Both selection talks about drugs if they should or shouldn’t be legalize and they give some sort of examples to support their claims. Both articles reflect on theories especially the article “Don’t Legalize Drugs” which has about two or more and also talks about alcohol. One sentence that stood out to me in “Don’t Legalize Drug” is that if we legalize drugs that would be like legalizing car theft basically would just be handing your keys right over to the thieves. Both thinks that if we do choose to legalize drugs it would cut down on people overdosing and we will also have a lower number in that area because majority of deaths has something to do with overdosing on a drug. “Drugs” also think that if you be labels on drugs people would know the effect of them like heroin deadly and very hard to break the addiction. Both had good point but “Don’t Legalize Drugs” was more depth about the situation, longer and gave plenty examples. On the hand “Drugs” has little to go off of and it’s seemed like his bunch all his points together. Everybody can make their own choices if they want to be on drugs or if they don’t. I’m pretty sure people saw somebody or even know someone that was drug and see how its effect their life, so why would you want to put yourself in that position. People who are addicted on drugs lose out on all thing, but major two ones are family and happiness.

The ideas behind these two essays are simple, Gore Vidal argues that, from his standpoint, making drugs legal can be a good thing and Theodore Dalrymple quickly makes it obvious he is completely opposed to legalizing anything that can be labeled as a “drug”. From reading Vidal's essay I quickly found myself immediately thinking that the audience for this essay has to be people that have tried a number of drugs or people that want drugs to be legalized just from Vidal describing his history even if it was only for a brief moment. However, when reading the essay a bit more I discovered that the essay can also be interesting to people that want drugs to stay out of everyone's hands by the statement “Now one can hear the warning rumble begin: if everyone is allowed to take drugs everyone will and the GNP will decrease, the Commies will stop us from making everyone free, and we shall end up a race of Zombies, passively murmuring "groovie" to one another.” This gives the essay a different feel because he gave a definitive possibility of what could become of the world if drugs were to be legalized.

Dalrymple's essay was a bit harder to figure out because it seemed to jump around quite a bit to the point where it seemed like he was writing to show his extensive vocabulary rather than proving a point. I did however manage to keep up with his style and concluded his audience would be people with an educated background as it seems to be on quite a knowledge based website and of course his writing style. He uses a good amount of statistics of the history of drug use but also realizes that everyone is responsible for their own actions. I do like that he pointed out that it wouldn't be the drugs that cause problems for us but the things people would be willing to do to get their hands on the drugs. That made me think that this man has a good sense of how humans work psychologically. This is where I feel both essays kind of feel the same. They both gave the reader a different psychological sense of what humans would do if introduced to drugs that can be bought anywhere at anytime. Unfortunately I cannot side with just one essay however because both of them had strong beliefs that I also believe in such as Dalrymple's psychological information and Vidal's example of how everyone would turn into hippies, at least to an extent.

The purpose of these two essays is to persuade me, one way or another, into believing legalizing drugs is a good or bad thing. The “Drugs” essay by Gore Vidal definitely stuck to the point, and made clear, legitimate arguments throughout the essay. He strongly pushed the well-known theories that legalizing drugs would rid the country of all associated crime, and that men were created to be free, and this is a constriction of our rights. The “Don’t legalize drugs” essay written by Theodore Dalrymple got way off course into the dark abyss of unnecessary, unrelated details of an unforgiving novel of an essay. It was also a cruel punishment to bear reading the entire essay, due to the lack of stability and its off-topic shenanigans. From what I got out of it, legalizing said drugs would lead the US into an even steeper descent into the shit-hole of a valley our country is already in. I’d say the audience for both of these pieces would be the general masses in their entirety. Everyone from the neighborhood garbage rummaging bum named Gretchen, to your father, to Will Ferrell, to your neighbor’s newborn baby, to your middle school arithmetic teacher.

Gore Vidal pulls the experience card in stating he’s “disproved the Fu Manchu theory” by admitting he’s been in contact with (most) all of the drugs firsthand. Mr.Dalrymple, on the other hand, uses statistics and other methods of ethos to persuade us. Also, Theodore’s essay was very jumbled I felt, as I stated before, straying off topic with comparisons. Those are all fine and dandy, but when you get into a 7 paragraph comparison, it’s time to re-think your game plan. Those are just my thoughts, let me know if you agree or disagree.

