Rhetoric & Writing

Topanga Knox

Lee Fang

Lee Fang.”The Real Reason Pot Is Still Illegal”. The Nation. Jul 02, 2014. Jul 29, 2015.

In Lee Fang’ s article, “The Real Reason Pot Is Still Illegal”, Fang discusses the connection to Big Pharma lobbyist and the anti-marijuana legalization movement.  Fang claims that pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Purdue Pharma use anti-drug coalitions, such as the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, to advance their own profits. All throughout his article, Fang uses the knowledge of other credible sources like Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a psychiatrist who leads Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing. Fang refers to Dr. Kolodny who is very skeptical of Big Pharma’s involvement in anti-marijuana lobbying believing that its hypocritical of drug companies to remain silent on hydrocodone products, “while investing energy in maintaining marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug” (qtd. by Fang). In his article Fang furthers and expands on Dr. Kolodny statements, using statistics and other sources to tie his argument together. He is a relevant source to this controversy because his research is in-depth and very hard-hitting against the partnerships between marijuana lobbyists and Big Pharma.

Fang is a very credible source regarding politics and investigative journalism. He was a reporting fellow of The Nation magazine, where he mainly covered the financial aspects of politics and lobbying in Congress. The Nation is one of the oldest publications in the U.S, starting in the 1860s as a platform for  abolitionist.  It is widely regarded as a forum for Leftist politics. Fang’s employment for The Nation, and his background in investigative journalism has primed him to be an extremely trustworthy and reliable source for controversial topics such as Big Pharma’s influence in pot legalization.  Fang is also the author of The Machine: A Field Guide to The Resurgent Right.  His article concerning pot lobbying isn’t full of angry statements and unfounded claims, but is very forthcoming with information that can easily be verified. Fang utilizes the words and actions of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and lobbying convoys to strengthen his arguments. All of his experience, thoroughness , and attention to detail showcases how credible Fang is in the arena where politics and industry meet.

According to Fang the relationship between marijuana lobbying and Big Pharma has overlapped in a way that is very counter-productive to the legalization movement. He points out that the CADCA, (Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America), which is one of the largest anti-drug organizations in the U.S. , is “curiously sponsored ” by Purdue Pharma the maker of Oxy-Contin, a highly addictive prescription pill as Fang points out. Fang highlights the issue with such an partnership between Purdue and CADCA, with the commentary of other critics stating,  ” CADCA takes a softer approach with prescription drug abuse and a hardline approach to marijuana”(Fang). In Fang’s mind this is completely biased and further escalates the real drug problem of prescription drug-abuse here in the United States. Fang uses statics from the the CDC, which hails painkillers like Oxy-Contin and Vicodin, as the main proponents of overdose’s in the U.S. today. He finds that more than 16000 American citizens die each year from opioid-based prescription drugs, and consume over 84% of the worlds supply of oxycodone. He makes a point to acknowledge that no one has ever died from marijuana use.  Instead of seeing prescription drugs as a potential problem and realizing the benefits of marijuana, Fang argues that special interest groups bottom line is “the biggest threat to marijuana legalization”(Fang). He claims that significant profits in pot prohibition, is what drives these interest groups to keep lobbying against legalization.

Fang’s research has made him savvy to the Big Pharma/lobbying game. Through his research he found that the Stop Oxy Abuse Act, which wouldv’e relabelled opioid drugs from moderately severe to severe, the two biggest anti-drug firms, CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids, were decidely silent about it. Fang states that those coalitions haven’t endorsed any bills, “that would block the approval of new, stronger painkiller drugs”(Fang).  Moreover Fang noted how the CADCA rallied up its lobbiers to oppose an amendment that would protect legal marijuana growers from DEA raids, and that it passed “with bipartisan support”(Fang). Fang qoutes Erik Altieri, a spokesman for National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws saying that marijuana can provide a great alternative to chronic illnesses, but “pharmaceutial companies don’t want to see another vendor on the market”(qtd. by Fang). The inclusion of this quote stitches together what Fang already believes is a business oppportunity to big pharmaceutical companies.

