In Milton Friedman’s “An open letter to Bill Bennett,” he uses many rhetorical strategies to further his message that the prohibition of drugs only creates more problems. He does this through creative use of logos, ethos, and pathos. By presenting his argument amidst facts from previous ventures with prohibition, he uses logos efficiently to persuade his audience that his argument is the logical choice. When he argues that prohibition will cause American society to deteriorate, Friedman is using pathos to convince his audience that his argument is morally correct. Friedman’s argument uses ethos simply by being written by Friedman; his 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences assures his audience that his argument comes from a credible source. He also demonstrates his knowledge of his audience by shaping his arguments to their specific issues and worries. Using these four rhetorical strategies, Friedman creates a strong anti-prohibition argument, an effective counter against Bill Bennett and President Bush’s policies.

Friedman uses logos throughout most of his piece. The main evidence of his argument is his column from 1972, “Prohibition and Drugs.” He makes the argument that his prediction in that column has come true; the prohibition of heroin has led to the invention of cocaine, narco-terror across the countries of Latin America, hundreds of thousands of people have died, and ghettos of major U.S. cities have become “drug-and-crime-infested no-man’s lands.” This argument, along with the line “Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, ‘crack’ would never have been invented,” implies that had the American public listened to his previous column, cocaine would never have been invented, and the drug problem would be much less prevalent than it is. This implication provides a logical reason to believe this second letter, and also provides a sense of credibility to the work; a skilled use of ethos and logos together.

Friedman does not use much ethos in his letter; other than the implied use of ethos when mentioning his earlier 1972 work, the only other use of ethos by Friedman is his lack of ethos in the letter. The implication is that he has already established himself in this field; he has a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and has been writing pieces like this for at least 17 years. His credibility isn’t in question; his audience has been reading his pieces for years, and even new readers of his works have heard his name. Therefore, where one would expect an argument using ethos, a lack of ethos, as if to say, ‘You already know who I am,’ creates a stronger sense of credibility; even if the reader has never heard of Friedman, then they should find out, because he is obviously someone important.

Friedman’s use of pathos is also widespread throughout the letter. His main use of pathos comes in his closing paragraph, which starts with the line, “This plea comes from the bottom of my heart.” He states further that the United States will turn into a country filled with casual drug users and enforcers invading citizen’s privacy. He then goes on to claim that “Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp…” Friedman is implying with these sentences that, if the American people support Bill Bennett and President Bush’s policies against prohibition, that America will turn into an armed camp, full of drug users and unjust law enforcement.

Friedman also shapes his arguments to his specific audience. Friedman demonstrates his complete knowledge of his audience with his final sentence, “A country in which shooting down unidentified planes ‘on suspicion’ can be seriously considered as a drug-war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations.” He knows that his audience is mainly from the 30 to 40 year old age range; old enough to have kids, but not too old to where they have already let go of their kids enough for them to be independent. He knows that the foremost motivation of his audience is to protect and give the best future to their children, and with a masterful stroke of pathos, implicitly tells his audience that their children will suffer if they support Bill Bennett and President Bush.

Overall, in his letter to President Bush and Bill Bennett, Friedman uses many different cases of logos and pathos, with implied yet powerful uses of ethos as well. He also demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of his audience, which he uses to aim his arguments effectively, even as he shapes them with logos, pathos, and ethos. The combination of these rhetorical strategies, as well as knowledge of his audience, creates a strong anti-prohibition argument, and a successful counter to President Bush and Bill Bennett’s policies on prohibition.