If one was to compare and contrast the ideas presented by Alan Dershowitz in “The case for Medicalizing Heroin” and those in Charles Rangel’s “Legalize Drugs? Not On Your Life”, it would be easy to mistake these for a debate from today. These arguments, despite being written in the 1980’s are still valid in today’s society. It is a daily question of our government of legalizing and medicalizing drugs such as marijuana and also decriminalizing or legalizing harder drugs like heroin or crack-cocaine. The opposing view points of these two men are offered to the reader in a variety of appeals.  Dershowitz offers a logical argument for legalizing drugs. Supported both by fact and opinion. He offers to the reader the benefits of not only the society and economy but the addicts themselves. There would be less victims of drug abuse, and less victims of the unintentional side i.e. those who are infected with HIV/AIDS. He uses the argument that is most commonly used today of comparing drugs to alcohol and tobacco. That alcohol has proven to be as dangerous if not more than drugs and we’ve legalized those. We have also seen what happens when we outlaw them.  Rangel is against the legalization of drugs, his argument is presented by questions posed to the reader to prove the adverse or catastrophic consequences that would come of legalizing drugs. He takes us through all of the ramifications of legalization and swiftly rebutted the arguments for it.

These two men use logical and ethical appeals to argue their opposing views of drug legalization. Both could be looked at today almost 30 years later and apply their ideas to today’s society.

• Dershowitz. Alan, "The Case for Medicalizing Heroin" from Contrary to Popular Opinion. 1992. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Prose Models 11th ed. Harcourt College Publishers, 1975. 
• Rangel Charles. "Legalize Drugs? Not on Your Life" from The New York Times. 1988. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Prose Models 11th ed. Harcourt College Publishers, 1975.