Rhetoric & Writing

Hawkins, John. ” 5 Reasons Marijuana Should Remain Illegal” Town Hall. Town Hall, Jan 21, 2014. Web Aug 11, 2015

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/01/21/5-reasons-marijuana-should-remain-illegal-n1782086/page/full

John Hawkins is a journalist for the website Town Hall, which has been around for 20 years. In this article Hawkins tries to argue that marijuana should remain illegal. He believes that marijuana is extremely addictive and that the legalization of marijuana in Amsterdam didn’t work out so well. He also argues that marijuana is terrible for your mental and physical health and that the drug decimates many peoples lives. Hawkins then even goes on to throw a jab at Obama by saying “Even the ones that get somewhere in life, like Barack Obama, usually turn out to be mediocrities.” Although John is trying to make an argument it all collapses on it self when he tries to explain it.

I do not agree with Hawkins first reason that marijuana is extremely addictive because the use of marijuana is not addictive. Many people believe it is enjoyable because of the euphoria it gives you and when something is enjoyable you want to do it as much as you can within reason of course. Its like sex, sex is enjoyable and people try to get it when they can but that doesn’t make sex addictive. Hawkins has to understand that the people who say that marijuana is addictive have no self control what so ever which will allow them to get addicted to anything.

As the article goes on the author states another reason why it should be illegal by saying that marijuana didn’t work out so well in Amsterdam. I disagree with the author because what happened in Amsterdam is not what is happening in Colorado and Washington state. He argues that the first school is banning the use of marijuana in school. Kids should not even be smoking pot unless it is for a medical condition. The U.S made laws saying that you can not buy marijuana unless you are of 18 years of age. This mean that it will now be harder for underage kids to get marijuana if it is legalized since it will end the black market sell of it and have an age requirement to buy it.

I disagree with Hawkins next claim that marijuana is bad for both our mental health and our physical health. Although marijuana can be seen to cause problems we have other legal substances that cause worse problems to the user health. In example alcohol, can be the main cause of deaths from alcohol poisoning to drunk driving to depressing people enough to commit suicide. To have this substance legal is the real problem to today’s society. We tried to stop it before with the prohibition act but yet we still have it till this day.

Hawkins last claim that marijuana decimates peoples lives is just an opinion. That is why I disagree with that claim because he believes that marijuana can stop you from getting into college and finishing high school. Right away I can say that that’s not true because of the many friends I had are going to college. One of my friends being the Valedictorian that is being accepted to the University of Texas, also other friends who got into Texas A&M. Which means marijuana has no effect on a persons attempt to make it anywhere in life.

Overall, Hawkins ends up making an argument that would be ineffective to his intended audience. He is just a journalist with an opinion that I’m sure many before me have shot down time and time again.

Hawkins, John. “5 Reasons Marijuana Should Remain Illegal.” Townhall.com. N.p., 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/01/21/5-reasons-marijuana-should-remain-illegal-n1782086/page/full

In the article “5 Reasons Marijuana Should Remain Illegal” it argue that marijuana should stay illegal because it is harmful. The article states reason like “It’s extremely addictive for some people, this experiment hasn’t worked out so well for Amsterdam, marijuana is terrible for your mental health, marijuana is terrible for your physical health, and the drug decimates many people’s lives,” to support his claim on marijuana staying illegal. For each reason that he states in his article he uses a authoritative figure or facts. The speaker’s assumption is that by keeping marijuana illegal the problem related to the substance can be kept at the state it is in right now. John  Hawkins is mainly appealing to the audience who are aware of what  is talk about by the people that are anti-marijuana. He uses appeal like ethos, logos and pathos to support his article on why marijuana should not be legalized. For example she mentioned a ethical, Dr.Drew in the article in order to support his opinionated reasoning. Also he mention statistical data as a logical appeal, and how he see marijuana is causing problem in schools where marijuana is legal in their region as a pathos. Overall the summary of article is using the main 3 appeals to convince and persuade people to believe that marijuana should stay illegal.

