Member for Albany, Rebecca Stephens MLA - Her First Real Local Challenge

The title is not quite true. Perhaps her first big challenge was getting elected. She achieved that easily, made easier by a Presidential Style campaign where nearly all the talking was done by visiting ministers & the Premier.

Perhaps it was her first radio interview with ABC South Coast where she said "No comment" several times when asked about "Deregulated Trading Hours". When pressed further as to why no comment she said she'd have to see what the electors wanted.
Oddity here is she had already voted against it not long before running for Parliament as a Councillor on the City of Albany. 
Dilemma there is, did she vote against it as a councillor without knowing what the locals wanted or was she trying to not answer it because she didn't know what Labor thought she should say?
Those are the 2 main choices but most likely its the latter as she went "No Comment" thinking that would end it. Rather naive I think.

No now her first real local challenge after being sworn in is the local cluster bomb that's gone off with a local Albany Church that has a guest speaker/s in a public meeting to discuss their life journey, how they went from being one of the "letters" in LBGTQI+ grouping to walking away from that & to becoming a follower of Jesus.

Now why this is so controversial I'm unsure. I know of a pastor that was as a young man was deeply embedded in the LGBTQI+ world. Then he left it, found Christ & eventually ended up getting married, having kids and became a pastor himself  in Perth. Nothing barbaric here, nothing guilt filled.

Somehow some local people took to ramparts, roused about the intolerance & bigotry with some even suggesting people supporting the guest speakers should lose their jobs. Ironic isn't it. Claiming intolerance & bigotry and then being intolerant & bigoted enough to try & guilt silence people of a different view and threaten their job in the local community.

All because some are claiming the speakers are promoting "Gay Conversion Therapy" and the "barbaric" guilt laden shaming of anyone of a differenet sexual/gender preference. At this point there is no evidence at all that the speakers will be promoting anything that aligns with that therapy or that non hetrosexual people must be cured. None.

I'll wait to see what unfolds, when facts are available but the assumption I tentatively came to after listening to that Church's pastor being interviewed was its about offering an insight into the journey of people who left a lifestyle they were embedded in & leaving it behind for a life of Christ. That is their story and that is their choice. And if it's made them feel their life is improved then who is anyone to target them.

Now Rebecca Stephens MLA has weighed in...and we can only speculate as whether or not she had a minder check her comments before going public. The word is all new MPs had to tender their maiden speech to the Premier's Office for his staff to vet for anything off message. Here's her FB comment.

What Rebecca didn't tell the angry local masses who flocked to her was...

1. There's no evidence of Conversion Therapy being supported, encouraged, defended or promoted by the organsiers nor the speakers at the planned event.
   
   
2. That the Premier back in March 2021 whislt campaigning said that WALabor would look at copying the Victorian Legislation that was passing to ban Gay Conversion Therapy
   
   
3. That the Victorian Act will criminalise a parent who carefully encourages their gender-confused child to embrace their biological sex - JUST LET THAT SINK IN
   
   
4. That Roger Cook as far back as 2018 promised to bring in an Act to outlaw  Gay Conversion Therapy...LET US REPEAT THAT -> BACK IN 2018 (and still hasn't). THAT was on his & the Premier's agenda 4+ years ago but still hasn't happened. Irony is, just prior to the recent election day, whilst standing next to Rebecca Stephens the Premier said time after time that electoral reform was not on his agenda. He wins power & thats the first thing he begins to enact. So are things he says are on his agenda not on the agenda & things he says aren't on his agenda actually definitely on the agenda. Kinda looks that way.
   
   
5. The Malachi Law that came into being after the unnecessary death of a young boy was on the Cook/McGiwan agenda back in 2018, still hasn't been enacted and the wider view is if it had been in place it probably would have prevented the unnecessary death of seven-year-old Aishwarya Aswath.
   
   
6. That the Minister for Women's Interests in WA, Simone McGurk MLA has already stated WALabor's goal post settings. Women are those people born or choosing to live as women. So that means now that Perth Labor is absolutely fine with anyone born a man but now "living as a woman" playing AFLW or entering the ring of the Women's MMA match that Labor also supports.
   
