Sunday, October 12, 2008


marijuana. pot. weed. mary jane. blaze. an interesting topic that has raised controversy for a while. the author of this essay makes the point that the prohibition of marijuana should end. one of his main arguments is that it is scientifically proven that marijuana is less dangerous than both alcohol and tobacco. he says that alcohol and tobacco both cause many deaths, rather marijuana does not. he also points out that you cannot make the argument that marijuana causes many crimes. he says that while you can get involved in many crimes when you are drunk, like drunk driving, public intoxication, peeing on the street, etc. the only crime you can you can commit with marijuana is the possession of it. he goes on about percentages and how it is pointless to spend all the money to put people who are arrested for possession in jail and on trial. he makes a very valid argument and backs up his argument with good statistics. he knows his stuff and he makes you think. then to turn it around he talks about the medical aspects, how it has been very helpful in the medicine world. how can you say that the drug is dangerous and it can kill people when you are giving it to patients in hospitals? he not only disputes why it is illegal but also gives reasons to why it will be beneficial. its an interesting argument to back up and today it has gotten more and more controversial. it really makes you think. so what do you think?

Thursday, October 2, 2008


first off, to be blunt, the second one, that was forever long, put me to sleep. so i guess you could say that is kind of a difference. not in writing style but oh well. the second one (teacher version) kept going on and on and making odd connections. Like talking about racism. The first one (the kid version) was more talking about how he felt about obama and how obama was great and powerful and how his speech was awesome, to him. it was a personal essay more while the second one was more like blah blah racism blah blah sheep. they both comment on their racial background, though the second one talks more about slavery and al sharpton while the first one connects his racial background back into today. either way they both have positive and negatives aspects to him and his speeches. they talk about how he likes to connect to the people, the first one more than the second. to tell you the truth i dont remember a lot about the second. i remember that he went off on weird tangents like about how al sharpton said in a speech once that slaves were promised land and a sheep and they still havent gotten land and a sheep. ok great. so yeah. samesies and nonsamesies. funn