Legalizing drugs has been a tremendous argument for years now. Each article argues one of the two opposing sides regarding drug legalization. Gore Vidal thoroughly describes why he believes drugs should be legalized while Theodore Dalrymple is quick to defend his position against the legalization of drugs. The articles were both printed in large publications. Vidal’s article was printed in the New York Times which means his audience was the general public. Dalrymple’s article was printed in the City Journal, a publication that one must subscribe to in order to read, making me believe it is a more evenly educated audience. I also think his article was aimed towards a specific group of people; a group that more than likely agreed with all of Dalrymple’s opinions. Vidal uses his personal experience, stating he was able to disprove “the popular Fu Manchu theory.” This would play into an audience who has also tried several drugs. Dalrymple simply uses statistics and facts. He does not express any personal experience and seems to stray off topic several times. In my opinion, Vidal is able to succinctly prove his point in a short, easy to read essay. Unlike Dalrymple’s article where I had to hold my eyes open in order to read the entire essay.

. My favorite part of Vidal’s essay was where he brought up the point that a very similar debate has happened within our government before. He states, “no one in Washington today recalls what happened during the years alcohol was forbidden to the people by a Congress that thought it had a divine mission to stamp out Demon Rum - launching, in the process, the greatest crime wave in the country's history, causing thousands of deaths from bad alcohol, and creating a general (and persisting) contempt among the citizenry for the laws of the United States. The same thing is happening today. But the government has learned nothing from past attempts at prohibition, not to mention repression.” Vidal throws this cultural, political, and social argument at his readers. In my mind, he sealed the deal with this part of his essay, very easily persuading his readers that, because problems were solved when alcohol was legalized, the same will happen if drugs were legalized. Dalrymple does not have an argument even close to this.

These two articles have both been written to inform the reader the positives of legalizing drugs (“Drugs” by Gore Vidal) and the negatives of legalizing drugs (“Don’t Legalize Drugs” by Theodore Dalrymple). Both writers are trying to achieve the ultimate goal of having readers either agree or disagree with what they have printed on paper. In “Drugs”, Vidal is trying to get the reader to obtain a view on legalizing drugs. On the other hand, Dalrymple’s claim is that legalizing drugs is not a good thing, and will only hurt more and more people. For both articles, the intended audience is the same: everyone. Both authors want people to understand the good/bad characteristics of drugs. Vidal appeals to his audience with a combination of straight facts, and a bit of humor. However, Dalrymple tries to get his audience to agree with his opinions, making it seem as though he is the one that knows all about this topic. Dalrymple also attempts to use moral principles to back up his responses. For example, in paragraphs 11 and 12, he discusses freedom in the sense that it has nothing to do with the consumption of not only drugs, but material things in a person’s life.

Both authors use logical and emotional appeals in their articles. When questioning the credibility of these two writers, the reader can see that Vidal knows what he is talking about because, as he states in the second paragraph, “I have tried –once- almost every drug and liked none…” as opposed to Dalrymple, who appears to give his opinion, thinking that he is the only correct one . Social, cultural, and personal factors are main influences on these articles. Social factors are either agreeing or disagreeing with the author in regards to what society is used to. Cultural factors are similar to social factors, because they deal with how people in general deal with this topic. Personal factors are how each person as an individual feel about the topic. This debate between legalizing or not legalizing drugs is a small piece to a huge puzzle that greatly influences today’s generation. I believe that if there are harsh laws that are there to prohibit people from doing something, they would be more likely to do it because it is “breaking the norm”. For example, there is no drinking age in Italy. Yet, some young people are brought up in families where a glass of wine during a meal is appropriate. This allows the individual to not feel as though they would be breaking any laws if they consumed in public. The reason I bring this up, is because you do not hear of people in Italy, or other countries similar to Italy, of people that abuse the privilege to indulge in what is considered here against the law. If there is no ban on doing something, such as drinking, there is no reason to try and be “sneaky” and do it on the sly. Personally, I find both of these articles very interesting. This debate on legalizing drugs is one that may be resolved soon, but no one is for sure. In my opinion, I believe that drugs should be legalized, because less people would be into them, and there would be no taboo on them.

