Atheists: Your views on drug prohibition?

[riddlemethis]

You hit on her biggest problem I think OWJ. Terrible communicator.

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by owheelj

Perhaps what she should have done, is make more of an effort explaining to the population why the original scheme wasn't getting passed, and either negotiate with the Greens at that time, or call a double a dissolution election - all of which could have been done without the disruption of removing Kevin Rudd.

If Rudd had called a double dissolution election in January 2010, he would have won, and then been able to pass the CTS at a joint sitting of both houses. I believe that it was one of his gravest political errors not to do so. And I believe that it's part of the reason why his popularity slid: He was perceived not to have the courage of his convictions in relation to, as he called it, "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time". And for an "aspirational leader", IMO that was a serious miscalculation ...

[riddlemethis]

I heard Mick Palmer interviewed a couple of weeks ago actually. His about face is compelling.

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

If Rudd had called a double dissolution election in January 2010, he would have won, and then been able to pass the CTS at a joint sitting of both houses. I believe that it was one of his gravest political errors not to do so. And I believe that it's part of the reason why his popularity slid: He was perceived not to have the courage of his convictions in relation to, as he called it, "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time". And for an "aspirational leader", IMO that was a serious miscalculation ...

While I'm sure that they would have won the house of reps, I'm far from convinced that they would have won a majority in the senate. In 2007 they won 18 out of 40 contested seats. It's always difficult to win a senate majority, and I think a double dissolution election would increase people's awareness of the importance of the senate as check on the powers of the government.

[Varaker]

Well my view is that people have alot of issues with self control and monitoring how they think. If people take drugs just for fun then really it is the same problem as religion personally i just hope to have nothing to influence how i think i want my decisions to be my own. A drug isnt bad only its use

[riddlemethis]

Originally Posted by Varaker

Well my view is that people have alot of issues with self control and monitoring how they think. If people take drugs just for fun then really it is the same problem as religion personally i just hope to have nothing to influence how i think i want my decisions to be my own. A drug isnt bad only its use

Case closed folks!

[owheelj]

I think it's fine for people to not dogmatically confirm to a particular degree of liberalism/left/right ideology. When people have those inconsistencies with a particular ideology, it means they're evaluating issues on their merits, which is a much better position to take. Drug policy and intelligence eugenics are not directly connected issues, and so it's fine to not have views on both issues that are not consistent with one political ideology.

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by owheelj

While I'm sure that they would have won the house of reps, I'm far from convinced that they would have won a majority in the senate. In 2007 they won 18 out of 40 contested seats. It's always difficult to win a senate majority, and I think a double dissolution election would increase people's awareness of the importance of the senate as check on the powers of the government.

I agree that they would not have won the senate - there would have been a hung senate. But they did not a majority in the senate. After a double dissolution election, they can present the previously rejected bill (in this case, the CTS) to a joint sitting of both houses. There are more reps than senators. A majority of about 8 in the reps would have been more than enough to secure a majority at a joint sitting and pass the CTS: see s.57 of the Constitution -
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...ca430/s57.html

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by riddlemethis

I heard Mick Palmer interviewed a couple of weeks ago actually. His about face is compelling.

I missed it. Does anyone know if any of Mick Palmer's interviews / TV appearances can be listened to or viewed on line?

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

I agree that they would not have won the senate - there would have been a hung senate. But they did not a majority in the senate. After a double dissolution election, they can present the previously rejected bill (in this case, the CTS) to a joint sitting of both houses. There are more reps than senators. A majority of about 8 in the reps would have been more than enough to secure a majority at a joint sitting and pass the CTS: see s.57 of the Constitution -
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...ca430/s57.html

Ah, yep. Fair point. I forgot about the joint sitting.