Well said. Studies have shown that nicotine is pretty much as addictive as heroin anyway.
Tony Abbott talking about mandatory drug testing for dole recipients
- Thread starter b simpson
- Start date
Well said. Studies have shown that nicotine is pretty much as addictive as heroin anyway.
A criminal client of mine once told me that he could kick Hammer but not cigarettes. He thought cigarettes were more addictive.
Exactly. Why on earth would you intentionally sabotage your own market? It makes no sense.
The state run prisons you are referring to are poorly operated. There are many prisons in Europe, for example, that have low recidivism rates because they put an emphasis on rehabilition and intergration of the prisoner into society after release.
This is about the system in Norway: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people
Really fascinating approach IMO
I'm not a Green voter but I do agree with some elements of this. In fact the privatization of prisons is the typical outdated Thatcherist thinking the Libs hang on to.
If these drugs are regulated and supplied to users methadone clinic style a large amount of police resources are freed up to deal with other crime. Every tried to get the coppers to prosecute a fraud case- all too hard not enough resources. I'm looking at 2 phoenix companies (Directors of which are both loyal LNP supporters for what it is worth seeing we are reducing the argument to party lines) that have stung my clients for 70k and 180k. Both operational under new names and companies leaving a swag of debt (900k to ATO for one). No state or federal resources to deal with this little scam.
It seems conservative governments are ok with the little guys going under as long as any Chamber of Commerce affiliates don't go down.
If you do not think the drug problem is causing misery across society I suggest you have the chauffer wind down the window and take a good look at what's going on (for ALP hacks-put down Das Kapital and go for a stroll).
You may disparage Cimbom's comments but given the current level of thinking being exercised by both major parties I for one am open to new ideas. The problem with both major parties is that they are too busy entrenched in the blame game to actually stop and think and fix the problem.
And your proposed solution Dazz?
Last edited by a moderator:
Incarceration is supposed to serve four purposes: retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation. Australians, in my opinion, often boil it down to three, leaving rehabilitation on the wayside.
I remember a few years ago there was a massive uproar about an Australian prison holding its own Master Chef challenge. No cameras, just a cooking contest. 'Jail is not supposed to be fun, they are there to be punished', naysayers wailed.
The way I saw it, the prisoners were being taught a practical and vocational skill. On release, they would not only be able to cook for themselves but perhaps get a job in a kitchen, one of the few places where a former inmate has a chance of gaining paid employment.
Additionally, it was giving them something structured and positive to get excited about. I can think of worse things a criminal could get excited about than 'who can make the best lemon meringue?'. Cooking can be a very therapeutic exercise.
Scandinavian style prisons would never fly in Australia. We are too preoccupied with retribution.
We also seem to think harsher prisoner conditions serve to deter. Well, they don't. The USA has the harshest sentencing laws and worst prison conditions in the Western world and just look at their crime rates.
I think Australians (and Americans, etc) are very focused on retribution as we live in a very insular society compared to most parts of Europe. The US example has shown us that not even the death penalty, with all its attendant problems and costs, is effective at deterring crime. We need to approach the problem from a different angle but I don't think anyone will have the courage to take that on here in the near future.
You are completely obsessed about percentages of people voting, and how many people support what. Who cares what you think the percentages are? Support and percentages change, especially if ideas are explained clearly.
By the way you did a great job, if we went with the $200 pw universal payment it wouldnt cost us anymore materially (just a lazy 7 bil) than the current social security system. Better yet, with this system, all of the 'real' tax paying citizens would get a tax cut of $200 pw.
Whats not to like? Do you think the gubment is doing such a fantastic job with your taxes now they need an extra $200 pw off you?
Its costing taxpayers the same amount anyway, its just whether we spend a whole lot of time and money chasing up 'cheats' for the shock jocks. Who cares whether they are looking for work or making mud pies? Seriously, we can either spend time and money 'fixing' or supervising these people, or we can give ourselves a $200 pw tax cut. I know which Id prefer.
Last edited:
tobe, whilst I understand your point of view, I don't think you appreciate the real world mate:
1. Most people are idiots
2. Voting is mandatory (well... getting your name ticked off at least, which is what I do)
Why do you think politicians make outrageous statements that pander to peoples' emotions? Because it allows them to pull dodgy cons for their rich mates behind the scenes that they would never get away with if it was in the limelight.
