GRASP Project -- Should Medicinal Marijuana be Legalized?

Introduction

The world is rapidly changing; medicine is evolving, technology is growing, our minds are constantly expanding with each new discovery, each new organism, each new inch of the universe explored. Yet there are things here on Earth that are being limited; prevented from discovering new possibilities. One of those things is the heated controversial debate over the legalization of medicinal marijuana. Doctors are willing to study the medicinal properties of marijuana for the benefit of people with illnesses that cause severe side effects and chronic, unbearable pain. However, the federal law that states marijuana is a Class I, highly dangerous drug. This means that the expansion, development and testing of the drug is highly illegal. Many states have legalized medicinal use of marijuana, such as California and Colorado. Even our nation’s capitol, the District of Columbia, has also legalized the drug’s medicinal use. Yet the federal government still hinders the studies of the drug with the law blockading the way to development. These blog posts will cover three articles that all vary in their viewpoints about the debate and decisions made during this time of controversy.

I believe in exploration. I believe in possibilities. I believe in giving everything a chance. That’s why I chose this topic.

Reference 1:

In the article, “When the Doctor Just Won’t Help,” Sharon Kirkey of the Ottawa Citizen Postmedia News informs the many people involved in the debate over medicinal marijuana about patients left in terrible pain when doctors refuse to give prescriptions for legal marijuana use.

Kirkey’s point of view is that patients in dire pain should not have to suffer and endanger their freedom by buying pot off the black market. Doctors in fear of the consequences of prescribing their patients marijuana are driving their desperate patients to illegal sources of marijuana to relive their unbearable pain.

The text structure, description, supports the author’s view point, purpose and main idea because she describes different situations where patients are denied the prescription for legal use of the drug and how it affects their lives by making them live in fear. The author does not openly or discreetly show opinion in her writing, but she chooses to gingerly skip over evidence against the main idea of her article.

Kirkey’s view point about the main idea is that patients should not have to suffer and endanger their freedom by having to buy pot off the black market to soothe their pain when doctors can’t. The evidence that supports the author’s view point is all the cases in which patients are denied the drug by their doctors because the doctor is in fear of the legal circumstances, and how Kirkey emphasizes these situations with her word choice.

Kirkey does not address conflicting evidence in her piece, and only presents one side of the argument.

The author uses connotation to create a slant in her piece by using word choice that makes the patient’s pain and symptoms sound unbearable and intolerable, such as terrible, serious, debilitating, and unrelenting.  

Sharon Kirkey, the author of this article, is a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen, and created this article after an Ontario court case has revealed the pure desperation patients with chronic pain are in when their doctors refuse to approve their plea for medicinal marijuana. The article was published on November 1, 2011, and its facts were obtained from interviews with primary sources.

Reference 2:

In the article, “Reefer Madness—Reform Our Crazy Marijuana Laws,” George Liebmann of the Baltimore Sun persuades the public that the country’s marijuana laws need to be reformed because of the fact that the drug is medicinally stable when regulated by the government, like alcohol, and also because the three-quarters of a million marijuana arrests a year are doing nothing but clogging the jails and court systems.

Liebmann’s view point is that “besides decriminalization of possession, there need to be lawful channels of distribution, together with taxes and quality controls like those for alcohol.”

The text structure, problem and solution, supports the author’s view point, purpose and main idea because it presents the problem, court systems being clogged more and more each year with minor marijuana possessions that require lengthy jail time and drawn out court cases, and the solution, which the author claims is either reclassification of marijuana on the scale of drugs from Class I to Class III, IV, or V, or decriminalization all together to allow the states to regulate the drug. Reclassification of marijuana from Class I to Class III, IV, or V would allow patients to be prescribed the drug and only allow them five refills in the time span of six months.

Liebmann’s view point about the main idea of this article is that prohibition is doing nothing to deter the use of the drug and is causing jails to fill to the brim with minor marijuana possession cases, and also that reclassification would be beneficial to the medical community and the patients who suffer from disease that cause chronic pain or nausea. The evidence that supports said view point is that drug prisoners in federal custody increased to 97,239 in 2009, and the fact that “approximately one-third of the federal criminal docket is drug cases, increasing from 2,692 in 1968 to 29,759 in 2009. This evidence proves that the author’s point, that prohibition of marijuana is doing nothing to keep the drug from the general population, is accurate.

The author addresses conflicting evidence by shooting it down with facts that disprove or discredit the opposing view point, as he does in the following paragraph: “Marijuana can be a detrimental drug. Impure batches, a certainty when it is criminalized, result in trips to emergency rooms. It can result in dangerous driving. It is usually not seriously addictive. It is the drug of an age cohort; almost a rite of passage. Its most serious effect is as an escape mechanism that de-motivates the young. Marijuana is not a gateway drug except insofar as illegal acquisition introduces users to dealers in other substances. Forty years of criminalization have not reduced its use. Drug testing is the only strategy that has succeeded. Schools, colleges and parents do not want to incriminate the young and therefore do not encourage testing.”

Liebmann uses connotation to create a slant in his writing by using words such as  marijuana instead of pot, which usually give the drug a negative sound, and downgrading instead of reduced, to provide the reader with more security about the sentence in which he states marijuana should be reclassified to Class III, IV, or V.

The author uses the persuasive technique logos for a majority of the time in his article, but also brushes pathos in the middle of the article when he states: “Its [marijuana] most serious effect is as an escape mechanism that de-motivates the young,” and also: “Other benefits include … an end to a condition in which there is a marijuana dealer in every school.” Liebmann uses logos in the majority of his article by stating factual evidence and numbers of court cases and federal imprisonments.

George Liebmann, a Baltimore lawyer, is volunteer executive director of the Calvert Institute of Baltimore, MD. The facts in this article were introduced in a conference at the Calvert Institute which included three former Nixon administration officials. This article was published in the Baltimore Sun on August 15, 2011.

In the article, “A Ruling Against Medical Pot,” John Hoeffel, a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, informs the people involved in the heated medicinal marijuana debate why the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration chose to deny the request to reclassify marijuana. Hoeffel remains objective and refrains from adding commentary that would display his viewpoint on the topic.

Description is the text structure the author chose to format his article because he is describing the many reasons why the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration chose to deny the request to reclassify marijuana. Hoeffel adds quotes from people with different views on the decision, but he does not compare these opinions, nor does he show any forms of cause and effect or problem and solution. He does not present a situation in which would cause a certain outcome, and he does not present a situation in which he is presenting a problem and formulating or presenting a solution. Using description allows Hoeffel to remain objective because he does not have to suggest a solution, distribute equal attention to both sides of the debate or inform his readers about the effects of this decision.

Hoeffel does not add commentary and uses neutral, simple words that do not display any opinion or bias, and therefore there can be no conflicting evidence due to the fact that he does not have a view point in this article.

The author uses words with plain connotation that do not present a bias with their hidden meaning to remain objective in his piece. Words like “says,” which does not present any bias, and using “recommended” instead of more commanding words to create the image that the government was outraged by an organization’s petition.

John Hoeffel is a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, and published this article on July 9, 2011. Hoeffel’s evidence is straight from government officials and interviews with people of high authority in the organizations that were involved in the request for reclassification, and the government’s choice to deny said request.

Reference 3: