Emancipation, feminism and civil rights movements gradually eroded unjust social conventions and transformed Western society. Today, slavery is viewed as abhorrent and legislative discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion is non existent. There is, however, an unacceptable form of instituted prejudice against gays. The absence of the right to a homosexual marriage strips the community of pervasive legal and civil rights. Further, the grounds against gay marriage are unconstitutional and unethical.
The tactics of certain homosexual rights activists have distanced many potentially sympathetic Australians. The lack of tact displayed during demonstrations by these activists indicates insensitivity to the social consciousness. Sadly, legitimate arguments for gay marriage were drowned out by outrageousness. Opportunistically capitalising on social concerns, religious opponents argued that gay unions undermine the holy foundations of marriage. What most people are oblivious to, and what is very rarely addressed, is the fact that the absence of a legal recognition of homosexual relationships necessarily results in a limitations of their statutory rights. Consider cross insurance. Typically, spouses cross insure each other to expedite the claim payout process. Self insurance is less preferable because terminal payouts constitute part of the deceased's estate and are generally delayed by legal red-tape. The Insurance Act precludes seeking cover in instances where there is "no insurable interest". Conceptually, this means that one can't insure against a stranger's death. Legally, homosexual relationships do not constitute an insurable interest. Consider pecuniary concerns. Homosexual partners do not qualify for a myriad of tax exemptions and other financial relief afforded to heterosexual partnerships. These include, but are not limited to; superannuation spousal salary sacrifice tax breaks, family private health insurance cover, inheritances taxes (pre-reforms), family welfare packages, income family tax benefits and offsets. Consider power of attorney. Homosexual partners cannot bestow upon each other powers of attorney. Addendum, homosexual partners cannot remain with each other in hospital past scheduled visiting hours. To reiterate, these citations are by no means complete.
Having established the fact that homosexual couples suffer judicial discrimination, it is pertinent to consider the rationale for why they do so. It is argued that a marriage is legally defined as the union between a man and a woman. Opponents to gay marriage contend that there is an explicit expression of gender. The Australian Constitution deliberately uses the terms "man and woman" to illicit the notion of adult cognition. The emphasis is clearly upon the legal capacity to consent. In fact, the gender is incidental. To better comprehend this point, suppose that the Constitution read "a marriage is the union of an adult male and an adult female". While it is likely that the Constitution envisaged the traditional view of marriage, the use of the terms "man and woman" seeks more to assert the notion of age and maturity than make any valued judgment about gender. And that's what gay marriage is about at the end of the day- the consent of two adults.
Regardless of one's view of homosexuality, one must recongise the legitimate grievances that funnel through as a result of an inability to wed. The advancement of gay rights doesn't equate to a condonance of the homosexual lifestyle, but rather the alleviation of social inequality.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Case Against The Criminalisation of Drugs
Proponents of drug prohibition often cite three key motivators as justification for their position, these are: deterrence, harm minimisation and crime reduction. Adopting this taxonomy, it is my thesis that criminalisation is a failed policy that fails to favourably affect any of these objectives.
Central to this discussion is the notion of conventional wisdom. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term to describe an established and sacrosanct idea which may or may not be true. Some common pieces of conventional wisdom are: real estate is a superior form of investment to equities, elevated levels of inflation are undesirable and the criminalisation of narcotics is essential. These statements are convenient, appealing and ostensibly axiomatic- and herein lies the problem. When an idea becomes conventional wisdom, it becomes impervious to scrutiny. "Conventional Wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding a conventional wisdom view." (Wikipedia) For this reason, reader, my contention may initially seem to be incongruous.
It is suggested that the drug prohibition policies act as a deterrent by primarily restricting supply and signaling to the public that drug use is dangerous. The former point is laughable- even the most staunch prohibitionist would be hard pressed to argue that drugs are anything but available. Despite billions of dollars being spent annually in law enforcement, drugs are abundant. As for the latter point- it's simply non sequitur. Criminalisation in of itself is ineffective in communicating the adverse effects of substance abuse. Rather, education is achieved through grass roots health care programmes within the community. To appreciate the profound absurdity of this argument consider a hypothetical proposal to contain the HIV-AIDS tide in Africa by criminalising unprotected sex.
Prohibitionists claim that drug laws minimise harm. This claim is often emotive and deliberately convoluted. It is imperative to recognise that challenging the above assertion does not equate to mitigating the impacts of drug use itself. Substance abuse is devastating on a social, individual and family level. Ergo, the production and distribution of drugs should be regulated to ensure quality, purity and hygiene. Recently, Australian states flirted with the idea of installing safe injecting rooms- facilities where drug users were provided with clean equipment, a sanitised environment and medical assistance, including dosage guidance and rehabilitation options. Do such facilities promote drug use? No, they contain them. Such an initiative is a pragmatic response to the drug problem and constitutes legitimate harm minimisation: since users do inject, it is preferable that they do so safely. Unfortunately, this is only half the picture. Presently, there is an absence of oversight in the manufacturing of narcotics. Less euphemistically- drugs are being prepared in unsanitary labs, at unspecified concentrations, using unobservable constituents. What is it in the social psyche that precludes the transparent production and regulated distribution of narcotics to addicts? Clearly, policies of engagement, rather than isolationism act to substantially minimise harm to all stakeholders.
