1) Gangs are all around the world, but majority of the gangs are being increased by recruiting teens that are already on the streets trying to find the path way to living a life of crime. Most of the teens that find their way to having a criminal lifestyle are the main ones who grew up living in a house of confusion or discomfort. Some teens that isn’t getting the full effect of unconditional love can be emotionally unstable and put their trusting into gangs to seek the extra love they desire for. Things that teens look for in gangs are the bond that they can receive form a brother or sister as well as the love of a guardian or parent type of comfort. The specific bond that a mother or father or both can give their child is special to them, and without that they can go astray which can lead them to the bad decision making of living a life of crime.

2) The teen rate for violence is increasing and most of the teens in gangs are being locked up due to gang violence. There are about 1 million gang members in the U.S today, and about 400,000 of them are juveniles under the age of 18, there is also about 25 million teens in the United States so that makes around 14 percent of the teens in the United States are gang members. A major question being researched is, how many male juveniles are joining gangs and what is the main reason that’s pushing them towards this way of life? Well after doing research on teenage boys in gangs, I found that 360,000 teenage boys are in gangs right now. The rate of teens in prison that are in gangs have increased since the year 2009 which was 7 out of 10 boys. Now the rate of teen boys in prison is 9 out of every 10 boy in prison have some gang affiliation. Another number to follow up on is that 89 percent of crimes committed by teensare committed by gang members.

3)Teens joining gangs today are influenced because they grew up with in a broken household. A broken household could be multiple things such as one parent because the other one never comes around, or it could be that they have both parents with split custody. It could also be that they have one parent because the family is going through a divorce. Even with all of those situations my research is based on the percentage of gang members, which are teens, that is in gangs because they lack the pleasure of having a father in their life. The statement of not having a father in their life is generally broad. I’m focusing on not having a male role model in their life at all. This is a big cause that leads teens to joining gangs today because of the lack of affection that they are not getting from a father that they need in their life. Studies show that about two-thirds of all first marriages in the United States end in a divorce, so about half of all the children in the United States go through a divorce at some point in their teenage life. With that being said research shows that about 70% of all children that are incarcerated come from a home without a father. After researching I found that for young black males that live in a single parent home whether with just father or mother, the likely hood of them committing a crime is twice as much as a young black male that live with both parents.

I hope that the ratings are to decrease in every area, but it has been proven due to research that teenagers male or female that grow up without a father are more likely to live in a life of crime than teens with both parents in their life. But from what I’m trying to find I think it is good enough evidence to say that teens of both sex are reaching the path of being in a gang because they lack the presence of having a male role model in their life. It brings me to the conclusion that even though that isn’t the only reason kids join gangs, it does play a major factor in their life causing them to be recruited by certain gangs.

WORK CITED

Link1

Link2

Link3

Link4

Adrian Peterson referring to himself as a “40 million dollar slave” indicates that he doesn’t have a clear understanding of slavery. Slaves lived a shackled life; they did not have the freedom to do what they wanted. Their life was dedicated to serving someone else, who was also known as their “master.” They made a little bit of money if any at all; that decision was not up to them. The life of a slave was extreme, it can not be compared to anyone how has not really experienced such treatment. Adrian Peterson’s comment was very ignorant, however, he has a point.

Adrian Peterson agreed that he misused the word “slave”, he realized that he could have used a better choice of words. Many people have been offended by his comment, however, no one is actually trying to see what helped him come to this conclusion. He did not mean to offend anyone, he was expressing his frustrations about the NFL. Can Adrian Peterson say he was shackled by the NFL? Yes, he works hard to make the team owners money. He gets paid but not as much as the owners, the owners get paid because of the players. 70% of the players in the NFL are black but 100% of the owners are white. Were    all “masters” white? Yes. Were there a few white slaves? Yes, maybe 30% of them. People are quick to bring up the fact that a slave wouldn’t make close to twenty dollars let alone a million dollars. I think that’s something that Adrian Peterson know as well, which means that money wasn’t the problem. Moreover, even that can be analyzed. These team owners are rich, whereas we cant say the same about football players when they are the ones that’s working hard. Are they working hard for themselves who to make a white man rich? Slaves were “drafted” to work for a white man to make him wealthy or simply rich, sounds like a NFL player to me.

Some slave traders would host a slave auction to sell the slaves. This would consist of the slaves being naked in front of a crowd full of white people while the slave traders tell all of their good attributes. Although NFL players are not naked they go through the same thing called the combine. In comparison to the NFL team owners, slave owners wanted the slaves that were “fit for the job.” They were chose based on their intelligence, physical strength, skills, and state of health. Slaves did not mind lacking in some of these areas because it would mean they would not be brought. NFL players on the other hand, work hard to get “auctioned” to a team at the combine. Slaves and NFL players are chosen based on the same attributes. Can a player pick the team he wants to play for? Can a slave pick the “master” they wants to work for? The answer to both of these questions are no, the choice is not theirs.

