Though I may not be marijuana's top advocate, I still seek to educate myself on where the media and society stand on its legalization.Despite being a some-what impartial audience, I still find it important to investigate the opposing side because although they may have the minority opinion, the anti-marijuana legalization holders may have strong concerns for why the federal government should fail to pass it as legal. In saying this, I feel that if someone is in opposition of a law, their attempts at swaying the audience over to their side must be heart-felt, and above all, their argument must provide the critical information in a writing style that is both engaging and informational. All I want is to be moved. Move me.Simple enough, right? Although this USA Today editorial, "Don't legalize pot just for the high of it" is thought-provoking, I feel as if the relaxed display and the unequal use of diction, details and language, weakens the argument for why marijuana should not be legal.
In providing strong diction, word choice shifts from strong to weak in the entirety of this article. Instead of a constant stream of intense wording, the article fails to promote a more emotional response for me because of it's at times plain word usage. For example, when addressing those individuals who produce marijuana, the article provides the information that: "Those who can grow or sell pot legally under state law can be, and have been, busted by the feds"("Don't legalize pot...") . "Busted"? "feds"? The sentence sounds silly. The words feel informal and lead me to think that I'm reading an article by a high school-er. I'm not focusing on the article's argument of the potential for marijuana to cause more problems. I'm stuck asking: "Did they really just use 'busted' and 'feds' in the same sentence?" This leads me to question the article's simple use of diction in this sentence, primarily because I feel that it takes away from the argument by sounding too informal.
However, despite my dissatisfaction and belief that some words in this article should be shot through with red ink, the article, at certain points remembers to focus by being creative in diction.I found that when the author(s) ups the ante, so to say, I considered his/her argument with more open-mindedness. With the editorials usage of the words "renaissance,emergence,compliance,litigation, benign and mayhem", as they were included in sentences throughout the article, I was able to comprehend their usefulness in the editorial's efforts to argue against marijuana for recreational use. This was because each word's more serious/sophisticated definitions served to remind me continuously that there is a growing issue over the legalization of marijuana. When informing the audience that: "Seventeen states and the nation's capital now allow the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's order, which in some places is ludicrously easy to get"("Don't legalize pot.."), I felt that the involvement of the word "ludicrously" succeeded in conveying the author's irritation over marijuana's easy access because of it's blatant position of disapproval in the sentence.
When considering the article's use of detail I felt a more in-depth approach to certain facts mentioned in the article could have been followed to win over more anti-marijuana believers. Despite it's many details concerning it's position against marijuana, certain bits of detail I felt, ended all too abruptly. Where the potential for a more detailed paragraph could have been , each detail seemed to consist of only a few sentences before transitioning onto the next.For me, an interesting detail regarded the effects of marijuana on adolescents.Apparently if a child constantly uses marijuana they "typically lose 8 IQ points and never get them back"("Don't legalize pot..."). I felt disappointed that this detail didn't get elaborated on . If marijuana can harm our children I'd like to read more about it, not question why you, the author, skimmed over it.
In consideration of language, it's use in this editorial bordered on the comical and the lacking. From the introductory sentence: "Legalize marijuana? The nation has flirted with the idea before..."( "Don't legalize pot..." ) to "...there's no sign that federal drug enforcers would wink at full-blown legalization"( "Don't legalize pot..." ), my opinion stands that the author(s) of this USA Today article should have put forth more of an effort to generate stronger figurative-bound sentences to impact the readers. To fire them up enough that they would rally up in opposition against marijuana.Honestly, I didn't feel like grabbing my war flag in a moment of inspiration. I laughed because I felt like the language wasn't strong enough to terrify me into becoming marijuana's biggest anti-advocate.
From the editorial "Don't legalize pot just for the high of it," the article works loosely with diction, details, and language to create a simple argument for why marijuana should continue to be criminalized. I understand it's message and position against marijuana. I do. Sure, the drug might create more problems. I'm a teenager and I know that the younger generations are voting in favor of it.People will do what they want to do.My only problem is that the diction, details, and language of this article weren't always provoking. I'd like to see your passion. Engage me. Expand and cover every detail.
Ludia,
ReplyDeleteYou did a fantastic job of reading between the lines of this article. Because you were
impartial on the topic, you provided unbiased critique by recognizing the link between the
author’s use of literary tools and human emotion. I agree with you that the author occasionally
makes great use of diction by using creative word selection. My personal favorites were “pot
renaissance” and “legal pot has growing momentum”. The author is clever in these instances;
however, they fail to make lasting impact on the reader’s emotions when opportunity strikes. The
author poses the question if the public really wants to worry about people driving while stoned,
when drunk driving is already causing enough “mayhen”. Like you said, this would have been a
great opportunity for the power of rhetoric to swoop in and stupefy readers with persuasive
language. Instead, the writer leaves us with the weak statistic that adults who frequently used
cannabis as teens, on average, are eight I.Q. points short of the typical adult I.Q... Researcher
Madeline H. Meier says the eight point difference is pretty significant considering the fast
moving and changing society we live in. In the end, I was left unconvinced by this statistic and
how the legalization of marijuana would lead to “mayhem” for the people of the United States.
(http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/08/marijuana_iq_teens_duke_study.php)
Ludia,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean, "what do you mean there's more to it"? You've done a great job stuffing this post with good arguments and examples. I found your look at diction interesting, since you looked at two aspects of diction. You constantly cite the article, which reflects some very good habits, though you might be pushing yourself too hard since I do not think that citations other than the URL are necessary for this particular assignment. Your coverage of the use of detail and language, and how they did and did not effect you are equally impressive.
Perhaps the diction was quite casual because the author was trying to connect to a wider audience. Additionally, using too much force could backfire: say, if I was an environmentalist, I would not get any thumb-ups if I told everybody that their lazy and destructive lifestyle was giving Armageddon to the natural world. Of course, not using forceful enough language could backfire, as you pointed out. What an interesting balancing act.
Ludia,
ReplyDeleteYou do a Great job of arguing your points and providing examples, i also would have to disagree with the use of diction on how the author uses strong diction and weak diction because maybe the author is depicting a skill of showing his points, like how he uses strong diction to argue how he doesn't want to not legalize pot just for the high of it, the author in this "The Obama administration remains strongly opposed. Supporters of state legalization want this confrontation on the grounds that it will change federal law. Maybe, but a more likely scenario is that states will end up in costly litigation while pot users are left in legal limbo" uses adverbs to help support his side and uses weak to depict some areas where the author doesn't want the audience to focus on. Because isn't being a journalist you have to be able to show your thoughts without provoking anyone? since being published and open to the world, the author did not want any backfire from sharing his/her thoughts right? i really enjoyed that were unbiased while you were critiquing like what Audrey had said, because this is necessary in evaluating and analyzing matters that are two sided not letting your personal thoughts get in the way and effecting decisions.
Davis--Ludia is writing about an editorial, which is a kind of writing that does argue a side and take a strong stand on an issue. People who write editorials are supposed to advocate emphatically for one side of an issue.
DeleteLudia--I think that Matthew makes a comment worth thinking about, here, regarding the fine line that a writer needs to tread between fiery persuasion and alienating bombast.
ReplyDelete