Title: The Green Debate: Unfolding the American Dialogue on Marijuana Legalization. At the heart of American democracy lies a spirited debate over the green leaf that has long symbolized both freedom and contradiction – marijuana. In a landscape where smoke signals of change are in the air, the federal government’s staunch stance against marijuana seems clouded by a haze of public opinion. In the critical crossfire of this debate, Mancini and Budd cast a scholarly gaze over the intricate patchwork of state legalization and federal prohibition, offering a deeply-layered analysis that digs into the ethos, pathos, and logos of America’s complex relationship with cannabis. This essay sets out to untangle their woven tapestry of arguments, seeking …show more content…
While it could be enhanced by more robustly addressing counterarguments, its strengths lie in the effective use of rhetorical strategies that underscore its persuasive power. The essay is a testament to the complexity of public policy discourse and an exemplary piece of scholarly work that adds depth to the conversation about federal RML in the United States. It ultimately calls for an informed dialogue that respects the multiplicity of opinions and seeks solutions that are beneficial to society as a whole. In the intricate dance of democracy, where every step is a delicate interplay between the will of the people and the hand of legislation, the debate over the federal legalization of marijuana finds itself at a pivotal crossroad. The journey through Mancini and Budd’s essay has been one of critical engagement with a topic that is as enigmatic as it is polarizing, shedding light on the myriad of considerations that must be weighed in the balance of public opinion and policy …show more content…
Their essay does not merely traverse the surface of the issue, but delves into the undercurrents of uncertainty that characterize public sentiment, offering a lens through which we can view the evolving perspectives on marijuana. By acknowledging the limitations of their research and the complexities of the discourse, they model intellectual humility and a commitment to scholarly integrity, values that are paramount in the continuing conversation on drug policy reform. However, the path forward, as illuminated by this analysis, suggests that while the authors provide a compelling case, the conversation is far from complete. There remains a need for a more robust engagement with counterarguments, an exploration of the socio-economic ramifications, and a consideration of the ethical implications that a shift in federal policy might entail. These are not just mere footnotes in the discussion, but critical elements that could define the trajectory of marijuana legislation in the United
Alfred M Green wrote and presented a speech about encouraging the blacks that striving to enlist in the army is worth it. He includes historical and religious allusion, political diction, and juxtaposition. Although it's understandable that you don’t feel patriotic, Green argues that striving to enlist in the army is worth it because it will prove patriotism, and we will prove our argument of justice and equality because we deserve it. Also, we will fight to prevent those values from disappearing in the South. He wants his audience to feel motivated, encouraged, and inspired, to feel and want his audience to believe in the same values as him, to make a change which is to enlist in the army.
Alfred M. Green uses persuasive techniques that are based solely on the emotions of the audience. Due to the fact that this was a speech, it is more influential to listeners that he chose using emotions of the audience to persuade the audience instead of using other persuasive techniques. The emotions of the audience is more commonly known as Pathos, within the Ethos, Pathos, Logos persuasive techniques that the greek philosopher and scientist, Aristotle created. Green was presenting an inspirational speech and speeches are different than regular persuasive texts because they have to appeal to their audience more and if they do not, the audience would lose interest and not pay attention to the speech. Green can perfectly craft his words into appealing with the emotions of the
During the time of the Civil War, the United States was divided on many issues; one of the issues being the issue of slavery. The North was fighting against the heinous act of imprisoning someone for life for self-gain and the South was fighting to preserve this heinous act. The North needed all the warriors of freedom as possible, which is why Alfred M. Green gave a speech in Philadelphia in April 1861 to get his fellow African Americans to join the union and fight be the warriors of freedom that the North needed them to be in this fight against slavery. But, there is a problem in recruiting people to leave their lives and go fight in a gruesome war -- people fear for their lives. To avoid this fear and get African Americans to fight in this war, Green utilizes two unionizing rhetorical strategies in order to dismantle this fear
In his provocative article “Green Guilt”, Stephen T. Asma elaborates the sources behind why civilians of Western culture feel passionately guilty about the current norm of environmentalism. Asma’s purpose of such text is to inform readers that Western culture is taking environmentalism to the extreme by developing guilt with an association of not living a valued “green life”. Stephen Asma achieves his analysis to the audience of vast environmentalists by emphasizing this extreme guilt and self-loathing through the rhetorical appeal of pathos and ethos -- as well as using diction and tone to support his evidence.
In his piece on climate change, Richard Lindzen addresses his stance on the heated debate of global warming. He claims that there is, in fact, no ongoing catastrophic temperature increase. Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a recipient of the Jule Charney award from the American Meteorological Society (Richard Lindzen), believes that the earth goes through natural phases of warming and cooling. In this piece, he examines why he believes people have a false conception of Earth’s climate shifts.
The series “High Profits” demonstrates the works and restrictions of the United States government regarding the issue of legalizing recreational marijuana. Breckenridge Cannabis Club business owners, Caitlin Mcguire and Brian Rogers, demonstrate both the struggles and profits of this up and coming industry. This series portrays virtually every viewpoint possible by including opinions from an array of political actors who discuss the influence of the government on this topic and the impact this topic has on the general public.
Bill McKibben's "The Environmental Issue from Hell" argues that climate change is a real and dire concern for humanity. His essay deals with the methods and persuasive arguments needed to spur American citizens and the government on to change to more eco-friendly choices. The arguments he proposes are based largely upon emotional appeals calling for empathy and shame, and examples of what in our daily lives is adding to the changes we're seeing in the climate.
