It is true you can't believe everything you read. In the paragraphs that follow I have analyzed opposing viewpoints based on critical thinking standards such as fallacies, authors' bias and credibility. The two articles analyzed were "America Must Continue the War on Drugs" by Barry McCaffrey and "The War on Drugs Has Been Unsuccessful" by Daniel Spichtinger. One is written primarily using facts supported by a few opinions, while the other is written based mainly on opinions supported by a few facts.
             First, let's discuss the article written primarily with facts. For the purpose of this essay, we will consider the viewpoint that America must continue the war on drugs as the Pro side of the argument. The author of the article "America Must Continue the War on Drugs" is Barry McCaffrey. Mr. McCaffrey served as the director of the office of National Drug Control Policy from 1996 to 2001. Mr. McCaffrey states his case based almost solely on fact, which, in my view, makes him very credible.
             One of the facts the Mr. McCaffrey brings to light is the fact that America's confrontation with dangerous drugs dates back to the 19th century. During that time period, over-the-counter syrups were heavily laced with morphine. Whereas, Coca-Cola and other beverages contained cocaine, Bayer Pharmaceutical Products introduced heroin which the company touted as "non-addictive" and sold the drug without a prescription. Most Americans today think that the fight with drugs started in the 1960's. However, Mr. McCaffrey eloquently points out that America has been fighting the war on drugs since 1909. It was in 1909 that the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act banned the importation of smokable opium which provided the first national anti-drug legislation. Five years later, the Harrison Narcotic Act implemented even broader and more effective drug control laws.
             The author does an excel...