Today I will be outlining my case that the use of drugs should be legalised. Because this case involves several angles and applies equally to all drugs in use today, It is more easily set out in conjunction with Herbet J. Taylor’s four-way test.

So firstly, I am going to look at some of the assumptions underlying Government policy today, and subit them to the first part of this four-way test: is it true? Then, outlining my own case, I shall demonstrate that legalising drug use is the fair thing to do by all concerned. That it will build goodwill and better friendships, and that the legalisation of drug use is beneficial to all concerned.

One of the assumptions regarding drug use is that it is harmful. This is true. The use of any drug carries a risk of serious health consequences, and even if such consequences do not occur, it can still cause an impact on a person’s health. However, the harm that comes of drugs can be managed and minimised by legalising the use of the drugs and taking steps to make it safer, a point I shall return to later. Also in regard to this, just because the use of drugs is dangerous, it does not mean that it should be illegal. Already legislation allows many dangerous activities: skydiving, alcohol consumption, AFL, smoking cigarettes. We allow these activities because we can respect a person’s right to choose and possibly face a danger of their own free will. We do not allow these activities when they have the potential to harm others: drunk driving is, and should be an offence, tackling someone Footy style is classified as assault, and legislation is coming into place to limit smoking in venues where second hand smoke can harm other people. By this same rationale, while I believe we should legalise the use of drugs, it should not be legal to use drugs when it can place others in danger, drug use in conjunction with driving for example. This is only the fair thing to do.

The second assumption regarding drug use is that it will increase if drugs are legalised. This is a worrying assumption, because it potentially means that even though legalisation can minimise harm, the increase in number of users would cancel out the benefits. Thankfully, this assumption is not true.

We have examples disproving this assumption in history, and in our own day. In America in 1914, when drugs like cocaine were available on grocery shelves, 1.3% of the population was addicted. In 1979, before the so-called “War on Drugs” crackdown, the addiction rate was still 1.3%. Today, while billions of dollars are being spent to reduce drug use, the addiction rate is still 1.3%. This is because most people realise the negative impact a drug can have and choose not to use it. The other 1.3% of the population wishes to use cocaine and will do so whether it is legal or not. Another example, of our own era, is the presence of cigarettes. Cigarettes in Australia cannot be sold to people under 18. Effectively, when a person turns 18, for him, cigarettes become, ‘legal’. However, there is no rush to buy cigarettes. This is because youth nowadays are informed of the health damage that smoking will cause and so make an informed decision against it. The people who would start buying cigarettes at 18 would already have an addiction, more evidence that access to drugs is possible regardless of legislation.

Having discussed the harm associated with drug use, and that legalisation does not correlate with an increase in usage, I believe that we should legalise drug use because by doing so we can minimise the various harms associated with it. By doing this we are acting fairly, respecting a person’s right to make their own choices. We are building goodwill by removing the antipathy towards drug users, and benefitting all concerned by helping those who use drugs, preventing non-users from being harmed, and freeing vast resources for greater use elsewhere.

Using a drug whether it is legal to do so or not carries potential for harm, but using an illegal drug is far more potentially harmful than using an illegal drug. Some of the greatest risks associated with drug use are the possibility of using an impure substance, infection from unclean needles, and financial problems. The legalisation of drug use can minimise all of these harms. If drugs were sold legally then there would be more control over the quality of the substance and the consumer would be able to ensure the purity of supply. No longer having to buy drugs on the streets, our 1.3% of the population would have access to a clean version of the drug. If we look at the use of heroin, one of the more dangerous drugs, it is particularly dangerous due to the HIV risk. If a Government recognises that people are using heroin and allows them access to clean needles, it can limit the spread of HIV. In Holland, I quote the Dutch Minister of Health, “the possession of small quantities of illicit drugs for personal consumption really is not a matter for the police.” Amsterdam, in Holland, operates a needle-exchange programme and that has helped to keep down the level of HIV infection. An already low rate of drug-related deaths is actually falling, and drug-related violence in the Netherlands is minimal.

