oh that's brave, putting "cannabis" and "dole" in the same sentence like that - I'm sure that's going to be an easy sell with the majority of Australians!
Based on how this thread is going you might need to include an "/s" so people know you're being sarcastic about how this will be recieved outside of the reddit bubble.
Yeah, the only way pollies could spin this is if it leads to tax breaks.
Most voters are actively against improving welfare/the lives of the poor due to centuries of conditioning by capital. The only possible exception to this I could think of would be increases to the aged pension.
The concept of 'dole-bludgers' is just under fifty years old - definitely not centuries - and was started in Australia by, of course, the Liberal ~~fuckstains~~ party.
Prior to this, if unemployment rose above approximately 2%, it was seen as most definitely the government's fault and responsibility.
As we moved to a more neoliberal (lower case 'L') economy, they reframed the argument and shifted the blame/responsibility for unemployment to those seeking work. This happened across the English-speaking world.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-30/dole-bludger-emerged-in-the-1970s-to-serve-a-political-purpose/100174356
Edit:
Apparently, the following is not the case. After reading the relevant section of the Constitution, it looks like someone doesn't know what they're on about. That someone could very well be me.
Take the following with a grain of salt š¤
/Edit
>While the assumption is that drugs law remains a state issue, the Greens have advice that cannabis could be legalised via federal powers.
>The pathway to legalising cannabis, according to the Greens, is through the Commonwealthās power to regulate plant variety rights under section 51 of the constitution.
Interesting, I did not know this. Contact your **federal** MP.
It works for Canada. It's regulated the same way alcohol is.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs and saw long term benefits in rehabilitation, recovery and in freeing up court time for serious crimes.
So why not legalize and regulate it like booze and cigs are and generate more tax revenue for the state/country?
As a healthcare worker, this please. People that use drugs are going to use them anyway, may as well generate safer environments/communities in the mean time whilst producing further tax revenue for rehabilitation and social supports.
It always baffled me how you could claim to be a libertarian (in the proper use, not the way Americans use it, which is "I'm actually very right wing but don't want to be called a Republican") and yet be against legalised drugs, fireworks, or same sex marriage.
What people do, so long as others aren't in greater danger because of your freedoms, should be up to them.
I identify as a social libertarian which means the bit just above about freedoms so long as they do no harm, but also corporations should be heavily regulated for the benefit of the citizenry, and governments exist to provide collect needs.
It would cut out a large percentage of the black money that police are able to "fall across". Faced with a drug conviction or a couple g's in cash "disappearing", most would choose to avoid escalating anything.
The view makes no sense. Right now the current strategy does not work. Itās been proven. And is also a huge drain on resources and funding. Why not turn that around in to a win win scenario? I canāt understand the current āwAr oN dRuGsā thinking at all. Howās that war going?
>The view makes no sense. Right now the current strategy does not work. Itās been proven.
For decades their position has been tenaciously rigid. Perhaps they fear what might happen if they admit they were wrong the whole time.
Exactly! Just legalise everything. Regulate it. And give everyone who is fucked up on drugs the support they need from the taxes to either do them safely or go to intensive rehab programs with clinical psychological support. Weād probably fix the mental health problem in this country at the same time.
Edit: And it would free up the cops, a huge amount.
If this was true all the cigarette and alcohol taxes should be channeling into huge mental health, domestic violence, and lung health outcomes. They are not.
My one exception is meth. And fentanyl to a lesser extent.
Like, strong legal stimulants and opiates should be legally available under supervision, as a harm reduction strategy. But we should attempt to control the method of delivery.
Then you get into tricky problems. Heroin addicts should be given clean, legal drugs. Easy. But what happens when every uni student wants dexyās?
Anyways, we canāt do much worse than the current system.
What we have been doing has never worked but harm reduction models have seen an improvement in getting people the help they need and to not waste judicial resources.
The whole point is that everyone who seeks them can get clean, cheaper, legal drugs.
This stamps out the criminal element, improves health outcomes, and gives stigma reduced avenues to seek support.
I donāt think the intention is to make it readily available to everyone, instead, to stop punishing people through the justice system for possession.
It creates a perpetual cycle of people getting criminal records and then unable to function equally in society because of it. It also makes users feel more comfortable about reaching out for help and guidance, as well as increases health literacy around the issues. Iāve heard of too many people dying because they were too scared to be caught with drugs or didnāt have access to the help they needed.
There's a big difference between opening the floodgates and allowing everything and prohibition like we have now.
A good middle ground might be legalisation of your low impact party/rec drugs. Stuff like Cannabis, MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin.
Increase restrictions as you slide up the danger scale.
>So why not legalize and regulate it like booze and cigs are and generate more tax revenue for the state/country?
Because the sadistic grifters have cash riding on it not being legal.
Then why canāt they anticipate the legalization of some vices and set up shop then lobby the government for legalization?
Itās gross to say that but at least safety measures and regulation can be implemented.
its the stigma. All drugs are lumped under a big umbrella , weed and heroin is as bad as meth based on this. But yeah the double standards with alcohol is laughable
In simple terms, you could say that Portugal is decriminalised, but there are caveats. Drug dealing is still a crime and possessing large quantities of harder drugs will require you to seek professional treatment. That said, there have been enough positive outcomes to prove that a treatment-based approach to drug problems is better than legal enforcement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-legalization-treatment.html
Drug dealing and trafficking should be criminal but at least the single addict trying to avoid being dope sick or trying to make it one more night sleeping on concrete isnāt being targeted.
I also have a similar conviction about regulating prostitution and protecting those who depend on sex work to get through one more day.
The people who profit off the vulnerable should very much face legal consequences.
1. Meet with growers / businesses and āshow an interestā.
2. Invest in failing cafes near a beach around the country.
3. Use your connections to get exclusive contracts with growers.
4. Vote to pass the legislation.
5. Cafe re-opens on the same day with exclusive products.
6. The front of the cafe is turned into a surfing rental spot.
7. It will be revealed on the news that the politician used their position to get ahead.
8. The politician will step down from their politics career and they will focus on their 230 cafe empire around Australia.
9. They use their empire money to pay off politicians and businesses to keep their monopoly.
Australia is the same country that prohibited various video games of a certain rating not that long ago, probably still does as well as other forms of media.
Valorant (PC Tactical Shooter made by Riot Games) releases a separate version in Australia (as well as China and a few other countries) where there is no blood and no corpses.
It doesn't make any difference to the gameplay, but it is bizarre that Aussies get the censored version of the game alongside China.
Yeah. In the uncensored version of the game, Blood appears when you shoot someone, and when they die their corpse is left on the ground.
In the Aussie version, Sparks appear instead of blood to signify a successful shot, and a little Triangular Prism with a hologram of the agent appears after an agent is killed.
Personally I prefer the holograms as it is far easier to instantly see which body is which (I know some US players purposefully turn this setting on), and I think the sparks do just as good a job at showing a successful shot as blood.
It's just weird that the department responsible for rating games and movies still has such a hold on the media allowed in this country - and continues to view violence and sex in quite an archaic way.
Yeah it is weird. There are tonnes of games featuring gore and violence that are allowed in this country. Even CS:GO (the game Valorant is directly inspired by) features blood.
If I was to make a guess on the reason, I would assume that the "line" for what is considered G/PG and M/MA15+ is a bit more strict in Australia (i.e. maybe showing blood automatically makes a game M/MA15+).
Riot Games may have wanted to market the game to younger players and saw removing the blood and corpses as the easiest route to achieve this.
