Drugs are bad, mm'kay

I knew having a baby would cost me money, take all my time and mean I wouldn't be going to the movies for a while, much less going out dancing every week-end.

I even half-expected far worse things to happen than did (eg stretchmarks, not finding childcare, losing touch with childless friends)

But I didn't know it would cost me my will to blog.*

Weird eh? Actually, not really. Half the time I'm too busy playing happily with my gorgeous girl to blog and the rest of the time I'm in far too high dudgeon about the idiocy of all levels of government to type anything I won't regret later.

But I can't let Mrs Bishop's latest outrage against years of expert opinion for the sake of political pointscoring pass without comment.

She's Chairman (sic) of a parliamentary committee that has just recommended a new emphasis on zero tolerance for drug use as opposed to harm minimisation strategies that actually treat addicts as human beings and addiction as a health not a moral issue. To give her credit, at least the non-government committee members were allowed to read the report this time. Her last major inquiry (into childcare) was discussed at a meeting arranged for when it was common knowledge that the ALP members were busy electing Kevin Rudd as their new leader. They complained. They got nowhere.

Yesterday Mrs Bishop was on
Triple J's the Hack program using her Margaret Thatcher perfumed steamroller approach of repeating ad nauseam that drugs are bad and policies that allow drug use to continue in any form are bad.

My carefully thought out comment is:

Harrumph.

Bring on the real election campaign.

*Years ago, when I was an impressionable teenager, there were anti-drug ads on telly that said something like "I knew heroin would cost me mony. I didn't realise it would cost me my friends, my job, my looks, my boyfriend and my health." Probably just as ineffective as the scary ones showy ice addicts gouging their arms but they made the point that there were consequences of addiction.