Reasonable Rules for Pot Growers

The Denver Post article titled “Reasonable Rules for Pot Growers” does a satisfactory job of convincing its readers. The topic at hand is that medical marijuana growers will need to undergo a biyearly inspection that will determine whether or not they are corrupting the neighborhood around them, and if they should be allowed to stay. There was recently a re-zoning that was passed by the state legislature and it affected where medical marijuana growers could exist. There are some 50-odd businesses that will not be forced to conform, and instead will be under government scrutiny every two years. These businesses will be looked at to insure that they are not “degrading the neighborhood with refuse, noise and crime” (Denver Post). The editors make the argument that it might be wiser and better logistically to only hold these meetings if needed; i.e. when neighbors petition for a hearing when one of these grower’s licenses was up for renewal. They also claim that the requirement of a hearing every two years creates a lot of unneeded government busywork.

As the writers of this article, the editors of the Denver Post used kairos well in this specific editorial. The time is ripe to discuss how medical marijuana growers will soon be outside proper zoning regulations because these regulations were just put into effect. The editors used a current event and put a little bit of controversy into it. Another way that this article is published in a timely fashion is how anything that has to do with marijuana is already tagged as debated and maybe even scandalous. In this editorial, the editors of the Denver Post did not even write one word about whether or not the legalization of marijuana is right or wrong. They stuck to the topic of the new restrictions put upon these growers without getting too opinionated about a different topic.

This piece is written to the general public. It is addressed to citizens of the Denver area that this might be directly affecting, or maybe just people who enjoy discussing such things. The audience is very broad, as anyone who lives in the state of Colorado could be remotely affected from this.

The supporting claims made here were strong. The editors’ focused on logical reasoning. They claimed that “Growers already face significant oversight and rules from the state. Why add more if there is no apparent need?” (Denver Post) The editors reasoned that the only thing that these extra required hearings would accomplish is give another hoop for these medical marijuana growers to jump through. In a sense, it would achieve nothing, while creating a hassle for everyone involved. According to the Post, these inquiries are just completely superfluous. However, the editors were not unreasonable. They believed that if “If opponents can prove that grow operations are boosting crime rates in the neighborhood, or are causing excessive noise, odor or traffic, they could force out the grow operation” (Denver Post).

I believe that the editors’ appeal to logic is their strongest argumentative point. This logic is exemplified in the sentence in the article that states: “Given that the state is requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to grow at least 70 percent of the marijuana they sell, there needs to be some place to grow it (Denver Post).” They tend to lean towards everyday commonsense to support their points of view. One of the commonplaces that they imply is the assumption that all people do not want noise, odor, and crime in their neighborhoods. This is obviously a given, but it is worth noting as the commonplaces are center to the editors’ argument.

Overall, the persuasiveness of this piece is strong. It takes the side that the compromise to let marijuana growers keep their current locations is the correct path to go about what the Colorado government is doing. It uses mostly logic with a dash of sarcasm to convince the reader that the Denver Post’s editors’ verdict is the correct one.