Americans for Safe Access vs Dea Essay Example for Free

Americans for Safe Access vs Dea Essay Abstract This paper examined The American’s for Safe Access’s petition before a federal court to have the Drug Enforcement Administration reduce its current classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug. As this case goes before the court, there could be three possible outcomes: a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant, or a decision for the DEA to reexamine marijuana’s current classification. Of these three outcomes, I believed there would be sufficient evidence in my findings to support a decision by the justices to reexamine marijuana’s classification. One key component to this decision will be whether or not enough evidence exists to support marijuana’s medical use, as a drug that is used for medical treatment is typically not classified as Schedule I. Evidence for arguments from both sides was gathered from various sources, including medical publishings, the University of Washington’s School of Medicine archives, and online articles. After reviewing this information, the conclusion that enough evidence exists to reexamine marijuana’s current classification was reached. Introduction As more and more states petition to and effectively pass legislation to legalize medical marijuana, its current classification as a highly banned substance by the Federal Drug Administration continues to serve as a harsh stance against the desires of the public for the option of marijuana as a medical treatment. The escalation of this debate in the political and federal arena appears to be overtaking the medical industries ability to determine marijuana’s harms and benefits. Perhaps the heart of this debate lies in marijuana’s current classification by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Schedule 1 drug. Of all of the drugs on the current DEA Schedule I, list marijuana is the only one that has doctors supporting its medical uses. In light of this, does marijuana still deserve the same classification as heroin and LSD? As more states are passing this legislation and more states desire it, is it now time to reexamine marijuana’s current classification? Section 1: Case/Issue Summary Last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration rejected a petition by medical marijuana advocates to reduce its classification as a Schedule I drug, which kept marijuana in the same category as drugs such as heroin. The DEA concluded that there wasnt a consensus opinion among experts on using marijuana for medical purposes (Press, 2012). However, medical marijuana advocates have not given up in their pursuit to reduce the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of marijuana. In my chosen case, the plaintiff is Americans for Safe Access and the defendant is the Justice Department. Once again, the key issue at hand is the Drug Enforcement Administrations continued classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug. In order to be classified as a Schedule I drug, the drug must be officially determined to have no medical use and a high potential for abuse (McClathy, 2012). Justice Department attorneys site an absence of available evidence of acceptable and controlled studies, and a lack of agreement among experts as to marijuanas effectiveness as a medicine, as their basis for its current Schedule I classification. Those standing against the Justice Department claim that regulators are disregarding hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of medical marijuana and the subsequent medical marijuana laws passed by 16 other states. The concerns for both the plaintiff and the defendant lie in the same key issue – is there enough acceptable medical evidence that marijuana does in fact have medicinal benefits? Studies and opinions as to which side has the most support to back its claim are widely varied, but both sides claim they have sufficient evidence to support their assertions. Take, for example, to very different statements, one from the medical book â€Å"Marijuana as Medicine?: The Science Beyond the Controversy† (Mack Joy, 2001), and the other from the medical book â€Å"Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing the Science Base† (Joy Stanley, 1999): â€Å"The cannabis plant (marijuana) . . . [has] therapeutic benefits and could ease the suffering of millions of persons with various illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, seizure disorders, chronic pain, and other maladies.† – from the editor’s introduction to Cannabis in Medi cal Practice, by Mary Lynn Mathre, R.N. (Mack Joy, 2001). â€Å"Consequently, the rapid growth in basic research on cannabinoids contrasts with the paucity of substantial clinical studies on medical uses.† (Joy Stanley, 1999). These two statements help highlight just how much inconsistency on exists on this issue, inconsistency that could be a concern for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Section 2: Identification and Evaluation of all Main Possible Solutions Though the challenge filed by the plaintiff is directly asking for one solution, there are several solutions that could be reached. The first solution would be that the judges would dismiss the challenge without review. The result of this would be that the appeals court considers marijuana’s current classification to be proper and this would represent solid validation of the DEA’s authority to determine a drug’s status and classification. There would be evidence to back this decision. According to the doctors that authored â€Å"Marijuana and Medicine†, more extensive data exists on the harmful effects of marijuana than data on its medical benefits (Joy Stanley, 1999). It is the opinion of these doctors that clinical studies on marijuana’s positive and negative effects are difficult to conduct, due to both difficulty in procuring funding and the encumbrances of the many federal regulations involved with such testing (Joy Stanley, 1999). The court could also reach this decision due to the bioethical principle of Nonmaleficence. Under the standards of care, this is the principle that a healthcare provider should not bring harm to a patient (McCormick, 1998). Should the court determine that not enough evidence exists to support marijuana’s medical benefits, it would have to conclude that prescribing marijuana to a patient could lead to their harm. This decision by the court would serve as a strong deterrent to future challenges of the DEA’s classifications of drugs. The consequences would be a major setback for advocates of widespread legalization of prescription marijuana. Dismissing the challenge would, for the time being, lay to rest all claims made by American’s for Safe Access. Another solution would be for the district court to decide a reduction in marijuana’s drug classification to be justified. For the plaintiffs, reducing marijuana’s classification from a Schedule I drug to a lesser controlled substance would be a major step in their ultimate