The Fight between Legalization and Prohibition
The legalization of marijuana has become one of the most controversial debates of our time. Many have argued against it, saying the drug is a dangerous substance that poses harm to society. Those in favor argue that this is a false narrative, and its legalization would be beneficial to society. This debate has caused some states to legalize marijuana; however, many states stand by its prohibition.
In two recently written articles, the legalization of marijuana is discussed and argued upon. The first article is titled “The Social Impact of Cannabis Legalization in the United States,” written by Susan Stop the ‘green rush’ ” by Jane Wells. The writer argues that “the ‘benefits’ advocates promised after the legalization of marijuana is not materializing. Therefore legalization is failing and should not continue to be rushed.” Both articles have related purposes and cover similar topics. Wells’s argument, however, is likely to be more persuasive in getting people to change their minds by way of; using statistics to back up claims, providing examples as evidence, and using images to convey her message further.
The first article, titled ” The Social Impact of Cannabis Legalization in the United States,” comes from a website called Cannabiz Media. Author Susan Gunelius wrote the article. Gunelius is a renowned author and lead analyst for Cannabiz Media. Cannabiz Media is a platform that aims to simplify business development for companies and individuals looking to expand within the U.S. marijuana and hemp industries, showing an apparent conflict of interest. Gunelius, however, shows no bias in work; throughout the article, she refrains from choosing sides.
Citizens protesting for the legalization of marijuana
Gunelius argues that the legalization of marijuana brings along a multitude of social benefits in the United States. She supports the main argument of her claim through three sub-arguments. The first one being “legalization reduces some types of crime, arrests and court filings related to marijuana possession and distribution drop significantly after legalization.” In this, she refers to a report from the Drug Policy Alliance, which found that in several states where legalization has been passed, crime decreased in a variety of ways. Furthermore, she lists parts of this report in her work, showing that in states like Oregon, the numbers of arrests had dropped 96% from 2014-2016. Her second sub-argument is that “marijuana legalization is linked to lower rates of opioid-related deaths.” Gunelius breaks down how after adult-use of marijuana became available for retail sales in 2014, and opioid overdose deaths declined by 0.7 deaths per month. Finally, Gunelius’s third supporting argument is that “in states where marijuana has been legalized, reports have shown a decrease in marijuana use by youth under the age of 21.” The author listed several studies, all finding that cannabis use among youth has decreased since legalization.
The second article titles ‘Stop the “green rush” ‘ is from an American political magazine called Politico. Author Jane Wells wrote the piece. Wells is a journalist and special correspondent for news program CNBC. Politico is known to be a reliable source, refraining from posting content with bias. Wells shows no bias of her own in her writing. However, after analyzing her work, I found it showed she stands more on the side of prohibition than 
legalization. Well’s article focuses on the cons of legalization, intending to target an audience of individuals who side with legalization.
Her first sub-argument is that “legalization does not lower crime rates,” claiming that “Across Colorado, organized crime charges have gone up in recent years.” In the excerpt titled “Legalization doesn’t lower crime,” Wells elaborates on how black market operators move excess product to states where the drug is still illegal, from legalized states such as Colorado.” Wells goes on to point out that “Many people in Colorado and other states with legal weed voted for legalization due to a belief that doing so would reduce crime.” The author is conveying to the audience that lower crime rates are one of the promises advocates made in the fight to legalize. However, like many other promises, citizens have yet to see these benefits and instead face new challenges such as organized crime increasing. Wells’s second sub-argument is that weed is increasingly dangerous because of high THC levels. To back this up, she author refers to a study published in “The Lancet” (a prestigious medical journal), which argued that daily users of high potency marijuana were roughly five times as likely to experience a first-episode psychosis. Her third supporting argument is that the commercial cannabis industry will not and cannot regulate itself. Throughout Wells’ article, she attempted to debunk the “advantages” progressives pushed for legalization. In doing so, she was efficient in persuading that while prohibition failed, the rush to legalize was also inefficient.
In “The Social Impacts Cannabis Legalization in the U.S.” Gunelius uses logic as her primary method of persuasion. The article contains a series of statistics, studies, and reports showing shes done the necessary research to be knowledgeable in her writing. However, in the article “Stop the ‘green rush,’ “Wells uses less logic in her approach to getting her point across. Instead, her main method of persuasion was aiming to debunk the so-called “benefits.” Wells also uses pictures to help tell her story. For example, in the excerpt on why realization doesn’t lower crime, she shows a picture of marijuana being seized outside a warehouse in Idaho. Another image is a collage of marijuana flower and cannabis-infused lollipops on sale in Colorado, with another picture of a woman walking past a dispensary. The author showed images that would give the readers a better understanding of what exactly the article is about.
Although the two articles cover similar topics, they both give different views. Gunelius’ argument supports the legalization of marijuana and claims it has many social benefits. She included all the necessary knowledge to prove how it can be a positive solution for states to reduce crimes, reduce deaths from drugs, and underage cannabis use. On the other hand, Wells’ argument about prohibition showed how states that legalized marijuana has experienced an increase in crime, the dangers of THC in regards to its potency and mental health risks, and how the industry doesn’t have a good outlook. Both authors stated some valid points with two different approaches. Gunelius used statistical data to support her argument for legalization. However, it seems like Wells debunked those with some factual information used in her article. In conclusion, I believe Gunelius was more effective in displaying her argument and persuading her audience.
Citations
Gunelius, Susan GuneliusSusan. “The Social Impact of Cannabis Legalization in the United States.” Cannabiz Media, 10 Jan. 2020, cannabiz.media/the-social-impact-of-marijuana-legalization-in-the-united-states/
Wells, Jane. “Stop the ‘Green Rush.’” The Agenda, 14 Oct. 2019, www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/10/14/marijuana-cannabis-legal-000986/
“Tree, Leaf, Flower, Environment, Foliage, Green …” Free Images, 12 Mar. 2017, https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1106510
“Armstrong_Legalize_Marijuana_2001.Jpg.” File: Armstrong Legalize Marijuana 2001.Jpg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Armstrong_Legalize_Marijuana_2001.jpg
“1980s Advertising Council Poster for National Institute on Drug Abuse.” List of Anti-Cannabis Organizations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-cannabis_organizations
“Free Image on Pixabay.” Free Image on Pixabay, 16 July 2016, https://pixabay.com/illustrations/icon-characters-marijuana-weed-1503160/