In his article, Fang gives concise insight into how pot legalization has been sold down the river for more lucrative profits garnered by Big Pharma. He exposes the supposedly moral conduct of lobbying, which gives readers the inside track into what really happens. With his research Fang is able to convey his viewpoints strongly, and dispell the myth that political and industrial lines don’t cross.

Jacobs, Emma. “Wearing a school uniform doesn’t help us learn.” The Guardian.com. The Guardian, 7 Nov. 2014. Web. 29 July 2015.

Emma Jacobs, writer for The Guardian, publishes this argument, regarding school uniforms being more of a priority than children’s education, to shed some light on the school uniforms situation in schools. Jacobs opens up the article with Bradford’s act of sending home around 200 students in one week just for uniform infringement. But, Jacobs argues, the clothes the sent home students were sent home for were not random clothing but simple things like “they were wearing trainers or the wrong cut of trousers.” But, was sending these children home for not having the pristine uniform worth depriving them of their education?

The reason for school uniforms was so that kids wouldn’t pick on other kids because of fashion or trends. Although, Jacobs points out that uniforms keep kids from expressing their individuality. She continues to say, “It takes more than stipulating the right shad of blue shirt to eradicate bullying from schools.” Jacobs stresses that teens are going to find any reason to bully other people if they really wanted to.

Uniforms are also used to “help set high academic standards,” but Jacob disagrees with that claim by giving an example of how Finland’s schools “top international league tables and don’t have school uniform.” The United Kingdom, unlike Finland’s schools, use uniforms but don’t share outstanding academic results as those of Finland.

Pertaining to education, Jacobs states how non-uniform schools are allowed to dress comfortably for major tests, yet schools that enforce strict dress codes still have to wear “a suffocating top button.” “Who knows? I might have got an A* in math if I’d been in my onesie,” jokes Jacobs.

Jacobs addresses the issue all students have with their teachers spending so much time enforcing the school’s dress code that they are taking time away from educating the students academically and put more time educating the students on how dyed hair is a major distraction in the learning field. “Uniforms may work for police officers, soldiers and neo-Nazis, but they have no place in schools,” Jacobs exclaims. She is quite passionate against the idea of students sense of style being a distraction to other students. She ends the post by paraphrasing her main point of the post with, “Kids should wear what they want, their schools should let them – and then everyone could get on with some actual learning.” Schools are meant for learning, and by the title that Jacobs provides, she believes that children should not be sent home for what they are wearing to school because that would defeat the purpose of learning at school.

Mitcham, Mark H. “Recreational Track Meet.” Marijuana Policy Political Cartoons. N.p.,19 Aug. 2014. Web. 30 July 2015.

Mark Mitcham was born in the 1960 and currently a resident in Denver, Colorado. He is a recovering alcoholic, and a self-identified stoner who had a technical career in electrical controls. He started drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco in grade school. Later in his life he began to smoke pot at the age of 16. Finally in January of 1991, he quit drinking  after joining a group call Alcoholics Anonymous. Following the quit to drinking, a year later Mitcham quit smoking  tobacco. Currently he is a personal medical marijuana user, who finds the substance to be quiet beneficial. Therefore his username on the website  is the soberstoner.

In Mark Mitcham’s political cartoon, “Recreational Track Meet,” Mitcham portrays the controversy of different narcotics. Throughout the cartoon, Mitcham compare three well known narcotics like cannabis (marijuana), tobacco, and alcohol to show what the individual does to a person. He add little well known side effect, such as high, out of breath, and drunk and lost. The  consumer safety line represent a finish line how  user of the substance has not resulted in death while the other two substance runners are represented with terrible side effect and number of death within the lanes.

For the joint, Mitcham shows a little more favoritism toward the substance marijuana by drawing it as a winner of the race in the “Recreational Track Meet” cartoon. He shows how cannabis is more beneficial than any of the other substances because it has a low annual death while the other substance has a crap load of annual deaths of 443,000 and 25,000.  Near the finish line of consumer safety, Mitcham place some statistics of annual deaths for the different substances to show how harmful each one is to the current user and ex-user.