   
7. As a result...Women's sport is dead & cancel culture is alive. 

There's 7 things Rebecca didn't tell you that though. Not sure why. She either didn't know or isn't in control of saying anything without approval.

Actually still waiting to see where she sits on electoral reform but my guess is where she's told by Alannah and/or the Cabinet.

But I should be fair and see if she tells you these 7 things. See if she opposes electoral reform that will reduce the number of Regional MPs. She what she says are meeting with the local Albany PRIDE group. She is she visits the Pastor & speaks to him as well. See is she attends the event.

Yes I wrote her a letter. Think she missed the opportunity to show leadership & statesmanship, she missed the opportunity to calm people down, get facts and make a stand to prevent cancel culture.

"We'll see"
(EDIT NOTE - No reply from Rebecca Stephens)

Labor's Electoral Reform & It's Potential Damage

 Electoral Reform - "Not on our agenda" said the Premier. It was, it is. It's now.

Here's the thing, "One Vote One Value" is about equality, equal measures BUT equal is not always fair. Equity Based done properly is fair & better for everyone. At present there is a weighting in the WA Upper House, the Legislative Council to allow wider representation. If you want to learn about misrepresentation then watch the looming debate over One Vote One Value because you'll see lots of things misrepresented. In the cartoon below, on the left is what Perth Labor Party wants to go to, on the right is closer to where we are. Time to look at the twisted & skewed points that will get made.

"It was OK for the Barnett Government to control both houses of Parliament, its happened before"

Well no. It's been many years since a Coalition Government and the Barnett Government wasn't a Coalition. It was quite different. It was an "Alliance Government" with 2 conservative parties joining to form Government. But unlike a Coalition, an alliance government meant the WA Nationals ministers & MPs could cross the floor and vote with the opposition. The threat of this happening and the potential political embarassment prevented a number of Bills ever being presented to Parliament. What will happen with a Labor controlled Upper & Lower House? More on that a bit later.


"Its unfair that one person from a Fringe Party can attract 80-90 votes statewide and get elected to Parliament, that has to be stopped, it's unfair. He should be tossed out"

Well yes and no. Firstly yes it is unfair & yes this is the specific area where WA people might like to consider Electoral Reform. In this particular case there's a slim yet rapidly fading chance the gentleman might not get sworn in. He may in fact be ineligible. By the time you read this it'll be decided one way or the other. My guess is he won't be removed because then it lessens some of the need for electoral reform. That is the actual electoral reform Perth Labor really want, One Vote One Value.

Also in this case, such is the dominance of Labor in both houses whether Mr DaylightSaving Party won't hold the balance of power. In Parliament he will still be a voice in the wilderness.

Should he be tossed out? No. Not unless he's breached the laws of the WA State Election, much as I dislike it, no. Like it or not (and I don't) he's in fair & square. Has he paid the usual $50,000 to the gentleman known by many as "the Preference Whisperer"? I don't know, but even if he did, unsure its  against the law. So unless there's a proven case of wrong doing, we're stuck with Mr 98 votes MLC and it'll make no difference unless he can make good points & get press.
(Late Edit - Since the above was written, Mr Tucker MLC was elected, sworn in & is sitting in the Upper House)

"You're just peeved because your team got flattened convincingly so you want to stop all progress"

Well I didn't vote Labor but my team is actually WA. I want what's best for WA and I don't believe One Vote One Value is good for WA. He's a parallel example. Lets be full equal and lets not apply FULL EQUALNESS TO SOLELY ONE AREA.
From now on everyone should pay the same set amount of Income Tax. It doesn't matter if your Twiggy Forrest, Gina Reinhart, Clive Palmer or an average worker, a low wage earner or someone on government benefits. Not a percentage, no bracket creep ever again, just have the same set figure every year.

THAT IS EQUAL, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR AND IT'S BAD FOR EVERYONE

We have percentages, tax brackets and a sliding scale for a reason. Its equity based and its fair. The same goes for the weighting in the Upper House. Now be careful because things get mixed up and you need to seperate the issues that Perth Labor is going to super glue together. 

