[College - Philosophy 101] Critical Thinking

[Jintu]

Hello Everyone,

I have an take-home assignment to submit on Monday, this is for a first year university course on critical thinking, I have written several arguments based on the topic that was given: Should Marijuana be made legal? Defend your position on the matter.

The problem is: the professor keeps on saying that my argument is vague and lacks sufficient evidence.
The outline of the assignment is as follows:

Write a cogent argument. The argument is to be written in standard form - write complete statements, number the premises and conclusion properly, add indicator words, especially when using sub-arguments. You may use any type of premises - linking or convergent or combinations of both. Your arguement should satisfy the ARG conditions.

1. Your premises must be acceptable
2. Your premises must be relavant
3. Your premises must provide sufficient grounds.
4. Your argument must avoid fallacies.

Please help, I am struggling with this assignment.
Thanks in advance.

Tony

[Patashu]

Here are some things you could look at. Google some sources for your evidence.
-Marijuana is not physically addictive
-Marijuana does not cause cancer with the same frequency as cigarettes and cannot kill you with an overdose
-Marijuana is mind altering but doesn't lead to violent behaviour like alcohol (which is legal and supervised)
-Marijuana has medical benefits, hemp is a useful material
-The 'war on drugs' is a moralistic crusade that has no reason to exist; it fuels black market activity, drug cartels, etc and its existence does not prevent drugs from getting around, it's just done covertly (which means worse quality and higher prices AND it gives money to cartels etc)

[Squeek]

You said that the professor told you that your arguments were vague, but you didn't tell us what your arguments were =p

To add one to Patashu's list, marijuana has never killed anyone. To add to the overdose thing, it's physically impossible to overdose on marijuana. You simply cannot smoke enough of it to do so.

And the best example you can use as a reference to the safety of marijuana is this guy: http://www.google.com/search?q=irvin+rosenfeld

[Jintu]

Originally Posted by Squeek

You said that the professor told you that your arguments were vague, but you didn't tell us what your arguments were =p

To add one to Patashu's list, marijuana has never killed anyone. To add to the overdose thing, it's physically impossible to overdose on marijuana. You simply cannot smoke enough of it to do so.

And the best example you can use as a reference to the safety of marijuana is this guy: http://www.google.com/search?q=irvin+rosenfeld

Hello,

This is my argument that I used:

Because contempt for laws is more harmful to society than even wide-spread marijuana use

Since harsh laws prohibiting the use of marijuana don’t discourage its use and

Because harsh laws only make users feel contempt for drug laws in particular
and the law in general

Thus,
Such laws are more harmful to society than the activity they seek to prohibit

Therefore,
Marijuana should be legalized

He also added that my argument have between 6-8 premises...

Thanks,

Tony

[bluguerrilla]

Well, I'd say a lot of that could apply to other drugs as well. I'd say try to stick with Marijuana specific arguments (like Patashu's stuff).

Not to mention that some of what you're proposing might (I mean, I haven't done any research so I could be full of ****) be hard to back up with good evidence.

[devonin]

This is my argument that I used:

Because contempt for laws is more harmful to society than even wide-spread marijuana use

Since harsh laws prohibiting the use of marijuana don’t discourage its use and

Because harsh laws only make users feel contempt for drug laws in particular
and the law in general

Thus,
Such laws are more harmful to society than the activity they seek to prohibit

Therefore,
Marijuana should be legalized

Premise 1: Contempt for law is worse than everyone smoking pot
(This is a completely tenuous statement for which I doubt you could ever find sufficient proof, because it's an abstract statement. Contempt for which laws? In which form? How widespread of usage are you talking about? As much as is now, as could be if it were legal?)

Premise 2: Harsh laws against marijuana don't stop people using it
(Harsh laws against -murder- don't stop people doing it, and in some states, that can get you killed in turn. If people wouldn't do it, there wouldn't need to be a law saying you can't, with punishments for so doing. )

Sub-Premise 2: Having harsh laws makes people have contempt for it
(If the punishments were harsh enough, this would be false. If you could be summarily executed with no trial for smoking pot, it would stop most people from doing it, or at least doing it as often or as openly. Thus, I would say that this statements shows instead that the punishments are not actually harsh)

Pre-conclusion: These laws are therefore worse than marijuana use
This is a very vague statement. In which ways would you say this was true? If you'd previously established in your argument the incredibly high cost of engaging these laws, you could suggest that the money spent to enforce the laws was unjustified compared to the costs associated with marijuana use [in regards to the fact that very little money would need to be spent each year to sort of 'make up' for the predations of pot users])

[Jintu]

Originally Posted by devonin

Premise 1: Contempt for law is worse than everyone smoking pot
(This is a completely tenuous statement for which I doubt you could ever find sufficient proof, because it's an abstract statement. Contempt for which laws? In which form? How widespread of usage are you talking about? As much as is now, as could be if it were legal?)