As a cannabis user he might be bias, but instead he uses so many different factual information to show his background knowledge about the topic he is trying to get through to his audience. Mitcham gave a caption to the political cartoon on the original website to state what he is shock about as he researched on cannabis, tobacco, and alcohol. Within his research, Mitcham managed to conclude that tobacco has killed more American than any other legal drugs or non-legal drugs.

The reason for this cartoon creation was because he felt a passionate connection to the substance during his struggle of becoming a sober person. Therefore this cartoon is a contribution back to society.

The banning of guns has been a controversy for many years. In Ellen Grace Jone’s article, “Why the US should Not Ban Guns,” Jone’s discusses this controversy of making guns illegal in the United States. At the beginning and end of her article, she mentions how Obama may finally act upon the controversy of gun control. Throughout the article she also informs the audience about many gun related incidents. Jone’s agrees that guns are dangerous but declares that banning them will make matters worse.

Jones is a socio-political writer and commentator. She seems to be a credible source by using and listing many facts about the disadvantages gun control has on communities. Recent news of Obama on gun control is shown in the article , making herself credible to her intended audience. Jones uses many citations where her readers can just simply click on the underlined words and find the sources. By having all these resources to go to makes Jones trustworthy and persuasive to her audience.

In her article , Jones argues that making guns illegal can have the opposite effect rather than the intended effect of having less shootings and murders. By providing many facts Jones conveys her point on the gun issue. One fact she uses is how the ” murder rate is 25% higher than last year” in Chicago where there had been some “draconian gun laws.” Another fact Jones uses is how even in other countries such as the UK have had worse problems after guns were outlawed. She states, “…six years later gun-crime had more than doubled. By 2009 gun crime had escalated by 89%.” These facts show how Jones is able to access useful and resourceful items to back up her reasons on the banning of guns.

According to Jones, ”Prohibition; in whatever form, does not work.”  She references to the failure of banning alcohol the same as the case of banning armed guns. People will still be able to find any guns that they can get their hands on no matter if they are outlawed or not. She then continues to apply her well done research on the issue. Jones states, ” Fundamentally gun control is not for the protection of people but for the preservation of tyrannical entities.”

Furthermore, Jones mentions in the beginning of the article and the last paragraph about how she wishes firearms did not exist to make a deeper connection to her audience. In other words, even if she doesn’t agree that guns should be legal she tries to make her audience understand that by outlawing them would mean more burdens. She herself has to accept the fact that banning these firearms would only increase gun-crimes.

SeaWorld. An Open Letter from SeaWorld’s Animal Advocates [web log post]. SeaWorld. Retrieved from http://seaworldcares.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Engish_Letter.pdf?from=Top_Nav

SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment has repeatedly been accused of mistreating its animals that are held in captivity, specifically its killer whales. In this open letter, SeaWorld addresses these accusations and insists that the animals that are under SeaWorld’s care are receiving the necessary attention they need and deserve.

I personally do not believe that SeaWorld is a credible source in determining the mistreatment of killer whales in captivity. SeaWorld claims that its men and women are “animal advocates,” but at the end of the day, with ticket sales decreasing in response to the constant criticism, SeaWorld will do just about anything it takes to bring back the park’s seasonal customers, even if it requires the occasional bending of the truth to manipulate newcomers into visiting their park. Although the SeaWorld company seems to be a credible source when referring to marine animals, the key points that SeaWorld addresses in its letter do not prove to be credible or well-researched. SeaWorld argues that their company places its animals’ health and safety above all else. However, they lack proper evidence to support their claims that say they care for their animals more than the money their parks bring in.

Recent reports have criticized SeaWorld and its mistreatment of animals, especially its killer whales. This open letter was a way “to set the record straight,” claims SeaWorld. SeaWorld then goes on to list six different facts that have stirred up controversy against their company.

The first fact states that “SeaWorld does not capture killer whales in the wild.” SeaWorld claims that they have not collected a killer whale from the wild for the past 35 years.