Being a slave meant working from sunup to sundown with no breaks at all. Adrian Peterson expressed how much football players had to practice throughout the week, which made him feel like a slave. Slaves worked on a plantation and NFL players work on the field. Slaves might not have to do drills, run plays, and exercise; however, they worked none stop I’m sure they would be as tired as a football player. Neither slaves of NFL players cant eat when they want to if their job is not complete. A NFL player cant stop practice when he gets hungry and a slave can’t walk off the plantation when he/she is hungry. However, while NFL players have to watch what they eat to stay in shape slaves have to hope for a meal. They were never guaranteed food throughout the day, if they received food it was just slop. Slaves were taken away from their families just like football players are taken away from their families when they go on the road to play games. Once slaves were taken from their families they would never be able to see them again, whereas football players are only away from there families for about 2 days a week. However, I’m sure the feeling of being separated from their families are the same.

Slaves did not have a choice. It was either “work for the white man or die.”  NFL players had a choice it was to play for the team that wants them or not play at all. Although there may be many teams who wants this one football player, its almost like the player is auctioned to the team that offers more. Just like slaves were sold to the “master” that wanted to pay the most for them. They were being sold or “drafted” to work hard for someone else and not get paid as much as them.

Instead of criticizing Adrian Peterson’s comment people should actually analyze his reasoning and not just judge him for his comment. When I read Adrian Peterson’s comment I thought it was A little extreme but once I did my research I could see where the connection between a NFL player and a slave can be made. “I regret using those words because obviously there is nothing, absolutely nothing that you can compare to slavery,” Adrian Peterson said himself. He admits that his comment He knew he could of explained how he felt using different words but he didn’t, however, he apologized for it. I’m glad Adrian Peterson thought about what he said and owned up to his mistakes.

Works Cited

Link

Slavery in America

History of Slavery

Life of A Slave

In the modern American society, the increasing percentage of citizens reaching obese and overweight BMI indexes is startling. At some point, these unfortunate men and women reach a threshold at which they no longer can just diet and exercise their excessed weight off. For this reason, pharmaceutical companies have been researching chemicals that will help significantly reduce weight, but most have been met with opposition by the FDA due to the dangerous effects so many of these chemicals have on the heart. The most recent of these drugs facing FDA approval is Vivus’s Qnexa; a combination of the FDA approved Phentermine and Topiramate. For those unfortunate and sick people plagued by obesity, Qnexa could be the deciding factor between life and death. Although the main argument against the approval of Qnexa is the fear of its effects on the heart, there are other risks one has to decide upon when taking it. However, the risks of continuing one’s life as obese are far greater than the effects of Qnexa.

Obesity and some of the drugs to treat it share a common threat to our health, heart disease. Other drugs in the past have been banned due to the increased chance of heart attack, dangerous increases in blood pressure, and resulting heart valve damage. However, the Phentermine component of Qnexa has not yielded any of these results. Since the body develops a tolerance to it within a fairly small time frame, Phentermine alone is a short-term weight loss solution. A possible reason for the extensive testing of Qnexa is the dangerous cocktail of a past obesity drug that contained Phentermine, Fen-Phen. Fen-phen is a banned drug containing Phentermine and Fenfluramine. The danger comes from Fenfluramine, a drug that even alone has been banned since 30% of testers were shown to have developed very abnormal echocardiograms (FDA). Being obese, however, is like living with a ticking time bomb attached right to one’s chest. Besides the risk of flat out heart failure from the heart’s incapacity to keep up with the massiveness of an obese body, many other risks arise within the circulation system. Since being obese causes plaque to build up in the arteries, it is very likely to experience high blood pressure, Coronary Heart Disease, and even stroke. As opposed to the mild side effects of Qnexa dealing with the cardiovascular system, being obese will ultimately be the cause of death for so many citizens affected by the disease.

Qnexa and being obese both carry great risks for women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant. Qnexa shouldn’t be taken by women who are pregnant due to Topiramate’s effect of doubling the likelihood of having a child born with a cleft palate from .7% to 1.4% (Roth). In that circumstance, an operation would have to be performed to correct the abnormality. However, if an obese woman were planning on having a child, there are already a plethora of long-term complications for both herself and the child that can arise from her weight. One of the largest issues occurs due to the heightened blood pressure of the mother, which results low birth weights from the restricted blood flow to the fetus. Oppositely, if Gestation Diabetes is developed, the child gains too much weight in development and is born with a predisposition to childhood obesity. Another issue the mother faces is the difficulty to gather fine details on the development of the child during ultrasounds. Since the high amount of fat obstructs the waves, the view of the child is often blurry and chances of picking up problems in fetal development are decreased. While Vivus, the manufacturer of Qnexa, has excluded pregnant women in it’s filing for FDA approval, its noteworthy that its risks as opposed to obesity’s effects on pregnancy terms are very miniscule.

