Aloysius Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1877313.htm "Mrs Kelly says a Federal takeover would be a last resort but she has lashed out at the states and local government system, saying land release and planning approval is too slow. "State planning restrictions and local government red tape are meaning that although people are on high salaries and working very hard, for many young people its becoming almost impossible to own their own home," she said." You know anything about this ?
aztec Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1877313.htm"Mrs Kelly says a Federal takeover would be a last resort but she has lashed out at the states and local government system, saying land release and planning approval is too slow. "State planning restrictions and local government red tape are meaning that although people are on high salaries and working very hard, for many young people its becoming almost impossible to own their own home," she said." You know anything about this ? As a land-owner awaiting sub-division approval I agree that it takes a looooong time. However, the problem is the greenies. They want every square metre of land gone over with a fine-toothed comb to see if there is anything of ecological importance. Our land has gone from developable, to "of ecological significance", back to developable, and now possibly significant but if you can substitute land elsewhere then it will be okay to develop. This has been going on for over two years now and has at least another to go. Sartor stepped in and gave approval, greenies come in and object so now we have to make submissions, get ecological surveys done, etc. Is the Federal Government going to get rid of the greenies???
Steve C Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Is the Federal Government going to get rid of the greenies??? Why should the Federal Government do something that the voters of the state concerned should have done in the first place? We'll get our chance soon! Of course, if the Greens increase their representation, one either has to wear the consequences or move... BTW, not all those who desire the environment be given consideration are rabid loonies... but that last proposal to legalise 'Ice' was the last straw in my book. In the mean time; it's possible to wear glasses with red lenses, so Greenies appear to be the dull, uninteresting and somewhat vapid grey that many of them actually are.
DrP Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 but that last proposal to legalise 'Ice' was the last straw in my book. Good to see that the media campaigns by the looney right (and that includes Howard) are sucessfully pulling wool over the eyes of the easily manipulated - such as yourself.
Skid_MacMarx Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 First I've heard of the Greens supporting the legalisation of "ice" ... what have you been smoking Steve?
Steve C Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 First I've heard of the Greens supporting the legalisation of "ice" ... what have you been smoking Steve? My usual. You either mustn't live in NSW or have been tuned out for a little while. Here's a Lee Rhiannon quote on the matter from her own blogsite. Dealing with ‘ice’ is an issue of public safety and present government policy is failing the users and our communities. Labor has failed to control the ice epidemic. If you are a woman with breast cancer you go to your doctor and you are given three treatment options. If you want to get off ‘ice’ the choice is another trip to your dealer. The Greens are working for more treatment and rehabilitation programs. That is the way to stop people frying their brains and fracturing communities. Lee Rhiannon Wed 14 Mar 07 (01:51pm) Now to put some personal perspective on this; I saw her interview on Ch7 news, where she clearly stated that legalisation of 'Ice' was the NSW Green's solution. She did not include other illegal drugs - just 'Ice'. If you wish to check the rest of the NSW Green's stance on drugs you may wish to visit her "Lee Rhiannon answers your Questions" blog site... Lee Rhiannon answers your questions... which may clarify all of our opinions...
Skid_MacMarx Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I agree with the Greeens and Justice Stewart there must be greater resources placed into treatment and rehabilition. I don't see this stance as "advocating" ice. Its not just a criminal issue but also a medical one. Damien Carrick: Are we engaged now in a terrific failure in our zero tolerance approach to drugs?Don Stewart: I think so. I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating; it hasn't stamped out drug trafficking and drug use, the criminal approach, has it? I mean every second day I pick up one of the daily newspapers, there's another story, yet another story about how the police have broken up another large drug cartel, a drug ring in Brisbane or Sydney or wherever, so you knock one off and several more seem to spring up. The fact is, some people want and need drugs, and they're going to get them somehow or another. There's still large amounts of illegal drugs being imported into this country, heroin for example, heroin is not made in this country, never has been. Large quantities, ever increasing quantities of cocaine are being brought into this country one way or another, from South America, where it is manufactured. It's not made in Australia. But other drugs are made in Australia. New drugs are being introduced, very, very dangerous drugs like ecstasy, and one reads in the newspaper of people dying from ingesting just one tablet of a bad batch or something of that nature. They're being cooked up in little laboratories in little factories, even in people's homes. Another new drug that's been introduced is ice, which is a very dangerous drug; it is a mind-altering substance that makes people aggressive, almost to the point of paranoia and hallucinatory effects. So it hasn't worked, but will anything work? I don't think we can just say open slather, but we've got to think more instead of the criminalisation of it, and the criminal approach and trying to stamp it out by penalty and criminal law action, we've got to think seriously about a medical approach, more seriously about how we can change things for the better. I don't think you're ever going to stop it. I really don't think that humankind will ever stop other humans getting substances such as these terrible drugs if they want them and need them. They'll find a way. Damien Carrick: So are you saying that it is a public health issue, and if you want to fight it, then maintain the ban, but pump big money into public health. Don Stewart: Indeed. Big money. And it's a dangerous game that people are playing. What I'm suggesting, there has to be megabucks put into research on how to do things and do things better than we are. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2007/1867862.htm
Steve C Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I agree with the Greeens and Justice Stewart there must be greater resources placed into treatment and rehabilition. I don't see this stance as "advocating" ice. Its not just a criminal issue but also a medical one.[/b] http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2007/1867862.htm I don't recall the word "advocate" being used by any party in this discussion so far when referring to "Ice". Legalisation is nothing even close to "advocating". My contention is that the rule must apply to all or none at all. Legalising one and not the rest is just as morally indefensible as the current hodge-podge is. And if it's legalised here, but not in other States (like the ACT's laws are to NSW's), then it's just as open to abuse. It's consistency that's the problem. Laws need consistency for every person to comprehend the reason for their existence and the benefits to flow from abiding by them. It ain't rocket science, despite the constant attempts by the legal profession to turn the legislative process into a 3D maze as complex as the Milky Way.
