From "Voting No on Pot"
- "But I suspect that most of the people eager to vote yes on the new ballot measures aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally." Sanjay Gupta
- Summary: There are several health risks involved with marijuana. Frequent use can damage a person's cognitive ability and short-term memory, and can also lead to depression or anxiety. Marijuana can also significantly damage lung tissue.
- Health benefits: THC in marijuana can help with Alzheimer's, anti-nausea for chemo patients, pain relief for multiple sclerosis patients, and reduce pressure/inflammation for those with glaucoma.
From "A More Balanced View..."
- Pro's: medical benefits, additional tax revenue, courts freed up for more serious crimes, and not more harmful than alcohol or tobacco when used in moderation.
- Con's: stepping stone drug, stoned driving risks increased, morally wrong, and could eventually lead to legalization of harder drugs.
From "Just Say...No?"
- "The effects of regular marijuana consumption are quite different. For example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (a division of the National Institutes of Health) has released studies showing that use of marijuana has wide-ranging negative health effects. Long-term marijuana consumption “impairs the ability of T-cells in the lungs’ immune system to fight off some infections.” These studies have also found that marijuana consumption impairs short-term memory, making it difficult to learn and retain information or perform complex tasks; slows reaction time and impairs motor coordination; increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent, thus elevating the risk of heart attack; and alters moods, resulting in artificial euphoria, calmness, or (in high doses) anxiety or paranoia. And it gets worse: Marijuana has toxic properties that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory system damage, brain damage, and stroke."
- "Marijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug."
From "Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense"
- "...there is an enormous potential windfall in the taxation of marijuana. It is estimated that pot is the largest cash crop in California, with annual revenues approaching $14 billion. A 10% pot tax would yield $1.4 billion in California alone." Joe Klein
- "...and of the economic impact, with thousands of new jobs in agriculture, packaging, marketing and advertising. A veritable marijuana economic-stimulus package!" Joe Klein
From "In Arizona You Can Buy Marijuana..."
- "So the patients have their cards permitting them to buy marijuana in Arizona, but no official place to do so." Marc Lacey
- Summary: Cannabis clubs are beginning to form in Arizona due to the inability of dispensaries to obtain licenses to sell medicinal marijuana. These clubs are unregulated by the law and are mentioned nowhere in the marijuana laws. Their objective is to get patients the marijuana they are entitled to for free - after providing a membership fee of course.
***
I chose to use these quotes and summaries because they all will be useful in this paper. As far as the quotes, I left them as quotes to 1) give the statements more impact and 2) ensure what is being said is being said well. I chose to summarize what I did because I believe my wording may make more sense to my readers than their wording would have.
I'll probably use more than just what I have here - I still need at least three more sources, but for now, this is what I've got :)
November 27, 2011
November 14, 2011
Research Paper Thesis
As I'm sure it is known, I am covering the legalization of marijuana for my research paper. I do take a stance on this, so I'm not sure how to get my point across while still being unbiased...please help!
This is what I have so far: The legalization of marijuana is an ongoing struggle in America that has both benefits and downfalls, each side in great quantity.
I know this doesn't have to be your final thesis, but I'd like to get it out of the way as soon as I can so please get any comments to me ASAP!!
Thank you :)
This is what I have so far: The legalization of marijuana is an ongoing struggle in America that has both benefits and downfalls, each side in great quantity.
I know this doesn't have to be your final thesis, but I'd like to get it out of the way as soon as I can so please get any comments to me ASAP!!
Thank you :)
October 24, 2011
Voting No On Pot
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1552034,00.html
Gupta, Sanjay. "Why I Would Vote No On Pot." TIME.com. TIME, 8 Jan. 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
This article was written by a neurosurgeon who discussed the ballot initiative that was proposed in both Colorado and Nevada for the complete legalization of marijuana (medical name cannabis). In the article he mentioned the possible benefits for the drug's medicinal use and gave true credit to it. Still, Gupta opposes the legalization of cannabis, saying "...marijuana isn't really very good for you." and "...most of the people eager to vote yes...aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's, or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally." He furthers his support throughout the article on his stance against the ballot measures.
Gupta's intent was to inform, and convince those readers to at least recognize or acknowledge, or possibly agree with, the stance against marijuana. His intended audience would be anyone 'on the fence' or looking for information to support their own beliefs.
There was obvious bias. The author clearly favors not legalizing cannabis. He does give mention to positive attributes of the drug-but only in the medical sense. There were no fallacies that I noticed.
This article is one that I could possibly work with. The fact that it was written by a neurosurgeon could help greatly in the supports of not legalizing. We'll see I suppose.