quest to see marijuana legalized for medical use in the remaining 34 states that don’t already allow for such use (Press, 2012). Should its classification be reduced to a Schedule II drug, it would then be legal for marijuana to be prescribed to patients in need. Along with the physical medical benefits, reducing marijuana’s classificati on would also lessen the penalties faced by those found in possession of it. Currently, possession of a Schedule I drug can carry a maximum sentence of up to 7 years in prison. Ruling in favor of the plaintiff could indicate that the judges felt the principle of beneficence – that a healthcare professional must act to provide medical benefit to a patient – is involved (McCormick, 1998). In this case, the benefit to the patient would be relief from pain and protection from harm. A recent petition by Governor and former senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington filed made the assertion that â€Å"patients with serious medical conditions who could benefit from medical use of cannabis do not have a safe and consistent source of the drug as a result of its current classification† (Madison, 2011). This ruling could also be a result of the justices deciding that enough trusted medical evidence does in fact exists to support the use of marijuana for medical purposes. According to the book â€Å"Marijuana Medical Handbook: Practical Guide to Therapeutic Uses of Marijuana†, some medical marijuana specialists have reported a significantly large amount of uses for medical marijuana, ranging from treatment for nausea and convulsions to an appetite stimulant for cancer patients (Gieringer, Rosenthal Carter, 2010) For the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration, seeing marijuana’s classification reduced would be a major setback in its efforts to eradicate a drug that Justice Department lawyer Lena Watkins says is â€Å"the most widely abused drug in the United States, (Press, 2012). A decision against them by the federal court would essentially erase all of their efforts, along with damaging their ability to make similar determinations in the future. A third solution could be that the court could order the Drug Enforcement Administration to take a more in-depth look at the available evidence (McClathy, 2012). This would be a blow to the DEA, who claims they have spent a substantial amount of time and energy in executing due diligence to determine marijuana’s Schedule I classification. It would counter their stance that not enough acceptable evidence and proper studies can be found to support marijuana’s medical benefits. In turn, a decision by the court for the DEA to reexamine its evidence could ultimately lead to another challenge for its legalization. Consequently, this same decision would be very positive for American’s for Safe Access. They claim that the DEA has failed to consider notable support for medical marijuana from many respected institutions, all of whom support the reclassification of marijuana (McClathy, 2012). A request by the Court of Appeals for the DEA to reexamine its findings could be due to the principle of respect for autonomy. This principle protects the patient’s right to make their own informed decisions with regards to treatment (McCormick, 1998). Not having access to the best evidence as to marijuana’s medical benefits could act against this principle. The principle of justice could also play a part in this ruling. A patient in Missouri suffering the same amount of pain as a patient in California, but not having the opportunity to benefit from the same medicinal advancements as a patient in California, might be a constitute a breach of the principle of judgment in the eyes of the court. Section 3: Decision Statement and Defense Against Weaknesses After examining the facts of the case and all possible solutions, the solution to allow for the reduction of marijuana’s classification to a Schedule II drug seems the most prudent. This conclusion was reached for several reasons. Despite the DEA’s claims, there appears to be enough acceptable evidence on the ASA’s side to support its assertion that marijuana has applicable medical benefits. Cocaine is certainly proven to be a harmful substance when taken irresponsibly, yet its remote medical benefits have landed it on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Schedule II. For marijuana to remain on the Schedule I list while cocaine is on Schedule II hardly seems just considering there is even one state that has passed legal medical marijuana legislation. That there is even a small amount of substantial evidence from credible institutions supporting marijuana’s medical benefits makes the penalties involved with its possession seem severe. The recent petition sighted earlier by the two governors offers that they have support from many respected institutions, including The American Medical Association, The American College of Physicians, the Rhode Island Medical Society, the Washington State Medical Association the Washington State Pharmacy (Madison, 2011). All of these institutions are respected, making a decision to dismiss the challenge without even a reexamination seem imprudent. One also can’t help but wonder if the DEA’s current stance comes from a fear of its potential legalization for recreational use. This solution would also address another important issue in terms of marijuana use, and that would be to provide â€Å"safe, reliable, regulated use of marijuana for patients who are suffering,, as the governors have suggested (Press, 2012). In conclusion, certainly it seems that the current Schedule 1 classification of marijuana obstructs the medical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice . References Gieringer, D., Rosenthal, E., Carter, G. T. (2010). Marijuana medical handbook, practical guide to therapeutic uses of marijuana. Oakland: Quick American Archives. Joy, J. E., Stanley, J. W. (1999). Marijuana and medicine, assessing the science base. National Academies Press. (Joy Stanley, 1999) Mack, A., Joy, J. E. (2001). Marijuana as medicine?, the science beyond the controversy. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. (Mack Joy, 2001) Madison, L. (2011, November 30). Govs. chafee, gregoire lobby for reclassification of marijuana. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57334326-503544/govs-chafee-gregoire-lobby-for-reclassification-of-marijuana/?tag=contentMain;contentBody McClathy, N. (2012, October 12). Medical marijuana case going before court. Maine Sunday Telegram. Retrieved from http://www.pressherald.com/news/medical-marijuana-case-going-before-court_2012-10-13.html McCormick, T. R. (1998). Principles of bioethics. Ethics in edicine: University of Wa shinton School of Medicine, Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/princpl.html Press, A. (2012, October 16). Federal court considers marijuana classification. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57533647/federal-court-considers-marijuana-classification/

