RWR 2
RWR 2
Reno’s Writing Renditions!
The Academic Essay This package will introduce you to the fundamental features of a particular essay genre, in this case:
THE ARGUMENT ESSAY Inside you will find: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
An Argument Essay Checksheet that lists the important features of this essay genre (style) An essay that demonstrates the style A question sheet to answer A text analysis to help you find the features An answer sheet.
Copyright Version #1 Reno Dal 2002
This is Version #4 Copyright 2004
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-2-
ARGUMENT ESSAY CHECKSHEET Name: Class: Yes/No Writing Issues Clarity - easy to understand and read Staging Devices that announce paragraph relationships Connectors to link sentences- clear & logical Coherence - clear, logical and complete Structure - ABC then [A, [B, [C then ABC
Introduction Position Statement – clear and logical Definition of key terms Scope/Outline with clear points (A, B, C)
Body Text (at least 3 points) Argument Statements – clear (A, B, C) Logical Flow – order as per outline (A, B, C) Arguments Elaborated (detailed argument) Counter-Arguments Presented Counter-Arguments Rebutted
Conclusion Topic/Transition Sentence SUMMARY- order as per outline (A,B,C) Reiteration of Essay Position Statement
Expression Appropriateness - no confusion of meanings Academic Language not Colloquial st nd No 1 & 2 person pronouns (I, we, you, me, us, your) Word Meanings Accurate Spelling accurate Noun Groups/Nominalisation
Grammar Verb-Subject agreement Use of articles appropriate ( a, the) Use of singular/plural appropriate Tense usage
Document Presentation A4 paper, Stapled on top, left-hand corner Name, class & teacher on top right-hand corner Margins left and right for teacher notes Double-spaced for corrections Loose sheets - not in plastic folder or book Clear writing or choice of font
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Comments
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-3-
Should harmful substances be banned? (Argument Essay) Since the late 19th century the debate for the banning of certain substances has grown from small groups of complainants, mostly in England, to a worldwide movement to protect individuals from these supposedly harmful items. As this essay will show, the movement has questionable foundations and reprehensible results. In short, it is the thesis of this essay that harmful substances should not be banned. In this essay, harmful substances will be defined as illegal drugs including marijuana, the opiates and the psychedelics and also alcohol which, while not now illegal, was banned in the United States of America [USA] for 13 years. This essay will consider the main arguments for banning or controlling these items. In particular it will consider the negative historical consequences of banning, the economic costs of bans and finally the impact of banning on the quality of life.
Historically, the attempts to ban harmful substances have generally failed to achieve their aims, while usually having an effect which was the opposite of their intentions. In the USA, a ban on the consumption of alcohol was imposed from 1920 until 1933 with the result that alcohol consumption did not decrease at all, but rather that consumption ‘went underground’ to be controlled by large criminal organisations at great profit. Not only did this encourage the criminal classes, it deprived the government of tax revenues that it sorely needed in this time of the Great Depression. Beyond that there was an exponential increase in the number of deaths caused by consuming polluted and poisonous alcohols. A more insidious effect, however, was of a more intangible nature: by casting the majority of citizens as
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-4-
criminals, the rule of law was called into question and corruption became accepted as a social norm (Coffey 1976: 176).
Another historical example of the failed banning process occurred shortly after Prohibition when the USA attempted another kind of prohibition: The War on Drugs. While the Harrison Act, outlawing the use of opiates, had been ratified at the same time as prohibition (1920), it remained in the background until 1972 when President Nixon officially declared the War on Drugs. By 1980, when President Reagan renamed the campaign ‘Just say no!’ the annual cost of the war had reached US$1 billion per year. By 2000, that cost had risen to US$18 billion per annum with a concurrent prison population above two million inmates. Just as with Prohibition, banning drugs not only did not stop drug use but actually built up an organised criminal industry with a vested interest in marketing its product. The ‘War on Drugs’, far from solving the problem, served only to punish those unfortunate individuals at the bottom of the drug complex and coincidentally at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder: young black and Latino men who in turn made up and continue to make up the majority of prison inmates (Eschotado 1996: 144). Thus, the process of banning these harmful substances did nothing to reduce their consumption while successfully creating a substantial criminal class and a prison population in the millions (Eschotado 1996: 153).