And the third harm associated with drug use is the financial problems. Ofter, drug addicts will find themselves needing a fix, but without the money. This sort of situation often leads to break-ins, which harm good people everywhere. By legalising drugs, the free market will dictate a realistic price, and so this situation will occur less. I will also point out that, without fail, when the price of marijuana, for example, rises, users will start drinking more beer, associated with a higher incidence of drink-driving, or move onto harder drugs. The legalisation of drugs ensures a price that will not encourage crime in desperate addicts, a substance that isn’t tainted, and gives the opportunity to institute programs to minimise the harm of drug use. We are treating users fairly in respeting their autonomy and right to health, and the recognition promotes an equal relationship, better friendship with those too often seen as inferior.

Before I discuss how the legalisation of drugs benefits non-users, I would like to deal with the argument that legalisation will promote addiction levels. I see addiction as a fly in the ointment as ’twere, because an addicted drug user has actually lost their able to choose, and so I can’t argue that we should respect this right. But again, research comes to my aid. In the Netherlands, a brilliant example for me, as one of few more western countries to effectively legalise drug use, drug addiction rates, though hard to measure, are actually thought to be slightly lower than in the UK or France, and very much lower than in the US, which fights tooth and nail in the war against drugs. In America, a 1994 Rand study shows that treatment of heavy cocaine users is seven times more effective than asset forfeitures, arrest and imprisonment. The same study shows that the cost of treatment is one-fourth that of police enforcement. There you have it. Drug addiction is an awful thing. By outlawing the drugs, an addict is forced to greater and greater lengths in order to procure a supply. With drugs legal, the addict can be realistically treated, and their problem dealt with. Again, it is fair to addicts to treat them with respect and goodwill while trying to help them.

I have just discussed how the legalisation of drugs is beneficial to the drug users. But the legalisation of drugs is in fact beneficial to all concerned, so I will now show how it benefits non drug users.

The most immediate case is that of the family of a drug user. These people do not use drugs and are often helpless to deal with the addiction of the user. In Australia, this family, which is already suffering just by having the drug user in the family, could have their sorrow compounded by having the person sent to jail. If the drugs are legal, yes, the family will still face the problems of drug use. But the user, if addicted, can be treated more even-handedly, or otherwise be able to continue the usage without endangering himself or the family.

For the wider society, we don’t have such a face-to-face relationship with drug use. But the legalisation of drug use still benefits us in a wide ranging way, through the re-distribution of resources. A large amount of time and money in our law enforcement system goes towards dealing with drug offences.

Of the people adjudicated in Australia’s Higher Courts in 2005-06, 17% were finalised for illicit drug offences. Only 3% of these people were acquitted. If we ignore whether or not these people even deserve to be imprisoned, this means that 2333 people were jailed for drug offences. This means that each of these people was given a bed in prison, and fed and attended to out of the public purse. What it also means, with prisons overcrowded as they are, is that other prisoners are more likely to be let out early on parole. While believing in rehabilitation as the purpose of our penal system, ladies and gentleman, convicted rapists or murders should be let out when they are no longer a threat to our society, not because their space is needed for a drug user.

Furthermore, the police costs of having to constantly attend to drug offences begins mounting, meaning that more tax dollars are spent on police actions against drug activity. And this also means that police are being taken away from investigating break-ins or robberies, or other more serious crime.

So imagine with me what the case would be if drug use was legalised. Australia’s courts would have fewer cases to deal with, being able to run more efficiently, and less expensively. Prisons would not be crowded with those whose only crime was drug use. The police force would have less work to do, requiring less money and being able to focus on crimes that actually harm other people. Thus it is all too apparent that the legalisation of drugs benefits each and everyone of us, by freeing up resources in the public sector for more worthwhile causes. Not to mention that the customs officials would be able to focus on preventing importation of truly dangerous goods, not drugs. That people would not have to be ashamed of an innocent, and indeed, widespread occurrence.

The war on drugs will never be won. So many people use drugs, that, in the USA for example, It would cost $365 billion to jail everyone who smoked marijuana last year – five times the total state and local spending for all police, courts and prisons. The money spent fighting against drug use is ill spent and more useful elsewhere. A better war fought, is a war against ignorance and unnecessary suffering, a war to minimise the harm that comes of drugs, to treat people fairly regardless of what they do in private, a war to allow each person to make decision’s for his or her own interests.

It is true that legalising drugs is the right thing to do, because it is fair to all concerned. It builds goodwill and better friendships, and it will be beneficial to all concerned. Mark Twain remarked, “What we know that isn’t true can cause more harm than what we don’t know”, and now I place you in an enviable situation- knowing the truth. Drug use should be legalised.

