Analysis of the Economical and Medical Structure in the Debate on the Legalization of Marijuana

By: Tomas de Aquino

One of the most controversial topics in the past two decades has been the legalization of marijuana. Everyone seems to have their own opinion on the subject and it is hard to find the truth through the number of various myths out their about the effects of marijuana. There are a variety of stakeholders in the debate on either side of the fence. Two of the most noteworthy areas that are invested in the debate over legalization are economics and health professions. Two articles in particular are “The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition” by Jeffery A. Miron and Jeffrey Zweibel, and “Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use” by Nora D. Volkow, M.D., Ruben D. Baler, Ph.D., Wilson M. Compton, M.D., and Susan R.B. Weiss, Ph.D. Both of these articles discuss the effect marijuana has on its respective field and what would happen if it were to be legalized. Three rhetorical conventions are the most prevalent differences in the two disciplines. The economic article employs a structure that makes a claim and then supplies supporting evidence to back up what has been stated, a formal tone that falls in line with the audience they are addressing, and its evidence is mainly qualitative supported by numbers where necessary. The medical article uses a format that contains a multitude of stand alone points that all can be tied back to one topic, the tone is also formal solely stating facts, and its evidence is supplied via graphs and data tables accented by qualitative explanations.

In “The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition”, Jeffery Miron and Jeffrey Zweibel provide their opinion on current drug policy and in which they direction they feel it should proceed. The authors introduce the piece by explaining what current perceptions of drugs and drug prohibition are, this introduction is the set up for the basis of their argument. After explaining what the common perception is they offer an alternate that is supported by a small few and begins to build off of said ideas presented. In the introduction no position is taken but rather they highlight the importance of resolution to this debate, using numbers and statistics such as, “Federal, state and local governments currently spend more than $20 billion per year on drug enforcement…” (Miron & Zweibel), to add urgency for a decision to be made. As the discussion progresses it is revealed the authors’ stance on the situation, that a free market in drugs is superior to that of current policy. In order to support this claim three main topics are introduced one after another. The first of these topics is “The Positive Analysis of Drug Prohibition” (Miron & Zweibel). They follow this up with a brief overview of the topic and define any unclear terms before jumping into the meat of the discussion. After the overview a variety of subtopics that all relate back to what they are trying to prove. At the end they provide a conclusion that highlights all of the main points made in their argument. They reintroduce the main controversy and addresses the major concerns with the proposition by concisely breaking it apart piece by piece coming to the ultimate conclusion, as stated in the beginning overview, that “the evidence suggests the social costs of drug prohibition are vastly greater than it benefits.” (Miron & Zweibel).

By: Brian Auer

Conversely, the medical article entitled “Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use” by Nora Volkow et. al. utilizes a similar format with different accents that gears it towards the medical community. It is opened by an explanation of the different forms in which marijuana is consumed and states what the common perception of the drug is, “The popular notion seems to be that marijuana is a harmless pleasure, access to which should not be regulated or considered illegal.” (Volkow et al). After familiarizing the audience with popular belief and the various forms of consumption, the authors break it down and provide the framework based on what their argument will be made. Also throughout the paper they support each argument with tables and charts. This is the primary structural difference between the two disciplines. The point that the medical side of things is trying to push requires hard evidence that can only be represented in the form of numbers, whereas the economical point of view is not being push from solely a monetary level but more of a social equity state of mind, requiring more of a qualitative assessment of pros and cons. Continuing on, the argument is supported by two overhead topics that holds everything the opposition to legalizing marijuana can use from a medical standpoint. These are adverse effects and limitations of evidence and gaps in knowledge. These cover all of the bases by providing strong foundation for the argument and provide rudimentary answers for all of the possible, “but what about this?” questions. Similar to that of the economic article, there are numerous subtopics that fall under the larger umbrella topic. The conclusion here sums up all of the points stated above and reinforces with more statistics and charts for a last ditch effort in order to convince the reader. However, that is not the end, another large format distinction is the addition of positives of marijuana. Unlike the economics article that aside from a short blurb, never highlighted the points of both sides of the controversy, this article points out all of the positives marijuana has provided in a controlled medical environment. This helps to reinforce the idea that marijuana needs to be regulated and stay illegal for widespread public consumption, but does have some positives attributed with it.

