Sample essay: Analysis of a reading
Claire Tarvin
Dr. Richards
English 102
6 February 1999
In his speech "Drug Policy and the Intellectuals," William Bennett challenges his audience at Harvard daringly, by attacking intellectuals. It is easy to imagine the tension in the room. Bennett wins over his audience of intellectuals, however, in two ways: (1) by calling upon their talents in his opening and closing remarks and (2) by delivering an impassioned, yet largely fair, attack on the arguments of intellectuals who favor legalizing drugs.
Bennett's opening and closing remarks
In his opening remarks, Bennett comes close to insulting his audience of intellectuals, stopping short of an insult by referring to those he is attacking as "they" (not "you"). Early in the speech, he diplomatically praises some intellectuals, especially in medicine and science, who are using their talents to combat the drug problem. In a further diplomatic move, Bennett makes clear that his speech will not be politically partisan. Bennett will be criticizing intellectuals, whether on the left or the right, who hold either or both of these views: that the drug problem can be solved by legalization and that the problem is so hopeless we should give up trying to fix it.
In his closing remarks, Bennett calls upon the talents of the intellectuals sitting in his audience. People living in drug-plagued neighborhoods are the "real drug experts," he says, and they haven't given up the fight: In city after city they are "reclaiming their neighborhoods, working with police, setting up community activities, getting addicts into treatment, saving their children" (362). Why, he wonders, would the intellectuals want to do less? He asks, "Isn't it time we had more drug control scholars?" (364).
In a final diplomatic move, Bennett ends his speech not with condemnation but with an invitation: "We are grappling with complicated, stubborn policy issues, and I encourage you to join us. [. . .] I invite America's deep thinkers to get with the program, or at the very least, to get in the game" (364).
Bennett's arguments
The opening and closing sections of Bennett's speech, which focus on the intellectuals, act as a frame for the longer central section. In this central section Bennett attacks the arguments in favor of legalizing drugs, calling them "a recipe for a public policy disaster" (360). Although some of -Bennett's counterarguments are stronger than others, on the whole they are a fair assessment of the views Bennett opposes.
Bennett's least convincing arguments attempt to counter the claims that legalization would eliminate the drug dealers' profit motive, that legalization would reduce the crime rate, and that drug laws restrict our liberty. Bennett barely discusses the liberty issue. As for the drug dealers' profit motive, he suggests--oddly, I think--that most drug dealers aren't making much of a profit right now. He means that over a long time, they don't profit; but we all know that in the short run many of them make very large profits.
Bennett's argument concerning the crime rate is only partly convincing. He refers vaguely to "research" showing that most drug criminals were doing crime before they "got into drugs" and says that most addicts would continue to commit crimes if drugs were legal (362). While this could be true, surely the extent and seriousness of the crimes would be reduced. Bennett makes one argument about crime, however, that is hard to refute: If drugs were legal for adults, many dealers would shift their market to teenagers, who would be restricted from buying drugs.
One of Bennett's strongest arguments challenges those who claim that legalization is a simple way to eliminate the drug problem. He rightly criticizes them for failing to describe the kind of world they are proposing, for failing to answer questions like these:
Would crack be legal? How about PCP? Or smokable heroin? Or ice? Would they all be stocked at the local convenience store, perhaps just a few blocks from an elementary school? And how much would they cost? (360-61)Bennett also argues convincingly that, contrary to the claims of legalization advocates, drug use would go up if drugs were legal. When cocaine was available only in expensive powder form, he says, it was not widely used; but when it became available in inexpensive vials of crack, cocaine use skyrocketed. If drugs were legal, they would be easy to get, and they would be cheaper as well. Common sense tells us that more people would use drugs.
Legalization advocates focus on the high cost of enforcing drug laws. Bennett correctly chides them for not asking an important question: What would be the costs of legalization? Bennett tells us:
We would have more drug-related accidents at work, on the highways, and in the airways. We would have even bigger losses in worker productivity. Our hospitals would be filled with drug emergencies. We would have more school kids on dope, and that means dropouts. More pregnant women would buy legal cocaine, and then deliver tiny, premature infants. (361) And to these costs, says Bennett, we can add the costs of "treatment, social welfare, and insurance" (361).Legalization advocates assume that drug use hurts only the user. Bennett questions this assumption. In addition to the high costs to society just mentioned, Bennett points out that drugs "destroy families" and "ruin friendships" and "are a threat to the life of the mind" (362).
Finally, Bennett addresses the issue of drug enforcement, which his opponents say doesn't--and can't--work. His evidence here is anecdotal and therefore only partly convincing. But at this point in the speech, Bennett has given us reason for thinking that we must make it work.
Conclusion
Bennett's speech began with some tension--a conservative thinker facing a largely liberal audience of intellectuals. Bennett overcomes this tension first through diplomacy, then through a series of largely solid arguments, and finally with the positive appeal: a call for using the intellectuals' collective intelligence to solve a problem that is not beyond hope.
[New Page]
and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument,
with Readings. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford,
1999. 515-22.
Back to Writing Assignments