Lately it seems that drug policy and the war on drugs has been in the headlines quite a lot. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies that the United States government takes against illegal drugs are coming into question. The mainstream media is catching on to the message of organizations and individuals who have long been considered liberal "Counter Culture" supporters. The marijuana question seems to be the most prevalent and pressing of the drugs and issues that are currently being addressed. The messages of these organizations and individuals include everything from legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, to full-unrestricted legalization of the drug.
The controversy of legalizing marijuana has been raging for quite a while in America. From some people pushing it for medical purposes to potheads just wanting to get high legally. Marijuana has been used for years as a popular drug for people who want to get a high. All this time it has been illegal and now it looks as if the drug may become legal. There has been heated debate by many sides giving there opinion in the issue. These people are not only left wing liberals either. Richard Brookhiser, a National Review Senior editor is openly supportive of medical marijuana yet extremely conservative in his writing for National Review (Brookhiser 27). He is for medical marijuana since he used it in his battle with testicular cancer. He says "I turned to [marijuana] when I got cancer because marijuana gives healthy people an appetite, and prevents people who are nauseated from throwing up. "(Brookhiser 27) Cancer patients are not the only benefactors from the appetite enhancer in marijuana, but so are any other nauseous people. Arizona and California have already passed a law allowing marijuana to be used as a medicinal drug. Fifty Six percent of the California voters voted for this law. "We've sent a message to Washington," says Dennis Peron. "They've had 25 years of this drug was, and they've only made things worse." (Simmons 111) The Arizona proposition garnished an even wider margin of separation between the fore's an against in a sixty five percent support tally. Ethan Nadelmann insists that " these propositions are not about legalization or decriminalization. They're about initiating some non radical, commonsense approaches to drug policy." General Barry McCaffery disagrees saying, "I...
Cannabis, since its discovery, has been used for recreational and medical purposes. It was seen as a drug that was “safe” and did put the body at risk but benefited it. However, this is not the case anymore because the government under I Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 law banned the use of the narcotic and has the right to persecute anyone who attains the substance. Nonetheless, the question is not whether the drug is “safe” to use but whether the States should have the power to regulate marijuana or the federal government should continue having the control over the drug. Since 1996, 23 states including Washington D.C have passed laws that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, yet the federal government does not protect or even recognize the rights of users or possessors. The debate over marijuana has picked up momentum and many would agree that all this uprising conflict can be traced back to the constitution and the flaws it presents. The constitution is blamed for not properly distributing the States and Federal powers. Although the federal government currently holds supremacy over marijuana, States should have the power to regulate the drug because under the 10th amendment the federal government only has those powers specifically granted in the constitution, Likewise the States have the right to trade within their own state under the Commerce Clause.
Ever since marijuana’s introduction to the United States of America in 1611, controversy of the use and legalization of the claimed-to-be Schedule I drug spread around the nation. While few selective states currently allow marijuana’s production and distribution, the remaining states still skepticize the harmlessness and usefulness of this particular drug; therefore, it remains illegal in the majority of the nation. The government officials and citizens of the opposing states believe the drug creates a threat to citizens due to its “overly-harmful” effects mentally and physically and offers no alternate purposes but creating troublesome addicts hazardous to society; however, they are rather misinformed about marijuana’s abilities. While marijuana has a small amount of negligible effects to its users, the herbal drug more importantly has remarkable health benefits, and legalizing one of the oldest and most commonly known drugs would redirect America’s future with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.
The legalization of marijuana has been a highly debated topic for many of years. Since the first president to the most recent, our nation’s leaders have consumed the plant known as weed. With such influential figures openly using this drug why is it so frowned upon? Marijuana is considered a gateway drug, a menace to society, and mentally harmful to its consumers. For some people weed brings a sense of anxiety, dizziness, or unsettling feeling. Like alcohol, tobacco or any other drug, those chemicals may not respond well with their body. For other people marijuana brings joy, a sense of relief, and takes the edge off of every day stress. For those who are associated with cannabis, purposes usually range from a relaxant, or cash crop, to more permissible uses such as medicine, and ingredient to make so many other materials. We now need to look at what would change if marijuana were legal. Benefits to the economy and agriculture, health issues, and crime rates are three areas worth looking at. Deliberating on the pros and cons of this plant we can get a better understanding for marijuana. From there it will be easier to make a clear consensus on what is best for the nation.
Legalization of marijuana has become an increasingly popular topic for debate in society, with “sentiment in favor of legalization [increasing] by 20 [percentage] points in just over a decade,” bringing support for legalization to 52% (Dionne and Galston). The most common arguments for reforming current legislation are the following: enforcement wastes public resources, taxation can provide a new source of revenue, and enforcement of current laws is discriminatory (Dionne and Galston). It is necessary to look at the impact on the primary stakeholders by analyzing the various harms and benefits through application of the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology, in order to determine the solution that will result in the best possible outcome. In determining the ethicality of legalizing marijuana, it is necessary to understand the background of the issue, and to identify the most important stakeholders. In the 1930s, many states began outlawing the substance; ironically California was the first of these states (Rendon).
Madison Square Garden is located in New York City, New York and is an arena that hosts several concerts and sporting events. Since Madison Square Garden is very famous and has many spectators that come to the arena, the arena managers had decided to secretly scan their spectators with facial recognition technology. This face id is a new type of technology and is usually found in smartphones such as the iPhone X. I strongly suggest that you read more to find
Brown, Lee P. "Legalizing Marijuana Is Irresponsible." Marijuana, edited by Joseph Tardiff, Greenhaven Press, 2008. Contemporary Issues Companion. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010202211/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=40ddfb9a. Accessed 23 Apr. 2024.