Bill Keller How To Legalize Pot Analysis

The legalization of marijuana brings with it countless complications through which city officials must navigate. "How to Legalize Pot" is an article written by Bill Keller with the New York Times on May 20, 2013, discussing the struggles that city officials face in order to create an industry out of a previously criminalized substance. The article, albeit informative, fails to provide examples of an effectively regulated marijuana market. Instead, Keller opts to list the reasons why full legalization might not succeed. While I agree with Keller on the points he makes, there is an overwhelming sense of bias in this article as it resembles an opinion. Moreover, the article is written in a second person point of view, strengthening the sense that

Keller incorporates political, financial, and ethical influences into his arguments. He starts the article off by stating that marijuana will inevitably be legalized, but that there are obstacles that are to be overcome; particularly the law itself. Marijuana is still considered a criminal and illegal substance, the possession of which leads to arrest and detainment. Therefore, requiring the government to review their legislation, and create new enforcement guidelines. In addition, there are other issues such as manufacturing regulations, monetary gain, and ways to test degrees of consumption. Keller predicts it will be quite difficult for the government to regulate the labs and the products manufactured in them. According to Keller, as it is a completely new market, there were no tests done carried out in the past to determine the effects on a person and their body, so the government will need sanction those in due course. The article urges us to believe that legalization of marijuana is complicated, difficult, and borderline impossible. Keller wants us to accept his points at face value while creating doubt that this will be an achievable

An informative article's purpose is to provide the reader with as much information as possible while making sure to impartial to the subject matter. Nevertheless, Keller writes with a determination to sway his readers into believing that this task is close to impossible to achieve. Had he cited examples of cities that have a functioning system of managing legalized marijuana, he would have provided his readers with both sides of the coin. Furthermore, Keller mainly refers to the issues surrounding legalizing marijuana and fails to provide the positive implications of doing so. He refrains from mentioning the decreased criminal activity, the beaten out black market activity, and the overall increased safety of the people indirectly involved in such activities. This subject is still quite controversial despite the inevitable result of legalization; not everyone is for it, and this means that people still need to see the positive influences marijuana can have - not just the negative consequences. At the beginning of the article, Keller begins by stating an opinion of his own, "You don't have to be a prohibitionist to recognize that pot, especially in adolescents and very heavy users, can seriously mess with your brain." (Keller, 2013). This statement evokes a strong reaction from his readers as it is biased and not an actual