Edit the main body paragraph

( Project 1 ) ( 3 )

Project 1

Name

Institute

Instructor

Submitted On

One of the most difficult to notice/skillful (related to using clever words to get attention and change people's minds) devices used in this campaign is framing. The main tool is the heading 'Marijuana Making something legal: The Republican Argument for Doing It' that sets the agenda and classifies the audience (Schuette Para 1). The audience, in this case, is both Republicans and non-Republicans. The former might be fought with each other about why the Party, which is usually/(in the past) conservative, should consider decriminalizing pot. This position also appeals to members of the Democratic Party and independents who need to build an argument when discussing pot making something legal with Republican Party members. Even more important, the discussion provides a framework for the legalization debate free from (loving only one political party) points of view. The information shared and discussed can be said to be two-party politically, but appealing to the legalization side of the main debate.  The author uses framing within the sub-headings too, classifying the issues close to the Conservative Agenda in individual entries to ensure that he covers the relevance of pot making something legal to them. In the third sub-heading, for example, the Schuette (Para 10) covers making something legal as a way to starve off drug cartels both within the US and internationally. This security frame is interesting to readers concerned about the US domestic security and the soaring violent cartel crimes in Mexico and American states (Fisherr 50).  The reference to Big Marijuana is important because he phrases in the same way as another critical American industry 'Big Pharma' that is used in reference to the leading drug making companies. The phrase 'We need Big Pharma' is meant for more

than just Republicans reading the piece. It creates an impression that marijuana, now legally prohibited under federal law, is in actual sense one of the few big changes that America has to make to solve its many problems.

The main audience for this pot legalization campaign is the Republican Party. Schuette is writing the piece as an insider whose views about the drug changed as he met information in contrast with his previous position. He uses funny stories such as his participation in elections as a Republican Campaign manager to establish his believability as an insider.  The constant use of the terms marijuana and pot is itself a (related to using clever words to get attention and change people's minds) device. The two are everyday speech slang terms created by different (information about people/combinations of different kinds of people) and with unique and shared history. Marijuana, for example, was used in reference to cannabis by Mexican low-paid, traveling workers. In most contexts, the term is used to evil personize cannabis plants mostly because it is not exact and means different things to different people.  The article ends with a byline of the author that does not include the fact that he is a Republican. It, instead, establishes his experience as a professional writer and a cartoonist, as well as a small business starter. These three roles are important in lending belief to his ability to imagine the benefits, money-based, political and social ones, of Big Marijuana. In beginning and building on a point such as the possible end of violent cartels, for examples, Schuette taps into his experience in overseas reporting. His creative (with business) experience is clear in the first two subtopics of the article as he fights for/fighters for a leaner, more efficient social system by reducing costs and promoting activities that bring in money/money income.  He uses his experience as a professional writer in the fourth point to establish how cannabis could be used to ease the suffering for the almost always ill. Since this is the last point, it is combined with the end/end resultsuch that it flows from being an independent point to being a funny story, a final standoff-equivalent, of a reason to legalize marijuana use. The conversational style adopted by the author is also a powerful tool in bridging the gap between himself and the reader (Montero and DeVries Para. 10). The language used to put the articles points across are very conversational, and include such phrases as 'Here's the thing... magic bullet...hit home' and others right before making well said points.

The most used (related to using clever words to get attention and change people's minds) strategy in this campaign is perfect example through personal experiences, statistics, facts, and cases in point. The author goes into detail about the likely benefits of marijuana making something legal in health, security, and debt reduction. Each subheading classifies one of these issues and then offers details and statistics to support the author's statement that Republicans would meet their goals if they supported the making something legal of pot.  In the fourth subheading, for example, Schuette (Para 10) uses a funny story where CNN's Sanjay Gupta, a medical reporter, changed positions on the marijuana issue. The funny story is combined with another by a leading Republican who is against pot making something legal. It forms a foundation to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on why many doctors would recommend marijuana as a medicine for long-lasting illnesses. He then combines this with his personal experience after the death of his father from (related to the pancreas) cancer. The use of all these perfect example tools brings the issue closer to his audience, and uses statistics to build believability for his perspective (Tom and Eves 40).