JBP posted:

Weed culture these days is literally an inflating plastic bag full of clear gas and a machine that looks like it's straight out of an operating theatre.

e: I guess you still get classic 90s Kevin Smith movie types, but the vast majority of people spending money on it have jobs. I went to a mate's place who I have only met recently and in his pot plant (a fern, not a weed plant) he had a bamboo water pipe and was astonished when I picked it up and said "nice one cheech".

RDN posted:

Of the hundreds of people I treated when I was an addiction medicine specialist, one really stands out in my memory. She was a young mother with two energetic children, who used to turn my office into a jungle gym. By the time we met, her heroin addiction had already robbed her of so much. About the only things she had left were her kids and the government support that helped her to take care of them while she received treatment at our clinic.

I’m grateful that after a long and difficult recovery, with many stumbles along the way, she is now able to hold down full-time employment and give her kids the kind of loving, stable home that they deserve. It was her face that flashed in my mind this week when I heard the government’s proposal to randomly drug test people on income support and tie their benefits to their drug use. If this policy was in place then, this young mother might not have turned her life around.

Frankly, she might be dead.

There are some people who will look at the government’s proposal to subject 5,000 recipients of income support to random drug testing as nothing more than a cynical dog whistle to the far-right of the Coalition and their tough-on-crime surrogates on talkback radio. I prefer to believe that most people who support a law-and-order approach to substance abuse actually do so out of a genuine desire to help people. The problem is, it doesn’t work and often just makes things work. As a doctor working in the field for years, I’ve had the experiences to prove it.

Addiction is, by definition, a process in which people struggle and relapse. Imagine all of the things people have lost by the time they find themselves in treatment. Like many people struggling with addiction, my patient had contracted serious health problems like hepatitis C. She was unable to hold down a job and her relationships with her family and partner had broken down. If she had been randomly drug tested during one of the relapses that dotted her recovery, she would have lost the ability to care for her children. As a result she may well have lost custody over the single biggest motivating factor she had to continue her treatment.

Thinking back on the patients I successfully treated, I’m pretty sure that not a single one succeeded without at least one relapse. Relapse is a natural part of treating someone for addiction, which is exactly why this proposal is so insidious.

If we take away support payments at exactly the time when those people need it most, we’re writing a recipe for disaster. Those people won’t give up heroin or ice, but many will turn to illegal methods to support their habit, from dealing drugs to prostitution or theft. Far from addressing the social ill of addiction, this proposal will compound it.

And let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t just about addicts. If we open this gateway to government applying a morality test for government support, we’re setting a very dangerous precedent that could one day be applied to anyone receiving government assistance. Imagine failing a drug test because you took a pinger at a festival on the weekend and losing your Hecs funding as a result. What if you got caught smoking a joint and lost access to Medicare? Is that really so far-fetched once we start down this Orwellian road?

The bottom line is that addiction is a public health issue, not a criminal justice issue. Most of the world seems to understand this and many countries, particularly in Europe, have been making great strides forward by treating it as the health issue it is. Unfortunately, as in so many other things, this government seems intent on taking us backwards.

It might feel good to punish someone for breaking our outdated drug laws, but we have to ask ourselves if it actually does anything positive. If we’re honest, the answer is no and we will all stand up against this dangerous policy before it’s ever enacted.

starkebn posted:

What's the big problem some people have with RDN?

starkebn posted:

starkebn posted:

What's the big problem some people have with RDN?

JBP posted:

They don't. Poor areas vote Labor. Nice gently caress you to the idiot Poors post though.

quote:

Graduates on low incomes are set to be slugged with an extra $1000 a year in tax as the Turnbull government's changes to the repayment of university fees and an increase in the Medicare levy combine to hit those earning well below the average wage.

In an unexpected consequence of changes announced in Tuesday's federal budget, those earning as little as $37,000 a year and receiving rent assistance will be discouraged from looking for more work because of an increase in the effective marginal tax rate to 100 per cent.

