Greens giving your kids drugs, again.

The Vic Greens have released some more of their policies, including their always-entertaining Drugs policies. And, of course, The Herald Sun was right onto them.

Just the sort of thing I feel like chewing into, so let's go. The headline starts with: Greens new policy would mean... Addicts get free drugs

It's quite sensationalised, but a more accurate headline would be: Addicts already get free drugs - Greens (not particularly new) policy would mean a research institute would be established that would evaluate treatment programs for addicts, including, amongst other studies, medically prescribed opiates that differ slightly from the existing opiates they already get for free. (A slight difference.)

And, strictly speaking, the policy states any trial done by the institute would follow the Swiss model – where each dose was US $13. So the headline is quite wrong all up. (Later articles did remove the "free" part - and replaced it with "taxpayer-funded" - which is at least partially true.) The article itself isn't too bad – no real obvious bias, and does cover all the relevant facts of a small part of the drugs policy.

Bracks rejects the policy, and claims it “is not a policy which is a deterrent in use of drugs by young people.” Which is a mostly rhetoric: Switzerland's trials were a success, the Netherlands trials also, Germany's however, well... actually no, they were a surprisingly successful result too.

The policy also states: “Increasing, as a sentencing alternative, the availability of diversion to
rehabilitation and treatment programs for people convicted of crimes committed
to support a personal addiction to drugs.”

The real problem with these policies – is that saving druggies lives doesn't get you any votes. The policies are unpopular, and scary headlines like this don't help.

I think this is one of the most brilliant, and almost snide, statement in any policy statement.
“Policy 2.7: All measures to deal with illicit drugs should be evidence-based and subject to
continuous evaluation.” These policies do seem to be logically based on the results of existing trails - with the emphasis on harm minimization.

Back to the article, the “Police Association was concerned about ending criminal sanctions against drug users. [That] the Greens should be turning their attention to commercial and street-level heroin dealers.. but the expanded needle exchange program had some merit.”

Firstly – criminal sanctions – aka “The War On Drugs” is not stopped for drug users: “Continuing criminal penalties for the supply and/or possession of commercial quantities of illegal drugs” - “people not attending counselling would be fined. Jail was a last resort.”

So, criminal sanctions are not ended, just altered, and if help is not sought, enacted. And for the commercial and street-level heroin dealers – the same penalties apply – but if the research proves effective, it's going to hit them where it hurts. (I don't imagine these policies are at all popular with drug dealers.)

Bringing in existing methadone programs, needle exchanges, and injecting rooms has met all the same criticism, and and light of these, I can only see the minor, and final, extension of them in these policies – they really are inevitable.

Opposition spokeswoman Helen Shardey says she is “concerned by the policy” - that it is “fraught with danger and sends a bad message to people who are trying to get off drugs.”

I'm not sure how forcing them into rehab is a bad message to those trying to get off drugs.

And now into the juicy 'comment' by the Herald Sun's Ellen Whinnett, who reminds us the Greens “are often dismissed (Ed: although, almost exclusively so by this newspaper, pundits, and sects) as a kooky fringe group.” She also reminds us Labor and the Liberals will need to preference deals with the Greens.

Then she says... actually she says almost exactly what the Liberal rep' said – the policies “are highly charged and politically dangerous.”

Actually that's a very valid point – they are politically dangerous – no major party would dare enact these changes, they wouldn't dare risk any seemingly impending vote loss, and the threats of being 'kooky' - best leave it to the Greens, claim they were forced to with the whole balance of power thing, and that way they can come out squeaky clean as usual. Mmm – chicken-shit politics at its finest.

“This will horrify many voters, especially victims of drug-related crimes.” It just wouldn't be a News Limited publication without informing people how they are going to feel. You are horrified because I said 'many' would be – that concern you may be feeling about change is being horrified – it's not fear of change, or a natural reaction to an inaccurate sensational headline - it's horror.

The decriminalization of drugs, the legalization of all drugs, or even the legalization of drug-related crime might possibly horrify victims of drug-related crimes. But, a policy that forces the drug-users to get help or be punished? I don't see how that even works as an argument.

And then Ellen gets a little more removed from reality.

“If the Greens are to be taken seriously, they need to start acting like a serious political party.”