Unlike the case with obesity, the only other possible dangers of taking Qnexa that have been discovered its trials would only arise if a patient decided to take too high of a dosage. As with all drugs, it’s a chemical that should be taken responsibly. Obesity is much more detrimental to the lives of people it has taken hold of than just the heart and pregnancy risks. Type 2 diabetes is another dangerous risk of having so much excessive weight. In this case, the individual’s body has become unable to produce insulin at sufficient levels or at all. Having diabetes only increases the risk of heart disease and stroke risk, but also predisposes individuals to kidney disease and blindness (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute). The increase weight also has a great toll on the support system for the body, the skeleton, since the bones experiences much more wear and tear. Finally, studies conducted by the National Caner Institute have shown that obesity increases the risk of cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon, rectum, breast, endometrium, kidneys, thyroid, and gallbladder (National Cancer Institute). Obesity is a serious condition that clearly endangers a persons life with every single beat their heart makes, and it carries much more deadly risks than Qnexa, the newest drug designed to treat the disease.

In the case between Qnexa and obesity, the drug clearly has significantly less risks than the disease and has been shown to effectively treat it. The sick people whose lives have been basically taken from them because of the physical state wrought on by obesity could actually be saved with Qnexa’s approval. It carries one of the safest and most effective methods of treating of obesity yet. Not taking Qnexa as an obese person carries a significantly higher risk than the marginal risk of responsibly taking the drug.

Works Cited

“ FDA Announces Withdrawal Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine (Fen-Phen)” FDA.gov. Web. 08 Mar. 2012.

“Obesity and Cancer Risk.” National Cancer Institute. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity&gt;

Roth, Jeffrey J. “FDA Warns Against Use of Topamax by Women of Childbearing Age.” Las Vegas Plastic Surgery. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.jjrothmd.com/blog/view/fda-warns-against-use-of-topamax-by-women-of-childbearing-age&gt;.

“What Are the Health Risks of Overweight and Obesity?” – NHLBI, NIH. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/risks.html&gt;.

Bibliography

“”Fen-Phen” Update (Fenfluramine, Phentermine, Dexfenfluramine).” FDA.gov. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm180082.htm&gt;.

“Obesity During Pregnancy.” Pregnancy-Info.net. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.pregnancy-info.net/obesity_pregnancy.html&gt;.

“Phentermine.” Drugs.com. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.drugs.com/pro/phentermine.html&gt;.

Starting with the Bulletin Board System, file sharing came to be in the late 1970s. These systems were run on special software for microcomputers and used to upload and download software and data, read news and bulletins, and message people through chat or email. The Bulletin Board System was only the beginning of file, with programs that progressed technologically over time such as FTP servers and Internet Relay Chat in the 1980s and Hotline in 1997.

Not until the 1990s did computers start to become household items, so the internet was not available to everyone till the revolution of the personal computer. Soon after this in June of 1999, the first peer-to-peer file sharing program called Napster was released. Napster was a centralized unstructured peer-to-peer system, requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery, and many other programs followed it. In July of 2001, Napster was sued by multiple recording companies for unauthorized use of the companies intellectual property, holding Napster Liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights.

The A&M Records, Inc.vs Napster, Inc. case is one of the most notable lawsuit cases against file sharing. The case raises the a very good question: Is peer-to-peer file sharing sharing or is it stealing? When someone shares an MP3 file via a peer-to-peer file sharing program on the internet, are they lending out material to others in the same sense as lending your friend down the road a CD to burn to their music library, or are they committing a crime in which people all over the world are able to steal music that they did not pay for in the sense of an employee of a record store giving away copies of the same CD for people to shoplift?

The definition of music piracy is any form of unauthorized duplication and/or distribution of music including downloading, file sharing, and CD-burning. The fine for music piracy can be up to 5 years in prison or $250,000 in fines. This is obviously a crime, so the question lingers; why do so many people think that it is okay to download music illegally off the internet?

Those who are in favor of file sharing and music piracy argue that it is not a bad thing and that it is not stealing. One argument is that CDs are not worth buying due to lack of good songs, price, quality of music in present times, and the fact that they might not buy the CD anyway if they could not get it for free. Another argument is that peer to peer networks are very useful for reasons other than file sharing, such as files that are public domain, so file sharing networks should not be shut down to stop music piracy. People in favor of music piracy also say that it is a good way to preview songs before purchasing them or buying the CD. The boldest argument (in my opinion) is that MP3 files are not physical property, so it is not stealing because there is no value lost in downloading it.

