More handpicked essays just for you.
Brief argumentative essay about war on drugs
Brief argumentative essay about war on drugs
Brief argumentative essay about war on drugs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Growing up in the United States means going through some type of anti-drug program.
Kids start being introduced to drugs at a very young age because the first interaction with them is being told not to do any of them. Most kids have no idea what drugs are until this program is introduced in elementary schools telling kids not to do drugs. In “There’s No Justice in the War on Drugs”, Milton Friedman talks about the injustice of drugs and the harsh reality of being addicted to drugs, and the causes or side effects that come along with them. The author clearly argues the “war on drugs” and uses analysis and data to prove his argument. The author agrees that the use of government to keep kids away from drugs should be enforced, but the use of government to keep adults away from drugs, should not be enforced. The author has a clear side of his argument and the audience can clearly see that. He argues against the “war on drugs” claim that President Richard M. Nixon made twenty-five years ago, he adds ethos, logos, and pathos to defend his argument, and uses a toulmin
…show more content…
Friedman does however include a fallacy, “Though most customers do not live on the inner cities, most sellers do” (569). After adding this sentence in his paragraph, he does not further explain this or adds how he knows this information. His least effective element of this essay is his lack of examples and sentences. The author kept it short and simple when writing this essay. Except, his position is intense which is why he should’ve included at least some more examples. Some of his main points on why he disagrees with government enforcement on drugs, have five or less sentences. This is very little for his position. He should’ve added a few more sentences and examples to further strengthen his
In William J. Bennett’s address entitled “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” Bennett maintains that the drug problem in America can be ultimately solved. In my opinion, the drug problem in America is one that cannot be completely resolved to the point where drug use no longer exists in America, but drug abuse can be alleviated. One effective way to do this would be to legalize the personal use of drugs that are more common and less potent (like marijuana), and to stop wasting time and tax dollars punishing minor offenders.
In one portion of the documentary, we see an excerpt from one of President Richard Nixon’s speeches on how he feels about America’s ongoing battle with drug abuse. In the speech, he declared that this so called “war” with drug addiction needed to be handled while proclaiming that drug abuse was “America’s public enemy number one”. Years later, the war on drugs has only become even more of a controversial issue in the United States with the consequences spanning and reaching particular groups and hinting that they are more so involved than others.
To sum up, Gecelovsky successfully strength his major claim by appealing to logos and ethos, and using cause and effect methods. From my perspective, I think that Gevelovsky did an excellent job on his article to persuade the drawbacks of Canadian policy on drugs because he uses effective rhetorical strategies to enhance his main argument. Although Gecelovsky did not list statistics of the marijuana in America, and the policies that the government of the United States used to solve this problem, he also clearly state the lack of control of the Canadian legislation on the marijuana problem. Also, it is important to limit marijuana smuggling because it is a potential threaten to citizens. Thus, the rhetorical analysis is crucial to indicating and sufficiently analyzing the author’s main claims and argument.
Husak attempts to discuss drug use legality aside in order to prove his argument. He looks at drug use in a three fold manner exploring; the reasons Americans use drugs, the justifications behind the war on drugs, and a discussion on which drugs, if any, should be affected by the law.