Issue #1 - Preventing fringe groups from getting elected by only attracting under a 100 votes or similar.

Issue #2 - Installing One Vote One Value

Two seperate issues, two seperate solutions. You can fix Issue #1 without bringing in Issue #2 but Perth Labor want to herald problem one as being unfair & use Issue #2 to fix it therefore reducing the regional voice.  THIS IS WHERE THEY WILL TRY TO DECEIVE WA VOTERS.

Lets take the seat of Nedlands now held by Perth Labor Party. It has around the 30,000 voter level and comprises of 31 square kilometres. To put that in perspective you can jump in a taxi and ride the whole boundry before lunch time even if you stop for a few coffees.

Compare it with the seat of North West Central. It goes from the Indian Ocean to the WA Border. It comprises of just over 10,000 voters spread over 820,000 square kilometres. 
Under One Vote One Value that will have to be amalgamated with say the Pilbara electorate which comprises of 23,000 voters & 292,000 square kilometres.

So close to the EQUAL number of voters per electorate (33,000 voters) but the electorate grows to 1,120,000 square kilometres. Equal numbers but unfair & grossly non equity based in size. With the amount of assets within that super electorate no MP can do the voters justice.

Granted, those 2 seats are lower house seats, not Legislative Council but you see the massive & ingrained disconnect from Perth based MPs who have no idea nor care about the vast areas in question. Already marginalised Remote Indigenous Communities are virtually hidden from representation.

Also if we're to chase One Vote One Value because it's equal, then lets be FULLY EQUAL.
The amount of police officers per electorate must ALL BE EQUAL. 
The amount, size & nature of medical facilities must be the same in ALL ELECTORATES, MUST BE EQUAL
The amount of TAFE facilities must be equal and the same in ALL ELECTORATES
The amount of subsidised public transport MUST BE EQUAL in ALL ELECTORATES...bus, train, ferrry, the lot all equal.
The cost of all infrastructure to the user must ALL BE EQUAL no matter which electorate you live in. Yes your water, gas, electricity, rates must now ALL BE EQUAL where ever you live.
Mobile Connectivity...pick the very best or the very worst connected electorate and everyone must have that exact same EQUAL level of connectivity. 
Ambulances? Heck, in Perth no one is more than 50 kilometres from an ambulance or fire station...same for EVERY ELECTORATE.

Getting the picture?

The picture is this, it is only the "EQUAL" that Perth Labor want to reduce regional representation in the Parliament. No other EQUAL complaint matters at all, only the political control one.
Doesn't matter how old you are, right now is the first time one political party has control of both houses & the One Vote One Value is likely to make the liklihood of that changing more remote. 

Ironic really. That which they say is to bring in equality will deliver more "equality" for one party over (& AT THE EXPENSE OF) the others. Will the pendulum ever swing back? Likely yes, no one stays in power forever but it'll happen more likely after a term or terms of serious mismanagement and/or corruption or some other tumultuous term that pushes the pendulum the other way.

EQUAL IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR. ONE VOTE ONE VALUE IS A DANGEROUS WAY OF BRINGING IN UNFAIR CHANGES UNDER THE GUISE OF EQUALITY WHEN FOR REGIONAL VOTERS NO OTHER FAIR & EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH & GOVERNMENT SERVICES WILL BE INSTALLED TO ALL ELECTORATES EQUALLY. NONE.

Throw in one more point or rather one pointed question for the Pro One Vote One Value people...
Senate Representation. Victoria & NSW have the largest number of Australian citizens so do the Pro OVOV people in WA one OVOV in the Senate? If so WA loses a lot of representation in the state House of Review why not the federal House of Review? Of course it will be overly dominated by NSW & Victoria.
So is OVOV is fair & about equal representation or is that different and doen't apply if it is the same?

And while we're on this, where does the newly installed Member for Albany stand on this?
We don't know. During Pre Polling 15-20 minutes per day was her time there, she rarely spoke on her own, its was always a minister or the Premier talking, her standing behind nodding.

Will she cross the floor & vote against any bill that will reduce regional representation?
I don't think no. If she votes against the government without a conscience vote she will be expelled from the Perth Labor Party and lose her seat.  She is a representative of Perth Labor in the electorate, her job is to sell whatever Labor says to Albany voters, she is denied the opportunity to represent Albany with her vote on the floor of the Parliament.
Go on, ask her. Front up and ask her. She may not know yet of course, but that's where she's at. I say may not know because I was told it was after winning preselection that she discovered there were 2 Houses of Parliament. I was told since winning the election she discovered she'd be in Perth a lot. Parliament will sit roughly 3 days a week (without extension that COVID will likely bring), then there's committee meetings, functions. I was told she was shocked and exclaimed she had small kids though and that no one had told her that. I expect there was a lot the experienced "handlers" didn't tell her. Personally I think she very unfairly was stitched up by her team of managers.

Peter Watson was speaker of the house for the last four years. He played no part in Government business & was the "impartial umpire" so we in Albany have had no real representation in debate in State Parliament for 4 years. That is set to continue and possibly worsen.

Ask the questions you need to ask. Albany is a small electorate & yet we will have no voice, both houses are controlled by whichever brutal Labor faction controls Cabinet. There is nothing equal or fair for Albany.

Rock Fishing Deaths & Regulation

 What is the acceptable number of deaths from rock fishing?
The obvious answer is zero, the practical achievable number is probably above zero.

To look an extreme, we can fine people fishing from the rocks without a life jacket $100,000 dollars & 10 years in jail and there will still be people sneaking out fishing without jackets. Just as selling drugs in some South East Asian countries results in the death penalty and yet they still have drug dealers.

Regulation will not bring a problem to an end, it can only curtail it & I think some people still think with unreasonable expectations that humans won't be humans.

I think the only answer is to do the best we can as a society. No wide spread rules and regulations. Not life jackets on the beach or jettys but identify the worst spots for rock fishing deaths. Then on these places erect warning signs and yes make it a requirement to wear a jacket, fine for defaulters & send the rangers in several times a year & publicise random crack downs.

Will people still die? Quite probably but it'll be ocassional and at that point very much non preventable. At that point it is people determined to flout or willfully ignore the safe approach. If they're lucky they'd get a fine but there will be some who'll keep fishing without a life jacket.

The problem also remains that there are valiant volunteers who come to rescue people or worse still recover bodies. It is still possible for a person to die with a life jacket but it's massively reduced but in that case it makes a recovery quicker and so much safer for the volunteers.

Wearing a life jacket while rock fishing makes sense, but some people are not sensible and others cannot be reasoned with. In remote locations that are unsafe there is only so much society can do and sadly the expectations of some that we can regulate the danger away completely is not possible, it's fanciful. All we can hope is eventually not wearing a jacket is rare & maybe even very rare.

People aren't being cold when they say regulation can only do so much, don't expect it will extinguish a threat. It's illegal to light fires in summer (regulation/law) and we still have bushfires. We can only mitigate the risk as much as possible not eliminate it. We're not at the fully mitigated as much as possible yet.

Trump...how's this work now?

I think people either deliberately or accidently forget WHY Donald Trump got elected. 
People were fed up with the Political Class & the Bureaucracy. Those two animals are the real threat to the West & in this case a threat to the USA.
In fact those two groups that work for the most part very closely together are what Trump & others called the SWAMP, that needed to be drained.

Those that were fed up with Political Elites were the ones Hillary from the Political Class labeled the "Deplorables" - Having said that, its looking more and more likely that there were Political Class/Bureaucratic Elite sympathisers in both major parties 

Trump was everything the USA needed.
Trump wasn't from the Bureaucracy 
Trump wasn't from the Political Class
Trump was a definite disruptor.

He wasn't doing it for the money, he has plenty & he donated his salary to charities...in effect he worked as President for free and may have even used his own plane until Security said he couldn't.
He did Move the US Embassy to Jeruselum as his 5 predecessors promised to.
He did raise the Hispanic & African American employment rates to unprecedented levels
He oversaw Middle Peace advances, there are now direct flights from Israel to UAE
He even visited North Korea, first leader from the West.

Yes in many ways he was portrayed as a clunky cartoon character of a President but he was able to cut through "the swamp", the do nothing behemoth made up of the Political Class & The Bureacratic Elite. Sadly it remains very likely that many of these advances wouldn't have happened without a complete outsider coming in and putting the foot down on non performers.
He was the perfect outsider, who came in to change things. Some not so good, but much good was profited for everyday citizens.

Odd he might be impeached for inciting criminals fools invading the Capital building with only days left of his tenure. 
For the record, all those who stormed the building, fought and injured law enforcement need to be identified and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law can allow.

Where to now? Well unity should follow but I think it's pretty hard to expect that will happen anytime soon. There is a definite presence of extremists in both the Democrats & Republicans. There is a definite pathway of dissent and confrontation coming. Hopefully it isn't violent.

With Democrats holding the Presidency and power in the Congress they will move forward whatever they want to a point. Now its clear many know "Never let a good crisis go to waste" so they may continue to demonise the conservatives whilst raising taxes and in the case of the Green New Deal real darker foundations. What's dark?
Salaries for those who cannot and "do not want to work".
Including illegal aliens. Kid you not.
Free healthcare for all, including illegal aliens.
All illegal aliens be given a visa.

So if they stick with that, you can get into the US illegally, then stay legally, get free healthcare & a living wage without working.

Then there's other chance these things will be wound back and the Biden term won't be quite so bad. 
They did though make anti NRA noises & Biden says he plans to take firearms away. That's quite a flashpoint.

Now some commentators are saying 2 sitting elected members need to go on a no fly list for terrorists.
Its going nuts & a culture of division & hate is being given steroids.

My guess, China will rise, America will suffer and prepare for a drop in the American Dollar in the next 12 months.

It's a sad & divisive time and it could get worse. 
All during a COVID "pandemic"

Albany's Race for a New MP

 Peter Watson MLA is stepping down at the next election in March 2021. It's going to be a stange contest with several people well credentialed with Community Involvement. The probable 3 front runners are Delma Baesjou (Nationals), Scott Leary (Liberals) and Rebecca Stephens (Labor). 

Scott Leary's chances are said to be improved by the rise of Zak Kirkup as party leader but whilst that's possible Liza Harvey was a good leader & in any case, she's staying on and is backing Zak Kirkup by all accounts. Both Liza & Zak visited Albany as Party Leaders. Scott has had a long history of community involvement in business & sport as well as the local TAFE,

Delma Baesjou is in a similar spot but her party's leader Mia Davies had visited Albany more times in the last 18 months than both Liberal & Labor leaders combined so they are serious on elevating Albany. Their party's State Conference in Oct 2020 was in Albany & add onto that Delma was the successful candidate in a political first for WA "Community Pre-Selection" so Delma really is a political candidate put forward by the community & voted in by the community...not a Perth based pre-selection committee and she's had a long linkage with local community groups, developers and community groups.

Rebecca Stephens also has a good history with local community groups and has run a local small business as well as sitting councillor on the City of Albany. She's going to have trouble building upon Peter Watson's legacy because for the last 4 years he's been Speaker of the Hourse so he hasn't built much at all. As Speaker he cannot have any part of cabinet decisions, has no part in Government business, cannot represent & speak up for Albany on the floor of the Parliament so Rebecca is starting off on a blank slate just like the other candidates.

She also has a few other barriers that only a well funded campaign can over come. In an ABC Radio interview she was asked about Deregulated Trading Hours and she said "No comment" which was a most curious reply. When further pushed she explained she would have to see what the electorate felt about it. Now this is curious because as a City Councillor she voted against it. Either she knows what the community wants or she doesn't or she voted without knowing what Albany wants or doesn't.
It's actually what is best for Albany regardless of what some do or don't want.

There's also some other differences that only an expensive campaign with lots of visits from the Premier can over come.

If Rebecca wins you can guarantee the Labor Party will celebrate her as the first woman to represent Albany in Parliament. It's odd because WA Labor has a stance, according to Simone McGurk MLA the Labor Minister for Women's Interests that a woman is someone who is a woman or lives as a woman. In other words anyone of any gender. Unless they can check to confirm all previous men lived & identified as men not women they have a funny claim to make. If you're a woman, your "interests" involve allowing anyone to be a woman. Ironically by elevating women's interests as they do, they're de-womaning the gender completely.

Rebecca has several other obstacles. She cannot cross the floor and vote on a matter in the best interests of the Albany community. If she does, she will be expelled fromt he party. This isn't such a problem for the Nationals & Liberal Candidates. Nationals MPs have put their electorate first & crossed the floor and indeed the Nationals have an ex-Liberal MP & an ex-Labor MP in their parliamentary ranks, but very renouned for putting their electorate first and they can cross the floor now.

Rebecca on that front is required to be a Labor representative in the electorate, not an electorate representative in her party, the government or the floor of the house. Its very unfair and will restrict Rebecca from the best results Albany needs to move forward.

Then there's yet another problem that only an expensive campaign can gloss over or distract from, Labor's close affinity with the Chinese Government & the prerential treatment for WA billionaires when it came to COVID quarantining. In amongst this, Labor has not been very regional friendly. 

Labor's plan to abolish the School of the Air without any stakeholder consultation, indeed even their own far north MPs only learned about it via the press. Labor's plan to shut Moora Residential College because it wasn't worth the money & under used (?)...federal money was sourced and it's been kept open, renovated and now fully booked.

There was also the additional problem that in their first budget Mark McGowan's Labor Party pent more money in 2 years on Rockingham Basketball than 2 years of drug rehab in Albany. You won't remember Peter Watson raising this in Parliament or crossing the floor over it. He represents Labor in Albany so golden silence.

Labor also said they would not bring in a Gold Tax, soon as they were elected Mark McGowan went back on his pre election committment & tried to introduce one...TWICE. Rebecca will need to rely on an expensive campaign & the old "that was before my time and I'm not familiar with Kalgoorlie". Well she'll have to vote on many things outside Albany & had that passed, Kalgoorlie would ahve gone into a serious economic slump and the entire drilling & exploration sector would have closed.

Royalties for Regions...many hundreds of projects, some were duds but now, its been skinned & gutted and used to pay for normal items within general expenditure and basically cost shifted a billion dollars a year from the regions to Perth. 
2.6 million square kilometres outside the Perth/Mandurah/Metro Area & R4R was to ensure a small portion of royalties was quarantined into the regions. The programme is effectively dead and you probably shouldn't be surprised.

As people starte getting the picture, expect the Labor money poured into the Albany Campaign to increase greatly as rural people including those like us in a rural city have been short changed badly.

Would you vote for a Democratic Communist Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Fascist Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Dictatorship Party?

Would you vote for a Democratic Khmer Rouge Party?

Assuming you would answer no to all 4 questions, ask yourself why on earth would you vote for a Democratic Socialist Party? That is what Labor is, the ALP Constitution says so in black & white.

So my expectation for the State Election 2021 in the seat of Albany...expect a massive campaign from Labor, a very costly one the other parties can't match to try & white wash over the facts you'll get & the poor results we've had. Expect the Premier & ministers to jump on the Lear Jet WA used to hire but then bought and head to Albany. They've had plenty of campaign flights Perth to Albany to Denmark (or Manjimup) then back to Perth. Whirlwind face dropping.

Drugs, hard damaging drugs...possible approach?

 Background, I'm no expert on drugs or addiction but there is a general push for drugs to no longer be seen as a criminal matter but as a health matter. That sets up 2 sides, the yes, the no but there's also another.

Both.

There's some pushes to decriminalise illicit drugs and drop it all fairly & squarely within the health realm which I'd politely say isn't coping with it now.

