In 1989, the American economist Milton Friedman wrote a letter to Bill Bennett persuading him that the decriminalization of drugs is a crucial event that must happen, to end the sufferings and negative effects of what the criminalization has done. Friedman uses logos (the appeal to logic and reasoning), pathos (the appeal to emotion) and ethos (the appeal to credibility), to catch the attention of his reader.

To attract the audience to his letter, Friedman uses his logic and reasoning to establish his argument. He uses real world evidence to convey his message: “Had drugs been decriminalized 17 years ago, “crack” would have never have been invented (it was invented because the high cost of illegal drugs made it profitable to provide a cheaper version) and there would today be far fewer addicts” (307). Appealing to logic, Friedman presents the idea that the government could have prevented tragedies from happening if something was done earlier. He uses reasoning to prove that the longer drugs are criminalized, the worse things are going to get, and people are going to get creative in ways to obtain them. By criminalizing drugs people are going to want them even more and it will lead to more crimes committed, just to get there hands on them. Friedman’s logic is, if drugs are decriminalized, there will be less chaos and worse alternatives. Not only does he use an economic outlook but he also uses logic by comparing the present times to a historical event: “Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages” (307). Friedman tries to put it in perspective that we are repeating the same mistakes in history, instead of learning from them. The more illegal alcohol was in the 1920s, the more people wanted to rebel and get crazy. He ties the past into the present so that people can visually see a pattern of what could happen. By giving his audience a concrete example, people could actually believe what he is saying.

The second tactic Friedman uses is pathos, to appeal to the emotions of people and persuade Bennett that there is more suffering of human beings with drugs being decriminalized. Friedman’s evidence states, “Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru would not be suffering from narco-terror and we would not be distorting our foreign policy because of narco-terror” (307). This pertains to the emotional appeal since it causes people to feel and experience the pain that others are going through. Because of drug’s criminalization, it has lead to the suffering of others, making the government feel guilty for what they have done. The doings of our country has affected others, but it has also affected the people of our own: “Today, also the problem is more serious than it was 17 years ago: more addicts, more innocent victims; more drug pushers, more law enforcement officials; more money spent to enforce prohibition, more money spent to circumvent prohibition” (307). He persuades the audience that the criminalization of drugs has negativity hurt everyone, not just the dug users themselves. Throughout the years these problems have expanded and hit people in several aspects. From the emotional suffering of addicts to the money spent on enforcement there has been a wide range of time and pain because of the illegality of drugs.

Friedman has appealed to logic and reasoning and now he establishes the credibility of his argument by presenting his audience with knowledge using evidence from the news and historical events. As mentioned earlier, he brings up the sufferings of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru from the news. He reminds the audience of the past: the history of the Prohibition. He gives the readers real facts, to earn his authority. He also uses his own previous statements: “I append excerpts from a column that I wrote in 1972 on “Prohibition and Drugs.” The major problem then was heroin from Marseilles; today, it is cocaine from Latin America” (307). He presents the audience with disheartening real facts to prove that he can be trusted. He also gives examples of how the criminalization has altered and affected various aspects of people’s lives, not just addiction: “Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is the demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels…illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for recourses to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault” (306). By criminalizing drugs the government is also increasing the crimes that are used to get the drugs. It is a cycle that repeats over and over again. Friedman does not just state that there is a problem but he shows his audience the problem, which boosts his credibility.

Yet this letter was initially written to Bennett, it has reached the hands of the rest of the country, and has appealed to a bigger audience because of Friedman’s use of techniques. Now, the readers’ minds have been stretched, hearts and eyes have been opened, and they have established a connection and trust between themselves and Friedman.