Summary
Elliet Javier
CRT-100
Topic: Federal Marijuana Legalization
Thesis/intro: Marijuana Legalization has been a topic that has been whispered throughout the last ten years in the US more than it ever has in the history of this country. While over this past generation there has been much progress with its legalization, the core argument remains, and that is should it be universally legal throughout the United States. With the way the United States works this would imply that it be legalized on a federal level. With all the progress that has been made in favor of the legalization of this substance in many states medically and recreationally, there still exists many pockets where the idea of legalization of this natural substance is heavily frowned upon. Many of these opinions that are anti-marijuana legalization are dated and misinformed stereotypes that either are not true or only apply to a small portion of users of the substance. The legalization of Marijuana in this country on a federal level is something that is long overdue and would benefit this country on an economic level greatly.
Premise 1: Full Marijuana legalization with taxation can lead to significant economic growth, and will aid in saving taxpayer money due to the leniency it would allow, avoiding more people to be put in prison, which we often pay for.
Supporting Evidence 1: Legalization with California in 2018, a state that has had a large impact on Marijuana culture and medical usage legalized since 1996, legalizing the substance for recreational use. This was the effect of the 2016 election year and went into action on January 1st, 2018. The state also had Criminal charges on Marijuana related crimes since 2016 expunged or reduced. The year also proved to be beneficial for states like Massachusetts, of which had officially set up rules of sale. At this point, Massachusetts projected 44 to 82 million dollars in revenue for 2018, with a 17 percent tax on Marijuana sales. This projection was based on said tax and sales beginning mid-year on July first.
Premise 2: As time has progressed, the perception of marijuana has changed as legalization becomes more widespread, beginning to spawn the consensus that it should be observed more for federal legalization, as laws get much looser.
Supporting Evidence 2: The first retail sale licenses for marijuana having been approved in November 21 of the year for New York. New Jersey had also progressed with legal recreational sales starting in April. This midterm year saw a victory in Marijuana legalization for Missouri, approving the recreational sale and use. Missouri had also approved the right to be able to grow your own marijuana for personal use and started a program for the expunging of criminal offenses for nonviolent marijuana related crimes. President Joe Biden not only pardoning anyone convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law, but also showing urgency for states to do the same under state law. President Biden notably had opposed the federal legalization of Marijuana, and during these pardons still retained the position, but stated that nobody should be in jail for simple marijuana use and/or possession.
Premise 3: The stigmas that have surrounded the questioning of whether or not marijuana should be federally legal, are often outdated, misinformed stances that belong to a time we left long ago. Also, the federal laws surrounding marijuana clearly have not worked very well in general for some time now. It’s Scheduling classification Is clear that a change must be made.
Supporting Evidence 3: Marijuana is currently a schedule I substance, with the likes of Heroin and Methamphetamines, ranking higher than Fentanyl, which in the United States and is currently the leading cause of drug overdose deaths in adults 18-45. States that do allow legal sales of Marijuana only allow the ages of 18 and mostly 21 as legal age requirements for purchase. President Bidens Statement of “important limitations on trafficking, marketing and under-age sales should stay in place.” Shows a position that has not aided with preventing marijuana related crimes for some time, with how prevalent marijuana is in states that aren’t legalized.
Conclusion: The federal legality of Marijuana is a status that is long overdue for approval, and the benefits of Marijuana greatly outweigh its flaws. The countries perception of this substance has shifted away overall from outdated and incorrect data and is moving on to much larger issues to where it is beginning to come into question as to why Marijuana was ever truly an issue. This movement towards legalization can provide many benefits that it has proven to have been providing for years in medical use, and the economic benefits that it is currently providing in the 23 states where it is recreationally legal. At this point in time only 3 states have no sort of legalization status on marijuana. It is up to the federal level, whether or not they would like to not only begin diminishing the illegal market for marijuana, but also create a new market for it, an American market in which where the benefits can be shared by all, and the safety of it can be truly regulated to an observable level.
Attached as a Downloadable Doc i have posted my draft for my Peer Review with works cited
3 thoughts on “Elliet Javier Outline”
Hello, Elliet! I’ll be reviewing your draft + outline. If I’m too straightforward I do apologize and if something isn’t too clear, other than that hope you enjoy the feedback!
1. Yes, this draft does include a thesis statement which is “The legalization of Marijuana in this country on a federal level is something that is long overdue and would benefit this country on an economic level greatly.”, which is shown in the conclusion too. I find it an arguable thesis statement and it expresses a clear opinion about marijuana legalization and its potential economic impact.
2. Everybody paragraph begins with a premise/ topic sentence that supports the thesis an example of this is the first paragraph which says, “In 2018 in the United States there was an incredible amount of progress made with the Legalization of Marijuana.” From this topic sentence I can see the relevance to the thesis as it introduces the topic of marijuana legalization progress which again aligns with the thesis.
3. The body paragraph’s does include relevant supporting evidence for example, President Biden’s actions in 2022 which pardoned Indvidual’s convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law which urged states to do the same. Also, there are many examples like the California’s Legalization of 2018 which demonstrates progress and the reduction in prison costs and etc.
4. This draft includes 3 sources which are all from CQ researcher the proof is
McLeod, E. (2018). Marijuana legalization. In CQ Researcher. CQ Press https://doi.org/10.4135/cqr_ht_marijuana_2018
Price, T. (2022). Marijuana legalization. In CQ Researcher. CQ Press https://doi.org/10.4135/cqr_ht_marijuana_2022
Price, T. (2023). Legal marijuana. In CQ Researcher. CQ Press https://doi.org/10.4135/cqresrre20230728
(The only problem is that I don’t the sources being referred to in the body paragraphs with a page number or author or anything which may pose an issue although I do see them being explained in the paragraphs.)
5. The research provided support the author’s thesis which is “The legalization of Marijuana in this country on a federal level is something that is long overdue and would benefit this country on an economic level greatly”, without altering the author’s voice as I can see the balance done between presenting evidence and maintaining authenticity. I just want to say I feel like the paragraphs or more of a sum of instead of quotes which are explained in detail very nicely if that answers the question.
6.The author did indeed show an opposing viewpoint as shown below as my evidence in paragraph three but as for the refutation I haven’t seen it since it only focuses on opposing not providing the opposing statement the be wrong too.
“Now with all this movement forward there is still great opposition to the status of legality with Marijuana on the federal level. During President Bidens pardons in 2022, he stated that he still opposes federal legalization overall, stating that “important limitations on trafficking, marketing and under-age sales should stay in place.” The limitations on trafficking do not have to revolve around its legal federal status, as these limitations would only apply to law those who will traffic substances no matter the legality of them. Furthermore, the legality of marijuana, or illegality, will only apply to law abiding citizens, as will the benefits and consequences that would come with those statuses, the illegal drug trade does not work dependent on the regulation that is currently set in place.”
” Marijuana’s schedule I drug status has also been in question, as to whether or not it should be classified as a schedule I substance, with the likes of Heroin and Methamphetamines, and ridiculously ranking higher than Fentanyl, which in the United States and is currently the leading cause of drug overdose deaths in adults 18-45. Marijuana despite all the movements towards legalization, and victories for that matter, has yet to replace this status by the Food and Drug Administration, despite the statistics revolving around Marijuana related deaths and complications being in the minutia of this country’s current issues.”
7. I believe it is addressed to Indvidual’s interested in the topic of marijuana legalization in the U.S. or those interested in federal policy and its impact on marijuana legality.
8. Uhm, I’m not sure if it’s just me but I don’t see an outline so I think do please add that when you have the time to avoid points being taken off so I can’t really answer this question on whether it’s well organized or not.
9. I think your strength lies in your wording and summarizing things and explaining it, but I do believe you missed some things to include in your mla draft.
10. I think just add your outline in the peer review and please include professor name in heading, the date in MLA format. Also please refer to your sources in body paragraphs when using evidence in mla format. Also please make sure its double spaced and indent also I do want to you to check if there any extra spaces you created when starting a new sentence like this: EX: owned business that brings in money and jobs. This will also
(Just be aware of checking the sentences and this line I used was included in your essay which you wrote nothing was changed.) But, let’s forget the rest for now I just have to say that I really like how you choose marijuana as your topic which is an event that is currently most concerning in America for teenagers and adults and love that you pulled it off really nicely in your draft, it’s very impressive because someone like me can’t really defend or create a rebuttal due to my bias on this topic basically I find it quite hard to understand or defend the opposing side if I was doing this topic. Other than that, I don’t have any suggestions.
Also just like to say that this is a draft not the outline. The outline is seperate it should have been your starting piece where you wrote the
intro:
Premise: etc etc etc
Supporting evidence: etc etc.
Conclusion:
(It is written in our weeks section where it is discussed how to do the assignment for that part in case you didn’t know.)
1.Does the draft include a thesis statement/ conclusion? What is it? Is it clearly stated and arguable?
Yes, it is “The legalization of Marijuana in this country on a federal level is something that is long overdue and would benefit this country on an economic level greatly.” It is most definitely arguable, it is clearly stated although I would advise that you put the word “greatly” before the word “benefit.”
2.Does every body paragraph begin with a premise/ topic sentence that supports the thesis?
Yes all 3 premises are present and precede the paragraphs of supporting evidence.
3.Does each body paragraph include relevant supporting evidence? Explain.
Yes, there is in-depth political analysis on the issues relating to the legalization of marijuana.
4.Does the draft include 3 sources, at least two of which are from CQ Researcher or Opposing Viewpoints/ BMCC database?
I do not see any sources in the outline but there are 3 sources in the draft.
5.Does the research support the author’s thesis without replacing their voice? For example, if there is a quote, is it explained and analyzed?
Yes, the outline for the most part does not contain any large quotes and most of the conclusions drawn are the authors own.
6.Does the author include at least 1 opposing viewpoint, followed by a refutation? Explain.
There does not appear to be an opposing viewpoint.
7.Is it clear who the audience is/ who the draft is addressed to?
It appears to be addressed to those skeptical of federal legalization of marijuana
8. Does the author include an outline? If so, is it well-organized?
Yes there is an outline and it is neatly organized with headings.
9. What are the strengths of this draft?
There is a lot of analysis and substance of the complex legal and economic issues/benefits surrounding the legalization of marijuana. Couple this with some sources and you have a very persuasive argument.
10. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?
Just include an opposing viewpoint and refute it and you should be good. I don’t know much about this topic but I would imagine a common opposing viewpoint is that marijuana inhibits reasonable thoughts and decisions and can be addictive.