english kms

Context

In response to the accumulating pressure surrounding Australia's ongoing prohibition of recreational cannabis, Senator Shoebridge delivers a Speech in the Australian Parliament.

Contention:

advocating for this legislative reform as a necessary and transformative change for the nation

Audience

MPs and Senators, who possess the legislative authority to vote on the Bill, the speech also targets the broader Australian public, including cannabis consumers and those persuaded by the reform's benefits.

Intention

intention of compelling his audience to acknowledge the perceived inevitability and the presented advantages of legalisation, seeking to gamer public endorsement and parliamentary support

BODY 1

A:
Legalising cannabis = major economic growth and public revenue.

D:
logos (data) and ethos (authority), establishing a resolute tone.

E:

• What: Quotes PBO data: "$28 billion in public revenue," "tens of thousands of quality green jobs," "boon for tourism."

• Why: Concrete statistics = logos; citing Parliamentary Budget Office builds credibility presenting him as well researched whose claims are grounded in expert analysis.

• How: large credible figures = legalisation seem economically sound and inevitable, creating a vision of future national prosperity.

E:

• appeals to: MPs financial responsibility and public interest in jobs/prosperity

• H:By focusing on economics rather than morality, Shoebridge reframes the issue as one of pragmatic national interest, not social controversy in the first part of the speech.

R:
Addresses financial concerns and presents legalisation as a profitable national investment, reinforcing the Bill’s necessity.

Para 2

• A (Argument): Legalisation = crucial for social justice and harm reduction.

• D (Device): Tonal shift to empathetic/urgent; pathos; rhetorical questioning; visual support.

• E (What - Text): Quotes "save some 80,000 Australians a year," "war on drugs [as] an abject failure," and "Why should you be able to grow a plant in the ACT but not 10 minutes away in Queanbeyan?"

• E (Why - Text): Statistic establishes human toll; assertion dismisses policy as ineffective; rhetorical question challenges legislative inconsistency.

• E (How - Text): Statistic conveys vast impact (injustice/urgency - pathos). "Abject failure" critiques current policy. Rhetorical question exposes absurdities, encouraging recognition of unfairness.

• E (What - Visual): Man (casual attire, earnest posture) kneels by sign (green leaf, "VOTE 1," "EXPUNGE CONVICTIONS," "CHANGE DRIVING LAWS").

• E (Why - Visual): Visually embodies call for justice, connecting textual appeals to tangible public sentiment; personifies "80,000 Australians" statistic.

• E (How - Visual): Man's accessible appearance/sign's demands convey drive for social justice from relatable citizens, strengthening emotional/ethical appeals.

• E (Effect): Evokes empathy/injustice; exposes inconsistencies for parliamentarians/public.

• R (Result): Strengthens argument that legalisation rectifies social injustices and reduces harm.

P3

• 
  A (Argument): Legalisation creates a transformative future: consumer safety, responsible consumption, community empowerment.

• D (Device): Optimistic/visionary tone; descriptive anecdotes; appeal to freedom/normalcy.

• E (What): Relatable examples: "brownie or a tea" after work; "music festival... not confronted by... drug dogs"; "grow a few plants at home." Contrasts with "serious crime" (decriminalisation); mentions "trained staff," "clear labelling."

• E (Why): Anecdotes, contrasts, assurances normalise use/strip stigma, appealing to liberty/safety.

• E (How): Scenarios convey normal, safe, controlled integration. Accessible examples de-radicalise legalisation for hesitant audience, making it manageable/appealing. Emphasis on regulation conveys practical management.

• E (Effect): Demystifies cannabis for public (personal liberty/normalcy); reassures parliamentarians (robust, regulated framework).

• R (Result): Aims to build trust/foster security in proposal, making it less radical/more manageable by framing it within familiar consumer regulation/retail hospitality.

conclusion

• 
  R (Restate Contention): Shoebridge argues for nationwide cannabis legalisation.

• S (Summarise Arguments): Strategic blend of logos (economic benefits), pathos (social justice/harm reduction), and visionary outlook (safe, empowered future).

• R (Reinforce Visual): Arguments reinforced by complementary visual of grassroots campaign, humanising the call for change.

• I (Reiterate Tone/Intention): Delivered with resolute/forward-looking tone; aims to compel parliamentarians/public to acknowledge inevitability/advantages. Goal: cultivate trust and secure support for the proposed reform.

• F (Final Synthesising Thought): By dismantling objections and carefully constructing an appealing vision, Shoebridge positions the Bill as indispensable, widely supported, and an advancement for national progress.