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
“[The war on drugs] has created a multibillion-dollar black market, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world,” noted Eric Schlosser in his essay, “A People’s Democratic Platform”, which presents a case for decriminalizing controlled substances. Government policies regarding drugs are more focused towards illegalization rather than revitalization. Schlosser identifies a few of the crippling side effects of the current drug policy put in place by the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s to prohibit drug use and the violence and destruction that ensue from it (Schlosser 3). Ironically, not only is drug use as prevalent as ever, drug-related crime has also become a staple of our society. In fact, the policy of the criminalization of drugs has fostered a steady increase in crime over the past several decades. This research will aim to critically analyze the impact of government statutes regarding drugs on the society as a whole.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
In 1971 on June 17, President Richard Nixon delivered a special message to the Congress on drug abuse prevention and control. During the presentation, Nixon made it clear that the United States was at war with this idea of drug abuse. What baffled Americans then, and still baffles Americans today, is that we are at war with our own nation with drugs; it is not some foreign affair like the media tends to focus on with Mexico. Nixon stated that at the time of his speech, what was implemented to control drug abuse was not working…“The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. I intend to take every step necessary to deal with this emergency, including asking the Congress for an amendment to my 1972 budget to provide an additional $155 million to carry out these steps. This will provide a total of $371 million for programs to control drug abuse in America.”(Wolleey and Peters) Since the publicizing of the term “War on Drugs” in 1971, it has been used by many political candidates in elections over the years. In the movie, it was stated, “ every war begins with propaganda …[and] the war on drugs has never been actually on drugs… [Additionally] drug laws are shaped less by scientific facts, but more by political [reasoning].” (Jarecki) The movie, The House I Live In, directly relates to certain themes and terminology that were discussed in Martin and Nakayama’s Intercultural Communication in Contexts book, that have been used in class. Through the analyzing and comparing of The House I Live In and Intercultural Communication in Contexts an individual can begin to localize the ideals behind this everlasting war on drugs; some ideals focus on terms from the text like ethnocentrism, diversity training, and culture while ...
Chapman’s supports his argument by trying to prove that people will not be tempted to try illicit drugs just because they are legal, but fails to make his argument clear regarding what kind of drugs he is speaking about. Chapman’s passage focuses only on a few drugs like cocaine and marijuana, but his implicit conclusion sounds like he wants all drugs to be legalized. Not only is his argument unclear, Chapman fails to provide unbiased evidence, statistics and information that would convince us that it really would be best for society if drugs were made legal. Overall, the argument presented in this passage fails to illustrate both sides of the argument, and convince readers that drugs should be
It shows that Hard is well versed in the topic of drug war and drug addicts. Hari has a good use of rhetorical analysis to support his claim in this example. In this example Hari appeals to logos with this argument because he uses evidence and facts that support his main argument. A perfect example of logos is when Hari mentions that ever since Portugal has legalized all drugs and invested more money on reconnecting drug addicts to society, injecting drug use has fallen by 50 percent. This is a solid factual evidence that makes the reader have a positive reaction toward the authors
In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed. Additionally, I will highlight and evaluate the influences acting on individual legislators' decisions to continue support for these ineffective policies as a more general demonstration of Congress' role in the formation of our nation's drug policy strategy. Finally, I will conclude this analysis by outlining the changes I feel necessary for future progress to be made. Primary among these changes are a general promotion of drug education and the elimination of our current system's many de-legitimating hypocrisies.
As described in novel The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference the course of any trend, movement, social behavior, and even the spread of a virus has a general trend line that in essence resemble a parabola with 3 main critical points. Any trend line first starts from zero, grows until it crosses the first tipping point, and then spreads like wildfire. Afterwards, the trend skyrockets to its carrying capacity (Galdwell, 2000). Then the trend gradually declines before it reaches the next tipping and suddenly falls out of favor and out of memory. Gladwell defines tipping points as the “magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire” (Gladwell, 2000).
The drug control policy of the United States has always been a subject of debate. From Prohibition in the early 1930’s to the current debate over the legalization of marijuana, drugs have always been near the top of the government’s agenda. Drug use affects every part of our society. It strains our economy, our healthcare, our criminal justice systems, and it endangers the futures of young people. In order to support a public health approach to drug control, the Obama administration has committed over $10 billion to drug education programs and support for expanding access to drug treatment for addicts (Office). The United States should commit more government resources to protect against illegal use of drugs by youths and provide help for recovering addicts.
In the early 1980s, policymakers and law enforcement officials stepped up efforts to combat the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. This was the popular “war on drugs,” hailed by conservatives and liberals alike as a means to restore order and hope to communities and families plagued by anti-social or self-destructive pathologies. By reducing illicit drug use, many claimed, the drug war would significantly reduce the rate of serious nondrug crimes - robbery, assault, rape, homicide and the like. Has the drug war succeeded in doing so?