Language Analysis - Marijuana Legalisation in Australia

“Legalising marijuana would have huge benefits for the Australian economy, while cutting criminals out of the drug supply”
Paul Syvret, in his opinion piece (The Courier-Mail, January 11, 2014) believes that Australia's laws prohibiting marijuana are inadequate as it is encouraging an illegal drug trade and makes little economic sense. He exacerbates the concern through various techniques, associating inordinate dangers with the prohibition of the drug, urging the government to legalise the drug; before the situation becomes irrepressible. The tone established by Syvret is reasonable and educational, as he relies on the experiences from the US and Mexico to demonstrate Australia’s need to change.
Substantiating the contention with a barrage of statistics, Syvret adds legitimacy to the position of legalising the drug. Through opening the issue with the “war on drugs” in America costing “$46.05 billion a year in terms of enforcement,” he directly exposes the extent to which this issue affects their economy, compelling the reader to see the consequences of the prohibition as fact, rather than personal opinion. This idea is further reinforced through the “wage bloody war” experienced across the border of Mexico, as costs are almost eight times more than that of America’s with estimation close to $375 billion a year, implying that the risks accompanied with the prohibition of marijuana is a widespread issue, and that therefore, it is something Australia must be careful about. Syvret strengthens this idea through a current review of Australia’s cost of enforcement estimating “as high as $4.7 billion a year,” creating a sense of uneasiness of the exorbitant costs this drug places on Australia and its economy. Additionally, the excessive statistical evidence used by the writer emphasises that the issue is extensive, encouraging the Australian public that the current position of prohibiting marijuana is insufficient and must be changed.
The perceptions of the reader are sharpened through Syvret’s use of trustworthy and therefore reliable experts on the issue. Reference to the well-known authority “Harvard economist Jerry Miron,” suggests that he is an intelligent figure in relation to the issue due to being an economist, therefore making the information more believable and legitimate. Syvret repeats the use of economic experts to further support his contention of the inadequacy of marijuana prohibition, such as including “Brisbane author and academic Dr John Jiggins.” Dr John Higgins describes the issue through “the futility of prohibition,” proposing that the law enforced against drugs are impractical and must be changed. Through linking an expert to the issue, the reader is induced to believe the information provided is valid. Syvret deliberately relates “conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to US president Ronald Reagan” to the advocating statement “not aware of a single economic analysis in opposition to legislation,” predisposing the reader to agree with the contention that current prohibition laws are inadequate. Through including “former adviser to US president Ronald Reagan,” Bruce is painted as a prominent figure with comprehensive knowledge on the economy, and therefore, more definitive.
Syvret intensifies the discussion through the use of repetitive, emotive language, seeking fortification by the government of his contention by pressuring them for change. The connotation created by “war on drugs” is exaggerated numerous times throughout the article, suggesting that drugs have severe implications which can lead to death. The use of “In the US, decades of drug interdiction and enforcement have resulted in what?” Suggests that the purpose of the prohibition of drugs has been a failure, as more people are engaging in illicit drug trafficking. Syvret endorses the position of the legalisation through reference to the US, as “marijuana is sold similar to alcohol,” indicating that even if marijuana if legalised by the government, there will still be rules and regulations put in place to avoid exploitation of the drug. The strong use of “groaning” for state budgets “under the cost of drug enforcement” juxtaposed with the “welcome” of “tax revenues flowing from marijuana sales,” reveals that the only logical, economically sensible thing to do is legalise marijuana. Furthermore, Syvret attempts to mobilise support through appealing to the readers sense of fear of drug related crime, where it can “thrive to the point where it is part of societal fabric.” While appealing to fear, this phrase also advocates the insufficiency of prohibition on marijuana as it encourages illegal drug trade. Syvret exposes his instructive and practical outlook on the issue, while clearly articulating concern about the prohibition of marijuana and its consequent effects on economy and crime. Through his effective use of experts, a sense of credibility is imparted within the writer’s contention, inducing the readers to take Syvret’s opinion into consideration. His clever choice of phrases, statistics and evidence advocates that unless marijuana is legalised, “not much will change for those who pay the price for the war on drugs.”