Second Draft (Decriminalizing marijuana)

Marijuana is known to be the most common illegal drug in the world. More than 100 million Americans have tried Marijuana and 25 million have smoked it in the past year. This fact alone gives you an idea of how common this illegal drug is and its influence on society. Marijuana is a mixture of dried leaves, stems, seed, and flowers of the hemp plant called Cannabis Sativa. There are many nicknames for this drug such as weed, pot, and bud. Marijuana was first outlawed in the United States in 1905 in El Paso, Texas. The reason behind this was strictly motivated by racial prejudice against Mexican immigrants. These laws had nothing to do with the actual effects of the marijuana. Cannabis, in the form of hemp was a common plant in the states before this law enacted and was even used for medicine, clothing, and other goods. Although there are no proven health related effects from THC, the psychoactive substance present in marijuana, I can understand the government’s worries about decriminalizing this drug. The drug is perceived to make users very lazy and indolent, although it completely varies from person to person. Another theory is that decriminalizing it will likely lead more people to try marijuana, especially the curious and the young people. Another assumption the government has engraved onto the public is that there are no medicinal advantages to using Marijuana. There are many other reasons why the government is so uptight about decriminalizing this drug, but the only way to truly resolve this problem is by exchanging common beliefs and ideas.

The public’s feelings about marijuana are slowly changing. For years, the public has only known marijuana for its negative properties. With the proposal of many new laws, the public is slowly starting to understand the truth about marijuana. With that being said, I do understand where the anti-marijuana advocates are coming from. Although there are many health experts that say marijuana is harmless to the human body, there are many things we do not know about this plant. Is marijuana addicting and does it have long lasting effects in the brain? These are important questions that must be answered in order to fully decriminalize this drug. There is also the theory of how decriminalizing the drug will not solve our drug control problems. Since distribution will still be illegal, the drug wars between dealers will not mitigate. Although this might be true, decriminalizing the drug will save the government huge amounts of money now being spent on the enforcement of such laws.

I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized because it has more advantages than disadvantages. One reason is that it will save the government so much money and time now being spent on the enforcement of such marijuana laws. “On a national level, a recent report by Jon Gettman estimated that national criminal justice expenditures for enforcing marijuana laws is $7.6 billion per year with $3.7 billion being allocated to police, $853 million to the courts, and $3.1 billion to corrections.” (Austin). If possession of this plant was not a criminal offense, the amount of work and money being put into enforcement and processing tasks will drastically reduce, saving the government tons of money. Many anti-marijuana advocates believe that decriminalization will result in greater use of the drug. One out of ten US residents use marijuana at least once a year and 47% of all adults have tried marijuana at least once (Duncan). If almost half the country has tried this illegal drug, greater use of this drug should be the least of concerns. Although there are no proven facts that decriminalizing it will reduce the use of this drug, there are also no proven facts that it will result in greater use of the drug.

There is also this theory about how decriminalizing this drug will result in higher crime rates. I can see where the anti-marijuana advocates are coming from on this but this can also work both ways. It is a well known fact that most criminals have tried an illegal drug. Their logic for the drug use will cause crime argument is that since there are so many criminals that have tried illegal drugs; they believe that the crimes they committed were due to those illegal drugs. Their argument is like saying water must be the reason for their crimes because all criminals have consumed water in their lifetime. Marijuana should not be related to any kind of committed crimes because it is neither a gateway drug nor one that necessarily propels one to criminal activity. The number of marijuana related arrests has grown significantly in the past decade. “In 1970 there was an estimated 188,682 arrests for the drug – by 2003 the number had increased to 755,000” (De La Mater). Although, it is clear that marijuana arrests have risen in the 30 years, vast majority of these arrests are for possession. These kinds of arrests are just a waste of time and money. Many prisons are slowly letting inmates get out early because prisons are becoming too crowded. Decriminalizing marijuana will drastically reduce all of this, which will save the government billions of dollars.

