Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Joshua Cruz

Professor Strickland
English 1010

Legalizing Marijuana

The conflict between the anti and pro marijuana users is current and ongoing.

The public health is the most important to one side, while the other battles to have

marijuana available for the medicinal purposes. Currently there are over 35 million

Americans who use marijuana recreationally each year, according to the latest federal

statistics(Ingraham). Christopher Ingrahams article More and more doctors want to

make marijuana legal, originally published in the Washington Post on April 15,

2016, points out why a national organization of doctors formulated a group to legalize

the regulation of marijuana.

Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), an organization of doctors in the

country, express that the negation and illegalization of marijuana is more harmful than

good for the publics well-being. Using the example of the objections placed by

AMA,(American Medical Association), a strict regulation of marijuana banned its

legal use in 1937, having done so has cited numerous marijuana arrest, racial and

economic disparities in marijuana enforcement, as well as violent drug dealers

regulating high prices creating a risk of public safety. According to DFCR founder
and board president David L. Nathan, decriminalizing and regulating the marijuana

market is the best way to assure the safety and wellness of the public (Ingraham). The

author was able to effectively achieve his purpose of showing why legalized

marijuana use would be a positive thing for the public. Through his strong use of

ethos and logos language, as well as acknowledging the ways that this issue has both

divided and unified groups.

The author used effective logos language when he said that 90 percent of

Americans support medical use of marijuana with doctors supervision (Ingraham).

This method of approach developed an ethos and logos that was most effective when

he interviewed DFCR founder and board president David L. Nathan, who is against

the embargo of pro marijuana. Having the support of a well-established organization

gives him the credibility on a medical level that supports the decriminalization for

medicinal use. Because of the backgrounds of the people interviewed, the author

could effectively get his point across.

Ingraham acknowledges that the issue has heightened the tension that divides

the medical community. For example: AMA criminalized marijuana due to objections

that were not fully disclosed, even though treatment was used for medical conditions.

Nathan of DFCR remarked, We believe that the best way to improve the situation is

to enact full legalization with smart regulation (Ingraham). There may be a division

in the community, but for some physicians their differences in political disposition
only unifies there favor for cannabis legalization. Physicians of the Republican,

Democratic, and Independent parties set their differences aside and come together as

one in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana.

In conclusion the author, Christopher Ingraham, was very successful at

explaining why decriminalization of marijuana is a positive thing for the public. The

credibility of his facts are substantial evidence and reason as to why the issue has both

divided and unified groups of the medical community to influence the medicinal use

of marijuana. His use of the ethos and logos language construct a strong supportive

thesis providing the essential information to achieve his purpose.

Works Cited

Ingraham, Christopher. More and more doctors want to make marijuana legal. The Washington

Post, The Washington Post,15 Apr. 2016,