In both Vidal’s and Dalrymple’s arguments they explain to their audience why they feel drugs should or should not be legalized. They both use examples as to how their opinion on this matter is the better one. One way they do this is by giving examples of how much better the world would be if they had the power to make this decision. Another way they do this is by giving credit to the other viewpoint and then explaining to the reader why their viewpoint was wrong.
In Dalrymple’s essay “Don’t Legalize Drug’s” he starts his article by saying that there are many man that thing legalizing drugs is “indeed only, solution to the social problems that arise from the consumption of drugs.” This is one way that the author acknowledges the people who may feel drugs should be legalized. Another great way he argued that his point was to say “The arguments in favor of legalizing the use of all narcotic and stimulant drugs are twofold: philosophical and pragmatic. Neither argument is negligible, but both are mistaken, I believe, and both miss the point.” He explains why people feel that drugs should be legalized but in the next two paragraphs tells his reader why these points are misleading.

In Vidal’s essay “Drugs” he starts off by explaining to his reader that he has personal experience with drugs. This establishes his credibility as an author on this topic because he knows first had effects on drugs. He goes on to explain the bad effects that drugs could have on a person and then argues that it should be up to the person if they want to do these harmful things to their body.
I feel that Dalrymple’s essay was a more effective essay and not only because I agree with his on this subject matter. I felt he did a better job at pulling more detail and reason that drugs should be legalized. Then he did a fantastic job at arguing why these reasons are not true. I felt Vidal’s essay was confusing at times. In the beginning I felt that he was on the side of not legalizing drugs; however, as he wrote more into his article I was confuse what side he was on. This does not make a good argument in any paper because it should be clear to the reader at all time what topic you are arguing and what side you are on.

I feel that both of these essays were pretty clear and they both stated how they about drugs throughout the entire article. Gore Vidals article ‘Drugs’ was short but straight to the point. He noted that while there are many theories about legalization of drugs resulting in a decrease of crime, which is not likely to happen. I liked Vidals article because he provided his examples in a quick and straight-forward manner. Not only did he give us facts from history when the government attempted to ban drugs such as the Prohibition era, but he also provided ethos by letting his audience know that he too has tried numerous drugs. Vidal stressed the point to his audience that legalization of drugs will not reduce crime nor cause the drug dealers to get off the streets, but instead they will find another way to make money. His articled was published in the NY Times so it was addressed to the general audience instead of a specific group. But it was also published in 1970, and while the times have changed I believe Vidal still has some valid facts in his article.

Theodore Dalrymple wrote his article entitled ‘Don’t Legalize Drugs’, and provided many facts and stories about why drugs should not be legalized. While Dalrymple had many quotes and examples, I felt that he sometimes began to get off topic. He started off explaining how legalization of drugs could not be explained by the philosophical principle and then the pragmatic principle and although it was long he had credibility with the detailed examples, facts, and stories. Dalrymple wanted to get across to his audience that we shouldn’t legalize drugs because crime rates would still increase and the legalization would only cause more problems for us. His article was written in 1997 which is more recent than Vidals but like Vidals, he too has valid points that can still be used today. I don’t think Dalrymple was trying to reach as big of an audience as Vidal because his article was in a City Journal, but he still wanted people to know why legalizations of drugs was a bad idea, for those thinking that it would somehow reduce our nations crime.

Both articles use rhetorical analysis in different ways. In Theoredore Dalrymple’s article, he shows a good use of logos by saying “One of most striking characteristics of drug takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption”. Dalrymple uses lucid examples and sound reasons for not legalizing drugs. He uses ethos in a good and bad way, he really shows the readers what he is talking about by knowing a great deal about the subject, “Having met large numbers of drug dealers in prison, I doubt that they would return to respectable life if the principal article of their commerce were to be legalized,” but he also does not respect the opposing argument, “The arguments in favor of legalizing the use of all narcotic and stimulant drugs are twofold: philosophical and pragmatic. Neither argument is negligible, but both are mistaken, I believe, and both miss the point,” which could convince people not to have an open mind about the subject. I feel he is directing his audience towards people who think the same way he does because he does not respect the opposing argument, pretty much saying its senseless. On the other hand, he does use emotional appeal by reminiscing

