Article Analysis on the Topic of Marijuana Legalization

Nowadays everyone discusses marijuana and has some sort of opinion on it, Is it safe?, Does it have medical benefits?, or Is it harmful and deadly? I read two articles that discuss two different viewpoints, one being if it should be legalized and the other saying it should not be legalized. The two articles I read were “Marijuana should Be Legalized for Medical Use” by Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and the other was “The Marijuana Plant Should Not Be Legalized for Medical Use” by Drug Free America Foundation, Inc (DFAF). The Drug Policy Alliance is a non-profit organization which is run by Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno in New York City. They prioritize in decriminalizing responsible drug use, which means the user and everyone else is less negatively impacted and is more beneficial instead.

The Drug Policy Alliance stance on marijuana is that medicinal marijuana should be legal for the severely ill people. Now the Drug Free America Foundation prioritizes on drug prevention and is a non-profit charitable organization. Their main goal is to reduce minimize drug use and drug addiction. After reading both articles and looking into the author's’ background the first text I looked at, “Marijuana should Be Legalized for Medical Use” by Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) was stronger and has more of an effect on changing others perspectives on this topic. Looking at both articles they both focus on one topic more than another to prove their thesis. One example is how the article by the DPA focus on how marijuana is safe and the other article by the DFAF looks at the dangers of marijuana. Although the article by the DFAF does recognize some medicinal efficiency.

In the first text by the DPA they note how marijuana has been used worldwide for thousands of years so therefore it must be safe. They also state how many medical journals published their controlled studies so it must be credible. Whereas the other text by the DFAF just stated the dangers of this drug which ranged from how there is no standardized dose for THC to how there are harmful chemicals used during cultivation. Other dangers that were mentioned were how we don't know who is actually benefiting and who isn't and what side effects they are having due to only few cases being publicized. These two texts’ examples show how different their purposes are. The second text uses diction and logos whereas the first doesn’t. The first text lets you make your own assumption, this is believed because there is little known about the actual safety of marijuana but they just try to let the medicinal effects outweigh that fact. As for the second text they use facts when discussing the dangers and use diction to get their point across. When looking at another idea both articles discuss efficiency stands out.

Both articles discuss the efficiency of medical marijuana but one article clearly discusses it more effectively. The article by the DFAF discusses little benefits of using medical marijuana so they don't wash out their point on why it shouldn't be legal. They only reference two benefits, one being it helps relieve pain due to multiple sclerosis and the other being how it treats cancer pain. Where the article by the DPA discusses many different medical conditions that marijuana helps relieve symptoms. The text also references cancer and multiple sclerosis as two of those medical conditions but also names HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, glaucoma, Alzheimer’s disease, and crohn's disease. The DPA would also name a study done by the national Institute of Medicine which reviewed information about the benefits of medical marijuana and came to the conclusion that marijuana helps with anxiety, nausea, pain, and appetite loss. Both articles used logos in this situation but the article by the DPA used it more efficiently by including more facts and examples from a scientific study that was done on the topic.

For the final topic I will be discussing is both articles explored the legality of the drug and what is being done to prevent it from being legal and how it could become legal. In both cases the articles use diction and authorities or “big names” to help develop their case. The DPA discusses many big names like the Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The DEA and NIDA use the fact that since marijuana isn't approved by the FDA that it is not a medicine, and again using logos to prove their thesis. Also with this statement they use prolepsis to tell how it is not FDA approved by saying how the DEA won’t allow marijuana to be made for scientific research in private labs. Where the DFAF used big names by exploring how GW Pharmaceuticals started the movement in using marijuana as medicine like in Sativex and Epidiolex but they believe people should be more focused on researching more into modern medicines to develop them further. This is because they want protect people from potentially harmful substances and experiments. So in this situation the DPA had a stronger case by using big names in a more efficient way.

So since looking at both articles and comparing them even though that “The Marijuana Plant Should Not Be Legalized for Medical Use” by Drug Free America Foundation, Inc (DFAF) had more information “Marijuana should Be Legalized for Medical Use” by Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) had created a stronger article by using more strategies to change people's opinions.