It is quite evident that decriminalizing marijuana will have an overall positive impact on the country. Decriminalization is the first step to the government making billions of dollars, which they could be using for other productive things. I believe now is the best time for decriminalization of marijuana because of the recession this country is already facing. There are also no proven health effects from marijuana, which only makes decriminalization make more sense. Doctors are already giving out medical marijuana cards to help patients with different kinds of diseases. It is time to open our eyes and realize the benefits of decriminalizing marijuana.

Austin, James. "Rethinking the Consequences of Decriminalizing Marijuana." NORML.org. 2 Nov. 2005. Web. 18 Mar. 2010.

De La Mater, Benning. "US MA: Use of Marijuana a Hot Topic, With Ballot Question Possible." Media Awareness Project. Jan. 2008. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .

Duncan, Cynthia. "The Need for Change: An Economic Analysis of Marijuana Policy." Wilson Web. Wilson Web, 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .

Reflection 2.2

There were a lot of changes in my second draft after all the feedbacks from my first draft. One thing I changed was my empathetic writing towards my opposition’s side. In my second draft, I had more things in common and I really understood where the opposing side was coming from. I also did a lot more research, which helped me make my essay better with stronger evidence. One thing I need to work on my final draft are the paragraph transitions. I need to find better introductory sentences to my paragraphs which helps with the flow of the paper.

Reflection (2.1)

I found this rogerian argument fairly difficult just because i had to be very empathetic when writing this paper. I didn't really know when to be empathetic and when to argue my point. This also took me a fairly long time to write just because it took me a long time to research this topic. I learned a lot from writing this paper because it really made me understand the other side of the story. It was pretty hard trying to gain common ground with the opposing side, but that’s why I believe this paper made me learn a lot about writing. On my second draft, I am definitely going to make sure I have some common ground with the other side because I am pretty sure I wasn’t as empathetic as I needed to be. I also think that this paper wasn’t as long as it needed to be. So I need to research more and support my thesis with evidence. Overall, I believe this paper has the potential to be good, it just needs some work.

First draft (Decriminalizing Marijuana)

Marijuana is known to be the most common illegal drug in the world. More than 100 million Americans have tried Marijuana and 25 million have smoked it in the past year. This fact alone gives you an idea of how much marijuana has influenced society. Marijuana is a mixture of dried leaves, stems, seed, and flowers of the hemp plant called Cannabis Sativa. There are many nicknames for the drug such as weed, pot, and bud. Marijuana was first outlawed in the United States in 1905 in El Paso, Texas. The reason behind this was strictly motivated by racial prejudice against Mexican immigrants. These laws had nothing to do with the actual effects of the marijuana. Cannabis, in the form of hemp was a common plant in the states before this law enacted and was even used for medicine, clothing, and other goods. Although there are no proven health related effects from THC, the psychoactive substance present in marijuana, I can understand the government’s worries about decriminalizing this drug. The drug is perceived to make users very lazy and indolent, although it completely depends on the user. Another theory is that decriminalizing it will likely lead more people to try marijuana, especially the curious and the young people. Another assumption the government has engraved onto the public is that there are no medicinal advantages to using Marijuana. There are many other reasons why the government is so uptight about decriminalizing this drug, but the only way to truly resolve this problem is by exchanging common beliefs and ideas.

The public’s feelings about marijuana are slowly changing. For years, the public has only known marijuana for its negative properties. With the proposal of many new laws, the public is slowly starting to understand the truth about marijuana. With that being said, I do understand where the anti-marijuana advocates are coming from. Although there are many health experts that say marijuana is harmless to the human body, there are many things we do not know about this plant. Is marijuana addicting and has long lasting effects in the brain? These are questions that must be answered in order to fully legalize this drug. There is also the theory of how decriminalizing the drug will not solve our drug control problems. Since distribution will still be illegal, the drug wars between dealers will not mitigate. Although this might be true, decriminalizing the drug will save the government huge amounts of money now being spent on the enforcement of such laws.