The above was a speech delivered about drugs, which is particularly applicable to marijuana.

Popularity: 97% [?]

Being a climate activist can be a very draining business. Being aware that humanity is, on its current emissions path, going to face terrible increases in global temperatures, rising sea levels, chaotic and highly destructive weather events, the loss of land for growing food, and a diminishment of water security, is concerning. But time after time, the needed change that I and others like me try to promote, is stonewalled, either by the apathy or self-concern of ordinary people, or politically, by vested interests who hold inordinate sway over Government decision making processes. 

In some ways, the whole situation isn’t too unlike that in Richard Adams’ ‘Watership Down’, in which Fiver, the lagomorphic protagonist is seized with a vision of an apocalyptic future, in this case for the rabbit warren he calls home. Although the rabbit chief and his militia scorn Fiver, a few rabbits are swayed; and he and his companions, some of whom are only accompanying him out of pity, leave the warren in search of a new home. Their journey is not without trial, but the suffering and loss that they endure is found to be justified when, later, they are told by the few survivors that their old warren was exterminated by humans. Unfortunately, this analogy falls short of describing the current real world situation. The climate realists, who are very much in the role of Fiver in the modern world, do not have the luxury of being able to take like-minded companions and secede from the global climate. Instead, they are compelled to try, time and time again, to sway public opinion, to sway political process, because their survival, indeed, everyone’s survival, is dependent upon the threat being not just recognised, but addressed.

It all gets a bit ‘Australia 1970′, ‘that we are ruined by the thing we kill’. While climate realists are attempting to save humanity, they are too often dismissed as mere environmentalists, as if it is possible for humanity to function independently of the environment in which we live. Even people who accept the message too-often fail to modify their action accordingly, and it becomes yet another good idea, like fair-trade, or vegetarianism, which is too inconvenient or too costly to take on board. And even when progress is being made, when a growing proportion of the population is concerned enough to take action, industry-funded scientists abuse their position in society to muddy the waters and stir up doubt, which enables selfish people to continue to excuse their actions, and governments to continue putting off the inevitable.

But that’s not the point of this little spiel. The point of this spiel is that the good fight is worthwhile. This was impressed upon me last night, as I watched a free screening of ‘Telling The Truth’, a rather wittily named documentary that follows seven Al Gore-trained climate project presenters as they each deliver their personalised version of his slideshow to various audiences across Australia. I saw people from all over Australia, and from all over society: not just the dreadlocked stoners that some would have you believe are the majority of climate activists, but doctors, sportspeople, students, businessmen, all trying to change the world for the better. Each of these people was motivated to act on climate change for different reasons: some were trying to protect their children’s future, some dreamed of a less injust world, others wanted to be able to keep living in their house. It was great. They weren’t the sort of policy hacks who might attend seminars and write letters to the newspaper (ie me), but they believed in what they were doing, and they were making a difference. 

So I began thinking about my own growth as a climate change activist, from a largely unaware lad who was surprised to know that his vegetarianism was helping the climate to an informed and passionate chap (not a lad anymore) who mentally ticked off a box when a senior meteorologist speaking about climate change referred to an albedo flip. I thought about the friends and the beautiful people I had met and worked alongside, the inspiring figures who, by their dedication and commitment, gave hope to others, or who, by their willingness to take direct action, promoted discussion and encouraged others to do more. I thought of the members of the various groups in which I’m involved, not one of whom is remarkable, but all of whom are doing remarkable things, giving up time, energy and money to try to keep this issue at the front of people’s minds. 

And I thought about how I sometimes feel like this issue is consuming me, like I am giving up too much, potentially losing who I am. But I realised that that’s not the case. I know, of all of the things I have done or that I do, it’s not the academic pursuits that make me who I am. I’m just happy in myself that I have been able to contribute to what is a vital growing global movement for justice and sustainability. I think of who I am now, of what I feel, of whom I know. I am doing what I do because I know it is the right thing. I am doing it because I have a vision of a society where we are healthier, where our energy supply isn’t dependent upon sending people to war, where the environment isn’t polluted by oil and slurry spills, groundwater contamination, and mine waste being dumped into waterways. Where people don’t have to spend hours in traffic to function, where essentials are within riding distance, and people have more time to spent with their families and friends. Aiding in the realisation of this vision is the single best contribution I can make to this world.

Popularity: 91% [?]