#6 Decriminalization
In response to the arguments of both Nadelmann and Voth, respectfully opposing and defending the issue as to whether or not drugs should be decriminalized, Nadelmann's argument is stronger overall.
1. To begin with, Nadelmann not only further explains his thesis that the "war on drugs" has made matters in America worse, but he provides solutions to the drug use problem and provides foreign statistics to back his solutions. On the other side of the argument, Voth poorly defends the issue as to why drug use should not be decriminalized and goes off on a tangent about the problem with legalization, an issue not conclusive with the argument of decriminalization.
2. When it comes to fact and opinion Nadelmann provides more fact and Voth relies on opinion. In Nadelmann's arguments he shows the statistics based on European research and studies that are conclusive. Voth, however, resorts to expressing opinions on the issue. He does this by merely presenting statistics that tell the reader that the tax money in the "just say no" drug campaign has been well spent because drug use has gone down. Nonetheless, this portion of Voth's essay is irrelevant to the issue on hand.
3.The use of propaganda is most prominant in Nadlemann's piece. Here in it he tries to influence the reader to believe that the decriminalization is the "greater good" or "lesser of two evils". He does this by explaining that needle exchange would decrease the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus.
4. In terms of Cause/Effect Nadlemann, from European studies, explains that when drug use is decriminalized the "worse" drugs become less abundant, while the "better" drugs slightly make way into society. Voth references the drug studies stating that drug use lowers the morale of the society as a whole.
5. Neither of these cause/effect relationships correlate well with the argument. From Nadlemann one may ask how can increase in the "better" drugs be better for any community? With Voth one may detest that drugs do in fact effect different individuals in different manors.
6. As with many arguments, information is distorted to shift the reader/viewers idea on the issue. Nadlemann uses the European statistics to show that drug use decriminalization could work in America. However, European beliefs and way of life is different than that of the United States. Voth, in a sense, relies on the fact that between 19XX and 19XX that drug use went down because the "just say no" movement. However, it is a possibility that between those years the economic situation may not have granted Americans to spend money drugs or even that other issues that could effect foreign countries from contributing drugs.
7. Nadlemann makes a great analogy in his argument. He brings up the Prohibition and how harmful it proved to Americans, as it was in its time and day, the Mob Era. Voth on the other hand does not provide any noteworthy analogies.
8. Voth, unlike Nadlemann, oversimplifies the issue as he leaves few concrete details as to why his argument is correct (then he proceeds to an issue off topic). Nadlemann carefully demonstrates his argument and continues to provide solutions to further explain how and why his argument "holds more water".
9.Nadleman and Voth both stereotype. Nadlemann assumes that since the Europeans solve their issue that Americans can as well, despite the culture clash. Voth tends to stereotype all users are just a menace to society and cannot contribute to intellectual advancement.
10. The stereotypes mentioned above also come into play as hasty generalizations. Nadlemann gets the idea that because Europe can resolve it's problem, America can as well. Voth not only quickly arrives at the idea that all drug users are worthless but he also sticks to his ideas about the "just say no" movement in saying that the program works because of the statistics provided.
1. To begin with, Nadelmann not only further explains his thesis that the "war on drugs" has made matters in America worse, but he provides solutions to the drug use problem and provides foreign statistics to back his solutions. On the other side of the argument, Voth poorly defends the issue as to why drug use should not be decriminalized and goes off on a tangent about the problem with legalization, an issue not conclusive with the argument of decriminalization.
2. When it comes to fact and opinion Nadelmann provides more fact and Voth relies on opinion. In Nadelmann's arguments he shows the statistics based on European research and studies that are conclusive. Voth, however, resorts to expressing opinions on the issue. He does this by merely presenting statistics that tell the reader that the tax money in the "just say no" drug campaign has been well spent because drug use has gone down. Nonetheless, this portion of Voth's essay is irrelevant to the issue on hand.
3.The use of propaganda is most prominant in Nadlemann's piece. Here in it he tries to influence the reader to believe that the decriminalization is the "greater good" or "lesser of two evils". He does this by explaining that needle exchange would decrease the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus.
4. In terms of Cause/Effect Nadlemann, from European studies, explains that when drug use is decriminalized the "worse" drugs become less abundant, while the "better" drugs slightly make way into society. Voth references the drug studies stating that drug use lowers the morale of the society as a whole.
5. Neither of these cause/effect relationships correlate well with the argument. From Nadlemann one may ask how can increase in the "better" drugs be better for any community? With Voth one may detest that drugs do in fact effect different individuals in different manors.
6. As with many arguments, information is distorted to shift the reader/viewers idea on the issue. Nadlemann uses the European statistics to show that drug use decriminalization could work in America. However, European beliefs and way of life is different than that of the United States. Voth, in a sense, relies on the fact that between 19XX and 19XX that drug use went down because the "just say no" movement. However, it is a possibility that between those years the economic situation may not have granted Americans to spend money drugs or even that other issues that could effect foreign countries from contributing drugs.
7. Nadlemann makes a great analogy in his argument. He brings up the Prohibition and how harmful it proved to Americans, as it was in its time and day, the Mob Era. Voth on the other hand does not provide any noteworthy analogies.
8. Voth, unlike Nadlemann, oversimplifies the issue as he leaves few concrete details as to why his argument is correct (then he proceeds to an issue off topic). Nadlemann carefully demonstrates his argument and continues to provide solutions to further explain how and why his argument "holds more water".
9.Nadleman and Voth both stereotype. Nadlemann assumes that since the Europeans solve their issue that Americans can as well, despite the culture clash. Voth tends to stereotype all users are just a menace to society and cannot contribute to intellectual advancement.
10. The stereotypes mentioned above also come into play as hasty generalizations. Nadlemann gets the idea that because Europe can resolve it's problem, America can as well. Voth not only quickly arrives at the idea that all drug users are worthless but he also sticks to his ideas about the "just say no" movement in saying that the program works because of the statistics provided.