Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Number37]

It would be, however you're the one who claimed that neither Robbie nor I had discussed them.

Given that the three times I've asked you to provide quotes backing up your claims about things you've said that Robbie and I have posted, I won't hold my breath on this one.

I never said you didn't discuss those things.
Both of you have used decriminalisation as a proxy for what has happened in Portugal.
Neither of you credited anything other than decriminalisation for what has happened in Portugal.
It is patently untrue to credit decriminalisation for what has happened in Portugal.
Did you think that I accused him of conflating for the fun of it or because he was crediting decriminalisation for the sucessses of Portugal.

You, specifically, went to great lengths to distinguish here from Portugal. You specifically pointed to the fact, on numerous occasions, that here you can still get charged for possession and you then used that to state that means we can dispense with the idea that here is not identical to Portugal.

In substance here is very much similar to Portugal.
The biggest difference is NOT the legalities, the biggest difference is that the Portugese back up their decriminalisation policy with a whole raft of other policies and spend millions on drug related services. Our approach is almost as broad (free needles, safe injecting rooms, methadone clinics etc) but we don't spend anywhere near enough money to back up the policies that we do have.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I never said you didn't discuss those things.
Both of you have used decriminalisation as a proxy for what has happened in Portugal.
Neither of you credited anything other than decriminalisation for what has happened in Portugal.

Again, both of us made reference to increased spending and access to health care, destigmatisaton and the societal view of drug usage. If we're making comments about those things using Portugal as a model, what exactly do you think we're doing if not acknowledging those things as part of the solution?

Did you think that I accused him of conflating for the fun of it or because he was crediting decriminalisation for the sucessses of Portugal.

No, I think you did it either because you didn't understand his argument if you're arguing in really bad faith. Both equally likely.

.

In substance here is very much similar to Portugal.
The biggest difference is NOT the legalities, the biggest difference is that the Portugese back up their decriminalisation policy with a whole raft of other policies and spend millions on drug related services. Our approach is almost as broad (free needles, safe injecting rooms, methadone clinics etc) but we don't spend anywhere near enough money to back up the policies that we do have.

So we criminalise drug usage, don't develop any new help policies and don't spend the money on the policies we do have. I'm comfortable with my statement that what we have in Australia isn't like Portugal.

 

[McEvoy]

Fun fact I learned today ....
A hand written sign, "Out to lunch", on your drug dealer's door means "I am sitting inside watching you on my CCTV, but I don't have any drugs for sale at the moment".

And now for some fantasy....

If I wielded "the big stick" I would:

1. Decriminalise possession (within mandated limits). No conviction? Holy s**t! That's already happening.

2. I would offer people possessing over the mandated limit (not traffickers, but possibly on-sellers) the choice between counselling or court. Conviction, or no conviction ... make your choice here peeps. I think it's at this point we'd learn if decriminalisation is actually effective.

3. Prison would await the mid level scumbags and anyone higher up. To me they're the octopuses of the drug scene. They try to get in favour with the big guys, while garnering the following of their distributors. They prey on kids and they, or their cronies, bash the poor bastards who are indebted to them.

4. Those who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs or alcohol would be offered reduced fines or sentencing for engaging in counselling.

5. Sell to a kid and you're fvcked.

What would all of you do that we don't do now?

 

[bedford]

When Robbie and I talk about better funding medical and mental health services, talk about it operating within a system, discuss stigmatisation, what kind of mental gymnastics are you doing to claim that we're not acknowledging other factors?

What is your history with drugs?

 

[bedford]

Fun fact I learned today ....
A hand written sign, "Out to lunch", on your drug dealer's door means "I am sitting inside watching you on my CCTV, but I don't have any drugs for sale at the moment".

And now for some fantasy....

If I wielded "the big stick" I would:

1. Decriminalise possession (within mandated limits). No conviction? Holy s**t! That's already happening.

2. I would offer people possessing over the mandated limit (not traffickers, but possibly on-sellers) the choice between counselling or court. Conviction, or no conviction ... make your choice here peeps. I think it's at this point we'd learn if decriminalisation is actually effective.

3. Prison would await the mid level scumbags and anyone higher up. To me they're the octopuses of the drug scene. They try to get in favour with the big guys, while garnering the following of their distributors. They prey on kids and they, or their cronies, bash the poor bastards who are indebted to them.

4. Those who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs or alcohol would be offered reduced fines or sentencing for engaging in counselling.

5. Sell to a kid and you're fvcked.

What would all of you do that we don't do now?

Not far off and you know where i'm coming from .

 

[Kummerspeck]

What is your history with drugs?

It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Kummerspeck]

1. Decriminalise possession (within mandated limits). No conviction? Holy s**t! That's already happening.

It happens at the discretion of a magistrate.
.

What would all of you do that we don't do now?

Full legalisation. Sold through dispensaries like alcohol in Sweden, clear content and labelling laws, taxes on everything, increased income from taxes go to drug treatment and education. Increased education programs on the long term damage of drugs in schools, in the manner of cigarettes and alcohol now, as well as what can go wrong and how to respond.

Benefits: criminal element in the supply is significantly weakened, increased cash to spend on treatment, lessening of the burden on police and courts chasing up low level drug offences, lower risk of overdoses or incorrect usage.

 

[Number37]

Again, both of us made reference to increased spending and access to health care, destigmatisaton and the societal view of drug usage. If we're making comments about those things using Portugal as a model, what exactly do you think we're doing if not acknowledging those things as part of the solution?




No, I think you did it either because you didn't understand his argument if you're arguing in really bad faith. Both equally likely.

.



So we criminalise drug usage, don't develop any new help policies and don't spend the money on the policies we do have. I'm comfortable with my statement that what we have in Australia isn't like Portugal.

So you are being disingenuous. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Number37]

It happens at the discretion of a magistrate.
.



Full legalisation. Sold through dispensaries like alcohol in Sweden, clear content and labelling laws, taxes on everything, increased income from taxes go to drug treatment and education. Increased education programs on the long term damage of drugs in schools, in the manner of cigarettes and alcohol now, as well as what can go wrong and how to respond.

Benefits: criminal element in the supply is significantly weakened, increased cash to spend on treatment, lessening of the burden on police and courts chasing up low level drug offences, lower risk of overdoses or incorrect usage.

Why would the criminal element stop selling drugs when you have just legalised a major source of their income?
What stops the criminal element from being owners of dispensaries?
What stops the criminal element from being owners of dispensaries, getting their hands on legal drugs, mixing those legal drugs to make more potent drugs and selling them in same manner they do now?
Do you know the size of the illegal cigarette market?
If the price of production goes down, then the supply of drugs goes up. If drugs are cheaper and easier to get your hands on how does that lead to a decrease in drug use?

 

[bedford]

It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes it is , because we want to know where your coming from.

 

[Number37]

It happens at the discretion of a magistrate.

I would urge you, or anyone else that supports decriminalisation to avail yourself of the facts.
It is my view that you are wholly misrepresenting what happens here.

This gives a good summary of what happens in practice in Australia.
You will note the reference to de jure and de facto decriminalisation.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/i...7.03.17_-_NDARC_-_submission_-_appendix_a.pdf



For anyone interested this gives a good comparison for policies adopted in Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands.

http://australia21.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ASIllicitDrugsBP2.pdf

 

[bedford]

Well done 37

 

[RobbieK]

I would urge you, or anyone else that supports decriminalisation to avail yourself of the facts.
It is my view that you are wholly misrepresenting what happens here.

This gives a good summary of what happens in practice in Australia.
You will note the reference to de jure and de facto decriminalisation.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/i...7.03.17_-_NDARC_-_submission_-_appendix_a.pdf



For anyone interested this gives a good comparison for policies adopted in Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and The Netherlands.

http://australia21.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ASIllicitDrugsBP2.pdf

Have you read that report yourself?

The conclsion:

"These observations provide grounds for arguing that the policies that place greatest emphasis upon a public health and social approach appear best at reducing problematic drug use, overdose and HIV. Yet, it is policies that combine a public health and social approach, with reduced criminal penalties that appear associated with the greatest gains, across both health and criminal justice domains."

So... Basically it concludes supporting exactly what I and Kummerspeck have been saying in this thread. Thanks.

Here is another article by Alex Wodack the author of that report and probably the most knowledgable person on drugs policy in the country, that might be a bit more accessible for people to read than the report: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ue-why-do-we-make-it-a-law-enforcement-battle

But let's try a different approach. I'm tired of trying to reiterate and clarify what I feel like I have already said very clearly. So, Number37, ignore anything that I have said, ignore anything that Kummerspeck has said (or what you think we have said...). Tabula rasa. Do you agree with that report you just posted? Do you agree with Dr Wodack?

 

[Kummerspeck]

So... Basically it concludes supporting exactly what I and Kummerspeck have been saying in this thread. Thanks.

