http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/marijuana-legalization
In this article the author states consequences to the possible legalization of marijuana without mentioning benefits, if any. What do you think the author is trying to make us believe? What techniques does he use to make his point seem valid to the audience?
prompt 7: I think this article regarding marijuana legalization does make some valid points as to why the "most commonly used illicit drug" should not be legalized. However, this entire article is a complete one-sided argument and therefore can be considered something like propaganda. While it states many facts about the downsides of legalization, it does not even mention one benefit or positive statistic about the drug. How about that there are ZERO deaths annually directly related to marijuana use. It emphasizes the negative aspect of legalizing and taxing the drug but does it mention the importance of any revenue our government can get its hands on in such troubling economic times? This article does provide knowledge and can certainly influence someone's viewpoint on the subject, however it does not give supporters of the opposite viewpoint any credit for their opinion, which is understandable because obviously they want their point to be the "best."
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ryan's fascinating point about spin:
DeleteExcellent point! I find this sort of thing fascinating. In many cases, the obvious spin of an article takes away from its ability to persuade an audience. It's more important to consider all facts than to bulldoze the opponent while ignoring obvious points.
You only get one chance at using rhetoric to convince others. It's not a two-sided argument; the reader cannot bring points to you to refute. Due to this, the reader will think they've "won" the argument just by bringing up points that work against the argument of the article. It seems to me that this is what you have done. I don't think that's wrong, it just brings to light how incomplete arguments are generally received by their intended audience.
Prompt 6: Because marijuana legalization is such a controversial topic, the author attempts to persuade the audience that marijuana is an awful drug right from the start. He immediately starts bringing information against the use of marijuana to the table. From there, he continues to state facts about marijuana in order to convince the audience against legalization. While this may be effective for older individuals that already share this opinion, most readers will not agree with this. The two comments regarding this post point out the fact that the author's argument is completely one sided and does not acknowledge any positive information about marijuana. This is ineffective because it causes the audience to feel as if they are almost being brainwashed to think a certain thing. Avoiding mention of the medicinal benefits of marijuana makes this article seem as though it is not telling the whole truth. Things are being left out, and the readers are very aware of that.
ReplyDeleteSome of the evidence used could also be argued another direction, making it ineffective. For example it is stated that, Arrests for alcohol‐related crimes, such as violations of liquor laws, public drunkenness, and driving under the influence, totaled nearly 2.7 million in 2008. Marijuana‐possession arrests under current laws in 2008 totaled around 750,000." It is to be assumed that the author meant to say that the amount of marijuana related crimes would rise if it were legalized, however this could also be taken to mean that marijuana is less of a problem than alcohol since it leads to less arrests. Another thing that is brought up is that "Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia." While this may be true, it cannot be said that the mental illnesses are caused by marijuana use. This could also mean that people with mental illnesses are more likely to be frequent marijuana users, the same way that they are more likely to be alcoholics. This type of evidence is not effective because it does not clearly support the author's claims. It makes the article seem as though the author tried to throw in any evidence that could seem even a slight bit helpful to his cause.
The author of this article fails to convince the audience to see his point of view. There are very few claims that are backed up by real evidence, causing the article to fail to persuade the audience.
I really like your point about the author being very one-sided. When reading this article the author bombards you with information relating to one side of the story against legalization and it seems to be creating a very hostile effect. Many of the points made throughout the article can be countered as they are not incredibly strong. When providing opinions to persuade a reader an author should consider the other side of an argument and at least mention points of comparison. Once mentioned the negatives can then be used to promote and defend the author's stance.
DeleteI agree that the argument is very one-sided. Most of the author's arguments are not backed by evidence, and very few counter-arguments are cited. This affects the his ethos negatively.
DeletePrompt 6
ReplyDeleteThis article is a heavily one sided argument against the legalization of marijuana. The fact that there is a lack of recognition of the other side of the argument hinders the validity of the author's point of view. However, the author bring up multiple facts and statistics that force the reader to do some more research on their own. Even if the reader is on the opposite side of the debate, the author's points force the reader to at least re-evaluate the situation.