Jacinta Allan - Leading a zombie government

Remove this Banner Ad

pill testing saves lives

the war on drugs is a bullshit one that criminalizes users and puts their lives and health at risk and doesn't actually so anything to stop people taking illicit substances

pill testing does because they find out there is dangerous stuff in the pill, don't take it and dont end up in hospital

again if you think its a choice between pill testing and funding cancer research you're being taken for a ride because its not
If you bothered reading the report I posted pill testing is notoriously unreliable. It is not the panacea you make it out to be.

Proper pill analysis takes days if not weeks. On the spot pill testing can yield false positives and false negatives.

And this is not a pill testing v cancer research debate and you know it. I was just pointing out this government is curiously selective in what it can find money to spend on.
 
If you bothered reading the report I posted pill testing is notoriously unreliable. It is not the panacea you make it out to be.

Proper pill analysis takes days if not weeks. On the spot pill testing can yield false positives and false negatives.

And this is not a pill testing v cancer research debate and you know it. I was just pointing out this government is curiously selective in what it can find money to spend on.
you were the one who tried to make it a cancer vs pill testing debate in your post

all governments are selective in what they fund you only point it out when you disagree with what they fund as if its some sort of conspiracy as opposed to you just not liking what they are doing

as to your link given i replied to a different post I'm not really too bothered

mostly i just don't care though given I don't agree with criminalizing drug use
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Of course it is, but Allan is only doing it because he kids will soon start partying and she wants to protect them.

If her kids were toddlers, she wouldn't go ahead with this.
Does it matter how you arrive at your conclusion if it's good policy?
 
OK you cheeky larrikins be honest, which right wing talking head did you get this 'pill testing is bad because Allan has kids' schtick from?

Don't pretend you thought of it yourselves. Tripping over each other as you race in here to virtue signal about it!

Which right wing media (that you totally don't watch or read) did you get it from?
 
It's her reasoning for doing it, not whether it's right or wrong. The end doesn't justify the means.
You made up her reasoning for doing it.

And I don't think you understand the context around the ends justifying the means... just based on your usage here.

Does it matter how you arrive at your conclusion if it's good policy?
These people stand around paramedics trying to save lives during an emergency, tut tutting them for 'just following orders'.
 


Mr Morrison said the announcement followed a discussion with his wife Jenny the previous night and after he considered how he, as a father, would want his daughters to be treated.​
"Jenny and I spoke last night and she said to me, you have to think about this as a father. What would you want to happen if it were our girls?" he told reporters.​
Jenny has a way of clarifying things."​


The outrage in that case, was that Morrison needed anyone to explain to him why rape is bad...
The outrage wasn't because he literally said that he would change things because of the possible impact it might have on his kids one day.



The outrage in this case is that a lifesaving policy is bad because Allan has kids.



But you're all a bunch of critical thinkers. You'd never just regurgitate talking points that you're spoon fed!
 
Dan Andrews was very generous financially to the construction industry and various other militant unions that let it be known that their votes were up for sale, public servants in general as well as throwing taxpayer money around like confetti at electorates where most swinging voters lived.

I'm not all all surprised that he was very popular, disappointed but not shocked in the least that a financially irresponsible politician was able to garner a lot of votes during his time in office. Self interest will always rule and why I'm an advocate for denying those directly/indirectly employed by the government from voting.

These people are too greedy and dumb to see the bigger picture and what's in the best interest for every Victorian going forward into the long term, and not just cast their vote to the government that will line their pockets the most and that's a recipe for disaster as we are now witnessing.
Shit idea. You are advocating that the entire public health/ hospital service, medical practitioners who get Medicare rebates, state education workers, childcare workers, anyone on unemployment benefits or disability support doesn’t get to vote?
 
You tell people in Melbourne's west and in regional Victoria. While this pig-headed government presses on with a project that remains unfunded, more than 20 regional Victorian health services have been told their budgets will be slashed by up to 30 per cent in the coming financial year. This will see services close or have management centralised, which will kill off services.

The rule of thumb has always been that health services must retain cash reserves to last 14 days to cover operating costs. The Age has reported that data for the financial year to January 2024 shows, 41 of Victoria's 75 health services didn't have the 14-day cash supplies to cover operating costs.

