5 Sources – Ally Hodgson

For my research paper I will be analyzing the placement of marijuana in the Schedule 1 drug category under the Controlled Substances Act. According to the act, schedule 1 drugs are the deadliest drugs and will get you in the most trouble due to the serious illegality. I will be arguing marijuana should be under a less intense category. I believe other drugs in the category are much more dangerous than marijuana and it would fit another category better. I will not be arguing for the legalization of marijuana. Resources I feel I will be able to use for this paper are:

  1. DEA Diversion Control 

Background: This website put up by the Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of Diversion Control. It explains the Controlled Substances Act. It also goes into detail about each of the schedules and what guidelines a drug must meet to be placed under this category. It also lists some drugs in each category.

How I Plan to Use It: This source will provide background information on the government’s official policy regarding drugs. This information can also be used to persuade the reader.

2. Cannabis, Consciousness and Healing

Background: This source is a persuasive piece about how marijuana has medical benefits and therefore should not be a Schedule 1 drug because Schedule 1 drugs by definition have no medical benefits.

How I Plan to Use It: I plan to use the author’s views and information to persuade my readers that marijuana has a true medical use that is better than similar drugs. This author only argues one facet of the definition of a Schedule 1 drug so I will be using other sources for the other parts of the definition.

3. Federal Foolishness and Marijuana

Background: This author’s editorial is persuading the reader marijuana should be a Schedule 2 drug rather than it’s current state as Schedule 1.

How I Plan to Use It: This author argues from all of the definitions of a Schedule 1 drug. I will use his work to build on my own views and portray that in my paper.

4. Cannabis and the U.S. Controlled Substances Act

Background: This article posted by drugawareness.us explains that marijuana does not have a high potential for abuse and therefore should not be a Schedule 1 drug.

How I Plan to Use It: I plan to use this information to prove marijuana shouldn’t be a schedule one drug based on the fact it does not have a high potential for abuse.

5. Federal Marijuana Law

Background: This article explains more about the Controlled Substances Act, how it came to be and what it’s about.

How I Plan to Use It: I plan to use this information to prove that marijuana does not fall under the categories of a schedule 1 drug.

This entry was posted in Proposals 5 Sources. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to 5 Sources – Ally Hodgson

  1. allyhodgson93 says:

    feedback, please?
    I’m wondering if my paper will be too monotonous since it is about marijuana but I feel like the topic’s narrow enough that hopefully it will be a refreshing change? Let me know!
    thanks!

    • allyhodgson93 says:

      I also I’m not sure if this is just me compiling a bunch of information or if there’s room for my own points of view?

  2. davidbdale says:

    For the most part, Ally, your proposal is clear, but in some places, you say either too much or too little, but in either case, create confusion. I’ve highlighted those places below.

    For my research paper I will be analyzing the placement of marijuana in the Schedule 1 drug category under the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule 1 drugs are the most dangerous drugs that will get you in the most trouble if you are caught with them illegal. I will be arguing marijuana should be under a less intense category. I believe other drugs in the category are much more dangerous than marijuana and it would fit another category better. I will not be arguing for the legalization of marijuana. Resources I feel I will be able to use for this paper are:

    That they are the most dangerous drugs could mean they’re the most likely to harm or kill you. If that’s the case, you could call them the most hazardous or the deadliest drugs.

    That they can get you into trouble most likely means trouble with the law, but you haven’t said why they’re dangerous, so I’m beginning to think they might not be deadly at all, just troublesome.

    Caught with them illegal (aside from the odd grammar) doesn’t necessarily mean they’re illegal to possess, but it’s the only claim that makes sense without further information.

    So is your claim about Schedule 1 drugs that they can kill us or that they are illegal to possess or that they carry the highest penalty for possession, or that, of the drugs that can get us into trouble, Schedule 1 drugs are the deadliest?

    My comment about the popularity of marijuana legalization as a topic was not meant to discourage you from your topic, Ally, but I will be careful to keep you from broadening your focus from the specific question of whether it rightly belongs in the Schedule 1 category. Please be careful of this yourself too.

    Regarding how you describe your sources and your intended uses of them, as a general guideline, language such as “give me background information needed to write an informative paper” and “can also be used to persuade the reader” are too vague to be much use. In these two instances, we need to know at least that website is a government site, that it states the official policy of the US government regarding possession, manufacture, etc of “dangerous drugs” or is it “commonly abused drugs” or is it “addictive or deadly substances”? By guidelines do you mean how strenuously the government pursues enforcement of these drugs, or whether they are useful in some instances, dangerous in others . . . ? Very little language is needed to make these claims clearer, Ally, but some details are needed. What will the information help you persuade the reader? That marijuana fails the test for Schedule 1 inclusion based on its medical benefits, its failure to addict users, its natural rather than man-made nature? See what I mean? Please reply.

    Regarding source 2, is it true that the test is “medical benefit,” or is it the more narrow and exclusive “medical benefits that cannot be derived from other, better proven, or less dangerous drugs”?

    It’s fine that you’ve found an author who agrees with your point of view, but you’re still responsible for the quality of his arguments if you adopt them as evidence to support your position.

    You’ll need to define “potential for abuse” very carefully. If the “proper use” of marijuana is to relieve pain or nausea, then pretty much every recreational use is “abuse.”

    I get no sense at all from your summary what the 5th source contains or its value to your argument, Ally. “Background information” is never useful. I mean that sincerely. Information with a direct bearing on your argument is very valuable, and is therefore not “background.”

    Helpful? Still have questions? Please reply.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s