In Milton Friedman’s “An Open Letter to Bill Bennet”, Milton asks Bennet to refrain from taking on the ‘war on drugs’. He uses deliberative rhetoric in order to make a case against criminalizing drugs and how it negatively impacts our society. Bill Bennet and George Bush want to create harsher punishments for drug user, thus filling jails and increasing police. The author is pleading his case for why these things are not a resolution. Comparing the war on drugs to prohibition and it’s total failure, he backs up his claims with examples. He also uses pathos to appeal to Bennet’s emotions about how much this means to Americans, and the detrimental effects it will cause. His well structured argument makes you take a step back and realize the immediate solution isn’t the right one.

Friedman begins his letter appealing to Bennet’s emotions as well as inserting facts to start his argument. He “beseeches” (paragraph one) him to recognize that they path they want to take can only make things worse. Milton admits that there is a problem in the United States with drugs, however he explains that taking it on negatively is not the answer. They are both seeking the same end, which is to end drug abuse and its debilitating affects on society. The author want’s Bennet to understand and evaluate how the government can use different means to meet the end they all want. He explains the cause and effect of every action that could be taken against drugs in a simple way.

Wilton makes an argument by example of how fighting the use of drugs is just like prohibition. Prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking alcohol, they continued to do it illegally and subsequently more dangerously. Friedman employs ethos by using another article he wrote about prohibition and drugs which present his background and experience with the topic at hand. Yet again he provides cause and effect. If drugs were decriminalized, more serious, illegal drugs wouldn’t have circulated such as crack. Accordingly, less addicts, jails, and drug lords would exist. This deliberative rhetoric argues that future choices and changes-in this case decriminalizing drugs- can prevent future decline.

He is also highlighting how important it is to act fast and try to prevent future decline of society. His sense of urgency in his writing encourages the reader to take it more seriously. Friedman states that postponing the decriminalization will only make matters worse (paragraph eight) which makes the argument more serious. His concerns include the loss of innocent lives, more drug pushers, as well as the use of military in other countries. These are all concerns of the general public so he’s appealing to them as well.

Although he doesn’t use factual evidence he adds to his argument for decriminalizing drugs by talking about the results that could occur. His argument is that we could treat drugs like alcohol and tobacco by limiting it to minors and controlling how it is being sold. If we decriminalize it, illegal drug trade will almost cease because of the non criminal options. He argues that alcohol and tobacco use cause many more deaths that drugs which helps his argument for decriminalization. He’s trying to shed a more positive light on his argument.

The essay also begins and ends with epideictic rhetoric, urging Bennet to consider the values and morals he wants for society and how to attain them. An example of this is when he is talking about how compassion over punishment is more constructive in helping users overcome addiction and use. His biggest highlight of the epideictic rhetoric is how he finishes his letter. He wraps up by stating that they don’t want to hand this type of culture to future generations. This is a key argument because it will make Bennett, and readers, think about the legacy they want to leave behind.

It also deploys the use of pathos in the beginning and end, “beseeching” and “plea from the bottom of heart” both appeal to the readers emotions.This letter was published in the wall street journal, so although it is addressed to Bill Bennet, the result of readers opinions is almost more important.  Friedman writes the letter showcasing his emotional investment in this issue. He’s hoping others will recognize this and take it as seriously as he does. Although his argument might not appeal to Bennet or even reach him, the impact it will leave on readers is essential.