This well written piece by The Age, reports on the Federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. Their recent ‘Inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD) in Australia’ has a very interesting intro to the main conclusion: "prohibition, while theoretically a logical and properly intentioned strategy, is not effective".
This didn’t sit easy with the current Australian government. The Age suggests the sensationalised climate that politicians have to work within makes them fearful of entering a rational debate on drugs. A problem we’ve hit on time and time again.
However, there is a glimmer of hope. There is a train bound for a world based on reality and a growing number of politicians from across the political spectrum are happily taking luncheon in the dining carriage.
This is good news because coming soon is a major new document produced by Transform with the sole aim to aid rational debate on drug policy. ‘Tools for Debate’ will be a groundbreaking point-of-reference for anyone wishing to challenge non-rational policy positions, no matter how persuasive the rhetoric.
Watch this space.
3 comments:
Just a mild suggestion...calling those who disagree with the Trnasform position "non-rational" is true, but probably not a good idea. Let's win this argument as quickly as possible - and that means being nice to our opponents. Let's get them to think it was their idea all along.
yep - see your point. Ive edited it to say non-rational policy position rather than non-rational debater. Play the ball not the man etc.
The NO2ID campiagn team have put together some very good resources to help thier supporters
In particular a pamphlet suggesting ways on how to put forward the NO2ID arguments without alienating people. (along the lines of the point made above)
the guide is here http://www.no2id.net/downloads/print/NO2ID_How_to_WIN_text.pdf
Another interesting approach to the development of a sound argument is the one that has been used by the "EVOWIKI" site. Here a wiki style user generated site examines each possible counter argument that can be made by creationists and the relavent evidence to defend the evolutionist viewpoint.
Sadly, the evolutionist/creationist dynamic is a poor example in some ways as both sides seem to just want to shout "your wrong, I'm right" at each other
Post a Comment