Legalization of Marijuana Do you think the legalization of marijuana is all positive? Can there be some negative factors? Based on politics, health, and peoples point of view it is a widely recognized, highly controversial, and common issue in the United States. Many politicians believe it should be legalized and others disagree, especially during the presidential primary. In David Sheff’s article “Marijuana Should Be Legal, but …” in time magazine he proposes that marijuana should be legalized even though it can be harmful to adolescences. Through Sheff’s article, appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos, and knowledge about the subject has an impact on the article as a whole. They help develop his argument that weed is great thing, and it should be legalized. Sheff believes the benefits of adding marijuana to the United States' economy outweighs the dangers it can cause, but that they should be recognized also. Especially those dangers that involve minors. Sheff affectively and ineffectively persuades his audience by using ethos, pathos, and logos. Sheff does this by using some persuasions over zealously and some not enough. Sheff's article develops the ideas of how marijuana has negative impact on adolescence, but a positive impact on society as a whole. This article published on August 4, 2014 strives to inform everyday people on the effects of marijuana and persuade them to understand how marijuana usage and proper regulation are a positive attribute in the everyday outlook of users. The other point they make is Children, teens and young adults should be educated about this drug. They should know what warning signs to look out for and know what kind of help they should get if they develop any issues. Many organizations have taken the time to research, survey potential and current marijuana users, and predict methods to help combat all of these issues that occur with using marijuana. I can't fix it on google. Stated by The Office of National Drug Control Policy "policymakers shouldn’t ignore the basic scientific fact that marijuana is addictive and marijuana use has harmful consequences.” Sheff uses it to let people know that organizations and people in legislation know it’s a drug and its dangerous, and will have effects on children if is legal or not legal. This also lets them know that Sheff also highlights the abuse of drugs and how low percentages actually get addicted to marijuana. Only nine percent gets addicted to the drug, but there is still a percentage. He uses many different persuasions to develop his point of why it should be legalized, by using an understanding of a negative of affect. In his article, Sheff presents a proposal argument of why marijuana should be legal. He uses both negative and positive effects of marijuana, both on teens and society. He states that “Some proponents of legalization maintain that marijuana is harmless, but it isn’t — especially when it comes to kids.” This is the base line for one the negative effects that marijuana can have. One positive effect is that only "nine percent" of users ages fifteen to twenty get addicted. Even though there are negative and positive effects of legalizing it, people should realize the positive effect amongst society as a whole and realize, just like any drug including alcohol, minors will find a way to do it. Sheff suggests "We communicate the message that bad kids use drugs, good kids don’t. But as a pediatrician I know put it: these aren’t bad kids; they’re our kids. We mustn’t stigmatize. Instead, we must educate and nurture them, and build their resilience so they grow up safety and healthily." He uses this to argue a counter point, of how danger it is, but then introduces a resolution to make people think about it, and also give people an option to their fears. Sheff develops his proposal by saying “should”, Marijuana should be legalized, yet he used many proposals to say that it is a negative drug for teens and children. Throughout the article Sheff uses more logos than any other appeal to persuade the reader. Sheff develops his article on facts that have logos, but enough ethos to make the reader understand the issue. One of Sheffs biggest arguments is that “policymakers shouldn’t ignore the basic scientific fact that marijuana is addictive and marijuana use has harmful consequences.” Said by The Office of National Drug Control Policy, where most of the research is done into drugs and the control of how they are sold and distributed. Sheff again appeals to logic to persuade his readers that” A body of research shows that marijuana causes structural and functional changes in the developing brains of adolescents. By stunting communication between brain regions, it impairs high-level thinking.” He is using logic to tell people that marijuana in adolescences is dangers and might hurt them in the future if they start too early in life. He is also developing a bit of pathos, trying to make the reader feel as if that was there kid, would they want their kid to impaired by a drug that is used for enjoyment. A drug that is dangerous, but so many people believe in it. Only nine percent get addicted, but that could be your kid. Even though Sheff uses many links to logos, it makes the read the underlying ethos.
Even though he uses an underlying ethos, he also uses ethos more in a direct manner. He does this by stating “anyone who says that marijuana isn’t addictive should talk to these kids. Indeed, in spite of a basketball net outside and other recreational facilities, it wasn’t summer camp; those kids had all suffered devastating consequences from their pot smoking, and most had tried to stop but couldn’t.” He successfully uses this to persuade you to think and put yourself in those kids shoes, or realizing what your childhood could had been like if you were addicted to something everyone once was so great. Even though he plays with the readers feeling, he doesn’t play much on the ethos field. He tries to stick with pathos and logos due to the reader thinking that the article is just all of his opinion. Sheff needs to include more emotional appeal directly, instead indirectly to persuade the reader more towards his side. Also, in Sheffs article he has Pathos, he states that “White House responds directly to a newspaper op-ed, as it did last week when the New York Times editorial board published its opinion that the federal government should repeal the ban on the production, sale and use of marijuana.” Which has an appeal to pathos due to the white house and New York Times having trust with the community of people reading this article. The white house gives more of a political outlook on the issue and New York Times gives an opinionated political point of view. Sheff also uses pathos by says "but as a pediatrician I know put it: these aren’t bad kids; they’re our kids." He uses this to certify his whole article, because he sees kids every day, as a doctor he should also know what is and is not dangerous for our kids. He also has a power to educate our kids about the dangers and how to avoid them. This could also be a negative ethos, because the person reading couldn’t agree and say that pediatrician are not good influences and not trust anything a pediatrician would have to say about any drug that is a positive for their kids. He uses many influence people to describe how this drug is positive, yet very negative. Again, the question is Do you think the legalization of marijuana is all positive? Can there be some negative factors? Those are the questions that are for the reader to answer. Though out David Sheff’s article “Marijuana Should Be Legal, but …” he informs and proposes many details about the positives and negative affects marijuana toward children, teen, and young adults. Sheff does this in a fashion of using a proposal argument, ethos, pathos, and logos very effectively and ineffectively. Many parents can not be persuaded, but he did not touch on the emotional appeals of the parents and tried persuading them with just hard facts and organizations with high standards of being right. Many parents may be persuaded, and many may think he is trying to describe the results in his favor. Overall, marijuana will have an impact on children, teens, and young adults if it becomes legal or remains against the law to all citizens. Even though Sheff made it very clear that legalizing it will not make it any less popular, it will definitely make more the drug more acceptant throughout society. He understands while there is a widespread love for the drug, there will always be those Americans who will protest against it. Sheff also doesn’t explain his claim very well. It is an article of how marijuana should be legalized, but his thesis remains somewhat hazy.