On the other hand, much stronger pro-decriminalisation arguments could have been made. Immediately following Califano’s anti-decriminalization article, Kailash Chand provided a strong pro-decriminalization piece in the British Medical Journal (Chand, 2007, p.967). Chand’s piece was much stronger because his argument did not contain use of emotional terms and fallacies that Michael Spratt’s editorial does. Instead, Chand also uses better logic and statistics. Other points such as drugs being regulated like other products to prevent them being laced with harmful chemicals is a strong reasoning for legalizing illicit drugs, the example of the Netherland’s decriminalization, and how the drug trade adds, enables, increases the number and magnitude of many other types of crime (Chand, 2007, p.967).
In conclusion, Spratt’s editorial goes beyond being persuasive and reaches the point of being aggressive and bullheaded. Through its use of emotional language, sassy attitude, lack of logic, and extreme bias his piece loses all its credibility to supporting decriminalization of one drug yet alone all illegal drugs.