Powerful music bursts from your speakers as “The # 1 ADDICTION for 60% of TEENS in Drug rehab” (Anti-Legalization Prop 19 Campaign) hits the smoke filled screen, which is just the beginning of SaveCalifornia’s Stop proposition 19 insightful campaign ads. This commercial went out months before the vote for the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in California. It was made to sway the viewers, voters of California, away from making marijuana legal in this state. This SaveCalifornia commercial persuades the viewers to vote no for Proposition 19 by using rhetoric. The recent Proposition 19 in California that was defeated in November 2010 would have allowed marijuana to become legal for people over the age of 21, to be used for personal use. California had already had medical marijuana legalized in 1996 with Prop 215. 14 other states that now have a similar policy when it comes to marijuana use for medical reasons, but no state has yet to have recreational marijuana legalized. California now wants marijuana to be legal for recreational uses as well as medical, this creating a new lingering debate involving the legalization of marijuana. It was a close call for California, there was only a 7% difference between yes and no when the ballet was voted on. To the people representing SaveCalifornia the legalization of marijuana would mess up many lives, and cause much danger. Save California is a “pro-family organization standing strong for moral virtues for the common good” (SaveCalifonia.com) On their site it goes on to describe the values and the principles that they have, and indicates that they “Boldly speak and fight for the truth, no matter the outcome” (SaveCaliforia.com) These principles that they have go against the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. When one first watches the commercial, who has provided this information is not known, but in the end the viewers will be able to go to their site, which is given, and see if they are a credible source. Without going to this their site and reading about their values and principles, identification will not be able to be formed as well as it could have been. In STOPprop19.com, a site created by SaveCalifornia.com to directly responds to the new issue in California, where the facts and issues of marijuana legalization are recognized. By mixing facts, ethics, and morals this ad is able to create the viewers with a sense of how serious this issue is.
First, the ad tells the story of an accident which was caused by a person who smoked weed. It says, “You smoked weed. You got behind the wheel. And you hit a six-year-old girl on her bike. Weed can make you do stupid things like that.” Like this, the sentences help us to understand and to imagine about this picture. In this quotation, marijuana is described as informal word “weed.” Sometimes, to use a casual word is more persuasive than a formal word. The affinity for “weed” expresses that everyone could be involved in the accidents because of marijuana addicts. As a result, the readers keep away from marijuana. This story and the close-up wheel appeal to the reader’s emotion how about terrible marijuana is. In these sentences, not only pathos but also ethos which appeals to a person’s character or personality is embedded. By using second person discourse, the ad persuades especially current smokers to quit right away and at the same time discourages readers from smoking weed and reads directly toward each viewer.
The series “High Profits” demonstrates the works and restrictions of the United States government regarding the issue of legalizing recreational marijuana. Breckenridge Cannabis Club business owners, Caitlin Mcguire and Brian Rogers, demonstrate both the struggles and profits of this up and coming industry. This series portrays virtually every viewpoint possible by including opinions from an array of political actors who discuss the influence of the government on this topic and the impact this topic has on the general public.
In the 2015 article “What will Federal Marijuana Reform Look Like?”, Alex Kreit states how the current stance towards marijuana has changed. For this reason, a need for a new policy is necessary, as the present strategy of implementing laws on federal marijuana prohibition is no longer sustainable. This shift of mindset towards legalization of marijuana leads Kreit to say that legalization is inevitable. As an illustration, in 1996, the Drug Enforcement Administration and Congress opposed California’s approval of medical marijuana. In contrast, the year 2013 was when the Department of Justice announced new guidance to deprioritize enforcement of marijuana laws. Because of this shift, Kreit propose that efforts should go to crafting marijuana
The controversy of legalizing marijuana has been raging for quite a while in America. From some people pushing it for medical purposes to potheads just wanting to get high legally. Marijuana has been used for years as a popular drug for people who want to get a high. All this time it has been illegal and now it looks as if the drug may become legal. There has been heated debate by many sides giving there opinion in the issue. These people are not only left wing liberals either. Richard Brookhiser, a National Review Senior editor is openly supportive of medical marijuana yet extremely conservative in his writing for National Review (Brookhiser 27). He is for medical marijuana since he used it in his battle with testicular cancer. He says "I turned to [marijuana] when I got cancer because marijuana gives healthy people an appetite, and prevents people who are nauseated from throwing up. "(Brookhiser 27) Cancer patients are not the only benefactors from the appetite enhancer in marijuana, but so are any other nauseous people. Arizona and California have already passed a law allowing marijuana to be used as a medicinal drug. Fifty Six percent of the California voters voted for this law. "We've sent a message to Washington," says Dennis Peron. "They've had 25 years of this drug was, and they've only made things worse." (Simmons 111) The Arizona proposition garnished an even wider margin of separation between the fore's an against in a sixty five percent support tally. Ethan Nadelmann insists that " these propositions are not about legalization or decriminalization. They're about initiating some non radical, commonsense approaches to drug policy." General Barry McCaffery disagrees saying, "I...
