Jessica Reyes

Zack De Piero
Writing 2
22 February 2016
WP2 Final Draft
The Legalization of Marijuana:
From A Doctors, Economists, and Bloggers Perspective

Comment [1]: Okey dokey -- a nice, clear title that keys

me into what's coming up. :)

Over the last 40 years, the legal status of marijuana, whether for medical or recreational
use, has been a topic of debate nearly everywhere. Many points, arguing both sides of whether or
not it should be legalized, have been debated and as it currently remains illegal in most states in
the US, the heated debate is ongoing. In this paper the idea will be compared and contrasted from

Comment [2]: For sure, J-Rey. This is significant, but I

already know this (don't most people?) and it's not that
interesting in and of itself. Is there a better way you
can hook me here? What stood out to you as "whoa,
super-interesting!" while you researched/wrote this
piece?

three different articles/perspectives: a scholarly article called Legalization of Marijuana:

Potential Impact on Youth published by the American Academy of Pediatrics; an academic
journal written by Larissa Flister titled The Economic Case for Marijuana Legalization in
Canada; and last but not least a personal blog titled 101 Reasons to Legalize Marijuana.
Although these publications all discuss the same topic of marijuana legalization, each source
differs in their exigence and perspective towards the topic, audience and tone, and personal
choice of moves used in the piece, in order to better appeal to and be understood by their specific
audience.
After comparing and contrasting the rhetorical features presented in each article, you will
see that there are several aspects that contribute to each and every piece of literature. Many parts
of writing build off each other and help you to understand one another. For example, Blitzer
argues There are three parts to understanding the context of a rhetorical moment: exigence,

Comment [3]: J-Rey, I dig how you're using exigence

here -- very cool.

That said, I need more of a specific, driving thesis
statement. They're different.... OK, and? So what?

I'd also like you to get more specific. What specific
points are you going to use to make that case? What
about the conventions within this genre will you be
emphasizing? And what about moves?

The introductory paragraph is so crucial *for readers*
because it provides them with the expectations for your
whole piece. The more direction you give me, the
more focused *my reading* will be --- and the more I'll
be able to take away from your piece.
Comment [4]: Two thoughts:

1. Can you get more specific? What aspects/features
will you be analyzing in this para?

2. I feel like this could've been written by anybody. I
want to read a piece by *YOU.* I want *YOU* to put
more of your own "spin" on this topic. You can do that
while still being faithful to using evidence to support
your argument. (Didn't I request more voice from you
in my WP1 feedback?)

audience, and constraints (Carroll, 40). As Laura Carroll mentions in her article Steps toward
Rhetorical Analysis, Understanding the exigence is important because it helps you begin to
discover the purpose of the rhetoric. It helps you to understand what the discourse is trying to
accomplish (Carroll, 48). In other words, you can begin to understand a pieces exigence by
asking yourself what the writer is responding to. Carroll also explains that the exigence can range
widely in its complexity. In the case of the first article mentioned, the question the author is
responding to is rather complex: How would legalizing marijuana impact the youth in society?
This article was written by two doctors and therefore discusses the topic from a healthcare

Comment [5]: There's a clear transition here -- you're

going from explaining what exigence is and why it's
important, to how it appears in the articles you read....

Worth starting a new paragraph? Otherwise, this is all
getting buried together, and (as a reader) it's very
overwhelming.

perspective. From the title of the second article mentioned, you can already assume that it will be
Comment [6]: Excellent. I <3 this. Way to go. :) :)

discussing marijuana legalization from an economic standpoint. The exigence of this piece could
then be What affect does legalizing marijuana have on the economy? Lastly comes the blog.
As it is from a personal perspective on the topic, the question the author is responding to may be
as simple as Why should marijuana be legalized? As you can see, all of these articles are
similar in the fact that they are on the same topic, yet differ greatly in their exigence, perspective,
and purpose.
This brings us to the next point, who is the intended audience of each piece? As Mike
Bunn suggests, Knowing why the piece was written [purpose] and who its for [audience] can
help explain why the author might have made certain choices or used particular techniques in the
writing, and you can assess those choices and techniques based in part on how effectively they
are fulfilling that purpose and reaching the intended audience (Bunn, 88). As the first two
pieces are scholarly journals, their intended audiences differ greatly from the intended audience
of the blog. Rhetorical features that can help one interpret the intended audience of a piece
include tone, format, and context. For example, in the first journal published by the American

Comment [7]: When I see thiseven before I start

readingI think, Ahhhhhhh! Attack of the page-long
paragraph!