This means that every extra dollar they earn from paid work would be taken away from their rent assistance, cancelling out any financial incentive.

In a separate blow to a government trying to sell its budget to voters, Treasurer Scott Morrison's statements have been described as "wildly optimistic" by a leading economic modeller, who has accused the government of leaving the economy "highly vulnerable".

The extra hit to graduates' personal budgets comes through the Turnbull government's increase in the Medicare levy by 0.5 percentage points to 2.5 per cent in order to fund the $22 billion National Disability Insurance Scheme and reducing the income level at which graduates have to repay their HECS-HELP loan to $42,000 a year.


Under the changes, graduates earning a wage of $48,000 a year will pay an extra $960 a year from 2019, while those earning $54,000 a year will be see their tax bill increase by $1620.

Both of the changes announced in Tuesday's budget still face negotiation with Labor and the Senate crossbench.

On Thursday, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said: "We believe the measures outlined in the budget are fair."

Labor's finance spokesman Jim Chalmers accused the government of looking after business interests over those on low incomes.

"If this budget was genuinely fair, it would go so some way towards rebuilding trust with people in this building," he said.

A post-budget analysis from the National Centre For Social And Economic Modelling also shows changes to the family tax benefit scheme will disadvantage middle-income families with a $400 tax bill on top of their current payments.

"For a couple earning $110,000 with two kids aged over 12, they are expected to lose $183 a year due to an indexation freeze and $783 a year due to the taper rule changes," NATSEM found.

In broader economic forecasts, the Turnbull government's optimism about returning the budget to surplus by 2020-21 also suffered a blow on Thursday, with Deutsche Bank slashing US growth forecasts for 2018 by 1 per cent as the government looks to sell its budget on the back of a "better times ahead" mantra.


Dr Li also took aim at the government's focus on small and medium-sized businesses as the driver of the economy.

The government is looking to spread company tax cuts to those turning over more than $50 million after its first set of of cuts to those earning less than that amount passed Parliament on Tuesday.

"This government will not rest until we have successfully fought to implement a company tax framework that sets Australia up to have more and better-paid jobs in the future and for future generations," Treasurer Scott Morrison told question time.

Dr Li said the evidence remained thin on whether a continued focus on small and medium size businesses, however innovative, was the key to high economic performance in the global economy.

"We also have no idea as to whether significant investment in infrastructure will deliver large dividends to the Australian economy," he said.

Further damaging surplus prospects, the futures of Australia's largest mining export, iron ore, also took a tumble to a four-month low in China on Thursday, after falling to $US60 a tonne from $US95 in February.

The government had been banking on ploughing any improvement in commodity prices into reducing the federal deficit.

gay picnic defence posted:

Human Services has been forcing people with Down Syndrome to keep getting medical reviews to prove they still have Down Syndrome to keep their disability support pension.

gay picnic defence posted:

Human Services has been forcing people with Down Syndrome to keep getting medical reviews to prove they still have Down Syndrome to keep their disability support pension.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

* sycophantic laughter *

The ABC posted:

The government department that runs Centrelink has backed a decision to deny disability payments to a man who lost his leg in a shark attack, saying he should complete rehabilitation and get a prosthesis fitted before being considered.

Cairns spearfisherman Glenn Dickson had his leg amputated in February after he was bitten by a bull shark near Hinchinbrook Island, but was knocked back from receiving disability support because his impairment was not deemed severe enough.

"The shark hit my leg like a chainsaw," Mr Dickson said.

"It swallowed my whole leg and had chomped and shredded all around my upper thigh, completely to the bone."
He has spent the last three months recovering and applied to Centrelink for the disability support pension (DSP).

Mr Dickson said he could not currently work in his occupation as a boilermaker and his family was experiencing financial uncertainty as they approached the birth of their third child.

"It's a lot harder for my partner. She now has to look after me," Mr Dickson said.In a statement, Department of Human Services general manager Hank Jongen said the department had reviewed its decision to reject Mr Dickson's application.