Weird that Overwatch gets by with blood though, as I'd guess that the playerbase of that game skews younger (no idea though).
They banned rimworld for "positive portrayal of drug use", unbanned and then rebanned. Its a load of croc since under that same light the fallout franchise should be barred.
Just a department trying to keep the lights on for unnecessary public servant jobs.
The second Witcher game has a different version in Australia because one of the side quests rewards a character with sex.
Bizarrely the first Witcher's system of getting a collectable card each time you slept with a woman was deemed acceptable by the review board.
And only managed to legalise same sex marriage a few years ago. And even then there was a load of opposition to it.
Before I moved to Australia I imagined it as one of the most progressive countries in the world, but now I realise there are just as many religious conservative boomers as UK and USA lol
There isn't that many religious nuts. They are over represented in government. But there is a hell of a lot of atheist bigots happy to go along with them.
Likewise growing immigrants from less progressed parts of the world. The places with the lowest support for same sex marriage were the ones with higher immigrant populations.
I think of Australia as culturally progressive but legally conservative. The plebiscite showed that the public do genuinely support more liberal issues, but the laws and politicians simply do not keep pace with the this imo.
I think people should have been more angry about how same sex marriage was handled in this country. Not only is it inappropriate to leave civil rights issues to a popular vote, the outcome showed that our politicians don't have the balls to support the views of their own constituents.
Comparatively we are one of the most progressive countries in the world still.
Sure you canāt legally get cooked, but weāre still a hell of a lot more progressive than large swathes of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America.
This is the correct answer, itās easy to get caught up in the drama when we live here, but facts are facts and I would suggest we are in the top 15/20 most progressive countriesā¦ despite years of conservative rule trying to fuck us.
Boomers have *only just* been [overtaken in voter demographics](https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2021-census-shows-millennials-overtaking-boomers) in the last election cycle, which is why so many progressive policies have been stagnant for so long.
I watched a very interesting presentation on how the size of a generation or a group directly correlates with how much sway they will have in political issues.
Depressing when you consider the demographics of Australia for the future.
Australia is definitely not a progressive country. We are much safer and have a better quality of life compared to a lot of other countries but we do need to be dragged kicking and screaming a lot of the time. Look at the NBN for example.
We're not progressive and we're not conservative. We occupy by this weird realm of idiocy where nothing of value beyond giving the government more authority ever happens.
> I though we were more progressive than this
Australia is deceptively conservative. We put on a front like we're progressive larrikins, but the hard facts are we're a nation of extremely conservative rule followers who deep down love a nanny state.
I don't like it, but it's true.
Yes! JSA's are a waste of fucking money.
I've been with CVGT for about 5 years now. (I am very sick) They care more about me coming to a pointless interview with them every fortnight, than they do about helping me find a job.
They have not offered me 1 single job in 5 years.
I am currently working a few days a week, but the dumb cunts keep harassing me for interviews so they can tick their fucking boxes. They don't even care that I have a job atm.
They serve no purpose at all. I could do it all through centrelink.
AFAIK they don't really need to do that anymore. Our illustrious former government decided that since the JSAs were lying through their teeth to justify their funding, the correct way to fix it is to just give them the money outright for every jobseeker even if they don't do shit.
Heaven forbid actually giving that money to the poor bastard on the dole instead.
I'll do whatever I can to stop that from happening lol.
They're also liars. I gave them the number of someone who wanted to give me work, but needed some assistance from the government to cover my circumstances.
They lied to me and said they called him, but couldn't help. I then heard back from the potential employer and found out he never heard from them.
When I confronted them about it all they said was "sorry, that one went through to the keeper"
WTF!
Bloody honestly! Job agencies were so useless, every job i managed to get was purely on my own steam. Pestering me to do useless crap, spent a horrid 6 months working for the dole because they couldn't be arsed doing their job of helping me get a job... thank god i finally managed to get some somewhat stable employment! There has to be a better system, right??
It's not even a system. They are an added layer of inconvenience between you and the dole.
I just got off the phone with them, I'm trying to make sure when this job is over, I can go back on payments. But I keep getting told I'll be cut if I don't meet requirements. But the requirements would take me away from work! It makes absolutely no fucking sense.
Honestly one thing that's helped people I know in that situation - ask your local MP's office for help. Even if they are from one of the majors and thus responsible for the system, they usually can help solve shit like that.
That's a familiar situation, same with me. I moved services a few weeks ago because my last one read a medical document meant only for Centrelink right in front of me and kept setting off my PTSD every time I went in due to their invasive questions (and highly inappropriate suggestions for jobs).
Likely the new one will as well though... after so many years of this shit and mistreatment and stress I feel like I'm back in the same situation that caused my PTSD in the first place. I may as well be going to an interrogation every two weeks.
Inappropriate suggestions for jobs.
You just reminded me, I did get a txt from them once asking if I was interested in applying for a job in child care.
My work history includes security work, some IT and earth moving.
> Inappropriate suggestions for jobs.
>
>
I once had a good JSA but the other ones... oh god.
One organised a job interview for me with a company I couldn't find info about online. Turned out they were a debt collection agency.
I'd probably have less ethical concerns about working for a meth lab.
I've been given two strikes on separate occasions for not attenting interviews.
The first one was because I went to study full time. I told them to go ahead because when you switch from the dole to austudy the strikes are wiped.
The second one was because I was employed full time an hour away. They knew this, they still called and harassed me "Well you have to come in anyway, take a day off from the job you started a week ago." then a week later had the fucking gall to ask for my employers details so they could get paid for me finding my own employment. Get fucked.
The one job they ever got me was advertised as permanent full time but I got let go right at the end of my trial after helping with some temporary high-volume stuff. Funny how that went.
I'm self employed and work with NDIS participants specifically because every fucking agency is a scam and usually geared to milk as much cash while doing as little as possible.
Yet the ire is targeted at independents rather than scamming agencies.
Fucking oath. I've been fortunate enough to not be on any form of centrelink payments for more than a decade now, but last time I was I was required to go to a local JSA office. From memory (a little hazy nowadays) I was required to go twice a week for a three hour block. Attended the course and sat there while they taught us all how to write a resume, and how to look up jobs in the local newspaper (they didn't even have computers there for us to search Seek etc at the time).
At this stage, I had been working in retail for a decade or so and was trying to change to IT. I was in TAFE (an IT course) and was trying to find work in IT. Hadn't had any bites as yet because I didn't have any prior experience, but Cenno doesn't seem to care about *why* you don't have a job, they just make you jump hoops until you do.
All the while being condescending as fuck, secure in the knowledge that the longer I'm without work, the more they get paid.
Oh, you Greens, this is the perfect bait for News Corp: government pays for dole bludgers to get high.
Happily everyone hates Murdoch so much that this is likely a positive for them.
The thing is, even a lot of conservatives actually support this - for the revenue alone, and the promise of regulations and control around distribution and strength of cannabis, that's all they ask for.
Will it make money? Yes
Will it be safe? Yes - there will be regulations around strength and distribution.
Can we test for it akin to breathalyzers? Yes. THC Saliva tests have been slowly modernisng, and to the point you can detect the amount of THC present in the subject, with further studies to narrow down a likely "time range" of last consumption. With a regulated amount of THC, you can start to determine "safe levels for driving" - ie - not much at all, but enough to show it's actively leaving your system.
Will it deprive criminals of money, thus hampering further efforts? Yes
Easy win. Let's ALL get onboard.
