What Makes DTAP So Successful

As an act to clean up the streets across American, states like New York, are now funding money to a program called Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Program (DTAP). The mission of the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Program is to give drug offenders, such as drug abusers, an alternative to prison by giving drug abusers an alterative to go into a drug rehabilitation center. States are hoping that by giving drug offenders another alternative they will not only put drug dealers out of business, ultimately lowering crime rate but also save the state money. The states hope to save money by paying for helpful inexpensive rehab rather than jail time, where drug offenders receive no help with their problems.

The mission of DTAP (Drug Treatment Alterative to Prison Programs) seems like the perfect plan to clean up streets but not everyone believes in the plan. Someone might have doubts in the program because it is said that drug rehabs do not always work for everyone. According to the Treatment Episode Data Set in 2008, 1,626,740 people were checked into some type of Substance Abuse Treatment Service. Of those 1,626,740 people about 38% were discharged because they dropped out of treatment, had treatment terminated by the facility, were incarcerated or failed to complete treatment for other reasons. That is about 618,161 people who did not complete rehabilitation in the year 2008.

With that being said, should someone’s future be determined based off previously collected statics? What I mean here is, should a current drug offender be withheld different alteratives based only on success and failure rates alone.  According to DrugRehabs.org, “Studies show that the success of one’s recovery is determined not only by the type of drug rehab program they attend, but the amount of effort put into applying what is learned in treatment when returning home…” In other words success rates can not be determined based on statics. One could argue that not every person puts the same amount of effort into treatment center.

Another argument someone could argue is that DTAP participants are more likely complete treatment because they are in treatment longer than those who are in long-term residential treatments. According to The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, “DTAP participants remain in treatment six times longer than individuals in other long-term residential treatment (a median of 17.8 months compared to three months).” These rates are important because an individual who stays in treatment long has a better chance of staying sober.

In addition to the argument Joseph A. Califano, Jr., CASA president and former U.S. Secretary of Health stated “This program in which failure is a one-way ticket to prison shows the effectiveness of coerced treatment,” What Joseph A. Califano means is success rates are more higher among people who are threaten to go to jail if they fail as to someone who puts themselves in treatment. Someone can argue that the pressure of success in DTAPs’ is so strong that it actually helps a person succeed a healthy drug free lifestyle.

All in all, drug offenders should not be withheld alternatives based on success and failure rates alone. DTAP was designed to steer drug abusers into a healthy drug free lifestyles. Safety precautions, such as making the treatment longer and making failure feared, helps make DTAP become so successful.

Drug Rehab Alcohol Drug Rehabilitation Addiction Treatment Programs. National Drug and Alcohol Abuse Helpline, 2002. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.

Press Releases:.” CASAColumbia.org: News Room: INNOVATIVE DRUG TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON PROGRAM REDUCES CRIME, PRISON COSTS. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 2003. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.

“TEDS 2008 Discharge Report, Highlights.” SAMHSA. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.

Keep your hands off my Science

The two main opponents that the field of embryonic stem (ES) cell research faces are political and moral in nature.  The political view of the situation states that there should not be research conducted if it results in human tissues being destroyed.  And the moral dilemma is that the embryo utilized is/could have been a human itself.  These two opinions stem from the same basic principle which is that a human embryo can be viewed, in very specific circumstances, as a human or part of a human.  These two views are very closely linked by this opinion, and therefore can be dealt with simultaneously.

As stated before much of the aversion to the use of ES cells in regenerative medicine has been derived from the Dwickey-Wicker amendment in 1996 which prohibited the funding for research that destroyed any human tissue.  While the concern for causing or incentivizing the destruction of a potential human life is obvious, the basis of this amendment is flawed.  At first glance this amendment seems irrefutable, but upon closer inspection the fallacy of the document is perceptible.  The fallacy lies within the notion that a nearly single celled tissue is human solely because of the fact that it was human derived.  Other pseudo-moral laws that strive to define a human life differ in what is human and what is not.

While separation of church and state has been pushed for almost since the inhabitation of the United States, being first cited in Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association, there seems to still be a mixing of Christian ideals within the current laws.  While the Conference of Catholic Bishops has been open with their opinion that the destruction of any human embryo is grossly immoral, either by research or by abortion, the vast majority of states in America have late term abortion laws which allow second and even third trimester abortions.  The discrepancy is immediately apparent in these two views.  Now, certainly most would agree that a discrepancy between political and religious parties is acceptable.  However, nearly all of the arguments for the current abortion laws were derived from a moral standpoint which is what makes this discrepancy interesting.  The famous Roe v Wade Supreme Court case ruled that in order to be a human then the infant (for lack of a better term) must be “viable” or able to live outside of the mother’s womb without life support.  This is certainly different that the definition of life when it comes to embryonic stem cell research.

