Kondracke and Vidal Evaluation Essay Example for Free

Kondracke and Vidal Evaluation EssayIn the article, Dont Legalize Drugs by Morton M. Kondracke, writes on the pros and cons of the legalization of drugs in a win over way to serve well the reader understand the ultimate capitulation 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 delectation of pathos also helps the reader have a deeper understanding of the serious problems of legalizing drugs. As Kondracke states in the beginning, if the advocates of legalized drugs do have their waythere testament also be more unpublicized fatal and maiming crashes, more avocation accidents, more child neglect, more of around everything associated with substance abuse babies born addicted or retarded.. hoping to gather the hearts of the many.Kondracke uses outside resources such as Dr. Robert DuPont who is the former director of the National Institut es of Drug Abuse and his predictions to help further his argument and give credibility. Not provided does he share with the reader outside sources and studies, save 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 certain flaw I see with this article is that it is old and much in our society has changed.In the article, 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, I have triedoncealmost every drug and liked none disproving the popular Fu Manchu theory that a single whiff of opium will enslave the mind. which doesnt help his case at all seeing that he could have do up that side story on th e spot. Not only does he share no real believable evidence, but the article is also over forty years old and things have emphatically changed. The seriousness of this article is not well developed enough which gives the reader more of a prank than deep thinking reasoning.