Argumentative Essay: Yes On Proposition 64

People have been arguing that “weed is a gateway drug” and that it turns people into “lazy hippies” since the early 1930s. In fact, prior to this time period hemp, and marijuana, was widely used as well as grown for numerous sectors of the economy along with recreational consumption. The Marijuana Tax Act was passed by Congress in 1937 (Marijuana Timeline); effectively criminalizing all uses of the plant. Since this time, cannabis has been a topic of discussion and of course, argument. Recently, the US has seen a few states legalize cannabis (Colorado, Washington, Alaska, etc) while others continue to charge citizens for possession, use, cultivation, as well as distribution. “It's time to legalize and regulate marijuana in California. Yes on Proposition 64.” is an article by The Times Editorial Board that was written September of 2016.
The article, published in the Los Angeles Times makes the argument that California voters should votes “Yes” on “Proposition 64.” The article makes the case as to why voters should pass the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” with reasonings to be evaluated as well as examined.
The article titled
“It's time to legalize and regulate marijuana in California.
Yes on Proposition 64.” presents the data that a shift in thinking has happened; regarding the “drug policy, as more people question the effect of the decades-long war on drugs on law enforcement expenditures, overcrowded prisons, marginalized communities and violent drug cartels. In the case of marijuana, there is growing support for the argument that the cost of enforcing prohibition is too great and delivers too few benefits.” Data, according to the textbook by Edward Inch and Barbara Warnick, are “facts or conditions that are objectively observable beliefs or premises accepted as true by the audience, or conclusions previously established.” These data points are supported with the warrant,
“marijuana, in the state of California, has already been “essentially” legalized” (The Times Editorial Board). We understand that California legalized medical marijuana for adults over the age of 21, twenty years ago in 1996 (Marijuana Timeline). A warrant is the expressed reasoning used to link the data to the claim (Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick). The Times Editorial Board argues for their claim by stating that “Proposition 64” would deal a blow to the illegal market for marijuana. This backing (further factual support for the warrant (Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick)) is detailed that if passed, all adults over 21 would have access to the plant, businesses can get licensed for sales as well as on-site consumption like bars. In addition, it is stated that businesses would be regulated by the state in order to grow, process, deliver, and/or sell marijuana (Times Editorial Board). While not explicitly detailing how the black market would suffer from these changes, the readers have to assume this outcome and its implications. This is a weaker warrant due to lack of information and detailed reasoning. Additionally, the members of the Editorial Board present that the measure would raise more than $1Billion a year in state taxes. Again, this warrant is not explained thoroughly in the article. The authors explain that the new revenue would go to “youth drug education, prevention and treatment programs, law enforcement programs to reduce driving under the influence, and environmental restoration of land.” As hopeful and promising as that sounds, the Editorial Board makes no mention of how they accounted for $1Billion in state taxes. Logically, the article in the Los Angeles Times is adequate. Logos is the logical dimension of the appeal to logic (Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick). There are three basic ways to logically compel an audience according to Edward Inch and Barbara Warnick: Compliance, Identification, and Internalization. The write-up outlines that if the citizens of California pass “Proposition 64” then marijuana will be legalized for adults 21 and older. However, if not passed, the drug will continue to be held illegal and citizens of California will continue to be prosecuted; these are true statements of compliance. The article is relying on the reader to internalize the information they present. The Los Angeles Times is not a typical identification source, however the article talks about both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s position on using federal funds to undermine state legalization efforts. Both are against using funding this way. By providing this, the article provides two very well-known identification sources. Pathos relate to the emotional dimension of the appeal in order to persuade the audience (Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick). The historical narrative in the beginning of the article talks about how prior to “Proposition 64,” California voted on “Proposition 19” in 2010; failing to pass with 46% of the votes being a “Yes” vote (The Times Editorial Board). As stated before, “California has already, essentially, legalized marijuana” (The Times Editorial Board). California decriminalized marijuana possession in 2010, as well as the state has observed that misdemeanor arrests have fallen by 90% according to this same article. By detailing this information, readers can internalize the situation in California pretty well according to pathos reasoning. Ethos consists of the speaker’s credibility (Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick). Credibility is based upon the trustworthiness and expertise of the authors. The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times presents itself as a knowledgeable source of information and news aggregation for Californians; Outlining Californian marijuana culture and past failed propositions. The Editorial Board originally was against the previous “Proposition 19,” but with this article they reorient their positioning. Even though they’ve changed positions, no major fallacies are committed by the authors. The article itself, presents no reasoning to find the board a untrustworthy source. The article “It's Time to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in California. Yes on Proposition 64.” by the Editorial Board is a well-made argument. It claims that citizens of California should vote “Yes” on “Proposition 64” and is supported by multiple, reliable, data points as mentioned; a few of which are undeveloped. The logos of the argument is supported by outlining the possible outcomes after the election, identifying sources of recognition, as well as providing an adequate amount of information for readers to internalize the environment. The pathos dimension of the argument is summarized by narratives of marijuana culture in California as well as the historical narrative about “Proposition 19.” Finally, ethos is conveyed when the article stays truthful as well as attempting to convey their credibility.