Because my last rambling went on and on...and on..., this one won't be as long.
The Greens want people caught with cannabis to be given an instant $200 fine instead of being prosecuted. What next? Complete legalisation as they have been openly pushing for? Thanks Mr Tanczos (drug-smoking politician) but no thanks. As I mentioned in an earlier post about alcohol, just because people are doing it is no reason to make something legal and acceptable. Just because some people are growing and smoking their own cannabis does not make it right. Once again this is where a minority is pushing for a change that affects and goes against the majority's wishes. It is widely known that cannabis is a danger to health, so why go soft on this issue?
In other pre-election talk United Future are pushing for 'brat camps' run by the army in co-ordination with other state agencies, where troubled teens who would most likely end up in prison are sent to, undergo tough routines and are hopefully reformed.
Labour are dismissing the value of this concept, claiming it to be a tried and failed idea, as when these 'camp's were run till 1992, there was a (approx.) 95% reoffending rate.
Today we are seeing an increased number of young people causing trouble. Adults are running out of ways to control delinquent youngsters, thanks to childrens' rights, and other PC laws being introduced, including the smaking law. No longer will parents be able to smack their naughty child. Their child will rightfully be able to sue their parents for assault. Even the slightest touch could be considered as assault. We are seeing this sort of political correctness gone mad in primary schools where the number of male primary school teachers is decreasing because they are too scared to be anywhere near little kids for fear of being considered a paedophile.
Yes some parents can go over the top and abuse their children, but that can surely be distinguished from a small little smack a parent gives to a naughtly child. Banning smacking on children outright is a step in the wrong direction.
We cannot and should not give in to all demands of children, nor should we pamper them with all these special laws giving them godly status. Putting children on par with adults is enough to let them take over, as some are right now.
Find the coolest online games at XtraMSN Games
Regarding the Greens instant fine initiative. just because something is made legal, doesnt make it laudable.
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to see the reasons civil society thinks drugs should be managed by government rather than criminals..
The King County Bar Association is leading a high-level partnership of lawyers, doctors, pharmacists and other professionals in Washington to find more effective ways to reduce the harm and costs of drug abuse, and of the “War on Drugs” itself. What began over four years ago as a transitory study of current drug laws has evolved into a comprehensive, long-term effort to bring about meaningful reform of drug policy on many levels. The principal objectives of this effort are: reductions in crime and public disorder; improvement of the public health; better protection of children; and wiser use of scarce public resources.
Through its Drug Policy Project, the King County Bar Association has been examining a public health approach to drug abuse, promoting:
* increases in the scope and effectiveness of drug addiction treatment programs, including expanded access to treatment, improved case management systems and the broadening of treatment opportunities to include mental health care, work-readiness and vocational training, literacy training, housing and the fostering of peer and family supports;
* reforms and improvements to drug abuse prevention and drug education programs that ensure the implementation of evidence-based methods, stressing youth development in general and the maintenance of healthy behaviors and healthy relationships rather than a fear-based approach to drug use that too often relies on misinformation or partial information;
* a shift from the principal reliance on criminal sanctions as a response to drug use towards greater availability of effective addiction treatment, drug education and research.
In late 2000, in response to an editorial by KCBA President Fred Noland lamenting the failure of the “War on Drugs,” an outpouring of interest among lawyers, judges, public officials, scholars and concerned citizens led to a comprehensive effort to examine and reform current drug policy. Policy-oriented task forces conducted extensive research and prepared reports with recommendations for reform, resulting in the release of a major report in 2001, Is It Time to End the War on Drugs?, which found that current drug policy is fundamentally flawed and is associated with numerous negative societal consequences, including:
* the failure to reduce problematic drug use, particularly among children;
* dramatic increases in crime related to prohibited drugs, including economic crimes related to addiction and the fostering of efficient and violent criminal enterprises that have occupied the unregulated and immensely profitable commercial market made possible by drug prohibition;
* skyrocketing public costs arising from both increased drug abuse and increased crime;
* erosion of public health from the spread of disease, from the concealment and inadequate treatment of addiction and from undue restrictions on proper medical treatment of pain;
* the abridgement of civil rights through summary forfeitures of property, invasions of privacy and violations of due process;
* disproportionately adverse effects of drug law enforcement on the poor and persons of color;
* and the clogging of the courts and compromises in the effective administration of justice, as well as a loss of respect for the law.
Based on these findings, the King County Bar Association concluded that, rather than criminally punish persons for drug use per se, any state sanction or remedy should be aimed at reducing the harm directly caused to others by persons using drugs, and that unmitigated criminal sanctions should continue to be imposed upon persons who commit non-drug criminal offenses, but such offenders should have the opportunity to receive drug treatment if their crimes are related to drug addiction