Marijuana.com

Swabeky

Just want to let you guys take a gander at my Rhetorical Analysis of an article "Industrial hemp support takes root"(it can be found on the news board somewhere" but if you could give a newb some advice that would be great. it's for a college freshman english course.

Leinwand’s Hemp Argument
Cannabis has been an illegal drug for over seventy years, but it is also a crop that North Dakota farmers are hoping will revitalize their market. These simple plains farmers are not trying to grow a drug, but rather a useful plant that is used in everything from clothing to soap. In Donna Leinwand’s article, “Industrial hemp support takes root,” she uses some rhetorical tools attempting to convince her USA Today readers that hemp really is a useful crop. Leinwand establishes her ethos early with the help of David Monson, and then uses logos to show that hemp is an economically important crop. After reading this article Leinwand wants the reader to look at hemp differently than marijuana, and to realize the plants commercial value.

Leinwand uses David Monson to state her ethos because Monson is a “conservative Republican in North Dakota's legislature.” Monson is a proponent of industrial hemp and helped get a bill signed in the North Dakota legislature that would legalize it in his state. The reason why this is important is because hemp has been a counter-culture icon since the 60’s, and Monson is not a hippy, but a Richard Nixon or a Ronald Reagan when it comes to drugs. Usually when it comes to hemp, the government has said that it would undermine the war on drugs and allow farmers to camouflage their illegal crop. Monson has stated that his bill has answers to all those concerns, including background checks for growers and regular THC testing on crops. By using North Dakota, a conservative state, in her article on hemp, she has taken the issue away from the hippies and into the hands of good intentioned farmers.

After Leinwand states her ethos she starts going through the logic, and the flaws in it. The first is the White House’s position: "Let's not be naive," says Tom Riley of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy. "The pro-dope people have been pushing hemp for 20 years because they know that if they can have hemp fields, then they can have marijuana fields. It's ... stoner logic." This point is refuted by a question, “Does Monson sound like a druggy to you?” It’s not stoner logic but rational logic, in factNorth Dakota and other states are considering a lawsuit to challenge the ban, he says.”It's legal for us to import the (hemp) stalks and the seed and turn them into clothes and food, but it's not legal for us to grow it. What's the sense in that?" Later in the article it is stated that during WWII American Farmers were urged to grow hemp because it was needed for rope and other textiles, but today it is the same as Marijuana to the government.

A second logical appeal she makes is the hemp industry in America. Before 2004 hemp imports were confiscated for containing trace amounts of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. However, the Supreme Court ruled that hemp is not a drug and so imports could resume. Since 2004 the hemp market has been a small but expanding industry that has been growing at around 50% a year. A reason for this is how versatile hemp is, it is used in organic soaps, clothes, food and paper, and the more hemp this industry has access to the faster it will grow. If farmers in America could grow hemp then maybe we could replace paper pulp with hemp pulp for paper. Hemp is also nutritious, “It's high in fiber, high in protein, vitamin E, essentially fatty acids. It's high in everything, but you don't get high from it."

Her last logical appeal is to have people realize hemp is not a drug. According to the article, in 1970 hemp was illegalized and scheduled as a schedule 1 substance, the same as marijuana, LSD and Heroin. It’s a logical appeal because the law is bad logic; Hemp does not have THC, the active drug in marijuana, and is not a drug of any kind. Hemp should not be legislated on as a drug but as a crop, because that is what it is, a commercially viable crop for North Dakotan farmers.

Her last appeal is that America needs to join the crowd, as we are the only developed nation not growing hemp. As our farmers are reaping less and less of a profit we are fighting a war on a plant that every other major nation allows. It makes us look foolish in respect to other countries that hemp is what our government worries about, while the other governments seem fine not fearing the slippery slope of hemp legalization.

Donna Leinwand’s article on hemp uses a lot of logic to try to convince us that hemp legalization is not a hippy fairytale, but a real solution for struggling farmers. She also shows us that America depended on this same plant to fight World War two and that of all developed nations; we are the only one to still treat it as a drug. Her argument is persuasive because she casts hemp supporters not as drug users, but as regular people from the Midwest.

 

dedbr

Proofread it for any stumbles and stops. A few periods instead of commas might help, along with some rewrite.......

That's just my opinion of course. It's really good for a freshman english paper.........I give it a B........


Some Where In Ded Land..........

__________________
"There I am, on the road again.......Here I am, up on the stage............
Here I go, playin' star again...........There I go, turn the page.
"Turn The Page"...Bob Seeger

New to our home? A lot of questions can be answered with our Posting Guidelines ........ http://www.marijuana.com/introductio...uidelines.html
What's a gram? Read our Gram Guidelines and find out...........http://www.marijuana.com/add-article/77170-marijuana-grams-system.html

Sec

Leinwand’s Hemp Argument
Cannabis has been an illegal drug for over seventy years, but it is also a crop that North Dakota farmers are hoping will revitalize their market. These simple plains farmers are not trying to grow a drug, but rather a useful plant that is used in instead of "in" try "to produce" everything from clothing to soap. In Donna Leinwand’s article, “Industrial hemp support takes root,” she uses some rhetorical tools attempting to convince her USA Today readers that hemp really is a useful crop. Leinwand establishes her ethos early with the help of David Monson, and then uses logos to show that hemp is an economically important crop. After reading this article Leinwand wants the reader to look at hemp differently than marijuana, and to realize the plants commercial value.

