Research paper on Alexander Calder

            
             Pete Hamill maintains in his argumentative essay that television not only leads to drug use, but is the main cause of this wicked and villainous problem. This idea is hard to imagine when looked at logically instead from his unsteady standpoint that only poorly supports a vague opinion. Hamill doesn't seem to realize that television is relatively innocent compared to drugs, and he also fails to treat drug addiction as a serious problem muddled with complex issues. Worst of all, though, he over-simplifies the whole concept by leaping to the outwardly silly assumption that mindless television watching leads to mindless drug use.
             Some people, on the other hand, might agree with Hamill plainly because they find that it is easier to uncover and try to ease the symptoms of a disease rather than searching out and curing the actual condition. Both television and drugs offer a reliable escape from reality, and so one can conceive that they can also be equated with each other. Drugs are a logical step, as well, that substitutes for the instant gratification that television provides, or provided at one time. Lastly, when looking at certain facts in his essay, Hamill's point seems to have some kind of basis, until the facts are examined more closely to reveal an entirely biased notion. In his essay, it is stated that the number of televisions in the U.S., from 1955 to present, has increased in direct proportion to the number of felony drug charges, but population has increased, and probably in direct proportions to both the number of TV's and to felony drug charges.
             To put it simply, drugs, no matter how "soft" or socially acceptable, can in no way be considered equivalent to something as comparatively faultless as television. Of course, television and drugs are both forms of passive entertainment, but television cannot, in even the most severe cases, alter the mind enough to bring about the violence drugs are notorious of causing.