Interesting – wonder what Australia might looks like under sharia law. I guess the EU will be given a taste of it….within 30 years or so.
Category: Social Issues
As you know Alan Jones, the Greens, the ALP and Labor-lite Liberal MPs want marijuana legalised. Well we only need to look at the USA where the drug has been legalised to know the consequences. Firstly know one is really calling for the legalisation of marijuana, just new regulations to control its use. It is not as if the government won’t try to tax the sale and regulate the content of marijuana. From the WSJ:
…young people who become addicted to marijuana lose an average of six IQ points by adulthood. A long line of studies have found similar results—in 2012, a decades-long study of more than 1,000 New Zealanders who frequently smoked pot in adolescence pegged the IQ loss at eight points….Northwestern School of Medicine researchers reported in the Schizophrenia Bulletin in December that teens who smoked marijuana daily for about three years showed abnormal brain-structure changes. Marijuana use has clearly been linked to teen psychosis as well as decreases in IQ and permanent brain damage….The reason more are now using marijuana is because of its changing legal status—from something that was dangerous and forbidden to a product that is now considered “medicinal,” and in the states of Colorado and Washington recreational…..Legality is the mother of availability, and availability….is the mother of use….Mark A.R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that legalization can be expected to increase marijuana consumption by four to six times.
In other words it is probably cheaper to the public purse to keep marijuana illegal than to ‘decriminalise’ its use.
Liberal Party politicians, including Tony Abbott, and ex-conservative radio host Alan Jones think cannabis should be legal for ‘medical use’. Whatever that means.
A definitive 20-year study into the effects of long-term cannabis use has demolished the argument that the drug is safe. Cannabis is highly addictive, causes mental health problems and opens the door to hard drugs, the study found….. Last night Professor Hall, a professor of addiction policy at King’s College London, dismissed the views of those who say that cannabis is harmless.
‘If cannabis is not addictive then neither is heroin or alcohol,’ he said.
My first hand experience is that people addicted to cannabis are basically unemployable and sit in public housing living off welfare.
One really wonders who Tony Abbott is getting his talking points from. Tony Abbott wrote:
“My basic contention is that something that has been found to be safe in a reliable jurisdiction shouldn’t need to be tested again here,” he said in the letter. “If a drug is needed for a valid medicinal purpose though, and is being administered safely, there should be no question of its legality. And if a drug that is proven to be safe abroad is needed here, it should be available,” he said in the letter.
And what if a drug is found overseas not to be safe? Tony Abbott is basically soft on drugs, once again confirming his labor-lite credentials.
Alan Jones has jumped on the marijuana bandwagon. Apparently it is a wonder drug for the dying and people with chronic conditions. If that is the case, then let marijuana go through the normal approval processes, via the TGA, that every other medical drug has to go through in order to receive approval for use. Don’t count on that happening any time soon.
Legalising marijuana for ‘medical’ purposes is simply a ploy for legalising the drug for general use. Proponents should start telling the truth.
Fortunately there are jurisdictions where marijuana has been legalised, and the early lessons are telling. Apparently in Colorado black market marijuana is rampant even after the product was legalised for certain use. It seems the normal laws of supply and demand still work.
Legal sales of recreational marijuana were supposed to reduce black-market demand for pot but have actually had the opposite effect, The Washington Post reports.
“It’s actually benefited the black market. Prices are going up,” a broker identified as “Junior” told the Post’s Tina Griego…..But when it became legal to sell in dispensaries earlier this year, the prices shot up, partly to pay taxes imposed by the state.
Illegal pot doesn’t come with taxes attached, so the black market began to thrive again, Griego explained.
Remember Obama’s response when Trayvon Martin was shot dead when he started bashing up ‘white Hispanic’ Mark Zimmerman?
Australian Chris Lane gets no such attention from Obama.
Let’s face it – Obama does not know Australia and does not care for Australia. He is not one of us. He does not know our culture, traditions or history. Hopefully the political and media elite in Australia will finally get the message about Obama’s real attitude to Australia and stop the fawning coverage.
