You are on page 1of 6

Rhetorical Situation: Legally Beneficial: Why Im For Legalizing Marijuana

Subject: For my essay, I have decided on a counter argument Dr, Howard Samuelss article,
Legally Blind: Why Im Against Legalizing Marijuana from The Huffington Post. Ive focused
on the different fallacies that are present in Samuelss opinions on legalizing marijuana. More
specifically, I discuss this from a viewpoint of the influences it has had in regards to my personal
experience as well as the ones it has had on society.
Exigency: I chose to tackle the topic of legalizing marijuana to defend the negativity that has
come about it, to relate it to my personal health matters and others, also because it plays a part in
voting during years election.
Audience: The audience is for a wide demographic, from college educated millennial, those able
to vote, and the older generation of society as well. It is also meant for those who have already
have mixed emotions as to whether or not the influence of weed should be seen as completely
negative living in a humanity in which my generation generally witnesses this in terms of just
recreational use or for fun so to speak.
Purpose: The purpose of this counterargument is to bring about more awareness. To not allow
people to have such nave connotations such as the ones I belief Samuelss is having in his
article. I want people to wake up to the fact that we cant be so negatively stimulated by
something that many are making assumptions of.
Valderrama 1
Amanda Valderrama
Professor Weaver
ENC 3315
7 November 2016
Legally Beneficial: Why Im For Legalizing Marijuana
When asked what controversial issues I find worth discussing, one of the first ones that
comes to mind is the legalization of marijuana. I found myself incredibly frustrated while
reading Dr. Howard Samuelss article, Legally Blind: Why Im Against Legalizing Marijuana
for The Huffington Post. He discusses how a family of marijuana farmers who have discovered
how to lower the THC found in weed for medicinal purposes would therefore make it less worth
fighting to legalize. Samuelss then goes into weighing the pros of decriminalization, which he is
for, contrasting to the cons of legalization that he is so against. He then finishes all of this with a
few words on how we are trying to create a culture that is full of bursting adults who have no
coping or self-soothing skills, who live their lives with unexplained panic disorders and high
anxiety. He further touches on how we need to ask the more loaded questions in society.
Who is this helping? and What does this mean for my family and my community. Not only
does Samuelss approach to this topic seem incredibly nave but his tone is also very single
minded. Where are the discussions of medicinal purposes? Why is it that theres so much focus
on just those out their wanting to get high? He neglects to tackle the concepts that have been
brought to attention from those that are for legalizing marijuana and that in itself poses for a
weak argument.
Growing up with epilepsy since the age of 11, going through numerous medications,
being told, if this one doesnt work youve kind of exhausted your options All these things
have given me a sort of hopeless feeling, a desperate want to control a reality that I really cant.
To say that medicinal marijuana isnt on my list of potential options isnt true, even my mother
has taken to the idea. Ive constantly heard about the beneficial effects it has had on others like
me. Its another potential light at the end of the tunnel and I think everyone deserves that
Valderrama 2
opportunity to take a chance. This is why I find it pretty clueless that Samuelss has the audacity
to make claims that the majority of those caring about the legalization of weed are only in it for
the high. Where are you getting your facts? He has failed to provide any of that in his article. If
this is the case then how do you explain the growing amount of mothers out there who have
watched their children suffer with such things as epilepsy and feel completely powerless until
medical marijuana took place. How have you not read the articles or witnessed the news reports
showing how this has given hope to improving those lives? You can argue that there are copious
amounts of teens and college kids who are using this drug just to suppress emotions and feel
the high, I know this and Ive witnessed it first hand. He discusses Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) bringing on that high. So, when this is removed youre leaving just the Cannabidiol
(CBD) which is being presented for medical purposes. With that being said, if Samuel is
going to argue that were all just looking to get high, then why have there been so many medical
studies being conducted to remove that high? Also, why state this is a miraculous medicinal
quality yet not acknowledge that its less capable to being accessed for this purpose without
legalization? This seems a little contradicting to me.
Samuels discusses in his bio that he suffered from alcoholism and drug abuse until he
finally got clean and decided on the career path of a doctorate in leading alcohol and substance
abuse treatment. One cant help but immediately feel like his opinion is of course, going to be
