Chemicals That Fix the Brain :: Biology Essays Research Papers

Chemicals That Fix the Brain The discovery of how the brain heals itself began, as discoveries often do, with a question: Why do children who suffer brain damage often recover fully, while adults with the same kind of damage are permanently incapacitated? University of Wisconsin neurobiologist Ronald Kalil was among those who pursued the question (15). His studies in young cats showed that entire networks of brain cells could be routed around damaged areas. Young animals whose primary vision centers were destroyed could still learn to see normally, he found, because cells in another part of their brains took up the job of processing vision. Yet, adult animals suffering the same destruction had no such luck (7). What was the difference? Kalil finally determined that young animal brains are awash in chemicals called growth factors, while adult brains have far lower levels (11). He surmised that the abundance of growth factors helps the new brains organize themselves. When damage occurs, the growth factors simply start over and rebuild damaged networks. Adults have fewer growth factors because their brains, although they constantly undergo changes, are, for the most part, completed. All of which led to another question: Would adding extra growth factors prevent permanent damage in adult brains? Soaking tiny sponges with a variety of growth factors, Kalil placed them inside newly damaged brain areas of adult cats. He and his colleagues found that these adult brains acted more like infant brains: Instead of suffering permanent damage, the adult brains repaired themselves. This ability of the brain to rewire itself, grow new parts for damaged cells, and even make new cells-its "plasticity," was thought to be impossible only a few years ago (4). Brain cells, medical students were taught, were hardwired like so many computer transistors. Once they burned out, that was the end. Brain cells certainly could not sprout new communications lines to take over the jobs of nonfunctioning cells, it was said. Nor could they regenerate themselves after being hurt. Moreover, they absolutely could not divide to replenish the brain with new cells. All those "truths" are being tossed out as brain research undergoes a revolution fueled by molecular biology's remarkable ability to reveal the secrets of cells. Scientists now can hunt down and copy genes that govern cell reassembly and harness them for use in repairing damaged brains (3). The power of these tools was stunningly demonstrated with the discovery of a gene called NeuroD, which plays an essential role in the embryonic development of the brain and nervous system (6).

Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay

The aim of this paper is to logically apply reason to assess the arguments for the legalization of marijuana, and by doing so point out flaws in these arguments. Furthermore, this paper will assess the credibility and the source of these arguments, and present counter arguments to conclude that marijuana should not be a legal drug in California and the rest of the United States. First I will consider The National Organizations for the Reform of Marijuana Law’s â€Å"Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use† which is the basis for their argument for the legalization of marijuana, and how this set of principles is flawed. Second I will consider the claim â€Å"that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner† and also consider the source of this claim. Third I will emphasize the negative social effects of legalization of marijuana in order to counter the claims for legalization. Finally I will conclude that given these factors, legalization of marijuana would be harmful and detrimental to society as a whole, possessing little or no economic, social, or medical benefits. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law is the leading lobbyist group for the legalization of marijuana in the United States. This organization has made it their commitment to have marijuana legalized in a taxable way as tobacco and alcohol currently are. This organization rationalizes it’s arguments with a document called the â€Å"Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use† in which is attempts to justify marijuana reform in a socially accepted manner. The very title of the document is ambiguous, the word â€Å"responsible† is a very circumstantial term and is subject to many different interpretations. Furthermore the document assumes that if legalized, citizens will adhere to this unofficial â€Å"code of ethics†, however we can evidently see with alcohol and tobacco that there is abuse regardless of the regulating laws. Despite this, NORML attempts to lay out their interpretation for what â€Å"responsible marijuana use† is ( 4 ); their first point is that marijuana is to be for adults only, and that it is irresponsible to provide marijuana to children. The terms â€Å"adults† and â€Å"children† again are ambiguous, it is not clear where the line is drawn between what defines an adult or a child. This is a concern because many would assume a child is no longer a child after eighteen years of age, thus it can be determined that eighteen and over is considered a â€Å"responsible† user. It need not be said that current alcohol restrictions limit a user to twenty-one and over. According to a 2005 Monitoring the Future Study, â€Å"three-fourths of 12th graders, more than two-thirds of 10th graders, and about two in every five 8th graders have consumed alcohol†( 5 ), with this evidence it would be wishful thinking to assume marijuana would be any different. To further consider this point 6.8% of children ages 12 to 17 use marijuana on an occasional basis ( 5 ). It would be reasonable to conclude that if marijuana was legalized that number would increase drastically. Second the NORML’s â€Å"Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use† attempts to rationalize legal marijuana use by claiming that if legalized responsible users will refrain from driving ( 4 ). Although an illegal drug, it is not surprising that there are already statistics regarding marijuana impaired driving in many states. California who just recently had a proposition for the legalization of marijuana has some of the most relevant statistics; there are various counties in California that have a 16% or higher marijuana involved traffic fatalities ( 3 ). This number would only increase with the legalization, and that is not to include the the amount of non fatal accidents that would occur annually. A recent study by Alfred Crancer and Alan Crancer projected that traffic fatalities would increase by as much as 300% with legalization ( 3 ). Third NORML claims that â€Å"The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly†. In this claim there is much room for a line-drawing fallacy, in which it is difficult and conveniently vague and up to the individual to determine what set and setting is actually appropriate for usage. It could be assumed under this principle that its safe to use marijuana while caring for children, elderly, while driving, and also very relevantly while working. Forth NORML claims that a responsible marijuana user will â€Å"resist abuse†. They define abuse by: â€Å"Abuse means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful; most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged; that which is not need not be.† A clever statement however invalid and illogical. Drug abuse is defined as an uncontrollable urge for constant seeking of intoxicants ( 2 ). Many users would be unaware of their abuse, until the point in which it has destroyed their livelihood, relationships, economic security, and health. Legalization would only increase the numbers of active addicts, and make marijuana readily available for them, and being legal, consequently restraining family, friends, and the courts from restricting an addicts use before to much harm is done. The final claim made by NORML is a â€Å"Respect for Rights of Others† in which they attempt to justify the fact that if marijuana was legal, non users will have to deal with it. Again it is wishful thinking to see that users will have respect for the others who are not users, however while illegal we can see that many still cultivate marijuana, drive under the influence of it, and use it as socially as possible. A strict layout of parameters that must be followed with public and private use of the drug would be acceptable, however advocates for the cause prefer the vagueness, in which there are no absolute lines that can be drawn between legal and illegal use (ie. Driving, social events, age, etc.). The entire document is a rationalization and does not seem to give a valid or true pretense to satisfy desires. The most relevant claim argued against in this paper is the claim that â€Å"marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner†. This claim by itself has the vagueness and ambiguity of a typical bill or legislation. It is this vagueness and ambiguity that encroach on the freedoms of citizens everyday. The fact is that marijuana is a drug, it was made illegal by the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970 to stop the violence and abuse that was common practice. We have seen in other countries failed attempts to regulate and tax drugs, like the Netherlands, and we have seen the damage drugs can have on society as a hole, like the dangerous drug cartels that rule Mexico. In evaluating this claim it is also important to consider the sources, one of the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization is Robert Lee. Lee is president of â€Å"Oaksterdam University† a school that teaches students how to cultivate, grow, process, and cure marijuana ( 3 ). It would seem highly logical to acknowledge that this man is not interested in the social repercussions of legalization. His motive is clearly for the profit that can come from legalization. Legalization would drastically increase the amount of growers and interested parties in his school. Another strong voice in pro-legalization is the company S.K. Seymour LLC which is a Medical Cannabis Provider ( 3 ), who again would see a dramatic increase in profit and sales due to the fact that they can open up their business to the public, and not just medical marijuana patients. It seems that neither of the sources, from the research done, are interested in the negative and adverse affects of legalization and only interested in the lucrative value of legalization. It is also important to analyze the negative social effects of marijuana on society, most notably the economic affects and the medical effects. Recent proposition 19 in California stated that: â€Å"No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.† Basically stating that employers can no longer regulate marijuana use while working unless it can show that performance is being impaired by use ( 3 ). Proposition 19 also is in conflict with the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which prohibits the use of marijuana for recreational use. This would be a mistake by California due to the fact that the state would loose billions of federal dollars in the form of grants and aid called for by the Federal Workplace Act of 1988. Not only would government loose money but also schools and medical centers can potentially be affected ( 3 ). The health risks for marijuana usage are as noteworthy as the social repercussions. Marijuana is known to cause A-motivational syndrome, which is a depressed state of the brain in which reaction times and motivation is affected by long term use ( 3 ). Furthermore â€Å"the gateway theory† blames marijuana as the compromise that leads an individual to try harder more harmful drugs. Lastly marijuana has been placed on the California Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic materials, as proven materials that cause cancer ( 3 ). In this paper I argued that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law’s definitions and reasoning for a â€Å"responsible legal† user is flawed. Many of their arguments are invalid and lack sound reasoning to a conclusion. That the claim that marijuana should be legal and taxed is not a fully developed claim and that the sources of the claim’s motives are not sound in reasoning for legalization. Finally I argued that if marijuana is legalized it would be detrimental to society specifically regarding medical and economic problems. The arguments for legalization are not convincing and present many fallacies, Legalization supporters have the wrong idea of controlled use.

