Griffith, Marshall, White 1

Cornelius Griffith
Kiaya Marshall
Alexis White
David Brookshire
English 101
14 October 2014
Legalizing Marijuana
There will always be a debate about the legalization of marijuana because on one side of the
argument it is a drug, just like any other addictive drugs such as crack, or crystal meth. But on
the other hand of the argument, it is debated that, yes, it is a drug, but it is also medication that
benefits illnesses and is a relief for pain. Some states, such as California, have long come to a
mutual ground regarding the issue and believe that it should not be a crime worth prosecuting. So
why is it that all states cannot come to a mutual ground regarding the subject? We will analyze
and break down the rhetorical structure of an article that is in support of the legalization of
marijuana. The article we have chosen is Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense written by
Alex Newhouse, an attorney who works on reforming marijuana laws. In his argument, he does
not set out to persuade users to use marijuana, but instead to say that adults who are responsible
or ill should be able to legally consume it without penalty (Newhouse).
Rhetoric is the ability of finding the best available means of persuasion for a given
audience. An argument is an attempt to solve a problem where there are two or more conflicting
positions. An effective way to develop or analyze an argument is to follow the Toulmin System
of Logic, which mainly includes claims, reasons, grounds, and a warrant. Claims are the points
that are being argued, reasons explain why the points being argued are true, grounds are concrete
Griffith, Marshall, White 2
evidence to validate the reason, and a warrant is an unspoken assumption that is already
recognized by the audience (Toulmin System of Logic). Newhouse has followed each step of the
Toulmin System of Logic. His claim for this article is that marijuana should be legalized. The
reasons for his claim are that marijuana is already commonly used and the legalization would
benefit the government. The grounds that he uses are that many people use marijuana illegally,
and that if marijuana was taxed and regulated, the crime rates would go down, thereby creating a
safer environment. In addition, the government would make a profit that would ultimately
benefit the country because the taxes and profit made from the product would generate new
revenue. The warrant is that higher crime rates are detrimental and that profit for agricultural
communities and alternative sources of government income are beneficial.
The first part of rhetoric I will analyze in his argument is his use of logos. Logos is
defined as an appeal to reason or logic (Purdue Owl). In the article, Newhouse provides
numerous examples of logos. For example, he quotes the Shafer Commission in saying, "Neither
the marijuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety"
(Newhouse). The specific finding of the Shafer Commission helps because it follows a logical
train of thought. The Shafer Commission concludes that marijuana usage and users are not a
threat to public safety. Another example of Newhouse's use of logos is, "Marijuana does not
cause cancer. Sound scientific studies, such as those done by UCLA's Dr. Donald Tashkin, have
clearly demonstrated this (Newhouse). We also know that marijuana is legitimate medicine." He
describes this scientific study so the reader will know that Newhouse has done his research on
the topic and that he is not just giving an opinion about a topic without conducting proper
research.
The second part of the rhetoric appeal is ethos. Ethos is the credibility of the author and it
Griffith, Marshall, White 3
quiets the skepticism of the audience. It focuses attention on the writer's character as it is
projected in the message. It refers to the ethical appeal or from the credibility of the writer. Ethos
is often conveyed through the writer's investment in his or her claim, through the fairness with
which the writer considers alternative views. Arguments without ethos can be completely valid
and correct, but no one will believe the person making the claims because they have no reason
to. In the article, Newhouse failed to establish his credibility. He did not bring up a reason for
why he has to right to argue about the legalization of marijuana. To find out more about him, we
had to conduct outside research, and we found that he is a lawyer who works with reforming
marijuana laws. The fact that he failed to mention that in his article made it difficult to believe he
is credible. If he would have explained further on his career, it would have made his argument a
lot stronger.
The last rhetorical appeal he incorporates into his argument is pathos. Pathos is a
component of an argument that appeals to emotion (Ethos, Logos, Pathos). In the article, "Here's
Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense," the author provides numerous appeals to logic. For
example, "Regulating marijuana would also protect our children. It is easier for kids today to get
marijuana than it is for them to get alcohol or tobacco" (Newhouse). This excerpt appeals to the
emotions of the reader because people in general have a instinctual responsibility towards taking
care of children. The thought of children being able to access and use marijuana will cause the
reader to feel obligated to take action and thereby give them a reason support the pro-legalization
legislation in order to prevent kids' access to marijuana. People already believe that kids should
not be able to access and use marijuana. So the possibility that it can be prevented is a positive
thing. This argument hinges on the assumption that kids should not use marijuana. This
assumption is called the warrant of an argument. Every argument includes a warrant or some
Griffith, Marshall, White 4
commonly accepted assumption that must be true for the argument to work.
The argument to the complete legalization of marijuana is not over and may not be over
for a while, but Newhouse makes a very persuasive argument about the pro-legalization of
marijuana. He chose the right evidence to support his claims and that would bring about a
response from his reader. He incorporates logos and pathos very well throughout his argument,
but he did not incorporate ethos well. The incorporation of ethos could have made his argument
stronger. The evidence Newhouse chose to use was pertinent to his argument, although he could
have provided more evidence that took a stronger stance against marijuana because by refuting
stronger claims it makes an argument better. Even though the way he formed his argument may
have not been the best strategy, it was a step in the right direction and it will just be the one of
many discussions for the legalization of marijuana.












Griffith, Marshall, White 5
Works Cited
Newhouse, Alex. "Here's Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense | Cannabis Culture."
Cannabis Culture. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
"Ethos, Pathos, and Logos." Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html
"Toulmin System of Logic." Toulmin System of Logic. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.fisherhouse.com/bsu/comm112/propositions/sld010.htm
"Welcome to the Purdue OWL." Purdue OWL: Establishing Arguments. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.