Labelling a person as an illegal alien portrays that the individual, as opposed to his or her actions, is unlawful. By using this term Dwyer implies that the person’s very existence as an authorized migrant in the country is criminal. His use of the term is not only dehumanizing, but also racial and ethnically biased. Conclusion In conclusion, the article portrays a detailed discussion on Dwyer’s views towards the gun control law and the state of the country under the current government. He uses language to sway his readers and provides evidence to support his views.
Some long-term effects are: suppression of the immune system, growth disorders, increase of abnormally structured cells in the body, or inability to understand things clearly. The foundation for a drug-free world feels very strongly when it comes to be being against marijuana; rather it’s with their arguments or by their name. It seems like they want to free the world of all drugs, not just marijuana. They talk about the affects of drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, and even crystal meth. With marijuana they really stress negatives that it can do to your body.
He mentions the relating between shrinking the stock of legally purchased guns and people self defend. The public opinion in this point is dangerous to shrink that. They believe should not be to reduce the carry of firearms, but put an end to them being carried by criminals. The government and public goal
And how will it benefit society if addicts are labeled as morally inferior people and are not given the help they need to perhaps become productive members of their communities? It won’t. Does that mean that anyone who has used and abused addictive mind altering substances to the point of addiction isn’t responsible for their actions, exonerated of any wrong doing? Of course it doesn’t. Does it mean that an addict is free from all fault or blame if they continue to seek out and use the very substances that are ruining their lives?
One other logical fallacy that as recognized was circular reasoning, which means the conclusion of an argument is hidden in the argument’s premise. For example, cigarettes are dangerous because they ruin your health. The repetition of the key terms or ideas is not real evidence. (Goshgarian 25) In Murdock’s article, “Terrorist do not simply “threaten” us, nor does Homeland Security merely shield American from “future attacks” these things are true, but it is more persuasive to acknowledge what these people have done and hope to do once more: Wipe us out.” (Murdock “Terrorism” Handout) This specific phrase from Murdock’s article is circular reasoning because terrorist means terror or threaten and security means to keep safe. By Murdock using these words, it’s considered a circular reasoning because of the repetition of what terrorists and Homeland Security supposed to
My friend is thinking of taking the drug Methampethamine normally known as “P”, so I am going to persuade him not to take the drugs and show the risks and effects it has after you start taking it. I think that you should not take this drug because it is an “A class drug” and it is very addictive. Not just that, it rots your teeth, makes you behave in a violent matter and has some long term effects and these can ruin your life. “P” is a very dangerous drug which makes you do a lot of stupid things that you as your normal self would not do. This has a lot of long term effects, like depression and poor health.
People may feel like it would do more harm than good. The fact is, however, that the drug users themselves are to blame for taking these benefits away from the family members that truly need it. If we were to look at this from another view it might make more sense. In the workplace, for instance, if you fail a drug test, there is a simple solution……no job. It would make sense to do the same for public assistance.
One one side people attest bigotry, racism, and even the financial interests of big corporations as reasons, whereas the other side cites the fact that marijuana is, in fact, a drug and inherently harmful to both individuals and society. Opponents also point out that legalizing recreational marijuana is a violation of international law, specifically the United Nations Single Convention of Narcotics Drugs of 1961 (www.UN.org). There can be no doubt the effectiveness of the CSA concerning marijuana is less than stellar. To be effective one would have to say that people, first off, would agree overwhelmingly that use or possession of marijuana should be a crime in the first place. Even using the words 'legalization' and Federalism and Marijuana 'decriminalization' invite debate as one would suggest that the illegalization was right and proper and the other suggests the criminalization was the wrong thing to do in the first place, thereby creating a culture of criminals where there should never have been.
Both writers disagree on how addicting the Marijuana is, and if the government is part of this. Stanton Peele describes addiction this way. " I have described addiction as a consequence of involvement with absorbing experiences that provide essential emotional satisfactions but that detract from people's ability to cope with their lives". Peele has a valid point, in which the user is in a emotional state in which they want to forget about their problems, and want something to get their mind of problem. That's when they are most fragile to get addicted to Marijuana.
I believe that gun control laws are unconstitutional. Gun Control laws are only taking away our rights given to us in the second Amendment of the Constitution which are protected by the fourteenth Amendment. Forcing people to have background checks before purchasing a gun or making assault weapons illegal will not lower the level of crime that is caused by guns. These laws will only affect law abiding citizens of the United States. Why would a criminal follow gun control laws if he or she is already going to break the law to commit a crime?