CLAIM 1:

Marijuana should be decriminalized in the United States of America.

PREMISE 1:

The effects of marijuana are not nearly as harmful as opponents of it would have you believe.

CLAIM 2:

Marijuana should be decriminalized in the United States of America.

PREMISE 2:

All "crime" associated with marijuana is simply a product of the illegality of marijuana.

CLAIM 3:

Marijuana is not nearly as harmful as opponents of it would have you believe.

PREMISE 3:

A person under the influence of marijuana can still function normally in everyday life.

CLAIM 4:

Marijuana use causes progression to harder drug use.

PREMISE 4:

Marijuana will be nearer to drug-trying behavior than is cocaine or heroin.

CLAIM 5:

Law enforcement officers and the law system alike should no longer prioritize the heckling of
peaceful marijuana users.

PREMISE 5:

The effects of marijuana are not nearly as harmful as opponents of it would have you believe.
 In the article, the writer uses the innuendo in the paragraph 2 that is she was “high” in
order to clue the observer in. Innuendo is a subtle or indirect observation about a
person or thing, usually of a critical or disparaging nature; an insinuation. The
intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words,
taken literally, are innocent. The writer try to say that persons under the
influence of marijuana can still function normally in every life and would most
likely need to tell an observer that he or she was under the influence of
marijuana in order to clue the observer in. The writer tries to say that
although people take the marijuana, but it does not give the marijuana’s user
loss their control in their every life but that person can act as a person under
influence of marijuana just to clue the observer but at the same time, they
actually can behave their selves. Besides that, the linguistic persuaders that I
have found are “disorderly behavior” and “physical intoxication”. The writer
said when people taking other legal drugs such as alcohol, the opposite of
that people cannot control their behavior and loss control of their actions that
are widely and it will give easily to audiences to see the effects of such a
drug.

 Besides that, the writer tries to make comparison in the paragraphs 3. This is
known as argument from analogy. Analogy is a comparison of two or more
things that are claimed to be alike in some relevant respect. In this
paragraph, the writer makes a comparison between the person who drug-
trying behavior and the snowboard. Here, the writer said a person who loves
to snowboard has most likely been sledding in their younger years, prior to
ever getting on a snowboarding. Based on the comparison, the writer actually
want to tell audiences about there is a certain natural level of progression
that usually take place, and oftentimes, marijuana will be nearer to the
beginning of the drug- trying behavior than is cocaine or heroin.

 In the paragraph 3 also, the writer used questionable cause that is post- hoc
fallacy. Questionable cause means that when arguer claims that one thing is
the cause for another, without giving sufficient evidence. The writer assumes
that marijuana use causes progression to harder drug use do not have
enough sufficient evidence. Although as any credible researcher will tell you,
“A correlation does not equal causality”! But there still do not have enough
sufficient evidence that will prove it that marijuana use causes progression to
harder drug use. So here, the writer does not present good sufficient
evidence to support it.

 Move on in the paragraph 4, the writer used dysphemism by using the word
“crime”. These terms give us ways of talking about the evaluative content of
language: that part which doesn't describe a thing in the world, but rather
expresses the speaker's attitude towards it. Dysphemism was making
something sound worse. Here, the writer said all crime associated with
 marijuana is simply a product of the illegality of marijuana. Unfortunately,
marijuana is not actually crime that the writer refers to. Marijuana is not a
very serious crime than murder, and so on. So, here writer cannot say that
marijuana is a criminal.

In paragraph 5, the author used emotive language to appeal to the readers’ emotions using words
such as thumb their nose.

1. In addition, the authors try to make the comparison in paragraph 3. This is

known as the argument from analogy. Analogy is a comparison of two or
more of the things claimed as the same in some things that are relevant. In
this verse, the author makes comparisons between people who try drugs,
behavior, and the snowboard. The writer says those who love to snowboard
are likely to have sled in their younger years, before winning on the
snowboarding. Based on the comparison, the authors would like to inform the
public about actually have a certain natural level of growth is usually held,
and often, marijuana will be closer to the early behavior of drug-try of
cocaine or heroin.

2. In the article, the writer use the innuendo in the second paragraph is that she
was "high" in order to Clue in the Observer. Innuendo is a subtle or indirect
observation about a person or thing, usually of a critical or disparaging
nature; an insinuation. The intention is often to insult or accuse someone in
 such a way that one's words, taken literally, are Innocent. The writer try to
say that persons under the influence of marijuana can still function normally
in every life and would most likely need to tell an Observer that he or she was
under the influence of marijuana in order to Clue in the Observer. The writer
tries to say that although people take the marijuana, but it does not give the
marijuana's user loss their control in their every life but that person can act
as a person under influence of marijuana just to Clue The Observer but at the
same time, THEY can actually behave their selves. Besides that, the linguistic
persuaders that I have found are "disorderly behavior" and "physical
intoxication." The writer said when people taking other legal drugs such as
alcohol, the opposite of that people can not control their behavior and loss
control of their actions that are widely and it will give easily to audiences to
see the effects of such a drug.

3. In paragraph 3 the writer using the questioning resulted in errors post-hoc. Questionable
means that resulted when the arguer claims that a case is another source, without
sufficient evidence. Authors assume that marijuana use causes the development of using
hard drugs do not have enough evidence enough. Despite being all credible researchers
will tell you, "Correlation does not equal a kausalitas"! But still do not have enough
evidence to be sufficient to prove that marijuana use causes the development of using
hard drugs. So here, the author does not have enough good evidence to support it.
4.
7. Move in verse 4, the author uses dysphemism using the word "evil." This
terminology gives us a way of talking about the context of language content:
the section does not describe things in the world, but to state the attitude of
speakers to it. Dysphemism make sound worse. The writer said that all
crimes associated with marijuana is a product of ilegalitas marijuana.
Unfortunately, marijuana is actually not the evil that refers to the author.
Cannabis is not a very serious crime of murder, and so on. So, here writer
cannot say that marijuana is a crime.