biased and naturally anti-drug. Which its great that hes impacted so many with their addiction
in a positive light, but what about those like myself whose diagnosis has only been able to be
controlled by drugs. I can go through counseling and discuss all the things Im experiencing with
my epilepsy but that doesnt mean this has the ability to stop or control it like an addict may. As
a society we are finding a way to take what many may consider a negative and working towards
turning it into a positive. It can be argued that its a little unfair that Dr. Samuelss isnt being
more open minded to the way others are deciding to do so. He is against legalizing something
that could have the potential to do well, much like his patient.
Furthermore, we must next understand the difference between legalization and
Valderrama 3
decriminalization. Legalization means that the act in question whether is substance use, sex
work, or gambling is not deemed unlawful. In other words, you can be arrested, prosecuted,
or face criminal charges for the activity (Coning). Decriminalization means that an activity is
still illegal, but enforcement and penalties are not as severe, much like turning a blind eye. In
Samuelss article he is against legalization but for decriminalization. Its agreeable that in
todays justice system the sentencing for certain crimes should be seriously reconsidered when
comparing the cruelty of crimes. However, how can you be willing to reflect on the benefits for
the decriminalization of marijuana and not legalization, which in terms of sentencing could most
likely result in more fairness? There have been cases in which individuals are serving yearly
sentencing for possession of marijuana in the same jail cells as those whove committed crimes
involving death and more severity. Legalization has the potential to not make these sort of arrest
so negatively life impacting. I personally know an individual, my age that has experienced this
and the stories Ive been told are frightening to imagine.
Samuels makes claims that legalizing marijuana will only allow it to gain momentum of
being sold in gas stations mirroring tobacco and alcohol industries. Okay, but have you
measured how this can be more progressive in terms of profitability in Americas economy?
Average annual trade in marijuana is estimated at $113 billion, which represents nearly 45
billion in taxes slipping through our fingers, according to Harvard economist, Jeffery Miron
(Smith). Without taking this into consideration there are opportunities being ignored. We
are missing out on the municipal, state, and federal taxes that could help fund advantages, effects
such as support programs for drug users, rehab groups in which give Dr. Samuelss career its
very purpose. Not to mention, you are comparing alcohol and tobacco, things that cause liver
cancer and heart disease to marijuana that has helped and not hindered other health influences.
One could argue the few cases in which people have had psychotic episodes or died of increased
heart rate or lung damage. However, all these reasons are because of THC in weed, which if
removed significantly influences the decision of legalization more optimistically. There are many
different forms of abuse. Why should one persons downfall take away from the potential profits
Valderrama 4
of so many others?
To conclude, there are just too many flaws in Samuels article to even fully consider
standing by his claims. He ends his article with questions such as, Who is this helping? and
What does this mean for my family and community? Its helping us become a more cost-
effective society, its helping us grow into new uses of medicinal purposes with a drug that is
always going to be present whether we like it or not. Can you say that about alcohol and
tobacco? No. So then why even use that as a comparison? In terms of family, this means my
parents and I can feel like we really havent exhausted our options because my epilepsy affects
us all. Samuel states, There isntanargumentintheworldthatwillchangethefactthat
psychoactivesubstancesproduceemotionallycrippledadults.Well,inthatcaseyoushouldgo
aheadandrantaboutalltheprescribeddrugsouttherethataretotallylegalizedforthosewith
mentaldisordersinwhichhaveleftthemwithnumeroussideeffectsincludingdepressionand
anxiety.SotocounteryourstatementDr.Samuel,thereisntanargumentintheworldthatwill
changethefactthatlegalizingmarijuanahastheprospecttoproduceamoreemotionallyand
mentallystableme.
Valderrama5
WorksCitied
Samuels,Dr.Howard."LegallyBlind:WhyI'mAgainstLegalizingMarijuana."TheHuffington
Post.TheHuffingtonPost.com,23Jan.2014.Web.07Nov.2016.

Suddath,PatrickStackwithClaire."MedicalMarijuana."Time.TimeInc.,21Oct.2009.Web.
07Nov.2016.

Samuels,Howard."Dr.HowardC.Samuels."Dr.HowardC.Samuels.Dr.HowardSamuels,
2011.Web.07Nov.2016.

Coning,Lexide."TheDifferenceBetweenMarijuanaLegalizationand
Decriminalization."MassRoots.N.p.,29Mar.2016.Web.07Nov.2016.

"HowManyPeopleHaveDiedFromWeed?"HowManyPeopleHaveDiedfromWeed?The
NewHealthAdvisor,7Nov.2016.Web.07Nov.2016.

Smith,S.E."TheCaseforLegalizationIsintheBong."TheDailyDot.TheDailyDot,06Nov.
2014.Web.07Nov.2016.

You might also like