These discrepancies themselves do not point to a completely flawed system, but when abortion laws viewed in tandem with the current laws concerning research conducted with human embryos there is an undeniable misstep in logic.  It seems that crucial terminology like defining what a life is should be the same across the board.  Although it is true that certain words can take on different meanings when viewed under different light, as is the main argument for such laws as medicinal narcotics, illegal in some settings and legal and necessary in others, something as critical as defining human life should not change regardless of the scenario.  The question of why aborting an embryo is legal but using it in a lab to save lives is not is prevalent in this topic.  Both scenarios, at the same stage of development are viewed entirely differently.  In the eyes of many scientists, who know the true power of these types of cells, they should be viewed as one in the same.

Another major concern of the opponents of this field of research is that using embryos for research may lead to incentivizing abortion for the purpose of research.  It has been proposed that the donation of usable tissues would merit a payment of some source, which may lead to an increase in abortions for the exclusive purpose of a payment especially in poor areas of the country.  This, while a valid claim, has an all too simple solution being: do not offer payment.  If a woman has already chosen to have an abortion and the donation of tissue could be used for research then a reduction or free of charge termination could be performed which would give no incentive to have abortions for financial gain.

Many anti-abortion and religious groups also view the usage of previously aborted and cryogenically frozen embryos for research as wrong.  Often times it is due to the fact that they view these practices themselves wrong and do not want these tissues used for any other purpose, even though they will be destroyed anyways.  This view is flawed because knowing that these tissues hold the potential to save lives or greatly increase the quality of life of a person afflicted with an illness it seems morally wrong to allow to be destroyed without any benefit.  If the tissues are going to be destroyed anyway they might as well be used to help someone else.

It is important to remember that this type of research deals with the utilization of human tissue often not much bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.  To classify this conglomeration of cells as human is to say that soil should be considered a tree because it may one day give rise to one.  There is no argument that it must be a daunting task to define when a fertilize egg becomes a human but it seems that in some instances it is apparent that it is not one.  Just as there is no doubt when stating that a toddler is a human, there should be no doubt that an embryo of just a few cells is not a human.

Works Cited

Stem Cell Research and the Church “Stem-cell Research and the Catholic Church.” American Catholic: Web. 02 Apr. 2012.

Jefferson’s Letter “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury BaptistsThe Final Letter, as Sent.” Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998). Web. 02 Apr. 2012.

Abortion Wars PBS. PBS. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.

What Will Become of Embryonic Stem Cells Zacharias, David G. et al. Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Jul 2011) pgs. 634-638 Web. 7 Mar. 2012.

Reece, Jane B., and Neil A. Campbell. Biology. Eighth ed. Boston: Benjamin Cummings, 2011. Pgs (1015-1034) Print.

Many medical professionals believe that a person’s obesity can be calculated through a person’s body mass index (BMI), a ratio of a person’s height and weight. The system was deemed nearly perfect by Surgeon General David Satcher in 2001, after he announced that America was the most obese nation (Surgeon General). Although the system admits to having some minor flaws: it is gender and age specific in children only and it uses the same criteria across the board, it is becoming more and more clear how the once seemingly nearly perfect system is far from perfect. For over a decade, medical professionals have been using the BMI system to calculate a person’s percentage of body fat. However, recently, more and more medical professionals have begun to claim that the system is faulty and should not be used to indicate a person’s level of obesity due to the fact that it is not accurately reflective. Currently, medical professionals are producing numerous studies that favor other methods of calculating obesity over the BMI system, although most are still in the testing proscess. The BMI has too many flaws and should not continue to be implemented into American medical practices.

The BMI system is self admittedly faulty. One of the biggest flaws in the system is people who obtain large amounts of muscle mass. While he or she may be physically fit, and relatively healthy, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) would consider a person fitting this description overweight (Devlin). Prime examples of the BMI system mistakenly classifying people are basketball star Kobe Bryant and actor Brad Pitt, none of whom appear to be overweight. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a world class body builder and actor, was categorized into the highest level of obesity (Devlin). With clearly faulty classifications such as these, how can we trust the system? The blatantly defective evidence that disproves the BMI system leads to the question of whether or not America really was the most obese nation in 2001 as previously stated by the Surgeon General.

A series of studies have proven that a person’s BMI does not accurately reflect his or her body fat percentage. A research team from Michigan State University conducted a study that proved, as previously noted, BMI does not accurately calculate body fat. The major issue that occurs is that the same criteria for BMI are used for all adults of a specific gender. According to the research team, it does not make any difference to the BMI system whether you are a 21 year-old olympic athlete or a 75 year-old, immobile man (BMI Not Accurate).

