Rhetorical Analysis Of An End To The War On Weed

A Rhetorical Analysis

In the article, “An End to the War on Weed”, Nathan Comp talks about how the legalization of marijuana has become a movement that has gained momentum in the past few decades and how, over the years, the number of people in favor of legalization has significantly increased. In this article, Comp seems to effectively use rhetoric to get his point across. The article is divided into three sections, and Comp uses ethos, logos and pathos throughout the article in order to make his point. In the first section, Comp paraphrases something said by Victor Hugo to establish his ethos. By quoting Victor Hugo, Comp is coming across as well read and this gives him more credibility as a writer. In the same section, Comp uses statistical data to establish his logos. He states that “In 1969, just 12 percent of Americans favored legalizing marijuana, the Holy Grail of cannabis advocates; this number had tripled by 2005, according to a Gallup poll. Barely three years later, another poll showed 44 percent of Americans support legalization” (Comp 1). These kind of factual statistics support Comp’s thesis that the movement to legalize marijuana is gaining momentum. Comp also cites numerous sources that support his ethos. In the first section of the
article, Comp cites the Gallup poll and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in order to support his statistics. In the second section of the article, Comp looks at legalization from a political angle and quotes influential people in the political system in order to make his point. For example, he quotes Hilary Clinton, saying that she “recently acknowledged that America’s “insatiable” appetite for drugs has helped fuel the cartel-related violence” (Comp 1). He also cites further statistics supported by the source he obtained his information from by saying “ the Mexican cartels reap as much as 62 percent of their profits—and derive much of their power—from American marijuana sales, which total $9 billion annually, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy” (Comp 1). Comp bases this entire section of his argument on information from outside sources. He not only references political sources like Hilary Clinton and President Obama, but also references sources related to the topic he is discussing, like New Mexico Department of Public Health and the Drug Policy Alliance. He then goes on to cite publications like The Economist and Time magazine as well as references research done by a Harvard University economist. By using all these different kinds of sources in his work, Comp is appealing to a wide demographic of people, convincing them of the validity of his argument. If one source does not convince a person, another will. Thus by doing a lot of research and citing a lot of sources originating in different areas, comp aims to make sure he gets his point across and that his point is supported by valid reasons and by research done by credible sources. In the last section of the article, Comp primarily uses pathos and logos in order to support his argument. In the first part of this section, Comp starts off by citing sources and examples to show how marijuana consumption is actually safer that alcohol consumption. He says” American attitudes toward cannabis have softened considerably over the last decade, yet they remain largely ambivalent about reform” (Comp 1). He goes on to quote the co-founder of an organization that promotes marijuana as a safer alternative to alcohol. Mason Tvert, who is quoted in this article, says “Most people agree the laws are too harsh, but many of these don’t want to see it legalized, either” (Comp 1). In this way, Comp establishes the point that marijuana is safer than alcohol. He states real life examples in this section in order to make his argument stronger. For example, he states the example of Michael Phelps, and says that “when a picture surfaced showing Olympic gold-medalist Michael Phelps smoking from a bong, many expected the 23-year-old to lose many of his endorsements. But only Kellogg’s dropped him. Even more surprising, the move seemed to hurt Kellogg’s more than Phelps, as surveys showed the move injured its brand reputation” (Comp 1). With this statement, Comp is trying to say that people have become more open to marijuana consumptions, as only one company dropped Phelps and this drop hurt the company more than it did Phelps. Comp also uses prominent public figures to show that marijuana consumption is uncommon.
He says that times have changed over the years, because when Bill Clinton was asked if he had ever smoke marijuana, he denied it. George W. Bush evaded the question until tapes surfaced in 2005 of him and he had to acknowledge past marijuana use. However when Barak Obama admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in the past, voters were largely unconcerned. In this way, Comp is using pathos to persuade readers as he is using political affiliations to convince his readers. A supporter of George Bush will see that marijuana is not so bad if Bush smoked it in the past and a supporter of Barak Obama will think the same
thing. Comp’s article uses all three rhetorical tactics in supporting his argument; however his argument is not very structured. This is because Comp uses too many sources to support his claim one after the other. The pathos, logos and ethos is not balanced in this particular article. Also, the article has three sections and most of the sections deal with logos and ethos but very little pathos. In this way, Comp’s article could be better structured. However, by using credible sources, referencing prominent figures to persuade his audience and providing valid reasons that support his points, Comp has used strong rhetoric in his argument and succeeds in showing his readers how and why the legalization of marijuana has been gaining momentum in the United States.

Works Cited

Comp, Nathan. “An End to a War on Weed”. In These Times. April 12, 2009. Retrieved from June 7 2010.