“But I can’t get the party membership to agree with me on that one, so it is not Green Party policy”

Thank goodness for that.

BB, the Greens do not support the use of either marijuana or ecstacy. They don’t support the use of alcohol either, for that matter, or any other drug. Opposing prohibition is not the same as supporting use.

Green policy is that marijuana and alcohol should be treated similarly. My personal belief is that ecstacy should be in the same category, since it is a drug that is no more harmful, and probably less harmful, than alcohol. But I can’t get the party membership to agree with me on that one, so it is not Green Party policy.

I see I was wrong about an immigrant with a high BMI being turned down, but reading the link it appears she was turned down not because she was fat but becuase the authorities judged she would be a financial drain on the already overstretched health system. Something I thought right wingers with their continuous demand for less “freeloading” immigrants would have agreed with.

2) only one single Green (me) has supported E, not the Party as a whole.

3) the Greens are not pushing this issue, they are studiously ignoring it.

4) how come you constantly harp on about personal responsibility and the “nanny state” and how the Greens want to ban things, but you are quite happy for the state to prohibit what substances individuals choose to ingest?

There are some of us who do not want to see the Greens out of the Parliament, however you are on to a sure vote loser by pushing this barrow.

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/Drug_Guide/Alcohol
http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/Drug_Guide/Ecstasy

Ecstasy more harmful than alcohol? Come on, Nick.

How many fights at parties or domestic violence incidents are caused by people on esctacy? A big doughnut would be my guess. Ecstacy is relatively harmeless compared to alcohol. P is far more harmful than either.

By the way, Green policy is total prohibition of all drug use by and supply to anyone under 18. That includes party pills.

The gist of the letter (apart from being a promotion for the teachers union) was that as the teachers union were pushing for smaller class sizes (nobody disagrees with that) some subjects would have to go.

Have a guess at what was first on the list of subjects that would have less emphasis placed on them in 2008….physial education.
At a time when child obesity is at epidemic proportions and a time when youth crime is out of control the lazy sods want to drop PE from the school curriculum.
Kids need to be active, kids need more sport (competitive sport at that) as a way of fighting obesity and youth crime.

Although prohibition didnt work with alcohol becuase there was such strong demand for it by the general population, i believe it does work with drugs like P and ecstacy, which are clearly more harmful then alcohol (and esspecially when used along with alcohol). http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Ecstasy

The reason is that prohibition does work with party drugs is because it does manage to force down the amount of people using these drugs such as P, and it makes it much harder to get. Given the adverse effects how can we make this avalible for the general population?