Leinwand uses David Monson to state her ethos because Monson is a “conservative Republican in North Dakota's legislature.” Why the quotation marks? Monson is a proponent of industrial hemp and helped get a bill signed in the North Dakota legislature that would legalize it instead of "it" try, "growing hemp" in his state. The reason why this is important is because hemp has been a counter-culture icon since the 60’s, and Monson is not a hippy, but a Richard Nixon or a Ronald Reagan when it comes to drugs. Usually when it comes to hemp, the government has said that it would undermine the war on drugs and allow farmers to camouflage their illegal crop. Monson has stated that his bill has answers to all those concerns, including background checks for growers and regular THC testing on crops. By using North Dakota, a conservative state, in her article on hemp, she has taken the issue away from the hippies and into the hands of good intentioned farmers. (BTW, the only good intentions these farmers have is being intent on making a good profit, which growing hemp would provide).

After Leinwand states her ethos she starts going through the logic, and the flaws in it. The first is the White House’s position: "Let's not be naive," says Tom Riley of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy. "The pro-dope people have been pushing hemp for 20 years because they know that if they can have hemp fields, then they can have marijuana fields. It's ... stoner logic." This point is refuted by a question, “Does Monson sound like a druggy to you?” It’s not stoner logic but rational logic, in fact(need a space here)North Dakota and other states are considering a lawsuit to challenge the ban, he says.(need a space here)”It's legal for us to import the (hemp) stalks and the seed and turn them into clothes and food, but it's not legal for us to grow it. What's the sense in that?" Later in the article it is stated that during WWII American Farmers were urged to grow hemp because it was needed for rope and other textiles, but today it is the same as Marijuana to the government.

A second logical appeal she makes is the hemp industry in America. Before 2004 hemp imports were confiscated for containing trace amounts of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. However, the Supreme Court ruled that hemp is not a drug and so imports could resume. Since 2004 the hemp market has been a small but expanding industry that has been growing at around 50% a year. A reason for this is how versatile hemp is, it is used in organic soaps, clothes, food and paper, You mentioned this in an earlier paragraph and the more hemp this industry has access to the faster it will grow. Of course the more accessible hemp the industry has, the more it will grow. This statement is too obvious to include in this article. Any industry with easy, inexpensive access to its base product will grow. If farmers in America could grow hemp then maybe we could replace paper pulp with hemp pulp for paper. You might say something about "renewable resource" here, since it is all the rage now. Hemp is also nutritious, “It's high in fiber, high in protein, vitamin E, essentially fatty acids. It's high in everything, but you don't get high from it."

Her last logical appeal is to have people realize hemp is not a drug. According to the article, in 1970 hemp was illegalized and scheduled (Better word here is "labeled") as a schedule 1 substance, the same as marijuana, LSD and Heroin. It’s a logical appeal because the law is bad logic; this sentence makes no sense. it is akin to saying "it is blue because it isn't red". Hemp does not have THC, the active drug in marijuana, and is not a drug of any kind. Hemp should not be legislated on as a drug but as a crop, because that is what it is, a commercially viable crop for North Dakotan farmers. Is she saying this or are you?

Her last appeal if this is her last appeal, and the one prior is her last logical appeal, does that mean this is not logical? is that America needs to join the crowd, as we are the only developed nation not growing hemp. As our farmers are reaping less and less of a profit we are fighting a war on a plant that every other major nation allows. It makes us look foolish in respect to other countries that hemp is what our government worries about, while the other governments seem fine not fearing the slippery slope of hemp legalization.

Donna Leinwand’s article on hemp uses a lot of logic to try to convince us that hemp legalization is not a hippy fairytale, but a real solution for struggling farmers. She also shows us that America depended on this same plant to fight World War two and that of all developed nations; we are the only one to still treat it as a drug. Her argument is persuasive because she casts hemp supporters not as drug users, but as regular people from the Midwest. as opposed to those southerners or from the West Coast??? What makes the regular people from the Midwest more persuasive than those from the South or the Northwest???

These are just a few thoughts after about 5 minutes of scrutiny. I hope you don't take it as too critical. I'm sure I made mistakes as well.

In general it is a good article, just a bit hard to follow the "logic" sometimes.

__________________
guidelines.
Search

Hashishi

Quotation marks ( ' ) are what he should've used - those are speech marks.

__________________
SWP



"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty." -- "If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly." -- "Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin's still learning." -- "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns: the ones we don't know we don't know."