New paper on Aus ecstasy markets

[ayjay]

From here

November 2007






Containing ecstasy: analytical tools for profiling an illegal drug market

Monograph series no. 27

Greg Fowler and Stuart Kinner and Leigh Krenske

The Ecstasy Market Indicator (EMI) project was developed in response to the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund’s (NDLERF) request for an enhanced understanding of the ecstasy markets in Australia for law enforcement. The call for a study measuring the structure and functioning of ecstasy markets emerged out of the recent increases in ecstasy prevalence and the unique characteristics of ecstasy users compared to other illegal drug users. Specifically, NDLERF requested that a research template, designed to measure the ecstasy market, be developed and then trialled in Queensland.

http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_27_summary.pdf

http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_27.pdf

Bluelight gets namechecked a couple of times (in summary at least - just had a quick look).

This report was funded by the national drug law enforcement research fund, so you can imagine what the focus will be - there is some comment about using law enforcement to "minimise the harm" of ecstasy use - but that might just mean busting people....

Interesting nevertheless....

 

[Tronica]

More on this here

I'm still interested in people's thoughts about online forum discussions being used as research data. It's a public website so should it just be referenced and copied across to papers as is.... or is it more complex than that?

My thoughts at start of my PhD (and thus reflected in the procedures I have ethics approval for) - is that forum moderators and users should be made aware of research which seeks to use forum conversations as data. But this is a grey area... and I'm not even sure about my decision - I had to go one way or the other. Even 18 months later, it seems the world has become more at ease with publicity, as if people expect that anything publicly accessible could be used for any purpose at all. Yet when I wrote my ethics application, I likened the use of forum content without any active involvement of forum participants in the research, as similar to having hidden digital recorders in coffee shops. Even though its public, we don't expect to have our public conversations used in later research.

Just an aside... but relevant to this paper, as it does quote Bluelight content in its appendix and uses it throughout the report. I think this use adds to the report well, and thought it was well written. But it does bring up the point I've made above... what is acceptable to the authors of the forum text and to the forum itself?

 

[serotoninstorm]

I just read through the passages that mention Bluelight. It's mentioned that BL is a harm-reduction forum, and then stated that most recreational users are not as knowledgeable as those people that attend these forums. They didn't seem to have anything negative to say about Bluelight at all. Thank the lord they didn't visit the lounge!