, it is probably a bit harsh, but if the Greens want to have a serious debate about harm minimisation and get the mainstream media in on it in a useful way, I don’t think putting a blanket statement like the one I quoted out there is the right way to do it.
Alex, if the Greens are saying that they support the removal of criminal sanctions for drug use, without qualifying which drugs, or what quantities are acceptable, or even how much of a drug being sold constitutes a crime, that would seem to me to be fairly damned open-ended.
Lefty, I really do believe it is possible to argue the case strongly for harm minimisation policies without hoisting yourself on a petard and allowing the mainstream media and middle-class Australia to unsling their baseball bats. I don’t think the Greens have managed to do this thus far. If you are congratulating the Greens for failing to convince people that they are right then I think the point is being missed.
Guy, you’re a member of the ALP, right?
How does the Greens drug policy compare with the ALP’s?
DJ really has been missing the point. Of course the Greens are being quoted out of context by hypocrites and bigots – but what do you expect? They’ve done it before, and will do it again so long as you let them. That the Greens haven’t fixed the problem makes them silly.
All they need to do is read over their platform carefully with a view to what can be taken out of context and to replace such sentences with more weaselly words. Then they’ll have a much better chance of their sensible, sincere, morally upright, etc policy getting up.
Sheesh.
The basis of this post seemed to me to be little more than an attempt at “bashing the Greens”, hypocritically, as, rather than addressing the points of their policy release, we have been subjected to all sorts of assertions – that it could have been done better, should not alienate the MSM, voting public, etc.,
What such contributions fail to acknowledge is that :-
1. ALL previous efforts to realistically address the “drugs” problem, if couched in realistic terms, suffer the same fate (irrespective of their origin) – incremental reform is either wound back, or, more often, portrayed as a “thin edge of the wedge” which must be resisted. This via the MSM, Laborials, and assorted fellow travelers.
2. Incremental approaches generally fail to address the fact that the greatest social costs, and most harm from drug use arises through their criminalisation, rather than in their pharmaceutical properties.
3. By attacking those who seek to bring a “dose of reality” to the subject at hand, the commenters are, in fact continuing the much decried demonisation of realistic approaches to harm minimisation, and effectively serving the interests of the the drug profiteers. (hence my comment wrt “hypocrisy”)
4. Of far more interest (and relevance) I would think is the question I posed earlier
Note that I regard the MSM as part of this propaganda machine just as much as the other parties mentioned explicitly.
Further, it is my contention, that to attempt to engage in a “softly, softly” approach, as has been espoused, is to admit defeat against what may be regarded as overwhelming pressure from the above mentioned parties. This, through granting credibility to the specious rhetoric of the propaganda machine(s).
The Greens, IMO, also recognise this, and additionally recognise that the only effective way to counter such pressure is by taking a stance based upon evidence and principle, and being prepared to defend it.
Well if that is the way you feel Pterosaur (unwilling to countenance any possibility that maybe, just maybe, the Greens could do their politics in this area a bit smarter), we’ll see what people think of the policy on Saturday week.
Like it or not, how you communicate a message these days is almost as important as the message in determining whether the message is heard by the right people and given some real thoughtful consideration.
I’m a supporter of harm minimisation policies who realises that turning the mainstream media and great swathes of suburban Australia against you is not going to achieve very much for the cause. Go figure.
The reality of ice is it’s own existence – and it’s a truth that has been ignored by most policy makers. The Greens, to their credit, have started debate and dialogue and the issue is out in the public forum. Ice has created a complex ‘no rules’ sub-culture within all levels of society – it’s bigger than just the pre-conceived sensationalised notion of the “junkie”. You can’t begin to successfully legislate or develop possible solutions to any issue unless you accept and de-construct its reality. That begins with acknowledging the largesse of the problem. Current laws have done nothing but help line and fill the pockets of major ice dealers. A change is necessary and perhaps that begins with the Greens proposition. Learn why, who, where, what, how, when… WHY is ice consumed? WHO takes/makes/buys/sells ice? WHERE is the ice coming from? WHAT other solutions may be feasible besides criminalisation and prohibition? HOW can policy makers begin to understand, what essentially, is almost an alien cultural / generational issue?
WHEN?
If the subject of illicit substances, especially that of ice, continues to be dealt with within superficial parameters, Australia will face a major health and social crisis once the true effects of ice are realised and documented over the next ten to twenty years
First of all, huge respect for the post title, Guy. In fact, word to your mother.
Now, as to methamphetamine. It ought to be obvious that the only reason ‘ice’ is a social problem is because of the obvious effect of policing on price signals for the drugs it substitutes: cocaine and ordinary amphetamines. If coke was cheaper and more available, trust me on this, nobody would for a second bother with ‘ice’, for the same reasons that nobody would bother drinking goon from the bottom shelves at the bottle-o if they could afford the insolent, fruity little chardonnays in the fridge. Mick Strummer: far more people die drinking cask dry white than will ever die pulling the meth pipe. It’s not nice and all middle-class, but it’s not that bad.
Presumably even the NSW Greens don’t have the stomach to advocate a policy that’d actually work—ie. bringing down cocaine and speed prices and opening up the market to more efficient and reliable distributors who don’t depend, like modern dealers and bent coppers, on the threat of violence—so they’re stuck with the half-arsed huggy-touchy social-work solution.
If the Greens were truly about ‘honesty’, they’d acknowledge the critical unstated point in the debate: the reason people take drugs is because they’re bloody fun.
Remember that these are attacks which serve to draw attention to their policy and shore up support amongst wavering potential Greens voters.
Karen, I can’t find a specific policy document dedicated to drugs policy on the NSW ALP website (which by the way is rubbish). Which is pretty poor indeed at this late stage of the campaign, although there are some measures detailed in the party’s mental health policy.