I knew a couple with kids and small business, successful small business. They smoked a bit of dope and when that happened I would go home, it increased and we drifted apart. What I didn't know was they were also beginning to use Methamphetamine, in fact it turns out they were high functioning addicts for a number of years before finally the unavoidable decline began. The decline was horrible to say the least. The husband was attacked and went to hospital several times. It ended up with a lost business, they lost their house and all assets, a divorce followed, then came prostitution, violence against police and medical staff, theft from family & strangers. It's ruined their lives, their parents lives, their children's lives. It is an utter shameful mess and I can only say I'm glad I wasn't close by to watch it because I would've been lost as to what to do to help.

In the end one of them is on the road to recovery health wise after a jail stint but there is no way to repair the damage that's been done.

Now if its solely a health matter, I need to see how that looks on paper because at the time when an intervention by medical professionals might, stress might have helped I for one thought they were just smoking dope & had no idea they were on hard drugs.

Crime, it isn't a sole answer either but somehow we have a problem because if we as a society were able to cut supply tomorrow, then drugs would be in short supply and addicts would jump over to another type of drug to fill the gap & the demand for the missing drug rises, there's more importation/production incentive.

I think there is no one answer, I think society needs a dozen keys to this puzzle. One of them might be doubling the penalties with each repeat offence. Get a 50% reduction in sentence for helping to prosecute & convict the next person up the line BUT the person convicted must go into a rehabilitation programme, regular drug testing and be found clean at the end of it. to get their reduction.

There has to be a serious penalty joined with a serious incentive to get clean and point the finger at the next person up the line. Can't have just a harsher penalty, there has to be a genuine incentive offer with set treatment.

Hopefully the random drug testing that happens ocaasionally with RBT becomes common place, test for one, test for the other.  
No, its probably correct that penalties will not solve the problem. we see that in Asian countries that have the death penalty for drug offences and the Phillipines where it's alleged drug dealers and addicts have been gunned down as well clamped down harshly by authorities. Drugs remain no matter what becuase I think the addictive nature of humans is never going away and the lure of big money still draws people in despite the incredibly high risk and brutal penalty.

But I think taking people out of the game by penalties & rehab on a larger scale is one of the keys to the puzzle not in eliminating drugs but at least reducing the number of addicts.

I don't know if there's the political will and the other trouble is the meth epidemic is only starting to become readily apparent to those outside the realm of these drugs. When it gets to this point, we've lost a big chunk of a generation and we need to move very rapidly & decisively to curb the damage for younger ones still not thinking of dabbling.

I think the entertainment industry has a big hand to play in demonising drugs but empathising with addicts. The Hollywood effect of glorifying drugs or mocking the dangers started before Cheech & Chong.

And yes, I don't think a shaded tent prison in the desert is such a bad idea either

The Left & the Right of the Political Spectrum

 For years we've heard of the Left vs the Right on the political Spectrum and even the Left, Centre and Right within each Party. The latest term to front up is "Sensible Centre" or "Centrist" which everyone seemed to claim for a while but it lost steam in Australia. Well it seemed to when the Independent MPs prior to the last Federal election claimed to be Centrists, Dr Phelps et al & running for election Zali Steggals. They weren't any compromise between Left & Right, they weren't any middle ground. They were trying to create a unique marketing brand whilst remaining leftists. It largely flopped.

The sort of traditional view of the political spectrum is somewhere like the following linear idea.

That's kinda roughly the current view of what the traditional political spectrum is. The Conservatives on the right of whatever the real dead centre is, the Progressives (or in America the Liberals) to the left. That may not be very accurate, but among many people thats the current view of what the traditional spectrum is.
Between Conservative & Hard Right there's Alt Right and other groups or ideologies with gradually changes towards the Hard Right. Between Progressives and the Hard Left will be gradual increases in ideology like the Antifa etc until you get Communism.

Its not the only view and some of the other views might be contentious to some, but they do have support and some supporting history on their side. Then there's this...

Now how on earth would this even be an idea that people might even consider being accurate. One reaction is you cannot lump Fascism/Nazis in with Marxist Ideologies like Communism, Socialism. They're thought to be polar opposities, one extreme right, one extreme left. They were enemies during the war & share no common traits.