Gupta, Sanjay. "Why I Would Vote No On Pot." TIME.com. TIME, 8 Jan. 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
This article was written by a neurosurgeon who discussed the ballot initiative that was proposed in both Colorado and Nevada for the complete legalization of marijuana (medical name cannabis). In the article he mentioned the possible benefits for the drug's medicinal use and gave true credit to it. Still, Gupta opposes the legalization of cannabis, saying "...marijuana isn't really very good for you." and "...most of the people eager to vote yes...aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's, or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally." He furthers his support throughout the article on his stance against the ballot measures.
Gupta's intent was to inform, and convince those readers to at least recognize or acknowledge, or possibly agree with, the stance against marijuana. His intended audience would be anyone 'on the fence' or looking for information to support their own beliefs.
There was obvious bias. The author clearly favors not legalizing cannabis. He does give mention to positive attributes of the drug-but only in the medical sense. There were no fallacies that I noticed.
This article is one that I could possibly work with. The fact that it was written by a neurosurgeon could help greatly in the supports of not legalizing. We'll see I suppose.
A More Balanced View on Marijuana's Legalization
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm
Messerli, Joe. "Should Marijuana be Legalized under any Circumstances?" BalancedPolitics.org. 6 Aug. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
This wasn't an article per say, but it covered a lot of good points on both sides - it dealt with the possible reasons for legalization and the reasons against it. Although there are more "Yes" reasons covered than "No" reasons, it stays very neutral. Some examples of each would be: for the 'yes' arguments - it could be a source of additional tax revenues and the FDA or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs; and for the 'no' arguments - marijuana is often used as a stepping stone drug (lead to harder drugs like heroin or cocaine) and stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.
Messerli's intent was to inform people about the pros and cons of the ongoing debate about the legalization of marijuana. Swaying them to one side or the other was not at all the case, unlike my previous articles. His intended audience would be anyone who wants to know more about the drug or the debate, or possibly someone who isn't sure where they stand and wanted more information.
There was no bias, it was strictly informative. There were possibilities of fallacies, but Messerli did a good job of wording so those fallacies were avoided.
This would be a pretty good resource for my paper, since it has views from both sides WITHOUT bias toward either one. However, because there were only eight reasons for not legalizing marijuana (as opposed to twelve for legalization), I might decide to do more research on that to even it all out so I can be totally objective.
Messerli, Joe. "Should Marijuana be Legalized under any Circumstances?" BalancedPolitics.org. 6 Aug. 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
This wasn't an article per say, but it covered a lot of good points on both sides - it dealt with the possible reasons for legalization and the reasons against it. Although there are more "Yes" reasons covered than "No" reasons, it stays very neutral. Some examples of each would be: for the 'yes' arguments - it could be a source of additional tax revenues and the FDA or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs; and for the 'no' arguments - marijuana is often used as a stepping stone drug (lead to harder drugs like heroin or cocaine) and stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.
Messerli's intent was to inform people about the pros and cons of the ongoing debate about the legalization of marijuana. Swaying them to one side or the other was not at all the case, unlike my previous articles. His intended audience would be anyone who wants to know more about the drug or the debate, or possibly someone who isn't sure where they stand and wanted more information.
There was no bias, it was strictly informative. There were possibilities of fallacies, but Messerli did a good job of wording so those fallacies were avoided.
This would be a pretty good resource for my paper, since it has views from both sides WITHOUT bias toward either one. However, because there were only eight reasons for not legalizing marijuana (as opposed to twelve for legalization), I might decide to do more research on that to even it all out so I can be totally objective.
October 13, 2011
Just Say.... No?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/legalizing-marijuana-why-citizens-should-just-say-no
Stimson, Charles. "Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No." heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
Abstract: This November, California voters will consider a ballot initiative, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. Scientific research is clear that marijuana is addictive and that its use significantly impairs bodily and mental functions. Even where decriminalized, marijuana trafficking remains a source of violence, crime, and social disintegration. Furthermore, studies have shown that legalized marijuana will provide nowhere near the economic windfall proclaimed by some proponents. The RCTCA addresses neither the practical problems of implementation nor the fact that federal law prohibits marijuana production, distribution, and possession. There is strong evidence to suggest that legalizing marijuana would serve little purpose other than to worsen the state’s drug problems—addiction, violence, disorder, and death. While long on rhetoric, the legalization movement, by contrast, is short on facts.
**
Stimson, Charles. "Legalizing Marijuana: Why Citizens Should Just Say No." heritage.org. The Heritage Foundation, 13 Sept. 2010. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
Abstract: This November, California voters will consider a ballot initiative, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. Scientific research is clear that marijuana is addictive and that its use significantly impairs bodily and mental functions. Even where decriminalized, marijuana trafficking remains a source of violence, crime, and social disintegration. Furthermore, studies have shown that legalized marijuana will provide nowhere near the economic windfall proclaimed by some proponents. The RCTCA addresses neither the practical problems of implementation nor the fact that federal law prohibits marijuana production, distribution, and possession. There is strong evidence to suggest that legalizing marijuana would serve little purpose other than to worsen the state’s drug problems—addiction, violence, disorder, and death. While long on rhetoric, the legalization movement, by contrast, is short on facts.
**
The above is from an article agaisnt the legalization of marijuana. The article focuses on debunking (if you will) the five claims most marijuana legalization-supporters make about the drug.
1. “Marijuana is safe and non-addictive.”
1. “Marijuana is safe and non-addictive.”
2. “Marijuana prohibition makes no more sense than alcohol prohibition did in the early 1900s.”
3. “The government’s efforts to combat illegal drugs have been a total failure.”
4. “The money spent on government efforts to combat the illegal drug trade can be better spent on substance abuse and treatment for the allegedly few marijuana users who abuse the drug.”
5. “Tax revenue collected from marijuana sales would substantially outweigh the social costs of legalization.”
The article does a lot involving statistics and some firsthand accounts involving the dangerous aspects of marijuana. Unlike my previous post, where the author gives credit to the opposing view, this article stays completely within its own topic and not once mentions that the opposing side may have a few points.
The author's intent is to inform people of marijuana's dangers and also to sway its readers to their side of the debate. The intended audience would be those of the 'anti-legalization' stance and perhaps people in need of statistical research as well.
Based on last paragraph's observations it is clear that the article is biased. It is extremely biased against marijuana's legalization. Although I couldn't find any specific fallacies, there may be a few well hidden within the article.
Although this article was extremely biased (for my taste), it could be useful for the opposing viewpoint. Or maybe even in a separate section, focused on both viable and ridiculous solutions to the ethical question faced when considering the topic of marijuana.
Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889166,00.html
Klein, Joe. "Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense." TIME. 2 April 2009. TIME, 16 April 2009. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
This article was written about the legalization of marijuana and its benefits to society. Klein starts out the article with a mention to the generation of baby-boomers and a proposal he made for America: "Give us drugs; after a certain age - say 80 - and we will give you our driver's licenses." Although he starts the article with humor it gets serious quite quickly. Klein talks about the reality of drug laws and how murmurs have started about their irrationality and how some states have already begun to change them; the reisistance from the President and Congress as well; and he also provides an example of a marijuana stimulus package. Klein focuses mainly on the positive side of legalizing marijuana, but does give mention to the other side's view. Still, Klein manages to turn that into a positive focus on marijuana's legalization.
The authors intent was to 1) inform people about the debate and 2) to support marijuana's legalization. Klein's intended audience would be fellow supporters of legalization or those whose opinions he wishes to influence.
Obviously this article was very biased. It clearly stayed on the side of legalization, rather than modification or no change. However, I believe it could still be used effectively in a research paper. There is always information needed from both sides of the argument and this is a prime example of the 'pro-legalization' stance.
This article is a very versatile resource. It was well written and combined personal opinion, fact, and inference very cohesively. Just about anyone interested in the topic could utilize the information in this article.
Klein, Joe. "Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense." TIME. 2 April 2009. TIME, 16 April 2009. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
This article was written about the legalization of marijuana and its benefits to society. Klein starts out the article with a mention to the generation of baby-boomers and a proposal he made for America: "Give us drugs; after a certain age - say 80 - and we will give you our driver's licenses." Although he starts the article with humor it gets serious quite quickly. Klein talks about the reality of drug laws and how murmurs have started about their irrationality and how some states have already begun to change them; the reisistance from the President and Congress as well; and he also provides an example of a marijuana stimulus package. Klein focuses mainly on the positive side of legalizing marijuana, but does give mention to the other side's view. Still, Klein manages to turn that into a positive focus on marijuana's legalization.
The authors intent was to 1) inform people about the debate and 2) to support marijuana's legalization. Klein's intended audience would be fellow supporters of legalization or those whose opinions he wishes to influence.
Obviously this article was very biased. It clearly stayed on the side of legalization, rather than modification or no change. However, I believe it could still be used effectively in a research paper. There is always information needed from both sides of the argument and this is a prime example of the 'pro-legalization' stance.
