Rhetorical
Analysis of the Marijuana Legalization Campaign
The
legalization of marijuana is one of the biggest recent advances in drug
legalization. After the state of Colorado and Washington legalized possession
of pot in 2013, the campaign to get other states to consider effectively
lifting the bans has gone into full gear. Schuette’s Campaign offers the
Republican Party several reasons to legalize marijuana. As an insider, he
appeals to the Party’s conscience and history, offering links on why pot prohibition
hinders other traditional goals of the Conservative side such as healthcare,
security, debt reduction, and stemming illegal immigration.
Frames
One of the most
subtle rhetorical devices used in this campaign is framing. The main tool is
the heading ‘Marijuana Legalization: The
Republican Argument for Doing It’ that sets the agenda and classifies the
audience (Schuette Para 1).
The audience, in this case, is both Republicans and non-Republicans. The former
might be conflicted about why the Party, which is traditionally conservative,
should consider decriminalizing pot. This position also appeals to members of
the Democratic Party and independents who need to build an argument when
discussing pot legalization with Republican Party members. Even more important,
the discussion provides a framework for the legalization debate free from
partisan perspectives. The information shared and discussed can be said to be
bipartisan politically, but appealing to the legalization side of the main
debate.
The
author uses framing within the sub-headings too, classifying the issues close
to the Conservative Agenda in individual entries to ensure that he covers the
relevance of pot legalization to them. In the third sub-heading, for example,
the Schuette (Para 10) covers legalization as a way to starve off drug cartels
both within the US and internationally. This security frame is intriguing to
readers concerned about the US domestic security and the soaring violent cartel
crimes in Mexico and American states (Fisherr 50).
The
reference to Big Marijuana is important because he phrases in the same way as
another critical American industry ‘Big Pharma’ that is used in reference to
the leading pharmaceutical companies. The phrase ‘We need Big Pharma’ is meant
for more than just Republicans reading the piece. It creates an impression that
marijuana, now legally prohibited under federal law, is in actual sense one of
the few big changes that America has to make to solve its myriad of problems.
Audience
The main
audience for this pot legalization campaign is the Republican Party. Schuette
is writing the piece as an insider whose views about the drug changed as he
encountered information in contrast with his previous position. He uses
anecdotes such as his participation in elections as a Republican Campaign
manager to establish his credibility as an insider.
The
constant use of the terms marijuana and pot is itself a rhetorical device. The
two are colloquial slang terms coined by different demographics and with unique
and shared history. Marijuana, for example, was used in reference to cannabis
by Mexican migrant workers. In most contexts, the term is used to villainize
cannabis plants mostly because it is not precise and connotes different things
to different people.
The
article ends with a byline of the author that does not include the fact that he
is a Republican. It, instead, establishes his experience as a journalist and a
cartoonist, as well as an entrepreneur. These three roles are important in
lending credence to his ability to imagine the benefits, economic, political
and social ones, of Big Marijuana. In establishing a point such as the possible
end of violent cartels, for examples, Schuette taps into his experience in
overseas reporting. His entrepreneurial experience is clear in the first two
subtopics of the article as he advocates for a leaner, more efficient social
system by reducing costs and promoting activities that bring in revenue.
He
uses his experience as a journalist in the fourth point to establish how cannabis
could be used to ease the suffering for the chronically ill. Since this is the
last point, it is combined with the conclusion such that it flows from being an
independent point to being an anecdote, a final standoff-equivalent, of a
reason to legalize marijuana use. The conversational style adopted by the
author is also a powerful tool in bridging the gap between himself and the
reader (Montero and DeVries Para.
10).
The language used to put the articles points across are very conversational,
and include such phrases as ‘Here’s the thing… magic bullet…hit home’ and
others right before making succinct points.
Exemplification
The most used
rhetorical strategy in this campaign is exemplification through personal
experiences, statistics, facts, and cases in point. The author goes into detail
about the likely benefits of marijuana legalization in health, security, and
debt reduction. Each subheading classifies one of these issues and then offers
details and statistics to support the author’s assertion that Republicans would
meet their goals if they supported the legalization of pot.
In
the fourth subheading, for example, Schuette (Para 10) uses an anecdote where
CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, a medical correspondent, changed positions on the marijuana
issue. The anecdote is combined with another by a leading Republican who is
opposed to pot legalization. It forms a foundation to a study published in the
New England Journal of Medicine on why many doctors would recommend marijuana
as a medicine for chronic illnesses. He then combines this with his personal
experience after the death of his father from pancreatic cancer. The use of all
these exemplification tools brings the issue closer to his audience, and uses
statistics to build credibility for his perspective (Tom and Eves 40).
Structures and Organization
The argument in
this campaign is organized in such a way that it flows through the subtopics.
The information is arranged to provide a chronological argument in time and
events. The author uses the cause-and-effect, problem-solution arguments to
analyze the information in a linear and circular way. The argument order is
actually recursive, offering forward arguments on why legalizing marijuana is
the right decision to make while referring back to the original argument as to
the reasons why Republicans should join in the legalizing campaign.
The
author builds the argument that the continued prohibition of marijuana is part
of the reason why prisons are overcrowded, hence placing a huge cost burden on
the economy. He starts his argument by making a direct connection with the
alcohol prohibition debate and alluding to its failure as a failure to respond
to the realities on the ground. He follows this up with an anecdote to create
relevance to his own story as a Republican, and a Bush speechwriter, David
Frum.
Works Cited
Fisherr, Gary L. Rethinking
Our War on Drugs. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006. Print.
Montero, Kyle and DeVries.
"Anti-Marijuana Rhetoric Final Essay." Ethereal Education 20
May 2010. Web. 31 January 2014.
<http://kdevries.net/teaching/2010/05/24/anti-marijuana-rhetoric-final-essay/>.
Schuette, Ryan.
"Marijuana Legalization: The Republican Argument for Doing It." Policy
Mic 17 September 2013. Web. 27 January 2014.
<http://www.policymic.com/articles/64121/marijuana-legalization-the-republican-argument-for-doing-it>.
Tom, Gail and Anmarie Eves.
"The Use of Rhetorical Devices in Advertising." Journal of
Advertising Research (1999): 39-43. Web. 30 January 2014.
<http://gandrllc.com/reprints/useofrhetoricaldevicesinadvertising.pdf>.
No comments:
Post a Comment