Poll Fraud Highlights Why DFA Not Accepted by Peers

It appears that there are no boundaries to the deceit from some supporters of Drug Free Australia(DFA). A recent internet poll that questioned whether DFA have a rightful place on professional lists had to be reset after it was discovered that multiple votes had come from the same IP address. The poll was set up by James from The Australian Drug Blog and asked this simple question:

MicroPoll:

Does Drug Free Australia have a rightful place on the ADCA Update list or other professional lists?

Yes or No?

James posted a link to the poll on the Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) ‘Update’ forum and the voting began. The results were immediately against DFA with 90% of participants voting no. Over the next few days it balanced up slightly to about 75% voting no until it hit the 50% mark. It was all downhill from there to about 12% from 433 votes. Somewhat surprised at the results, I discovered that it was possible to make multiple votes and the totals would sometimes jump by 3 or 4 votes within a few seconds. I then alerted James, the poll’s administrator. Further investigations by James did indeed find a problem and he informed the list that he had to reset the poll.

Hi all, A few weeks back I ran a poll on the role DFA play on this list. Over 443 'people' voted, trouble was more than half of them came from the same IP address, and all of them voted one way. In other words, multiple voting from one person occurred in a big way. I've therefore reset the poll and enabled one vote per IP address to stop fraudulent voting. The poll is now available again here: http://www.drugblog.net/2009/02/10/poll-drug-free-australia-on-professional-email-lists/

That was a week ago and here are the results so far as at 17/03/2009 11:00 am: Who does the IP address belong to? No one has come forward and claimed responsibility and James rightfully will not disclose the IP address publicly. Known for their skewing of statistics, cherry picked data and other misleading behaviour, has DFA called on a supporter to make hundreds of votes? Was it actually a DFA member? We don’t know but either way, one or more computers via one IP address has deceitfully and fraudulently voted for over 50% of the total votes, all in favour of DFA. In technical terms, when there are a group of related computer users situated at one location, they usually only use one IP address to the internet and that is shared via a router. The IP address recorded by The Australian Drug Blog could have come from several staff members at one organisation giving the impression it was only one person. Then again, it could have just been one supporter. What we do know is that many other votes supporting DFA were from US based IP addresses which may indicate that a dog whistle went out to help with DFA’s polling. If we remove the 200+ fraudulent votes from the one source, that leaves 200+ votes with more than 50% in support for DFA. With only 64 votes in the new poll vastly against DFA, the first influx of pro DFA votes raises more questions. Were there multiple votes from many different sources? Was a call put out to like minded supporters of DFA in the US? Where are they now? With a new poll now in place and a more realistic number of voters, the true feelings of those involved with the ANCD Update list is clear. 77% of voters do not think DFA have a rightful place on professional lists. Not surprisingly, the only chance of DFA being accepted was through deceit and false information.

Lies, Deceit, DFA and Herschel Baker

The most obvious flaw with pushing Zero Tolerance drug policies and prohibition is that you have to lie. Not just a few ambiguous quasi-facts but straight out deceit. For those who are religious it becomes a major problem as lying is also a serious breach of their self proclaimed faith.

To be part of a mostly Christian group like Drug Free Australia (DFA) who consistently have to contradict facts and science to push their Zero Tolerance message, there must be some compelling motives. And there is. Selfish motives ... conservative ideology, evangelism, fear of a changing world etc. It's not about better treatment for addicts, helping people or being Christian. I doubt that anyone, especially dedicated Christians would support their cruel, non compassionate dogma. Some might argue that they should just be ignored as irrelevant, similar to the professionals who simply overlook them as unscientific, biased and agenda driven. The problem is that they are dangerous. So when I found this comment(below) posted on The Australian Drug Blog from DFA’s Herschel Baker, I decided it was so full of deceit in two short paragraphs that it needed a response.

The cost imposed by alcohol abuse on society exceeds billions annually. This cost is not met by the money collected yearly by alcohol tax revenues. Each day people die from alcohol-related deaths and drink driving. Do tax revenues cover these costs? The major danger and cost of alcohol use results from using alcohol to the point of intoxication. Illegal drugs are always used to the point of intoxication and the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior. The only reason that the death rate from illicit drugs is lower than that caused by alcohol abuse is that such drugs are illegal. Our current system of drug prohibition actually saves thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic resources.

Drug education and prevention is most effective when it is backed by strong laws and law enforcement. Alcohol, is a legal drug for adults, is by far the drug of choice among young people. Moreover, attitudes toward illicit drugs have become far more negative than teenage attitudes toward drinking. We have yet to determine how to keep over 90% of our high schools seniors from taking a drink. It is ludicrous to think that the temptation of trying legal cheap drugs could be overcome solely through educational efforts.
-Herschel Baker : Drug Free Australia (DFA) - The Australian Drug Blog

When I first read this post, instead of my usual head shaking in disbelief at their stupidity, I was outraged and angry. In what could possibly be the most disgraceful comments ever, Herschel Baker stated that prohibition has saved thousands of lives. The truth is, worldwide, prohibition has caused maybe a million or so deaths over the years including massive suffering and alienation. It also includes the deaths and suffering of people I know as well as my own experience.

Apart from the prohibition fallacy, the post included several other major lies. Is this the standard course of action for DFA? To trick the public, government and MSM into believing their deluded ideology? Is lying acceptable as a means to an end? Do they have a pass from god to lie? Maybe this is why the scientific and medical community treat them with so much suspicion and disdain. Whichever way you look at it, it is deceitful. The really disturbing claim in this post is that prohibition saves lives. There is no mention of those pesky druggies who died or suffered at the hands of prohibition. No remorse for the carnage caused on people’s lives. Just hollow praise for a sick lie.

