Legalising Drugs Analysis

Better Essays
“Legalising Drugs” is an editorial piece written by Fulton Gillespie for The Guardian likewise “Legalisation - our best hope” is a response letter written by Rupert Turner in return to an editorial written in The Daily Telegraph. Since both authors are writing in a well known newspaper company, their work may be for a more mature audience. Both pieces discuss the use of drugs and how to decrease the number of people taking or overdosing from drugs. Fulton Gillespie and Rupert Turner have a few differences in their writing such as the author 's purpose. This is because the authors are coming from opposite perspectives. But, for the most part their writing is similar. This can be seen in their tone which are both informative and personal which…show more content…
Which summarises that the use of drugs cannot be prevented but yet, death and misuse can be controlled. Fulton Gillespie shows in his writing that criminalisation will not help drug addicts but legalising drugs will. It can be seen in this example, “I am convinced that he would still be alive today if all the drugs had been legalised and controlled, because he would have no need to steal and would not have been in prison, the heroin would have been controlled and thus not toxic”. The same applies to Rupert Turner as he discusses to support and not punish those in need of help. This can is clear when Rupert states, “We pour millions into fighting the drug war, a war that cannot be won. Alternatively, we could construct drug centres”. From the two examples above it is clear that Fulton Gillespie and Rupert Turner both agree that punishing those who take drugs will not reduce the amount of addicts or those who overdose. Instead they think that supporting users will save people’s lives either by legalising drugs or opening a drug centre. By Fulton convincing the audience that drugs should be legalised it shows that people 's lives could be saved compared to his son that died. In Fulton 's quote he gives a logical explanation about why his son would still be alive today to back up his argument. Also, by Rupert convincing the audience that users should be supported and not punished it…show more content…
However, it is clear that there are more similarities like their theme, which summarises the point of helping drugs addicts be better people instead of punishing them. Plus, their personal but, informative tone that the authors have which they use to create a personal connection and create a credibility from the supportive information. Both pieces, “Legalising Drugs” and “Legalisation - our best hope”, are able to persuade their audience about the legalisation of drugs and support for addicts by using personal references and having a clear point aboout what the message is about. All these aspects put together make the pieces interesting, understandable and
Get Access