The final vestige of prohibitionist reasoning is the fallacy that criminalisation of narcotics reduces crime. First some history. The so-called War on Drugs properly began in 1971 during the Nixon administration, with the term attributable to the former President. Previous experiences with alcohol prohibition were disastrous and many Americans were skeptical. However, Nixon cleverly assimilated the idea for many Americans by relating it to the very relevant and palpable War on Crime (a tactic not too dissimilar to the current Administration's claims that the heroin trade funds global terrorism- legitimate though they are). Narcotics became the underlying cause of crime; the motivation for burglaries, gang turf wars and murder. Despite the ensuing splurge of billions of dollars combating domestic (crack cocaine) and international (cocaine, heroin) drug syndicates, effectively resulting in a series of temporary opiate shortages, paradoxically crime rates were to continue their exponential growth well into the 1980s. Subsequent economist studies revealed that drug busts which substantially decreased supply coincided with a spike in robberies. They concluded that the addictive nature of narcotics makes drugs an inelastic good- that is, as prices rise, demand remains roughly constant. The illusion that criminalisation of drugs alleviates crime is a proven falsehood.
As with Prohibition and abortion, the criminalisation of drugs stems more from a desire to protect society from a complex reality than to legitimately alleviate the social impacts caused. Ultimately, the notion that undue regulation (particularly in relation to people's rights to affect their own bodies) creates criminals rather than solves problems will permeate.
Central to this discussion is the notion of conventional wisdom. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term to describe an established and sacrosanct idea which may or may not be true. Some common pieces of conventional wisdom are: real estate is a superior form of investment to equities, elevated levels of inflation are undesirable and the criminalisation of narcotics is essential. These statements are convenient, appealing and ostensibly axiomatic- and herein lies the problem. When an idea becomes conventional wisdom, it becomes impervious to scrutiny. "Conventional Wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding a conventional wisdom view." (Wikipedia) For this reason, reader, my contention may initially seem to be incongruous.
It is suggested that the drug prohibition policies act as a deterrent by primarily restricting supply and signaling to the public that drug use is dangerous. The former point is laughable- even the most staunch prohibitionist would be hard pressed to argue that drugs are anything but available. Despite billions of dollars being spent annually in law enforcement, drugs are abundant. As for the latter point- it's simply non sequitur. Criminalisation in of itself is ineffective in communicating the adverse effects of substance abuse. Rather, education is achieved through grass roots health care programmes within the community. To appreciate the profound absurdity of this argument consider a hypothetical proposal to contain the HIV-AIDS tide in Africa by criminalising unprotected sex.
Prohibitionists claim that drug laws minimise harm. This claim is often emotive and deliberately convoluted. It is imperative to recognise that challenging the above assertion does not equate to mitigating the impacts of drug use itself. Substance abuse is devastating on a social, individual and family level. Ergo, the production and distribution of drugs should be regulated to ensure quality, purity and hygiene. Recently, Australian states flirted with the idea of installing safe injecting rooms- facilities where drug users were provided with clean equipment, a sanitised environment and medical assistance, including dosage guidance and rehabilitation options. Do such facilities promote drug use? No, they contain them. Such an initiative is a pragmatic response to the drug problem and constitutes legitimate harm minimisation: since users do inject, it is preferable that they do so safely. Unfortunately, this is only half the picture. Presently, there is an absence of oversight in the manufacturing of narcotics. Less euphemistically- drugs are being prepared in unsanitary labs, at unspecified concentrations, using unobservable constituents. What is it in the social psyche that precludes the transparent production and regulated distribution of narcotics to addicts? Clearly, policies of engagement, rather than isolationism act to substantially minimise harm to all stakeholders.
The final vestige of prohibitionist reasoning is the fallacy that criminalisation of narcotics reduces crime. First some history. The so-called War on Drugs properly began in 1971 during the Nixon administration, with the term attributable to the former President. Previous experiences with alcohol prohibition were disastrous and many Americans were skeptical. However, Nixon cleverly assimilated the idea for many Americans by relating it to the very relevant and palpable War on Crime (a tactic not too dissimilar to the current Administration's claims that the heroin trade funds global terrorism- legitimate though they are). Narcotics became the underlying cause of crime; the motivation for burglaries, gang turf wars and murder. Despite the ensuing splurge of billions of dollars combating domestic (crack cocaine) and international (cocaine, heroin) drug syndicates, effectively resulting in a series of temporary opiate shortages, paradoxically crime rates were to continue their exponential growth well into the 1980s. Subsequent economist studies revealed that drug busts which substantially decreased supply coincided with a spike in robberies. They concluded that the addictive nature of narcotics makes drugs an inelastic good- that is, as prices rise, demand remains roughly constant. The illusion that criminalisation of drugs alleviates crime is a proven falsehood.
As with Prohibition and abortion, the criminalisation of drugs stems more from a desire to protect society from a complex reality than to legitimately alleviate the social impacts caused. Ultimately, the notion that undue regulation (particularly in relation to people's rights to affect their own bodies) creates criminals rather than solves problems will permeate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)