Premise 2: Harsh laws against marijuana don't stop people using it
(Harsh laws against -murder- don't stop people doing it, and in some states, that can get you killed in turn. If people wouldn't do it, there wouldn't need to be a law saying you can't, with punishments for so doing. )

Sub-Premise 2: Having harsh laws makes people have contempt for it
(If the punishments were harsh enough, this would be false. If you could be summarily executed with no trial for smoking pot, it would stop most people from doing it, or at least doing it as often or as openly. Thus, I would say
that this statements shows instead that the punishments are not actually harsh)

Pre-conclusion: These laws are therefore worse than marijuana use
This is a very vague statement. In which ways would you say this was true? If you'd previously established in your argument the incredibly high cost of engaging these laws, you could suggest that the money spent to enforce the laws was unjustified compared to the costs associated with marijuana use [in regards to the fact that very little money would need to be spent each year to sort of 'make up' for the predations of pot users])

Hi,

How about this argument that I created using patshu's recommendation:

1. Because marijuana is not physically addictive
2. Since marijuana does not cause cancer with the same frequency as cigarettes
3. Because marijuana cannot kill you with an overdose
4. Given that marijuana is mild altering but doesn’t lead to violent behaviour like alcohol which is legal and supervised
5. Because marijuana has medical benefits as hemp is a useful material
6. Since the ‘war on drugs’ is moralistic crusade that has no reason to exist
7. Because the ‘war on drugs’ fuels black market activity and drug cartels
Thus,
8. The ‘war on drugs’ does prevent drugs from getting around, it’s just done covertly
Therefore,
9. Marijuana should be legalized

Thanks,

Tony

[devonin]

Well, presuming you have reputable evidence available to support your claims, claim 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all valid points that stand up to some basic logical rigor.

As for the others.

Point 4: You admit that Marijuana is mind-altering, and I know off the top of my head of -zero- mind altering substances that alter -everyone's- mind in exactly the same way every single time, I don't think you could logically conclude that it has -never- led to violent behavior, or that across the board, the effects of it are lesser than those of alcohol. Different, certainly, but that's hard to quantify.

Point 6: That the war on drugs has "no reason to exist" it has plenty of reason to exist. And it has, in fact, done quite a lot to slow the flow of illegal drugs into the united states. It has not come remotely close to stopping it, but even forcing a cartel to relocate and reestablish in order to continue operations is still doing -something- towards the stated goals of the project.

The course you ought to take would be that the money being directed to the war on drugs with regards to marijuana specifically could/should be better spent being redirected towards more serious drugs like cocaine and heroin, might be more effective as an argument than to say that it just has no reason to exist at all. Many of the more serious drugs have negative effects that FAR outweigh any positive effects of use, and efforts to stop the flow of such substances into the country isn't -bad- just possibly mismanaged.

Point 7: That the war on drugs fuels black markets. While this is true, and while you can therefore argue that the drug manufacturers/distributors/sellers are making more money while it is illegal than they would if it were legal, in the case of the more seriously deliterious and addictive substances, more widespread less costly availability could also easily lead to higher instances of use, abuse and addiction. Additionally, the dangers inherant in engaging in the drug trade given its illegality surely have at least -some- deterring effect on getting into the trade.

Point 8: The war on drugs hasn't been won. Well no, it hasn't been won, and nobody has said it has been, or even ever will be. Has it -slowed- the spread of drugs? Very possibly. Will it ever stop them? Probably not. But the inability of the program to succeed completely in no way suggests that the project itself is worthless. Way more money has gone into a cure for cancer than into the war on drugs, and so far, the cure for cancer doesn't exist either. Doesn't mean you should cut off their funding.

I guess the biggest issue I'm having with the line of reasoning here is that point 6, 7, and 8 have nothing to do with whether marijuana should be made legal or not. Even if the war on drugs was just -stopped- that wouldn't suggest that say, cocaine should become legal, no more than it would suggest any other drug become legal. Those are cogent points in an argument against the war on drugs, but aren't relevant to the topic at hand.

As well, the fact that there are other "worse" things which are legal (Point 2 and 4) only -sort of- speaks to legalizing marijuana. Those points could also be used as premises in an argument to make alcohol and/or tobacco -illegal- instead.

