A Rhetorical Situation Analysis of the Complexities of the Marijuana Debate
The United
States has been waging a war on drugs since its conception. From the
restrictive, racially shaded opium laws of the 1800s to the epic failure of
Prohibition in the early 1900s, restricting access to substances seen as
morally corruptive has become as much a part of the American essence as freedom
("Thirty"). The juxtaposition between these contradictory ideals of liberty
and restriction, are undeniably fated for conflict. Marijuana use rose in
popularity in the 1960s, crossing race and socioeconomic lines ("Thirty").
mainstream use of marijuana causes a serious issue for society- no longer only
are the undesirables, the drug addicts, the criminals and the hippies smoking
marijuana- it is the youth of the nation. As use of marijuana becomes increasingly
mainstream and cultural inertia shifts, once polarized parties towards the drug
are beginning to find common ground. While the
possibility of change lingers in the current political climate, the main
obstacle between pro-legalization and anti-legalization members is their
inability to communicate in the same rhetorical stases. While these parties are discussing the
same topic–marijuana–they are making completely different arguments about
marijuana itself, which makes any sort of open dialogue impossible.
One of
President Reagan’s most memorable drug-policy quotes occurred when he said, “I
now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in
brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast”("Ronald").
Clearly, mainstream
perceptions of the dangers of marijuana have changed. While in the early 90s,
President Bill Clinton admitted somewhat to experimentation with marijuana,
stating, "When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or
two, and I didn't like it, and I didn't inhale, and I never tried again"
our most recent president is far more candid ("Marijuana
Quotes"). President
Obama, close to 15 years later, replied to questions about marijuana use,
saying, "When I was a kid I inhaled frequently. That was the point” ("Marijuana
Quotes"). Over the past
40 years, public opinion has shifted to the point where it has slowly become
socially acceptable for the president, a man elected to represent and lead the
people of the United States, to admit to having smoked marijuana in the past.
We are at a point
in time where marijuana use and acceptance is becoming more mainstream;
consequently the legalization movement has gained considerable strength. Our
prisons are straining with nonviolent drug offenders, and our economy is struggling
with the cost of the “War on Drugs.” People who once were staunchly opposed to
marijuana use, who do not condone drug use, per se, have come to support the
legalization of marijuana if only for the economic benefits. In the past few
years, a significant amount of common ground has appeared among the anti- and
pro- legalization parties: the area where the most ground has been made is the
legalization of medical marijuana.
Marijuana
reform is currently in a unique moment of kairos. As of 2013, twenty states and
the District of Columbia have legalized medicinal marijuana, sixteen states
have decriminalized the possession of marijuana, and two states have outright
legalized marijuana ("States"). There have been a number of voter
initiatives to add legalization and decriminalization questions to ballots this
election cycle in several additional states throughout the United States.
However, due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the federal law that
identifies marijuana as an illegal drug reigns supreme. Though President Obama
has decided that the federal government will not make prosecuting marijuana
offenders a priority, without a change to federal law marijuana remains an
illegal drug in the United States. While the legalization of medicinal marijuana
marks an area of significant progress in the United States, the permanence of
this progress will be decided in the next presidential election. This
widespread legalization of medicinal marijuana could mark the beginning of a
krisis point in marijuana reform. Colorado and Washington have recently
legalized marijuana for recreational use. In the coming days, we will soon see
if other states will follow suit.
One of the
most well-known arguments against the legalization of marijuana is the argument
that “Marijuana is often used as a
stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs”
(Messerli). This has become a commonplace in society, through D.A.R.E. programs
and television ads, although the rising numbers of recreational and medicinal
marijuana users who do not graduate to these harder substances demonstrates that
perhaps this argument may be rooted in fallacy and propaganda. This argument occurs in the stasis of
conjecture, as it explores causality and origin. Because this argument is an
cause and effect based argument, it is a rhetorically practical argument, abet
one not solidly grounded in reality Though the argument is in part specific, as
is claims marijuana users will use the substance as a gateway drug to harder
substances, it loses credibility in today’s society as it does not specify
which type of marijuana users it targets. This broad generalization that all
marijuana users will become drug addicts is preposterous, as our president has
confessed to smoking the herb and he is the leader of the free world! Interestingly,
this commonplace implies that Marijuana is less
dangerous that these harder drugs- though it is defined by the Department of
Justice as a Schedule One substance, allegedly more dangerous than cocaine and
equivalent to heroin ("Drug Scheduling").