when he was in Africa and saw a large number of construction workers from England become alcoholics due to the fact that alcohol was so inexpensive relating that to what would happen if drugs also became so inexpensive and accessible. Gore Vidal’s article uses these appeals in a dissimilar way or not at all. As for emotion appeals, I feel there was no use of it, I did not feel any emotions when I read his article. Although, he stays on topic unlike Dalrymple’s article. Vidal uses logos very well, saying how legalizing drugs would create less crime and we wouldn’t have as many drugs addicts saying “Since the combination of sin and money is irresistible (particularly to the professional politician), the situation will only grow worse”. Then again, with his audience accommodation, it feels like you have to know about drugs and maybe even have tried a few of them. If Vidal made his article a little longer using better points, I think it would be more convincing. Even though I agree with Dalrymple, I think Vidal’s argument was more convincing because he used the appeals and he really seemed to know what he was talking about.

Debunking the Myth: Crime and the Legalization of Drugs
Legalizing drugs will do far more harm than good. As articulated in Thedore Dalrymple’s article “Don’t Legalize Drugs”, the current situation in regards to drugs and their distribution is indeed bad, but it is not beyond repair. It is, however, in a position where it could be made worse by a wrong policy decision. In Gore Vidal’s article, “Drugs”, there are still two claims he makes that do fuel the other side of the argument. Making drugs widely available at proper cost (which is much lower than the going rate on the street) may hinder some from purchasing narcotics because, in the scenario suggested by Vidal, all drugs will be labeled with their true effects rather than ones blown out of proportion by anti-drug groups and those that are masked from buyers in order to increase sales. The author also claims to have experimented, to some degree, most drugs available. This does suggest that some individuals might be resilient to the addictive effects of drugs, but Vidal may well be the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. The remaining argument on Vidal’s end is primarily pathos embellished with rhetorical questions such as “Is everyone reasonably sane?” and “Will anything sensible be done?” He also began his argument by saying: “It is possible to stop most drug addiction in the United States within a very short time.” therefore inferring that legalizing drugs would lead to killing America’s addiction to drugs. Now, who wouldn’t want to stop America’s drug addiction? Only an asshole would want the addiction to continue – and thus lies the appeal to emotion.

Dalrymple’s article, on the other hand, had logos interlaced directly into his rhetoric and tone. He argued that legalizing drugs would not lead to a reduction in crime, but inflation. Unlike Vidal’s article, Dalrymple’s ideas are not merely communicated and forgotten, but fortified with reasons and examples – with the city of Liverpool being a prime illustration. Liverpool is known as a city where drugs are widely available, yet it is both the world capital of drug-motivated burglary as well as a city in which 1 in 300 individuals receive official prescriptions for methadone – a narcotic pain reliever, similar in nature to morphine, which reduces the withdrawal symptoms in individuals who are recovering addicts to narcotics (www.drugs.com/methadone). This leads down the logical path that America should not legalize drugs universally, for an example has already set by Liverpool that, contrary to general assumptions, crime will increase with the legalization of narcotics – not the other way around.

While I feel Dalrymple has more apparent logos than Vidal, Vidal’s article is not without any logos whatsoever. They both use logic (Though Dalrymple uses it far more efficiently), and they both have very credible ethos. Theodore Dalrymple is a contributing editor to City Journal, a retired doctor, and was a writer for the London Spectator column for thirteen years. He also both writes for the National Review and has published two collections of his City Journal essays. (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/dalrymple.htm) Gore Vidal, on the other hand, is an author of many books and a writer for The New York Times (http://www.pitt.edu/~kloman/vidalframe.html).

The legalization of drugs is a hot topic in today’s society, and both Vidal and Dalrymple’s articles were addressing the general population in an attempt to get them to side with the point of view expressed in their respective articles. It has infiltrated many news and media outlets, and has even found itself meandering through the legal system. Society, as a whole, is torn on the issue – as is Washington. Although, it does seem that both the government and the people are beginning to give in and are slowly accepting the idea of narcotics in the community as normal. One of the key claims in Vidal’s argument is that it will reduce the crime in relation to the drug industry, but Dalrymple makes a stronger counter-claim with Liverpool being the poster child for making Vidal’s argument invalid. Coming into this analysis, I was quite the uninformed advocate for the legalization of drugs. The surface level arguments seemed solid, so I bought into it. Vidal advocated the legalization of drugs, and Dalrymple preached strongly against it. This left me as the reader of the two articles to decide for myself who presented the stronger argument. Now that I have done my homework on the issue, however, I find myself siding with Dalrymple. With all the evidence presented and all things considered, it is apparent that the legalization of narcotics will lead to nothing but a higher crime rate across the nation.

