In Milton Friedman’s “An Open Letter to Bill Bennett, he begs Bennett to reconsider the fight against drugs that him as well as President Bush are pushing for. He hopes that his appeal through emotions, diction, and reference to historical events that Bennett will consider decriminalizing drugs in order to prevent further illegal drug use and the “undermining of human liberty and individual freedom” that the two both cherish.

Friedman appeals to Bennett as a friend and connects with him through their common interests such as patriotism and love for America. In his first paragraph Friedman states, “The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish” (Friedman). By addressing Bennett as an acquaintance rather than a coworker, Bennett feels inclined to listen and give Friedman’s point of view more thought than he normally would have if this letter had been written by a stranger. Friedman creates a direct connection between the two through their love of America. If Bennett was truly a patriotic individual than he would consider other options in the interest of the people rather than being close-minded. In addition, he concludes his letter by claiming “this plea is from the bottom of my heart” and that if Bennett is a “friend of freedom” then starting a drug war is the wrong move in terms of stopping drug use and overdoses. Friedman implies that if Bennett truly cares about Americans and their well-being he would reconsider his idea of creating stricter drug policies not only as a politician but as a friend to Friedman, who is essentially begging him to make a decision that would better the future of their beloved country instead of creating more violence.

Furthermore, Friedman repeats the phrase “you are not mistaken” in order to create a stronger point as well as show that he is not trying to undermine Bennett’s ideas and authority but to show him a different perspective. “You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken that believing that rugs are tearing under our social fabric… Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are the major source of evils you deplore” (306). By using this concession-rebuttal technique, it demonstrates that Friedman recognizes and agrees with Bennett’s goal but disagrees with his solution. It also brings attention to readers that Friedman has read and addressed Bennett’s argument but believes that there are better ways in creating a long-term solution. By understanding that Friedman has essentially the same end goal, Bennett may continue the letter with an open mindset, knowing the two are not at odds with their ideas on how drug has harmed America, but only in how to address the situation. The choice to repeat the phrase “you are not mistaken” just further connects the idea that they should work together and listen to another instead of working individually.

Moreover, Friedman refers to the prohibition period where the banning of alcohol just furthered the use of obtaining alcoholic beverages illegally while promoting more crime and corruption. The idea of prohibition didn’t work years ago, why should it work now? If anything, Friedman explains that it would be even harder to maintain since there are more drug addicts and pushers making the upkeep of a prohibition cost even more money to maintain. He gives another example of how if drugs were decriminalized seventeen years ago, “crack” would never have been invented leading to fewer addicts and deaths today. With reference to these historical events, it makes Bennett question if the idea of prohibition is the right path for America. It brings up the question if this so-called solution is helping or harming the population. He may feel less confident in his belief of starting this “drug war” and be open to more effective solutions that will also cost less money. By using historical context to provide further evidence to arguing his point of view, it makes it harder to advocate for another prohibition period.

All in all, Friedman uses rhetorical devices such as diction, appeal to emotion, and reference to history in order to persuade his audience, Bennett, to not only stop his path on starting a drug war but to actually begin the process of decriminalizing drugs immediately. He hopes his position as a peer can convince Bennett to change his path and see that Bennett’s solution will only harm society as a whole and affect future generations as well.