Bob Brown vs the Temperance Society

When you have a child - a small one - you can get away with saying 'Don't do that'. They listen, or at least they get scared enough at the tone of voice that they stop. Then they get older. They want to know why. So then you explain. Then they take liberties. They start to negotiate and you end up with something other than 'Don't do that'. If you are a good parent you still prevent the dangerous activity but you have, along the way, educated and you have worked out a compromise that achieves the actual purpose. Most importantly, you negotiate an agreement and they are more effective (not more efficient) than fear.

You can treat whole societies like small children. We do it all of the time. Don't murder that person, don't take that drug, don't beat your wife, don't mine that uranium, don't drink that alcohol, etc etc.

Prohibition has its place but, in my view, not as a first option. Prohibition is a very blunt instrument. There is no room in prohibition for the negotiation of arrangements that might avoid another greater harm, for the establishment of conditions that might mitigate the dangerous or anti-social effects or for allowing people to exercise their individual and community rights.

Back in the dim, dark past when I was of a certain age some people used to grow marijuana among their tomato plants. It apparently wasn't as potent as the stuff people use today but it did the job. Probably still would. But we banned it. A war on drugs was declared. The cost of prosecuting this war has been immense. The profit motive kicked in and that drug along with lots of its mates have been developed and refined and sold by those outside the law at a great profit. Massive societal damage has been caused and is continuing because, as a society we didn't negotiate, make that don't negotiate, effective arrangements that met all necessary purposes.

Just imagine if 40 years ago we had adopted a policy that the use of recreational drugs would be legal but controlled. A licensing system would have been put in place, standards set for quality and strength, taxes paid, usage monitored and controlled. Would more people have used these drugs? Possibly, but with any luck we would have been smart enough to maintain quality at a level that kept damage to a minimum. Rather than a net societal and economic cost there may even have been a net gain.

I am very well aware that prohibition is supported strongly by social policy makers because it is such a powerful tool. For instance, there are figures that suggest that, if you prohibit the use of alcohol, it is possible to achieve a 50% drop in use. These are the drinkers who drink because grog is readily available. Drinkers who have enough cash to buy ahead, enough brains to plan, those who are keen to drink, or addicted, or resent being told they can't or who don't agree that they shouldn't all continue and with gusto.

Uranium mining, now this is one that could raise a few eyebrows. I have always been ambivalent on this. The previous ALP policy on 3 mines was simply a typical Hawke developed compromise. Sort of half achieved something but really was a con job. Banning uranium mining sounds like a good idea. It is a very dangerous substance. The waste hangs around for a thousands of years bombs kill masses rather than the more usual hundreds. It is also useful and, perhaps, does less environmental damage than coal as a fuel for power stations.

But the real problem I have with a prohibition on uranium mining is that I can't get past the feeling that we want to ban it because we are scared of it, or perhaps more correctly, we are scared that we will not be able to develop sufficiently careful or enforceable controls. Or maybe it is that we are scared that the governments we elect wont control it. Terrible thing fear. Debilitating for individuals and for societies. Time, I think, to get over the fear and get on with sorting this one out.

I could go on about grades of murder but perhaps I have made enough of an argument to cause one.