I. Warming up

1. Discuss the following questions:

(1)What did you know about the drug problem before reading the essays? Why do you think people still take drugs in spite of the worldwide anti-drug campaigns?

(2)What do you know about the situation in China? Do you think the drug problem is serious?

(3)Side with one of the three authors and have a brief debate with your group members to see which author is more convincing.

2. Check-on Preview

(1)Define the underlined words:

the simple beauty (para. 16)

a social sanction (para. 26)

(2)Paraphrase the following sentence:

No one in Washington today recalls what happened…the United States. (para. 6)

II. Background

Author

1. Gore Vidal

prolific American novelist, and essayist

political activist: Democratic-Liberal

The war on drugs has nothing at all to do with drugs. It is part of an all-out war on the American people by a government interested only in control.

—Gore Vidal

1)“Probably no American writer since Franklin has derided, ridiculed, and mocked Americans more skillfully and more often than Vidal.” (Gordon S. Wood, The New York Times, December 14, 2003)

2)Gore Vidal was often pointedly controversial: he published comments on democracy, homosexuality, religion, and drug legalization.

2. Clarence Page

1)Columnist and member of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune

2)1972 Pulitzer Prize for a Chicago Tribune Task Force series on voter fraud

3)1989 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary

3. Charles Krauthammer

1)a syndicated columnist: The Washington Post Writers Group

2)political commentator

3)physician

4)conservative (neoconservative in foreign policy)

History

Prohibition in the United States (the Noble Experiment)

1)1840s, spearheaded by some religious denominations

2)1881, Kansas as the first to outlaw alcoholic beverages

3)1917, alcohol banned as mandated in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution

4)1919-1933, nation-wide movement, plagued by smuggling and bootlegging

5)1933, the 18th Amendment repealed by the 21st Amendment

III. Text analysis

Structure

Essay 1

1.Structure of Essay 1

(1)What is the solution to the drug problem offered by Vidal?

legalization rather than criminalization

(2)What then are his main arguments?

•The right to be informed correctly (paras. 1-2)

•e right to choose (paras. 3-4)

•Sane people won’t be addicted to drugs. (para. 5)

•A lesson from Prohibition (paras. 6-7)

•The government and the mafia have a vested interest in the criminalization of drugs. (paras. 8-10)

2. Argument 1: Discussion

(1)The right to be informed sensibly

(2)How to inform people sensibly?

(3)Why will this require heroic honesty?

(4)Do you think this will work?

3.Argument 2: Discussion:

The right to choose

(1)To choose what?

(2)The precondition of this right?

(3)Do you think that taking drugs belongs to this right?

4.Argument 3: Discussion

Sane people won’t be addicted to drugs.

(1)Why?

(2)How to deal with people who are not sane enough?

(3)How can the forbidden fruit psychology apply to this argument?

(4)Do you agree with this argument?

5.Argument 4: Discussion

(1)What’s the lesson?

(2)What’s meant by “no public memory of anything that happened last Tuesday”?

(3)Why did the Congress feel it their “divine mission” to prohibit alcohol?

(4)The result of Prohibition?

6.Argument 5: Discussion

The government and the mafia have a vested interest in the criminalization of drugs.

(1)How can this be? Why blame the government for the deaths?

(2)Why does the government have a vested interest in it?

(3)What is then Vidal’s real concern? The drug problem? Or individual freedom against government control?

Essay 2

1.Structure of Essay 2

(1)What is the solution to the drug problem offered by Page?

Neither legalization nor criminalization will work. It is in fact a social problem

(2)What then are his main arguments?

•Legalization is oversimplified: proponents’ arguments. (paras. 11-15)

•Legalization’s failure: opponents’ arguments. (paras. 16-18)

•Criminalization is neither the right answer to this problem. (paras. 19-20)

2.Argument 1: Fill in the Blanks

Legalization is oversimplified: proponents’ arguments.

(1) common wisdom:

remove ___ immense profits___ pumped into the under-world

reduce __ forbidden-fruit___ attraction

take away __ criminal stigma__

tax the sale and use money to _ build more treatment centers___

(2)“deep thinkers”

Kurt Schmoke: _ Prohibition of drugs is bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon____

Milton Friedman: __ Prohibition makes matters worse.___

3.Transition

Para.11: Unfortunately, legalization sounds too good to be true.

Para.12: It sounds good because it is simple…

Para.13: Deep thinkers…

Para.15: He was not alone in his sentiments.

Para.16: The simplicity…Unfortunately, the simple beauty…has an ugly gaping hole.

4.Argument 2: Discussion

Legalization’s failure: opponents’ arguments

(1)What do the following people say?

•Prof. James Q. Wilson

•William Bennett

(2)Interesting comparison: paras. 16 & 18

•Do you find anything worth noting?

•What does your finding suggest for our own essay writing?

5.Argument 3: Discussion

Criminalization is neither the right answer to this problem.

Then what is the answer according to the author?

•The quick fix is illusory because…

•The slow fix is illusory because…

6.Questions for Discussion

(1)According to the author, what is the ultimate cause of the drug problem? Do you agree?

(2)Does the author propose a possible solution to the drug problem? What solutions can you propose?

Essay 3

1. structure of Essay 3

(1)What is the solution to the drug problem offered by Krauthammer? Deglamorization. Drug problem can only be solved culturally.

(2)What then are his main arguments?

•Is legalization a good solution? (paras. 21-26)

•What should we do? (paras. 27-31)

•Conclusion: four solutions. (para. 32)

2.Argument 1: Discussion

Is legalization a good solution?

(1)What’s the author’s attitude towards legalization on the following issues?

•drug law enforcement

•comparison: illegal drugs vs. alcohol

•relationship between legalization and drug use

(2)Is legalization a good solution?

3.Argument 2: Discussion

What should we do?

(1)Why does the author mention smoking?

•changed image of smokers?

•measures taken?

(2)We should do the same to drugs…

•attitude towards the “Just Say No to Drugs” campaign?

•changed image of smokers?

4.Discussion

What is Krauthammer’s opinion concerning each of the four solutions?

IV. Reinforcement:

Writing Techniques: essay 2

(1)Satire/Irony:

•f you can’t win the game, change the rules.

•…deliciously convenient…

•Deep thinkers…

(2) Understatement:

•…sounds too good to be true and probably is.

(3) Quotation from authority: para.15

Discussion

(1)Do these different solutions represent different vested interests?

(2)What would you say about the content, structure and language of the three essays?

(3)How are the following methods used to support the arguments?

•logic/close reasoning

•facts

•statistics

•source of authority

•commonsense

•experience

•basic principles