Well ok, thing is that's the argument, except they do share a lot in common. Communism/Socialism has a Father in Karl Marx. Fascism has a Father in the Italian Philospher Giovanni Gentile who was a close ally of Mussonlini. Here's the thing, do your research on Gentile and his work and it soon becomes apparent he started out a strident Socialist then created Fascism which is an offshoot of Socialism because Gentile himself said Fascism is the ultimate form of Socialism. Both took away individual rights, individual ownership of the means of production, both vested decisions on how the individual lived into the State. Both had the State as the supreme goal, aim and governor but Socialism is based on getting rid of class, fascism is too that but more Nationalistic and expansionist. Both required full totalitarian regimes who were ruthless and prone to killing anyone who stood in their way. 

Hitler and the Nazis regime can never be trivialised nor over looked in their rank brutality that made them rightly considered by any religious or non religious worldview judgement as being totally evil.
Well, Stalin's Communist/Socialist regime actually shared many traits with the Nazis and over time they killed or rather ruthlessly murdered more innocent people. No Communism/Socialism isn't worse, they're both supremely evil by any measure. Nazism was lost & destroyed as a regime at the end of World War 2 and the Russian regime continued on. They were competing with one another and both wanted to crush and take over the other. (Before marching onto Capitlist countries and conquering them)

But don't forget the West opposed Socialism/Communism/Fascism during the War & after. With Nazism gone, we had the Cold War. The West versus "the East" and had the Nazis defeated Stalin, the East would have been Germany and every country it conquered or annexed.

Pick a conservative country during the War...or before or after. It would have fought both totalitarian regimes, it would not have set up gulags or concertration camps in the West.

Now somewhere on that second line graph is the Alt-Right. Now considering the Right is over there on the right, the Alt Right must be to the left of the Conservatives. Why? Because they're not of the right. They are "Alternative right". They're considered far right, but they're regarded as White Supremist Nationalists. They often tend as a group to relate to Nazis & be anti Communists. They're quite correct in being an alternative to the right. They are often over there by the Fascists & Nazis. They are not conservatives. Most religious conservatives consider all people are God's children, racism is wrong. Alt Right is not conservative at all. It like all other hard right are not conservatives and share more in common with the Hard Left.
Even Antifa, Anti Facist are not of the right, their followers are generally of one of the Marxist stripes. Oddly though they are very communist like, some are very racist and prone to violence to get their way like fascists and many communists.

This is probably why we see some sets of Antifa clashing with some sets of Alt-Right...meanwhile Conservatives are not a fan or connected to either & oppose both Antifa & Alt-Right. Both Antifa & Alt-Right oppose the West, capitalism, individual rights & want the State to rule the people, not serve them. Every that is the very opposite of Conservatism.
This is why it sure looks not to be simple linear spectrum, Conservatives & wise Progressives are not really of the left or the right. That linear distinction only applies to seperate those that support authoratarian rule & equal division of assets, money & the State owning the means of production & distributing wealth evenly amongst all.

Yes its very uncomfortable for some who wish to demonise conservatives by creating the illusion that Fascism and Nazism is of the right, but they're not. They're of the right compared only to Communists & Socialists. The Communists are of the left, but only to the left of Nazis & Fascism. For Nazis the clue is in the name "National Socialist" and they were brutal totalistarian regimes...that is not from the conservatives any more than Communism is.
If its in favour of authoratarian rule, loss of individual rights, control of all manner of lifes aspects its the Left/Right alright...but not of & opposed by conservatism & real progressivism.

Now progressives...they're looking to change things for the better, Conservatives looking to conserve things for the better. Having them both in a society is not only admirable, its desireable as long as they don't go to far into removing individual rights, over taxing, over legislating the people and not changing from the goevrnment serving the people to pushing the people to serve the government. Real progressives won't support authoratarian rule, loss of individual rights, private property rights, individuals freedom of speech, worship etc.

Yes, I think the second representation of the political spectrum is more correct than the first.
But the first one whilst being intellectually corrupt, morally bankrupt & unsupported by actual history...yes it will live on. Usually by those that will try to not mention progressives but need to condemn conservatives to help falsely bolster any level of Marxist or Fascist validation.
Desperates being desperate.