So their masters (corporate bigwigs) get them to say stupid s__t like 'Let's subject all dole recipients to drug tests' to keep the focus away from what's really going on, like for example corporate welfare, which dwarfs social welfare.
Publicised costs, privatised profits! Gotta love it.
1. Most people are idiots
2. Voting is mandatory (well... getting your name ticked off at least, which is what I do)
Why do you think politicians make outrageous statements that pander to peoples' emotions? Because it allows them to pull dodgy cons for their rich mates behind the scenes that they would never get away with if it was in the limelight.
So their masters (corporate bigwigs) get them to say stupid s__t like 'Let's subject all dole recipients to drug tests' to keep the focus away from what's really going on, like for example corporate welfare, which dwarfs social welfare.
Publicised costs, privatised profits! Gotta love it.
Got to agree with point 1. When a perfectly reasonable practice from another country is raised, people run with the erroneous "Let's subject all dole recipients to drug tests' line. So they are either idiots or willfully misrepresenting for other means, but I'm with you, it's probably option 1.
Don't know if you do but if you drink alcohol, then you take drugs. Not necessarily an addict, but you're a drug user.
Alcohol is a far more dangerous and addictive drug than marijuana, which has many amazing health benefits, including attacking some serious illnesses such as cancer. The explosion of new strains and uses in recent years is great, decades of repression coming to an end.
Prohibition makes no sense. Before prohibition marijuana was used for thousands of years to treat health problems. Image the outcry if alcohol was prohibited as well, and you could be raided for having a bottle of wine. The US introduced prohibition for alcohol and marijuana around the same time but in 1933 allowed alcohol again but not marijuana. Why ? Pressure from big pharmaceutical companies, and later law enforcement entities that benefit, that has remained ever since.
I know a few long term grass users, and I reckon it can't be all that good for you just by looking at them? Anyway, alcohol is definitely not good either, and I have way to much of that.
See ya's.
By your definition, coffee drinkers all over the world are also drug addicts?
Marijuana and alcohol are depressant drugs which inhibit control, especially dangerous operating cars, machinery and workplace tools etc. Proven fact and as such there are laws around them sufficient to protect those who don't get into it like they do.
pinkboy
Thay also reckon a bit of pot enhances your love life. I don't know anything about that
I also hear beer goggles increase your 'pool' of potential 'mates' on Friday and Saturday nights!
pinkboy
Prohibition of marijuana has nothing to do with driving, etc. If so why is alcohol legal ? Why not treat the much less harmful and less addictive drug marijuana the same ? Why ? It doesn't make any sense.
I also hear beer goggles increase your 'pool' of potential 'mates' on Friday and Saturday nights!
pinkboy
What about a glass of bubbly for the lovely ladies! That gets the giggles going.
I'm all for drug and alcohol testing including for those already in employment; in particular those employed in areas that would be of higher OH&S concern which many low skill manual labour jobs are.
Small businesses need employees who ends up on Workcover or place others at risk of injury or death like they need a hole in the head.
Even worse is being stuck with someone like this because of in adequate laws covering screening (for proof) and sacking. It's happened to us. Why we are very picky and pay above award to keep good employees.
Small businesses need employees who ends up on Workcover or place others at risk of injury or death like they need a hole in the head.
Even worse is being stuck with someone like this because of in adequate laws covering screening (for proof) and sacking. It's happened to us. Why we are very picky and pay above award to keep good employees.
Two reasons I like to quote %ages ;
- I like to quote undisputable facts. Provides you a definitive rock to grab onto amongst the ocean of wishy-washy drivel passed off as opinion.
- It decides what type of Govts we have.
Both in my humble opinion are important.
The percentages I quote for known parties are published and verified fact. It's got nothing to do what "I think".
Why thank you. Only took 30 seconds to accurately calculate. You could have done the same if you'd thought your crazy idea through for 30 seconds as well.
Just rolls off the tongue so easily doesn't it, just a lazy 7 Billion more.
You didn't suggest where that was coming from ??
Where does one start ??
- How about the extra $ 7 Billion price tag for a start.
- How about the single pensioners who've just taken a massive haircut ??
- How about the disabled pensioner who's just taken a big haircut ??
- How about the other myriad pensioners who were receiving the money that you are now proposing to throw at millionaires and billionaires ??
I'm sure you would, but what you'd prefer as an individual doesn't count for a whole lot. The decision makers in our country very much care what the constituents think as a bulk people.
Last edited by a moderator:
And that, my friends, is what you call 'copping a hiding'.
Similar threads