Further analysis below.
This is story from the US about infanticide and all that entails is without doubt the most horrific story in the developed world right now, but apart from Fox News and a few online websites the US media for the most part won’t cover it.
For this isn’t solely a story about babies having their heads severed, though it is that. It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth into toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers. Any single one of those things would itself make for a blockbuster news story. Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn’t make national headlines?
But it isn’t even solely a story of a rogue clinic that’s awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them. And I probably wouldn’t have the staff. But there is so much fodder for additional reporting.
There is, finally, the fact that abortion, one of the most hotly contested, polarizing debates in the country, is at the center of this case. It arguably informs the abortion debate in any number of ways, and has numerous plausible implications for abortion policy, including the oversight and regulation of clinics, the appropriateness of late-term abortions, the penalties for failing to report abuses, the statute of limitations for killings like those with which Gosnell is charged, whether staff should be legally culpable for the bad behavior of doctors under whom they work…
There’s just no end to it.
Don’t think for one moment this could never happen in Australia.
The Australian experience with reforming gun laws has been no panacea for societal violence.
The New York Times has referred to Australia’s gun laws as a “road map” for the US, saying that “in the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings – but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect.”
Except for the 2002 mass shooting at Monash University, which the NYT omitted and which therefore makes me question this entire ABC puff piece arguing for the USA to emulate Australian 1996 gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre (I can’t actually find any evidence to support the claim that Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years).
Well, these are the government provided facts.
- Armed robbery increased, reaching a peak in 2001 and falling, but as of 2007 still above 1996 levels;
- Rates of assaults rose steadily and remain high today at around 840 assaults per 100,000 people, about 230 assaults per 100,000 people higher than before 1996;
- Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides peaked in 1969 and had been falling steadily before the 1996 gun laws were introduced. In fact, homicide incidents actually increased after 1996, reaching a post gun law reform peak level in 2002 before declining steadily after 2004.
- Assaults and homicides using knives have increased.
Reforming gun laws therefore will not solve your crime problem. By all reports the person that perpetrated the mass murder in Connecticut had a psychiatric condition. Investing in mental health might be a start. Daily Mail as always provides some perspective:
….why did this son amongst all those tens of thousands of sons take his mother’s firearms illegally – Connecticut has the fourth toughest gun control laws in the US, and any 20-year old is banned from buying or carrying pistols – and turn into a mass murderer?
News reports say he had a history of mental instability. At least one report mentioned ‘mood altering drugs.’ That is likely. The presence of legal drugs, the kind prescribed by psychiatrists, in the blood of the killers has been a feature of mass murders in America.
Both of the Columbine High School killers, Eric Harris (described as ‘a classic psychopath’) and Dylan Klebold, were on psychotropic drugs.
So was 17-year old Jeff Weise, the 2005 Red Lake High School killer in Minnesota who killed nine people then committed suicide.
So was 19-year old Robert Hawkins who murdered eight people then killed himself in Nebraska in 2007.
More reality from Brendan O’Neill over at the Telegraph.
I see the culture of narcissism, taken to its extreme, not the culture of gun worship. Which rather suggests that the supposedly liberal politicians currently wringing their hands over the availability of guns in the US might want to shine the spotlight on themselves instead, and on the dislocated, atomised, self-regarding modern world they have had a hand in creating.
A psychiatrist has his say.
The ALP voted today to protect Peter Slipper as the Speaker, even though he made vile, disgusting and highly sexist comments about women in the following text messages to James Ashby.
How can anyone in their right mind think that the above messages are acceptable, or that they don’t warrant sanction and punishment? Gillard appointed Slipper to the Speakership – ignoring the advice of the Opposition and existing Speaker Harry Jenkins – therefore Gillard must take responsibility for Slipper’s continuing roll as the Speaker.
