« profile & posts archive

This author has written 782 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

72 responses to “Government looks to wedge…AFL”

  1. steve

    If Federal parliament has to sit for one more session of mudslinging for no good reason perhaps the members could all be drugtested during the sitting week.

    Howard has recently admitted to giving speeches under the influence of Alcohol and it would be good to know just what the backbenchers are using to cope with the impending annihilation predicted by Howard.

    I’m sure the AFL can organise the drugtesting of its footballers without the interference of a profession famous for non-testing its own members.

  2. John Ryan

    God I live in Perth and get AFL shoved down my throat 7 days a week,you cant get away from it,a lot of the locals cant talk about anything else,cant stand the game myself.
    I avoide the RU what I saw on the NEWs was same old same old no trys to England a kicker who took that long to take a kick you could have knitted a jumper while waiting,the Aussie players thought they were players thought they were playing AFL.
    Kick Kick Kick boring as bat**** then i think rugby union is a prety boring game anyway running rugby what a joke

  3. Spiros

    The politics is this very simple.

    AFL boss Andrew Demetriou made an Australia Day speech a couple of years ago in which he said that migrants contribute a lot to the country abd it was a bad thing to demonise them. I don’t think he mentioned Muslims specifically but the government took this to be a criticism and they’ve been gunning for him ever since.

    The government’s positioning on the AFL and drugs has nothing to do with drugs. It is merely pure vengeance against Demetriou. Those who are unfamiliar with the story can confirm this with a bit of googling.

  4. steve

    That may well be true Spiros but if they had a blood test every time they arrived for a parliamentary sitting and had to piss in a bottle every time a sitting was over. their interest would soon wane in the drugtesting og others.

  5. swio

    There’s a very simple come back. Any drugs policy applied to AFL players should also be applied to members of parliament and their staffers. Its surely more important that people making the countries laws be drug free than a bunch of football players. Not a chance that this would happen but at least it would expose the hyporcrisy of it all.

  6. Katz

    This particular wedge seems to be directed at folks who:

    1. Care about AFL football.

    and

    2. Think that the Howard government has greater credibility than the AFL.

    I’d call that a null set.

  7. Liam

    it’s a pure political stunt

    Yes, but it’s not the Federal Government’s idea. The impetus behind getting rid of AFL’s three-strikes comes from WADA and from the other codes of football, who have much stricter testing.
    Sorry everyone, not everything is a cleverly designed wedge by malevolent John Howard.

  8. Michael S.

    Robert, the government have been laying into the AFL for a few months over this and it really hasn’t registered in anyone’s mind. I think a bare majority of fans support the policy, and the players association is threatening to withdraw from the current system in light of the leaks that channel seven aired, so the AFL is going to dig in over this.

    I think this new push by the government is (like so many of the funding announcements we will see over the next few months) merely recycled.

  9. Joanne

    “from the other codes of football, who have much stricter testing”

    Wrong Liam! The AFL is the ONLY code that does out of competition testing (ie during the week) for non-performance enhancing, illicit drugs. All the others only test for these drugs on match days which might then affect their playing performance on the day. That is why they come down harder on their players if they return a positive test. This whole thing is an ill informed beat up.

  10. Liam

    I meant stricter in that the three-strikes rule is unique to the AFL.

  11. suz

    This is very interesting. One morning last week – Tuesday I think – I heard this discussed on Virginia Trioli’s ABC morning radio show in Sydney. Peter Costello – a “big fan of AFL” (so that makes him an authority) had been interviewed about the AFL drugs testing policy in the light of the death of ex-player Chris Mainwaring in Perth, apparently from an OD (whether deliberate or not is not clear – in fact, it’s not proven drugs were implicated in his death but Costello and Trioli spoke as though they were and even though Mainwaring was 41 and an ex-player, his death was used to beat the current AFL.) After chatting with Costello, Trioli got on a spokesman from the AFL and played Peter Costello’s comments to him and then conducted a very aggressive interview in which she accused him of being soft on drugs.

    All of which now looks very much like a precursor to the Brandis policy. Surely they couldn’t have made up the policy since last week – Costello must have been part of Cabinet discussions about this and launched the first part of their strike in his interview with Trioli.

    I agree with the West Coast Eagles president in the linked article – using the death of Mainwaring in this debate is appalling.

  12. Robert Merkel

    Liam, the WADA code is an attempt to apply misguided, puritanical American drugs policy globally.