Skid_MacMarx Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I can not find in your quote where Ms Rhiannon has advocated for the "legalisation" of ice.. so honestly mate.. I don't know what your on about.. Although I agree with both Ms Rhiannon and Justice Stewart that greater resources must be placed into treatment and rehabilition. The nature of that treatment and rehabilition should be determined by medical professionals. As I'm not in the medical profession, I really don't know what would be the best treatment. My knowledge comes from a Four Corners program where they said that this "ice" stuff is just as addictive as "crack," it makes those on it extremely aggressive and it was "flooding" the streets. Considering the "extremely aggressive" aspect, I can understand why its a "public safety issue" and I agree current government intervention has not been effective, and greater focus must be on treatment and rehabilition as well. It’s cheap, highly addictive and ultra-powerful. "Ice", or crystal methamphetamine, is now more popular than heroin, playing havoc with the minds and the bodies of nearly 50,000 Australians.Ice is filling emergency wards with psychotic, dangerous patients, to the alarm of doctors who thought they’d seen everything. "They’re the most out of control, violent human beings I have ever seen in my life - and I’ve been around for a long time," says one. "It makes heroin seem like the really good old days." http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1593168.htm
Hussla Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 The solution to drug dealers and drug users is simple. ANYONE caught dealing in ANY quantity of drugs of any kind should be put to death. Anyone caught possessing or using any controlled substance would have a 3 strikes and out policy, no matter what illegal drug it was. 3rd strike and your sent to the gallows. Doesn't matter who or what age, catch a group of 16 year olds on the street smoking a joint, 3rd offence? too bad!I think eventually the message would get across, terrify enough people........and they might really say NO to drugs. Our current light handed approaches have proven useless! And providing support services and rehab services is only effectively a sly and underhandedly form condoning illegal activities, at the end rehab and support services are just a burden and waste of money. Best to stop the problem in the first place rather than try and fix it after the damage is done.
Aloysius Posted March 21, 2007 Author Posted March 21, 2007 Good heavens - thread started off talking about a speech related to the cost of housing allotments and has turned into a debate about greenies and "Ice" - Go figure Mello - sort em out
Skid_MacMarx Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Good heavens - thread started off talking about a speech related to the cost of housing allotments and has turned into a debate about greenies and "Ice" - Go figure I'm only going with the "flow" Aloysius
mello yello Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Good heavens - thread started off talking about a speech related to the cost of housing allotments and has turned into a debate about greenies and "Ice" - Go figure Mello - sort em out Went down pretty fast didnt it? Maybe you should just change the topic title ..probably be easier ......"How Green is My Cactus.....an Ice-scapade starring Bob Brown and Lee Rhiannon"
Steve C Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 I'm only going with the "flow" Aloysius Must be an "Ice flow"... My neighbour mentioned the same Lee Rhiannon "legalise Ice" quote from the same Ch7 news bulletin I had seen, and given I haven't spoken to her for about a week and a half - I can't take any credit for brainwashing her into imagining it. So you guys missed it. Oh well; them's the breaks. Sorta back on subject... Why not use the Tasmanian Premier's approach to 'fast-tracking' land releases? I know it's only my humble perspective, but the Federal Government holds land in all of the States. What'd be wrong with the Federal Government handing over their available land in order to fast track land releases? I guess it's because the Federal Government believes they hold land "in the Country's interest", whereas the (Labor) States are painted (especially by the conservative side of politics), as only wanting to make money from land taxes, etc... Maybe Mrs Kelly should take a long hard look at the Party that she's a member of before running off at the mouth like some sort of socialist! The next thing she'll develop might be a real conscience if she keeps sprouting lines like "we're back to a period of serfdom". Does she really think the Howard Government wants anything other than serfs? Get real lady! Perhaps she's having some difficulty coming to grips with her own political party's part in unleashing the forces that have made the present housing situation a reality. Business is the darling of the conservatives; and excessive asking prices for the supposedly limited amount of housing, is just the business forces they love doing what it's been allowed to do. Not much point blaming the neighbours for your dogs running wild if you're the bozzo who left the gate open... I do also detect the stench of yet another Howard inspired grab for control of State owned or controlled land and resources. The Howard government is starting to appear desperate to wrestle control away from the States. It's almost as if JWH can feel the noose tightening and the most personally important goals that he's expressed right from day one of entering politics are something he needs to desperately achieve before he loses the opportunity.
BribieG Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 The solution to drug dealers and drug users is simple.ANYONE caught dealing in ANY quantity of drugs of any kind should be put to death. Police sources tonight would not comment on the Bribie Island Liquorland massacre by the Australian Federal Police that left 7 employees dead. Regular customers are reported to be driving to Caboolture where they can safely purchase at the BWS store. (Reuters 2100 hrs)
Recommended Posts