There are two laws in California, which permits the use of marijuana for medicinal reasons. The first one is Proposition 215-The Compassionate Use Act th...
Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is opposed by a vast majority of American’s and people around the world. Leaders in Marijuana prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose the substance, as do many political leaders. However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the use of illegal drugs, are making headlines. They are influencing decision making thru legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate here in the United States and in other countries. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the oldest drug user lobby in the U.S. It has strong ties to the Libertarian party, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union. These groups use a variety of strategies, which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of medicalization, control legalization through taxation. However, drugs like marijuana are addicting and should not be legalized. Marijuana should not be legalized because it can cause overwhelming damage to the society as a whole. As Bennett says, “Drug use- especially heavy drug use- destroys human character. It destroys dignity and autonomy, it burns away the sense of responsibility, it subverts productivity, it makes a mockery of virtue” (Husak 663). People throughout the nation have witnessed law changes regarding the possession of marijuana to its physical and social effects on society. Marijuana should not be legalized for the following reasons namely for the legal, physical, and social aspects of its use.
Just as alcohol prohibition during the 20’s and 30’s was not successful, marijuana prohibition has not been successful either, as evidenced by its current and increasing popularity in the United States. According the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Mr. Paul Armentano, marijuana was made illegal in the United States with the passing of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (2014). Later, Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (Armentano, 2014). Since then, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been arrested for the possession, distribution and use of marijuana. According to Professor Katherine Beckett, “there were 829,625 marijuana arrests” (Beckett, et.al., N.D.) in 2006 and that number is increasing. The debate on whether or not to legalize marijuana for recreational use has raged for decades but is beginning to see the light of day with the recent state-level victories. With Washington and Colorado guiding the way, the country as a whole is considering the issue of whether or not marijuana should be legalized. If legalized, tax revenues could potentially generate millions, if not billions, of dollars annually for state and federal coffers. Marijuana should be legalized. Legalization will not increase usage nor will the current prohibition decrease usage; however tax revenue from the distribution and sale of marijuana could benefit many state programs and even possibly eliminate governmental deficits in the future.
There is a big controversy on legalizing marijuana for recreational uses. Proposition 64 is for legalizing marijuana. Some agree with the idea of just legalizing marijuana while others are against. Proposition 64 should be passed because the extra money will be offered to the city, this will reduce the prison population, and marijuana has saved many lives.
For nearly one hundred and fifty years marijuana has been illegal in the United States of America. Though marijuana naturally grew in all of our fifty states, it was outlawed due the superior strength and durability of hemp rope. This threatened to replace cotton rope, which would cost wealthy cotton owners a lot of money. To this day marijuana is still outlawed in the U.S., however rope has nothing to do with it. Once slavery and the “cotton boom” were over hemp made a little bit of a comeback in a smoking form. Then, in the early 1940’s the government began releasing anti-marijuana propaganda. In the 1960’s when marijuana became popular amongst pop-culture, a movie by the name of “Reefer Madness” was released depicting marijuana users as fiends and criminals who’s normal everyday lives fell apart, and spun out of control due to the addiction to the drug. Even in the present day organizations, as well as the government, continue to try and sway people from using the substance by portraying users as irresponsible idiots. Some examples of behaviors portrayed in the commercials are: accidental shootings, running over a little girl on a bike, molesting a passed out girl, supporting terror, and impregnating/becoming impregnated. I feel that these advertisements are ridiculously tasteless and misleading. Through personal experience, surveys, an interview, and a case study I intend to prove that marijuana users do not behave in the fashion that the anti-marijuana campaign ads would suggest, and furthermore, I expect to find that the ads so grossly misrepresent the common user, even those who do not use disagree with the negative portrayals. I also challenge you to think about the suggested situations and behaviors from the commercials, I feel that you’ll see every situation and behavior in the advertisements is much more feasible to a person under the influence of alcohol than under the influence of marijuana.