I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized because it has more advantages than disadvantages. One reason is that it will save the government so much money and time now being spent on the enforcement of such marijuana laws. “On a national level, a recent report by Jon Gettman estimated that national criminal justice expenditures for enforcing marijuana laws is $7.6 billion per year with $3.7 billion being allocated to police, $853 million to the courts, and $3.1 billion to corrections.” (Austin). If possession of this plant was not a criminal offense, the amount of work and money being put into enforcement and processing tasks will drastically reduce, saving the government tons of money. Many anti-marijuana advocates believe that decriminalization will result in greater use of the drug. One out of ten US residents use marijuana at least once a year and 47% of all adults have tried marijuana at least once (Duncan). If almost half the country has tried this illegal drug, greater use of this drug should be the least of concerns. Although there are no proven facts that decriminalizing it will reduce the use of this drug, there are also no proven facts that it will result in greater use of the drug.

There is also this theory about how decriminalizing this drug will result in higher crime rates. I can see where the anti-marijuana advocates are coming from on this but this can also work both ways. It is a well known fact that most criminals have tried an illegal drug. Their logic for the drug use will cause crime argument is that since there are so many criminals that have tried illegal drugs; they believe that the crimes they committed were due to those illegal drugs. Their argument is like saying water must be the reason for their crimes because all criminals have consumed water in their lifetime. Marijuana should not be related to any kind of committed crimes because it is neither a gateway drug nor one that necessarily propels one to criminal activity. The number of marijuana related arrests has grown significantly in the past decade. “In 1970 there was an estimated 188,682 arrests for the drug – by 2003 the number had increased to 755,000” (De La Mater). Although, it is clear that marijuana arrests have risen in the 30 years, vast majority of these arrests are for possession. These kinds of arrests are just a waste of time and money. Many prisons are slowly letting inmates get out early because prisons are becoming too crowded. Decriminalizing marijuana will drastically reduce all of this, which will save the government billions of dollars.

It is quite evident that decriminalizing marijuana will have an overall positive impact on the country. Decriminalization is the first step to the government making billions of dollars, which they could be using for other productive things. I believe now is the best time for decriminalization of marijuana because of the recession this country is already facing. There are also no proven health effects from marijuana, which only makes decriminalization make more sense. Doctors are already giving out medical marijuana cards to help patients with different kinds of diseases. It is time to open our eyes and realize the benefits of decriminalizing marijuana.

Austin, James. "Rethinking the Consequences of Decriminalizing Marijuana." NORML.org. 2 Nov. 2005. Web. 18 Mar. 2010.

De La Mater, Benning. "US MA: Use of Marijuana a Hot Topic, With Ballot Question Possible." Media Awareness Project. Jan. 2008. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .

Duncan, Cynthia. "The Need for Change: An Economic Analysis of Marijuana Policy." Wilson Web. Wilson Web, 2009. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .

Pre writing

My paper is going to focus around the controversial topic of decriminalizing marijuana. Many people are opposed to this because of their lack of information on marijuana. They go about believing the public’s perception of the drug, which should not be even counted as an opinion. I can understand some problems this proposal might cause but there are definitely more advantages than disadvantages when it comes to decriminalizing marijuana.

Reflection 1.3

There was a huge difference between my second draft and my final draft mainly due to all the feedbacks i got from the workshops. I really tried to actually listen to the criticism and fix all the miscues of the essay. One thing that made my paper better from the second draft was the fact that I used an attention grabbing opening sentence. This will really make the readers want to learn more about global warming and how we can go about solving this.

Final Draft (Problems in the Climate Bill)

Dear New York Times Board Editor,

The thought of life vanishing from this earth seems unimaginable, but there are ways humans can stop what they created. Global Warming is a topic that is heavily debated everyday in our society. These greenhouse gases are slowly ruining our planet which asks for drastic solutions. There were some points in the editorial that I agreed with, but the way the editorial suggested we should go about solving this problem seemed unintelligent to me. Last December, representatives from 192 nations gathered in Copenhagen to make a plan that will drastically change the course of global warming. This meeting aimed to reduce carbon emissions in the air created by burning of fossil fuels. The meeting urged the nations to create a plan that will “reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2% from 1990 levels” (Vergano). In The New York Times editorial “The Case for a Climate Bill,” the author talks about the importance of a bill that puts both a cap and a price on carbon emissions. This climate bill is having a hard time passing through Congress because even though it will reduce carbon emissions, there are many side effects to this plan. The bill will hurt both developing and developed countries because it will only harm the recession this world is already facing.