The article makes the argument that marijuana is extremely addictive as they use a support from Dr. Drew Pinsky relationship with addicts, but he only focus on the small percent of the people admitting that they have a problem using  marijuana to overgeneralized the people who uses the substance and can quit any time they wanted to. Even though the example uses a authoritative figure to make the article more credible, it failed to be credible by not stating where the source is from. In addition to the argument, Hawkins included reason like mental and physical health to support his stance on why marijuana should stay illegal because it apparently slow down the brain and causes damage worse than smoking cigarette, as he forgetting to mention if it is genetically modified for a even better high or not. Which only shows a half fact that would make this source less credible. After the reason about health, Hawkins begin to support his reason on “drug decimates  many people’s lives” by portraying a TV comparison to what he see as a person part of this world. This represent a false comparison because  it  does not mention the celebrities or successor using marijuana and being able to succeed with the substance.

Grimm, Katherine. “To Legalize Pot, Stop the Infighting (Opinion) – CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network, 14 May 2015. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.

In Katherine Grimm’s article “To Legalize Pot, Stop the Infighting,” she argues that there should not be a fight over marijuana but instead everyone should come come together and respect the opposing viewpoint. She mainly focuses on the fact that there in the marijuana industry, there is enough room for “the casual consumer, the medical patient, the wellness market, etc.” Grimm briefly discusses how taxes and government regulation on marijuana might upset some individuals. She then goes on to state that “medical marijuana supporters believe that recreational use diminishes the medicinal value of the plant.” Recreational users show a misrepresentation of the drug and its uses. Grimm suggest that there should be campaigning for all marijuana users, not just one type of user. In other words, there is a way to make everyone happy from the legalization of marijuana.

I agree with Grimm when she states medical marijuana supporters may believe that those who use marijuana for recreational use gives it a bad reputation. I agree with this because today many people are seen all the time on social media smoking marijuana. Most of the time when people are shown smoking marijuana it is not in a positive way. Although I agree with recreational users giving a bad reputation for the medical plant, I disagree when she states there is enough room for everyone. The legalization of marijuana cannot benefit everyone and will not make everyone happy. Medical marijuana supporters and recreational users have different stances on how marijuana should be regulated and used. In any argument or issue there is compromise so not every party gets what it wants. Therefore, Grimm’s argument that everyone can be happy or benefit from marijuana is flawed.

Mineta, David. “Decriminalization Would Increase the Use and the Economic and Social Costs of Drugs.”Americas Quarterly. Americas Society, Fall 2010. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

http://www.americasquarterly.org/node/1915

David Mineta is Deputy Director for Demand Reduction at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In his article, Mineta argues that decriminalization of marijuana would increase use, along with the associated health and social costs. Mineta begins his argument by addressing that decriminalization will not solve the budget crisis, reduce prison overcrowding, or cripple drug cartels and that these claims are not supported by evidence. Mineta goes on to compare two legal substances, alcohol and tobacco, that have been used more widespread due to them being legal. According to Mineta, “alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands more deaths per year than all illegal drugs combined”. Mineta points out that marijuana is less accepted and less widely used mostly because it is illegal. Mineta continues his argument by claiming that decriminalization will increase addiction. Legal drugs are cheap and easy to obtain. High profits would make the addiction business lucrative, Mineta states. Mineta concludes his article by reiterating that the increased use that decriminalization would bring increased addiction and costs.

Although I agree that Mineta offered some convincing evidence using statistical sources, his argument is faulty. Mineta misrepresents those who are in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana by claiming that their arguments are usually just a rhetorical and political tool to advocate the legalization of marijuana. Instead of addressing his opponent’s actual position, Mineta invents their argument for decriminalization and then tears it down with his reasons in order to make the opposing position appear false or ridiculous. For this reason, I consider this example a straw person fallacy and an intellectually dishonest strategy because Mineta simply ignores those in support of decriminalization and substitutes it for a distorted, exaggerated version. Mineta criticizes those in favor of decriminalizing minor marijuana offenses by stating that their reasons are simply just a tool in an effort to encourage the actual legalization of marijuana.

Overall, the way Mineta approaches this argument in a way that could be ineffective to his audience. Mineta seems like a credible source because of his position as a Deputy Director for Demand Reduction at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, but his straw person fallacy questions this credibility and hinders his argument as a whole.