I should add that I believe Rhiannon is very likely correct in suggesting that the major parties don’t have good answers to the questions being raised in this area. But thanks to the backlash inadvertantly cultivated by the Greens, one wonders if Labor’s poll monkeys would be now advocating caution rather than courage on drugs.
To the Devil Drink:
I am well aware of the figures that result from the use of so called legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes – that they cause the vast bulk of drug related deaths. But somehow there seems to be this argument that if society were to even talk about relaxing the (historically arbitrary) prohibition on some drugs, then we are somehow on a slippery slope that will finish with crack cocaine and heroin being sold through Woolworths and we will be living in a world overrun by users. I just don’t buy it. The truth is, as I said earlier, that there is probably not a single person interested in taking drugs that are currently illicit who is already doing so, or is unable to do so. The authorities can’t even keep drugs that are currently illicit out of prisons. So why does society (sections of it) keep pouring billions into a policy that has manifestly failed and react hysterically if someone wants to even discuss an alternative? I just don’t get it.
Cheers
I don’t see this piece as a Greens bashing exercise. As a Green I think Guy (and David) raise genuine points about how we should deal with our drugs policy. However, I think the arguments made ignore the problems of alternative approaches, which I’ve tried to summarise below.
1) Keep the same policy but use more weasely words. This might have worked pre-2003. Problem is that now all the major parties and conservative media do is dig up the old policy, run it again, along with some stuff about how the Greens now can’t even be honest about where our policy stands.
2) Drop the policy or change it to one that explicitly endorses prohibition. To do so would be a betrayal of the people who are dying as a result of the failed situation we see today. It would also set a dangerous precedent where the Greens become willing to sell out good policies for electoral advantage.
3) Keep the policy, perhaps making it even more explicit, and run major campaigns explaining why it will be much better than what we have today. Obviously this would be great, given the resources. However, as a party with limited money, energy and access to the media (in the first and last case much more limited than the big guys) this necessarily means redirecting a lot of resources from campaigns on other issues.
I’m not saying the NSW Greens have got it right. Indeed I’m interested in hearing suggestions. However, the idea that there is a painlessly better solution out there strikes me as naive.
Thanks for your observations Stephen. You give me hope!
Personally I think the Greens would be better served by qualifying their policy a little more. At the moment there seems to be a grand sweeping goal defined, which is essentially the decriminalisation of drug use. The Greens don’t (at least as far as I know) have the baby steps defined that describe how we get from point A (now) to point B. Presumably (or hopefully) there would be trials, pilot exercises, and ultimately a manner of co-ordinating such a policy that would not amount in a free-for-all for drug afficionados, which hopefully is not the point of the exercise. Obviously you can not skip from prohibition of these drugs to decriminalisation of these drugs in a day; such a hypothetical exercise would need to very carefully orchestrated across multiple portfolios and multiple government departments and offices.
Labor managed to legitimise the idea of injecting rooms for certain types of drugs – maybe a supportable next step in relation to this issue would be to try something similar for other problem drugs. I think emphasising practical policy steps that could be taken in relation to harm minimisation would be a better strategy than boldly proclaiming a lofty goal with not much detail around how to get there.
In essence I don’t think you need to go to the extent of your argument 2) to get some ways towards a policy that would actually achieve something great if implemented, but does not completely alienate folks who are naturally adverse to change in this area.
Strummer: “But somehow there seems to be this argument that if society were to even talk about relaxing the (historically arbitrary) prohibition on some drugs, then we are somehow on a slippery slope that will finish with crack cocaine and heroin being sold through Woolworths and we will be living in a world overrun by users.”
Erm.. The Sears (department store) catalog in the USA used to sell a legal kit with steel syringes, pipes, heroin, cocaine and morphine. Amphetamine inhalers were standard legal issue for asthmatics until the 1960s in Australia.
The reason these drugs are illegal is because they are effective and addictive and doctors and corporations can get rich by controlling and dispensing their derivatives.
Your houses are being burgled and tax dollars spent on prisons so that pharma company bosses, doctors (legal dealers) and the odd illegal dealer who can dodge the bullets can live large.
Ohhh… now I get it!
Props, Guy.
In essence, all three parties – Greens, Labor Coalition – running for election, have the same illicit drug policy, with some tinkering round the edges.
All of them believe in harm minimisation – the interdiction and prosecution of bulk supply, demand reduction and a public health focussed basis for engagement.
Labor and the Coalition believe that there should be criminal penalties for personal use; the Greens don’t. All three parties support needle and syringe exchange programs, with Labor and the Greens supporting the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre trial. The Coalition and the Daily Telegraph don’t.
In addition, the Daily Telegraph supports the right to fit the Greens up as drug-crazed crazies every time an election comes round and is violently opposed to any public examination of the drug using practices of News Ltd employees.
A major study in the UK http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125633.100-drugdanger-league-table-revealed.htmlhas just produced a harm-ranked drug league table which runs – from most to least dangerous- so:
heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, street methadone, alcohol, ketamine, benzodiazepine, amphetamines, tobacco, buprenorphine, cannabis, solvents, 4-MTA, LSD, methylphenidate, anabolic steroids, GHB, ecstasy, alkyl nitrates, khat.
You’ll notice that ICE!!!!!! doesn’t make it into the top 7.
You might also notice that the Greens haven’t yet worked out a counter-strategy to the fact that the Tele does this to them every time.
It doesn’t matter how nuanced and detailed the Greens make their drugs policy, as Geoff says, they will be fitted up every time. Fred Nile now wants to drug test the Greens members in NSW parliament. It’s insane and cannot be managed by changing policy. You just have to bang away. I’m sure the electorate must be pretty close to full realisation that this type of smear is utter and worthless political bullshit.