Legalization
proponents likewise make conjectural arguments, such as the widespread belief
that legalization of marijuana would eliminate the black market for marijuana
and force drug dealers out of business, while at the same time eliminating the
violence that surrounds the black market sales of marijuana (Messerli). This
has recently become a commonplace given the legal experiments with legalization
such as in Uganda and the Netherlands, which are perceived as successful thus
far. However, this argument is widely general and theoretical; it is logical in
the thought process that the legalization of marijuana would help downsize the
black market, yet it overlooks the scope of quantity and the wide range of
illegal drugs in the United States. It also underestimates the power of the
cartels and others who produce and distribute drugs inside the United States. It
is theoretical in that legalization has not become a widespread phenomenon
across the United States to the point where it would be possible to postulate
the affects of legalization upon the black market. This argument is also
largely reliant upon policy, and the assumption that when and if marijuana was
to be legalized, that it would be sold for a lower price since it would no
longer be an illegal commodity.
There is also a value element to this argument, as marijuana users are
painted in a negative light- they are portrayed as complicit in the violence of
the drug black market. However, while the argument hypothesizes about price of
marijuana and possible correlation in a reduction in crime, it is unclear why
and how this connection is made. It seems as though despite that the rhetor is
arguing for legalization, they are perpetrating a stereotype of marijuana users
as dangerous criminals; the very argument implies a conspiracy-like situation
where all marijuana users must participate in a shady underworld in to obtain
their illicit drugs. This argument ignores a large majority of marijuana users
who have no active role in the black market.
In the wake of
President Reagan’s increased penalties for drug users, even non-violent
offenders, and our resulting state of mass incarceration, the commonplace
argument that “Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns
them into lifelong criminals” has gained considerable ground (Messerli). This argument takes place in the stasis
of conjecture, as it discusses causality of an issue; here, it is argued that the
system is responsible for turning young offenders into career criminals. Further,
it is an abstract, theoretical argument that lacks a significant amount of
detail. It fails to take into account the choices of the individual, instead
placing all the blame for a very complex issue on one variable. This argument
is also rooted in the stases of value and policy, as it implies that current
drug laws turn misguided youth into career criminals. It condemns the drug laws
and subsequent incarceration of young drug offenders, ignoring the crucial
element of non-violence. Nobody wants violent criminals roaming the streets,
regardless of their age. However, this argument also alienates older,
non-violent drug offenders. This argument fails to mention the collateral
consequences of the conviction itself on future job and educational prospects,
and the role that this black mark on a person’s name has upon their future. The
broad, general nature of this argument weakens the sentiment behind it- the
focus upon young offenders and ignores first time offenders who may be older in
years. These flaws in logic makes
this argument come across as incredibly weak, as it is an argument that calls
for specificity and data yet is lacking both.
The
anti-legalization rebuttal to this argument is the belief that “Because of
drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more
serious crimes can be taken off the streets,” and is similarly conjecturally
based (Messerli). It postulates that drug-related arrests reduce people who
would likely commit other crimes. This argument similarly perpetrates the
stereotype that all drug users are bad, violent criminals and fails to account
for the good pot smokers of suburbia and other places not typically assumed to
be crime-ridden. This argument seems to support the general idea of mass
incarceration for drug related offenses, regardless as to if the person is a
non-violent first-time offender, suffering from addiction, or the head of a
cartel. This belief is rooted in the conservative ideal of protecting a
perceived moral common good of the country. It fails to take into account the
subjective nature of morality, which has been demonstrated in the evolving
state drug laws.
One
of the key places both parties disagree is upon the definition of “drug”. The
argument that “the drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if
used in moderation,” is widely popular as both tobacco and alcohol are chemical
substances classified as drugs, yet both are legal to buy and consume in the
United States (Messerli). While this is a specific argument comparing marijuana
to tobacco, which is similarly smoked, and alcohol, which can cause a
comparable degree of intoxication, the strength of this argument lies in the
word “moderation.” Moderation within our society has a very strong, positive
connotation, as it is a commonplace that anything in moderation is okay. This
argument plays upon this commonplace for strength. However, it fails to take
into account the clear and obvious differences between marijuana, tobacco and
alcohol: Marijuana has medicinal qualities, where tobacco and alcohol do not.