    The AFL actually made a rod for its own back by doing the out-of-competition tests. If a player wants to get coked up to the eyeballs in private every Monday, that may be a stupid idea, but doesn’t affect the integrity of the competition.

  13. Liam

    Yes, I agree entirely with those points Robert, but I was trying to get across that this is a bigger fight than just AFL vs. the Commonwealth.

  14. Joanne

    That is relevant to what? The AFL is at least making an attempt to find out those that may have a problem and assist them to deal with it. Everyone else is self interested.

  15. steve

    Suz, the Libs have been beating this drum for a while now. Here’s Christopher Pyne at the end of May.

  16. steve

    ABC’s PM program on May 15, 2007.

  17. The Worst of Perth

    The PM may be calling for a more drugs policy for Rugby Union.

  18. cc

    I can’t understand what the government is trying to achieve with this.

    The AFL made its drugs policy and the reasons behind it very clear, and made Brandis and Pyne look very silly when the came to Melbourne to try and strong arm the AFL over it earlier in the year.

    Fans of football are going to side with the Demetriou and the AFL over this one, because no fan wants to see their star player banned from a big game because of minor recreational drug use, and also because fans care enough about the players on their team, that if someone was found to have serious drug problem, they would want the player to receive help, not a ban and to be named and shamed.

    This seems to be a policy designed to appeal to people who hate footballers and football. Seems like a pretty niche voting market to me.

  19. steve

    It seems the Libs are more successful at wedging themselves in Queensland anyway. Check this out for one faction of the Qld libs being wedged by Howard.

  20. Geoff Robinson

    Back in the 1980s Brandis was arguing that the Liberal party had to be saved for liberalism from conservatives like Malcolm Fraser and David Kemp (see his 1984 collection Liberals face the Future). We all change.

  21. Razor

    cc – I am a fully paid up West Coast Eagles fan. I love my footy along with the rest of my extended family, in-laws and out-laws, who are all also members of either WCE or (wash my mouth out) Shockers members.

    We fully support rigorous out of competition testing for both performance enhancing and illegal drugs.

    First offence should be a mandatory 2 year ban.

  22. Razor

    swio – doesn’t sound too different form working in the mining game these days. In the mining industry it is done for safety. To do it to parlimentarians and their staff would be doing it for what safety reason?

  23. Robert Merkel

    To be fair, Razor’s position had a fair number of supporters in the footy community.

    But to turn the question around, Razor, would you support compulsory (recreational) drug testing for everyone, no matter what their occupation? If so, why should somebody who plays footy for a living be treated differently?

  24. Resin dog

    Razor
    What is the safety reason for testing AFL players out of competition?

  25. Bingo Bango Boingo

    Ridiculous, Razor. A two-year ban for recreational drug use? Let me guess: individual duties to ‘society’ as role models and all that. It’s just rubbish…oh, and go Hawks!

    BBB

  26. Liam

    To do it to parlimentarians and their staff would be doing it for what safety reason?

    No safety reason, but I reckon a mandatory scheme for staffers would be an awesome make-work project for the masses of underemployed Australian lab assistants.
    Bunch of overachievers that staffers are, I’m sure they’d spend the off-Parliament weeks preparing heavily, and then stay up late cramming for the tests.

  27. Andrew E

    When Amanda Vanstone was minister in charge of the Federal Police, she regularly threatened to run the sniffer dogs through the press gallery. I’d have loved to see that, hard to know who to feel sorry for.

    There are two issues with the AFL.

    First, there are four times more journalists covering AFL than covering federal politics, so if you’re a slut for publicity you’d want to get in there somehow. However, I notice that there were no Victorian Liberal candidates lining up with Brandis and Pyne.

    Second, AFL players can do no wrong, a major turnoff for the game for those of us who haven’t grown up with the game. An AFL player could stab people at Flinders Street station at peak hour and at least 10% of the population would defend them no matter what. Even if charges were laid there’d be enough starstruck police and magistrates who’d let the offender go for a fine equivalent to a match fee. By going after such people, the feds reinforce a reputation for toughness, equality before the law, etc.: one AFL player is easier to catch than 100 anonymous participants in the drug trade and creates more headlines for government.

  28. Frank Calabrese

    Second, AFL players can do no wrong, a major turnoff for the game for those of us who haven’t grown up with the game

    Exhibit A – Ben Cousins.

  29. Razor

    The AFL tests for drugs out of competition. Including illegal drugs in that testing is not overly expensive.