Punishment and Sentencing Paper - 1278 Words

Punishment and Sentencing Paper CJA/224 Garrett LeGrange September 17, 2010 There are many different philosophies that are in use in the court systems when determining what sort of punishment will be imposed on someone who is found guilty of committing a crime. These philosophies are in use in both the adult courts and juvenile courts. The juvenile court system is similar to the adult courts, but there are many differences between the two. Both court systems try and keep crime from happening and both courts sentence those found guilty to some sort of punishment through the punishment philosophy that the court determines is a suitable approach for preventing future crime. Deterrence is the first punishment philosophy. Deterrence is†¦show more content†¦This philosophys thought is that the victim of a crime is part of the sentencing process. This means that persons found guilty of committing crimes must compensate the victim of their crime. Restoration is the attempt to make the victims of crimes whole again. This philosophy makes the attempt to make someone guilty of a crime actually pay for their crime to the victim. The juvenile court system has a higher concentration on rehabilitating offenders so that they do not end up in adult courts. In the juvenile system, rehabilitation is the most used philosophy so that the children in the courts may have the opportunity to live a life outside of prison. Adult courts do try and rehabilitate those that are found guilty of committing crimes, but more often than not, rehabilitation is combined with incarceration. Adult courts also differ from juvenile courts because in adult courts there is a presentation of evidence to try and determine guilt. Juvenile courts on the other hand examine the actions of a juvenile and try and determine how to rehabilitate the individual. The sanctions that serve as a guide for judges are probably one of the most important tools that can be used in courts. Adult and juvenile courts can both use sanctions to their advantage. When sanctions are used properly , they can be a very good deterrent for those thinking about committing a crime. These sanctions can be many different things assigned to crimes to help and deterShow MoreRelatedSentencing Paper Individual1170 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿ Sentencing Paper Toska Reed Introduction of Corrections/CJA234 February 02, 2015 University of Phoenix Online Professor John Eckert Sentencing Paper In this paper will describe how the system analyzes the principal objectives of punishment within the United States correctional system. It will also describe how the state and federal systems goals of punishment. How does sentencing affect the state and federal corrections systems overall and I will explain and support my answer? AlsoRead MoreMale And Female Sentencing : A Look Into Alternative Sentencing1274 Words   |  6 PagesMale Sentencing A Look into Alternative Sentencing Ritchey, Christian American Military University Author Note This paper was prepared for CRMJ201. Abstract With incarceration rates rising and jail and prison populations at an all-time high, alternative sentencing is being used more often with non-violent offenders. This paper looks at male and female incarceration rates, the use of alternative programs for sentencing between the two and the effectiveness of such programs. During the paper we willRead MoreSentencing Paper1264 Words   |  6 PagesSentencing Paper Tushar Vincent Botlero 12 March 2012 CJ/A-234 Melissa Andrewjeski Sentencing Paper   Punishment has been a subject of deliberate among philosophers, political leaders,  and lawyers  for centuries. Various theories of punishment have been developed, each of which attempts to justify the practice in some form and to state its proper objectives. The quantity and severity of punishments were reduced, the prison system have been improved. According to the MontgomeryRead MoreEssay on Criminal Sentencing Purpose1300 Words   |  6 Pages Criminal Sentencing purpose There was once a Television show name â€Å"Berretta† and the show theme song said do not do crime if you cannot do the time. That is a true saying, one that should be on every criminal mind why they are committing a crime. Sentencing a criminal for crimes for which they have been convicted of is their due punishment according to the severity of the crime committed. The Courts have for centuries punished criminals accordingRead MoreEffects of Punishment805 Words   |  4 PagesEffects of Punishment and Sentencing Jesus Lujan Jr. CJS/200 February 13, 2011 University of Phoenix- Robert Winkler Effects of Punishment and Sentencing The Effects of Punishment and Sentencing Punishment and sentencing are an integral part of our criminal justice system. There are four basic philosophical reasons for sentencing retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. There are some factors that that can affect how a wrongdoer is punished. There is a debate surroundingRead MoreState And Federal Objectives Of Punishment1040 Words   |  5 PagesAbstract In this paper I will go over state and federal objectives of punishment. How sentencing affects the state and federal corrections systems will also be discussed. There are two different types of sentencing which are determinate and indeterminate sentencing, and they will be defined in this paper. State and Federal Objectives of Punishment There are four different fundamental objectives of punishment. The four different faces of punishment are deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, andRead MoreSentencing Guilty Verdict1067 Words   |  4 PagesI. Introduction Sentencing is defined as the penalty phase which follows a guilty verdict levied for a criminal act (The Free Dictionary, 2014). Sentencing attempts to accomplish four goals: a. Punishment b. Incapacitation c. Deterrence d. Rehabilitation (Renter, 2008) When imposing legal sanctions we must consider the criminal act committed. The importance of this consideration lies in fact that the punishment should fit the crime. We would not want to sentence a child to life imprisonment forRead MoreThe Concept Of Mandatory Sentencing1096 Words   |  5 PagesThe concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. RecentlyRead MoreCriminal Justice Outline1660 Words   |  7 PagesProcess of Law b. Trial- Judge and Supreme court roles c. Sentencing – 3 types Sentencing a. Determinate- pros and cons b. Indeterminate- pros and cons c. Mandatory- pros and cons d. Specific or general deterrence Determinate sentencing a. Time- Each punishment is set person to person regardless b. Punishment- does not discriminate c. Community- deter people from committing it again Indeterminate Sentencing a. Courts and judges role in helping the offender b. CommunityRead MorePrison Term Policy Recommendation Essay814 Words   |  4 PagesRecommendation Paper As a realistic matter, it is smart to sustain a bill that addresses a real concern, creates proper use of resources and effectively addresses the problem for which it was intended. It is known that victims of armed robberies want to see the offenders punished. It is noticeable that the public’s desire is to be safe and protected from being a victim of armed robbery. While on the other hand, the legislature must show caution in legislating across the board sentencing and defend