Let's be honest the Allen government wouldn't be "shaking up" the regional health system if it wasn't cash strapped. And why is it so cash strapped?

And its also worth remembering that in 2018 the government promised 10 community hospitals in Victoria. Not one has been built or ever will because all the eggs are in the SRL basket!

Well, some of those health services would routinely go over budget in order to pressure for budget increases. Or pay extra to poach staff from services that ran a very tight budget ship.

Edited to remove some things that might have got me in RL trouble
 
Last edited:
pill testing saves lives

the war on drugs is a bullshit one that criminalizes users and puts their lives and health at risk and doesn't actually so anything to stop people taking illicit substances

pill testing does because they find out there is dangerous stuff in the pill, don't take it and dont end up in hospital

again if you think its a choice between pill testing and funding cancer research you're being taken for a ride because its not
I have no sympathy for users who engage in violence as a result of use of substances.
 


Mr Morrison said the announcement followed a discussion with his wife Jenny the previous night and after he considered how he, as a father, would want his daughters to be treated.​
"Jenny and I spoke last night and she said to me, you have to think about this as a father. What would you want to happen if it were our girls?" he told reporters.​
Jenny has a way of clarifying things."​


The outrage in that case, was that Morrison needed anyone to explain to him why rape is bad...
The outrage wasn't because he literally said that he would change things because of the possible impact it might have on his kids one day.



The outrage in this case is that a lifesaving policy is bad because Allan has kids.



But you're all a bunch of critical thinkers. You'd never just regurgitate talking points that you're spoon fed!

There's no outrage champ? Untwist your knickers.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I have no sympathy for users who engage in violence as a result of use of substances.
I'm talking about criminalising the addiction
 
No worries champ!

Do you confuse outrage and triggered IRL too?
No, they're different terms.

So you don't want me to use a different word. It's just the factual information that upsets you and makes you want to talk about me more than the topic or issues at hand.
If this is the case, it's something I can't help you with, sorry.


You can thank me for educating you and answering your question from earlier though. That would be the polite, adult thing to do.
 
No, they're different terms.

So you don't want me to use a different word. It's just the factual information that upsets you and makes you want to talk about me more than the topic or issues at hand.
If this is the case, it's something I can't help you with, sorry.


You can thank me for educating you and answering your question from earlier though. That would be the polite, adult thing to do.

oohhhh.....triggered!!!
 
I'm talking about criminalising the addiction
And I’m talking about lack of consequences for the behaviour. That’s the war on drugs I want, which the justice system seems to go it’s all too hard and gives slap on the worst when my staff get assaulted (spat on, punched, kicked)

Edit include also those drunk on alcohol doing the same thing.
 
I think we need a different strategy to combat drugs, pill testing isn't it. Neither is the wet lettuce approach with drugs. And prohibition only leads to way more insidious underground substance abuse.
 
And I’m talking about lack of consequences for the behaviour. That’s the war on drugs I want, which the justice system seems to go it’s all too hard and gives slap on the worst when my staff get assaulted (spat on, punched, kicked)

Edit include also those drunk on alcohol doing the same thing.
More needs to be done, absolutely.

I'd argue that people drinking and taking drugs recreationally aren't the majority of people who end up assaulting your staff.

It's people with underlying issues, who are addicted, and who use it for escapism etc who end up doing that kind of thing.
I don't think longer prison sentences for recreational use is a solution.
Better funding, better mental health care and better ways of identifying issues before they become 'treated' with substance abuse would be the best solution.


But, what you're talking about isn't really related to the discussion around pill testing.
It's not an endorsement of violence.
 
I also question how "safe" these safe injecting rooms are. Like what's stopping someone from shooting up and going on a drug-fueled rampage thus causing a cascade effect?

My point is that whilst there is a need to prevail in the war on drugs I question how effective these counter measures are?
 
I also question how "safe" these safe injecting rooms are. Like what's stopping someone from shooting up and going on a drug-fueled rampage thus causing a cascade effect?

My point is that whilst there is a need to prevail in the war on drugs I question how effective these counter measures are?
Pill testing and injecting rooms aren't part of the 'war on drugs'...

What do you think it's for??
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Jacinta Allan - Leading a zombie government

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top