Front page of the first link outlines the benefits of decriminalisation that N37 has said are absolutely not a result of decriminalisation.

 

[RobbieK]

Well done 37

Did you read the links he posted?

 

[Number37]

Have you read that report yourself?

The conclsion:

"These observations provide grounds for arguing that the policies that place greatest emphasis upon a public health and social approach appear best at reducing problematic drug use, overdose and HIV. Yet, it is policies that combine a public health and social approach, with reduced criminal penalties that appear associated with the greatest gains, across both health and criminal justice domains."

So... Basically it concludes supporting exactly what I and Kummerspeck have been saying in this thread. Thanks.

Here is another article by Alex Wodack the author of that report and probably the most knowledgable person on drugs policy in the country, that might be a bit more accessible for people to read than the report: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ue-why-do-we-make-it-a-law-enforcement-battle

But let's try a different approach. I'm tired of trying to reiterate and clarify what I feel like I have already said very clearly. So, Number37, ignore anything that I have said, ignore anything that Kummerspeck has said (or what you think we have said...). Tabula rasa. Do you agree with that report you just posted? Do you agree with Dr Wodack?

Your attempt to make it look like I do not know what the report says, or that it says something different to what I think it says, is facile.

Feel free to continue promulgating your decriminalisation post hoc fallacy.

 

[RobbieK]

Your attempt to make it look like I do not know what the report says, or that it says something different to what I think it says, is facile.

Feel free to continue promulgating your decriminalisation post hoc fallacy.

Do you or do you not agree with Dr Wodack, author of the report you linked to, when he says that (and I quote) "it is policies that combine a public health and social approach, with reduced criminal penalties that appear associated with the greatest gains, across both health and criminal justice domains"?

It is a simple question.

 

[Number37]

Do you or do you not agree with Dr Wodack, author of the report you linked to, when he says that (and I quote) "it is policies that combine a public health and social approach, with reduced criminal penalties that appear associated with the greatest gains, across both health and criminal justice domains"?

It is a simple question.

I answered your question in the same convoluted way you presented it.

 

[RobbieK]

I answered your question in the same convoluted way you presented it.

Convoluted? I asked you this:

"Do you agree with that report you just posted? Do you agree with Dr Wodack?"

And then when you refused to answer those questions I quoted a paragraph from the conclusion of the report and asked you to state (a simple yes or no would have been sufficient) if you agreed with it.

It couldn't have been much more simple.

 

[Number37]

Convoluted? I asked you this:

"Do you agree with that report you just posted? Do you agree with Dr Wodack?"

And then when you refused to answer those questions I quoted a paragraph from the conclusion of the report and asked you to state (a simple yes or no would have been sufficient) if you agreed with it.

It couldn't have been much more simple.

Is my position unclear?

 

[RobbieK]

Is my position unclear?

To me your position is unclear, yes, because at times in the last few days it appears to me that you have argued strongly against people, including myself, who were making suggestions that are wholly in line with the conclusions that this report makes.

So again, I ask you to respond to this statement from the conclusion of Dr Wodack's paper: "it is policies that combine a public health and social approach, with reduced criminal penalties that appear associated with the greatest gains, across both health and criminal justice domains."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

 

[Number37]

To me your position is unclear, yes, because at times in the last few days it appears to me that you have argued strongly against people, including myself, who were making suggestions that are wholly in line with the conclusions that this report makes.

So again, I ask you to respond to this statement from the conclusion of Dr Wodack's paper: "it is policies that combine a public health and social approach, with reduced criminal penalties that appear associated with the greatest gains, across both health and criminal justice domains."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

You think that because I disagreed with YOUR opinion that I am against decriminalisation because your opinion is pro-decriminalisation....even though I have pointed out numerous times how your opinion is a little out of step with what decriminalisation actually is.

Your POV has morphed from look Portugal, decriminalisation is the bomb, drug users are scared to get medical help...to....even though I credited decriminalisation for the outcomes in Portugal what I was actually saying is exactly what this eminent drug expert is saying.

Somewhere in there you also assumed I was against decriminalisation and now you're doubling down trying to make it out like somehow because you have flip flopped all over the place that my position is unclear.

 

[RobbieK]

You think that because I disagreed with YOUR opinion that I am against decriminalisation because your opinion is pro-decriminalisation....even though I have pointed out numerous times how your opinion is a little out of step with what decriminalisation actually is.

