Marijuana Legalization: Rhetorical Analysis

Marijuana legalization is one of the most hotly debated subjects in the past couple decades in the US. Marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 drug under federal law, which means that, according to the government, it is highly addictive and has no medical use at all. Research has shown it has medical value, however, and a few states have regulations in place to sell marijuana legally. The public attitude towards the drug has changed in the past couple decades. It is more socially acceptable than it was 20 years ago. Two articles I have found approach the subject of legalization in a very different way. The first article I found is from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology titled "Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Marijuana Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source". This article delves into the possibility of having a federally regulated market for marijuana and marijuana products, from the economic point of view. It thoroughly explains the argument both for and against legalization and its economic and sociological consequences. The second article I found was from the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use”. This article delves into the potential health risks of marijuana use. This article presents the evidence in a very unbiased way, showing that there is cause for concern, yet there is not enough evidence to say for sure. Both articles present a unique rhetoric that aid in the understanding in their respective fields. While they both have very similar rhetoric styles, utilizing a lot of graphs, statistics, and numbers, the structure and analyzation of the data is different because they are working towards different goals.

 

The two articles in question have some rhetorical similarities. Both cited a lot of reliable sources, giving them a lot of credibility and effectively adding to the authors’ ethos. They both use a lot of jargon specifically for the field that they are in. Caputo’s article for the Journal of Economics and Sociology uses phrases like “price elasticity of demand” and “excise taxation” (Caputo 475, 485). Volkow’s article uses terms like “cognitive deficits”, while the article also names parts of the brain without elaborating further, which shows the author assumes the reader has a working knowledge of the brain (Volkow 2220). The language makes it clear that the articles were meant for peers in their respective fields.

An important similarity to highlight is the use of graphs, facts, and numbers. Both articles consisted of a lot of statistics to support their argument. These statistics are used to increase the authors’ logos for each of their papers. The heavy use of graphs and statistics can give the impression that the authors are very well informed and did a lot of research. While this is likely true, some of the numbers or graphs could arguably be misleading or out of context. It’s best to analyze the actual figures to see if they’re meaningful, rather than take them at face value. The authors did a fairly decent job at including only relevant numbers for their arguments, but there are some that can be seen as misleading. In Caputo’s article, he explains how the estimates for the value of the marijuana market range greatly (from 2 billion to 9 billion dollars), but for almost all of his graphs regarding prices and how much tax would come out of the price of the product, he uses the higher estimate, therefore his estimates for the tax revenue are high (Caputo 480-481). This can be viewed as a sneaky way to further his argument about a regulated marijuana market. Similarly, Volkow has a somewhat misleading bar graph in her article. We are lead to believe, after looking at it, that an increase in marijuana potency has caused the number of emergency room visits to increase for drug-related injuries. The emergency room visit numbers also include marijuana in conjunction with other drugs, and while it names the other drugs it is referring to (cocaine and heroin), it provides no information on them (Volkow 2223). The potency of those drugs could have gone up as well, or they could have gotten easier to obtain. Also, it does not account for an increased population. The number of drug related emergency room visits would increase with a bigger population regardless of marijuana potency. These points do not necessarily mean the articles should be discredited outright, but analysis is needed to really understand the meaning of a certain rhetorical choice in a paper.


The articles are also organized slightly differently. Caputo’s article is more of a traditional essay, with an abstract, a strong introduction, main body paragraphs that explain his argument in a logical order of thought, and has a conclusion to summarize his main points. This makes it easy to read and understand because people are used to reading articles like this. It very much guides the reader into the points that he is trying to make by following his train of thought. He is trying to persuade a way of thinking by using this organizational style. Volkow’s article is structured slightly differently. It has an introduction but then lists the elements of the argument. There is not much of a train of thought to follow, it is just information in a list. It is an article that is meant to inform about the potential dangers of marijuana, so her organizational structure works.

One of the main rhetorical differences between these two articles is the way the information is analyzed within the text. Caputo writes with the intention to persuade the reader into supporting a legalized marijuana market. Therefore, within the text, he draws conclusions and offers ideas and solutions to problems presented. He describes what must be done in order to create a legal marijuana market, rather than just present information and analyze it. A good example of this is in his paragraph titled Consideration of a Tax Structure, where he talks about how specifically marijuana should be taxed. He talks about the types of taxes the government should have and continues “a tax on quantity (e.g., much per gram) is straightforward to design, easy to measure, and therefore relatively inexpensive to collect” (Caputo 485). This way of writing, again, accomplishes his goal of convincing the reader to follow his train of thought. The data is presented to the reader, as well as the conclusions that he wants the reader to pull out. Conversely, Volkow’s article presents the facts and data and invites the reader to draw their own conclusions about what they are reading. The article lists all of the potential health effects of the drug, but has an entire paragraph that says, “Most of the long-term effects of marijuana use that are summarized here have been observed among heavy or long-term users, but multiple (often hidden) confounding factors detract from our ability to establish causality (including the frequent use of marijuana in combination with other drugs)” (Volkow 2222). It means that there is not enough evidence to prove that marijuana is the sole cause of all the problems listed, which adds to the author’s ethos. A reader will be more likely to trust the credibility of an author if the other side of the argument can be presented. Also, this paragraph shows a lot about the goal of the author. The article, while still trying to persuade, lets the reader draw their own conclusions about the data presented. Volkow does not draw her own conclusions in the paper based on the data and offer solutions (e.g., she does not say “because of this, marijuana should be illegal); the data is open for interpretation, but she still argues that marijuana should be avoided and warns “As policy shifts toward legalization of marijuana, it is reasonable and probably prudent to hypothesize that its use will increase and that, by extension, so will the number of persons for whom there will be negative health consequences” (Volkow 2226). This is more of a passive conclusion, as opposed to the active conclusions and solutions proposed in Caputo’s article. These two rhetoric choices highlight the different goals each paper is trying to accomplish.

The rhetoric choices in the fields of economics/sociology and medicine are revealed to be very different when looking at the same topic approached by each discipline, although they share similarities. Both articles use logos to appeal to their reader; the use of graphs, numbers, and statistics is very heavy. Both articles cite a lot of sources, increasing their ethos. Also, both articles make use of jargon used in their respective fields. However, the articles differed in their structure and analyzation technique. Caputo’s article has a traditional essay structure to easily lead the reader to the point he is trying to make, while making use of conclusive sentences and data analyzation to offer solutions, rather than have the reader come up with a solution and draw conclusions themselves. Volkow’s article is more of a list with no discernable train of thought. She draws some conclusion from the data, but a lot of the data is left open for the reader to analyze and make their own conclusions and solutions. The rhetorical differences between the two disciplines reveal how having two different perspectives on the same topic can profoundly change the what the goal of the argument is, and how it is reached.



Works Cited

Volkow, Nora D., et al. "Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use." The New England Journal of Medicine 370.23 (2014): 2219-27. ProQuest. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.
Caputo, Michael R. "Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Marijuana Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 53.4 (1994): 475-90. JSTOR. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.