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.
Its good that the Article comes from a neurosurgeon for it is a more reliable source. its true that many who support legalization of marijuana do just wanna get legally stoned. which i find somewhat funny. its also kind of harder for them because they dont really have alot to back up their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteLike Kaitlin said, I believe that hte fact that it is written by a neurosurgeon is extremely beneficial. You mentioned that there were few fallacies, but I disagree. If the doctor noted "...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." I think that that statement is writhe with inaccuracy. If I look at the people in my life who support the use of Marijuana, many of those people are in fact NOT stoners, but people who look at the benefits of having the drug become more attainable. By allowing the drug to be put on the shelves the "Wow" factor, or the ... I can't think of the word... Like the idea that it isn't a big deal to have this anymore because it is legal... Well, whatever that word is, haha, that word is gone. Most of the people I know who support the legalization simply see the benefits of no longer having it be illegal. PLUS legalizing it would get thousands upon thousands of prisoners out of the jail system which would free up space for actual criminals.
ReplyDeleteI ranted... sorry. :)
Looking back on my post, where I said I didn't notice any fallacies...after you mentioned that, I see what you mean. I might have just grazed through some of those finder points and missed that completely.
ReplyDeleteJUST LIKE OUR BIO ETHICS DEBATE! Yeah I know what you mean...and I love how that was all to back up your statement about that quote being a fallacy. You DID rant, but I enjoyed it :)
Thank you by the way. Both of you :)