Outline of Industrial Hemp Report

1. Introduction. Hemp restrictions have been based on emotion not logic and greed of wealthy men who used fear and smear tactics to convince Americans of the evils of marihuana.
2. Thesis- I believe the restrictions to grow industrial Hemp in the United States should be lifted because it is a legal product; it could be a vital resource to the world and the U.S. Government should not impede on economic freedoms of its citizens.
3. Historical Background Info- We can trace Hemp production back to 10,000 BC, China. It was considered one of their two main sources of clothing; mulberry and hemp. How did we get from there to modern day bans of such a versatile plant?
4. Statistics- What are the main categories for products and uses of hemp?
5. Refutation of challenging views- Is it a gateway product to legalizing marijuana? Would it lead to an increase in crime; such as marijuana producers using the fields as a cover?  
6. Appeal to logic- What does the restrictions do to the basic economic freedoms that this country is based on? This country and the world have agreed that we need to use green products (renewable products) and how does this product accomplish that?  
7. Appeal to compassion- Hemp is one of the most nutritious foods. Could is help end world hunger?
8. Evidence- Scientific and Ecology Facts regarding the growing and cultivating of hemp.
9. Appeal to authority- What legality does DEA stand on with the Controlled Substance Act if this is exempt? What other branches of government are involved with this issue? What is the stance of states toward development of industrial hemp as an agricultural product?
10. Conclusion

Dr.King and Rogerian Model

King was trying to open a bridge between himself and his critics; by writing a letter he made it a personal dialogue instead of a manifesto which would be a declaration of his beliefs.  A declaration does not acknowledge the beliefs of both sides; it states the beliefs of one side.

He identified the assumption that the critics were “men of genuine good will…..criticisms are sincerely set forth”.  He wrote what he understood his critics’ side was and where they were coming from and then gave his side with his explanation (claim). He found common ground with the fact(s) that they were all clergy and they were all Americans with the desire for freedom.

He seemed un-Rogerian when he openly criticized other clergy for the lack of participation in the struggle for human rights, even saying their lack of action was worse that of any hate group.  I would believe Dr.King was trying to open their eyes to the fact that no action was similar to an approval of the immoral acts that were being carried out.   Sometimes to see the truth the veil of politeness needs to be removed; hopefully that is how his intended readers saw it. 

King used Aristotelian appeals throughout his letter.  His use of ethos is demonstrated when he show his credibility of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference  and further as a member of the human race who is willing to stand up for injustice.  His use of pathos is demonstrated when he gives examples of the damage that racial injustice is doing to the future generations of Americans and to humankind in general.   Finally, logos is demonstrated though the use of citations and quotes from credible sources such as Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. 

 In his last paragraph he looks forward to meeting them as brothers in faith and to work together.  

Kings essay shows the Rogerian model by the Introduction in which he introduced his reason for writing which was “to answer criticism of his work and ideas”.   . He wrote about the different sides with their respective claims.  He showed both sides wanted the same ‘civil rights’.  He gave examples of why it was unjust laws were wrong and why civilized people should not follow them. The analogies of the Nazis and Jews to what was legal were very relevant to his case.

If King had taken a classic approach with a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ it would have further divided the opposing sides. Instead using this approach brought them together; everyone wins with communities that are whole and not divided.