"Let States Decide On Marijuana"

Dissecting An Article 

“Lets States Decide on Marijuana” 

The article chosen deals with a highly controversial and much-talked-about topic which has become increasingly important and recurrent in today’s society. The legalisation of marijuana. More importantly, the writer of this article expresses his point of view from a different perspective and delves deeper into the topic. He claims that the legalisation of marijuana should no be handled by the federal government, but yes through each individual state. 

Right off the bat, he gives the reader a historical perspective on the topic on why he thinks marijuana should be handled individually by states. To do so, he talks about Nixon’s passing of the Controlled Substance Act and that at the time, marijuana was passed as highly dangerous drug placed right next to other “Section I” drugs such as LSD and heroin, further claiming that such thing has become “a laughingstock, one that states are openly flouting.” This choice of words by the author give his point of view on the legalisation of marijuana validity. The author makes various claims on how the substance is decriminalised, used for medical purposes, and scientifically is less harmful as things such as alcohol-which is nationally legalised. The author uses statistics in order to address the state of marijuana and its legalisation in the United States. 

The claim that he makes that states should handle marijuana individually has coherence and logic to it, but it is important to mention that this point of view may be generate because of a political bias the author might or might not have towards how the United States political system is structured. Furthermore, he claims that that the legalisation of marijuana should not be imposed on the states by the federal government like such things as abortion and same-sex marriage. Instead, he argues it should be solely decided by the states in accordance to its values and culture. In regards to his initial claim, this makes his statement valid, for the different states in which some are predominately democrats and others republicans indirectly dictates (democrats are in general more liberal while republicans are more conservative), in a general form how the public sees the legalisation of the substance. That fact that the author makes use of such knowledge, claiming that different states do indeed have different traditions-which they do-makes his initial claim completely valid, for the federal government does not in itself represent the whole nations traditions and values. 

The claim, at last, is pretty accurate for the points the author makes are highly coherent with what we know about the substance and how we should deal with it now-a-days. When he says that the more liberal states like Colorado and Washington legalised marijuana for recreational use, it becomes evident to the reader that his other claims are in accordance with his argument as a whole. Throughout the end of the article, the author claims, using real life facts, that the future may be promising for the topic. In congress, a vote of 219 to 189 prohibits the Drug Enforcement Administration form persecuting people who use medical marijuana. In whole, the claim this author makes has a large amount of certainty to it, for his presentation of statistics, real-life facts, and scientific knowledge in defence of the substance make his whole argument valid. 

Word Count: 552