    I support the drug testing and banning on health reasons. Taking illegal drugs is potentially very bad for your health. My wife just called in tears and gave me a report on Mainy’s funeral service.

    I also support the idea that AFL Footballers are role models. Making them pay significantly for using illegal drugs is part of publicly condemning drug use as totally, completely unacceptable. A Zero Tolerance approach is required.

    Why are elite sportsmen different – because they are elite. I support the infrastructure and elite sports programs and the money spent on it. (I also think a HECS style system should exist for all particpants in AIS/UNSWIS/WAIS etc programs) But the same support brings some added responsibility.

    As for all workers taking drug tests – as I said, the mining industry do it. All staff, even those in head offices of the major firms, do it. I don’t have a problem with it. The question, of course, is who pays for it and why. There are significant public policy reasons for elite athletes and the mining industry. Makee and argument for the remainder of the nation and maybe it will happen. Although I’d rather see an annual increase of 1% per year for 6 years of the Suprannuation Guarantee requirement and have SG extended to ALL employees including contractors, than mandatory drug testing.

  30. Razor

    Frank – are you saying Ben has payed no penalty?

    Time out of the game reducing match payments.

    Cost payed by himself for rehab program.

    Reduced future remuneration due to renegotiation of contract.

    Low possibility of future personal endorsement arrangements.

    Taking the drugs was wrong. I think a two year ban should have occurred but he wasn’t actually ever found positive. He has paid a big price and his honesty and efforts to overcome his problem has been an example I admire.

    If drug taking wasn’t so damnned “socially acceptable” then maybe this wouldn’t have happened. Zero tolerance and a society that holds drug taking as totally unacceptable is the only way.

    If the AFL didn’t have such a piss weak approach to illegal drugs, then maybe Ben might not have gone down the path that he did. He played the system knowing the risks were low of being caught or suffering any consequences.

  31. Paul Burns

    If this policy was meant to appeal to a football hating niche market, it didn’t work.

  32. Andrew E

    Paul, people who love football are sickened by some of the self-indulgent crap that surrounds it. The Herald Sun devoted more space to Wayne Carey’s affair than it did to September 11.

    Razor, eating pizza and drinking beer is socially acceptable, yet as an elite athlete Cousins has chosen not to sit around consuming those products on a regular basis. It’s in clubs’ interests to test for drugs, because sponsors don’t want their brand associated with self-destructive behaviour.

  33. Katz

    If the AFL didn’t have such a piss weak approach to illegal drugs, then maybe Ben might not have gone down the path that he did. He played the system knowing the risks were low of being caught or suffering any consequences.

    It ‘s a manifestation of nanny-statism that the AFL is even testing for drugs that don’t enhance performance.

    What next? Should female netballers be tested for RU486? The notion is ridiculous.

    If the state wants to quell illicit drug use by elite sportspeople, let the state do its own dirty work.

    Razor appears to subscribe to the philosophy that everything that isn’t banned must be compulsory. Ben Cousins a victim of lax law enforcement? Gimme a break!

  34. Ambigulous

    Liam @ 10.21am

    I agree, this issue has been kicked around for months and years, in Victoria at least, on footy radio shows, on TV, on news…. It’s clearly not a poltical stunt suddenly dreamt up by a Government spin doctor. It may be a poltical ploy but it’s been simmering for donkey’s years.

    BTW, may we please drop the (virtually meaningless) term “wedge” from political discussion?

  35. anthony

    Mind bending arguments there Razor

    Taking the drugs was wrong. I think a two year ban should have occurred but he wasnâ??t actually ever found positive. He has paid a big price and his honesty and efforts to overcome his problem has been an example I admire.

    So still being allowed to continue his career and getting support and treatment has worked and… hey what about that Zero Tolerance two year ban?

    If drug taking wasnâ??t so damnned â??socially acceptableâ?? then maybe this wouldnâ??t have happened. Zero tolerance and a society that holds drug taking as totally unacceptable is the only way.

    Well it’s socially acceptable because it’s socially acceptable because people like a feeling of euphoria, confidence, energy or just generally being off their heads despite knowing the risks. And that’s the same for footy players. Any reason why they should be made mandatory role models?

    Why are elite sportsmen different – because they are elite.

    Oh OK.

    Anybody in the government like to explain what a rum company most commonly associated with people behaving like dickheads and its kiddy appeal mascot is doing being the major sponsor of an Australian sporting team?