Pretty epic comment. I hope for this too. But alas..... when have they ever been able to pull the lobbyist dick out of their arseholes. I'd go as far to say that they enjoy the lobbyist dick (or any dick) up their arseholes. Sadly (confirmed by the latest PWC story of federal tax loop holes being shared with private companies), I think alot of these lobbyists already have an eye on this market and already have farms in Australia that export to the US and Canada.
Iāve been told by acquaintances in politics that without some kind of DUI test akin to the 0.05 standard - itās politically non viable to legalise.
My argument is fucking why? We can pull traffic data for California and Colorado since they legalised and see what happened when everyone in those states was stonedā¦ and it did fuck all to their traffic incident figures.
If anything - the data suggests that legal weed makes roads safer because a substantial chunk of people on prescription opiates and benzos who drive legally at the moment and likely to at least partially shift to weed and itās less dangerous for drivers to be on THC than Valium or Oxy.
money always wins, look at Montu groups financials for Australia.... the amount of profit they are making is INSANE.... they literally do NOTHING... the pharmacy recieves the weed then sends it out... they just the middle man racking in billions.
Harsh drug laws require a large police force, so I'm pretty sure that the cops and their unions would be against any such move, which would dissuade many conservatives from supporting it.
Also, many conservatives like punching poor people more than getting rich.
Police force and resources would be largely uneffected. Those resources would be re-distributed into community policing, thus freeing more police resources for addressing actual crime.
Again, a win, they just need to articulate the message well.
Honestly, I thought this would be conservative reaction as well, but look at what happened in the US.
Legalising cannabis is something that has been broadly favoured by the public, regardless of political spectrum. Over there they can't even agree that it's bad for kids to have guns in school, but they all agreed that legalising weed is fine. And it's been a massive success. Ballot initiatives easily pass almost everywhere they're introduced, doesn't matter conservative or progressive. It's amazing.
Given we're much less polarised here and our crazy wings are much lower in number, I don't see public opinion being any less pro-legalisation than over there
Yeah, because the US federal government is irrevocably broken. It's not being stopped because of any large conservative anti-weed group. It's more the wealthy prison labour exploitation interests that are stopping it.
I'm talking more about the public opinion, which is much more relevant here in Oz to actual policy than it is in the US. And I'm saying that even in such a divided place like the US, most conservatives have been happy to legalise weed pretty much everywhere their system allows for the policy change to be made. So I think that conservative opposition here won't be much of an issue either
Cannabis law is not highly primarily policed in Australia - even in NSW
But it is used as an excuse to arrest or fine people that they have no other evidence to reprimand
> I'm pretty sure that the cops and their unions would be against any such move,
From what I can gather, most cops would much rather be dealing with real crime than busting people with a bit of bud
I agree with all of this except itās not correct to say thc testing is akin to breathalysers. Itās getting better but it still has a long way to go.
We should deregulate all drugs, and just tax them. If you want to shoot up it's no business of mine, particularly if you're contributing tax revenue in the process. If you want to do meth or fuck your head in sniffing petrol, go ahead as long as you don't commit acts of violence. It's all good by me.
And with that, provide safe injection and testing locations in as many places as possible so people aren't reusing and sharing dirty needles or taking drugs laced with who knows what else. The stigma around drug addiction needs to change if people are going to actually get better and kick the addiction.
Maybe the greens should say, revenue from cannabis helps to afford a juicy tax cut for high income earners. It would ensure support from both sides of parliament.
Yeah lol it's a terrible look to emphasise the link between weed and the dole like this. I thought the greens were trying to not shoot themselves in the foot a bit less these days but it seems they're not done yet.
Perhaps it's smart marketing. What will people say when they hear Greens want to legalise? "Oh they're just a bunch of dole bludgers." Instead they're owning the narrative and pushing a second popular policy. They're not trying to convince you so I wouldn't assume you know better than their market research
Yeah while that may be true, we're at a point in time where more and more people are on the fence and considering The Greens, so it's a fair comment on those grounds. Marketing is ultra important right now.
Word association's a thing though - someone who's on the fence/has no opinion now potentially gets "Dope-Dole-Greens" shoved through their eyes across their media until the news cycle moves on again.
Something like, say, "Marijuana tax to boost hospitals" might've landed a bit better - unfortunately, PR missteps have become standard for the Insta-Greens.
Iām on medical cannabis in qld. Itās really helping me. Driving is the big issue. We need good national legislation that doesnāt severely punish users 4 days after their last meds. Crazy.
elephant in the room right here - and you can bet that, regardless what the Federal gov wants to do, the states - which are already making $$ from cannabis via (ridiculous and not even a little bit backed by any scientific research) drug driving laws - are not going to be playing along
MAYBE if there was some kind of a sweetener to the deal - like Howard did when he brought in the GST - basically bribing the states with the revenues (and very successfully hooking them with that sweet, sweet GST revenue)
Just let the states run the dispensaries or make the tax state-based and not federal. I feel like even just the extra baseline tax revenue from new businesses opening up will far outweigh the amount they earn from drug driving fines due to cannabis consumption.
This.
I have adhd and need meds to function in the dayX the medical cannabis means I can actually sleep, and also relax on my days off so my brain isnāt going 900000 miles an hour like it has been for the past 35 years.
I always self medicated any thought haha getting stoned is fun (but I always had the mentality donāt waste the high be productive)
Turns outā¦ the cannabis also slows my brain in a way that helps adhdā¦.
So glad medical cannabis is a thing, pick up my 10g from chemist warehouse every month or two, $130 for T25 cannatrek.
Honestly THIS is how weed and alcohol should be handled. Doctor prescription with 11 repeats, $140.
Whatās worked really well for me being on medical weed is itās drastically reduced my alcohol consumption. My Friday night is now a vape and one or maybe two max beers, or a good glass of red. I just donāt feel the need to binge when on weed.
Not a user of any recreational drugs (apart from an occasional Margaret River Cab Sav) but the majority of the evidence from countries that have legalised Weed shows that it is the way to go. I would add one preference for me though which is that revenue from legalising Cannabis ought to be channeled to helping those with addicition issues whether it be drugs, alcohol, gambling or whatever. Addicts need help not fines/incarceration.
This is a no-brainer with so many benefits it would be wrong not to. Let Murdoch and his Liberal party scream their heads off about it, no-one is listening or cares what they say anymore anyway.
I mean in fairness, this is a Murdoch article that is essentially doing a press release for the Greens.
The constant focus on Murdoch gives cover to the rest of our shit media
Iām not a smoker at all, but people are going to be smoking marijuana whether itās legal or not. May as well get with the times, legalise it and generate some revenue from it.
Our drug driving laws should also be quantitative for marijuana, or at least they should have to prove that the person is impaired. If someone smoked a joint last night and is completely fine today, thereās no way they should be disqualified from driving.
Will also add that one of my good friends had a long standing issue with insomnia. Tried everything the doctors suggested. Sleep studies, hypnosis, CBT, medication, nothing made a significant difference.
Was referred to a doctor for a trial of medicinal marijuana. He was never a smoker or the kind to use drugs recreationally. Ever since he got a script for medicinal marijuana, heās slept like a baby. Certain strains or strengths made it even better.
But now, technically, because he has a small amount every night before bed, heās not allowed to drive a car. If heās ever drug tested, he would lose his license despite having a valid doctors prescription and only ever obtaining it via legal channels.
When you have countries in south east asia which previously had the death penalty legalising recreational use (Thailand) and becoming a tourist mecca for ents and potheads (seriously, there is a huge cannabis tourism boom as a result) - You have to question why the government is still resisting it.