According to the research team BMI should be used cautiously when classifying a persons fatness, especially amongst people who are college aged since most young adults have a high percentage of muscle mass (BMI Not Accurate). The system cannot distinguish the difference between fat and muscle.

WebMD produced an article claiming that a better form of calculating BMI can easily be achieved by measuring a person’s height and hip circumference. This new measurement technique, called the BAI has thus far been able to accurately validate the  fat percentage of African-Americans and a majority of the Hispanic population. This method also has some limitations, but is still in the testing process (Doheny, Kathleen).

According to a 2004 study conducted by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the addition of calculating a persons waist circumference (WC) to their BMI is a better predictor of obesity risk and the illnesses that come with being overweight than the BMI system alone; however the evidence is inconclusive due to the fact that there is not a significant amount of data supporting this theory outside of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition’s own testing (Janssen, Ian). LiveStrong.com article Alternatives to BMI confirms this theory by stating that measuring the natural waist can give an almost accurate indication of the amount of abdominal fat a person contains. Women with WC of 35 inches or more and men with a WC of 40 inches or more are considered to be risk factors (Holley, Casey).

If the BMI system is clearly flawed and there are other better and more efficient methods of measuring the percentage of a person’s body fat, why are doctors still using it? If a person cannot accurately measure their actual fat percentage, how can we assume that America was at one time the world’s fattest nation? Well, looking deeper into the facts we can prove that this is untrue.

The Huffington Post released an article last year stating that the USA ranks 9th in regards to the percentage of the population that is considered to be obese. But, America is also the most Westernized nation, meaning it is the most industrialized nation with one of the largest populations, giving it an even fatter appearance when compared to other nations. The article primarily discusses how it is not just America that was wrongly accused of being obese, but the entire world; both first world, advancing and third world nations are seemingly increasing in their BMI statistics. The truth is, more and more people are becoming increasingly more fit. If BMI was to be calculated correctly, the US would be near the top of the list, but not the top. That spot is reserved for the small island nation of Nauru (Fattest Place).

While it is clear that alternative methods to the BMI system are not yet medically accepted, it is also clear that to keep using the BMI system would not be beneficial towards the medical community in any means. The only absolute proof that has come from the realization that the BMI system is heavily flawed is the notion that America may in fact not be as obese as though of by the world’s populations. It is important that medical professionals continue to test alternative theories so that the public can be provided with a more reliable method of calculating a person’s body fat percentage.

“BMI Not Accurate Indicator Of Body Fat.” Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 09 Mar. 2007. Web. 02 Apr. 2012. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/64577.php>.

Devlin. “Devlin’s Angle.” Do You Believe in Fairies, Unicorns, or the BMI? Web. 02 Apr. 2012. <http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html>.

Doheny, Kathleen. “New Alternative to BMI for Measuring Body Fat.” WebMD. WebMD. Web. 02 Apr. 2012. http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20110303/new-alternative-to-bmi-for-measuring-body-fat>.

Holley, Casey. “Alternatives to BMI.” LIVESTRONG.COM. Web. 02 Apr. 2012. <http://www.livestrong.com/article/113959-alternatives-bmi/>.

Janssen, Ian. “The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.” Waist Circumference and Not Body Mass Index Explains Obesity-related Health Risk. Web. 02 Apr. 2012. <http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/3/379.short>.

“The Fattest Place On Earth.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 Apr. 2011. Web. 02 Apr. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/the-fattest-place-on-earth_n_804361.html>.

“The Surgeon General’s Call To Action To Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity.” Surgeon General. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. <http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/1_1.html>

Time for a Change

Affirmative action set itself up for failure at its start. Over the many decades since its introduction to the American society, it has begun exponentially hurting more people than it benefits. The problem is that there are still people that truly believe without the policies of affirmative action, the United States would fall back into a world of bigotry and racism. While this is a hard issue to argue either way (being that it is based solely on speculation) there are a few reasons Americans have to denounce that notion.

Like many problems in the world, constant “rehabilitation” is not required. For example, when an alcoholic makes an attempt to sober up, he may begin a 28-day rehab stay. After those 28 days, he acknowledges he must be cognizant of alcohol abuse; however, it would be unnecessary to continue the rehab stay forever. Affirmative action was the rehabilitation administered to the country at the height of its civil rights movement. Aggressive action was absolutely necessary, but years later it is now time for the country to check out of rehab. Like the recovering alcoholic must always focus on being sober, the United States will always have to promote diversity, just in a less extreme way. For example, according to New York Times writer Richard Pérez-Peña, California state colleges have implemented what they call a “holistic review.” With this system, rather than lump all members from one race together, they take a serious look at background and challenges the person has overcome (Pérez-Peña). This way minorities coming from “good” backgrounds are not given anymore assistance than those in the majority with similar backgrounds, and anyone that comes from a rough upbringing will receive aid regardless of race.