Theodore Dalrymple is a British prison doctor and psychiatrist, Gore Vidal is an American author, playwright, essayist, and political activist. While they are both scholars, their choice of rhetorical devices varies tremendously. While Dalrymple’s use of academic writing helps establish himself as a credible source, Vidal opts for mediocrity to reach the masses. Dalrymple’s intention is to dissuade his educated audience from believing that legalizing drugs is “the obvious, indeed only, solution.” Whereas Vidal is to exhort the readers of The New York Times to believe that legalizing drugs would indeed “stop most drug addiction in the United States within a very short time.” Both Dalrymple and Vidal utilize antithesis, in their texts’, Dalrymple gives an example of “the philosophical and pragmatic arguments” in favor of legalization. Vidal hits pay dirt when he claims that “both the Bureau of Narcotics and the mafia want strong laws against the sale and use of drugs because if drugs are sold at cost there would be no money in it for anyone.” Dalrymple utilizes academic structure with his winding forty paragraphs, authoritative tone, strong point of view, rich syntax, and selection of detail as literary devices. On the other hand, Vidal’s use of imagery , understandable diction, and short structure play to his advantage. While Dalrymple’s essay is laced with logic throughout, Vidal’s is a tad bit lacking. With both texts in mind, I feel that Dalrymple was more articulate, if not more cultured on the issue taking it all the way to Amsterdam to show that a city were narcotics have a free reign does not make for a better city with more educated citizens and a lower crime rate, but an easier way for those on the slippery slope to fall.

Drugs written by Gore Vidal states that legalizing drugs is a smart move to decrease addiction in the United States. Vidal persuades readers by saying that if drugs are legalized, people will become more aware of the side effects of addiction and after knowing the side effects, they will decline to take part in what will lead to addiction. Vidal mentions that people want what they can’t have, overall a true statement, and while given the option to do drugs, most won’t find the same thrill that they find in doing them illegally. Theodore Dalrymple’s Don’t Legalize Drugs takes on the opposite role and persuades readers that drugs should remain illegal substances because legalizing them will only cause more harm and damage to our society. He claims that by making drugs legal, and having them readily available to everyone for cheap will cause Americans to become less motivated, thus, become less likely to raise a family, or become employed. Dalrymple also makes the point that “we are not children who chafe at restrictions because they are restrictions”. The audience for both pieces of writing is the general public; those who are perhaps interested in politics or those who just enjoy staying informed. Vidal gains credibility because he admits that he has tried almost every drug and his experience with drugs deems him a more knowledgable source. Vidal makes a few references to death caused by drugs which may trigger some emotions for readers.

Vidal is very logical when it comes to his hypothetical situations, such as when he says, “it seems most unlikely that any reasonably sane person will become a drug addict if he knows in advance what addition is going to be like”. Vidal has reasoning for his beliefs as to why drugs aren’t legalized yet, which is mostly due to the fact the Government is trying to make money. Dalrymple’s credibility comes from his experience with drugs, from drug use at prison to hospitals. He seems confident in his level of knowledge. The imagery used in his writing allows readers to connect more emotionally. Dalrymple uses analogies such as, “prison can work for society even if it does not work for an individual”, which may be a logical statement but perhaps not completely relevant to his purpose. Both writers had to face some challenges to persuade their readers. Vidal had to provide enough background information and to make sure he doesn’t just come off as a drug-loving stoner while supplying enough hypothetically situations that would take place of the current ones. The challenge Dalrymple had to face while trying to accomplish his purpose was to stay on track and to inform readers with more in depth details than the average “drugs are bad” routine. Although Theodore Dalrymple’s reading was much longer, I found it to be less effective. With too many side stories and a lot of going off topic, after the first few paragraphs I found the essay to be more boring and less persuasive. On the other hand, Gore Vidal made his essay Drugs more effective by sticking to his point and making a good argument that is interesting and held my attention.