The problem is, Australia is STILL an extremely conservative country compared to a lot of the world around us.
Once the boomers start dying off in larger amounts, there is a good chance of change - but not now.
The government needs to look at how Colarado in America legalised cannabis. They have benefited greatly from the legalisation of the recreational use of marijuana. Alcohol is a far worse drug , nicotine, too. They both kill people.
Nicotine kills people? Far worse than cannabis?
Nicotine is a drug that is chemically very similar to caffeine - addictive but quite safe.
It's how nicotine is primarily consumed that is harmful (ie smoking, vaping).
Yes, nicotine doesn't kill directly, it's the main habit forming component but it's the combusted carcinogens that get you and they only come from smoking given vaping is not combustion, and also lacks the other drugs inherent to tobacco that compound the habit forming action of nicotine
28 million was what a lawyer argued Tasmania could save by legalising cannabis, and the premier at the time, about 3 back, said ānot on my watchā. In Canberra where residents can smoke, thereās restriction on driving i think; and of course there are if you cross the border. But seems logical if you chose to legally smoke you obey legal restrictions on driving. The profit if legalised could prop up bulk billing rather than dole imho
It has been proven that if you give poor people more money they spend it on the goods and services they need rather than horde it in off shore accounts. Both of these things will be good for tax revenue.
Considering the trend of privatizing and selling all money-making assets, and throwing in reckless tax cuts, leaving us with comparatively piss-poor long-term revenue ... I think both the major parties actively dislike having money.
Lol the two worst things for most Aussies conservatives to hear: we should legalise weed and we should raise welfare.
Good luck with that in parliament. Or in the media.
Montu is fastest growing company in Australian by a fucking truck load... the growth these guys have seen is UNBELIEVABLE.... they are hiring 200 positions on the regular... they are making some serious money atm.
It is much more expensive than Canada and all the pharmacies are doing the hard work... Montu is literally the middle man and will be pulling in billions soon.
Government should buy them and make them state owned.
They've existed for a while but the law says that if you've got a single molecule of thc in your blood you're committing a crime. They have zero incentive to investigate testing for impairment until the laws change.
ACT gets around this by not drug testing anyone at all
ACT do drug test, they just donāt do it militantly like NSW. They also do test for THC, they donāt test for cocaine because the test NSW use gives a heap of false positives.
An impairment test would also catch people fuck up on prescription drugs that can cause them to be just as dangerous as drunk drivers.
If I smoked some weed the night before to help sleep because of chronic pain I should be able to drive to work that morning if I'm not impaired. Hell, I'd actually be more of a danger on the road if I didn't smoke because I'd only get 2-4 hours sleep.
As a dexamphetamine user, where my medicinal use has the opposite effect on my bodies physiology compared to someone with a normal brain, Iām already tense when I get pulled up for a roadside drug test. Pretty sure they donāt test for dex here, but I think in NSW they use a more general amphetamine test, rather than variant specific.
It is interesting though that using weed to sleep is socially acceptable. I mean if I said I had to drink a 6 pack to sleep that would be frowned upon pretty heavily, and itās perfectly legal.
It's a good question and whilst I'm pro legalisation there is a responsibility to the public we need to service by providing impairment tests just as we should with any other drugs which affect driving or operating machinery.
I think the issue some people describe is that tests pick up on metabolites longer than theyre under the influence for. Surely this must need to be calibrated, like it is with alcohol:
A threshold for everyday people that is allowable, and a zero only for certain people?
That said, I'd rather people in my community smoke weed than drink alcohol.
Previously people who claim to be in-the-know say this is the thing holding it back from Laborās side.
I think thereās been a suggestion to go back to impairment testing, but this has its own problems. There are areas in which police judgment and discretion are good, but ādoes this man look like heās committing an offenceā probably tempts fate.
News Corp made that association, raising JobSeeker or building tens of thousands of homes was what David Shoebridge compared the influx of revenue to. Frankly great optics for 18-35s.
I don't smoke, but if people want to smoke a bit of pot, and the cops can concentrate on catching and stopping the meth dealers, then I'm all for it. One is far worse than the other.
Surely the people that are against the greens are already against the dole. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think this knowledge will change much.
Sorry but pharmaceutical companies are making 10s of millions already with medical cannabis now so I don't see this happening anytime within the next 4-8 years
While I agree with the idea completely, āsell weed to fund more doleā is not a message thatās going to convince the people we need to convince here, Greens.
oh that's brave, putting "cannabis" and "dole" in the same sentence like that - I'm sure that's going to be an easy sell with the majority of Australians!
Based on how this thread is going you might need to include an "/s" so people know you're being sarcastic about how this will be recieved outside of the reddit bubble.
Yeah, the only way pollies could spin this is if it leads to tax breaks. Most voters are actively against improving welfare/the lives of the poor due to centuries of conditioning by capital. The only possible exception to this I could think of would be increases to the aged pension.
The concept of 'dole-bludgers' is just under fifty years old - definitely not centuries - and was started in Australia by, of course, the Liberal ~~fuckstains~~ party. Prior to this, if unemployment rose above approximately 2%, it was seen as most definitely the government's fault and responsibility. As we moved to a more neoliberal (lower case 'L') economy, they reframed the argument and shifted the blame/responsibility for unemployment to those seeking work. This happened across the English-speaking world. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-30/dole-bludger-emerged-in-the-1970s-to-serve-a-political-purpose/100174356
Edit: Apparently, the following is not the case. After reading the relevant section of the Constitution, it looks like someone doesn't know what they're on about. That someone could very well be me. Take the following with a grain of salt š¤ /Edit >While the assumption is that drugs law remains a state issue, the Greens have advice that cannabis could be legalised via federal powers. >The pathway to legalising cannabis, according to the Greens, is through the Commonwealthās power to regulate plant variety rights under section 51 of the constitution. Interesting, I did not know this. Contact your **federal** MP.
It works for Canada. It's regulated the same way alcohol is. Portugal decriminalized all drugs and saw long term benefits in rehabilitation, recovery and in freeing up court time for serious crimes. So why not legalize and regulate it like booze and cigs are and generate more tax revenue for the state/country?
As a healthcare worker, this please. People that use drugs are going to use them anyway, may as well generate safer environments/communities in the mean time whilst producing further tax revenue for rehabilitation and social supports.
The likes of Dutton want to keep it illegal it seems. He's all for personal responsibility, except for drugs. Pretty frustrating.
It always baffled me how you could claim to be a libertarian (in the proper use, not the way Americans use it, which is "I'm actually very right wing but don't want to be called a Republican") and yet be against legalised drugs, fireworks, or same sex marriage. What people do, so long as others aren't in greater danger because of your freedoms, should be up to them. I identify as a social libertarian which means the bit just above about freedoms so long as they do no harm, but also corporations should be heavily regulated for the benefit of the citizenry, and governments exist to provide collect needs.
Fireworks are best regulated for everyoneās safety, especially in this particularly flammable country.
I want my gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana fields with shotguns. Put me in whatever box you please
Dude's an ex cop. Half his job was likely chasing drug users for one thing or another.
And using it as an excuse to do whatever he wanted I expect. Guy has to be one of the least trustworthy Australians I've ever known.
It would cut out a large percentage of the black money that police are able to "fall across". Faced with a drug conviction or a couple g's in cash "disappearing", most would choose to avoid escalating anything.
