Legalization

The Route To Convince: Illegalizing Drugs

“Should Drugs Be Legalized?” by William J. Bennett and “Drugs: Case for Legalizing Marijuana” by Gore Vidal both deal with the consequences of legalizing drugs, but their stances are different. Bennett believes that legalizing drugs will worsen the situation because it will increase the social cost of drugs. On the other hand, Vidal thinks legalization will positively affect society, for the black market will vanish. Therefore, Bennett’s essay is more effective than Vidal’s, for Bennett differentiates the use of evidence, perspective on the black markets, and the target audience.

Firstly, Bennett uses more logical and calculative evidence than Vidal does to support his point and to eventually convince his readers. He lists names of many people who favor the drug legalization and refutes them one by one; additionally, he lists names of people who support illegalizing drugs to make his claim more effective and persuasive. That is, Bennett’s solid evidence is strong enough to convince not only his readers, but also the people who are against him. On the other hand, Vidal uses his personal experience as his main evidence to persuade readers. Vidal disproves the notion that people become addicted to drugs easily by saying, “For the record, I have tried-once-almost every drug and liked none, disproving the popular Fu Manchu theory that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind” (Vidal 253). In this quote, he emphasizes his personal experience by mentioning “I have tried-once-almost every drug” and deliberately gives his opinion on the addiction by recognizing that he “liked none.” Compared to Bennett’s reasonable and solid evidence, Vidal’s evidence is more personal and less logical. Both authors use two different types of evidences to advocate their statements; however, the way Bennett uses his evidence that lists the name of people is more useful and effective to convince the readers to agree with the author.

In the...