Major Persuasive Project

Click here to download my major persuasive project as a PDF

Click here to download the works cited for the document as a MS Word .doc file

PETA

Overall, I'm not very happy with PETA's choice of imagery, and generally think that it takes things a step too far. I'm fully aware that animals are treated badly, but I don't think the way to get people to your cause is to scare and shock them.

It seems like most of their website juxtaposes amazingly cute animals with terrible, sick, destroyed animals and attempts to make the case that you're the one doing this to these cute little creatures with your meet-eating pet-store-shopping ways. If nobody ate meat or shopped at pet stores, this wouldn't happen!

PETA wants animals to be treated exactly like humans, and we all know that. But the truth is, these animals are not humans. Saying that rats and fish have complex feelings and get "bored" in cages is ridiculous. Yes, they still should be treated nicely, but I get the impression that most of their website is an exaggeration, and they take the worst cases and try to make those out to seem like the norm.

MJ Editorial

Over the years, the city of Seattle has slowly knocked down most of the penalties surrounding the use of marijuana, and for good reasons. We now live in a city where the penalty for posession of the green stuff warrants only a small fine and no jail time, and where even that penalty is rarely handed out by itself. Police doing crowd control at HempFest walk through endless clouds of marijuana smoke, yet no arrests are made. Officially, personal marijuana use is a lower police priority than jaywalking. It seems that the police here have realized they have more important things to worry about than non-violent marijuana smokers.

It's estimated that 50% of Americans have tried pot in their lives, and over 10% are regular users. In a city like Seattle, those numbers will definitely be higher. With such relaxed police enforcement a huge amount of marijuana is being smoked every day, but the money that the marijuana is purchased with is obviously tax free. Some goes to small-time growers trying to make their living, but some also goes to organized crime and gangs which control large amounts of the marijuana supply. With the current billion-dollar state budge shortfall, it's time that the government start tapping into those "green" funds.

The state government makes millions off of alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can be argued that marijuana is a safer solution to both of those intoxicants, but it remains illegal. Both of those substances have strict rules governing their sale and use, and those same rules could easily apply to marijuana. Studies have proven that it's not the "devil weed" like old propaganda would have you believe, and it is entirely possible to be a responsible marijuana user just as easily as it's possible to be a responsible alcohol user.

Legalizing marijuana would remove most of the dangers commonly associated with the drug, as well as taking away a major source of income from organized crime and giving it to the government. It's time we wake up and smell the, uh, herbs.

Responsible Parenting

In light of both of these editorials, several things come to mind. Being a responsible mother (or father) requires more than just time, and more than just effort. It requires a tremendous amount of money and the ability to dedicate a large portion of your life to the child. Being a responsible parent involves making the decision to have a child at the right time in your life, and to not have too many kids than you can take care of at any given time.

If a woman is planning on joining the military, or is currently in the military where she can be deployed at any time and the idea of dying for her country is considered a part of the job, having a child is not a responsible choice at that time. A child needs his or her mother, and a military deployment will obviously hinder that. In addition, a person who can't support themselves financially can obviously not support a child as well, let alone 14 of them. In that case as well, having a child is an irresponsible choice.

I'm not saying there is something wrong with having a large amount of children, what I am saying is that it is irresponsible to have more children that you can support. My mother is one of nine children, but the age difference between the first and last is 20 years. There was not one time when they were all living together, and my grandpa made enough money so my grandma could be dedicated to staying at home and raising these children. This may not be how I want to live my adult life, but it was their choice, and they made it responsibly. Nadya Suleman, on the other hand, did not make her decision responsibly. She has no financial support, and now cannot have a job for all of her time is required to be spent with these 14 kids of hers, who are mostly going to be living in her 2-bedroom house at the same time.

How is this even allowed? How have these kids not been taken away to child protective services? These are humans, not objects to be collected like she seems to consider them. Bringing another person into this already crowded world is a decision that needs to be taken extremely seriously, and if your life at the time doesn't allow for it, it simply shouldn't happen.

Marijuana public service project

Dear Ms. Stephanie Vogel -

I am writing this letter to you as a humble request for assistance in advancing the public opinion of marijuana in the United States. I am part of the NORML organization, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and we believe that marijuana laws and policy in this country could be changed by an advance of the public opinion on the substance. 

lmost 50% of Americans have tried marijuana sometime in their lifetime, and 10% are current users (people who have used in the last month). The drug remains illegal, however, and a whole lot of misinformation is spread about it. Unlike alcohol, which anyone can find information about real-life effects, risks, concerns, and support systems, none of that exists for marijuana users. Because the substance is illegal, teens using it don't have access to reliable, unbiased information, and adults who may be having problems with the drug don't know where they can go for support for their use aside from narcotics anonymous, which might be a bit scary for someone who is only using marijuana.

