In 2012 in an interview about her documentary, Cocaine Unwrapped director Rachel Seifert told journalist Nick Curtis of the London Evening Standard, that:

"I don’t have a moral issue with people taking cocaine, per se. I think we have to accept the fact that people will always take drugs. A lot of us have tried it, and a lot of people like it. If rich people in London want to take cocaine, then let them. But they have to acknowledge they are part of a chain, and should be standing up and demanding that it shouldn’t be attached to death, destruction and blood at the other end.” [emphasis added by Timmons]

Given that statement, answer the following questions in a post of three paragraphs (one paragraph to answer each of the enumerated questions).

1. Is Seifert's statement:

an assumption

a hypothesis

a form of analysis

or political rhetoric?

2. Describe how Seifert's film supports what Drugs: Policy, Social Costs, Crime and Justice author Zilney would call an "alternative approach" to drug control. What type of "alternative approach" is Seifert recommending?

3. What questions does Seifert's documentary neither pose nor answer about contemporary drug control but which merit consideration?

Give scholarly reasons (based in evidence–examples, quotes, etc.) for your answer drawn from Zilney, Cocaine Unwrapped, and other reputable sources. 

This is also due tonight at 11 pm MT. time