The question about legalizing drugs has been one of the biggest arguments in recent years, and will continue to be for many more. In Videls essay he makes many valid points about how he has been there done that and he uses that to support his argument. But in Theodore Dalrymple’s essay he tries supporting his view but using statistics to convince the readers that what he believes is the right thing. The Dalrymple essay was skidish and very hard to follow along without saying what is he talking about. When reading Videls’ what he was saying made more sense because of how he went into the details of the effects and such. Depending on the audiences that were reading this their opinions may be different. The New York Times is a public newspaper that anyone and everyone can get ahold of every day. But the City Journal is a smaller market print and not as many people receive it.

There is one thing that kept me interested in Videls essay and that was the way he used a little sense of humor to make light of such a major topic but he still supported it with some strong points as well. Dalrymples essay just seems like he threw it together with information that he wants people to believe is true. He claims to know so much about legalizing drug use but does not really support his view with much information. Using statistics is not the only way you can support something you have to have supporting information. Videls essay is just sealed by the fact that he knows from past usage and disapproving with the “Fu Manchu” Theory that claims if you try it you will be addicted.

While reading both Vidals's article and Dalrymple's article you can see the different techniques they used to express their ideas. Vidals' article is more short and straight forward and to the point, Dalrymple's artile is more in-depth and he uses alot of extensive vocabulary. In Gore Vidal's article “Drugs” he is more towards it being mans human right to make certain decisions in their lives.
He gives credibility with having tried drugs him self, can say everyone takes to certain situations differently. Gore feels that with the government its a matter of time before marijuana is made legal, now in the year 2010 it is actually medically legal but, he uses examples of how the government tried prohibition with making to make alcohol illegal. Now alcohol is legal to distribute.
Reading Dalrymple's article he is towards not legalizing drugs. He feels that with the already occurring problems with our government and society legalizing the distribution of narcotics would add to the already increasing problems of creating safety for the public. He also feels that if we just give in to the use of drugs then we have just given up on the battle fighting against narcotics. In my opinion Dalrymple's article established no credibility in why he feels this exact way. He just does a lot of explaining and boring elaboration of why narcotics should not be legalized.
In both articles I think they were both focusing towards an audience of the concerned public. One article was saying hey, its human right to do what they want so making drugs legal or not it is going to still exist while the other was more towards why this is not a safe thing to do when there is already a growing problem with trying to control drug use and trafficking now.

in both essay Gore Vidal and Theodore Dalrymple both talks about drugs but when it come to Gore vidal in his essay he point out American have the right to take to drugs like for example, if t if you do keep drugs away from people it going to make them want it more and this will cause crimes around the city , and make it hard on many other people around us. As for the war on drugs yea police try to keep fighting it but Gore Vidal feel like if you make it legalization than crimes rate and many other crime will not be going on. As for Theodore dalrymple in his essay he point out that every adult know their are consequences behind them. if you make drugs legalization crimes rate might goes up and many of problems arise in both of these essay Gore Vidal and Theodore have a point about drug and crime but as i see it either way with or without drugs teenager are still going to find a way to get drugs. in both essays it is very good, but Theodore make it to be known if you do drugs consequences are behind it.

Both Vidal’s “Drugs” and Dalrymple’s “Don’t Legalize Drugs” can be classified as persuasive articles. Each delivers points and rational that in their perspective proves as legitimate. Moreover, each writer states the other sides argument and provides refute. It is evident that Vidal uses pathos as a major method to persuade his readers. Dalrymple seems to use a mixture of logos but mainly ethos to persuade his readers. As important as it is to use logos in persuasive articles, its more important to keep them factual and truthful; I believe Dalrymple is caught using fallacies to continue to hammer away at drug use. “But the consumption of drugs has the effect of reducing men’s freedom by circumscribing the range of their interests.” (Dalrymple) This to me ruined his credibility and made me skim through the rest of his article. Although Vidal seemed to write his article just to get it done, I noticed it to parallel the style of many who would speak pro-legalizing recreational drug use; short, simple, and to the point. Although I agree more with Vidal’s argument, I am intrigued by Dalrymple’s debunking of many peoples perspective of what freedom truly is. “The idea that freedom is merely the ability to act upon one’s whims is surely very thin and hardly begins to capture the complexities of human existence; a man whose appetite is his law strikes us not as liberated but enslaved.” (Dalrymple)
An interesting point that I came across was that each of the articles written were published by two very different publishers. The “City Journal” leans more to the conservative reader, who would naturally agree with Dalrymple’s article. On the contrary, the New York Times is often a bias towards the liberal reader, who also would agree more with Vidal’s article.