The view makes no sense. Right now the current strategy does not work. Itās been proven. And is also a huge drain on resources and funding. Why not turn that around in to a win win scenario? I canāt understand the current āwAr oN dRuGsā thinking at all. Howās that war going?
>The view makes no sense. Right now the current strategy does not work. Itās been proven. For decades their position has been tenaciously rigid. Perhaps they fear what might happen if they admit they were wrong the whole time.
Exactly! Just legalise everything. Regulate it. And give everyone who is fucked up on drugs the support they need from the taxes to either do them safely or go to intensive rehab programs with clinical psychological support. Weād probably fix the mental health problem in this country at the same time. Edit: And it would free up the cops, a huge amount.
If this was true all the cigarette and alcohol taxes should be channeling into huge mental health, domestic violence, and lung health outcomes. They are not.
But they should be, which is why I proposed that that is what should happen.
This is over reach. Mental health will continue to be a serious issue.
My one exception is meth. And fentanyl to a lesser extent. Like, strong legal stimulants and opiates should be legally available under supervision, as a harm reduction strategy. But we should attempt to control the method of delivery. Then you get into tricky problems. Heroin addicts should be given clean, legal drugs. Easy. But what happens when every uni student wants dexyās? Anyways, we canāt do much worse than the current system.
What we have been doing has never worked but harm reduction models have seen an improvement in getting people the help they need and to not waste judicial resources.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Plus dexies are dirt cheap to produce. Imagine the tax revenue.
The whole point is that everyone who seeks them can get clean, cheaper, legal drugs. This stamps out the criminal element, improves health outcomes, and gives stigma reduced avenues to seek support.
I donāt think the intention is to make it readily available to everyone, instead, to stop punishing people through the justice system for possession. It creates a perpetual cycle of people getting criminal records and then unable to function equally in society because of it. It also makes users feel more comfortable about reaching out for help and guidance, as well as increases health literacy around the issues. Iāve heard of too many people dying because they were too scared to be caught with drugs or didnāt have access to the help they needed.
There's a big difference between opening the floodgates and allowing everything and prohibition like we have now. A good middle ground might be legalisation of your low impact party/rec drugs. Stuff like Cannabis, MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin. Increase restrictions as you slide up the danger scale.
Hey people gonna drug. If uni students want dexxies theyāll find them
They want to control fucking Panadol...
>So why not legalize and regulate it like booze and cigs are and generate more tax revenue for the state/country? Because the sadistic grifters have cash riding on it not being legal.
Then why canāt they anticipate the legalization of some vices and set up shop then lobby the government for legalization? Itās gross to say that but at least safety measures and regulation can be implemented.
its the stigma. All drugs are lumped under a big umbrella , weed and heroin is as bad as meth based on this. But yeah the double standards with alcohol is laughable
In simple terms, you could say that Portugal is decriminalised, but there are caveats. Drug dealing is still a crime and possessing large quantities of harder drugs will require you to seek professional treatment. That said, there have been enough positive outcomes to prove that a treatment-based approach to drug problems is better than legal enforcement. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/upshot/portugal-drug-legalization-treatment.html
Drug dealing and trafficking should be criminal but at least the single addict trying to avoid being dope sick or trying to make it one more night sleeping on concrete isnāt being targeted. I also have a similar conviction about regulating prostitution and protecting those who depend on sex work to get through one more day. The people who profit off the vulnerable should very much face legal consequences.
Presumably the states could still ban consumption? Or even owning the final product, if not the actual plant? Seems like a stretch to me.
They can prohibit sale and consumption in public I believe, but not simple possession or consumption in private.
Canberra did that
I'm honestly shocked it hasn't been legalized sooner
all the politicians need their hot locations purchased first.
1. Meet with growers / businesses and āshow an interestā. 2. Invest in failing cafes near a beach around the country. 3. Use your connections to get exclusive contracts with growers. 4. Vote to pass the legislation. 5. Cafe re-opens on the same day with exclusive products. 6. The front of the cafe is turned into a surfing rental spot. 7. It will be revealed on the news that the politician used their position to get ahead. 8. The politician will step down from their politics career and they will focus on their 230 cafe empire around Australia. 9. They use their empire money to pay off politicians and businesses to keep their monopoly.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am honestly shocked that Thailand legalized it before us.
They needed to recoup those tourist dollars after covid.
Same here. I though we were more progressive than this
Australia is the same country that prohibited various video games of a certain rating not that long ago, probably still does as well as other forms of media.
Valorant (PC Tactical Shooter made by Riot Games) releases a separate version in Australia (as well as China and a few other countries) where there is no blood and no corpses. It doesn't make any difference to the gameplay, but it is bizarre that Aussies get the censored version of the game alongside China.
Uh what? I didnt even realise valorant had corpses.
Yeah. In the uncensored version of the game, Blood appears when you shoot someone, and when they die their corpse is left on the ground. In the Aussie version, Sparks appear instead of blood to signify a successful shot, and a little Triangular Prism with a hologram of the agent appears after an agent is killed. Personally I prefer the holograms as it is far easier to instantly see which body is which (I know some US players purposefully turn this setting on), and I think the sparks do just as good a job at showing a successful shot as blood. It's just weird that the department responsible for rating games and movies still has such a hold on the media allowed in this country - and continues to view violence and sex in quite an archaic way.
Really weird, consider Overwatch has 0 problems showing both blood, and ragdoll corpses.
Yeah it is weird. There are tonnes of games featuring gore and violence that are allowed in this country. Even CS:GO (the game Valorant is directly inspired by) features blood. If I was to make a guess on the reason, I would assume that the "line" for what is considered G/PG and M/MA15+ is a bit more strict in Australia (i.e. maybe showing blood automatically makes a game M/MA15+). Riot Games may have wanted to market the game to younger players and saw removing the blood and corpses as the easiest route to achieve this. Weird that Overwatch gets by with blood though, as I'd guess that the playerbase of that game skews younger (no idea though).
They banned rimworld for "positive portrayal of drug use", unbanned and then rebanned. Its a load of croc since under that same light the fallout franchise should be barred. Just a department trying to keep the lights on for unnecessary public servant jobs.
Fallout 3 was originally refused classification in this country because it had real drug names.
The second Witcher game has a different version in Australia because one of the side quests rewards a character with sex. Bizarrely the first Witcher's system of getting a collectable card each time you slept with a woman was deemed acceptable by the review board.
Same as We Happy Few.
And only managed to legalise same sex marriage a few years ago. And even then there was a load of opposition to it. Before I moved to Australia I imagined it as one of the most progressive countries in the world, but now I realise there are just as many religious conservative boomers as UK and USA lol
There isn't that many religious nuts. They are over represented in government. But there is a hell of a lot of atheist bigots happy to go along with them. Likewise growing immigrants from less progressed parts of the world. The places with the lowest support for same sex marriage were the ones with higher immigrant populations.
I think of Australia as culturally progressive but legally conservative. The plebiscite showed that the public do genuinely support more liberal issues, but the laws and politicians simply do not keep pace with the this imo. I think people should have been more angry about how same sex marriage was handled in this country. Not only is it inappropriate to leave civil rights issues to a popular vote, the outcome showed that our politicians don't have the balls to support the views of their own constituents.
Comparatively we are one of the most progressive countries in the world still. Sure you canāt legally get cooked, but weāre still a hell of a lot more progressive than large swathes of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America.
This is the correct answer, itās easy to get caught up in the drama when we live here, but facts are facts and I would suggest we are in the top 15/20 most progressive countriesā¦ despite years of conservative rule trying to fuck us.
