The war on drugs is threatening America’s society now more than ever. People have been struggling to find solutions to this daunting problem. In 1989, Bill Bennett, the current drug czar of the United States, wanted to enforce harsher penalties for drug users by requesting to build more jails and increasing police force used against drug offenders. Milton Friedman, a famous libertarian economist, was strongly opposed to the ideas of Bennett and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. He felt so strongly as to write “An Open Letter to Bill Bennett” in the Wall Street Journal. Friedman uses his own reputation and his arguments to build his credibility to make a reasonable case as to why Bennett’s solution to the drug problem is harmful, while also using pathos to further build his argument by appealing emotionally to Bennett and the drug epidemic, arguing that drugs should be decriminalized as well.

Friedman relies on ethos to establish his credibility for his argument. Milton Friedman is a very accomplished and well-known man. He was popularly known as an American economist and is even a Nobel prize winner for his work in economic sciences. This alone creates the foundation for his argument, as his solid reputation and experience demand respect from his audience, being Bill Bennett. Friedman begins the letter by quoting, “‘I beseech you, [Bennett], in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken’ about the course you and President Bush urge us to adopt to fight drugs” (Friedman, 306). Quoting the famous British politician Oliver Cromwell was not necessary here, but Friedman utilizes Cromwell’s credibility to add to his own, simply by making his own argument sound more intelligent. At the same time, Friedman’s argument is established by questioning Bennett’s course of action on the drug problem. In the next paragraph, Friedman acknowledges Bennett’s point of view on fighting drugs by saying Bennett is “not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society”, and that he is “not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us” (Friedman, 306). By validating Bennett’s claims on drugs, Bennett can see that Friedman has deliberated each side of the situation before coming up with his conclusion, further building his credibility. Friedman uses an ethos-heavy argument so that Bennett gains respect for Friedman, and by doing that also shows the discontent that Friedman has for Bennett’s future plans to stop the drug problem.

Furthermore, Friedman utilizes pathos to convince Bennett of his stance on the drug issue by appealing to Bennett’s emotions and making the topic about the greater good of Americans. Friedman argues that if drugs had been decriminalized seventeen years ago, “the lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent victims would have been saved” (Friedman, 307). In a sort of “I told you so” way, Friedman is boasting that his ideas would have saved many lives had they been implemented earlier, but this can be remedied by fixing the issue now. Diction choices like “innocent” and “saved” are very emotionally-driven words, emphasizing the terrible effect that drugs have on American society. This makes the argument more personal and again guilt trips Bennett into thinking he has the responsibility to end the countless innocent lives lost. To end the letter, Friedman admits he is pleading for Bennett to change his stance on drugs. He writes, “every friend of freedom, as I know you are, must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users” (Friedman, 307). Friedman demonstrates how passionate he is about this argument by discussing future problems America will face if nothing is done to decriminalize drugs. He shows compassion for the rest of the Americans and makes the issue more personal than political, thus using pathos to strengthen his claim.

In his letter to Bill Bennett, Milton Friedman uses ethos and pathos to attempt to convince Bennett his approach to combat the drug war is not what the country needs. Friedman focuses heavily on his credibility, both as a respected economist and as someone who is able to see both sides of the situation. Friedman also uses ethos to appeal emotionally to Bennett, carefully choosing diction to make Bennett wary of the atrocities that the drug problem causes, and the benefits of what decriminalizing drugs would do. This calculated approach allows Friedman to get his point across in a sophisticated manner, what is expected when addressing the drug czar of the United States.