Marijuana—a prominently used, yet widely opposed substance. Marijuana usage has been and is an immensely debated subject within the states. Many liberal states favor the drug due to its economic and medicinal values. However, many conservative states abhor the narcotic due to its psychoactive effects on the brain and its minimal medicinal value. These anti-marijuana fans emphasize the drug’s relation to the usage of more potent substances such as cocaine. Overall, there is high tension between those who advocate the drug versus those who protest against it. Economically, taxation on marijuana provides a supplemental income to the state that results in a higher budget for the states’ respective governments; medicinally, the narcotic eases pain for terminally ill patients and alleviates the sense of disorientation. Furthermore, the drug has less harmful effects to the body in comparison to tobacco and alcohol; therefore, the legalization of the previous two should justify the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana’s pros exceed its cons and thus, the substance’s legalization is justifiable.
Smith, F. A. (n.d.). Marijuana Policy Project. Op-ed: A Neglected Revenue Source for California. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from http://www.mpp.org/media/op-eds/op-ed-a-neglected-revenue.html
Despite the fact that a majority of the population supports the legalization of marijuana, women trail men in support of a retail commercial cannabis model by an average of five to ten percentage points. If we ever want to achieve widespread legalization, then we have to reach out to female voters, smokers and abstainers alike. Women are the largest group of voters and single most important demographic to ending
Also known as California Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 made headlines around the country as the first law ever to change the legality of medical marijuana for public consumption statewide. Originating in San Francisco, it was passed by 55.6% of California voters on November 5, 1996 (Human Rights and the Drug War). The ideology behind passing Prop. 215 is that marijuana contains a number of legitimate medical uses and should be made available to those who would benefit from it. The text of the proposed law states that “seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate” (NORML, 2009). All patients possessing a reasonable amount of marijuana are protected and may use it at any time as long as it is done privately. However, before patients can begin using marijuana they must seek approval from a physician who are also protected under the law and cannot be persecuted for issuing a recommendation. The authors also realized there would need to be a safe and reliable source to obtain marijuana and intended Prop. 215 to encourage both “the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana” (NORML). In addition to purchasing it, Prop. 215 also allows patients to cultivate their own plants but strictly for personal use only. Any evidence of distributing marijuana or growing more plants than needed for personal use carries a high risk of prosecution.
Drug policy is a crucial topic in the country today. Substance abuse, as well as drug-related crime rates, are a huge problem. This is a fact. The way to fix the problem of substance abuse, however, is widely disagreed upon. Some think that stricter laws regarding drug possession and use would solve the problem, while others believe that loosening the restrictions would be a better option. The issue of legalizing drugs, especially marijuana, is one that is debated all the time. In fact, in 1995, a survey was conducted on the most important policy issues and eighty five percent of the country placed drugs at the top of the list (Falco 1996). Many states are actually beginning to decriminalize, and even legalize, marijuana use for medical perposes. In fact, two states, Washington and Colorado, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for anybody over the age of twenty-one since 2012. (Hawken, Caulkins, Kilmer, and Kleiman 2013)
As you know, Marijuana is the most frequently used illegal drug in the U.S causing a huge controversy in today’s society. I think that in some ways not legalizing marijuana could hurt us and our country. I know that you, as a member of the CALM, feel very strongly on your opinion of legalizing marijuana. The CALM does make very convincing arguments about crime, youth, and health with the use of marijuana. While some of these arguments can be persuasive to many, I think that my following propositions on crime, health, and medicinal marijuana also provide a swaying argument.