Kondracke and Vidal Evaluation Essay

In the article, â€Å"Don’t Legalize Drugs† by Morton M. Kondracke, writes on the pros and cons of the legalization of drugs in a convincing way to help the reader understand the ultimate downfall 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 credible doctors. His use of pathos also helps the reader have a deeper understanding of the serious problems of legalizing drugs. As Kondracke states in the beginning, â€Å"†¦ if the advocates of legalized drugs do have their way†¦there will 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 predictions 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 America and what effects it would have on our society if alcohol has already done so much to change America. The only real flaw I see with this article is that it is old and much in our society has changed. In the article, â€Å"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, â€Å"†¦I have tried—once—almost every drug and liked none disproving the popular Fu Manchu theory that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind.† which doesn’t help his case at all seeing that he could have made up that side story on the spot. Not only does he share 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.