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: 29% [?]

When I was younger, friends would bemoan the fact that their parent/s smoked. However, they always accepted it, noting that their parents had grown up in a different time. Unfortunately, despite the wide availability of accurate information these days, people continue to smoke. While I cannot understand this decision, I feel it is due at least partly to both a lack of awareness of certain consequences of smoking, and an understanding of those consequences. I hope with this note to go into this a little, considering the negative health, environmental and social effects.

Smoking is immensely harmful to the person who does it. In Australia, it is the largest preventable cause of premature death and disease. Lung cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, heart disease, stroke, and various other cancers are some of the effects of smoking, effects that kill about 15 000 Australians annually. Lower fertility, problems with pregnancy, blindness, and bone degradation are other consequences. Conceivably, smokers could say that they are allowed to do what they want with their own health. However, given that there are countless people dying against their will from unpreventable causes that they had no chance to avoid, this argument strikes me as facile. While smokers may have the ‘right’ to harm their own health, they have a responsibility to not take it for granted, given that so many are not as healthy as they may be. Not all people are lucky enough to have good health, so those who do should show proper care for themselves.

Overriding this rather abstract argument though is the fact that, even if smokers can destroy their own health, they have no right to harm the health of others: exactly what smokers do. Environmental tobacco smoke, which is what non-smokers passively breathe, is a known carcinogen – a cancer-causing agent. Other serious harms arising from the breathing of air polluted by tobacco smoke include bronchitis, pneumonia and other chest illnesses, asthma, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. An Australia report refers to increased: likelihood of suffering from asthmatic symptoms, risk of heart attack, risk of developing lung cancer, and risk of sudden infant death syndrome. Smokers are actively contributing to the ill health of their friends and all those who are so unfortunate as to breathe the air that has been polluted. No person has the right to inflict this sort of harm upon others against their will; no smoker, therefore, has the right to smoke where it can harm others. 

The environmental effects of smoking are also significant. The process of curing tobacco requires wood to be burnt to dry the leaves, which leads to deforestation. Around 60 million trees are felled each year in Brazil for this purpose, in Pakistan, 1.5 million cubic metres of wood are annually consumed. Further, paper is needed to roll and package cigarettes: a cigarette manufacturing machine uses four miles of paper per hour for this. This large scale deforestation damages the land and contributes to increased flooding, decreased food output and can affect the local climate. On a global scale, many scientists believe deforestation is changing the world’s climate and contributing to global warming

The growing of tobacco requires extensive pesticide and herbicide use. Tobacco depletes soil nutrients at a heavy rate, so requires regular inputs of chemical fertilizers. For example, during the three month period from making the seedbed to transplanting the seed in the field, up to 16 applications of pesticide may be recommended. These products directly poison farm workers – many of whom are children – and cause chronic health problems; they also seep into the soil and pollute waterways and ecological systems and poison livestock and food crops.

The volume of rubbish created by smoking, from the butts, packaging and foil, is deplorable. In 1993, all the cigarette butts thrown away in America weighed as much as 30 800 large elephants. In Australia, almost 1 in 3 butts end up as litter, and discarded components account for up to 43% of all litter in South Australia. This litter gets into bodies of water and beaches, killing marine fauna. The butts also contain toxic chemicals, which leach into the water poisoning organisms. The consequences of all this cigarette waste is intimidating, the potential cost of cleaning it all up frightful.

Only in the context of the egregious health and environmental effects of smoking can its true social costs be understood. In 2002, a report estimated the cost of tobacco use in Australia as $21.06 billion. This expense arose mainly from loss of production due to illness and death and health care costs. Other factors are the costs of passive smoking, welfare costs, ambulance services and fire damage. The burden that this is on the public purse effectively detracts from the quality and availability of health care to other people who may be suffering from other diseases not of their own making. Additionally, smoking is an effect of and a contributor to social inequality: “The greatest burden of illness and costs due to tobacco occurs among households in the lowest quintile of social advantage: smoking is most devastating for those who can least afford it” (National Tobacco Strategy 2004-2009). 

Smoking also has a cost outside of the first world, appalling enough that no casual donation to Make Poverty History could make up for it. Two-thirds of the world’s tobacco is produced in developing countries, taking up land that could be used to feed 10-20 million people. This occurs because the first world is more willing to spend money on a luxury like tobacco than those in the third world are able to spend on food. Land is thus used to produce the commodity of tobacco, endangering a reliable food supply. When you consider that 60% of the 8 million preventable deaths of chlidren annually are due to malnutrition, you certainly have to wonder how anyone could spend money on a pack of cigarettes.

There is no such thing as a ‘social smoker’. Smoking is an anti-social action that harms oneself, others, the environment and is an impediment to global equity. Not only is every cigarette doing you damage, smoking it is an act of indifference to the wellbeing of yourself, those around you, the state of the world, and the plight of the third world. Next time, before you buy a pack of cigarettes, consider doing us all a favour.

Popularity: 7% [?]