The economic ramifications of banning harmful substances reach into all sectors of society through both the crime networks and the institutions created to deal with them. In considering the economic costs and benefits of banning harmful substances it is necessary to understand the vested interests that are involved in the process. The process is usually instigated by a well-meaning pressure group, working on a copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-5-
volunteer basis for the supposed ‘good of the community’. Berger describes these groups as ‘sects’, joined together by a shared myth, usually co-extant with an uppermiddle class Protestant work ethic. He then points out that, once the ethic is placed in law, another group is formed, a sort of bureaucratic ‘caste’ with a strong financial and professional need to support the cause. This ‘caste’ group takes on the task for its own sake, often having forgotten the actual purpose (cited in Tollison ed. 1986: 236). For example, the Department of Justice in America recently boasted that ‘more people than ever are in federal prison on drug charges and serving longer sentences’ (Broder 2001: 221). The war on drugs has been transformed into a war on drug users whereby the effectiveness of the war is measured not in stopping drug use but in the increased number of offenders in gaol. Thus, the economic costs of banning can be seen to extend through enforcement agencies, the prison system and finally to the personal costs to individuals and their families as they are imprisoned by the system while attempting to fight it. The government cost of US$18 billion per annum must therefore be multiplied several times. Far from ensuring economic success, which was the dream of early prohibitionists and their descendents (Escohotado 1996: 82), banning ensures that productive resources are wasted in punishing the poor and the disaffected, rather than assisting them.
As a result of the above factors, the impact of banning on the individual and social quality of life has been both insidious and ubiquitous. In these days of passionate rhetoric against the drug dealers and the scourge of drugs it is difficult to imagine that this was not always the case. To demonstrate this there follows a quote from Phantastica by Louis Lewin, a respected European doctor of the 1920’s:
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-6-
The fight against alcohol is not based on clear judgements, but on prejudices. When there is no delinquent act other than excess in drinking, my advice is to consider that excess as a strictly private affair. It causes as little harm to others as the voluntary taking of morphine, or the intoxication by caffeine… Every man has the right to harm himself, and it is incorrect to limit that right except if he were to be enlisted in the military.
(Escohotado 1996: 91).
Such a text is now quite incongruous; to compare morphine (an illegal opiate) with caffeine (a legal stimulant) is unacceptable to contemporary thinking precisely because of the war on drugs and its effect in transforming popular thoughts and actions. The stifling of debate began in 1919 when a committee of the American Congress stated that the 238,000 estimated users of narcotics “would wish to stop taking drugs, as long as it was made difficult for them” (Escohotado 1996: 80). In other words, it was believed that simply by making drugs illegal and difficult to obtain, drug takers would simply stop; a belief that has not been served by history. Thus, the process of stamping personal choices with moral stigma began, even though until that time there was not one recorded instance of death from overdose; and, due to the fact that opiates were legally available and easily affordable, there were almost no instances of crimes to pay for drugs. By creating a moral stand, there developed a consensus of opinion that it was just and right to punish individuals for what are essentially victimless crimes, that drug addicts were criminals rather than suffering from an illness, and that control over a person’s body should rightly be passed over to the decisions of government.
In conclusion, this essay has considered the repeated historical failures of the banning process, the extensive economic costs to society and the individual, and finally, social impact on shared beliefs and freedom of expression. From all of the above it should now be clear that the banning process, far from delivering citizens copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-7-
from harm, actually creates crime and exacerbates the problems of drug usage. This in turn generates a sequence of escalating costs in law enforcement, imprisonment and family distress. Moreover, the costs to the integrity of government and the constraints on intellectual freedom undermine the very values that the War on Drugs claims to serve. In short, the banning of harmful substances, far from solving the problem of substance abuse, actually increases and encourages all the evils it aims to dispel.
