Write an argument essay on Are current drug policies working well?

Paragraphing—evaluative claims In this task you will be provided with an article and asked to evaluate the credibility of the argument it presents. To assess the credibility you will need to identify the questions, claims, evidence and assumptions in the argument. You will then, having identified these key elements of the argument, evaluate its credibility using appropriate evidence and reasoning. You will express your evaluation in a single well-structured paragraph. Well-structured means that you open with a clear claim that directly addresses the question: is the article credible? and that you then present a coherent argument in support of that claim. Subject: Pill Testing – Russian Roulette as Drug Policy Russian Roulette as Drug Policy-2.pdf Details: Drug Advisory Council of Australia 2019, Subject: Pill Testing – Russian Roulette as Drug Policy, https://www.drugfree.org.au/images/pdf-files/pilltesting/PillTestingDACA_PoliticianBrief05-02-19.pdf (Links to an external site.)> You must reference using either Harvard or APA style. See the library’s EasyCite tool for details on these styles: https://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/easy-cite/ Assessment activity 1 was a similar kind of one. Here is the feedback I received for that. Generally good work Akhil… It’s clear to me that you’ve generally understood the task. Though you tend to enter into some debate with the authors rather than sticking to the central focus; identification of each component, You’ve, not quite hit the on the the identification of the questions in both para but heading in the right direction Claims are on track – but try not to get argumentative in a task like this (it’s not required). Then you’ve mostly, accurately identified and described some the kinds of evidence being used by the respective authors. Though there’s from for improvement with these. Good effort to demonstrate your thinking on credibility but refer to my notes on this below for more detail. Take a look below at my take on Question/Claim/Evidence…note you weren’t expected to have of ALL these EXACTLY as I have them – they can be expressed in a few different ways to amount to the same thing…but the main matter is not to confuse the differences between question/claim/evidence. Please review this with the rubric handy. Please let me know if you have any query at all. Well done – you’re well on track for a successful semester.Are current drug policies working well? Notice how a re-working of the first sentence, and claim, sets the question for the discussion that follows? Claims (Choose from among these) There are many claims in this paragraph. (You only need to demonstrate a understanding of claims (not necessarily pointing out each and all) the current balanced, restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies in Australia are working reasonably well and they have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation. Marijuana is currently the leading cause of substance dependence other than alcohol in Australia. There is a common misconception that the principal costs of marijuana use are those related to the criminal justice system. legalization of marijuana for medical or general use would increase marijuana use rather than reduce it and would lead to increased rates of addiction to marijuana among youth and adults, legalizing marijuana is not a smart public health or public safety strategy for any state or for our nation. Evidence In 2008, marijuana use accounted for 1.2 million of the 3 million people aged 12 or older classified with dependence on or abuse of an illicit drug This means that about two thirds of Australians suffering from any substance use disorder are suffering from marijuana abuse or marijuana dependence. The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Australians aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure. In the US Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) found that the percentage of people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent). Credibility Notice that while there are statistics in the above, without the author stating the source, that we can questions the credibility – they might come from reliable sources, but as readers how are we to know without the citation? There is some use for the Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) statistic, but notice it is a US statistic and not an Australian stat – this discussion is about Australian policy. PARAGRAPH 2 Question/s Is decriminalisation a good idea? As with para 1 – we can re-write the first sentence/claim as a question Claims Decriminalising cannabis use in Australia is a good idea. Australia’s official drug strategy is based on a platform of harm minimisation, including supply reduction, demand reduction (prevention and treatment) and harm reduction. policies should therefore have a net reduction in harm. some of the major harms from using illicit drugs are precisely because they are illegal. A large proportion of the work of the justice system (police, courts and prisons) is spent on drug-related offences. “drug law enforcement has had little impact on the Australian drug market”. A significant harm is having a criminal record for possessing drugs that are for personal use. This can negatively impact a person’s future, including careers and travel. Decriminalisation of cannabis would also reduce these harms. Evidence In a recent opinion poll around 30% of Australians thought cannabis should be legal. Teenagers 14-17 years old were least likely to support legalisation (21% of that age group) and 18-24 year olds were most likely to support it (36% of that age group). As with Para 1, we can see these stats as evidence but question the source – which opinion poll? Also, is the question is “Is decriminalisation a good idea?” we can ask if this evidence directly responds to this question. These stats might more appropriately be responding to a question of opinion, rather than being evidence that answers the initial question on the basis of other matters stated in the claims. EXPRESSION You needed to fine-tune your thinking and writing (by some tough editing) to be a bit less wordy and to achieve greater clarity and accuracy – always give this as much attention as you can. Please contact me for any further information needed