However, it forces the audience to consider whether or not there are degrees of
acceptability: It is common knowledge that tobacco cigarettes may cause lung
cancer, and alcohol deaths occur at an tragically high rate every year. Perhaps
this argument challenges our societal values of tobacco and alcohol –both of
which are chemically “drugs”–as acceptable, while causing us to question the
historically maligned reputation of marijuana.
Those against the legalization of marijuana typically hold
steadfast to the belief that drug use in and of itself is morally wrong
(Messerli). Those of a conservative persuasion typically hold this general belief.
This argument is value-based, as
it implies that using drugs is worse than abstaining from drug use. It is also
critically based in the definition of marijuana as a drug. A possible rebuttal
within the definition stasis to a person morally opposed to marijuana could the
argument that “Aside from recreational drug use, Cannabis has several
industrial and commercial uses, as over 25,000 products can be made from the
crop” (Messerli). This, again,
debates the definition of marijuana and emphasizes that it is in fact more than
just a drug. A similar comparison could be made about the poppy flower, as it
is more than just a means to manufacture heroin. This argument is general in
scope, as it addressed the vast number of products that can be made from cannabis.
It is also a practical argument, as it lays out the vast number of ways
cannabis could be used. The strength of this argument lays its detail. It
highlights the fact that the laws banning marijuana severely impact the
potential market for hemp as a cash crop in the United States and gives
specific figures regarding the extensive use of the hemp plant.
Other parties opposing the
legalization of marijuana fear that the legalization of marijuana may lead to
the legalization of harder drugs, or all drugs; further, legalization may
increase the chances of children gaining access to a dangerous drug (Messerli).
This argument is strictly value-based,
as the rhetor clearly has a blatant moral opposition to marijuana. This
argument is only effective to an audience that shares those same values; that
is, an audience that believes that marijuana is inherently dangerous. Some
marijuana proponents may argue in response that the legalization of all drugs or
easier access to marijuana is not a bad thing at all, as some perceive
marijuana to be safer than many prescription medications. The idea of children
gaining easier access to marijuana draws a direct parallel to the regulation of
marijuana in the United States today, while also begging the question- isn’t it
easy enough now to buy marijuana in the US from a drug dealer who certainly
doesn’t card or care? This argument is a rhetorically theoretical one as it is
concerned with a abstract potential future, where in reality the federal
government has not legalized marijuana. It is also, however, an argument that
is relatively specific in scope. While the argument is specific in naming
marijuana, it is general in scope when considering the vague definition of
“harder drugs.” Based upon the definition of “drug” aren’t prescription drugs
such as oxycodone, stimulants such as caffeine, and tobacco cigarettes
containing nicotine widely available and legal? This argument fails to address
the wide number of addictive and dangerous drugs that are currently legal and
unregulated. Consider the legal concoction 4 LOKO, a mixture of caffeine and
alcohol, which was only removed from shelves in some states after a number of
deaths. However, in certain states it is still available and people often enjoy
the similarly dangerous “vodka and red bull.” This argument also fails to
address which children it refers to- teens, toddlers, inner city youths,
college kids or suburbanites. Clearly the idea of young children gaining access
is more frightening than that of college-aged kids, but this lack of specificity
significantly weakens this argument.
Many proponents of marijuana legalization
argue that the current legal limitations forbidding recreational marijuana use
impinges upon personal freedom and civil liberties (Messerli). This value argument
is founded upon the liberal ideology in which protecting the freedom of the
individual is supreme. This
argument is based upon the idea that the government should not be able to
control what citizens choose to put inside their bodies; essentially, a
person’s private affairs are none of the government’s business. This argument
also raises the interesting question of why certain drugs are government-sanctioned,
such as caffeine, nicotine, sugar and alcohol while others such as marijuana are
condemned? However, opponents to marijuana legalization would maintain that
this government control serves the greater good and is not a bad thing. While
concerns about impinging upon individual liberties may resonate with liberals,
it would not much with conservatives.