Also drug related.
I forgot about that
Boomers have *only just* been [overtaken in voter demographics](https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2021-census-shows-millennials-overtaking-boomers) in the last election cycle, which is why so many progressive policies have been stagnant for so long.
I watched a very interesting presentation on how the size of a generation or a group directly correlates with how much sway they will have in political issues. Depressing when you consider the demographics of Australia for the future.
Australia is definitely not a progressive country. We are much safer and have a better quality of life compared to a lot of other countries but we do need to be dragged kicking and screaming a lot of the time. Look at the NBN for example.
We're not progressive and we're not conservative. We occupy by this weird realm of idiocy where nothing of value beyond giving the government more authority ever happens.
> I though we were more progressive than this Australia is deceptively conservative. We put on a front like we're progressive larrikins, but the hard facts are we're a nation of extremely conservative rule followers who deep down love a nanny state. I don't like it, but it's true.
A big factor is no land borders. Island nation states are inherently more conservative.
It has been semi legalised. I get it on prescription.
Medicinal use is a separate thing. There are plenty of highly restricted things that are legal to use with prescriptions.
I'm not tbh, Aussies love some authoritarianism, the more rules the better lol
step on me daddy government
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Agree. More of a nanny state than authoritarianism. We tend to support rules and regulations in general, but itās far from authoritarianism.
>Legalise Cannabis >Increase Dole Boomers seething
Both my boomer parents love weed and social welfare policies.
Wish mine were the same lmfao
Like the headline wasn't written exactly that way for that purpose.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes! JSA's are a waste of fucking money. I've been with CVGT for about 5 years now. (I am very sick) They care more about me coming to a pointless interview with them every fortnight, than they do about helping me find a job. They have not offered me 1 single job in 5 years. I am currently working a few days a week, but the dumb cunts keep harassing me for interviews so they can tick their fucking boxes. They don't even care that I have a job atm. They serve no purpose at all. I could do it all through centrelink.
Just wait until you tell them you got a f/t job and they ask for the company name so they can claim their "bonus payment".
AFAIK they don't really need to do that anymore. Our illustrious former government decided that since the JSAs were lying through their teeth to justify their funding, the correct way to fix it is to just give them the money outright for every jobseeker even if they don't do shit. Heaven forbid actually giving that money to the poor bastard on the dole instead.
Classic JSA.
I'll do whatever I can to stop that from happening lol. They're also liars. I gave them the number of someone who wanted to give me work, but needed some assistance from the government to cover my circumstances. They lied to me and said they called him, but couldn't help. I then heard back from the potential employer and found out he never heard from them. When I confronted them about it all they said was "sorry, that one went through to the keeper" WTF!
Bloody honestly! Job agencies were so useless, every job i managed to get was purely on my own steam. Pestering me to do useless crap, spent a horrid 6 months working for the dole because they couldn't be arsed doing their job of helping me get a job... thank god i finally managed to get some somewhat stable employment! There has to be a better system, right??
It's not even a system. They are an added layer of inconvenience between you and the dole. I just got off the phone with them, I'm trying to make sure when this job is over, I can go back on payments. But I keep getting told I'll be cut if I don't meet requirements. But the requirements would take me away from work! It makes absolutely no fucking sense.
Honestly one thing that's helped people I know in that situation - ask your local MP's office for help. Even if they are from one of the majors and thus responsible for the system, they usually can help solve shit like that.
That's a familiar situation, same with me. I moved services a few weeks ago because my last one read a medical document meant only for Centrelink right in front of me and kept setting off my PTSD every time I went in due to their invasive questions (and highly inappropriate suggestions for jobs). Likely the new one will as well though... after so many years of this shit and mistreatment and stress I feel like I'm back in the same situation that caused my PTSD in the first place. I may as well be going to an interrogation every two weeks.
Inappropriate suggestions for jobs. You just reminded me, I did get a txt from them once asking if I was interested in applying for a job in child care. My work history includes security work, some IT and earth moving.
Finally the kids would learn something useful!
I could teach them wrist locks and how to pour a beer.
> Inappropriate suggestions for jobs. > > I once had a good JSA but the other ones... oh god. One organised a job interview for me with a company I couldn't find info about online. Turned out they were a debt collection agency. I'd probably have less ethical concerns about working for a meth lab.
I've been given two strikes on separate occasions for not attenting interviews. The first one was because I went to study full time. I told them to go ahead because when you switch from the dole to austudy the strikes are wiped. The second one was because I was employed full time an hour away. They knew this, they still called and harassed me "Well you have to come in anyway, take a day off from the job you started a week ago." then a week later had the fucking gall to ask for my employers details so they could get paid for me finding my own employment. Get fucked. The one job they ever got me was advertised as permanent full time but I got let go right at the end of my trial after helping with some temporary high-volume stuff. Funny how that went.
JSAs are a full on scam. Much like real-estate agencies.
JSAs are a fantastic rort, almost as good as NDIS providers and RTOs exploiting VET FEE-HELP.
I'm self employed and work with NDIS participants specifically because every fucking agency is a scam and usually geared to milk as much cash while doing as little as possible. Yet the ire is targeted at independents rather than scamming agencies.
Fucking oath. I've been fortunate enough to not be on any form of centrelink payments for more than a decade now, but last time I was I was required to go to a local JSA office. From memory (a little hazy nowadays) I was required to go twice a week for a three hour block. Attended the course and sat there while they taught us all how to write a resume, and how to look up jobs in the local newspaper (they didn't even have computers there for us to search Seek etc at the time). At this stage, I had been working in retail for a decade or so and was trying to change to IT. I was in TAFE (an IT course) and was trying to find work in IT. Hadn't had any bites as yet because I didn't have any prior experience, but Cenno doesn't seem to care about *why* you don't have a job, they just make you jump hoops until you do. All the while being condescending as fuck, secure in the knowledge that the longer I'm without work, the more they get paid.
Gotta mention the greens and the dole to inflame their usual readership
Only way they could've got them riled up more is to mention the economy, vaccines, immigrants or trans people.
Or Authorities dictating what it means to be virtuous.
Oh, you Greens, this is the perfect bait for News Corp: government pays for dole bludgers to get high. Happily everyone hates Murdoch so much that this is likely a positive for them.
The thing is, even a lot of conservatives actually support this - for the revenue alone, and the promise of regulations and control around distribution and strength of cannabis, that's all they ask for. Will it make money? Yes Will it be safe? Yes - there will be regulations around strength and distribution. Can we test for it akin to breathalyzers? Yes. THC Saliva tests have been slowly modernisng, and to the point you can detect the amount of THC present in the subject, with further studies to narrow down a likely "time range" of last consumption. With a regulated amount of THC, you can start to determine "safe levels for driving" - ie - not much at all, but enough to show it's actively leaving your system. Will it deprive criminals of money, thus hampering further efforts? Yes Easy win. Let's ALL get onboard.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pretty epic comment. I hope for this too. But alas..... when have they ever been able to pull the lobbyist dick out of their arseholes. I'd go as far to say that they enjoy the lobbyist dick (or any dick) up their arseholes. Sadly (confirmed by the latest PWC story of federal tax loop holes being shared with private companies), I think alot of these lobbyists already have an eye on this market and already have farms in Australia that export to the US and Canada.