Those who are arguing against file sharing and music piracy have many arguments to counter the opposing view. These people argue that music is worth buying and that CDs are not too expensive, but reasonably priced. Also, they say that just because some people think CDs are overpriced does not justify stealing them on the internet. Another argument is that there are many places to buy music legally, such as Napster 2.0 and iTunes, so the convenience of getting the music off peer to peer networks is not a valid excuse for not buying the music. You can also buy single songs on these online stores, so people don’t even need to buy the entire CD by an artist if they do not wish to. Those opposed to music piracy also argue that file sharing hurts the music industry and all the individual workers involved with producing the artists’ music. The loss of record sale also hurts the entire economy.

Like with almost all arguments and disagreements, both sides pose both good arguments and some not so good arguments. I agree with those who are for file sharing’s argument  that peer to peer file sharing networks should not be shut down just because of music piracy because it is true that the networks have many other legal and useful functions involving files that are part of public domain. On the contrary, I also agree with the opposing views argument that just because some people think CDs are overpriced does not justify getting them through music piracy.

All these arguments from opposing sides contradict or counter each other, so there is no clear evidence on who is right and who is wrong. There may not be a right or wrong side because the main arguments of each side are based off people’s opinions or views on the subject. Moreover, the most valuable opinion would be from those who are looked at as the victims of music piracy and file sharing; the artists. Contrary to what most people would think, even the artist who have made a stand on the issue are split by the subject. Some artist, like Metallica, Bob Dylan, U2, Lily Allen, and James Blunt, argue that music piracy impose on their intellectual property, while other artists, like Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, Foo Fighters, and 50 Cent, support or find nothing wrong with file sharing because it allows more people to enjoy their music.

Regardless of whether peer to peer file sharing and music piracy are right or wrong, the bottom line is that music piracy is illegal, and file sharing of pirated music is illegal. But this does answer the question if file sharing is sharing or stealing. The definition of file sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information, such as computer programs, multimedia, documents, or electronic books, so technically there is nothing illegal about file sharing, therefor it is not stealing, only sharing. Although it is not stealing, file sharing is frequently used to share pirated music which is considered stolen, so it is a common misconception to consider file sharing as stealing.

Work Cited –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_piracy

http://www.mredkj.com/other/sharing.html

What’s the Right Schedule?

The Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of Diversion Control paraphrases the Controlled Substances Acts’ placement policy in the following way: “A controlled substance is placed in its respective schedule based on whether it has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and its relative abuse potential and likelihood of causing dependence.” This definition not only answers almost no questions about the placement policy, it actually gives us more questions than it answers.

The first of which is, What are abuse and dependence, and what’s the difference? Most of us assume abuse and dependence go hand in hand although, this is not always true. Dictionary.com defines abusing something as using it “in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way.” The CSA is placing things according to the potential for abuse. The fact of the matter is anything and everything has potential to be abused; from scissors to sleeping pills. Assuming the CSA is testing for the likelihood of abuse, sleeping pills are certainly abused more often than scissors.

Using marijuana in general can be abuse. Smoking marijuana can lead to “infections such as sinusitis, bronchitis, and asthma, [and] irritation of the airways causing narrowing or spasms,” according to Medline Plus. These effects are only from smoking marijuana, however. Smoking in general is bad for your health and your lungs, no matter what you’re smoking. MarijuanaVaporizer.com contends that “using a vaporizer avoids the burning process and, consequently, eliminates the health problems associated with smoking.”

Dependence is defined as “a state of relying on or requiring the aid of something,” by thefreedictionary.com’s medical dictionary. Dependence is not necessarily a bad thing. Having arthritis can make you dependent on pain killers. The CSA places drugs on the likelihood of causing dependence. This seems counterintuitive to me because obviously the user is dependent on the drug if they are using it. If I have a headache, I’m “requiring the aid of” Advil to make it go away. Since you are depending on the drug to work, you can not properly measure dependence.

Works Cited: 

“Abuse.” Dictionary.com. Web. 8 March, 2012.

“Controlled Substances Schedules.” The Drug Enforcement Agency’s Office of Diversion Control. Web. 23 February, 2012.

“Dependence.” TheFreeDictionary.com. 2007. Web. 8 March, 2012.

“Drug Abuse: Marijuana.” Medline Plus. 21 March, 2011. Web. 8 March, 2012.

“Marijuana Vaporizer.”  MarijuanaVaporizer.com. 1996. Web. 8 March, 2012.