Both paragraphs argue in different ways for the position concerning the legalization of marijuana. Also, the positions of the paragraphs differ in the approaches to the analysis of this problem. The questions, claims, and evidence presented in both paragraphs are effective, however, do not cover the full range of the topic. Mentioning only a statistical basis for the evidence, the paragraphs remain open to various possible counterarguments.
The position of the first paragraph consists of a negative attitude towards the legalization of marijuana. The main question of the first paragraph is why cannabis and marijuana should not be legalized. The paragraph claims that Australia’s existing drug policy is working effectively and is leading to a reduction in marijuana use. However, the reasoning used in the paragraph does not support this statement. To confirm the statement, the paragraph contains statistical data. These data show that Australia has a leading position in the population’s dependence on different substances other than alcohol. This argument contradicts the paragraph’s claim that Australia’s policies are working effectively. To prove this, information confirming the effectiveness of the policy should be used instead. Thus, some sources claim that Australia’s current drug policy does reduce the marijuana use level. The most harmful substances in Australia at the moment are cocaine and heroin (Bonomo et al., 2019). Thus, for a more accurate evidence base, it is better to use sources that support the claim, rather than contradict it.
The second paragraph argues the opposite point of view, also providing statistics. The main question of the paragraph is the reasons for the decriminalization of marijuana and its positive consequences. The paragraph claims that one of the main harms of drug use is its illegality. The ban on the possession and use of drugs only provokes people to commit these actions more. In addition, the presence of a criminal record for drug possession harms the future fate of a person, including work, family, etcetera. The second paragraph provides statistical reasoning to support this claim. However, this argument does not prove that decriminalization will help reduce marijuana use. In addition, the paragraph provides examples of the legalization of marijuana in other countries.
To make this argument more accurate, positive examples should be given, rather than a list of countries. Thus, the decriminalization of marijuana has had a positive impact on reducing drug use in Uruguay (von Hoffman, 2016). Moreover, it has been proven that in Portugal, the number of patients in drug treatment facilities has decreased due to the legalization of several narcotic substances (Quintas, 2017). In Germany, many patients with mental disorders were able to get access to medical marijuana (Rehm et al., 2019). What is more, in several US states, marijuana, including medical marijuana, is legal. Thanks to this, the percentage of drug-related crimes was significantly reduced (Labate et al., 2016). One of the most famous examples of successful decriminalization of drugs in the Netherlands, in particular Amsterdam. The legalization of marijuana and some other substances has allowed the country not only to reduce the number of people addicted to drugs but also attracted a large flow of tourists (Grund & Breeksema, 2017). This measure has had a positive impact on the health of citizens and the economic situation of the state.
In conclusion, both paragraphs provided clear questions and claims. The introduction of the paragraphs gives the readers a clear understanding of what will be discussed later. However, the argumentation provided and the validity of some of the arguments do not allow to fully confirm the claims. For a clearer argument, it is better to check whether the provided statistical base is suitable for the claim. Also, argumentation should not be limited to statistics only, rather it should provide readers with a wider range of sources.
References
Bonomo, Y., Norman, A., Biondo, S., Bruno, R., Daglish, M., Dawe, S., Egerton-Warburton, D., Karro, J., Kim, C., Lenton, S., Lubman, D., Pastor, A., Rundle, J., Ryan, J., Gordon, P., Sharry, P., Nutt, D., Castle, D. (2019). The Australian drug harms ranking study. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 33(7), 759-768.
Grund, J. P., & Breeksema, J. J. (2017). Drug policy in the Netherlands. In European drug policies: The ways of reform (pp. 128-148).
Labate, B. C., Cavnar, C., & Rodrigues, T. (Eds.). (2016). Drug policies and the politics of drugs in the Americas. Springer International Publishing.
Quintas, J., & Arana, X. (2017). Decriminalization: Different models in Portugal and Spain. In Dual Markets (pp. 121-143). Springer, Cham.
Rehm, J., Elton-Marshall, T., Sornpaisarn, B., & Manthey, J. (2019). Medical marijuana. What can we learn from the experiences in Canada, Germany and Thailand?. International Journal of Drug Policy, 74, 47-51.
von Hoffmann, J. (2016). The international dimension of drug policy reform in Uruguay. International Journal of Drug Policy, 34, 27-33.