  36. Frank Calabrese

    Paul, people who love football are sickened by some of the self-indulgent crap that surrounds it. The Herald Sun devoted more space to Wayne Carey’s affair than it did to September 11.

    The WA media are the same with Cousins’ various foibles and more recently the death of Chris Mainwaring – including a live telecast of the memorial service this morning, by his recent employer TVW 7.

  37. Andrew E

    Katz, never mind the state – feel the sponsorship. Same for you anthony – there’s product to be sold, and not be druggies in logos.

  38. Yobbo

    You guys have this completely ass-backwards.

    Andrew Demietriou is the one pushing for more drug testing.

    The AFLPA are the ones fighting to keep it out of the players’ private lives.

    The federal government is completely irrelevant.

    And whoever said the AFL has more credibility than the fed. government?

    What the fuck are you smoking? Demetriou is the most hated person in Melbourne.

  39. Katz

    Andrew Demietriou is the one pushing for more drug testing.

    The federal government is completely irrelevant.

    Crap.

    How about reading the post before banging the keyboard?

    THE Federal Government plans to shame the AFL into abandoning its controversial three-strikes-you’re-out drugs policy, and has accused the league of undermining its tough anti-drugs campaign.

    Federal Sports Minister George Brandis yesterday warned that community expectations and peer group pressure would see the AFL embrace the Government’s new drugs policy and impose immediate sanctions on players caught using illegal drugs.

    Brandis wants the AFL to punish harder than it is at present.

  40. Razor

    Andrew E – I don’t have a problem if it pressure from sponsors that creates a requirement for testing for illegal drugs. The more testing the better.

    I am also a huge fan of cycling and see what damage the drugs are doing to that sport.

  41. Razor

    Katz,

    What’s your problem with RU486? I wasn’t aware i was performance enhancing or illegal.

    A lefty like you calling a policy Nanny Statism – now that is irony!

    The lax AFL drug policy is one possible reason why Ben took drugs. If it was clear in his mind that his career as a footy player was potentially finished, then maybe he wouldn’t have done so.

  42. Razor

    anthony – there is nothing mind bending about what I said. I support a two year ban for illegal or performance enhancing drugs. Ben Cousins operates under the existing regime. What’s so hard to get your head around?

    Your type of attitude that getting high is OK because people enjoy it is so effing infantile as to make one wonder if you have ever suffered from a crime related to drug addiction or had a relative or friend drug addicted or even die from it. I doubt it.

    And talk about mind bending – you then hold out Bundaberg Rum sponsorship of the Wallabies as a problem. You are effing kidding me???

  43. Razor

    Frank – you never answered my question.

    Do you really believe Ben Cousins has paid No penalty, zip, nil, nothing, nada, zilch?????

    ….waiting…

    You weak little . . .

    I’d like you to say it to Ben Cousins face to face in a private place.

  44. steve

    And whoever said the AFL has more credibility than the fed. government?

    It would be difficult to have less credibility than the Federal Government. That’s why Howard won’t call the election.

  45. Liam

    No, Razor, I’d guess that Cousins took drugs for the reasons anybody would: because he can afford them and they’re fun. And it’s quite clear that his career as an AFL player isn’t finished even now that he *did* get caught; the press has simply gone into Doctor Phil Overdrive and played up his miraculous “recovery” as if he had a tumour removed. Bah.
    I remember somebody arguing a while back that Andrew Johns’ drugs habits were perfect evidence that elite athletes *can* maintain decades-long habits without any real adverse effect on their performance.
    There’s a big difference between the AFL wanting to control the private lives of their players and the professional cycling tours wanting to stamp out doping. The latter is cheating, the former, not.

  46. Razor

    Liam – you obviously aren’t reading the West Australian media that has crucified Ben Cousins.

  47. Frank Calabrese

    I say good on Rebecca Wilson for stating the b,leeding obvious.

    http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22543754-5005374,00.html

    Oh and to Razor, your last comment to me doesn’t deserve ANY response.

  48. Phil

    I’ve said this before on another thread and I’ll say it again once more.

    There is a direct connection between party drugs and performance enhancing drugs, the policy ties into and connects a number of issues into one. That is the context for what the Govt is doing.

    The same guys
    that sell roids down at the gym are the same guys that sell it at the night clubs, and they are very often the same guys involved in the importation and or manufacture of the stuff.