The tone in the economic standpoint is very passionate. The authors seem to care deeply about the topic they are speaking on. They offer multiple different possible revised drug policies and go into depth in explaining the faults with current drug policies. They could have gotten away with simply saying that current drug policy is inadequate and listing faults with it. Instead they break down the complexity of the issue and in the end sum it all up by explaining that they understand why current drug policy is that way it is but the social ramifications of its enforcement is more destructive than productive. Generally, one would assume that numbers would be the primary way to convince the economist audience, however this topic is not a typical example. This article is speaking on more of the social equity aspect of the situation. The effects prohibition has on society and the way to convey the real truths behind the matter and supply credibility is through qualitative analysis of the subject. In the marijuana legalization debate passion is needed to convince the public, and here the author fuels the facts with this passion

The tone in the medical article is more of a matter-of-fact. It is stating what the facts are and has the numbers to back it. It leaves little room for interpretation and makes no grandstanding statements which gives this piece more credibility. Since it is a medical piece, evidence is imperative in order for it to be even considered and this article follows it to a T. For example, when talking about the risk of addiction the authors state: “The number goes up to about 1 in 6 among those who start using marijuana as teenagers and to 25 to 50% among those who smoke marijuana daily.” (Volkow et. al.). The use of hard evidence and statistics is what an audience of this nature relates to and sets it apart from the economics article in this respect.

By: Thalia Surf

The final rhetorical device is the way each article presents its data. In the economic article, as previously stated it uses qualitative data and is displayed throughout the piece where necessary. After every claim made the authors backs it up with some facts. This claim, support, claim, support system works effectively and never leaves the audience in the dark. For example, the author initially claims that “Unless demand is far more elastic than supply…prices will increase under prohibition.”, and then substantiates this claim by stating there is evidence from the alcohol prohibition that occurred in history, “Warburton (1932) estimates that alcohol prices were approximately three times high during alcohol Prohibition than beforehand...”(Miron & Zweibel).

In the article written by Nora Volkow et al presents all of its data in the table and chart form. Throughout its argument it makes tabular references and includes links that bring you to said tables. These contain information in graph, and list form. The tables that include lists range from cause and effect to association, for instance table 1 in the article is split up into effects of short term use and effect of long term or heavy use. Table 2 is an example of the association where it lists effects of marijuana use and next to it has the overall level of confidence in that effect, i.e. how strong is the association between the two. This evidence differs from that of the economic article in that the audience this article is trying to reach is accustomed to seeing information presented in this way. In health and science professions all formal data is placed into tables and any figures used in explanations are generally derived from said tables. The difference in audience and accepted upon structure is what leads to this difference. 

In conclusion the debate on the legalization of marijuana creeps into almost every discipline out their, most notably the medical and economical fields. It includes everything from monetarily repercussions to social equity and overall public health and safety. The medical side of the debate focuses on hard fact driven evidence presented in graphs and charts with a very matter-of-fact tone. The economic side of it mainly lies in between the monetary and social equity side of things which requires a qualitative in depth explanation that builds upon itself driven by a passionate tone that instills the same ideas into the readers. The differences between these two are what gear them towards there respective field yet they rack up similarities in that they both employ a structure that is broken up from main topics to subtopics that help to reinforce the overall argument they are trying to make.

Works Cited

Volkow, Nora D., Ruben D. Baler, Wilson M. Compton, and Susan R.B. Weiss. "Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use." The New England Journal of Medicine, 5 June 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

Miron, Jeffrey A., and Jeffrey Zwiebel. “The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition”. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9.4 (1995): 175–192. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.