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-8-
Bibliography Broder, D. (2001) A highly debatable war on drugs. Guardian Weekly. Aug 30-Sept 5 2001. p.28 Coffey, T. M. (1976) The Long Thirst, Prohibition in America: 1920-1933. Hamish Hamilton, London UK Escohotado, A. (1996) A brief history of drugs. Park Street Press. Rochester, Vermont USA Riley, M. (2001) Prisons fill as drugs policy fails. Sydney Morning Herald. 27 Jan 2001, P 15. Tollison, R. D. [ed.] (1986) Smoking & Society. Lexington Books, Lexington Massachussets USA
TOTAL WORDS: 1,313 Less block quote (80) Net total: 1,233 words
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
-9-
QUESTIONS: ESSAY FEATURES (A)
What are the key points of the scope?
(B)
How many paragraphs are there in the body text?
(C)
What are the “in text” references?
(D)
What are the key points of the summary?
(E)
Where is the definition?
(F)
How many new ideas are presented in the conclusion
(G)
Look at the body text and identify the subjects introduced in the topic sentences. Note their relationship to the scope.
(H)
What verb tense is used in the scope?
(I)
What verb tense is used in the summary?
(J)
How many times are the 1st and 2nd person pronouns used? (ie. I/we, me/us, you/your)
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
- 10 -
ANALYSIS OF TEXT INTRODUCTION Opening Statement (Background Statement): Since the late 19th century the debate for the banning of certain substances has grown from small groups of complainants, mostly in England, to a worldwide movement to protect individuals from these supposedly harmful items. Position statement: As this essay will show, the movement has questionable foundations and reprehensible results. In short, it is the thesis of this essay that harmful substances should not be banned. Definition: In this essay, harmful substances will be defined as illegal drugs including marijuana, the opiates and the psychedelics and also alcohol which, while not now illegal, was banned in the United States of America [USA] for 13 years. Scope: This essay will consider* the main arguments for banning or controlling these items. In particular it will consider (A) the negative historical consequences of banning, (B) the economic costs of bans and finally (C) the impact of banning on the quality of life. *(explore/explain/present/consider/propose)
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
- 11 -
BODY TEXT Topic Sentences First Paragraph: (A)
Historically, the attempts to ban harmful substances have generally failed to achieve their aims, while usually having an effect which was the opposite of their intentions.
Second Paragraph: (Scope A, second example) Another historical example of the failed banning process occurred shortly after Prohibition when the USA attempted another kind of prohibition‌ Third Paragraph: (B)
The economic ramifications of banning harmful substances reach into all sectors of society through both the crime networks and the institutions created to deal with them.
Fourth Paragraph: (C)
As a result of the above factors, the impact of banning on the individual and social quality of life has been both insidious and ubiquitous.
CONCLUSION
Summary: In conclusion, this essay has considered the repeated historical failures of the banning process, the extensive economic costs to society and the individual, and finally, social impact on beliefs and freedom of expression. Reiteration of Position Statement In short, the banning of harmful substances far from solving the problem of substance abuse, actually increases and encourages all the evils it aims to dispel.
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM
Reno’s Writing Renditions: RWR2
- 12 -
ESSAY FEATURES
THE ANSWERS A.
What are the key points of the scope? ANSWER:
(B)
(A)
the negative historical consequences of banning,
(B)
the economic costs of bans
(C)
the impact of banning on the quality of life.
How many paragraphs in the body text? 4=A, A, B, C
(C)
What are the “in text” references? (Coffey 1976: 176) (Eschotado 1996: 153)
(D)
What are the key points of the summary? 3=A, B, C
(E)
Where is the definition? Introduction, 3rd sentence.
(F)
How many new ideas are presented in the conclusion? None
(G)
Look at the body text and identify the subjects of the topic sentences. Note their relationship to the scope. ANSWER: See underlined noun groups in text analysis on page 11. Also note the use of lexical chains- a sequence of noun groups with similar meanings. NOTE ALSO: In this essay, point (A) of the scope is supported by TWO paragraphs in the body text.
(H)
What verb tense is used in the scope? Future simple. N.B. This could also be the present simple tense.
(I)
What verb tense is used in the summary? Present perfect.
(J)
How many times are the 1st & 2nd person pronouns used? (i.e. I/we/our, me/us, you/your). ANSWER: Not once.
copyright Reno Dal
Issued:Thursday, 15 January 2004 11:48 PM