I'm purposing that that all change. I'm looking for money to create a program to spread accurate, unbiased information about marijuana through the internet and television ads, as well as flyers and brochures like the ones you will find in student health centers. As opposed to scaring people and hyperbolizing the negative side effects of the drug, this campaign of information will tell its audience the effects, both positive and negative, and attempt to show both sides of the argument. It will also provide information to people who may think they are smoking too much such as advice on how to cut back and places to go for help. I estimate this will cost around $50,000, and I am coming to you for help.

Thanks for your consideration.

-Angelo Carosio

MPP #1

Part 1:

The issue of medical marijuana is complex. The debate that is going on surrounding it currently is mostly fueled by the federal government, as more as more states are passing laws allowing it, and more and more doctors are prescribing it for a variety of ailments. There’s little an average person can say to further this debate or enter into it, mostly because the question of whether it’s good medicine or not should be left up to doctors and people who know about the human body better than I. However, the issue of marijuana legalization for personal use has been thrust into the forefront recently, with the state of California having a bill being purposed that will do just that. This issue I believe I can speak from with a little bit more authority.

This issue has clouded a lot of people’s judgment. On one hand you have marijuana fanatics, who are creating websites and groups and clubs in an attempt to make the substance legal, and distorting the facts in their favor. These people usually also smoke too much of the substance themselves. The other side is anti-drug fanatics who will use any tactic including fear and manipulation to stop people from doing any kind of drug at all. I believe that I can show good sense through my position in the middle of this issue. I’m familiar with the effects of marijuana, understand how it affects the body and mind, but also know of the dangers of using any substance too much. It’s clearly not a miracle drug, but getting high some isn’t going to turn a person into a worthless couch potato. I can also show good character through this as well. I might be for legalization, but I haven’t let my emotions cloud my judgment. I can see where both sides are coming from, and I’m not going to bash on my opposition or belittle them just to demonstrate my point.

I can show good will through appeals to the safety of people and to the health of the economy. Nonviolent pot offenders are thrown in prisons where they coexist with people who have multiple assaults on their record, and can easily get in way over their head. Legalization or at least decriminalization would put a stop to this and protect mostly peaceful, docile people from a very scary place. In addition, taxation of marijuana could bring in millions of dollars to the government. We pretty much need all we can get right now in the budget department, so these both would be good ways to show that I’m looking out for the good of everyone.

Part 2:

Taking a look at the NORML website (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), there are multiple persuasive pieces on the legalization of marijuana, both for personal use and for medical use. I looked at one post in particular, called “Marijuana Legalization Talking Points.” It is an effective piece of persuasion, giving four concrete reasons why marijuana legalization should become a reality.

Each point has a large amount of information backing it up. They are very logos heavy, citing lots of hard facts. The point that “Decriminalizing marijuana frees up police resources to deal with more serious crimes” cites facts like “Taxpayers annually spend between $7.5 billion and $10 billion arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for marijuana possession only,” and “The state of California saved nearly $1 billion dollars from 1976 to 1985 by decriminalizing the personal possession of one ounce of marijuana, according to a study of the state justice department budget.” All of these facts have sources cited that you can easily click and check out for yourself.

There’s also some pathos mixed in. They back up the point that “Far more harm is caused by the criminal prohibition of marijuana than by the use of marijuana itself.” This is backed up by an appeal to pathos and logos: “Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. Other non-drug violations do not carry such penalties,” this is effective because it is raw facts mixed in with an appeal to emotion. Why should these people be denied things like food stamps? How is marijuana use related to those things at all?

Overall, this page is very effective in defending its positions on marijuana legalization. They cite surveys, research, and laws to prove their point that keeping marijuana illegal is unproductive for our country and its progress. I have seen multiple references to this page on various internet discussion boards such as reddit.com and dig.com, where people refer to it to back up points about marijuana legalization. People know that facts work, and this page is full of hard, concrete facts that don’t leave much room for interpretation.

College Humor

With short-form web comedy, the sky is really the limit.

Unconstrained by broadcast guidelines, television networks, and dated ideas of what's appropriate for "general audiences," Collegehumor.com has managed to provide us with exactly what we want with humor: consistent laughs with no filler.

Sketch shows like SNL are extremely dated. Because of the internet, the 18-24 demographic has lost their attention span, and the thought of sitting through an hour and a half show to get some laughs just isn't viable anymore--not to mention the amount of filler and commercials put in an average episode to reach the length that's required.

Videos on collegehumor can cuss, be provocative, sexy, and offensive, and not have to worry. Videos like "Girl's costume warehouse" have main characters cussing like sailors for comedic effect, and a mock "ER" spot says the episode advertised will make you "shit your pants." While fake TV commercials have been a staple of SNL and MADtv for a long time, they're never quite as funny as the ones on college humor.

The videos are mostly short (under 5 minutes) and pack in the laughs almost nonstop. Most television sketch comedy might have a few laughs, but most of the time I find myself wondering why the canned laughter is so loud, since nobody I'm watching the show with seemed to make any noise at all.