See if you like this metaphor:

Pretend your whole paper is a big, juicy steak. Do you
want your reader to enjoy that steak in easy-to-chew,
digestable bites? Or do you want them to start
gnawing away at whole thing in one piece (think:
zombie).

Paragraphs are like those bites. Give your reader
your argument in little, digestable, one-idea-at-a-time
bits. By doing so, theyll be able to following along the
trail of your argument much easier. To relate it back to
the steak metaphor, readers need to be able to see the
different parts/pieces/bites of the argument that theyre
chewing on.
Comment [8]: J-Rey, I want you to know that I think
you're misusing brackets here. The way you've written
this, it'd be as if Mike Bunn said/wrote:

"Bunn suggests, Knowing why the piece was written
purpose and who its for audience can help explain why
the author might have made certain choices or used
particular techniques in the writing, and you can assess
those choices and techniques based in part on how
effectively they are fulfilling that purpose and reaching
the intended audience (Bunn, 88).

Read that out loud and see if that "sounds right" to you.
Comment [9]: You're biting off a lot for just one
paragraph. I think your paper would benefit if you took
a step back and slowed down. Think: 1 piece at a time.
Comment [10]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWH
niL8MyMM

Academy of Pediatrics, the tone is professional and scholarly. By using terms such as Synar
Amendment and developmental trajectory the author demonstrates that he is knowledgeable
on the subject and confident in sharing that knowledge (Legalization of Marijuana: Potential
Impact on Youth). This also shows readers that prior knowledge on specific amendments or
medical terms may be necessary to understand the piece provided. The author makes a specific

Comment [11]: Yes! Awesome follow-up observation

here.

move in formatting this piece. He choses to present the article in a very structured manner,

Comment [12]: Worth defining/describing what you

mean by "moves" here? That way your readers know
how/why you're using it.

having specific titles for each section including abstract, background, and historical
perspectives on drug policies in the United States. Not only does he choose to use specific titles,
he also makes a move by putting each title in all capitals and bolded. Regarding the format, the
author makes another move by choosing to present the piece in two columns. He also uses
footnotes to further explain specific points, and numerous references and citations. This article
also includes a graph representing data on the risk and availability trends of marijuana and
brings up several statistics on the topic. For example, the author states Among 18 to 20 year
olds, the proportion who reported ever having used marijuana increased from 15% to 44%, and
the proportion who reported using it within the previous 30 days increased from 8.5% to 18.5%
(Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth). All of these features help readers to
infer that intended audience of this piece is any healthcare professional interested in learning the
potential impact of marijuana legalization on adolescents.
The second journal, written by Larissa Flister is relatively similar to the first journal. As
they are both scholarly pieces, the tone of this one is also very professional and the structure is
nearly the same. One main difference is rather than structuring the article into columns, this
author moves to use one column. Because the author uses phrases such as annual health
expenditures and maintaining the current retail prices, you can assume that some basic

Comment [13]: I think it might be a cool/effective way to

enhance your argument if you *return* to those
exigence-related questions that you posed at the
beginning of the piece -- ie, how are those questions
being addressed/answered?

knowledge of economics must be known in order to understand this piece (Flister). The article
The economic Case of Marijuana Legalization in Canada has titles for each section including
an abstract, introduction, and conclusion (Flister). Flister makes a move by choosing to
number each section title. The author of this article doesnt use footnotes, but also uses many
references, citations, and statistics to build credibility and gain readers trust. From this, you can
assume that the intended audience is any educated economist concerned with how legalizing
marijuana would effect the economy.
The third and last publication, differs greatly from the previous two. This piece is a
personal blog rather than a scholarly article, and its tone, format, and context is almost
completely opposite of the others. In opposition to the formal, academic tone of the two previous
articles, the tone of the blog is informal and personal, coming from the heart, speaking of the
authors own opinions on the legalization of marijuana. It uses casual language that people of all
ages and educational backgrounds can understand and even mentions foul language due to lack

