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.
No comments:
Post a Comment