Instead of voting today with the Opposition’s motion to remove Peter Slipper from the Speakership, Gillard decided to support Slipper because Abbott once said that abortion was the easy way out. That is essentially Gillard’s argument: Abbott’s alleged misogyny excuses Slipper’s actual and undeniable misogyny. Very strange.
In any case there is no evidence that Abbott is a misogynist as Gillard claimed in Parliament today. Which requires more work: raising a child, giving a child up for adoption or an abortion? Honest readers know the honest answer. Abortion allows a person(s) to escape responsibility while denying a child life. In only very rare circumstances is this the right thing to do, such as rape, incest and where the mother’s life is at risk. Being against abortion does not make one a misogynist and it certainly in no way shape or form excuses Slipper from his behaviour.
Slipper resigns anyway. So Gillard messed up Slipper’s selection and resignation. Slipper says he respects the Parliament so must resign. Pity Gillard does not have the same respect for the Parliament. For Gillard, power is a first, second and third order priority.
This experiment has failed, much like all of Gillard’s many other ideas. Gillard is a disgrace.
Julie Bishop takes down Gillard’s ridiculous rant against Tony Abbott:
“The day will come when you can no longer call the gender card or the victim card, and by pretending to be a victim the prime minister has demeaned every woman in this parliament,” Ms Bishop said.
“We didn’t come here to be told that we could not do the job and needed to be treated differently.
“We came here on this side of the parliament to say we were the best person for the job to represent the people, and the ideas we have are the best ideas to take us into government.
“We don’t wish to be treated as somehow less able or a victim of somebody’s spiteful words.”
The Liberal frontbencher said the prime minister’s speech had been “pathetic”.
“Could you imagine (German chancellor) Angela Merkel making a speech like that, or Maggie Thatcher making a speech like that?” she said.
“Of course not. The fact of the matter is if you take leadership you must exercise leadership and if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
The most comprehensive randomised study on homosexual family relationships finds:
…when asked if they were ever touched sexually by a parent or other adult, the children of LMs (lesbian) were eleven times more likely to say “yes” than the children from an IBF (intact biological family), and the children of GFs (gay) were three times more likely to say “yes.” The children of IBFs were the least likely of all family types to have ever been touched sexually: only 2% reported affirmatively (compared to 23% of LMs who replied “yes”). When asked if they were ever forced to have sex against their will, the children of LMs were the worst off again—four times more likely to say “yes” than the children of IBFs. The children of GFs were three times more likely to have been forced to have sex than the children of IBFs. In percentages, 31% of LMs said they had been forced to have sex, compared with 25% of GFs and 8% of IBFs. These results are generally consistent with research on heterosexual families. For instance, a recent federal report showed that children in heterosexual families are least likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused in an intact, biological, married family.
Predictably the MSM are going ape about the study and seeking to discredit the findings.
On 25 out of 40 outcomes evaluated by Regnerus, there were statistically significant differences between children from IBFs and those of LMs in many areas that are unambiguously suboptimal. On 11 out of 40 outcomes, there were statistically significant differences between children from IBFs and those who reported having a GF in many areas that are suboptimal. The “no differences” claim is therefore unsound and ought to be replaced by an acknowledgement of difference.
Elsewhere, previous claims promoted by the MSM are now being debunked.
…family studies scholar Loren Marks of Louisiana State University reviews the 59 studies that are referenced in the 2005 American Psychological Association brief that came to the conclusion that there are “no differences.” Marks concludes that “not one of the 59 studies referenced … compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way.”
Way to win friends and influence party colleagues:
MALCOLM TURNBULL has accused those who claim legalising gay marriage would undermine the institution of ”dripping with the worst sort of hypocrisy”, in a speech defying the Coalition’s opposition to changing the law.
Mr Turnbull, a frontbencher who cannot vote for gay marriage because of Tony Abbott’s refusal to give Liberals a conscience vote, said the ”deepest pools” of this hypocrisy were all too often found ”among the most sanctimonious”.
Is that the pot calling the kettle black?