This article is a very versatile resource. It was well written and combined personal opinion, fact, and inference very cohesively. Just about anyone interested in the topic could utilize the information in this article.
October 7, 2011
Reflection
The sole purpose of this post is to reflect on my six previous posts. I realize that all of them are of high caliber awesome-ness, but this reflection is for more...educational purposes. :P Let's start with the most recent.
"Teen Curfews Challenged" was obviously about teen curfews. I am very opinionated about curfews in general, which brought this topic to light in the first place. However, after looking everywhere for an article to use, I decided the topic is too hard to find information on; therefore, I am not going to go further with it.
"Mental Violence a Crime? In France - Yes" was about an article I covered on psychological abuse. Originally I was looking for domestic violence articles, but I came upon this and found it to be much more controversial. And although I am passionate about the topic, I don't think I'll continue with it. I realize that I could branch out and cover numerous topics of abuse, but I'd rather stay focused on one specific thing.
"Gay-Bashing on Capitol Hill" was an article I thought I would enjoy covering, but ended up doing it ruefully. The more I read the article, the less inclined I was to cover it, but I had already started my post and wasn't going to back out. The only reason I disliked covering the article was because in my opinion it was poorly written.
In "The Morning After (Pill)" I covered Plan B birth control which has always been controversial. It borders on abortion for some and is abused by others. I do enjoy this topic and I think I could do some more with it. It is definitely an option for me to continue with.
"Next in line for a bailout: Social Security" was an interesting topic. After hearing about the possibility of Social Security running out of money by 2042 I was greatly intrigued. Still, I believe I didn't think the topic through before starting research on it. I don't usually like to do topics that have a lot of statistics. They sometimes end up being hard to follow; and even worse, hard to connect with. And once I found this article, I knew I wasn't going to do anything more with it, even though I do think it's a great topic.
**I saved the best for last**
"In Arizona, You Can Buy Marijuana, but Not Sell It" was clearly an article about the legalization of marijuana (scientific name cannabis). This article was probably my favorite to cover. There is tons of information out there on the subject and plenty from either side. It is completely controversial and not as easy to pick a side as one might think. The topic of legalizing marijuana is most likely the best choice for me. There is easily accessible information, there is some statistical information, there is an intriguing aspect to it, and it is something I feel very strongly about.
So now that I've narrowed it down to two topics, it is time to choose...
**Jeopardy Song**
Although the Plan B birth control angle is one that I also like, the marijuana debate has interested me more and for a longer period of time. Marijuana is the choice for me!
"Teen Curfews Challenged" was obviously about teen curfews. I am very opinionated about curfews in general, which brought this topic to light in the first place. However, after looking everywhere for an article to use, I decided the topic is too hard to find information on; therefore, I am not going to go further with it.
"Mental Violence a Crime? In France - Yes" was about an article I covered on psychological abuse. Originally I was looking for domestic violence articles, but I came upon this and found it to be much more controversial. And although I am passionate about the topic, I don't think I'll continue with it. I realize that I could branch out and cover numerous topics of abuse, but I'd rather stay focused on one specific thing.
"Gay-Bashing on Capitol Hill" was an article I thought I would enjoy covering, but ended up doing it ruefully. The more I read the article, the less inclined I was to cover it, but I had already started my post and wasn't going to back out. The only reason I disliked covering the article was because in my opinion it was poorly written.
In "The Morning After (Pill)" I covered Plan B birth control which has always been controversial. It borders on abortion for some and is abused by others. I do enjoy this topic and I think I could do some more with it. It is definitely an option for me to continue with.
"Next in line for a bailout: Social Security" was an interesting topic. After hearing about the possibility of Social Security running out of money by 2042 I was greatly intrigued. Still, I believe I didn't think the topic through before starting research on it. I don't usually like to do topics that have a lot of statistics. They sometimes end up being hard to follow; and even worse, hard to connect with. And once I found this article, I knew I wasn't going to do anything more with it, even though I do think it's a great topic.
**I saved the best for last**
"In Arizona, You Can Buy Marijuana, but Not Sell It" was clearly an article about the legalization of marijuana (scientific name cannabis). This article was probably my favorite to cover. There is tons of information out there on the subject and plenty from either side. It is completely controversial and not as easy to pick a side as one might think. The topic of legalizing marijuana is most likely the best choice for me. There is easily accessible information, there is some statistical information, there is an intriguing aspect to it, and it is something I feel very strongly about.
So now that I've narrowed it down to two topics, it is time to choose...
**Jeopardy Song**
Although the Plan B birth control angle is one that I also like, the marijuana debate has interested me more and for a longer period of time. Marijuana is the choice for me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)