Both articles “Drugs” by Gore Vidal and “Don’t Legalize Drugs” by Theodore Dalrymple have a common theme of whether illicit drugs like marijuana should be legalized. Both use logic to support their viewpoints along with a variety of other factors including historical, cultural, and social.
In the “Drugs” article Vidal’s main claim is that legalizing drugs wouldn’t be that bad. He said “simply make all drugs available and sell them at cost. Label each drug with a precise description of what effect-good and bad-the drug will have on the taker, then it would be up to the person if they really want to take these drugs. He makes valid logical arguments that are short and simple. Vidal’s audience seemed more for drug users or people who would want drugs to be legalized. A statement that was interesting to me was “forbidding people things they like or think they might enjoy only makes them want those things all the more. I agree with this, and could see Vidal’s argument that if the drugs were legal maybe people would not have a strong urge to use them as much. Vidal also claims that if drugs were legalized crime rate would decrease if there was no money in it, but I think money would always be involved. Vidal seems like a credible source as he stated he’s had personal experience with many drugs. I wasn’t completely sure if he was completely for or against drugs being legalized though.

In the “Don’t Legalize Drugs” article the title speaks for itself. Dalrymple view is against legalizing drugs which is made rather clear in the article. This article was unnecessarily long but did make a good argument. The intended audience for this article seemed for the more educated, based on the nature it was written; i.e. language. Dalrymple gave many logical appeals and elaborated each appeal with great detail. I feel that the second article “Don’t Legalize Drugs” made a better argument for the following reasons; many compelling claims with detail, logic, and he refuted the opposing viewpoints and arguments which are key to successfully winning an argument.

Currently, the legalization of drugs is a prevailing topic in society. Both “Drugs” by Gore Vidal and Theodore Dalrymple’s “Don’t Legalize Drugs” are two articles which have opposing opinions as to whether or not drugs should in fact be validated as being legal.
Vidal and Dalrymple both utilize the three artistic appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos in their arguments. Vidal uses the historical analogy of the prohibition era to reason that prohibiting other drugs is also doomed to failure. He shares with the reader a personal anecdote as to say not everyone that has tried drugs becomes addicted to it. Dalrymple’s article offers a great deal of logical evidence in defending why drugs should not be legalized. He presents an argument that some opponents use – the philosophy of John Stuart Mill – and through reasoning attempts to demonstrate why it does not work.
Vidal develops or appeals to ethos because he of course, is a well known writer who writes for the prestigious “New York Times.” His work encompasses appropriate vocabulary, correct grammar, and he even concedes to the opposition in saying that “many drugs are bad for certain people.” Dalrymple, although not as well known as Vidal, develops his ethos by describing his profession and background as a doctor who once worked in Africa on an AIDS project. He presents himself as a morally and ethically likable individual who also contains appropriate vocabulary and correct grammar in his writing.
Vidal appeals to pathos through his use of humor, sarcasm, and emotionally loaded language. He speaks of the Commies, Zombies, and Nixon borrowing a term from Homer to describe the dead. Dalrymple builds pathos through his use of emotional examples. He describes how workers become “incontinent bath of urine and feces” when alcohol is cheap and readily available. He also provides other examples such as the violence in Amsterdam and the ever increasing addiction in Liverpool.

Contrasts between the two articles exist as well. Vidal’s work is much shorter, funnier, and easier to read than Dalrymple’s. Dalrymple, on the other hand, employs more the use of stasis questions such as when it asks why addicts, when given free drugs, still commit crimes and then supplies an appropriate argument. He methodically presents the arguments given by proponents for legalizing drugs and then debunks them. I, at first, found Vidal’s article very appealing due to its humor, conciseness, and straight to the point. However, as I began reading through Dalrymple’s article, I realized that the topic was very complex. Dalrymple systematically presented arguments given to legalize drugs and then presented reasons as to why they would fail. I am inclined to legalize marijuana but after reading Dalrymple’s article, I am convinced to rethink and wait before legalizing any other drugs.

