dubby wrote:I vote entirely on social policy. What is the point of money when the planet is dying?
One world government?
Pro Euthenasia?
pro Abortion?
Oh yeah, great social interests.
And my "imaginary friend" has abundant historical evidence that he existed.
Nice try mate. Don't let your enormous ego get in the way now.
I'm not a huge greens supporter, but you could have done better than abortion and euthanasia. I don't think anyone takes abortion lightly, but for many women at times in their lives it is the "best" option. Making it illegal doesn't stop abortions, it simply kills more women, who resort to dodgy backyard abortions, rather than a safe, simply medical procedure... The arugment that women go out and have abortions for fun is a huge straw man. It often reads like people think women actually go out and go "I'll have a strong flat white and an abortion to go"...
While there are legal concerns with euthanasia, for many sufferers with chronic illnesses, choosing to end their lives with friends and family, is the option they would choose if it were legal. The big issue is getting the legal safeguards in place so that people aren't murdered because they are a burden to their friends and family. As it stands, euthanasia is "common" in the medical system. If someone is in pain, they can be given more morphine, if they are still in pain they can be given more etc... If that happens to kill them thats fine. Many doctors use this to put patients out of their misery, telling them what they are allowed to do and telling them to keep saying they are in pain, if they want to end it. Again, a poor solution to the problem, without safeguards, where everything happens in a grey area.
Same can be said for drug law reform, where the greens have retreated recently. Drugs kill people. They are also incredibly popular and their popularity hasn't decreased under prohibition. Different drugs go in and out of fashion, but drug use remains high (unintended pun). Because they are illegal, the damage caused is exacerbated. People are reluctant to seek treatment, go to doctors etc. Many many people, go to jail for possession of small quantities (mainly poor people, the middle class get off), the levers that would be there to change user habits don't exist (taxes etc), many people needlessly die either because they don't want to get caught and wait before getting medical treatment for people who are overdosing and because what something is sold as often isn't what it is, meaning people are often taking far more dangerous drugs than they thought they were without their knowledge. Decriminalisation for example would at least take some of the burden off policing non violent petty crimes that hurt no-one freeing up resources to track down violent anti social crime. Lots of good people wouldn't have their future jeopardized by a criminal conviction and peoples lives would be saved because the stigma of getting treatment for overdoses would be reduced. Legalisation would also have lots of societal benefits, firstly it would cut off the majority of funding for organised crime and reduce the violence associated with the drug trade, people would be safer because they would know what they were taking and be taking a known amount. Thats only in first world countries, not even taking into account the benefits for places like Mexico and Columbia whose societies have been ripped apart by the illegal drug trade. The question that needs to be asked though is how much would use spike? Would that outweigh the benefits? From other countries that have gone down this path the answer is no. Use has stayed stable, more people aren't using drugs because its no longer illegal to carry and use small quantities. Combined with better social care and facilities for addicts, drug law reform can improve society. The arguments for such reform are good and more and more former drug enforcement officials and policemen on the front line are coming forward and advocating such reforms.
The problem with these sort of debates is that they are viewed as moral issues, not practical societal ones. Even questioning current drug policy results in "I CANT BELIEVE YOU WANT TO GIVE DRUGS TO KIDS" and complete dismissal of the ideas by many, even if those reforms, on a practical utilitarian sense will result in a safer fairer society for everyone. The same goes for abortion and euthanasia, the debates are not held on what is "best" in a world that is full of grey but on the terms of a black and white moral debate, which will get us nowhere and stops all worthy debate before it even starts. The fact you and others write off such policies without even considering them because they don't fit with your moral world view doesn't make them extreme.
The greens have plenty of whacky policies, I'm not sure why you pick the two you did?
!
. Surely you know the distinction between bring pro abortion/euthanasia and pro choice? 
love it MB