There are many reasons why this bill will not work in this society we live in. Nations have no intention of letting the developed world force them to stop using fossil fuels. Many nations depend on these carbon emitting fuels to create energy and run their country. Restricting these nations from this source of income would greatly affect their economy denying many nations to industrialize and keeping their population in poverty. This is what this bill is asking the world to accept. The editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is ignorantly saying “a good program would create more jobs than its cost” (Paragraph 3). This bill will affect every household in the country. Vergano, the senior editor on Global Warming in The New York Times, argues “the costs of creating a carbon "market" to achieve such cuts would be about $175 a year by then for the average household.”(Vergano) He later goes on to say that we are doing all this just to lower the temperature by 2 degrees Celsius in the next couple hundred years. This amount of money every year is not worth it, especially with most of the world still staggering from the worst recession in 40 years.

Developed countries also have no interest in this bill because of the consequences of trying to cut carbon emissions. All the economic models show that to keep the temperature increases of the earth less than 2 degrees Celsius, nations would need to start putting a carbon tax on carbon emissions. William Klesse, chief executive of oil refiner Valero Energy, says the bill will be asking the refiners somewhere “between $30 billion and $110 billion a year” (Helman). This will drastically increase the price of gasoline in this recession filled world. There are many calculations that predict that this is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage this bill seeks to prevent. So, the main reason this bill is not getting much attention is because the price of solving this problem is far more expensive than the damage this bill is trying to prevent.

The main debate focuses on how man can cope with this man-made problem. For many years, environmentalists have been following the same path on solving this situation by urging governments to pass laws that will drastically lower the carbon emissions in the air. We see this same pattern occur again in the meeting at Copenhagen. Policy makers need to realize this and quickly change their plan before it is too late. So, what is next? What can we do to solve this problem more effectively? The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon emissions that are slowly ruining the planet we are living in. So, it should make sense to stop creating energy via burning of fossil fuels. The only way to reduce our fossil fuels without hurting the world’s economy in this recession is to invest in green energy creating technology. Unlike the editors’ theory in “The Case for a Climate Bill” about the bill creating more jobs, the oil refiners companies beg to differ. If this bill passes “Ihne predicts that at least 15 of the current 150 plants, capable of processing roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day, will close, eliminating 5,000 jobs” (Helman). The only way to solve this problem is by investing in technologies that create non carbon based energy.

This new way of going about solving this problem will create more jobs. The increased spending on research and development will create more jobs, which will also help the economy. Some examples of non carbon based energies are nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. Although there are many alternatives to creating energy, they are not nearly as effective and productive as burning fossil fuels which unfortunately create carbon emissions. So, our next step should be investing on creating new technologies and ways in which we can create energy without hurting our environment. Instead of putting a tax on carbon emissions, just a small percentage of the global GDP can create breakthroughs needed to stimulate a carbon free future.

The bill that the editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is supporting will only hurt the economy and stop nations from industrializing. Policy makers have been arguing and debating about putting a tax on carbon emissions will help nations, yet not one nation is willing to accept this change. The reason for this is because they know that there will be more problems from this than solutions. The only solution to this is by investing in technologies that create carbon free energy. We need to realize that all these meetings of nations, such as that at Copenhagen, are not working. We need to find alternative ways of creating energy without generating global warming.

Helman, Christopher. "Cap-and-Smother." EBSCOhost. Forbes, 30 Nov. 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. .

"The Case for a Climate Bill." Editorial. New York Times [New York] 24 Jan. 2010, New York ed., WK9 sec. NYTimes. 24 Jan. 2010. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. .

Vergano, Dan. "Global warming cuts have a price." EBSCOhost. USA Today, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. .