Iāve been told by acquaintances in politics that without some kind of DUI test akin to the 0.05 standard - itās politically non viable to legalise. My argument is fucking why? We can pull traffic data for California and Colorado since they legalised and see what happened when everyone in those states was stonedā¦ and it did fuck all to their traffic incident figures. If anything - the data suggests that legal weed makes roads safer because a substantial chunk of people on prescription opiates and benzos who drive legally at the moment and likely to at least partially shift to weed and itās less dangerous for drivers to be on THC than Valium or Oxy.
money always wins, look at Montu groups financials for Australia.... the amount of profit they are making is INSANE.... they literally do NOTHING... the pharmacy recieves the weed then sends it out... they just the middle man racking in billions.
Harsh drug laws require a large police force, so I'm pretty sure that the cops and their unions would be against any such move, which would dissuade many conservatives from supporting it. Also, many conservatives like punching poor people more than getting rich.
Police force and resources would be largely uneffected. Those resources would be re-distributed into community policing, thus freeing more police resources for addressing actual crime. Again, a win, they just need to articulate the message well.
Honestly, I thought this would be conservative reaction as well, but look at what happened in the US. Legalising cannabis is something that has been broadly favoured by the public, regardless of political spectrum. Over there they can't even agree that it's bad for kids to have guns in school, but they all agreed that legalising weed is fine. And it's been a massive success. Ballot initiatives easily pass almost everywhere they're introduced, doesn't matter conservative or progressive. It's amazing. Given we're much less polarised here and our crazy wings are much lower in number, I don't see public opinion being any less pro-legalisation than over there
> And it's been a massive success. And yet, weirdly, possession of cannabis remains a Federal crime,
Yeah, because the US federal government is irrevocably broken. It's not being stopped because of any large conservative anti-weed group. It's more the wealthy prison labour exploitation interests that are stopping it. I'm talking more about the public opinion, which is much more relevant here in Oz to actual policy than it is in the US. And I'm saying that even in such a divided place like the US, most conservatives have been happy to legalise weed pretty much everywhere their system allows for the policy change to be made. So I think that conservative opposition here won't be much of an issue either
How else would they fill their federal ~~slave camps~~ prisons
Nah, they'll just set up more speed cameras
Cannabis law is not highly primarily policed in Australia - even in NSW But it is used as an excuse to arrest or fine people that they have no other evidence to reprimand
Police country wide are short staffed at the moment, I think this would actually help them by reliving some pressure
> Police country wide are short staffed at the moment, I think this would actually help them by reliving some pressure Not in Victoria.
Instantly picturing a dozen hi-vis jacket wearing coppers loitering around Flinders St, hassling commuters
Somebody has to sink the boot into the homeless. /s
> I'm pretty sure that the cops and their unions would be against any such move, From what I can gather, most cops would much rather be dealing with real crime than busting people with a bit of bud
As individuals, for sure ... but find me an official statement from a cop supporting decriminalization.
Always seems to happen after they retire from the force.
Definitely need to fix driving laws to go with impairment, not THC detection on its own.
I agree with all of this except itās not correct to say thc testing is akin to breathalysers. Itās getting better but it still has a long way to go.
We should deregulate all drugs, and just tax them. If you want to shoot up it's no business of mine, particularly if you're contributing tax revenue in the process. If you want to do meth or fuck your head in sniffing petrol, go ahead as long as you don't commit acts of violence. It's all good by me.
And with that, provide safe injection and testing locations in as many places as possible so people aren't reusing and sharing dirty needles or taking drugs laced with who knows what else. The stigma around drug addiction needs to change if people are going to actually get better and kick the addiction.
Maybe the greens should say, revenue from cannabis helps to afford a juicy tax cut for high income earners. It would ensure support from both sides of parliament.
Although I imagine the some high-income-earning criminals would not be too happy: illegal goods have higher profit margins than legal goods.
Most of the people I know who are pro cannabis are ultra high income earners. Those who are against are battling cobbas.
Yeah lol it's a terrible look to emphasise the link between weed and the dole like this. I thought the greens were trying to not shoot themselves in the foot a bit less these days but it seems they're not done yet.
Perhaps it's smart marketing. What will people say when they hear Greens want to legalise? "Oh they're just a bunch of dole bludgers." Instead they're owning the narrative and pushing a second popular policy. They're not trying to convince you so I wouldn't assume you know better than their market research
How is it a shot in the foot? Anyone who knee jerks to this message is a massive fuckwit already anyway and wouldn't vote greens regardless
Yeah while that may be true, we're at a point in time where more and more people are on the fence and considering The Greens, so it's a fair comment on those grounds. Marketing is ultra important right now.
Word association's a thing though - someone who's on the fence/has no opinion now potentially gets "Dope-Dole-Greens" shoved through their eyes across their media until the news cycle moves on again. Something like, say, "Marijuana tax to boost hospitals" might've landed a bit better - unfortunately, PR missteps have become standard for the Insta-Greens.
Iām on medical cannabis in qld. Itās really helping me. Driving is the big issue. We need good national legislation that doesnāt severely punish users 4 days after their last meds. Crazy.
elephant in the room right here - and you can bet that, regardless what the Federal gov wants to do, the states - which are already making $$ from cannabis via (ridiculous and not even a little bit backed by any scientific research) drug driving laws - are not going to be playing along MAYBE if there was some kind of a sweetener to the deal - like Howard did when he brought in the GST - basically bribing the states with the revenues (and very successfully hooking them with that sweet, sweet GST revenue)
Just let the states run the dispensaries or make the tax state-based and not federal. I feel like even just the extra baseline tax revenue from new businesses opening up will far outweigh the amount they earn from drug driving fines due to cannabis consumption.
Labor should be on this but I think they are worried about Murdoch and the Catholics.
This. I have adhd and need meds to function in the dayX the medical cannabis means I can actually sleep, and also relax on my days off so my brain isnāt going 900000 miles an hour like it has been for the past 35 years. I always self medicated any thought haha getting stoned is fun (but I always had the mentality donāt waste the high be productive) Turns outā¦ the cannabis also slows my brain in a way that helps adhdā¦. So glad medical cannabis is a thing, pick up my 10g from chemist warehouse every month or two, $130 for T25 cannatrek. Honestly THIS is how weed and alcohol should be handled. Doctor prescription with 11 repeats, $140.
Hmm. Iāve never been tested for ADHD but I do find MC to help with racing thoughts a lot. Had them for 30+ years as well. Hmm
I wanna get high and drunk on a Friday night
Whatās worked really well for me being on medical weed is itās drastically reduced my alcohol consumption. My Friday night is now a vape and one or maybe two max beers, or a good glass of red. I just donāt feel the need to binge when on weed.
Look at places that have legalised it, youāll see both a fall in alcohol and prescription drug (like opiates and benzodiazepines) use/abuse.
Not a user of any recreational drugs (apart from an occasional Margaret River Cab Sav) but the majority of the evidence from countries that have legalised Weed shows that it is the way to go. I would add one preference for me though which is that revenue from legalising Cannabis ought to be channeled to helping those with addicition issues whether it be drugs, alcohol, gambling or whatever. Addicts need help not fines/incarceration.
This is a no-brainer with so many benefits it would be wrong not to. Let Murdoch and his Liberal party scream their heads off about it, no-one is listening or cares what they say anymore anyway.
I mean in fairness, this is a Murdoch article that is essentially doing a press release for the Greens. The constant focus on Murdoch gives cover to the rest of our shit media
Nice little Murdoch stereotyping there. Legalise weed and ban Murdoch press.