The strongest argument I've seen for the legalization of marijuana tends to focus on expanding the "There are basically no ill-effects to its use" line of argument and the "It has many other non-consumptive uses and benefits as well" line of argument.

[Jintu]

Originally Posted by devonin

Well, presuming you have reputable evidence available to support your claims, claim 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all valid points that stand up to some basic logical rigor.

As for the others.

Point 4: You admit that Marijuana is mind-altering, and I know off the top of my head of -zero- mind altering substances that alter -everyone's- mind in exactly the same way every single time, I don't think you could logically conclude that it has -never- led to violent behavior, or that across the board, the effects of it are lesser than those of alcohol. Different, certainly, but that's hard to quantify.

Point 6: That the war on drugs has "no reason to exist" it has plenty of reason to exist. And it has, in fact, done quite a lot to slow the flow of illegal drugs into the united states. It has not come remotely close to stopping it, but even forcing a cartel to relocate and reestablish in order to continue operations is still doing -something- towards the stated goals of the project.

The course you ought to take would be that the money being directed to the war on drugs with regards to marijuana specifically could/should be better spent being redirected towards more serious drugs like cocaine and heroin, might be more effective as an argument than to say that it just has no reason to exist at all. Many of the more serious drugs have negative effects that FAR outweigh any positive effects of use, and efforts to stop the flow of such substances into the country isn't -bad- just possibly mismanaged.

Point 7: That the war on drugs fuels black markets. While this is true, and while you can therefore argue that the drug manufacturers/distributors/sellers are making more money while it is illegal than they would if it were legal, in the case of the more seriously deliterious and addictive substances, more widespread less costly availability could also easily lead to higher instances of use, abuse and addiction. Additionally, the dangers inherant in engaging in the drug trade given its illegality surely have at least -some- deterring effect on getting into the trade.

Point 8: The war on drugs hasn't been won. Well no, it hasn't been won, and nobody has said it has been, or even ever will be. Has it -slowed- the spread of drugs? Very possibly. Will it ever stop them? Probably not. But the inability of the program to succeed completely in no way suggests that the project itself is worthless. Way more money has gone into a cure for cancer than into the war on drugs, and so far, the cure for cancer doesn't exist either. Doesn't mean you should cut off their funding.

I guess the biggest issue I'm having with the line of reasoning here is that point 6, 7, and 8 have nothing to do with whether marijuana should be made legal or not. Even if the war on drugs was just -stopped- that wouldn't suggest that say, cocaine should become legal, no more than it would suggest any other drug become legal. Those are cogent points in an argument against the war on drugs, but aren't relevant to the topic at hand.

As well, the fact that there are other "worse" things which are legal (Point 2 and 4) only -sort of- speaks to legalizing marijuana. Those points could also be used as premises in an argument to make alcohol and/or tobacco -illegal- instead.

The strongest argument I've seen for the legalization of marijuana tends to focus on expanding the "There are basically no ill-effects to its use" line of argument and the "It has many other non-consumptive uses and benefits as well" line of argument.

Thank you for analysis, So, I guess it will better for me to remove 4, 6, 7, 8 and try to use some other reasons as a premise for my argument? How about the other point, is is better to make some changes so that I it stronger and more logical or can I just stick with it for now, please advice......

[Jintu]

How does this argument look? Please provide some feedbacks:

1. Because marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects
2. Because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients.
Thus,
3. Marijuana can be used as medicine
4. Since marijuana is too expensive for our justice system and should instead be taxed to support beneficial government programs
5. Since it is an established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible and
6. Because marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco
Thus,
7. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
8. Because the illegality of marijuana makes it more valuable than if it were legal, providing opportunities for teenagers to make easy money selling it to their friends
Thus,
9. A regulated, legal market in marijuana would reduce marijuana sales and use among teenagers, as well as reduce their exposure to other drugs in the illegal market
Therefore,
10. Marijuana should be legalized

Thank you

Tony

[MrRubix]

I'd say that's fine on the whole, but I would make sure to really hammer on recreational effects such that, even when experiencing the heavier ends of the effects, they aren't as bad as, say, smoking cigarettes or chewing tobacco or drinking alcohol (and list the reasons why).

I mean, yes, marijuana has medical uses, but that doesn't mean people will always use it for those purposes. Just because Advil is a pill that I can take legally doesn't mean it's a gateway for me to get interested in something like ecstasy, for instance. However, that scenario is logically different from the case where I would want to potentially use marijuana for fun. Is something you use for fun going to be a gateway into something heavier?

