Severe Laws Against Marijuana

1285 Words6 Pages
First of all we must understand and grasp the concept of critical thinking and what that necessarily means to an argument. Critical thinking gathers evidence to determine whether it supports or weakens assertions of two aspects. It also involves paying careful attention to what we listen to and read, so that we can better understand what is being said to have the appropriate response. There are many forms of communication, but we use language as the primary source when communicating with others. Everything can be expressed in communication from emotions to logically thinking about what you are trying to interpret. Also we use language to get across information, most of the times by claiming declarative sentences. This is very useful because…show more content…
Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws, but for laws in general. Therefore sever laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” (p.45). The first premiss would have to be “Encouragement of contempt for laws is more dangerous to society than occasional use of marijuana. “ This certain premiss is important because it makes one of the claims for the argument. Another premiss is “Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws but for laws in general.” This ties in with the first premiss, but can stand alone as its’ own as well. The conclusion would be “Severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity that they are designed to prevent.” This is a conclusion that explains its two premisses and makes an argument against the laws in which are enforced to prevent the use of marijuana. Also, in this case for this particular argument there are no extra superfluous premises. This is mainly because almost all the argument is used for the conclusion and…show more content…
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. We can assume by the premises that the argument would have to be true, due the subject, marijuana is a universal and cheap drug that can be used by anyone. In fact, there are laws that prevent the use of marijuana, so when the law tells society you can’t smoke marijuana, this only puts out a message of restriction and that doesn’t go well for listening. In conclusion, Blakeslee arriving on the conclusion that severe laws will only put more danger on those who use marijuana than

More about Severe Laws Against Marijuana

Open Document