Kondracke and Vidal Evaluation Essay Example for Free

Kondracke and Vidal Evaluation EssayIn the article, Dont Legalize Drugs by Morton M. Kondracke, writes on the pros and cons of the legalization of drugs in a convert way to help the reader understand the ultimate d letfall of our society if the legalization of drugs does come into effect. His convincing tone is brought together by his logical, outside resources, and predictions from presumptive doctors. His use of pathos also helps the reader restrain a deeper understanding of the serious problems of legalizing drugs. As Kondracke states in the beginning, if the advocates of legalized drugs do have their waythere lead also be more unpublicized fatal and maiming crashes, more job accidents, more child neglect, more of almost everything associated with substance abuse babies born addicted or retarded.. hoping to touch the hearts of the many.Kondracke uses outside resources such as Dr. Robert DuPont who is the former director of the National Institutes of Drug Abuse and his pre dictions to help further his argument and give credibility. not only does he share with the reader outside sources and studies, but he mentions many examples by comparing the predictions of legalizing drugs and the actual result of alcohol in the States and what effects it would have on our society if alcohol has already done so much to change America. The only real flaw I tick off with this article is that it is old and much in our society has changed.In the article, Drugs Case for Legalizing Marijuana by Gore Vidal, his case for the legalization of marijuana is not sort of convincing enough to even call it a case. Nothing in his article seems to be believable because he uses no real statistics except for his own when he says, I have triedoncealmost every drug and liked none disproving the popular Fu Manchu theory that a single pant of opium will enslave the mind. which doesnt help his case at all seeing that he could have made up that side story on the spot. Not only does he sh are no real believable evidence, but the article is also over forty years old and things have definitely changed. The seriousness of this article is not well developed enough which gives the reader more of a laugh than deep thinking reasoning.