Drug Use Focus Of DLP In Senate

[grace]

The Victorian blacksmith who claimed the state's last Senate spot says tackling Australia's exploding drug problem will be a key priority as he works with the major parties.

 

John Madigan, 44, has returned the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) to Canberra for the first time in 36 years after he was officially declared the winner on Friday of the sixth Victorian federal seat.

 

His victory pushed Family First Senator Steve Fielding out after one term, which ends in June next year.

 

Mr Madigan, who will be a socially conservative presence in the Senate, says drug use is more of a health issue for him than law and order.

 

"This has an enormous effect on the addicts themselves, it has an effect on their immediate family ... their friends, their employer and the country," he told reporters on Friday.

 

He is backing mandatory treatment for illegal drug use and voluntary treatment for legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco.

 

Mr Madigan sees possibilities in supporting both government and opposition while he's in the Senate.

 

"All parties have good people in them and they all have some good policies," he said.

 

"We'll judge people on merit and their policy on merit. I'd like to think that we're all there trying to do what's best for all Australians."

 

Mr Madigan joins the ALP's Kim Carr and Stephen Conroy, the coalition's Bridget McKenzie and Michael Ronaldson and the Greens' Richard Di Natale in filling the six Senate vacancies.

 

The DLP gained preferences throughout more than 250 rounds of counting and pushed ahead in the final rounds to be officially declared the winner of the last seat about four weeks after election day.

 

Senator Fielding had been knocked out in earlier rounds with the runner-up for the last seat being ALP candidate Antony Thow.

 

The Australian Sex Party, with Fiona Patten running in her party's first federal poll, did well and gained more votes than Family First once all preferences were counted.

 

Mr Madigan is an unlikely winner as a first-time candidate who did virtually no campaigning.

 

He attributes the DLP's resurgence in federal politics to the election of Peter Kavanagh, which he says was a "shot in the arm" when he claimed an upper house seat in Victoria's 2006 state poll.

 

His family provided the inspiration to run for the first time.

 

"My father used to say `You may not think you're the best person to do the job ... but maybe you're the best person at the time and somebody's got to stand up to the plate'," he said.

 

"So I stood up to the plate and look what happened

 

Author:Steve Lillebuen

Date: 17 September 2010

Source: smh.com.au

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/drug-use-focus-of-dlp-in-senate-20100917-15fi7.html

[Fibrofeend]

Hmm this sounds good and bad..

 

This is just stupid...."He is backing mandatory treatment for illegal drug use and voluntary treatment for legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco."

 

So if im using a tiny bit of cannabis per week, but old mate down the road is drinking him self into a stuper everynight and smoking

a pack a day, im the one who needs to be MADE to have treatment?? hmmmm yes i see there logic

[brick]

DLP bunch of hypocrites. Started in the late 40's early 50's (i think), by the catholics. To fight the scourge of communism sweeping the globe.

 

:devilred::ermm:

[snooch]

Hmm this sounds good and bad..

 

This is just stupid...."He is backing mandatory treatment for illegal drug use and voluntary treatment for legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco."

 

So if im using a tiny bit of cannabis per week, but old mate down the road is drinking him self into a stuper everynight and smoking

a pack a day, im the one who needs to be MADE to have treatment?? hmmmm yes i see there logic

 

That was the bit that jumped out at me too. It's the most illogical thing I've heard. So you would MAKE someone who happens to take a drug have mandatory treatment, regardless of whether or not they have a problem, just because it's illegal? But make it voluntary for legal drugs?? Huh?? I just don't get it.

 

Here's a policy thought. Why not have treatment programs for the people who have legitimate addiction and just leave the rest of us to live our damn lives in some semblance of peace?