Research Report

This post outlines each of the ten sources I will be using to produce project three.

Source 1

Christopher Ingraham wrote this article for the Washington Post. It is titled "Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs and maybe go even further". From his LinkedIn, I was able to find out that he attended Cornell University, and that he has held previous journalism jobs.

It is clear that the article's intended audience is voters, specifically those who are opposed to drug decriminalization. This is seen in the statistics list in the beginning of the article and in the recurring theme of "not all drugs are bad and scary". By doing these two things, the author intends to reverse the audience's thinking so that they are in favor of drug decriminalization.

This article presents data and results from other instances of drug decriminalization in the world, which I plan to use as the main sources of evidence for my project. Additionally, the source credits professionals in the medical field which I believe increases its credibility.

Source 2

Tamara Rosin wrote this article for Becker's Hospital Review. It is titled "Leading physicians call for decriminalization of minor drug offenses to combat addiction epidemic". From her LinkedIn, I can see that Rosin went to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and that she has an extensive list of previous journals that she has written for.

Because Rosin references "public health" in the first sentence of the article, it can be inferred that the audience are those who identify with public health issues. AKA the public. Additionally, there are implications that the article is mildly aimed towards drug users. This is seen in statements made about drug safety. By encouraging drug safety, the author is trying to impose a sense of urgency onto the audience. By highlighting the benefits of drug decriminalization seen in Portugal and the Czech Republic, Rosin tries to sway the audience's opinion on decriminalization.

The mention of a UN conference regarding the possibility of decriminalization confirms importance of the topic itself. I will likely use this in my essay. Also, the article has hyperlinks to other sources which aids in awarding credibility to the source.

Source 3

This article was originally written by Kristen Gwynne for The Influence. It is titled "These four countries prove that decriminalization works better than prohibition". Just by Googling her name, I can see that Gwynne has written for Rolling Stone Magazine, which gives her a lot of credibility. Secondly, I found that she has written for The Guardian, Vice, Rewire, The Nation, and many more. Her extensive experience gives her a lot of credibility as an author.

By only representing one side of the issue, it is implied that the audience is voters who are on the fence about the issue of drug decriminalization. On the other hand, there is no call to action for the audience throughout the article, so the audience can include nonvoters as well. By providing statistics and listing specific examples, the author is attempting to sway readers opinions.

The article references outside sources which confirms that its reports are reliable and accurate. Additionally, specific examples with references and statistics are provided, which backup claims made by the author throughout the article.

Source 4

This article, written by, Patrick Hilsman, was posted on Vice's website. The article is titled "How Decriminalizing Drugs Could Reduce Islamic Terrorism in France and Belgium". From Googling his name, I was able to find out that Patrick Hilsman is basically an expert on Islamic and Middle Eastern affairs. From his LinkedIn, I found that he attended Columbia University.

In the middle of the article, Hilsman writes "None of this should come as a surprise." This statement implies that there is some prior knowledge by the audience. Additionally, there is a lot of background on Belgium and French history, which implies that the audience will not know a lot about those topics. By saying things like "Is all of this really necessary?" Hilsman is encouraging his audience to think critically about the issue and to form an opinion. Additionally, the title itself makes the statement that he is trying to sway readers' opinions.

There are excessive external sources referenced throughout the article, which awards credibility. Also, Hilsman references other countries successes with the implementation of decriminalization which awards credibility to his argument.

Source 5

This article was written by Drake Baer for Tech Insider's website. It is titled "6 incredible things that happened when Portugal decriminalized all drugs". From his LinkedIn, I can see that Baer attended the College of Media at the University of Illinois and that he has worked for many other journals prior to Tech Insider.

The article provides a lot of information on the background of Portugal's drug abuse and crime rates, which assumes that readers are ignorant on the topic. Additionally, the article discusses statistics in Europe constantly, so it may be assumed that the audience is European. By providing statistics and citing examples the author is persuading the audience to be accepting of decriminalization.

There are consistent hyperlinks to outside sources that help confirm credibility of the source. Also, there are statistics and numerical data presented that help to appeal to the audiences logic and award truth and substance to the article.

Source 6

This article was found on Telesur's website. The article is titled "Report: Decriminalizing Drugs Saves Money and Improves Health". There is no author listed.

This article uses screenshots of tweets from Twitter to convey information. In this way, it is assumed that the audience are those who are tech savvy, and thus perhaps are younger. Additionally, the article is largely politically based and references politics frequently. Because of this, it is clear that the audience is expected to have some sort of political background knowledge.

The author uses statistics and references to enhance credibility.

Source 7

This article, entitled "Public argues pros and cons of marijuana legalization at hearing", was written by Elizabeth Hewitt for vtdigger.com. From her LinkedIn, I found that Hewitt went to the University of St Andrews, and that she has worked for multiple non-profit organizations.

Because this article has both sides represented, it can be inferred that the intended audience are those who are on the fence about the topic. Additionally, the political jargon used implies political prior knowledge from readers. Because the author shows both sides, the article serves informative purposes  to readers. There is little to no persuasion present.

The author uses many quotes from political professionals and from average citizens to give more credibility. Also, the use of numbers and statistics is prevalent which gives logical appeal.

Source 8

Al Broight wrote this article for vtdigger.com. It is titled "Al Broight: Pot prohibition a bad law". From the article itself, I learned that Broight worked in politics for 31 years and that he is a Vermont native (vtdigger is a Vermont local journal).

The author provides inside information about law, and examines the laws and their penalties in ways normal humans would not, which implies that there is little to no previous political knowledge form the audience. By using relatively shocking statistics regarding jail time and providing cons of prohibition the author invokes a sense of urgency to electing for drug decriminalization in the United States.

The author's introduction awards credibility to himself, as it outlines his extensive political history. Also, his references to other Vermont laws and events proves to the audience that he is up to date on the topic of drug decriminalization.

Source 9

This article was written by Stephen Moss for The Guardian. It is titled "Why didn't prohibition work?". From his Wikipedia page, I found that Moss is a well acclaimed author who writes more than just articles. I also found out that he has written for BBC.

The article uses highly elevated language, which assumes that the audience is relatively educated. Also, the language used includes complicated political terms, which implies that political background knowledge is assumed. By providing statistics and listing specific examples, the author is attempting to sway readers opinions.

A plethora of external sources are hyperlinked throughout the article. Also, background knowledge is provided which proves that Moss knows his shit.

Source 10

This article was written by Cecily Friday Shamim for The Tennessean. It is titled "Cannabis prohibition does more harm than good". From her LinkedIn, I found that Shamim went to Belmont University, and that she is a huge cannabis supporter.

The article questions the use of taxpayer money to incarcerate marijuana users, which implies that taxpayers are among the intended audience. Additionally, the author refers to states within the US as "our communities", from which we can infer that the taxpayers and voting individuals within the United States of America are the intended audience. Like all of the other articles, the author persuades readers by providing statistics and by giving specific examples of past experiences with drug decriminalization.

The source uses other speakers to convey additional information, which increases credibility of the article as a whole. Additionally, the use of hyperlinks awards the source more credibility as well.