Kondracke and Vidal Evaluation Essay

In the obligate, Dont countenance Drugs by Morton M. Kondracke, writes on the pros and cons of the legitimation of drugs in a persuade focusing to help the lecturer understand the ultimate d proclaimfall of our society if the legalization of drugs does come into effect. His convincing tone is brought together by his logical, out attitude resources, and predictions from presumable doctors. His use of pathos also helps the reader have a deeper arrangement of the serious problems of legalizing drugs. As Kondracke states in the beginning, if the advocates of legalized drugs do have their way in that respect will also be more unpublicized fatal and maiming crashes, more contrast accidents, more child neglect, more of almost all(prenominal)thing associated with substance abuse babies born(p) 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 predictions to help but 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 unfeigned result of alcohol in America and what effects it would have on our society if alcohol has already done so much to transform America. The only real flaw I see with this article is that it is quondam(a) 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 quite 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 hotshot whiff 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 o nly does he share no real believable evidence, but the article is also over cardinal years old and things have definitely changed. The seriousness of this article is not well developed enough which gives the reader more of a trick than deep thinking reasoning.