A Potent Policy Debate
The two articles being discussed are on the topic of drug legalization, having my own opinion, what I’ve done is become completely open minded on the subject and only will judge the argumentative skills of the authors. Organizing it by article, I will review at the end of each analysis if the reader would have swayed my opinion. Judging on the use of ethos, pathos and logos to determine if the two authors give valid argument on Drug Legalization and the effects it would have on society, I will state which author has a higher chance to persuade the reader. Reading into his background you start to learn Mr. Bennett was a Secretary of Education who is strongly against the legalization of drugs in America. His ideas were all based on personal experience or knowledge learned on the job. Never directly attacking the other party he posts firm facts and educated opinions on what would or could happen if drug policy was changed for the opposing party. He says those who think they are smart enough to understand the whole scenario proposing legalization are looking inside and not outside. Working his way through all three major appeals he comes to the end just like the start of the essay. Confidence however could also strike him in the back for being so sure of his beliefs. Having a presence and a resume to prove it, Mr. Bennett builds a firm idea that can be understood, but that is all it is, an idea. Right from the start he belittles those who use drugs (some of which are deemed intellectual) and at the same time shows signs of pity by saying they could have been a functioning part in society. This idea almost contradicts itself until you delve into his thesis. “I’m sorry to say that on properly intellectual grounds the arguments mustered against our current drug policy by America’s intellectuals make for very thin gruel indeed.”(633) now you realize his tone at the beginning was a sarcastic remark to the idea of people crowned as the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document