For those who have died from a dirty hit, overdosed in secret, been a victim of drug crime, killed in the line of duty etc. - What about us!!!

For the residents of Mexico on the US border who have been decapitated, the Colombian public tortured by the paramilitary, the non violent detainees who have died in the barbaric US prison system, the drug couriers executed in SE Asia, the drug addicts jailed and beaten in Russia, the Middle East, China etc. - What about us!!!

For my friends/family who have died or suffered - What about us!!!

Baker’s farcical quest to help drug addicts and improve drug treatment is hypocritical, mendacious and deceitful. His real mission is to enforce his interpretation of god’s law on society regardless of the carnage it causes. Deliberately lying should worry a real Christian but when you support the massive death toll from prohibition over the years and even praise it, then lying is just a piss in the ocean in comparison.

Our current system of drug prohibition actually saves thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic resources.

For fuck’s sake, the cost of prohibition is the single biggest argument against prohibition. The US spend $69 billion dollars every year fighting the unwinnable war on drugs. Australia spends over $10 billion (Federal, states, local government, policing, incarceration etc) in total with most going towards law and order. The jail costs alone to keep non violent drug users locked up is enormous throughout the world. The resources to arrest pot smokers and process them through court is huge and one of the biggest complaints from police forces. How can Herschel Baker claim prohibition saves $billions in resources? The fact is, it’s a lie and any normal person should know this.

The major danger and cost of alcohol use results from using alcohol to the point of intoxication. Illegal drugs are always used to the point of intoxication and the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior.

Wrong. One standard drink causes a degree of intoxication. That’s the point isn’t it? Otherwise we would all be drinking chocolate milk, soft drink or non alcohol wine. Tricky Dicky Nixon tried that argument in the 1970s and look what that started - The "War on Drugs".

For the purposely ignorant, “a few drinks” has no effect. Not true. Alcohol gives you a mild relaxation effect from one standard drink. About the same effect as one Valium, a few puffs on a joint, a small amount of opiates like morphine or heroin. This old argument of “a few drinks versus getting stoned” was dismissed decades ago but the anti-drug crusaders continue to play on the public’s ignorance. The fallacy that drug users cannot vary their intake like drinkers do is part of the lie that any use of illicit drugs deems the user instantly “out of their mind”. Attaching “the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior [sic]” to intoxication is part of a primary school formula; Intoxication = danger and drugs = intoxication so drugs = danger. The missing variables are drug type, intoxication type, levels of intoxication and harm level of intoxication per type. Much too complex for the public when you can simply lie.

But isn’t this the tried and tested strategy for DFA? Make drug use a simple moral issue and keep the complexities of scientific facts away from the public. The most important variable overlooked here is the type of drug and Baker puts them all in the same basket. When was the last time someone committed robbery purely because they were “intoxicated” from a joint?

The only reason that the death rate from illicit drugs is lower than that caused by alcohol abuse is that such drugs are illegal

Another lie. Drugs are already available everywhere and overall they are inherently less dangerous than alcohol. A survey published in 3 major US media outlets by LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) asked the question, would you use hard drugs if they were legal? 99% said no. Cannabis has already been used by 40% of the western world and many reports claim that teenagers find it easier to obtain cannabis than alcohol and cigarettes. The simple truth is that the drug using population is mostly saturated already. Sure, there might be a slight initial increase but it would have to increase about 10 fold to over 80% to match alcohol use.

Drug education and prevention is most effective when it is backed by strong laws and law enforcement.

Absolutely bullocks. There is no evidence what-so-ever that harsher penalties prevent drug use. This is easily demonstrated by the US having very strict drug laws but remain as the world’s number one illicit drug consumer. Incidentally, they spend $billions on education and prevention. On the other end of the scale, The Netherlands and Switzerland have much more liberal drug laws but use in these countries is below the European average.

We have yet to determine how to keep over 90% of our high schools seniors from taking a drink.

What a statement! Have we really tried to stop all high school seniors from “taking a drink”? (this reeks of the Temperance Movement). We actively promote alcohol through advertising and often encourage it as normal behaviour. Until the recent push by the Rudd government, there has never been a serious attempt at changing our drinking culture. But drinking is not the problem as European communities have been giving their children alcohol for centuries. It’s the countries that strongly enforce total abstinence for kids that introduces the “forbidden fruit” factor. For Herschel Baker and DFA, alcohol takes second place to drugs although it causes more damage than all illicit drugs combined. Adding comments like the above is an attempt to discredit a pragmatic approach to illicit drugs like education and reinforce Baker’s preferred tactic of being “tough on drugs”.

It is ludicrous to think that the temptation of trying legal cheap drugs could be overcome solely through educational efforts.

Ludicrous? It’s been done already. Does Herschel Baker forget about the success of anti-smoking campaigns for one of the world’s most harmful and addictive substances ... tobacco? DFA are a disgrace. Their inane ramblings now stand out instead of being lost in the daily barrage of similar, like minded ideology. The heyday of Howard’s 1950s style Australia is over and they no longer have unlimited government support. Now they must make their own way which seems to include making comments on internet blogs and lying. With the demise of Howard and Bush, organisations like DFA will have to face a future of Harm Minimisation and evidence based policies replacing faith based initiatives. Maybe this pragmatic new era will finally expose the lies and deceit of dangerous and desperate groups like DFA.