I think you'd have to draw the parallel to something like alcohol here (something people drink for fun), or even salvia. Salvia is legal in many states and has hallucinogen effects that are INTENSE.

Idk, just throwing it out there.

[devonin]

I'm just leery of using the legality of other things as "proof" for why marijuana should be legal because a dissenting counter argument is easily "All that proves is that the other thing should also be illegal"

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm just leery of using the legality of other things as "proof" for why marijuana should be legal because a dissenting counter argument is easily "All that proves is that the other thing should also be illegal"

The only reason this argument holds water is because we know what happens if we make alcohol a banned substance, since it has already taken place in our history.

Can't really make an argument for any other legal drug, but alcohol, definitely.

[MrRubix]

Sure, but then again I am not really sure why marijuana is illegal in the first place or why salvia isn't. For instance, as someone who has used salvia, I can tell you that the trip itself is VERY short (just a few minutes) and after that, there are practically no side effects at all whatsoever. It's a very in-and-out substance, and it's something that pretty much keeps you floored. You're not going to be able to drive on salvia, for instance. You're too busy thinking about being an ocean with your fingers turning into seagulls on strings to be doing anything else.

So I mean, why would something like MJ be illegal in the first place?

Squeek: Right, I mean I am shocked that alcohol laws are as lenient as they are, considering how harmful misuse can be. But, like you said, we know what happened there.

[devonin]

Well, prohibition was also a product of the era, not just the fact that many people consumed alcohol regularly and so making it illegal caused problems.

As well, it's -always- a more significant problem when something that is already legal is made illegal than it is to simply continue enforcing the illegality of something that is already illegal.

And while it may be a -practical- counterargument to say "Well, even if that -does- argue for alcohol being illegal instead of marijuana legal, we know what happens when you try THAT" it's still not a logical counterargument to the criticism of his line of reasoning.

By drawing too many parallels to other substances that are legal that are "worse" he ends up casting his argument in a way that can be reshaped to fail to prove his point. The latest set of claims with the exception of 6 and 7 all focus on why marijuana is not a bad thing, and why the enforcement of the illegality of marijuana is a bad thing, and not on the fact that "Booze is worse" which makes them much more reasonable logically even if not necessarily practically. (By which I mean your statements make perfect sense were you to say...propose the legalization to your state legislators, but not necessarily to your philosophy professor)

[MrRubix]

I mean it's easy enough to argue why medical marijuana should be all good and dandy. I don't think anyone would argue against that unless there were cheaper, more effective ways to get the same medical effects or better.

But then would this imply that marijuana should only be legalized for hospital use and not recreation? Personally, I see no problem with recreational use, as it would fall under the category of "things to use responsibly." If you want to avoid the other-item slippery slope, I think it might be easier to argue why recreational use might be fine if the effects aren't as harmful as the laws may imply or state. Normally things are made illegal when there is some type of damage or cost that can be dealt otherwise. What is the cost of using marijuana, and is it so bad that we need a law against it?

[devonin]

It was made illegal when nobody in official power knew much of anything about it, and so far, nobody has been willing to admit that they were reactionary and acted before they had proper knowledge of what it was and how it worked (Go watch 'Reefer Madness') so it remains illegal.

Prohibition is the only amendment they've -ever- repealed and making -anything- legal -after- you already explicitly made it illegal happens incredibly rarely and generally takes exceptionally large popular demand for the change.

[Jintu]

Originally Posted by devonin

It was made illegal when nobody in official power knew much of anything about it, and so far, nobody has been willing to admit that they were reactionary and acted before they had proper knowledge of what it was and how it worked (Go watch 'Reefer Madness') so it remains illegal.

Prohibition is the only amendment they've -ever- repealed and making -anything- legal -after- you already explicitly made it illegal happens incredibly rarely and generally takes exceptionally large popular demand for the change.

I am confused, I find it hard to follow, could you give me tips to strengthen my argument, like which ones to omit, change, etc....

[devonin]

That statement was addressed at Rubix, not at you, so it wasn't really relevant to your actual questions, since we got off topic about the meta-subject of the legality of marijuana instead of the formation of a logical argument about the legality of marijuana.

[Jintu]

Originally Posted by devonin

That statement was addressed at Rubix, not at you, so it wasn't really relevant to your actual questions, since we got off topic about the meta-subject of the legality of marijuana instead of the formation of a logical argument about the legality of marijuana.

Oh ok, I get it, so, my last argument seems ok right??? Pls advice