Running head: LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Legalizing Medical Marijuana
Cameron Pickle
English 1010
11/10/11
1
LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
2
Legalizing Medical Marijuana
The topic of whether or not to legalize marijuana has been a big debate in the United
States for the past few years. Many people have decided that it is their right to be able to do what
they want, so they are trying to fight for the right to use marijuana at their own discrepancy. As
this debate has raged on proponents of both sides, each side has risen in order to attempt to
convince the other side that they are wrong. Should medical marijuana be legalized for public
use? This essay analyzes what makes one person’s argument superior to another’s, even when
they are saying the same thing.
In the California Daily Nexus, the article “The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana”
written by Shaeffer Banigan (2009), he states that those who are for legalizing marijuana will
solve the drug war problems. The government spends a lot of money to keep people from using
marijuana, yet 6,000 still do. The article also says that just because marijuana isn’t considered to
be as harmful as other legalized substances, that doesn’t mean that it should be legalized. It
should only be legalized based on helpfulness. The author then goes on to say that medical
marijuana should be able to be prescribed by doctors, but not legalized because it will cause too
many problems. In the other article “Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana” by Robert L.
DuPoint (2010), he says that our drug laws work relatively well, because the laws have reduced
marijuana use over the past twenty nine years. He says that it would cost more to legalize it and
that our drug laws could be even better if the Justice and Treatment systems worked together.
The article says that two thirds of marijuana users are addicted or dependent to marijuana. He
then supports his argument saying legalized alcohol and tobacco causes more problems and costs
way more than they do well. He also says that youth would get a hold of it that it can cause
mental and physical problems. He concludes by saying that legalization would cause increased
LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
3
use and that would harm our nation. Although both DuPoint and Bannigan are opposed to
legalizing marijuana, DuPoint uses his own personal experience and scientific knowledge to
support his claims while Bannigan uses personal opinion. DuPoint’s article was more persuasive
because of his specific examples, background knowledge, and cited sources.
Shaeffer Bannigan used a lot of personal opinion when he wrote his article. He is very
straight forward and is very clear on his opinion of the matter. Bannigan’s text is a newspaper
article that he wrote for the Daily Nexus in California. He talks about some statistics and uses
numbers to try to back up his evidence, but he fails to state where he got this information,
making it seem unreliable. Bannigan uses a lot of appeal to ethos. At one point in the article he
says, “Instead of 15 minute ‘smoking breaks’ for cigarette-smoking workers, employers will
have to implement new hours for pot-smoking workers: 4p.m. to 6p.m., Tuesday through
Wednesday.” (Bannigan, 2009). By saying this he is trying to convince people why it wouldn’t
be right for people to be able to smoke pot because they would have jobs tailored to their needs
just because they claimed that it wasn’t “fair” that they couldn’t smoke pot. Bannigan also tries
to appeal to logos by stating some statistics and numbers, but his problem is that he doesn’t say
where he got this information so we don’t know whether or not it is creditable. DuPoint on the
other hand uses his personal experience from when he was a director on the national institute on
drug abuse and when he was the president for the Institute of Behavior and Health. DuPoint
wrote this web article to share what he has come to believe about marijuana from his life’s
experience learning about drugs and their effects on people. DuPoint’s biggest focus was his
appeal to logos. He uses studies that his institutes conducted to back up his claims and then he
cites these sources so that we can look at them and determine their validity. He also furthers his
appeal to logos by addressing the views of why marijuana shouldn’t be legalized and assessing
LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
4
the validity of their arguments and why his are better than theirs. One instance of this is when he
states, “In another study of seriously injured drivers admitted to a Level-1 shock trauma center,
more than a quarter of all drivers (26.9 percent) tested positive for marijuana.” (DuPont, 2010).
This study was done by DuPoint’s Institute and was cited after the article. DuPoint also
addresses ethos by talking about how it will be easier for youth to access marijuana just like it is
easier for them to access tobacco and alcohol ever since they have been legal.
I decided that the best criteria with which to judge these articles are facts and evidence to
back up claims, reliable sources, clear and cohesive thoughts, personal experiences, credited
sources, no bias, and fluency. Bannigan does use facts in his article to support his claims, but he
doesn’t cite his sources, so that goes against two of my criteria because it isn’t cited and we
aren’t able to tell whether or not the source is reliable. Bannigan does have a clear path of logic
that is easy to follow but the problem with it is the fact that it is all just his opinion because he
has no personal experiences to back up his claims. While Bannigan does try to address the
opposing views claims, he does so with much bias. He just writes off their claims saying they are
outlandish and doesn’t provide any evidence or claims to prove this. DuPoint in his article also
uses facts and evidence to back up his claims but he cites his sources so we are able to go to
them and see that they are creditable. He also has very clear and easy to follow logic, which he
backs up with his background knowledge from his lifetime work in a field that has taught him
about marijuana and other illegal drugs. DuPoint addresses the views of those who support the
legalization of marijuana and then he continues to point out why their views are incorrect with
facts from studies and statistics and his own personal experience.
DuPont’s article is more persuasive because of his ability to present facts, background
knowledge, and specific examples in a more effective manner. This is important because it
LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
5
shows how two people can be arguing for the same side of one topic and yet one can be much
more persuasive by having better skills in writing and rhetoric. Bannigan doesn’t understand
logos, ethos, and pathos nearly as well as DuPoint and this is evident by DuPoint’s far superior
persuasion in his article. This shows us that even though two people could be arguing the same
thing one person can be much more effective than the other. This brings up the thought that there
may be laws being passed or actions happening that are actually bad just because those who
stand for those ideas are better at arguing their ideas.
LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
6
References
Bannigan, S. (2009, April 27). The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana. Retrieved October 10,
2011, from Daily Nexus: http://www.dailynexus.com/2009-04-27/the-case-againstlegalizing-marijuana/
DuPont, R. (2010, April 20). Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana. Retrieved October 10,
2011, from CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223/Why_We_Should_Not_Legalize_Marijuana