Rhetoric & Writing

Ludwig, Mike. “Marijuana Legalization Debate Turns Heads on Campus.” Alt-Press Watch. Proquest, 28 Jan. 2008. Web. 19 July 2015.

Mike Ludwig is a writer and investigative reporter for Truthout, a nonprofit news organization in the United States. In this article, Ludwig writes about the “Heads vs. Feds” debate that took place at Ohio University. The debate was between Steve Hager, former editor for High Times (a magazine dedicated to the fight for marijuana legalization), and head of New York City’s Drug Enforcement Administration, Robert Stutman. They disputed the legalization of marijuana and its pros and cons on society.

Ludwig begins by saying that Hager motivated the students of Ohio University to become activists for the cause of legalizing marijuana and suggested that they become serious about it if they really want to see a change. According to Ludwig, Hager argued that the positive factors of marijuana outweigh the negatives and that marijuana can have valuable medicinal and spiritual properties. Ludwig reports that Hager thinks the black market encourages corruption and drug trafficking, and with the legalization of marijuana, the two of these would slow if not completely end.

According to Ludwig, Hager’s opponent, Stutman, disagrees and claims that marijuana should not be made legal. The reason behind this being that “legalizing marijuana validates a drug that intoxicates, impairs depth perception, and can lead to health problems such as lung cancer.” Seeing that marijuana can be tremendously harmful to our bodies, Stutman insists that America is not ready to repeat the mistake that was made with tobacco and alcohol.

Ludwig says that both Hager and Stutman agree that drug use on its own should not warrant a prison sentence, however, Stutman does not side with the use of marijuana recreationally. Hager concludes his argument with, “We have built the largest prison system in the world in my lifetime. I think doing 10 years in the prison system is worse for you than smoking a joint.”

I found this article helpful because the two debaters certainly have “the credentials for their respective positions,” as Ludwig states. Both of them are experts in their fields and have contrasting opinions on the legalization of marijuana that are more unique than those I had read in other articles. It was interesting to me to hear that DEA Officer Stutman believed that if marijuana were to become legal, it would add onto the list of mistakes America has made, the other two being alcohol and tobacco. I think this source could be of use to those who are thinking of writing on how marijuana affects society as a whole.

Gray, Eliza. “The Drug Threat in Plain Sight.” Ebscohost.com. Time. 21 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Jul. 2015.

Eliza Gray, a Time Magazine reporter, investigates the substitute for pot which is synthetic marijuana.  Gray covers the the creation of the the designer drug, the various reason for it’s use and the harmful effects it has on people. More importantly, she highlights the law’s losing battle with keeping the drug of the street.

A claim made by Gray, synthetic marijuana is a becoming the most complicated drug problem beating out others such a cocaine and heroin. Gray attributes this to the drug being able to be sold in public because variants aren’t illegal although they attempt to mimic the “high” of cocaine and marijuana. To properly illustrate the harmful effects of synthetic marijuana Gray tells the story of Jesse, an 18 year old, that was smoking on the various names of synthetic marijuana, K2. According to the story Jesse’s mom notice there was something weird about her son but disregarded it when he told her it was “like legal marijuana.” Gray’s point here is that many young people think that it is a form of legal marijuana but don’t know all the chemicals that are sprayed into it. Along with this Gray marks the fact that these things along with the cheap price and not showing up on a drug test as the reason teens buy synthetic marijuana. Inversely, Gray remarks that while people argue about the status of marijuana as a gateway drug that it is relatively safe and a reason that the Colorado and Washington movements were successful. The author brings this up in order to emphasize the harmful effects such as vomiting, nausea and excessive heart rate.

Gray also gives insight into how law enforcement struggles to keep the harmful substance off the streets, such as outlawing things that replicate the effects of marijuana and the many things that sellers do to keep it “legal.” What Gray is saying that while the government is making the chemicals that comprise the drug illegal the chemist tweak it so it can purport to be “legal.” Furthermore, Gray points out that most of the people buying synthetic marijuana, under names such as K2, Spice or anything else, are young teens that could not buy cigarettes or alcohol. Gray makes light of how even if marijuana is made legal it still wouldn’t be accessible to teens so they resort to the designer drug. Gray also noted that many people aren’t aware of the difference between pot and synthetic pot. Grey affirms this by saying that a man in Colorado, where weed is legal, bought some synthetic brand that had the same name as real brand. Gray  remarks that dealers are using the rise of legal, natural marijuana in order to push their deadlier version.

This article is helpful to me because I am going to write about the how synthetic and legal marijuana interact. In the article Gray writes about the harmful side of synthetic marijuana and how it’s troublesome. This article would not only be help to my peers seeking to write about synthetic marijuana but also to those looking to write about how other drugs effect and are effected by the legalization of marijuana.

Brown Elizabeth. “Legalizing Medical Marijuana Has Benefits.” Factiva. U-Wire, 14 July 2015. 19 July 2015. <https://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=UWIR000020150714eb7e000y4&cat=a&ep=ASE>.

