Category Archives: Blog Post 4

Belville, Russ. “Synthetic Marijuana Epidemic Can Only Be Cured By Legalizing the Real Thing”  Marijuanapolitics.com. Marijuana Politics. 10 Aug. 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

Russ Belville’s article “Synthetic Marijuana Epidemic Can Only Be Cured By Legalizing the Real Thing” discusses the recent rise in synthetic marijuana and why it had become popular. A large chunk of Belville’s article is spent discussing the various cases that have happened in recent years and how synthetic marijuana became the popular drug that it is. This is done by the author to argue that the only thing that can stop the spread of marijuana as shown by the title.

The article explains several examples of the effects of synthetic marijuana such as NYPD Commissioner Bill Brantton calling it a “weaponized marijuana.” Furthermore, he describes how  a man in Washington DC was arrested for a robbery and fatal stabbing; the man was said to have had that mentality due to synthetic marijuana. He then moves on to explain why and how people buy the man made drug. He explains that the false aura of legal status surrounding synthetic is why people purchase it. He then follows up with saying that although cities have started to make the drug illegal it is very difficult to do so. He states, “as soon as officials define one particular synthetic cannabinoid as illegal, Chinese chemist just the molecular structure until it no longer matches the illegal definition.”

Belville uses to manipulate the audience into supporting his claim that the only answer to the synthetic marijuana epidemic is legalizing natural. He does this by pointing out the negative effects that synthetic marijuana has and how they have lead to many problems. While I agree with the problems that Belville states, he blinds himself with his own evidence. One example would be how he talks about the problem in Washington DC. This in turn is detrimental since marijuana is legal in the capital city. If legalizing the real thing is the answer and Washington DC have already done how come they are a part of the experiment. Belville defeats himself, he sets up all this evidence to make this big claim yet his own evidence contradicts his own statement. The authors own internal problems is something that could detract from a reader believing his claim.

Another thing that Belville brings up before his argument is this analogy, “Only marijuana prohibition could lead people seeking a natural high…like spike…just as only alcohol prohibition could’ve led to people seeking a buzz to drink denatured methanol.” While at face value the analogy seems true enough there are actually two different ideas. The rise of synthetic marijuana did stem from prohibition of natural marijuana but it is different than alcohol. Prohibition of alcohol was made illegal in the 1920’s but many still continue to drink because they liked drinking. In this part Belville links an article stating that the government poison some of the illegal liquor from being consumed. This is where the two cases differ, synthetic came in as solution to the weed problem but in reality has nothing to do with natural marijuana. On the other hand, the alcohol was still the same thing, alcohol. It wasn’t some man-made product that had no correlation to what people wanted. The author here is trying to compare peaches and bananas just because they were both in the fruit salad.

The most detrimental part of Belvilles argument that is flaw is his diction. The moment that he uses the word “only” he immediately shuts off the possibility of synthetic marijuana having many problems at the root or he is saying that just cutting one root will kill the tree. This certain by definition excludes other problems that come with synthetic marijuana. Synthetic marijuana is cheaper, as the author himself notes, but doesn’t dive into how this is a factor as to why people solve. People who wouldn’t be able to afford the real thing would instead settle for synthetic because of them wanting to seek that high. Furthermore, he makes no mention of the fact of another synthetic buyer, teens. Teens have also been affected by the rise of synthetic and if weed were legal teens wouldn’t be able to buy. Belville is so buying trying to convince the audience that natural marijuana should be legalized that he paints it as the solution to a problem that has multiple roots.

McWhorter, John. “You can’t ‘Steal’ a Cultural: In a Defense of Cultural Appropriation” theDailyBeast. TheDailyBeast.com, 15 July 2015. web. 11 August 2015.

There is a difference between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation, but is cultural appropriation a big deal? In the article “You can’t ‘Steal’ a Cultural: In Defense of Cultural Appropriation” by John McWhorter, he explains how it is not possible to “steal” a culture. I find that argument weak and ignorant.

McWhorter gives an example on why cultural appropriation is not actually “stealing” by describing the situation between white gay men and black women. He is stating that white gay men are not stealing their identities or making them any less of a black women by imitating their gestures and expressions arguing with gay white men and black women, for example, it’s not as if the black women are being left without their culture after the “theft,” or as if gay white men are somehow out there “out-blacking” the women they “stole” from”. Although, the example is true about not really stealing the identity of the women, it is disrespectful. A culture is not something to use because someone thinks it’s fun to “imitate”. A culture is something sacred to a group of people and by “stealing” it, they are taking advantage and mocking a culture for their own entertainment purposes.

McWhorter describes how America has the reputation for being influenced by minority culture, and it is normal for white men and women to use it for themselves. He argues that culture has always been shared by using Elvis Presley as an example. Elvis Presley was influenced by African american music and became an american icon. McWhorter writes “But beware any idea that stories like that mean that whites imitating brown people is, fundamentally, wrong and that whites’ job is to somehow pass by minority cultures with some form of what is sometimes termed “respect,” whatever that would mean in practice” which is stating that white people should not have to give respect to minorities if they want to imitate their culture, because he does not think it is a big deal. His argument is ignorant in the fact that minorities are already oppressed and by not respecting their culture the oppression is deepened. Credit needs to be given where credit is due and if it has influenced, whether it be in the media or an art form culture is a way of life to a group of people not for more minority oppression.