Shaniece Denson

Gogek, Edward. “Crunching the Numbers; why I say almost all medical marijuana patients are faking it.” Reasons to Oppose “Medical Marijuana” in Arizona. N.p., 15 Nov. 2012 Web. 11 Aug. 2015

In this article, physician Edward Gogek contends that “almost all medical marijuana patients are faking” their illnesses in order to receive medical marijuana. He supports his argument with statistics from Arizona Department of Health Services, personal experiences that he has had in the state of Arizona, and the demographics that smoke marijuana within that state. Gogek provides information from Arizona because it has been a few years since the state has legalized medical marijuana and the evidence provided is more perpetual than the questionable evidence that is presented from states that have just legalized the drug. Gogek’s primary argument is directed toward the demographics and sex of medical marijuana users in Arizona. He asserts that majority of the patients seeking marijuana prescriptions are young adults and females. He also uses a comparison of tossing a coin to compare the results from the coin with the percentage of male and female citizens requesting medical marijuana in Arizona.

I agree that not all medical marijuana patients attempt to receive the drug because they suffer from serious illnesses or unbearable symptoms. However to make this argument comparing it to the tossing of a coin 1000 times is not reasonable. Gogek argues that the chances of a coin landing on tails is equivalent to a female seeking to buy medical marijuana in the state of Arizona. I cannot perceive physician Gogek or anyone else flipping a coin 1000 times and to actually comparing their results with charts containing the marijuana statistics that show the percentage of males and females buying medical marijuana. For this reason I consider this example a faulty comparison and one of which that isn’t significant to the controversy of whether or not marijuana cardholders are substance abusers. I also believe that it can be identified as a false analogy because tossing a coin to determine how many males or females will be found to smoke weed on a study does not resemble each other at all. In addition, I find it hard to believe Gogek’s argument because as mentioned earlier he states that the marijuana patients in Arizona are “mostly female”, but later in his article he argues that the “adult pot-smokers are 74 percent male… and are faking pain to get weed”. His second argument contradicts his first, therefore the audience should question his claims before deciding to believe them. The audience should also take into consideration the lack of reasonable evidence that Gogek provides. He implies that he takes the results from flipping a coin 1000 times and says that it “is almost exactly our situation.” Would you flip a coin 1000 times, and would you trust an argument that was formed around words such as “mostly” and “almost”?

LaBenne, Larry. “Smoked Marijuana Is Not Good Medicine.” Drug Topics. 2 June 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

The argument that the article is making is that marijuana not only affects the users it also affects those around them. The article gives an example of a child accidentally digesting a piece of marijuana because it was not properly labeled as a medicine. The speaker’s assumption is that by keeping marijuana illegal, people will stay safe. Pharmacists, have the significant opportunity and responsibility to protect people by educating patients on the facts about the established risks with using smoked marijuana as medicine. As well as applying there unique skill sets to advocate for the development of safe and effective alternative dosage forms and delivery-systems. They also mention keeping marijuana out of pharmacies. Their ending point is that it is bad enough that most of them are already dispensing products on a daily basis that are only said to be safe and effective, when they know the opposite to be true. They often find themselves in situations where they dispense pursuant to questionable prescriptions. They state “We need to get off of this slippery slope before it is too late. If smokable marijuana becomes uniformly legalized for dispensing in pharmacies, what will come next? Let’s not find out.”

The article makes the argument that marijuana should not be legalized due to its affects to those around them. The speaker’s constitution is that be keeping marijuana illegal then people will maintain safe. However, the refutation to that is just because the government makes it illegal doesn’t automatically make everyone safe. Marijuana will always be available on the black market, which includes questionable people that deal marijuana, who do not care who buyers are and have no regulations. There is mention of a child that ingested marijuana by accident, due to improper labeling. The issue with that argument is that marijuana is not always going to be properly packaged due to it not being seen as a medicinal drug. Once it’s seen as a medicinal drugs certain regulation should be put in place to prevent situations like this from happening. The speaker also states that they must inform patients’ effective alternative sources. This is not a convincing argument for those who see marijuana being the last resort for some as well as being much cheaper than pharmaceutical prescriptions. Over all the speaker has a flawed argument. They do use an example and a constitution to try and get their view point across. They state that marijuana affects are harmful to those around users, however, only state one example where it has affected someone other than the user.