Elizabeth Brown, a staff writer at the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana, reports medicinal and economic benefits of marijuana. Her main focus is to relieve the unnecessary pain of those individuals that can be treated with cannabis. She agrees with critics that the legalization of marijuana will have many affects, however she argues these results will vary from person to person and may not negatively affect some at all. Brown believes that the United States will experience more advantages than disadvantages by making marijuana a legal drug.

Brown could be viewed as a bias source because she has a close friend that struggles with epilepsy. The writer learns from drugabuse.gov that the nervous system disorder epilepsy can be treated by Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a primary ingredient in a cannabis plant. This writer’s relationship with her friend impacts her position on the legalization of marijuana. Brown writes, “Knowing that [marijuana] could prevent her [friend] from experiencing the physical and emotional pain of seizures is extremely relieving”. She deliberately conveys actions that could go wrong for people like her friend if marijuana usage continues to be prohibited, actions as simple as driving or walking.

The writer does not ignore the negative effects that marijuana has on some individuals. In fact she writes that marijuana, “like any drug, it will affect people differently.” Again, Brown’s desire is that relief is provided to patients that suffer from mental disorders and other medical illnesses. In addition to alluding to the poor consequences of marijuana usage, she mentions that the legalization of marijuana would “reform criminal penalties for marijuana”, this in turn would grant economic gains. Brown evidently believes that giving these offenders an opportunity to start fresh will bring wealth to our nation.

According to Elizabeth Brown, “the economical benefits, beside the medicinal benefits, outweigh the possible risks of the use of marijuana.” The core of Brown’s argument is that marijuana would do more good than bad to our nation if it was legalized. She emphasizes this point by exploring medical and economic matters regarding marijuana. She explains how smoking marijuana could save epileptic patients from having seizures at inopportune moments and how it could decrease the accidents of others that have mental illnesses. Brown also describes how the United States could better the economy by amending laws that penalize offenders for possessing marijuana. These changes would ultimately bring in an increasing flow of money into our nation.

This source is valuable to my research because it provides another viewpoint on whether or not marijuana’s effect on the brain is beneficial to the economy of our nation. Unlike the last source that I researched, this one highlights the positive repercussions of marijuana usage. It allows the readers to develop their own opinion on marijuana’s overall medical and economic contributions. If other students that are researching the medical effects of marijuana are looking for a genuine argument, then this source would be excellent because the writer’s bias position makes the argument more sincere. Elizabeth Brown’s biasness enhances her stance on why she believes legalized marijuana has benefits.

Fuchs, Erin. “Why It’s Crazy To Try To Set DUI Limits For Marijuana.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 19 July 2015.

Erin Fuchs is the senior editor at the “Business insider” website and is the author of this current article. In the article published on Business Insider.com on December 19, of 2013. She proclaims that having a law that restricts the amount of weed in you while behind the wheel is unnecessary. She specifically states that the amount of THC in your blood that is recommended for the legal limit is too low.

According to Ms Fuchs, Colorado passed a law saying that presumes that you’re too high to drive if you have 5 nanograms or more of THC per milliliter of blood, even though there is insufficient evidence to tie that level of THC to impaired driving. When it came to marijuana, the policy has never been driven by science in the country. So there has never been a presumption that a certain level of THC in your blood means your high, Fuchs Expresses. She then exclaims that now that this law is in effect, people are goanna be more afraid to drive because even though they may have not even smoked, then could still be considered high because their THC levers are above the legal limit. Even if you took it a while ago, it is possible to still have the marijuana in your system depending on how long it takes you to metabolize it.

Fuchs then reports that several states have several DUI laws concerning driving while intoxicated from drugs, and some states like Arizona and Oklahoma have a zero tolerance laws, which means if you’re caught driving under the influence than you’ll be arrested on the spot. Yet, marijuana advocates say there simply isn’t enough evidence to link certain THC levels to impaired driving.

However, Fuchs reports that, there is some evidence that it’s not a good idea to drive while high. According to an interview with Dr Marilyn Huestis, when people smoke marijuana they lose some of their peripheral vision and can also affect your perception of time. This in turn can affect your ability to make decisions, multitask, and driver’s ability to hold the vehicle in the middle of the road. Ms. Fuchs also reports that experiments where run by the Washington TV station in which people volunteer to get high on pot and then drive on a course with a safety instructor. The results; one drove too slowly, while another almost hit the stations photographer. Despite these sign that driving high might be bad, even the federal government says there’s a lack of evidence that ties a certain level THC with a certain degree of impairment, according Ms. Fuchs.

So when it comes to figuring out how much is an appropriate amount of THC levels, Erin Fuchs still believes that it’s unnecessary to have such a limit. She proclaims that some people will be able to drive perfectly at a certain level of THC intoxication, while others may be impaired – so It’s inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone.