Fact number two explains that SeaWorld values the bond between a mother and her calf and claims that the trainers will hand raise the calf in the event that the mother cannot care for it herself. “We do not separate killer whale moms and calves,” SeaWorld urges, except when needed to maintain a “healthy social structure.”

Fact number three: SeaWorld claims to invest millions of dollars in its whales. The company insists that their money go toward “state-of-the-art, multimillion-gallon environments of cooled and filtered water” to ensure their animals’ health and safety.

Fact number four: “SeaWorld’s killer whales’ life spans are equivalent with those in the wild.” SeaWorld suggests that recent studies show that the life spans of their killer whales are comparable to the life spans of the killer whales in the wild.

Fact number five claims that “The killer whales in [SeaWorld’s] care benefit those in the wild.” According to SeaWorld, this is because they collaborate with “universities, governmental agencies and NGOs to increase the body of knowledge about and the understanding of killer whales.”

As stated in fact number six, “SeaWorld is a world leader in animal rescue.” SeaWorld states that their team is always on call and prepared to provide animals with the best veterinary care possible. SeaWorld claims to have rescued more than 25,000 animals and ultimately treat and return them to the wild.

“The truth about SeaWorld is right here in our parks and people,” SeaWorld says to convince us that they are indeed telling the truth. SeaWorld concludes this open letter with stating that they want to provide a lasting impact on their customers and have them gain a greater sense of appreciation for the sea and its life.

Mitch Earleywine, Ph.D. is an associate professor of psychology, at State University of New York at Albany, who believes marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. Dr. Earleywine argues the view of medical marijuana his opponents have. They think that there are other drugs are available for appetite loss, glaucoma, nausea, vomiting, spasticity, pain, and weight loss and there is no need for marijuana. He responds to that remark by stating people differ and there are multiple treatments for almost every human problem. Some patients do not respond well to other medications and need medical marijuana to alleviate their symptoms. He also says that many pharmaceutical drugs create aversive side effects that these patients cannot endure. In addition, medical marijuana is often markedly cheaper than these other medications. He also addresses the concern over marijuana’s impact on respiratory health is easily remedied. Dr. Earleywine says there are no links between marijuana use and lung cancer or emphysema. The associations between smoked marijuana and symptoms like coughing and wheezing can be remedied with the vaporizer. The vaporizer heats the plant so that active ingredients boil off into a fine mist, which contains no tars or noxious gases, making respiratory complications a thing of the past. This article is relevant to the controversy of whether or not marijuana should be legalized because it addresses the benefits of it.

This article is a credible source due to it being on CBS News and the fact that it highlights the view of a doctor who has actually been around the research of medicinal marijuana. Dr. Earleywine does back up his argument with factual evidence as well as research he has done on the topic. The venue being CBS News makes it credible, being that they have been around for so long and are trusted be the country to put out factual news about things happening with in the country. The text does present factual evidence in a responsible manner and you would probably be able to look them up. However he does not cite or credit where he has obtained his information from. The reader would be likely to believe him due to the fact that he is a doctor and they could assume that he has done his research (since it comes with the title).

Dr. Earleywine believes that the “most humane and just approach to helping the sick requires that we continue the availability of medical marijuana”. He mentions in the article how the use of marijuana “has a history spanning over 4,500 years”. Legalization of marijuana is beneficial, although there may be multiple pharmaceutical on the market they could “create aversive side effects that these patients cannot endure” as well as they are “often markedly cheaper than these other medications”. He recognizes that his opponents point to Dronabinol, synthetic marijuana in pill form. He however doesn’t think it’s a good idea due to those who may have trouble swallowing due to nausea. He also addresses the fact that people may fear respiratory health and he responds by saying “There are no links between marijuana use and lung cancer or emphysema.” Dr. Earleywine is for the legalization of medicinal marijuana because of it benefits

Earleywine, Mitch. “Opinion: Medical Marijuana Benefits.” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 5 Mar. 2009. Web. 30 July 2015.