Research Paper Introduction

Having been designated as the one to write the introduction to our group's paper, I've produced the following paragraphs. I wasn't sure what the exact tone should be for this, and since the tone of the first essay was a bit less formal than my own, I was unsure of how formal to make the tone of this portion. Usually my process for writing these sorts of things is to make sure that I hit all the necessary points as clearly and concisely as possible, then add in whatever passages or phrasings that may serve the context better. Also, since the first essay includes an introduction of its own, I didn't want to end too definitely so as to make the shift from "formal introduction" to "essay introduction" too jarring or aimless.

In the course of the last several decades, a brewing debate over the legalization of marijuana (also known as cannabis) in America has heated to a boil. At the time of writing, twenty-five states in the Union have granted some degree of legality towards the drug’s use, bypassing its prohibition on a federal level. In this paper we will analyze the potential political, economic, health, social, and moral effects of federal marijuana legalization, addressing some of the more salient talking points that have surfaced in various mainstream debates and scholarly articles.

One of the major considerations taken in these essays is the difference between medical and recreational consumption. Authors Olivia Reagan, Devin Ward, and Korynne Haymond assert that the political, economic, and health effects of cannabis use merit its legalization for medical use only, and that recreational use should remain under prohibition. Concerning the social and moral implications of public marijuana consumption, author Joachim Austin argues that there is no appreciable detriment to federal legalization of both medical and recreational use.

Saint Crispin's Day Speech

Ever since we watched that clip in class about Shakespeare's Saint Crispin's Day Speech as it appears in Henry V, I've been thinking about it and seeing how it applies various persuasive tools to make its point - and moreover how I can use them myself. Here's a transcript of the speech (thanks, Wikipedia):

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.


One of the more recent thoughts I've had on this is how interesting it is that he ends the speech on the note of "and people who weren't here, they're going to feel terrible!" Besides that minor detail, one of the parts that has been confounding me a bit is where is says "If we are mark'd to die, we are enow to do our country loss". My impression is that a modern translation would be "if we die, our sacrifice is worthy enough to be considered honorable in itself," but I'm not entirely sure. I also took note of what parts were omitted from the video, namely coveting honor rather than gold or clothes. Showing that his interests are in the gain of honor rather than the accretion of material wealth would increase my trust in him on a personal level, since honor would be achieved by gaining as much advantage against the enemy as possible, which aligns with my interests, as opposed to increasing his own personal wealth.

I also read up on the battle itself, known as the Battle of Agincourt. Having read the Art of War several times with and without commentaries, I was interested in the strategies used to overcome the odds. Of course there are disagreements on the exact numbers, but the estimates are that the English were outnumbered four or five to one, yet the outcome of the battle is estimated to be approximately 8000 French killed compared to only 100 Englishmen.

Humor

I've often thought about how exactly humor works. Why do certain jokes appeal to some and not others? Why are there different "types" of humor, like observational or situational? What is the biological mechanism that induces laughter?

Over the last few months I've managed to form some explanation that suites my interests well enough. The way I see it, humor is a drastic but harmless contrast between expectation and outcome. For example, if I switch out someone's regular pen for a zapping pen which administers a mild electric shock upon pressing a button, I know that his expectations for pressing the button will differ drastically from what will actually happen, but ultimately it will result in no lasting harm.

Making contrasts "drastic" enough is perhaps the proverbial rub when it comes to making quality jokes. In my experience, knowing BOTH the expectations and experiences of your audience is key. Having a sense of what your audience anticipates allows you to diverge from it, in a sense creating a "point A". Knowing their experiences allows you to make "point B"; in other words, the punchline should be something they can associate with, but if they haven't been exposed to it in the way you want them to, then the joke will not make sense. For example, I heard a joke where a Mexican farmer says to his cow, "da leche," whereas the Argentinean says "dale, che!". Since the setup is in English, most English readers will understand the setup, but probably won't understand the punchline because they don't understand the Spanish.

Subtlety is also a player here. Letting references or common associations complete the joke allows you to tell it using fewer words, and since "brevity is the soul of wit", the joke's impact will be greater. In my opinion. there is virtue in letting the jokes tell themselves, by which I mean letting the listener figure out the joke in their own mind.

Marijuana Research, early thesis outline

This was one of the narrative outlines I used for my paper before I started doing more focused research. I ended up needing more topics for content, but I felt this one reflected my general opinion well enough.

With the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act and later the 1970 Controlled Substance Act, usage of marijuana was prohibited in the United States on a federal level. In the last few decades the debate over its legalization has heated to a boil, resulting in several states granting various amounts of leniency and legality to its use. In my opinion, this move towards legalization is ultimately a positive trend that serves a public good.

Contrary to popular argument, I believe that marijuana use does not diminish public virtue. THC, the mild psychedelic compound in cannabis, is a depressant drug, meaning that it tends to decrease the activity of the user rather than increase it. One of the effects is similar to alcohol in that it tends to reduce social inhibition, but the biological mechanism does not impair judgement so much as it enhances the perception of pleasure from certain activities. People who are “high” on marijuana will tend to engage themselves in some low-intensity social or personal entertainment activity; they are usually more interested in keeping the peace than causing disruption. An increase in public use will likely not result in more violence or social unrest, and since the drug is not inherently addictive and supply is in no shortage, there is no incentive for aggressive competition based on personal interests.

An Interesting Case

I read an article recently detailing the story of one Rahinah Ibrahim, who was placed on a no-fly watchlist by the American government and was thus not permitted to fly to Hawaii to deliver an academic paper on architecture. Having committed no actions that would qualify her for placement on that list, she underwent a 10-year legal battle against the Department of Homeland Security to clear her name. Several times during this process, the courtroom was cleared by the judge as per the requests of government lawyers. Aside from trying to expose the error on the government list, Rahinah’s case was that the government violated her right to due process by placing her on the no-fly list without providing a reason when appealed for one.

The government holds the right to “neither confirm nor deny” the no-fly status of any individual, but they are not exempt from the redress program through which people may file complaints. Rahinah had a right under American law to appeal her status but was delayed on a number of occasions by government attorneys who attempted to have her case dismissed. Eventually the judge upheld Rahinah’s rights to due process and ruled in favor of her case, causing her to be removed from the no-fly list.

In my opinion, Rahinah, being an American citizen, had the right to appeal against the American government without fear of her case being arbitrarily delayed. As part of this country's system of checks and balances, the upholding of this right to due process is a vital element of protecting the individual freedoms upon which this country is built. Obviously the road to being taken off the no-flight list should involve some judicial scrutiny, but the careless approach of the federal government underscores the need for laws of redress and judicial review, as well as basic awareness of the country's citizens concerning these sorts of cases.

The article discussing Rahinah's story can be found here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/rights-groups-air-concern-proposed-terrorist-watch-list/story?id=39995684