    Namely the subject of trafficking. An athlete who dopes is not only cheating but using controlled substances, WADA, Interpol, ASADA, the Australian Federal Police and a huge numbers of Orgs in other countries are involved in this.

    To read this as a wedge, or even some American inspired drug policy imported into Australia for political consumption ignores the real fight that’s going on for the heart and soul of global sport.

    It’s a safe bet that if someone is taking recreational drugs on his own time for fun then he’s probably doping for performance too.

  49. Katz

    What’s your problem with RU486? I wasn’t aware i was performance enhancing or illegal.

    I don’t have a problem with RU486.

    However, it is illegal to use without a prescription. Just like marijuana or morphine.

    You have a very narrow view of leftism Razor. Consistent, really.

  50. cc

    Given that the government has little regard for the welfare of its citizens, it comes as no surprise that it has no concern for the welfare of AFL players.

    But I was clearly wrong in expecting fans to have more compassion, understanding and respect for the players they are so happy to cheer and jeer on a weekly basis. A two year ban for a first offense (something not even the government is advocating) does harm to the player, their club, the game and society.

    This is wider than just AFL drug testing and I would like to think that someone who had

    ‘suffered from a crime related to drug addiction or had a relative or friend drug addicted or even die from it’

    would be more inclined to see the complexities of drug addiction and recognise that a purely punitive approach does little to solve the problem.

  51. Razor

    So, Frank, has Ben Cousins paid a price? Yes or No? One minute you are saying the AFL players get off scott free and next you link to a scathing attack on the players, the club and the AFL. So which one is it?

    The article by Wilson is good in many respects but is wide of the mark also. She infers that WCE shold have done something about Mainwaring’s suspected drug problem and that it is a cop out for the WCE to say they don’t drug test ex-players. Exactly what does she expect them to do????

    And as for her sledge about the ANZ pulling sponsorship because of the drug issues – there is no evidence to support that. The ANZ made the decision some time ago and have publicly stated that it was not related to the issue. So she is saying they are liars – I’d like to see her evidence, or she is a liar. Sponsors come and go from sporting clubs all the time.

  52. Robert Merkel

    Rebecca Wilson is talking utter rot.

    Chris Mainwaring hadn’t been a footballer for seven years, or been in the AFL for eight, when he died.

    His sad death has about as much to do with the contemporary AFL’s drug policy as Britney Spears’ recent travails have to do with the Walt Disney Company.

  53. Razor

    Katz – there are very good reasons for prescription drugs being prescription drugs. I get the impression you don’t support the current prescription drugs policy, then??

    As for my narrow view of leftism – why would that be? I don’t like the “do as I say, not as I do” approach of Kevin Rudd? I find the Peter garret – No US Bases (what’s that . . . ?) Sorry – i support US Bases and the US alliance, hypocrisy, I find the PC clap-trap idiocy and hypocrisy completely insane.

  54. cc

    Phil, while it may well be a case that those dealing one kind of drug are also dealing the other to suggest that players are obviously automatically doing both is absolutely ridiculous.

    By that logic, an athlete using performance enhancing drugs would automatically taking recreation ones. And that is simply not the case. Drug taking, both recreational and performance enhancing, is never that cut and dried. Alastair Lynch took performance enhancing drugs, but not for a moment would anyone suggest he is recreational drug user.

    Likewise, an 18 year old boy (who happens to be a footballer), who is persuaded to try a recreation drug at a nightclub cannot be assumed to be a drug cheat. He may well be endangering his life – but it is unreasonable to assume he is also taking performance enhancing drugs.

  55. Frank Calabrese

    Re Ben Cousins, may I refer you to his Wikipedia entry which covers events where he was treated rather favourably.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Cousins

  56. Razor

    cc – firstly, your slander that the Government has little regard forthe welfare of Australians is not supported by any evidence. Hundreds of Billions of dollars are spent every year on welfare and improving the welfare of all Australians. And an ALP Governemnt is unlikely to be significantly different. Exactly how doesn’t the current Government have regard for the welfare of Australians? What policies would you change or impliment and how much would this cost and how would you rasie the revenue to pay for it?

    cc – I never said that banning is the only thing that should happen. I also support the current AFL policy of getting players help with their problems. You might think intial two year bans do harm to the player, club, game and society. I thin it will only be beneficial for all parties in the long run. Just as disciplining young children isn’t always a pleasant experience when it is being done, the long-term benefits are well worth the effort.