Iphigenia, The Diary of a Young Lady Who Wrote Because She Was Bored Es

Expression and Repression in Parra’s Iphigenia, The Diary of a Young Lady Who Wrote Because She Was Bored Like Ruby, Iphigenia uses water imagery to dramatize her feelings and fantasies. But she also turns to the river to express her wants and desires because she cannot do so freely in her Venezuelan home. After the death of her father, Marà ­a Eugenia leaves Venezuela and her best friend Christina, to visit friends of the family in Paris. In Paris she experiences a sense of freedom that she has never known before, walking the streets alone, going to operas, and dressing as she pleases. But when she gets back to Caracas to live with her aunt and grandmother, she becomes bored, feels imprisoned, and finds out that her Uncle Eduardo stole her inheritance, leaving her penniless and completely dependent upon him. Her only recourse is to get married to a wealthy suitor. Unfortunately, Marà ­a Eugenia falls in love with Gabriel, who is not her family’s suitor of choice. Uncle Eduardo moves the family to the country and intercepts Gabriel’s letters to Marà ­a Eugenia. Soon Leal, a suitor to the family’s liking, whom Marà ­a Eugenia does not love, asks her to marry him and she accepts. A short time later, Marà ­a Eugenia’s uncle Pancho falls ill, and Gabriel, a doctor, comes to the house to tend to him. When they see each other again, Marà ­a Eugenia and Gabriel realize that they are both still in love, and he entreats her to run away with him, but Marà ­a Eugenia cannot summon the courage to accept his offer. Instead, she accepts the life that her family condones, sacrificing herself as Leal’s wife. In this story water is closely associated with Marà ­a Eugenia’s ability to express herself. She struggles throughout the novel to communicat... ...eal because of their influence. Splitting off from her family by going to Paris, confiding in and symbolically becoming the water, the green-world token, falling in love with Gabriel, the green-world lover, rebelling from her family, and engaging her unconscious bring her to the tip of self realization. But as a result of the influence of her family, Marà ­a Eugenia accepts her family’s expectations as her own, that which is contrary to the desires she expresses in the process of her transformational journey. In Pratt’s words, instead of growing up, Marà ­a Eugenia experiences a â€Å"growing down† in which the protagonist accepts â€Å"auxiliary or secondary personhood† instead of self realization (36, 168). Instead of accepting herself during the process of individuation she rejects her love for Gabriel and her desire for freedom to conform to the wishes of her family.

