Should Marijuana Be Legalized In The United States?
Michael Huebener
 |
Legalizing marijuana in the United States is a topic that many have voiced their opinion on in the past decade. Over the course of the past few years, advances have been made and marijuana has become legal in several states, including Colorado and Washington. The question now is whether or not the legalization of marijuana will benefit or be detrimental to the U.S. Economists deal in the sector of determining if the net benefits of a certain action outweigh the net negative benefits. One of those economists, Ranjit Dighe, provides readers with ideas and examples supporting his pro position on the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. He appeals to his audience's values and beliefs, while retaining his own personal bias in order to let the reader decide for themselves whether or not they think believe marijuana should be legalized.
To get a grasp on how Dighe will appear credible in his argument, we will look at his background and credentials, and how he explains the issue while also appealing to the values and beliefs of his audience. Dighe is a Professor of Economics at the State University of New York at Oswego. He teaches economic history with a focus on financial crises. To understand the way Dighe laid out his article, we need to look at the projected audience and context. This will inform us on which rhetorical strategies he uses and why. The former would most likely be business students, who are taught to present information quickly and informatively, with as few words as possible. Dighe does not drag on stating information that is not relative to the topic at hand, which is his stance on the pro-legalization of marijuana. As this article was published in the Huffington Post, it also has to appeal to a mass variety of individuals as that is a daily publication read by millions across the country. Information has to be clearly laid out, while not sounding too technical where someone would need to be an expert to interpret the information. Dighe accomplishes this in his sentence, “Proponents point to higher tax revenues, "pot tourism," and lower law enforcement costs. Opponents claim that medical costs will go up and workplace productivity will go down” (2014). This sentence briefly states what the article is going to cover, while establishing a non-technical tone that can be understood by readers of all levels. Dighe uses the article to state his view in the debate, and provide examples of how the legalization of marijuana will benefit the U.S. while outweighing the negative costs associated with it. He informs his readers on his stance while appealing to their current culture and beliefs without forcing an opinion on them. He provides clear transitions on his arguments of the effects marijuana will have on this country, and gives his audience the ability to decide for themselves if the U.S should go ahead with the green light, or keep marijuana in prohibition.
Flickr. Maryjane 420, April 19, 2010, Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic
|
A main argument in the debate of legalization is the issue of public safety regarding marijuana usage. Are the effects harmful to humans and will it have a negative impact on the U.S. healthcare system? Dighe’s states “Ample medical evidence suggests that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, and in a recent New Yorker interview even President Obama concurred” (2014). He adds more to this claim with “Marijuana has not been found to be physically addictive, and addiction rates of any kind are lower for marijuana than for alcohol, tobacco and harder drugs” (Dighe, 2014). The New Yorker is a credible source, and the author uses this rhetorical strategy of ethos to show readers he is not just voicing his own personal opinion. This makes the reader open to accepting the information much more as it is backed by scientific studies, as well as credible figures such as President Obama. Another claim made by the author is “as a drug that is typically smoked, marijuana could lead to lung cancer and other health problems, but unlike tobacco cigarettes, marijuana is typically consumed in small doses and has yet to be linked to a single death” (Dighe, 2014). Dighe’s appeal to logos is prevalent here. It is common logic that smoking is harmful to the lungs and may lead to lung cancer, but he refutes that knowledge with the claim that marijuana has never been linked to the cause of a death, which shows the audience it is a safe drug. These statements and viewpoints of the author give the audience a start to deciding if they believe marijuana should be legalized or not.
As an economist who generally writes for an audience geared towards business issues, Dighe uses his knowledge in the field to go in depth regarding the net benefits and net negative benefits of an idea. This is to appeal to his business audience’s desire to see the pros outweigh the cons, and thus make the topic at hand an economical business decision. Dighe first appeals to his readers who are not in the business background by informing them that economics does not just have to include monetary figures. He states, “There is more to economics than dollars and cents” as well as, “An economist would say, go ahead and legalize marijuana as long as the expected net benefit of doing so is positive (and perhaps only if the risks of a net negative benefit are not too high)” (Dighe, 2014). After informing readers of that, he continues his claims of showing that the benefits outweigh the negatives and with that, includes this: “the net benefits of decriminalization appear large, but the net benefits of legalization look much larger. Open and regulated markets are safer than black markets, and our judicial system is clogged enough already with real criminals” (Dighe, 2014). This statement is a strong appeal to logic as it is known that transactions on the black market and those involving drug dealers can be dangerous and turn for the worse. Along with that, America’s prison systems are overflowing with harmless “criminals” who have been arrested for minor possession or usage of marijuana. Dighe adds to the credibility of his argument by including: “Because of the huge personal and social costs of criminalizing the recreational behavior of tens of millions, about a dozen states have already "decriminalized" marijuana” (2014). This augments the economic perspective of his readers and enforces the idea that legalizing marijuana would economically and socially benefit the status of the United States. Comparing these benefits to the negatives will allow the audience to further decide what they think is best for the U.S.
 |
One of the major factors an individual takes into account when deciding a side on an issue, is how it appeals to their emotions. Dighe’s inclusion of pathos in his article is strong and present. In his first example, Dighe explains how his neighbor, who was an elderly man, received a one year sentence in prison after being arrested for marijuana possession. He then furthers that explanation with, “His imprisonment has been devastating to his wife and family, has deprived the community of a good and well-liked neighbor, and has made him a convict or ex-convict forever” (Dighe, 2014). The author uses a personal story to really hammer in the emotional effects that the criminalization of marijuana has on the U.S. This makes Dighe’s audience think, “what if that was my own husband or son?” Of course you would not want a family member imprisoned. This notion appeals to the reader’s emotions and further backs up his idea that marijuana should be legalized. To add to the emotional appeal of his readers, Dighe states “This benefit goes way beyond the criminal justice system's costs of enforcing pot laws. It is about the ability of those 19 to 32 million users, their families, and friends to live normal lives” (2014). (19-32 million being the number of people who smoked marijuana in the past year, according to a nationwide study). This use of pathos adds to the credibility and character of the author by showing that he is concerned about the incarceration and criminal labeling of nonviolent, innocent human beings whose lives are affected by the justice system’s harsh laws regarding marijuana. All these examples bring together Dighe’s argument as to why marijuana should be legalized in the U.S., while still allowing the reader to decide their side of the debate for themselves.
With an elaborate use of rhetorical strategies, Dighe's article is able to appeal to his audience's values and beliefs, while not veering from his focus on why marijuana should be legalized. The author appeals to older generations by not insulting their beliefs that marijuana is harmful and illegal, but effectively conveys his claims without forcing an opinion on his audience. Dighe's article outlines the economic net benefits of marijuana legalization in a manner that outweighs the net negative benefits. He provides personal stories, factual claims, and credible information in order to appeal to ethos, pathos and logos. He does this while sneakily persuading his audience by his easy-going tone and concise method of presenting his information.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment