There are many
interpretations on whether or not marijuana should be legalized. The two
articles that I chose depict the struggle between just that. The first article
is called, “Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana” by CNBC, which clearly talks
about why marijuana should not be legalized. The second article is called “This
Is Why Marijuana Should Be Legal”, by Renee Jacques that implies marijuana should
now be legalized. Each has similar evidence and points but are trying to
convince different demographics.
In the article from CNBC
“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana”, they are talking to all demographics.
They are attempting to sway people who are old, young, have smoked, or haven’t smoked
that marijuana is bad and that it correlates with crime. In the article, they
use surveys and polls to show that the illegalization of marijuana has caused
less to use this drug. Everybody wants to be healthy, so they state, “Reducing
marijuana use is essential to improving the nation’s health, education, and
productivity.” They even compare marijuana to the same bad name category as
cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling. They bring up how some think if marijuana
was legalized, illegal trade of marijuana would stop, but like legal and
illegal gambling this isn’t the case. Also, they target parents by saying,
marijuana is addictive and if marijuana was legalized it would be easier for
children to get it. This next article would argue most of all of these points
but also touch on some similar aspects in different approaches.
The competing article “This
Is Why Marijuana Should Be Legal”, by Renee Jacques explains why marijuana
should be legalized and completely discounts the first article. The demographic
being reached out to in this narrative is politicians, parents, and citizens against
marijuana. They start off by saying how safe marijuana is and that you cannot
overdoses from it. This starts to get the audience thinking about marijuana as
being harmless. It is also compared to alcohol
as in the first article but in a different manner. Now Renee is saying, “In the
same year as no overdoses from marijuana, 38,329 people died from pill
overdoses and 25,692 people have died from alcoholic incidents. This is Renee
trying to point out why drugs are different than marijuana. She focuses on
promoting how safe and harmless marijuana is so people feel safer when around
or talking about marijuana. She adds to this effort by talking about health
too, like in the first article on why we shouldn’t legalize marijuana. Except
that Renee explains about how marijuana benefits your health. She explains how
it helps you sleep, can relieve nausea, loss of appetite, and chronic pain
which would make anyone who has any of these problems jump on the “pot”
bandwagon. As much as these articles contradict one another how do we decide
which one is right and which one is wrong?
Works
Cited
Cnbc. "Why We Should
Not Legalize Marijuana." CNBC. CNBC, 20 Apr. 2011. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.
Jacques, Renee.
"This Is Why Marijuana Should Be Legal Everywhere." The Huffington
Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.
This post does a fairly good job of summarizing talking points from these two articles. Remember that the goal of our class is to recognize and scrutinize persuasive strategy and tactics. How significant is it that both of these articles seem to concentrate on the relative impact on health? Would you suggest that it is because of health benefits that drugs are made legal or illegal? How does it impact the debate when this becomes the dominant criterion?
ReplyDeleteAlso, it can be argued that both CNBC and HuffPo are both left-leaning media outlets with established audiences. Would a more conservative outlet (Wall St Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard) or a more libertarian outlet (Reason) contain the same arguments about this issue? How many other perspectives might apply to this debate? Should the significant commercial potential, and thus tax revenue, of this product (as demonstrated in CO) be considered in the legalization debate? What about questions surrounding convictions, incarcerations, and criminal records; and the dis-proportionality of drug convictions among people of color? Would the target audience be different for any of those arguments? Are any of those ideas more or less important than the health effects related to use of the product?
Your topic selection is appropriate here - but remember that the goal of your paper is not a simple comparison of points from a few articles, but rather a deeper dive into the formation and force of the competing narratives that emerge surrounding an issue. We can look back at history and see points when public opinion would render particular cultural debates "settled" (women voting, interracial relationships, gay marriage... sort of) and we see other debates which continue to rage (marijuana, trans rights, abortion, gay marriage... sort of). Our job here is to develop proficiency in recognizing persuasive techniques, not to join in the debate over the relative merits of each side.
Please let me know how I can help!
so instead of me comparing the different articles, show how both may use the same aspect but to persuade their different views?
ReplyDeleteWhen we've made reference to broad "narratives" that have emerged around various controversies, we are talking about patterns that exist in many articles. When an article is written in favor of marijuana legalization, for example, there will be no mention of the stereotypes about "Reefer Madness," or any mention of disputed concerns like pot being a gateway drug to harder substances. Those sorts of things are, however, often prominently featured in articles which are designed to be critical of legalization.
ReplyDeleteOur class is meant to identify the larger narratives which have emerged around these issues. Individual articles could be said to be consistent with one or another of these narratives. Different people, depending on their personal views or choices, would be more or less sympathetic to these narratives.
Please come see me so we can talk about the direction of your project.