Your POV has morphed from look Portugal, decriminalisation is the bomb, drug users are scared to get medical help...to....even though I credited decriminalisation for the outcomes in Portugal what I was actually saying is exactly what this eminent drug expert is saying.

Somewhere in there you also assumed I was against decriminalisation and now you're doubling down trying to make it out like somehow because you have flip flopped all over the place that my position is unclear.

My posting has been entirely consistent. The idea that anything that I have put forward is out of step with Dr Wodack is your invention and has no basis in reality.

In my first post on the issue I linked to an extensive story on how decriminalisation coupled with medical treatment had led to improved health results for drug users and lowered drug usage: https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...licy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

When I did that someone suggested that decriminalisation would lead to easier access to drugs, I countered that and said:

I understand that this may seem counter-intuitive to people, but the evidence is there to show that this legalisation/health focused approach has far better results than the current "war on drugs" approach.

And then reiterated it:

It seems counter-intuitive, I know, but the current opioid and meth problems mean that there is more reason for us to approach these drugs with a harm-minimisation and decriminalisation approach than there is for us to legalise weed which is relatively not such a problem.

There will be people who don't like decriminalisation because they feel that enacting that policy is to to condone something that is immoral or evil, to say that drugs are ok and people should just do them. That's not what it is about. It is all about giving victims and health professionals the best chance of being able to treat their issues. The moral judgment of drug addicts, and the enshrining of that judgment in law, is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it only makes it harder for this treatment to occur.

So.... from the very beginning of this thread I was making that point that the policy to follow was that of Portugal, which involved a combination of decriminalisation and harm-minimisation policies. That was clear to others. For some reason it wasn't clear to you.

Compare those quotes from me in this thread to these takes from the report you just posted:

"One often noted frustration is that morality, values and political priorities usually dominates discussion of drug policy to the detriment of good public policy" (pg 4)
"Decriminalisation formed one core aspect of the policy, due to a number of reasons. First, it was recognised that criminalisation was making the drug problem worse: increasing the marginalisation of users, neglecting their human rights, particularly the most marginalised at the time – heroin users. Second, decriminalisation offered the means to send an important signal to society, to say that drug users are not criminals and ought not be treated as such. Finally and most importantly, the reform offered a means for a more effective response to drug use, one that included the possibility of a more health oriented response." (pg 7)

Singing from the same hymn book by the looks of it. The only confusion that has existed in this thread has been created by you and your repeated lies about what I and others have said. There is nothing that I have said that would contradict the position of Dr Wodack.

And so again, I ask you - do you agree with Dr Wodack? If so, that's great, we all agree. I'm not sure why you don't want us to agree.

If you don't, then I have to ask why you brought his work in to prove a point, but thank you for doing so because he is one of the best advocates for the policies that I have been arguing for in thread and everyone should pay attention to his very well informed position.

 

[Number37]

Of course there are negative consequences for users and the community from drug use. That is why we should decriminalise drug use, so that rather than waste time and resources treating drug use as criminal, which just creates legal barriers that limit problematic drug users from being able to access to the health services that they need, we can instead maximise our ability to provide the health services that they need.

No one is saying that decriminalisation makes the drug problem go away. We are saying that it makes it easier for us to engage in the kinds of actions that will make a difference. It makes it easier for the health professionals to do their work, it makes it easier for users to seek that help.

You have very clearly separated the 2 issues on numerous occasions, as an example in these 2 posts.
You separated the issues so that you can SPECIFICALLY say do one and it makes it easier/possible to do the other.

If any of your other posts didn't already ring the alarm bells (which they did) about what you were actually saying, then this together with your continued claims about the outcomes in Portugal, WITH NO MENTION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN DECRIMINALISATION , it makes it patently obvious what you were saying. (Not to forget ZERO CREDIT FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN DECRIMINALISATION).

If that wasn't enough, you persisted with the "too scared to get health care" because legal consequences...
If that wasn't enough, you supported the assertion that what happens in Portugal is different to what happens here, for no reason other than...drum roll....decriminalisation is supposedly not a thing here.

From the very beginning you have argued decriminalisation (legal) as a condition precedent, not just a mechanism that makes it easier/possible, to do all the other things.
Now you're trying to shoe horn in eminent doctors to show that despite always arguing decriminalisation (legal) as a condition precedent, what you really were saying was together, together, together. You just never actually said so, it was implied, or I am against decriminalisation because your idea of decriminalisation IMO is out of whack with what it actually is.

 

[bedford]

I had a reply taken off , that summed up my feelings. Goodbye .