Comment [14]: J-Rey, this is an open-ended question:

Im wondering if your paper would benefit from re-
structuring the organization. Instead of
-Source #1
-Source #2
-Source #3
Could your paper/argument unfold a more
integrated/interwoven way if you did something like:
-Idea #1 (and then incorporate sources 1, 2, 3)
-Idea #2 (and then incorporate sources 1, 2, 3)
-Idea #3 (and then incorporate sources 1, 2, 3)?
Comment [15]: Such as? Help me see this. Bring in
textual support/evidence.

of constraints. As Carroll shares, constraints have a lot to do with how the rhetoric is presented
(Carroll, 41). For example, one line says some shit their pants, which is okay to use in this
blog because there are few constraints when it comes to this genre of writing, but that language is
not something you would see in a formal piece of writing due to the strict limitations of that
genre. One could also say that each of the genres of sources use different types of thinking
according to the article Teaching Two Kinds of Thinking by Teaching Writing. Where second
order thinking is planned and logical, first order thinking is intuitive and creative and doesnt
strive for conscious direction or control (Teaching Two Kinds of Thinking by Teaching Writing,
31). For example, the scholarly articles use second order thinking which corresponds with more
conscious planning and logically presenting the information in a paragraph structure, while the

Comment [16]: Is that all there is to say about it -- just

that it's "OK to use"? Does this have any other
effect/impact on a reader/

How/why does this (and the other points here) tie back
to your greater argument?

last article uses first order thinking to communicate the information in a numbered list format.
The format of this blog is not in a typical paragraph structure, but as I mentioned above, in a
numbered list of 101 reasons why the author believes that marijuana should be legalized. Unlike
the unbiased nature of the scholarly publications, the author of this blog is highly opinionated
and biased in favor of the legalization. For example, he states that Marijuana will make the US
less materialistic and Marijuana, despite what youve heard, is a lot of fun (101 Reasons to
Legalize Marijuana). There are no references or citations, which may lead readers to believe

Comment [17]: Solid support. I'm convinced.

that the information presented is not entirely accurate. Another move this author makes is to have
a color on the blog website, more specifically, a black background with white writing and a
green title. That being said, readers can understand that the intended audience of this blog is any
person of any age that has the ability to read and wants to know personal opinions on why
marijuana should be legalized.
It is quite difficult when it comes to comparing the effectiveness and persuasiveness of
each of these three articles because each specific piece has a different audience to effectively
provide information to. To elaborate, the scholarly journals both had more educated, specified
audiences of different disciplines and therefore had to use formal tones and provide concrete
evidence, such as data, to support their arguments. In contrast, the blog had a very broad
audience varying in age and level of education, and thus conveyed an informal, conversational
tone and no real use of evidence to support his opinions. Furthermore, there is no real way to
compare the effectiveness of different writing styles and genres, as each specific genre is
effective towards their own intended audience. That being said, the first two articles would be
more effective for an educated health professional or economist than for the everyday person just
looking for simple opinions and likewise, the personal blog would be more effective for an

Comment [18]: No disrespect, but this is a pretty lame

move -- what else can you bring up here?

everyday person just looking for simple opinions than for an educated health professional or
economist. In summation, the intended audience plays a huge role in the development of a piece
of writing as the audience can determine the type of language used, the formality of the
discourse, the medium or delivery of the rhetoric (Carroll, 41).

Works Cited
Bunn, Mike. How to Read Like a Writer. Writing 2 De Piero UCSB Reader. Winter 2016.
Print.
Carroll, Laura Bolin. Backpack vs. Briefcase: Steps toward Rhetorical Analysis. Writing 2 De
Piero UCSB Reader. Winter 2016. Print.
Flister, Larissa Ducatti. The Economic Case for Marijuana Legalization in Canada. Journal of
Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. 2012, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p96-100. 5p. Web.
Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth. American Academy of Pediatrics. Vol.
113 Issue 6, 2005. Web.
Teaching Two Kinds of Thinking by Teaching Writing. Writing 2 De Piero UCSB Reader.
Winter 2016. Print.
"101 Reasons to Legalize Marijuana." Uneedweed.blogspot.com. N.p., 11 June 2007. Web. 14
Feb. 2016.