Pork 1 JOHN PORK Ms. Hosa Vacca Engl 1302 18 March 2025 A Rhetorical Analysis of Ann Coulter’s Argument Against Legal Marijuana In Ann Coulter's column, "It's Not Your Father's Pot Anymore," she combines some good emotion, some good valid points, and her credibility to win people over. She's got this fairly controversial opinion against legalizing weed, and she uses her words to make her point. While she captures the reader’s attention with her zeal and conviction, she does have some gaps in her argument, such as using a lot of fear and failing to deal with counterarguments. How she chooses her evidence is really engaging in persuading the reader, but it does make the reader wonder if it's actually very credible. Coulter starts off by getting tough with emotions to make her audience really connect with her. She paints a fairly dramatic picture and uses some scary words to make weed look like this huge issue, that it's like a weapon of mass destruction that's in the wrong hands. She writes of addiction, crime, and health issues that unnerve people. By focusing on the worst scenarios, such as violent crimes that have supposedly been caused by weed, she convinces readers that legalizing it will merely open up everything to chaos and hardship. But you see, her emotional tone tends to mess with her argument. Instead of examining other perspectives or looking at good things around legalizing it, she holds on to the craziejest things, so her arguments tend to sound biased. By avoiding looking at the bigger picture of weed policy and all that good that can Pork 2 potentially come with it, she loses some credibility because it seems like she does not want anyone else's input. The author also utilizes logos, by bringing up stats and studies. She brings up stats on increasing crime rates, more hospital visits, and mental health complications in states that have legalized weed. It lends her argument such a fact-based and logical tone with those numbers. But here's the thing: she's cherry-picking her data to find what supports her side and ignores anything that says something else. She brings up studies that associate lower IQs with people who have used weed but she goes over other research that refutes or refines those findings. All this cherry-picking of data completely ruins her argument because you wonder if she's presenting the full picture. If she had examined other ways to interpret the information or presented studies with opposite findings, her argument would have been much stronger. Instead, by presenting no counterarguments at all, it seems as if she is using those numbers to twist stats to her advantage rather than letting those numbers present the actual picture. Ethos, is another key part of Coulter’s argument. She writes with confidence and presents herself as knowledgeable on the topic. Her writing style is direct and assertive, which makes her seem like an authority on the issue. She uses a tone that suggests expertise, reinforcing her position as someone who understands the topic well. However, she does not cite many reputable sources, which hurts her credibility. Without strong sources to back up her claims, readers may doubt whether her argument is truly based on facts. An argument that relies heavily on assertion rather than verifiable evidence risks coming across as an opinion rather than a well-researched analysis. Coulter assumes that her audience will accept her expertise without question, but for skeptical readers, the lack of reputable sources makes her argument weaker. Pork 3 One of the worst things about Coulter's column is that she completely plays off of people's fears. She constantly says that legalizing marijuana is part of some grand plan to ruin society and make people stupid forever. This sort of rhetoric just freaks people out rather than encouraging them to actually consider the issue. By tossing around so much fear, she makes a complex issue seem much more black and white than it actually is, and she may scare off readers who’d actually be interested in having a serious discussion. Sure, fear-based arguments can get people upset, but they don't have any actual substance. It’d be much better if she were to take a more balanced approach that considers both the dangers and potential benefits of legalizing it. Instead, she simply portrays it as a clear threat to American society, closing off any opportunity for actual discussion and making everything even more polarized. Coulter, completely disregards opposing arguments. A good argument would consider other people's opinions and address those arguments. But Coulter hardly considers other perspectives or even suggests where she may be incorrect. It sort of makes her case look unbalanced and not particularly persuasive to people who would like to have a good discussion of the issue. If she really wants to make her case more compelling, she would do well to discuss studies that support the medical applications of marijuana and actually respond to objections rather than waving them off. By sidestepping other people's thoughts, she's losing the opportunity to make her case much more persuasive and reach more people. Additionally, Coulter's writing is fairly combative and sort of snobbish. She makes herself appear as if she knows everything and dismisses other people's opinions without actually examining them. Sure, that might sell to people who already think like she does, but it shuts off those who are open-minded and do support legalizing it. If she had relaxed a bit and even been slightly respectful, her case would have been much more persuasive. Instead of acting like she's Pork 4 the sole sage who knows it all, she could have driven her point home more by actually engaging with critics and illustrating that their arguments do not stand up. This entire thing of refusing to examine other people's ideas damages her credibility and undermines her case to anyone who's not already agreeing with her. Also, her reliance on extreme examples makes her argument come across as somewhat sensational. Crime and addiction are serious business, but claiming marijuana is the primary cause of violent behavior is a bit of a stretch. There are tons of variables that contribute to crime and societal ills, and simply blaming marijuana makes the whole situation far too simplistic. Rather than attempting to scare people with over-the-top rhetoric, Coulter could’ve had a stronger argument by presenting a more balanced view of how marijuana actually impacts things. By only bringing up the very worst instances, she may lose a bit of credibility with people who understand the topic is much more complex than she’s portraying it to be. Additionally, Coulter presumes that the audience is already on the same page or are going to accept her arguments without question. But that's not gonna win over people, If she had tried to persuade people who were open to persuasion, she could have included some more compelling arguments. Instead of presenting her opinion as if it's right and everyone else is crazy, she could have acknowledged why people do support legalization and then responded with rebuttals. To sum it up, Coulter's article has some persuasive moments but also a lot of problems. She really nails the emotional appeals, logical arguments, and her own credibility to engage readers. But the fact that she relies so heavily on fear-mongering, cherry-picks facts, and ignores counterarguments damages her overall argument. Her passionate tone might resonate with some people, but if she took a more balanced stance, her argument would pack more punch and be much more persuasive. Rather than just pulling at heartstrings and picking and choosing Pork 5 evidence, if she addressed counterarguments and presented a larger picture, it would make her argument much more credible. Ultimately, her argument doesn’t go deep enough to convince critical thinkers, and though it may reinforce what some already believe, it doesn’t do much to draw in those willing to consider new ideas. If she had included a more nuanced discussion and acknowledged the complexity surrounding marijuana legalization, her argument could have been much stronger and more accepted by a larger audience. Pork 6 Works Cited Coulter, Ann. It’s Not Your Father’s Pot Anymore. AnnCoulter.com, www.anncoulter.com.
