Federal Budget

[Skids]

[Mugwump]

^ I think 3 was the most unarguable point of my three. Something sold in an open market has its worth established at that time. Its value may change in hindsight but you don't sell in hindsight.

On point 2, this is fine but you have to take into account the value realised by the commonwealth from the sale, and the fact that that returned value to taxpayers who earned money on it. The snslysis does not mention an assumed return to the federal govt through lowered govt debt at a time when base rates were ca 10%.

As I said, I agree with the basic proposition - it was a dumb sale, and I would reverse its consequences as I explained. But a proper NPV calculation would be needed to prove that it was undervalued, and by how much , and that is not analyses in this article. Since it was sold in a liquid market over several years, it is hard to argue that it was worth more in the market at the time of sale. Subsequent earnings growth may have suggested it would have been better to wait, but that's just hindsight and 4 out of every ten buy/sell decisions are likely to look poorish in the rear view mirror. One can be too clever by half, criticizing others on the basis of hindsight, but it is our favourite sport in this society.

I think the sale was wrong in principle, almost regardless of valuation.

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

[Mugwump]

^ wpt, the last point is a fair challenge, but see my post to David above. Raise the fine for first offence possession to $2500 minimum rather than $300 average and you will presumably cover your costs or find the problem dissipates rather quickly.

My challenge back to you is that drug use has massively increased and it lies behind so much of the crime that is now widesprad (read the front page of the Age site today for a vivid picture of the ravages of crime that now affect, mostly, the poor and disadvantaged). I think that minds addled with drugs lose conscience, empathy and human feeling and make these horrible crimes far easier to commit. They are a cause of licentious behaviour and a consequence of the so-called permissive society. I cannot see how decriminalizing and taxing - i.e. making drugs available more easily - can make any society happier, more empathetic, more productive, more generous or better. The powerful connection between cannabis use and usage of harder drugs of dependence is also well-established (see the Vic sentencing guidelines paper I referenced above for proof).

If you are not proposing to allow drug usage, however, then you'll need to explain again precisely what you do propose, as it is not clear to me.

[Skids]

[David]

^ We don't agree on a lot, Skids, but I'm with you 100% on this. The argument that weed is a gateway drug is highly misleading and makes the basic error of confusing correlation with causation*.

*See here for an analogous example of this kind of fallacy in action:

https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nitelite.htm

[Mugwump]

^ Unlike in the natural sciences, absolute causation is almost impossible to prove in social sciences. In social science, we look for associated behaviors and then we must use our innate knowledge of the range of our fellow humans to judge whether a correlation has been found because of some "causal" mechanism. The night light issue is slightly different because the eye is a natural object, and thus it can be definitively proven that the night light is not causing myopia.

it is absolutely clear that dope, even when used regularly, does not always cause people to graduate to harder and more addictive drugs. On that we agree, and it is obvious. It is also quite clear that most hard drug users started by using marijuana, and that usage of dope and harder drugs is correlated. Why ? For an answer to this, we have to use our knowledge of our fellow humans. It seems to me very likely that a society which signals to the young that it is acceptable to drug your mind in pursuit of chemical pleasures, will find a certain number of people - usually those whose intellect and moral sense is limited, and/or whose background is disadvantaged already - taking this principle another step, as the high from marijuana is mild compared to cocaine, heroin, meth or whatever.

Since we are quoting sources, this is probably the most careful, dispassionate recent review of this subject from the US national academy of medicine and science (Jan 2017).

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=24625

Alas, the "correlation is not causation" argument is a surrogate for "I do not wish to accept an unpalatable conclusion for political reasons." Strangely, when it comes to the idea that unemployment or disadvantage "causes" crime, correlation is suddenly proof positive !

[Skids]

Your sentence - "most hard drug users started by using marijuana"

That's as obvious as saying "most people who walk, started by crawling"

They have to start somewhere don't they? Most dope smokers started smoking cigarettes.
And as I highlighted in a previous post, cannabis has been used for centuries, in every corner of the globe.

To me, it's all about the individuals make up. If it wasn't dope ir meth ir whatever, it would be alcohol or prescrption meds that they turned to. Some people are just wired to be fukt up, it really is that simple. Drugs don't kill people, people kill people.

[Mugwump]

^ completely agree that it is about the individual's make up, Skids. People like you - steady job, good skills, conscious of the need to work hard, etc - are not the problem. It's the people who are wired to go bad, and the people who may have a predisposition to psychosis which can be triggered by dope. Those are the people being laid waste. And through them, the lady tied up with a phone cord in her own home, having her nose splattered by toerags off their heads.

The really key point, though, is that it does not have to be like this, because our own history shows that it doesn't. It really was not like this within the living memory of anyone over 60. Drugs -apart from alcohol - were rare, and crimes associated with all drugs - alcohol included - were fewer. That is evident in the crime stats, and evident on the front line of public services, which starkly show the scale of our cultural failure. It is true that we cannot go back, but we can always choose a different future. The trouble is that change is painful and difficult. On drugs, as alcohol shows, it is nearly impossible once drugs become normalized.