Analysis of Obama’s Victory Speech

The presidential victory speech delivered by Barack Obama who is the president to be was held on November 4, 2008, in Grant Park, Chicago. It is about his won election for the office as the president. I will take a closer look on how Obama emphasizes his speech with stylistic devices. The speech is divided into four parts. The first part is from ll. 1-26, the second from ll. 27- 70, the third from ll. 71-9 and the last from ll. 95-105. In the first part of the speech Obama uses many stylistic devices. He makes repetitions (â€Å"three hours, four hours†, l. 0), (â€Å"Blue States†, l. 20, â€Å"United States†, l. 21) to underline his ideas and to emphasize that people waited long to have the chance to vote even for the first time (ll. 7-13) and that the USA is one state (ll. 18-21). He also uses a metaphor (â€Å"arc of history†, l. 25) to evoke the picture of a unity that hopes together and that believes as one in the American Dream. Obama also refers to the American Dream in the first lines where he wants the audience to think about it and he wants the listeners to ask themselves if they believe in it.He tries to get the attention by addressing the audience (â€Å"If there is anyone out there†¦ †, l. 1). In addition to that he makes many anaphoras (â€Å"who still†, ll. 1,3,4) to underline the importance of the American Dream to the Nation. With an enumeration (ll. 14-17) he shows that everyone not only the rich but also the poor have something to say and have a choice. In the middle section of the speech Obama uses personifications (â€Å"†¦ the enormity of the task that lies ahead. †, l. 40) to point out the importance of the things that have to be done.With an enumeration (â€Å"l. 45) he involves the audience to show them which work they have to expect. Another point is that he uses repetitions (â€Å"I will† , ll. 51, 52, 53) and (â€Å"There†, l. 50) to make the listeners understa nd that he will be there for everyone and that he will never leave them with no hope. With a metaphor (â€Å"†¦ if Americas beacon still burns as bright-†¦ †, l. 67) he tries to give the people hope that America will always be the same strong Nation as it was.The third part starts with an example of a women (ll. 3-79) with which Obama wants the listeners identify with him and wants to show that he is just a human being as everyone else. After the example fallows an enumeration (ll. 80- 82) which emphasizes the strengths with which the women stands for her country because there were many things which she had seen but it is an example which says that she never lost her faith and that everyone else should act like her. The repetition (â€Å"New†, l. 86) shows that Obama wants to create something new and wants the audience to feel so, too.He arouses the audience`s emotions in giving the anaphora â€Å"Yes we can† (ll. 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 94, 104) which he uses very often to stabilize the feeling of triumph in the listeners and to make them want to feel supported that they want to and can change something. With another enumerations (ll. 91-92) Obama wants to tell everyone what happened in the world which was from importance and that this little thing a women did (â€Å" And in this year, in this election, she touched her finger on a screen, and cast her vote,†¦ †, ll. 92. 3) is as important as moving events in the world`s history.The last part is emphasized by Obama because he gives rhetorical questions (â€Å"†¦, what change will they see? †, l. 97, â€Å"What progress will we have made? †, ll. 97-98) that should make the people think about what they did, what they changed and what they will change. In the last sentences Obama uses many anaphoras (â€Å" This is our†, l. 99), and repetitions (â€Å"to†, ll. 99, 100, 101, â€Å"we†, l. 102) to give the importance of his last words an d to make the readers listen to what he has to say what is important.He tries to wake the readers up and wants to give the message of of his speech across. That nobody has to be afraid to loose because if he tries he can win. In the last sentence he thanks the audience in the way if saying that God watches everyone. To say this he uses another repetition (â€Å"God†, l. 105) to make the audience clear that he really wants the best for everyone. To conclude Obama wants to make his speech understood and he wants to get his message across by using many stylistic devices and examples where he always refers to the American Dream.

The Lord Of The Screw And Northanger Abbey - 1635 Words

The Role of the Innocent Heroine in Turn of the Screw and Northanger Abbey The function of the innocent heroine in gothic literature is, primarily, to follow her curiosity into the deepest, darkest corners of an appropriate gothic setting, uncover some awful secret contained therein, and do a lot of running around in her nightgown to be saved at the appropriate moment by a strong, capable suitor. In both Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen, and The Turn of the Screw by Henry James this trope is challenged, with both books presenting us with a slightly different version of the gothic heroine. Northanger Abbey gives us Catherine Morland, with her own knowledge of the gothic genre through the books she has read herself, and a propensity for common sense over hysteria. This foreknowledge and self-awareness creates a very different heroine than the typical gothic damsel in distress, and allows for Jane Austen to explore and parody the gothic genre instead of adhering to its every rule. The Turn of the Screw gives us the governess, who appears at first to follow the gothic heroine trope; young and pure of heart and motive, but who must also fill the role of both innocent heroine and protective hero. As the story progresses, doubt begins to fall on the governess’ sanity and motives. This essay will compare and contrast the treatment of these two gothic heroines, explore the different ways the characters challenge the innocent heroine trope, and discuss the effect this has on the