(Well, when you have no state representation, it is a little hard to be professional - these future politicians are not driving around in tax-payer funded cars with secretaries - they have existing jobs, they are normal people.)

“And that means no policy on the run.”

Hold the phone – where did that come from? Does the party have a history of this? Is there anywhere this has happened? I've never heard of any serious alterations in party policy - I think I can recall a tweak here or there. You can't just claim something as fact when there is no example of it. (OK, so it's an op-ed, you can do what you like, but it is rather ridiculous.)

“Colleen Hartland yesterday launched the party's drug policy, but is was alarmingly light on detail. If the Greens are going to put up a policy they know is going to polarise the community, they need to know the details – and be able to justify why we should vote for it.”

Alarmingly light on detail? Personally I felt the policy was well fleshed out – but for a comparison, actually dont even bother checking out the Victorian Liberal and Labor party's election policy pages – there is nothing at all about drugs. There are 37 items in the state Greens drugs policy – listing changes to transition programs, specialist services, expansions to the dual diagnosis programs, increasing recruitment and retention incentives for staff in the alcohol and drug sector, how exactly is that light on detail? Any drug-related programs will be run by the institute, which will "evaluate drug policy." In other words - they will analyse the effectiveness of trials, and flesh out the exact details - studied by analysts, rather than dictated by vote-hugging politicians.

From an Age article about the same matter:
Opposition health spokeswoman Helen Shardey said the Liberals supported neither prescribing heroin nor injecting rooms. But, she said, measures were needed to help people get off drugs.
“We need good programs for detoxification and, if necessary, the use of drugs like methadone so people can reclaim their lives and come off (heroin)," she said.

Good programs for detoxification? That's a fair chunk of Greens policy right there.

And I like her use of the words “drugs like methadone” - how about diacetylmorphine – it also acts on the opioid receptors and thus produces many of the same effects, was originally released as a treatment for morphine addiction, it has a significantly less prolonged withdrawal symptoms than methadone, has proven very successful as an alternative when methadone fails in treatment programs, only problem is, it's usually called heroin.

"We think injecting rooms would have a 'honey pot' effect of encouraging far more usage. The other question, of course, is where do the Greens think they are going to get heroin from to prescribe? Are they going to go and buy it on the blackmarket?"

The honey pot effect has been dealt with from the word go in the Swiss trial, and would be thoroughly considered and monitored by the research institute as one of the major issues. Where are they going to get heroin? They might get them from the same places all the other countries get them from, maybe? This image is too nice to not add:

In Thursday's paper, there was a letter to the editor from a Courtney Smith from Mansfield, who pays $40 a month for epilepsy medication, notes it's not covered by Medicare nor any other government organisation. "And yet the Greens want to provide free (see how well the little lies sink in) heroin to people who choose to take up the drug in the first place. Maybe free dugs for people who actually need them will get them more votes."

Courtney - for starters, methadone is on the PBS already. And for seconders - your (OK, they aren't particularly high compared to some) medication costs are the fault of existing governments, and which party is most likely to push for more affordable healthcare? Who said "It's unacceptable for the government to even consider further increasing health care costs for patients who are already failing to fill prescriptions as a direct result of recent price rises to the PBS"? Who has stood against anything that hacks away at Medicare, and has continued to push for it to extend further? It's just silly to bite the hand that has been trying to extend to you and your plight for as long as it has existed.

These are not popular changes, but they are necessary. Read them for yourself – most of them are not even mentioned as newsworthy in these articles.

One of the other good policies is: Banning donations from the tobacco and alcohol industry to political parties. Ouch – but those parties really need their drug money! It makes up nearly a quarter of a million dollars for 2004/5 (including some to the Democrats.)

The Hun's article doesn't quite match up to the blatant lies from the 2004 article that the Press Council slammed them for, so they're probably safe there.

Also - note how they put an attractive female photo next to the photo at the top of this post. This next one is from a couple of days ago:

Ultimately, there isn't much resistance to the policies. Just a few small comments about the "free-heroin!!!" part. Their transportation policy (despite the Hun's article above claiming "not one cent spent on roads" - which seems to be a fabrication) is getting rave reviews. If the balance of power is gained, hopefully, finally, changes can be made.