March 8 2016
Editorial Critical Review
The purpose of this editorial “legalizing pot? First, we need rules on who can grow it, and where” from “The Globe and Mail” is simply just that. Who should be allowed to grow pot? How much should they be allowed to cultivate? where and under what conditions? The author is suggesting that there is a line to be drawn somewhere and legalizing pot does not mean it is a free-for-all. To support the arguments made the author uses evidence of a property belonging to a medical marijuana grower who cultivates more that 100 pot plants in his house and because of this the neighbourhood smells strongly of weed. Even though his marijuana grower is doing nothing illegal, there needs to be safety and zoning requirements for operations such as this. The author uses analogy when it states “there must be safety and zoning requirements for large cultivating operations, and smaller ones, and they shouldn’t be stinking up residential areas. Cities don’t allow backyard pig farms or a helipad in the driveway.” The author also uses situational irony when it states “what is clear once again is that legal pot means highly regulated pot, and not a free-for-all.” These literary proofs were very effective because the author is telling the readers right from wrong and what we can and cannot do. Based on the logic of this editorial and the evidence presented I am convinced of the validity of the author’s argument. This is because the author comes off in a very reasonable way. The message the author is instilling is that yes, you can grow your own marijuana in very small amounts but there needs to be informative laws and regulations on how to do this procedure in a safe and responsible way.
The purpose of the article “why Ottawa is right to reserve the law of stripping terrorists of their passports” from “The Globe and Mail” is that what was once a law under Harpers government is no longer under Trudeau’s...