April 3, 2012

Gillard out of touch no matter the subject

More than 80 per cent of Age readers responding to an online survey believe that the illegal drug problem would be best addressed with decriminalisation, rather than the failed criminalisation path.

Julia Gillard, our tone deaf, off in some other drone-like universe, Prime Minister disagrees - with no equivocation, of course; because she never equivocates, does she, not on anything, no matter how wrong she is, off she goes - where ever the people are not following, that's where we'll find Julia.  Not far behind will be Wayne Swan and the rest of her parrot-happy cabinet chums.

Carr is an exception, in this instance, but his contribution to this particular debate was made prior to his entrance to federal politics, and he now says he will tow the party line.

Australia's war on drugs has failed (and so has everyone else's ... just ask more than 45,000 people murdered in Mexico each year; ooops, that's right, you can't ask them - count the bodies instead)

Gillard rejects calls for rethink on drug laws 

Australia21 - The prohibition of illicit drugs is killing and criminalising our children and we are letting it happen


  1. Wonderful link - should be shoved in the faces of all politicians, globally.

    Of course, it all dates well before any of those presidents, and the defining of illicit drugs - and therefore the drug trade that we know today - didn't occur until those dreadful opium smoking Asians arrived in the USA. Australia, as usual, quickly followed.

    Prior to 1953, there was no such thing as illicit drugs in Australia.

    Any sensible person would have thought that America showed us all - a stunning experiment, by the way, an excellent case study - that prohibition doesn't work. Yet, having made alcohol legal again, after the great and obvious failure of it being illegal, they promptly set on a path to find other consciousness-changing products to ban. And they found them, readily enough, in the Asian peril.

  2. Solomon4:11 PM

    Gillard gets tetchy whenever anyone asks her to have an opinion on anything other than the mining tax or climate tax. She's completely and absolutely single-minded: she wants to seize money from those who have it and spend it on social services (education, health, one assumes, although I don't really know what drives her).

    It's the same as gay marriage; it might make life more complicated to have a reasoned opinion, so she just defines it out of the debate. It creates the overwhelming impression of her as a void with no principles or values, at least none which anyone can decipher or understand.

    At least with Tony Abbott I know what he believes and why (by which I mean he believes what he does because he's an asshole.)

    It's also the same with refugees, she wants to define it out of the debate by posturing as 'tough'. The debate is bothersome to her (shoo fly).

    Unlike gay marriage, it's not a policy area that can survive on inertia with no substantial human cost. Which makes her seem not just a void, but ruthless, cunning, savage and unpredictable.

    I remember as law student watching drug court cases. The crime in the eyes of judges is less that people have taken drugs but that they don't show up to court, and they are penalised less for drug use than for a kind of 'contempt of court'. This is the law, we don't make the law, but you're damn well going to respect us. I found it revolting. It's also a waste of the court's time and a debasement of the judicial process, to punish people for hurting themselves.

  3. She's completely and absolutely single-minded: she wants to seize money from those who have it and spend it on social services (education, health, one assumes, although I don't really know what drives her).

    It's worse than that, Solomon. The money, via smoke and mirrors, is allegedly going to pay the additional three per cent superannuation (yep: go figure how the hell THAT transfer could possibly work, since the gov't hasn't explained). The remainder (how much; who knows?!) will go to energy efficient developments - you know, the ones that suck up money with no results, and/or cost so much that only the elite could ever afford them.

    The money will, in other words, be pissed away in a manner only the federal ALP can ever conceive with a straight face.

    At least that's as far as I understand it. Keep in mind, the Gillard gov't is not good at explaining any of their economic decisions, most especially not in terms of opportunity costs.