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:

High School or Bust

High school. Just the word makes you seem older, right?
Well many of us just seem overwhelmed. You can't tell me your not a little excited, though; think of the possibilities, the experiences, the people and the diversity! What are your outlooks on high school?(:

Nuture: The Logical Answer

            In the debate of nature versus nurture, nurture is the more logical answer because the complex attributes of the personality cannot be inherited, and not all children are mirror images of their parents.

            One side of the debate is the nature theory. We can obviously see that physical characteristics, like facial features and hair color, are inherited. However, the nature theory states that humans acquire their personality traits or abilities, such as being a thrill seeker, being talented at singing, or even their sexual orientation, exclusively from their parents by birth. When a human being’s personality is spawned solely from nature, every person would be born with predetermined abilities, likes and dislikes, and even some prejudices.

            The other side of the debate is the nurture theory. It does not doubt that nature plays the role in developing our bodies. However, the nurture theory says that the human personality is formed, mostly during the opportune window of impressionability in the early stages of life, by the environment in which we were raised, along with the people around us. During the ages 0-2, the personality is formed, and the window of impressionability is thrown wide open for the child to absorb information from their parents and the environment around them. When a human being is born, they are, according to the nurture theory, a blank slate on which the parents and environment of the child will form a personality.

            The nurture theory can be easily proved by the study of two women who were identical twins. Their genes are exact replicas. For example, one project was initiated by Viola Bernard, a renowned psychiatrist in New York, who had persuaded the adoption agency to send each twin to a different family. Peter Neubauer, a prominent psychiatrist at New York University, studied the twins to compare the forces of nature and nurture. His research showed that they were not born with any of the traits of their schizophrenic mother, but each had particular strengths and likes of their own. One lived alone, dyed her straight hair a dark, golden brunette and was a fiery spirit. The other was married with a baby, favored her lightened red curls and was easy-going and relaxed. Although they were born with one hundred percent of the same DNA, they each developed unique personalities and qualities when reared apart.

            My theory in this debate, which I have named the “canvas” theory, is similar to the “blank-slate” theory, which says that nature does not play any role in personality development and humans are born simply blank with no knowledge of anything. The canvas theory says that there’s a little of both nature and nurture playing a part in the development of personalities, but nurture is the more dominant factor. Now, imagine an infant's personality as a blank canvas. The canvas has a textured sheet and a wooden structure on the inside. The texture of the canvas, which is used to hold paint more efficiently, is the genes that control learning capacity and speed, along with natural instincts that all humans inherit. The wooden structure, which keeps the canvas sheet stretched and flat, is their memory. Differences in the way it was “built” by their parents determines the quality of the information a child will obtain and how long it will be preserved in their brains.

            The scientific argument over nature and nurture has been baffling psychologists and geneticists for years. However, with the study of these twins, who were reunited recently, the nurture theory shines through. Although nature plays a part in the learning structures of our brains, it is proven that people are products of their environment. When our canvas is set, when paint is splayed and splattered across our surface, and when we are set on display for the world, our colors express each of us uniquely and differently from our siblings, our friends, and our parents. We shine as individuals, with all humans resembling snowflakes; all made of delicate ice crystals, but each one separately and inimitably constructed.