Currently in the United States, being racist is socially unacceptable. This happened due to the progression of “color-blindness,” in which people are evaluated in every day situations based on characteristics other than race. According to Kansas State University professor, Krishna Tummala, affirmative action has effectively brought minorities into the mainstream seeing as they are, socially, far more accepted. To restate, affirmative action countered decisions based on race; so now that race is so often overlooked in society (partially with the help of affirmative action) it stands to reason that affirmative action is no longer needed (Potucek). In support of this idea is the example of the California state schools using their holistic review after many affirmative action policies were abolished in the state. Immediately after the change in affirmative action policies, the state saw a decrease in minority admissions. However, this was countered by the implementation of the holistic review, which saw an increase in minority admissions without explicitly looking at race. This holistic review, as stated above, assesses each person’s background and those truly deserving of aid, receive it. This proves that admission offices elect to promote diversity, even without affirmative action.

The idea of abolishing affirmative action is met with opposition. In a New York Times article, author Adam Liptak superficially dissects the topic of eliminating affirmative action from places of higher education. He said, “The consequences of such a decision would be striking. It would, all sides agree, reduce the number of African-American and Latino students at nearly every selective college and graduate school, with more Asian-American and white students gaining entrance instead.” (Liptak)

The problem here begins with the assertion that “all sides agree,” but in the interest of brevity it can be overlooked. The other part of the problem is line claiming Asian-American and white students would gain entrance more so than current numbers show (to be clear, Asian-Americans are considered to be minorities, so they benefit from affirmative action…). This is insulting on a couple levels and can be interpreted multiple ways. One interpretation is that Liptak believes the abolition of affirmative action would allow for racist admission officers to “go back” to denying minorities due to some racial animosity. The other possible interpretation is extremely insulting towards minorities. Liptak is essentially saying that certain racial groups lack the ability to gain acceptance to elite schools. It can be agreed that intellects of present day come from every background possible. Therefore, with diversity in mind, but more importantly ability, anyone with the proper credentials will have the opportunity to earn acceptance, without the policies of affirmative action.

Another Kansas State University professor, John Fliter, believes affirmative action promotes diverse student bodies and work forces (Potucek). While this claim is true, it does not mean affirmative action is necessary to promote diversity. The United States is made up of so many different people; while at first acceptance of others had to be forced, the nation has since evolved into a much more uniform people that would not function without acceptance of others. Even if this evolution can be attributed to affirmative action, that does not justify keeping its policies around.

The American Association for Affirmative Action, or the AAAA, is an association focused on opposing any federal or state action that attempts to remove affirmative action policies (AAAA). According to their website, “The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender, or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve and contribute.” Other than the fact that saying in 2012 affirmative action is finally addressing something that the policies addressed in the 1960’s sounds silly, this organization is essentially saying that without affirmative action significant discrimination would be revived. This claim is based on no evidence whatsoever. In fact evidence supports that diversity would remain even without affirmative action. In Washington State where affirmative action has been banned since 1998, a similar holistic review was instituted and minority acceptance numbers have proven to be stay consistent with the affirmative action era, proving diversity can be maintained without affirmative action (Pérez-Peña).

Timing is everything and for its time, affirmative action did a great job producing diversity in an era run by the majority. Now, less extreme measures can maintain diversity, like those implemented in California and Washington state schools. These less extreme measures ensure that underprivileged individuals are assisted as necessary, but those in the majority truly deserving of acceptance also are not discriminated against.

Fifty years of rehabilitation was long enough for the United States. While still keeping diversity in mind, the nation can handle its “sobriety” in simpler ways.

Works Cited

“About the AAAA.” About the American Association for Affirmative Action. Web. 30 Mar. 2012.

Liptak, Adam. “Justices Take Up Race as a Factor in College Entry.” Editorial. The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Feb. 2012. Web. 30 Mar. 2012.

Perez-Pena, Richard. “To Enroll More Minority Students, Colleges Work Around the Courts.” Nytime.com. The New York Times, 1 Apr. 2012. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

Potucek, Rachel. “Affirmative Action: Pros and Cons.” Kansas State University. Kansas State University, Fall 2003. Web. 30 Mar. 2012.