Evaluation of Don Weatherburns Journal Essay - 1100 Words

Evaluation of Don Weatherburns Journal (Article Critique Sample) Content: Evaluation of Don Weatherburnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s Journal on The Pros and Cons ofProhibiting DrugsAuthorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s Name:Institution Affiliation:Evaluation of Don Weatherburns Journal on The Pros and Cons ofProhibiting DrugsThe rationale of the research paper was to explore the cons and pros of drug prohibition in Australia using a number of statistical evidence. In support of his objective, the author-Don Weatherburn succeeds in large extent by providing a succinct summary in the abstract part to let the reader know the aim of the paper. His choice of words in the introduction provides a good widespread backdrop of the subject that rapidly gives the reader the pleasure of the need to interrogate whether drug prohibition is worthwhile. He further makes the introduction more substantive with the provision of references to support his claim. Therefore, it becomes easy for other readers who are reading it for the first time to continue reading with confidence. Throughout the bo dy, the author is on track because he clearly distinguished the merits and demerits of prohibition. The first part contains the advantages and related evidence and the second part present the pros and relevant support.The author- Don Weatherburn has a background in criminology information and study. He is the director of Bureau of crimes and research in Australia and has published a wide range of topics in criminology and crime justice administration among other substantial crime works. In this journal about drug prohibition, the author is not the primary researcher of the cons and pros but rather employs the works of other researchers and statisticians. His references emanate from other published works and therefore he is a secondary source. Interestingly, his background information on topic matter makes it effortless for him to undertake the research. His motivation dons from his passion in criminology and crime justice matters.The subject explored by the author in this paper is w hether Drug prohibition is worthwhile in curbing drug abuse. The author restates the social and financial costs of the repudiation against illegal drugs but argues that prohibition also limits much harm. He uses the uprising of a group known as Australia21 that called for rethink of prohibition in 2012; Arguments to support this assertion are made clear within the paper by highlighting the three areas: the cons, the pros, and deterrence as regarding illegal drugs prohibitions. That way after reading the introduction and first paragraph of each section (cons, pros, and deterrence), the reader would know the purpose, hypothesis, and the findings. Next the author starts the body by drawing five demerits or cons against the criminal drug prohibition. The disadvantages include high cost of enforcement, lack of incapacitation, associated effects, and police tactics favoring the prominence of the act. In the pros side, the author uses a graph to show how prohibition has curbed the illegal drug use. The author further writes the general aspect of understanding this crime through analysis of other methods that can produce a better outcome (deterrence, the non-monetary costs, and monetary costs).In summarizing the work, the author brings a calm feeling to the reader with a question. "We arrive, then, at the question of whether some other set of laws (besides prohibition) would produce the same or better outcomes at lower financial and social cost (3)." It is the best approach in summing up the research because then; he draws the attention of the reader to the originality of the paper-the Australia21 claim. The author made sure that the reader keeps in touch with of all pros and cons in arriving at common stand. The author further restates the findings in a more appealing way in summarizing his work.The manner of presentation of this journal by Don is fantastic and enviable. It shows that he knew what the outcome of the paper will be as about his audienceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s exp ectation. The article contains four major parts- the Abstract, Introduction, Body, and Conclusion. There are a chronological order and flow of points throughout the journal. In the abstract, the author gives an overview of what a reader would expect in the body. The introduction further breaks down who are the referenced people that he will use to support his claim. The body is the enormous part of the journal as you could expect. It is here that the author satisfies abstract and introduction accreditation with evidence in supporting the assertion. Final part is the conclusion he harmonizes the paper by restating the main points (cons and pros) in the summary. I believe the authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s presentation is perfect considering that all points bespoke in proper order.When taking picture of the arguments to support and counter the claim, you will realize that both assertions are right and wrong depending on perspectives and opinions. However, the author draws points from early resear ch to sustain or oppose either side of the squabble. In opposing the illegal drug prohibition, Don presents around five facts to combat the prohibition and uses a number of statistics done that show how prohibition doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬t reduce illegal drug use. On the other hand, when he talks of the pros, the support is not elaborate as with cons. He uses a graph to show how prohibition of illegal drug use especially smoking has accounted for most of the harms. The chart is further gender insensitive because the sample has only men. The authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s approach in addressing pros shows bias and portrays to the reader of a predetermined choice of party to support. Consequently, the argument is not balanced. It is because the points that he could have used in the prosà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ section are actually available in the paper on the deterrence and monetary-cost parts of the journal.Throughout the journal, the author has employed a number of quotations to demonstrate his arguments. Such ex emplification contained in the body of the journal sections questions what best policy minimizes drug-related harm. After the author has analyzed both the cons and pros of illegal drug use while giving evidence therein supporting either side, the quotations exemplify the journal article very well. Their significance and purpose in the paper choreographs as follows. As an alternative in addressing illegal drug use, the author suggests that from a strictly scientific viewpoint mind in curbing the illegal drug useIt is impossible to say what policy minimizes the harm associated with illegal drugs. The best we can hope do is to determine what policies are most effective in minimizing a particular measurable harm. Given what we have said about the difficulties of generalizing from small-scale experiments to large-scale programs, from one drug to another and from one location to another. It is hard finding the optimal minimization strategy for one drug-related harm is likely to be a hercu lean challeng...