Atkinson, Korri. “States spend $3.6 b8illion on racially biased marijuana arrests.” Proquest.com. New York Amsterdam News, 20  June 2013. Web. 18 July, 2015

Atkinson Khorri a journalist and author for the New York Amsterdam Newspaper, writes on a report from the American Civil Liberties Union named “The War on Marijuana in Black and White” highlighting the U.S. biases arrests on marijuana. Khorri juxtaposes the enormous amount of arrests of African Americans compared to those of whites. He also indicates  that there is a huge amount of money being spent to regulate marijuana laws and for incarcerating convicts when the U.S could be making profit from marijuana if it was to be legalized. Khorri emphasizes with the ACUL call for marijuana legalization to eliminate racial biases.

Based on the report between 2001 and 2010 there were more than seven million arrests for marijuana possession in the U.S. with more than 800,000 arrests in 2010 alone. According to the director of ACLU Criminal Law Report Project, state and local governments have aggressively enforced the marijuana law selectively against black people and communities. The report demonstrates that Iowa has the greatest racial disparity arrest, although African Americans make up only 3.1 percent of the population, black Iowans are 8.3 times more likely to be arrested. For this reason the ACLU believes that police officers are being bias towards the whites and unfairly arresting more blacks than whites when it is obvious that African Americans don’t make up most of the population. To back up his argument Atkinson uses the analyses from the New York Civil Liberties Union, in which according to the analyses “Brooklyn and Manhattan have the highest ratio disparities in arrests in New York State, where Black New Yorkers are nine times more likely to be arrested.” As pointed out by the NY CLU, blacks are being handled unfairly compared to the whites, whatever happened to equality?

The author describes the useless amount of money being wasted on marijuana laws when legalizing marijuana can “…Save millions of dollars that are being used to enforce marijuana laws.” He indicates New York has spent more than $600 million enforcing marijuana with Black New Yorkers 4.5 times most likely to be arrested. The report suggest a regulation and a tax on marijuana to eradicate the unfair, specifically on racially targeted enforcement laws. In other words, the Union wants legalize marijuana to make profit and not waste millions of dollars on enforcing laws. Not only will it remove the racial bias that is present all over the U.S. including in large and small counties, cities, and rural areas and in high and low income communities, but it will help the economy grow. To support their argument the ACLU concludes that states will spend $200 billion dollars enforcing laws over the next six years if bans on marijuana continue.

The information obtained by the author can be useful to those supporting the legalization of marijuana. According to a survey 52 percent of Americans support the legalization while 45 percent oppose it.  The data obtained by the ACLU is useful to demonstrate the controversies linked with marijuana such as crime and racism.

Schatz, Bryan. “LIFE FOR 2 BAGS OF WEED.” Mother Jones July/August 2015. ProQuest. Web. 19 July 2015

Bryan Schatz is a magazine editor, journalist, and a former teacher. He covers social issues, foreign affairs, and subcultures for various news publications. In his article, Schatz argues against the cruel sentences given to the many who are charged with minor marijuana offenses. Schatz begins his argument by stating how there are Americans that are smoking freely, but there are still those who are rotting in jail because of a little pot. Schatz goes on to describe the situation of a man named Fate Vincent Winslow.

Winslow is a homeless man who is staying in the poor part of Shreveport, Louisiana when he is approached by a guy and he asks him what he’s looking for, Schatz describes. That guy, an undercover cop, says he wants “two dimes” and promises a five dollar commission. For Winslow, five dollars means a good meal so he brings the guy two bags of marijuana, worth $10 each, and finds himself in the backseat of a squad car. Three months later, Winslow is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole, Schatz concludes.

According to Schatz, hearing about Winslow’s punishment-to die behind bars for a transaction involving a miniscule amount of pot is very hard to believe, but not unique. Schatz argues that every year, more people are arrested for pot possession than violent crimes and around 40,000 people are currently serving time for offenses involving a drug that has been decriminalized or legalized in twenty-seven states and Washington, DC. Even as Americans’ attitudes toward marijuana have mellowed, in Schatz’s words, “the law has yet to catch up, leaving pot offenders subject to draconian sentences from the war on drugs.” Schatz points out that despite the fact that society has become more accepting of marijuana usage, the government and criminal justice system has yet to do something about the lives that are wasting in jail. He acknowledges this claim by referencing a quote from a criminal defense attorney that admits that although the world has changed, there are still people sitting in prison for such minor offenses.

Schatz claims that most pot offenders are casualties of drug laws that may treat marijuana like hard drugs, as well as “three strikes” laws that do not distinguish between armed robbery and selling a dime bag. Schatz argues that some federal prisoner serving time for crack cocaine offenses can have their offenses shortened because of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, but there is no such reform for marijuana sentences. For now, Schatz concludes, that his sole hope for marijuana lifers is clemency. However, Schatz writes that clemency granted by the president or a governor is rare.

I found this source useful because it provides a viewpoint that gives various reasons as to why minor marijuana offenses are an issue when it comes to sentencing in the criminal justice system. It made a lot of sense and was very insightful. I believe this source could be valuable to anyone who is not sure what happens to those who are charged with marijuana possession. It can lead to a life sentence just for having a drug that is even legal in other states.