How to Write a Clichéd, Unpersuasive Argument Against Drug Legalization

23536

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
This piece by Manon McKinnon at The American Spectator is so perfect an exhibit in pompous drug war cheerleading that one can construct a fairly comprehensive crash course in bad drug policy writing based entirely upon its contents. Let's take a moment to review some of the tactics on display here, which may go a long way towards illustrating why modern drug war apologists have been losing traction in the growing public debate over American drug policy.


Step 1: Attempt to marginalize supporters of drug policy reform by claiming they are "pot heads."

From the article:

Every so often, alas, the subject of drug legalization reappears. This time it is back as one of many bad ideas from presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul and is cheered on by the usual fans, from libertarians to pot heads.
Click to expand...
This will get you off to an ugly start. Since recent polling shows that half the country supports marijuana legalization, you'll immediately offend many of your readers by ignoring their legitimate public policy concerns and dismissing them as a bunch of self-righteous drug addicts. Huge numbers of non-users are interested in improving our approach to drug policy, so name-calling is a quick way to alienate well-meaning people and prove that you don't know what you're talking about.


Step 2: Frame legalization as a plan for "surrendering" or "giving up" and letting drugs defeat us.

From the article:

"Paul deserves full credit for endorsing drug legalization," writes Ms. Charen as she goes into all the reasons she thinks the U.S. should give up and give in to corrosive drugs.
Click to expand...
This is a good way to show that you don't understand the opposing argument. Supporters of reforming drug laws believe that the problems associated with drug use -- addiction, crime, corruption, criminal profiteering, etc. -- can be better addressed by regulating the market, prioritizing public health, and breaking up the criminal organizations that profit from prohibition. Referring to that process as a form of surrender will help to demonstrate that you aren't listening and don't understand even the most basic motivations behind reforming our drug policy.


Step 3: Insist confidently -- but without citation -- that no one actually gets in serious trouble for personal use.

. . .

Step 4: Insist that illegal drugs can never have medical value.

. . .

Step 5: Compare regulating drugs to legalizing rape.

. . .

Step 6: Mention something bad that happened involving drugs and ask smugly whether legalization would have prevented it.

. . .

Step 7: Close with a sweeping, apocalyptic generalization.

. . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-morgan/how-to-write-a-cliched-un_b_1209678.html
 
I know it's satire, but I'm sure an article that follows those seven steps and uses good grammar is publishable in most major newspapers, especially if you have a public health resume.

I wish someone with such a resume would test this theory, as in the quantum gravity hoax.
 
You did a good job with it, hence why I said it made me laugh. :) I never criticized or disagreed at all (quite the opposite...).
 
"[If] Drug prohibition creates drug crimes, so legalize drugs and, poof, no more crime. However, it should be pointed out that no one makes the same argument for rape."
Click to expand...

This guy clearly understands the issue.
 
What would rape dealers do if people could just buy rape legally at convenience stores? Definitely something to ponder.
 
The linked article is a good read. The source material got me riled up.

While the writ of habeas corpus is generally loosely applied to a need for hard evidence presented in the open in a trial setting (the right to a speedy and fair trial and to appeal), it actually means (roughly) "you shall have the body". To me this means that without a body there is no crime. A body here, by my own interpretation, represents not only evidence but a victim. A crime without a victim is not a crime. You can't make it a crime to believe something or perform an action that doesn't hurt another person. To imply that, if the only possible victim is one's self, a crime has occurred is to imply that the state itself is a victim. The state can only be a victim if the person is the property of the state. Laws that govern the treatment of your own body are deeply immoral, unconstitutional, and creepy as shit. I believe they have very little to do with keeping us safe and secure and much more to do with revenue production and systematic institutionalization of citizens. How some people can rail against the "nanny-state" when applied to the housing industry or babysitters in one breath and endorse the drug war in the next amazes me.
 
Last edited:
235360287471352662 said:
What would rape dealers do if people could just buy rape legally at convenience stores? Definitely something to ponder.
Click to expand...

Well rape exists because you can't buy it legally at a convenience store. Rape is by definition without consent. Otherwise it's known as prostitution, only legal in Nevada :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top