The article helped me realize that people can be very ignorant when it comes to culture appropriation. The person who wrote this is clearly taking this lightly, because he thinks culture appropriation is not stealing a person’s identity or who they are. McWorter is not seeing the issue on minority oppression that still comes with culture appropriation.

Freiling, Nicholas. “Minimum Wage: Good Intentions, Bad Policy.” Values & Capitalism. valuesandcapitalism.com, Aug. 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.

Nicholas Freiling is a blogger who argues that while there is public support for raising the minimum wage, this does not mean that it would be good for the American economy. To get his argument across, Freiling compares the labor of working class people to food being sold in a market. He states that “If the price of milk is capped at $1 per gallon, grocers will soon run out, as customers buy more than they need while prices are low.” Also, he states that “If the price of bread is not allowed to fall below $10 per loaf, grocers won’t be able to sell their stock as consumers will wait until prices drop to buy bread.” Freiling believes that these same ideas apply to the minimum wage and workers. He tells that since the minimum wage is $7.25 now there are more workers that want to work but yet there are not enough companies that can employ them. He concludes his analogy by comparing grocery store shoppers to businesses when he says “There is only so much money to go around, and—like the grocery store’s customers—businesses cannot spend more on wages than they earn in revenue.” He concludes his article by stating that while raising the minimum wage might sound like a good thing, it might not be in the United States’ best interest to do so.

Freiling’s argument against minimum wage is not very reasonable, especially towards the working class. For starters, he uses a false analogy by comparing people’s labor to products at a grocery store. His argument is wrong here because he is dehumanizing workers by comparing them to products that can be bought. His false analogy invokes a sort of sense of human trafficking or prostitution as if a company can walk into a store and decide that it wants to buy a human’s labor. Human trafficking and prostitution are illegal and while Freiling might not have been explicitly talking about the sale of humans, he was talking about the sale of their labor which are two things that are hard to distinguish from each other. Freiling is wrongly making workers seem like products that only serve for the benefit of companies. He completely ignores the fact that workers are human beings who labor to earn a fair living in order to survive.

Freiling takes his false analogy further by making companies appear like humans when he describes companies as being customers of a grocery store. A company is not one single living and breathing human made out of flesh that goes to the market. A company is made up of many people and different sectors that make it function. And while yes, some of the people that do make up the company have gone to the market, they do not shop in the name of their corporation. It is not legal for a single person to buy another person, so it is not right for a company to buy a worker and their labor as if the worker were a product at a grocery store. Freiling’s usage of analogies only weaken his argument and his own image by trivializing the fact that some people work hard and yet they still get paid a low minimum wage.

Shayla Myers

Anna Crozes. “Recreational marijuana from a teacher’s perspective .” The Oregonian: Oregonlive.com. 28 Jul. 2015. Web. 28 Jul. 2015.

In Anna Crozes’ article, “Recreational marijuana from a teacher’s perspective,” found in an Oregonian Newspaper, she discusses the controversy of marijuana and the impact it has regarding her professional career as a teacher and her personal life as a citizen. This former high school teacher, current elementary teacher, speaks up as the voice for the public who oppose the legalization of recreational marijuana. Her main argument on marijuana is that is has become inconsistent with “personal freedom.” Anna defines this as what she personally believes is her right to enjoy public space without breathing in marijuana smoke. Therefore she believes recreational marijuana should be abolished in the state of Oregon. Through the use of rhetorical questioning and amplification, Anna effectively triggers her audience.

To inform her audience what side she’s on, she bluntly stated her position. “I didn’t vote for the legalization of this drug for recreational use” (Recreational Marijuana). Her remark sets the table to convince her readers that she has always had a negative outlook on marijuana. “…Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” (Recreational Marijuana. For Anna, smokers take advantage of what’s handed to them. With the legalization of marijuana, she thinks it gives smokers a reason to do worse things than before.

Although marijuana was legalized, recreationally, to adults 21 years and older, its ease of access worries Anna. “…It breaks my heart the message this law has given to our youth” (Recreational Marijuana). Anna’s use of wording gives her audience a reason to feel empathy towards the children who are being affected by marijuana. By expressing how she feels for the kids shows how she is intentionally trying to persuade her readers that not liking marijuana is revolved around something greater than herself. Marijuana has become a factor amongst teens, and from Anna’s experience as a high school teacher, it’s not for the best.

Marijuana had been legalized in Oregon for about eight months when Anna Croze wrote this article. Since then, marijuana has become more and more relevant to her life in Portland, Oregon. “The word ‘public’ is defined in Webster’s as ‘relating to or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state” (Recreational Marijuana). Stating the definition of the word public right at the beginning of her article immediately and purposely calls out those who smoke marijuana publicly. Anna’s article is nothing more than a plea to bring meaning towards personal freedom by addressing public smoker’s indefinite impact on those who surround them and a need for others, who are against marijuana, to take a stand.

Anna Croze, being the speaker of the article, defines her idea of public space with what she believes is her right to enjoy public space without breathing in marijuana smoke. This effects the article negatively because she only brings light from her own personal perspective, not an entire audience as a whole. This shows essentialization for Anna thinks her definition captures the most important qualities of human rights. Biased for her own definition, she disregards the smokers point of view on what rights they have and instead insist on her own. Her article needs to go over the definition of  human rights. Human rights, regarding marijuana in this country is that we have a right not to smoke it. Her audience shouldn’t trust her opinion for her article is just as immature as the kids, she describes, are.