"What If Drugs Were Legal?" A Writing Consultant's Response to a Response

Though an intriguing idea, there is much room for improvement in the essay “What If Drugs Were Legal?”  While the assignment didn’t ask for anything particularly lengthy, a topic as debatable and controversial as the legalization of drugs begs iron-strong arguments, and credibility through flawless grammatical structure. Instead of writing this assignment as a three paragraph essay, the author could more easily craft a short and neat response or review of LeMoult that counters his ideas without making his or her own assertions on the topic. The title, organization, and grammar of the text could be improved upon in the following ways.

        
The title, which corresponds with the first sentence, could be changed to reflect the content of the essay more. This text is not exploring the hypothetical world of legal drugs, or its outcomes. Rather, it is supposed to serve only as an agreement or disagreement in response to LeMoult.

Structurally this essay needs a thesis, and support within each paragraph. The first paragraph, for example, is not yet complete in its purpose as a roadmap for the rest of the text. The author does state that he disagrees with LeMoult, a step in the right direction, but has not yet said why. The reason, or reasons missing would strengthen the layout and thesis of the text. The second paragraph goes on to regurgitate the, “background of the legalization of drugs”. While I don’t consider myself very well informed with world events, I hope drugs haven’t been legalized without my knowing! The historical facts are unnecessary because they serve to back up LeMoult’s thesis, not the author’s. All that the author need include is the clear statement already embedded in the text, “By explaining this (history) he made the reader feel that society was the cause of (drugs).” Is it? The author never takes a clear stand in response to this convincing statement. This happens elsewhere in the essay too. The author presents a lot of ideas that LeMoult has stated, which he or she overall has trouble responding to and refuting.

The biggest sin the author makes perhaps is the presentation of their own unsupported opinion, rather than simply disagreeing. Writing off drugs as “wrong” without support, even to people who already agree, can be a fatal blow to the opinion of any reader. Any person interested in the title of the article would be willing and interested in exploring both sides of the argument and support given from either perspective. Writing off drugs as wrong closes the subject in a didactic way that could be insulting to the intelligence of the reader.