Should drugs be legalized? In the two readings both Vidal and Dalrymple strongly took a stand on the opposing view. In the reading " Drugs", by Gore Vidal, he explains why drugs should be legalized. It is clear that his purpose is to persuade his audience that by legalizing drugs it will stop drug addiction in the U.S. He claims that if this matter is not acted upon, it will only make people want what they cannot have more, leading to a higher crime rates, death rates, etc. Vidal's essay was published in September of 1970 in the New York Times. He obviously wasn’t trying to persuade drug addicts to stop being addicted to drugs but grab the attention of a more sophisticated crowd. I believe his intensions were to reach out to the people who could actually legalize drugs and say to them, "hey these people aren't sane because they do drugs but forbidding them from doing as they please might do the trick." He appeals through his audience by clarifying his credibility, "for the record, I have tried- once- almost every drug and like none..." He also refer to past events leading to alcohol legalization and how messed up things were before

On the other hand is Dalrymple. In his reading “ Don’t legalize drugs” his purpose speaks clear of the title. It is quite hard to actually keep up with the many points that Dalrymple expresses however in simple terms he wants to appeal to the audience which believes drugs should be legalized. I think that Dalrymple’s essay is unnecessarily long and that he uses rhetoric to make his essay sound more profound and educated then actually to appeal to his audience. In the long run, I have to say I agree with Vidal because we should be able to do as we please as long as we don’t affect our neighbor however Dalrymple does a better job at making the argument. He states the opposing view and stands strong on his. He broke the argument into two ways to be viewed, philosophical and pragmatic. He agrees that people should be held responsible but their actions but also realizes that they won’t. He states the real problem is not because people are doing drugs but their actions when they are intoxicated. Both men here were clear on what they stood for. I don’t know if Dalrymple made a better essay because it sounded more professional and statistical and Vidal’s didn’t- he just did his research.

On the other hand is Dalrymple. In his reading “ Don’t legalize drugs” his purpose speaks clear of the title. It is quite hard to actually keep up with the many points that Dalrymple expresses however in simple terms he wants to appeal to the audience which believes drugs should be legalized. I think that Dalrymple’s essay is unnecessarily long and that he uses rhetoric to make his essay sound more profound and educated then actually to appeal to his audience. In the long run, I have to say I agree with Vidal because we should be able to do as we please as long as we don’t affect our neighbor however Dalrymple does a better job at making the argument. He states the opposing view and stands strong on his. He broke the argument into two ways to be viewed, philosophical and pragmatic. He agrees that people should be held responsible but their actions but also realizes that they won’t. He states the real problem is not because people are doing drugs but their actions when they are intoxicated. Both men here were clear on what they stood for. I don’t know if Dalrymple made a better essay because it sounded more professional and statistical and Vidal’s didn’t- he just did his research.

Both of these passages were on drugs and drug use. The difference between the two is obvious, though. Vidal was for the legalization of all drugs while Dalrymple was dead set against it. I am all for the idea of people getting what they deserve, whether it’s a lost job from drug use to death from it, but the innocents involved in the legalization of drugs force me to favor illegalization. They both made pretty good arguments, and although I am for the illegalization of drugs, I thought Vidal’s argument was better. Dalrymple may have had an argument that was easily three times as long, but a lot of it was redundant and confusing. He constantly kept bringing up the fact that although we are adults, we should not have the right to do drugs, whether it is hypocritical or not. He also was assuming his audience knew all of his sources, when some of them were not common knowledge. For example what is a Dickensian Harold Skimpole? Dalrympole did, however, give fairly detailed information on the people, statistics, research, and programs he did explain.

Vidal, on another note, did a fairly good job also. He did not do great, but did do better than Dalrymple. Vidal wrote an argument that was short, sweet, and to the point. He stated that “every man, however, has the power (and should have the legal right) to kill himself if he chooses.” He brought up the legalities, technical evidence, and a blunt and somewhat dark outlook on his opinion. Although his evidence and points were good, he did not do, or neglected to state, the research that would show how innocents would be affected. Sure, every man has the right to kill himself, but if the addiction causes said man to rob or kill another man for drug money, which would increase with his plan since more people are exposed to drugs, I am pretty sure this counts as “interfering with his neighbor's pursuit of happiness” as Vidal put it. Both sides put up a good argument. Both sides had flaws and holes in those same arguments. In the end, though, I believe Vidal won the fight in convincing the reading audience.