Severin: When I read stuff like ... You are being patronising and playing the (wo)man.

Apparently you think a conversation you have over a kitchen table is somehow a lesser conversation. Fine. But don't project your insecurities onto me. I happen to think conversations I have with friends over a cup of coffee are just as at least as important as the debates we have here. Just because you think differently doesn't mean I was conducting an ad hominem attack.

The point I was making is the style of conversation you have over a kitchen table does not typically contain citations, and is not usually proceeded by careful fact checking to make sure you aren't misleading yourself or others. Granted, that isn't what most do here. But it sure is a better discussion when they do. That was my point.

@Severin: but saying someone's opinions are "half-arsed"

I have already told you I didn't say that, yet you keep repeating the falsehood. Do you know how to search for words in an web page? Good. Search for the word "half" in this one. Now quote where I said pelican's opinions are half-arsed.

@pelican: I suppose by comparison you think your views are not wild arsed guesses.

Probably. Here is a hypothetical. A doctor recommends getting your leg amputated. His explains he has been a doctor for many years, has seen cases like yours and amputation is the right option based on his experience. You see another doctor, who admits he doesn't have a clue. So he does some research on your symptoms, and presents you with a pile of observations on the outcomes of various treatments, and based on those observations recommends an arm amputation.

The first doctor offered you a wild arsed guess. The second by his own admission doesn't have a clue, but you can see and understand the basis of his decision and trust the source of his figures. You don't know either from a bar of soap, so have no reason to trust ones opinion over the other. Which would you choose?

This is turning into some sort of bizarre threesome. Thanks again Severin for your well tempered posts.

rstuart
I have given you all I can in terms of explaining why I feel the way I do.

You are quick to disect others but not as clear about your reasoning.
Why are you so sure that drug prohibition will end the activities of drug cartels just through legalisation based on some of the issues I raised earlier?

@pelican: I have given you all I can in terms of explaining why I feel the way I do.

OK, well that's that, then.

@pelican: Why are you so sure that drug prohibition will end the activities of drug cartels just through legalisation

It is based on how I think drug consumers behave. I think they are by and large typical Australians. There aren't huge black markets in Australia, even on highly taxed items. There may be in other countries, but there isn't here. I am not going to speculate on why that is the case. I just observe that where there is a choice between getting something illegally and cheaply, or paying a premium and getting it legally Australian's choose the latter.

If there isn't a price premium, the choice issue doesn't even arise. As it happens drug prices are already high compared to their production costs. For example, this article claims the markup on heroin is around 500,000% http://www.opioids.com/heroin/heroin-inc.html Some markup. Just taxing to maintain the current street price means the income is almost pure tax.

The price could be higher of course, because as I said Australian's seem to be prepared to pay a premium for legal. I guess you would start at around the current street price, then keep knocking it up until a black market did show signs of developing. After all, it is not like we actually want anybody buying this stuff, we just want to stop them buying it from criminals.

Despite what you might think pelican, this isn't about making drugs cheaper or easier to get. Making them easier to get would be difficult, because drugs are already readily available to those who have the money. At least that is what every ex user I have ever heard discuss issue has said, and I have not heard anybody contradict it. They fact that drugs are easy to get despite our prohibition is the best indication we have that the prohibition has been a failure.

Rstuart, you asked for it:

<<<<<< You have repeatedly made what appear to be statements of fact, but are really just wild arsed guesses that happen to support your viewpoint....

....Posted by rstuart, Monday, 8 March 2010 9:59:41 AM >>>>>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10120&page=0#164131

BTW OLO is an OPINION forum, people present the opinions formed by research, observations, anecdotes and personal character. Pelican has presented HER reasons, they may not be YOUR reasons, nor are they representative of MY OPINION, but they are valid concerns.

Also, please explain just what you meant by your "over a cuppa" comment if it was not meant to imply that Pelican had not fully thought through her opinions.

I suggest a toke or three on a bong and a good rest. If you can't handle being taken to task over your ad hominem attacks, don't bother posting any.

Rstuart - the reason we need drugs. Ooops I got personal. So sorry.

@rstuart: Now quote where I said pelican's opinions are half-arsed.

@Severin: Rstuart, you asked for it: <<<<<< You have repeatedly made what appear to be statements of fact, but are really just wild arsed guesses that happen to support your viewpoint...

You can see what I asked for, and obviously what you supplied ain't it. You are either incredibly thick, or being deliberately obtuse. From your other posts I very much doubt you are that thick, so I'll go with deliberately obtuse.

Since you could not / would not click on the dictionary link I gave above, or perhaps did but can't bring yourself to acknowledge what it says, I will quote if here.

Definition of wild arsed guess: A Wild Ass Guess (WAG) is an estimate that is based upon experience, similarity and 'windage' and does not have immediately verifiable data that could be used to substantiate the estimate. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wild%20ass%20guess

Definition of Half Arsed (UK) aka Half Assed (US): To complete a job to a very poor standard. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Half+Arsed

@Severin: please explain just what you meant by your "over a cuppa" comment if it was not meant to imply that Pelican had not fully thought through her opinions.

I have conversations over a cuppa too Severin. They are as fully thought through as they can be, just as I assume pelican's comments were. But conversations over a cuppa aren't proceeded by half an hour fact checking on the internet, and don't include citations. This is now the 4th time I have made this same point, using different words each time in order to express it clearly. If you still don't get it continued repetition isn't going to help.

@Severin: BTW OLO is an OPINION forum, people present the opinions formed by research, observations, anecdotes and personal character.

That, I take it, is your opinion on how OLO should work. I guess it won't come as a surprise that I have my own opinions on what constitutes a good post on OLO. Like you, I do let people know on occasion.

That's a very nice hole you've dug for yourself, Rstuart.

See you on another thread, when you've managed to climb out.