  57. Katz

    Katz – there are very good reasons for prescription drugs being prescription drugs. I get the impression you don’t support the current prescription drugs policy, then??

    There are sometimes very good reasons for a presciption drugs regime. It is open to debate at the margins.

    On the issue of drug testing: it is quite possible that an AFL footballer testing positive for marijuana or morphine was using those drugs legally, i.e., with a prescription. It is equally possible that a netball player testing positive for RU486 was using it illegally, i.e., without a prescription.

    None of these drugs is performance enhancing. Therefore, the sporting bodies concerned have no business to know whether or not players have been using any of those drugs. In other words, I’m recommending that the sporting bodies butt out of testing for such drugs.

    If the state wants to know whether sports people are using such drugs illegally, let the state do the testing and take the heat for being an intrusive busy-body.

  58. FDB

    If the state wants to know whether sports people are using such drugs illegally, let the state do the testing and take the heat for being an intrusive busy-body.

    A-fucking-men to that.

  59. Razor

    Katz – athletes apply for therapeutic use exemptions for banned prescription drugs if they are required for medical purposes.

    I don’t think dope is legal even by prescription in Australia.

    I think sporting bodies should be involved in testing for illegal drugs because it can have significant health implications for the athletes. It is looking after their welfare.

  60. Razor

    Frank – I don’t see any events were Ben Cousins was treated favourably in that article.

    Exactly when do you think he was treated favourably? And how do you think he should have been treated?

    And what Phil is saying about the Dealers and Traffickers makes complete sense.

  61. Katz

    I think sporting bodies should be involved in testing for illegal drugs because it can have significant health implications for the athletes. It is looking after their welfare.

    So is checking that they change their underwear relatively frequently. should the AFL be testing for that too, Nanny?

  62. Razor

    ha ha

  63. steve

    Katz,you are cruel. Don’t you know that the only safe drugs are the ones Razor injests personally?

  64. Bingo Bango Boingo

    steve, ‘injest’ is a great potential entry for the Washington Post’s New Word Competition. But what should be definition be? How about ‘pretending to take drugs in an amusing or entertaining fashion’.

    BBB

  65. Razor

    BBB – I am the last one to point out typos, but seeing that j is so far away from g I call “Fair Bump Play On!”

    Nice one Steve.

  66. Bingo Bango Boingo

    Razor, my writing is usually riddled with typos, so I’d be the last to get stuck into steve about this. I am merely acknowledging genius. It works on two levels: either it’s a corruption of ‘ingest’ which I guess would apply to party drugs like ecstasy and GHB, or it’s a corruption of ‘inject’, which covers ice and heroin.

    BBB

  67. Liam

    It is pretty good. Worthy of a Cheech and Chong grin and a thumbs-up, maaan.

  68. Francis Xavier Holden

    After the death of the Mainwaring yob why isn’t there an inquiry (or is that enquiry) into the drug culture at Channel 7?

  69. Robert Merkel

    BTW, guys, it’s getting a little willing. (and my comment probably contributed to that – sorry). Could we all play the ball please?

  70. wbb

    Of course it’s a wedge. A very small and pathetic one – but they will run every single wedge they can think of b/w now and December.

    Cynical populism will be taken to new extremes by Howard’s desperadoes. And it might still work for them. Inch by bloody inch.

    As for the subject itself – all I wish is that the ABC would not feel compelled to breathlessly report every single instance of an athlete taking drugs. It’s just not that big a story. I reckon there’s a producer at the ABC who is obsessed with this topic.

  71. steve

    Meanwhile on the eve of a Federal Election the sittings of the Queensland Parliament due to start this week have already thrown up a split between the two top Nats Seeney and Springborg, wedged over stem cell legislation.

    It would not be the Queensland coalition without a change of leadership whenever they hear the word, election. It just seems to be a natural Pavlov Dog resonse by them.

  72. yeti

    Razor have you ever smoked pot?

    You must be insane if you think that recreational cannabis use is somehow so damaging that it requires mandatory piss-testing – in any job! I guess you’re not a Right-winger of the ‘libertarian’ school.

    If there’s any drug that should be banned it is alcohol – addictive, family-wrecking, violence and stupidity inducing poison that puts an huge burden on the ambulence service. If you were a police-man would you rather patrol a town full of drunks or a town full of stoners? Let’s have some consistency, if alcohol is legal then pot, which every medical study shows to be far less harmful, should definitely be legal.