Heavy duty hair splitting

Today's Chris Saliba piece in Webdiary deals with the Greens-Herald Sun dispute. (For those who aren't aware, the Herald Sun ran an article that the Greens claim misrepresented their policies; the Press Council ultimately agreed. But, since that isn't the point, I won't bother to elaborate.) Saliba takes the Herald Sun's reporting to task, concentrating at one point on the Greens' drug policies:

Is it true? Do the Greens back illegal drug use? Of course not. If elected to government, does anyone seriously think The Greens would urge the electorate to break the law? As a headline, it’s clearly nonsense, and this is why it works. It makes an alarming, emotionally charged statement that can’t be countered with rational argument. It spooks people.

The first step in their policies is to de-criminalise drug usage. Nowhere, and this must be repeated, nowhere do The Greens advocate illegal drug taking.

The Greens’ policies state that: The regulation of the personal use of currently illegal drugs should be moved outside the criminal network.

Drugs are a hot button issue, just the sort of thing to get a reaction. Greens’ policies acknowledges as much: Drugs and substance abuse are complex issues and strategies need to acknowledge this complexity.

Other misleading statements in the 31 August article include the assertion that ecstasy would be supplied over the counter to young users. Real policy: Investigations of options for the regulated supply of social drugs such as ecstasy in controlled environments where information will be available about health and other effects of drug use.

The Greens’ policy only talks of "investigation of options". It doesn’t state that their intention is to start issuing ecstasy, ad libitum, as soon as humanly possible. And why has the Herald-Sun said the drugs would be issued to "young users"? Are they insinuating that The Greens would hand out drugs like candy to children and teens?

The claim the paper makes to "state sanctioned heroin and marijuana sales at what it calls appropriate venues" conveniently leaves out a key detail. These venues, with regards to heroin use, are not to be the dubiously vague venues the article makes out, but rather licensed clinics. The actual policy on heroin use reads: Pilot programs to test the effectiveness of controlled availability of heroin to registered users from specifically licensed clinics.

With regards to the use of cannabis, the Herald-Sun is correct. The policy does support "the controlled availability of cannabis at appropriate venues".

I don't usually bother with Webdiary because it's typically well covered by local RWDBs and to be honest, I seldom read it. For some reason I went there and had a look and found Saliba's piece, without a doubt the most petty bit of – measure with a micrometer, cut with an axe – hair splitting I've read in quite a while. Saliba should be ashamed of himself and whoever was meant to edit this crap should be fired.