Are drugs a plague to society or is it the way that the government treats drugs and users? Milton Friedman, in “An Open Letter to Bill Bennett”, argues that drugs may be an issue for society, but the war on drugs is causing more damage than the drugs themselves. He implores Bennett, his intended audience, to reconsider his stance on the fight against drugs in an effort to decriminalize drugs and drug usage. Friedman uses his credibility as an economist and attempts to appeal to his audience’s emotions, by targeting his beliefs and citing events, in order to force the audience to reconsider their stance on the drug war.

In his letter, Milton Friedman uses both deliberative and epideictic rhetoric to have his audience reconsider their values and beliefs on the fight against drugs. Friedman reassures Bennett that he is correct in his belief that drugs are a scourge which are “tearing asunder our society, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged” (Friedman).He does this in order to address the opposing view and show that he is aware of the problems that may come with decriminalizing drugs. Friedman then attempts to have Bennett rethink his political stance on the issue by pointing out that his “mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures [that Bennet favors] are a major source of the evils” (Friedman) that he deplores. Initially, Friedman wanted to reaffirm that drugs are bad for society, then he directs Bennett to his argument that the way the government is handling the drug epidemic is only causing more damage.

Additionally, Milton Friedman uses pathos to formulate his plea to Bennett, begging him to rethink the war on drugs. He explicitly states that this is a plea fueled by passion that “comes from the bottom of [his] heart” (Friedman) in an attempt to appeal to Bill Bennett’s own emotions. He also paints a picture of a future for the United States, without the freedom and liberty that they both cherish so greatly, that may come if the government does not decriminalize drugs. Friedman not only addresses the issue, but also offers a solution where if society creates “an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic” (Friedman). Friedman uses pathos in his suggestion of a more compassionate approach to drug users, rather than the punishing approach that Bennett is advocating for.

Friedman uses ethos in his plea to Bennett to show the rationality of his argument. Milton Friedman uses his credibility as an economist and reduces the issue of drugs to the economic concept of supply and demand, stating that the problem with the illegality of drugs is that the demand for these drugs “must operate through repressed and illegal channels” (Friedman). He then ties this claim back to his main argument, suggesting that because the demand for drugs force drug lords turn to “murderous tactics” and is the source of “corruption of law enforcement officials.” The logic behind this assertion is that, because the drugs are illegal, the methods the suppliers need to take to overcome the law can be drastic, like murder and corruption.

Friedman also uses logos throughout his plea, particularly when arguing that drugs should treated similarly to alcohol and tobacco. First, Friedman uses the United States’ prohibition of alcohol as a historical example of the effectiveness, or lack thereof, associated with prohibiting certain substances. He then suggests that if drugs were to be decriminalized, there could still be laws “treating drugs as we now treat alcohol and tobacco: prohibiting sales of drugs to minors, outlawing the advertising of drugs and similar measures” (Friedman). Friedman uses logic to argue that this solution would be far easier to enforce than a total prohibition, creating a similar situation as alcohol and tobacco. Another claim he makes using basic logic is that if drug users were not considered criminals, there would be “fewer people in jails, and fewer jails would have been built” (Friedman). Friedman uses these logical claims in attempt to show Bennett how rational decriminalizing drugs is, making his argument easier to understand and support.

Milton Friedman, in “An Open Letter to Bill Bennett”, utilizes several different styles of rhetoric to persuade his audience to change their stance on the decriminalization of drugs. He appeals to Bennett’s emotions using pathos, calling the letter a plea from his heart and showing the damage the prohibition of drugs is causing. He attempts to appeal to logos by using logical statements to prove his point, even if the statements may be opinionated. Friedman also uses ethos as a Nobel Prize winning economist to clarify how much sense the decriminalization of drugs would make for the safety of the nation.