In terms of policy arguments, pro-legalization
advocates claim that the legalization of marijuana could be an additional source
of tax revenue, which would provide a desperately needed stream of income in
these tense economic times (Messerli). As an influx of income would certainly be a positive in this
economy, this argument also has a value element. The general, nebulous idea that the taxation of marijuana
could solve the United States’ economic woes has become a predominant
commonplace in recent years. However, it is unclear how realistic this actually
is, and this argument appears merely theoretical as a result. Considering the
enormity of our national debt, it is unclear without seeing actual figures if
this could be a feasible solution. As such, this argument is far less strong
than it could be.
People opposed
to legalization may rebut this policy based argument with one of their own, “Marijuana
may be arguably be the US’s largest ‘cash crop’, but the estimated tax value is
highly inflated due to the disparity in price between legal and illegal drugs”
(Riggs 2). This policy argument is significantly stronger than the one above as
it appears infinitely more specific and practical. It overturns the fanciful
commonplace that merely taxing marijuana would solve the debt crisis because it
takes into account specific variables that the former rhetoric ignores.
However, while this argument does vacate the commonplace somewhat, it does not
completely function as an argument against legalization; it only points out
that less money that many estimate actually stands to be made by legalization
and taxation. However, taxing marijuana would still tap into a previously
unused revenue source in the United States. While the fact that legalizing and
taxing marijuana would make the government less money than others anticipate
serves to discredit the pro-legalization argument, it does not give any
significant reason not to legalize marijuana.
As
a whole, the arguments for legalization are more persuasive then those against.
The arguments against legalization are primarily founded in the value stasis
and based upon subjective moral belief, while the arguments for legalization
address economic benefits in the way of taxation and minimizing the
incarceration rate occur in the policy stasis. In order to persuade someone of
the benefits of the legalization of marijuana, a policy argument based in
economic rhetoric seems the best way to persuade, considering the sad fiscal
state of our economy. However, if the person had a strong moral objection to
marijuana, it would be a much more difficult case to make. The complexity lies
in the subjective nature of morality- it is very difficult to change another’s
morals, so in order to convince someone of this mindset to legalize marijuana,
an argument would have to be made such as one that legalization of marijuana
does not equate condoning drug use. This would likely need to be accompanied by
other strong arguments in the policy stasis, such as the above relating to
economic concerns. With the surge in popularity in recent years for
legalization, it appears probable legalization is a possibility in today’s
charged political atmosphere. The fact that the federal drug laws regarding
marijuana, however, remain unchanged shows that the legalization movement has a
large amount of ground yet to cover. While it may be years, or even a number of
presidencies away until society is open to complete legalization,
decriminalization seems like a step in the right direction that will allow both
sides to compromise; as it is not full legalization, hopefully difficult
morality-based arguments in the value stasis could be avoided. With effective
rhetoric and a little bit of luck, there is hope that in the future, the land
of the free will be able to shed its restrictive marijuana laws and hold true
to it’s name.
Works Cited
"Drug Scheduling." Drug
Enforcement Administration. US Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 7 Nov.
2013. <http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml>.
"Marijuana Quotes From Famous People." eazysmoke.com. N.p., 2013. Web. 5 Nov.
2013. <http://www.eazysmoke.com/marijuana-quotes.htm>.
"Medicinal Marijuana." ProCon.org. N.p., 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
<http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881>.
Messerli, Joe. "Should Marijuana Be Legalized Under Any
Circumstances?" Balanced Politics.
N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm>.
Riggs, Mike. "The 3 Worst Arguments for Legalizing
Marijuana." Reason.com. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/23/the-three-worst-arguments-for-legalizing/>.
"Ronald Reagan Quotes." Thinkexist.com. N.p., 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
<http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_now_have_absolute_proof_that_smoking_even_one/337330.html>.
"States That Have Decriminalized Marijuana." NORML. N.p., 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
<http://norml.org/aboutmarijuana/item/states-that-have-decriminalized>.
"Thirty Years of America's Drug Wars: A Chronology." Frontline. WGBH, 2013. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/>.
* Note* This work is the product of an independent study in persuasive writing. Due to the relevant content, I have chosen to publish it on this blog
* Note* This work is the product of an independent study in persuasive writing. Due to the relevant content, I have chosen to publish it on this blog
No comments:
Post a Comment