For this week’s first non-fiction TOW, I decided
that I would analyze the first piece that came up on the New York Times'
editorial page. A piece by the editorial board for the New York Times, a world
famous, daily newspaper founded in 1851. The purpose of this editorial is
fairly clear from the start, the board believes "the federal government
should repeal the ban on marijuana". The board would like citizens
twenty-one years and older to be allowed to consume marijuana, especially in a
day and age like this where there are so many other present substances posing
much larger threats. They are able to make their purpose clear to anyone aware
of this current debate over the legalization of the drug through the use of
statistics comparing and contrasting marijuana with other drugs and analysis of
scientific study showing the lack of actual danger behind the illegal
substance.
At one point in the editorial, the board steers
away from opinion and turns strictly to statistics to back their point. When
pointing out the excessive and unreasonable arrests made due to the laws
against the use of marijuana the board stated, "There were 658,000 arrests
for marijuana possession in 2012, according to F.B.I. figures, compared with
256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives". They are trying to show that there are
so many arrests made due to the possession of marijuana that law enforcers are
not focusing enough on arresting those who possess highly dangerous,
addictive and often more fatal drugs. The editorial board
next shifts to what health risks may actually be behind this drug, trying to
steer the reader toward believing the drug is seemingly harmless. They
recognize marijuana does pose a legitimate risk for the development of
adolescent brains, but ultimately it has a very small effect on adult minds.
The board is essentially trying to show that the "threat of addiction and dependence are relatively minor problems,
especially compared with..." the countless other health ricks Americans
are struggling to overcome today such as "alcohol and tobacco". This
allows the reader to see that this drug really isn’t as life threatening as
many make it seem. Just like anything else in this world, as long as it is
consumed in moderation, the editorial board wants readers to see that it is
almost harmless.
Although
this editorial did make their purpose clear, the argument was not totally solid
in my opinion. The board lacked the hard facts, relied too much
on their own opinions and borderline bashing of Congress.
 |
| Repeal Prohibition, Again |
No comments:
Post a Comment