In the current case, the most appealing moment is where a dog converse with the girl. It is intriguing to have the lesser correct the senior. The dog has realized that its friend has changed in conduct since she started on the weed. It clearly shows that the side effects of using the drug are very shouting. It sticks with me since it is very embarrassing being a senior to be correct by the juniors who should be emulating you. In real life, it is the girl who should be correcting the dog as well as training it but on the contrary the dog is.
In the first argument, the author shows how the anti-drug campaign is applied. The author illustrates using the two way notion where one can either succeed or fail. The argument is convincing with commercial advertisement example. The author goes ahead to illustrate using the example of the girl and the dog. The author makes the reader understand the target audience and why the system is applied.
Secondly, the author points out how some drugs have been used since time in memorial in societies. The author claims that, Cannabis has been used in history for cultural rituals. This argument shows that people have been using drugs positively. However, the author does not indicate how Cannabis was used negatively in that traditional society. It would be important to show the negative impacts of Cannabis in that traditional society. Additionally, the author does not give diversified examples from the society. The examples provided are not specific. Drugs have been used in the society effectively, and the problem comes when people misuse drugs. The author should include several drugs in the illustration and show how they can be used effectively and how the same drug is misused.
The third opinion, which is debatable is the how the media portrays anti-drug and pro-drug operations. The author shows how the media reveals the negative and the positive side of these operations. The author goes ahead and gives illustrated example of Mr. Mackey and Mary Jane. This point portrays how the anti-drug campaign can harm ones career and how it can improve.
In my opinion, the critique has just given a very shallow support of the two sides. It could have been more educative and more convincing to give more weight on one side. As much as proof of the case of the Mr. Mackey, the consumption and support of the drug does more harm than the opposing and no consumption do. Therefore, it would auger better to be more supportive to one side according to the evidence given rather than an attempt to equalize the two without equal weighted evidences. It would also be advisable to remove the in sentence capitalization. Having capital letters in the middle of a sentence and not at the beginning of a proper noun is incorrect. Lastly I would advise the writer to put in text citation for the work. In text citation makes the evidence more clear and convincing.