"The department can confirm a review has shown this matter was handled appropriately and in accordance with legislation," he said.

Mr Jongen said eligibility for the DSP was "not based on the diagnosis of a condition or amputation alone" and medical conditions must be "fully diagnosed, treated and stabilised" before the department's health professionals can make an assessment.

He added that a person needed to prove that treatment would not result in significant functional improvement within two years.

"For people who have had an amputation, it is reasonable to expect that having a prosthesis fitted and participating in rehabilitation will result in significant functional improvements in the next two years, and those improvements will allow them to undertake some kind of work," he said.

A Centrelink letter sent to Mr Dickson last month said he was deemed ineligible for the pension because he did not have "an impairment rating of 20 points or more".

"In making this decision we took into account all available medical evidence and other relevant information about your circumstances," the letter stated.

Mr Dickson said he was receiving Newstart — the welfare payment for jobseekers — however he would prefer to be on the higher payment DSP.

"When you lose your leg, you'll think you're just going to get it, that's a disability," he said.

Mr Dickson may be eligible for sickness allowance, another welfare payment for people who temporarily cannot work or study because of an injury, illness or disability.

Cairns MP Rob Pyne is a quadriplegic and a strong advocate for people with disabilities.

He believes Centrelink is becoming "increasingly punitive" in its approach to approving welfare payments for people with disabilities.

"I've sat with the mum of a young lad who had a stroke and been non-verbal and not even able to communicate," he said.

"Yet [he was] denied the disability support pension because the doctors wouldn't sign something to say he'd never recover."

Mr Dickson said he was only looking for welfare support while he recuperated.

"We're not looking to get a disability pension for when I'm able to work again. We're just looking for help whilst I'm trying to get there," he said.

Mr Dickson said he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but was incredibly thankful to be alive with his family.

"I'm not going to let this tragic incident change my life to the effect I don't want to get back into the ocean," he said.

And despite everything, he does not support a shark cull.

"I was fully aware of what I was doing and knew the risks of getting in the water," he said.

"It was just very unfortunate that it happened to me."

Anidav posted:

It's kind of amazing that Bill Shorten is boring as gently caress but his speech writers are dynamite and loving hilarious at tearing the Coalition to shreds

G-Spot Run posted:

These slackers are just standing outside the dole office with their hooligan mates taking turns with the extra chromosome to fort the system

Lid posted:

Outsider take so I'm likely to get ripped to shreds for this:

There's a battle thats been raging for a mlong time in the Greens - the Greens started as a rural envrionmentalist party, but as time goes on to now it would be accurate to say it is by and large a middle class liberal party. That designation is something a number of people have issues with.


It's a battle for the Greens soul, and to pretend that the Greens aren't a metropolitan middle class party and that they are and forever rural socialists.

Aesculus posted:

If the Greens really wanted to be/were a middle-class centrist small L liberal party half the thread would be either sallies or labor voters.

Kafka Syrup posted:

Yeah. If anything it's kinda gone the other way as more and more disgruntled lefties move to the Greens. In my experience, the older "original" Greens are vaguely centre-left but largely just care about environmentalism and a few NIMBY issues, and the newer generations are various shades from cosmopolitanist to democratic socialist. The shift to Parliamentary professionalism isn't linked to an ideological shift per se, but a shift in the backgrounds of the Parliamentarians, staff and OB from being environmental activists to largely socio-economic activists. But this is annnnnecdotal.

Lid posted:

That isn't true of the NSW branch whose origins lie not in environmentalism but in the old Communist Party. Its why they stick out like a sore thumb.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

DancingShade posted:

I can't help but wonder if this is all a temper tantrum over refusing to fund the Adani mine with a bank loan.

No? Well gently caress you then, levy time.

Bill Shorten posted:

Australia needs to think big or else it will end small

Bogan King posted:

Don't forget Anna Bligh getting the ABA job over a Lib staffer. They were salty af about that too.