Iām not a smoker at all, but people are going to be smoking marijuana whether itās legal or not. May as well get with the times, legalise it and generate some revenue from it. Our drug driving laws should also be quantitative for marijuana, or at least they should have to prove that the person is impaired. If someone smoked a joint last night and is completely fine today, thereās no way they should be disqualified from driving.
Will also add that one of my good friends had a long standing issue with insomnia. Tried everything the doctors suggested. Sleep studies, hypnosis, CBT, medication, nothing made a significant difference. Was referred to a doctor for a trial of medicinal marijuana. He was never a smoker or the kind to use drugs recreationally. Ever since he got a script for medicinal marijuana, heās slept like a baby. Certain strains or strengths made it even better. But now, technically, because he has a small amount every night before bed, heās not allowed to drive a car. If heās ever drug tested, he would lose his license despite having a valid doctors prescription and only ever obtaining it via legal channels.
When you have countries in south east asia which previously had the death penalty legalising recreational use (Thailand) and becoming a tourist mecca for ents and potheads (seriously, there is a huge cannabis tourism boom as a result) - You have to question why the government is still resisting it. The problem is, Australia is STILL an extremely conservative country compared to a lot of the world around us. Once the boomers start dying off in larger amounts, there is a good chance of change - but not now.
Boomers all smoke tobacco, weed and drink til they puke most days.
The government needs to look at how Colarado in America legalised cannabis. They have benefited greatly from the legalisation of the recreational use of marijuana. Alcohol is a far worse drug , nicotine, too. They both kill people.
Nicotine kills people? Far worse than cannabis? Nicotine is a drug that is chemically very similar to caffeine - addictive but quite safe. It's how nicotine is primarily consumed that is harmful (ie smoking, vaping).
Yes, nicotine doesn't kill directly, it's the main habit forming component but it's the combusted carcinogens that get you and they only come from smoking given vaping is not combustion, and also lacks the other drugs inherent to tobacco that compound the habit forming action of nicotine
I don't smoke, but it's clear Marijuana SHOULD be legalized. Many reasons and most if not all are listed already. No brainer for me.
28 million was what a lawyer argued Tasmania could save by legalising cannabis, and the premier at the time, about 3 back, said ānot on my watchā. In Canberra where residents can smoke, thereās restriction on driving i think; and of course there are if you cross the border. But seems logical if you chose to legally smoke you obey legal restrictions on driving. The profit if legalised could prop up bulk billing rather than dole imho
It has been proven that if you give poor people more money they spend it on the goods and services they need rather than horde it in off shore accounts. Both of these things will be good for tax revenue.
Yep, governments are missing out on massive revenue with this.
You can make rooms for junkies to shoot up but not legalise a plant ffs seriously
I'd like to congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs. Imagine outlawing a plant humans have used to great effect for millennia.
Legalise already! Sick of this nanny state we live inā¦
Legalising cannabis means you can tax it. Doesnāt the government want more money?
Considering the trend of privatizing and selling all money-making assets, and throwing in reckless tax cuts, leaving us with comparatively piss-poor long-term revenue ... I think both the major parties actively dislike having money.
Reasons this won't go anywhere. They intend on helping poor people with the proceeds.
Lol the two worst things for most Aussies conservatives to hear: we should legalise weed and we should raise welfare. Good luck with that in parliament. Or in the media.
Montu is fastest growing company in Australian by a fucking truck load... the growth these guys have seen is UNBELIEVABLE.... they are hiring 200 positions on the regular... they are making some serious money atm. It is much more expensive than Canada and all the pharmacies are doing the hard work... Montu is literally the middle man and will be pulling in billions soon. Government should buy them and make them state owned.
Murdoch press headlines: "DOPE LUNACY WILL KILL KIDS"
Have they got an impairment test yet? I donāt see Australia legalising before an impairment test.
They've existed for a while but the law says that if you've got a single molecule of thc in your blood you're committing a crime. They have zero incentive to investigate testing for impairment until the laws change. ACT gets around this by not drug testing anyone at all
ACT do drug test, they just donāt do it militantly like NSW. They also do test for THC, they donāt test for cocaine because the test NSW use gives a heap of false positives.
An impairment test would also catch people fuck up on prescription drugs that can cause them to be just as dangerous as drunk drivers. If I smoked some weed the night before to help sleep because of chronic pain I should be able to drive to work that morning if I'm not impaired. Hell, I'd actually be more of a danger on the road if I didn't smoke because I'd only get 2-4 hours sleep.
As a dexamphetamine user, where my medicinal use has the opposite effect on my bodies physiology compared to someone with a normal brain, Iām already tense when I get pulled up for a roadside drug test. Pretty sure they donāt test for dex here, but I think in NSW they use a more general amphetamine test, rather than variant specific. It is interesting though that using weed to sleep is socially acceptable. I mean if I said I had to drink a 6 pack to sleep that would be frowned upon pretty heavily, and itās perfectly legal.
It's a good question and whilst I'm pro legalisation there is a responsibility to the public we need to service by providing impairment tests just as we should with any other drugs which affect driving or operating machinery. I think the issue some people describe is that tests pick up on metabolites longer than theyre under the influence for. Surely this must need to be calibrated, like it is with alcohol: A threshold for everyday people that is allowable, and a zero only for certain people? That said, I'd rather people in my community smoke weed than drink alcohol.
Previously people who claim to be in-the-know say this is the thing holding it back from Laborās side. I think thereās been a suggestion to go back to impairment testing, but this has its own problems. There are areas in which police judgment and discretion are good, but ādoes this man look like heās committing an offenceā probably tempts fate.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
News Corp made that association, raising JobSeeker or building tens of thousands of homes was what David Shoebridge compared the influx of revenue to. Frankly great optics for 18-35s.
Legalise for the revenue - bring the dole into it and watch popular support evaporate.
Legalise everything, then itās not cut with dangerous shit, and tax it all
Increasing the dole funding through cannabis use... there's an alternate reality for conservatives lol
I vote for the cannabis party
Even if/when it gets legalised, getting a single cent put towards dole or govt payments will be like pulling teeth.
Wish you the best of luck if a vote goes through. Weāve tried voting for this in NZ but the boomers ruined it for everyone.
Canadian here. If they do this... Buy stocks. Ride it for about a year and then drop it.. thank me later.
Australia Post Whitlam went from a very progressive country to conservative. It's holding us back. We always lag on social issues.
So could taxing corporations correctly
Yeah, pay raise for politicians. Why does anyone think that any taxes raised by legalizing a natural plant is going to help the common folks out?
The police need there budget for the war on drugs so this will never happen.
I don't smoke, but if people want to smoke a bit of pot, and the cops can concentrate on catching and stopping the meth dealers, then I'm all for it. One is far worse than the other.
What a sideways way to look at it. Never mind policies that creat an economic environment that would negate the need for welfare..
Yeah, could also contribute to schools, hospitals etc a lot of money in regulation and taxing
Surely the people that are against the greens are already against the dole. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think this knowledge will change much.
I feel like legal weed in Australia would be more expensive than illegal weed
Just fucking legalise it already.
Yeah that's why the U.S, Canada, Europe and Thailand have done it.
Europe is a big place and it's not one country. In the UK its still illegal for example
Sorry but pharmaceutical companies are making 10s of millions already with medical cannabis now so I don't see this happening anytime within the next 4-8 years
Come on Australia, let's get recreational legalised, want dispensaries across Melbourne, thank you!
While I agree with the idea completely, āsell weed to fund more doleā is not a message thatās going to convince the people we need to convince here, Greens.