OCR Text |
Show Over-regulating drugs prevents real health benefits a6 41111r-) NAFISA MASUD hen I hear the word "psychedelics," I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls clips of movies set in the 1960s where girls with flowing braids dance idly in a haze of fringe, or a group of long-haired men discuss ideology amid "Free Love" posters and thick clouds of weed smoke. But psychedelics are more than just the tangible equivalent of "free love," and their use has been linked to specific medical benefits. According to "The Guardian': psilocybins, the active ingredient in "magic mushrooms': can reset the abnormal brain functioning found in many who suffer from clinical depression. In doing so, psilocybins can alleviate patients' symptoms and provide them with relief when other methods have failed. The prevailing stigma around drug use in general clearly applies to the public perception of "magic mushrooms" and LSD, but it's this same misunderstanding of certain drugs that prevents us from making ground in the field of medicine and healing. W History is testament to the fact that when medicinal drugs start being used recreationally, and therefore abused, authority's first action is to make that substance illegal. It's somewhat rational to hope that a fear of fines or incarceration is enough to deter citizens from continuing drug use. But this line of action isn't working, given the increasing rates of drug use worldwide, and criminalizing certain drugs only opens doors for black markets to make profit at the expense of those looking for particular substances. These black markets thrive on and perpetuate the growing disparity between developed and developing countries. Of the world's population, 80 percent reside within developing countries but only consume six percent of the opium-poppy, or opium. Sick patients in these nations are often unable to receive relief via opium or morphine due to it being illegal and are urged by doctors to find some on the black market to alleviate their pain. The argument made to legalize drugs is not a new one; regardless of the specific drug, there will always exist citizens who choose to abuse substances recreationally.This simply can't be avoided, and though citizens' choices can be influenced, they certainly can't be controlled. The issue with legalizing certain substances in the medical realm alone, then, lies with the fact that our inability to control our use of certain substances robs the ailing of the potential comforts they could experience. Psilocybins — along with relieving depression — have helped patients empathize better with loved ones and have fostered more openness in their personalities, a trait that often manifests itself in higher levels of imagination, creativity and emotional health. These advantages would never be discovered without exploration, just as our understanding of commonplace medications like Tylenol formed after such gambles were taken. Tylenol is one of the drugs most responsible for accidental and intentional overdose, and this fact clearly hasn't stopped its wide use. All human progress arises from deliberate risk and experimentation, and, provided it's done so with the consent of those involved, the information we glean from such trials will continue to save thousands of human lives as it always has. Our obsession with regulating drugs in every form and controlling citizens' personal choices comes at the cost of the ailing and the sick, robbing them of relief and comfort. Our duty is not to those who choose to use drugs in ways that may prove detrimental, but to those whose quality of life requires these same drugs to relieve the pain that prevents them from living life fully. Our actions reflect a useless obsession with monitoring citizens' choices, one that distracts us from the power we have to improve human life instead. Drugs should be evaluated in the context in which they're applied, and by limiting our understanding of the way drugs work we limit the advantages they could bring to the sick. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Ambition lights the fire withi his month's "Wall Street Journal Magazine" Soapbox asked six well-known and successful celebrity faces to voice their opinions on ambition. The article appealed to me at a glance because, as a young college student, I am always looking for the advice and guidance of those more experienced and successful than myself, regardless of background or profession. So this week I thought I'd take a look at some of their ideas about modern ambition and how they relate to and are applied by my peers. Actor and director Kenneth Branagh, a famous English Shakespearian, contrasted ambition's positives with the negatives conveyed in Macbeth. In the play, Lady Macbeth describes ambition as something that is unhealthy, causing T unwarranted aggression and selfishness at the costs of others' happiness and gain. But Branagh disagrees, arguing that ambition is capable of providing people with a purpose and a drive to accomplish something and that "it need not be ruthless:' One of my favorite lines in his response is that "ambition begets adventure, a process that teaches us that the journey is potentially more enjoyable than the arriv' While there is a goal to be met, which is guided by the fire lit by ambitious behavior, the most profound lessons often come with the patience, dedication and hard work learned on the journey. Ambition is often what starts the most meaningful journeys. It is interesting to me that two of the three women selected this month — Mary Boone, an art dealer and owner of Mary Boone Gallery, and Ivanka Trump, the executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization — brought up ambition in the context of female professionals. We live in a society where, until only recently, ambition was considered a negative and unsuitable characteristic for women. But when portrayed in men, it was viewed as a healthy sign of confidence. But women are now encouraged to show ambition and excitement for their professions, working alongside men at an equal standing and contributing more 10 { THECHRONY I NEWS I OPINION I ARTS I SPORTS I MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015 } than ever before. Thanks to women like Boone and Trump, this mentality will only improve over time. T.C. Boyle, author of The HarderThey Come, makes his case from a darker angle, while pairing with Branagh's perception. Boyle argues that most people, especially novelists, are essentially inherently bad, and that everyone is "psychologically damaged:' As a whole, "We are not good people. We're drug addicts, we're drunks."Yet we still seek some sort of adoration despite our intense flaws. Boyle talks about how work often ends up being the defining factor of who someone is. And without work and the ambition associated with it, people are generally unable to live happy and fulfilling lives, and many even fall to "the gun:' He understands the personal satisfaction and pleasure that comes with producing something valuable through effort and passion driven by ambition. Ambition is arguably something that everyone needs. It lights the fire to pursue goals that will ultimately leave people with everlasting lessons, personal growth and experience that could not be attained without "thinking big" from the start. It gives people purpose and fulfillment, making life worth living. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Don't stand for "representation without taxation" JONATHAN PARK he Koch brothers, owners of the oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries, are slated to spend $889 million in the 2016 presidential election. Most of the money will go toward campaign financing, while the rest will be awarded to climate change denying think-tanks and conservative foundations. Marco Rubio, one of a handful of Republican presidential candidates who is chomping at the bit to get a taste of some Koch cash, claims the brothers have no interest in special government favors. According to Rubio, the oil moguls merely wish "to be left alone:' Rubio and his Republican cronies have always left me alone, and I never had to dish out a billion dollars. So either the U.S. government has gone Mafia and is extorting these poor billionaires, or our elected officials are attempting to throw a veil over blatant bribery. Being the cynic that I am, I wouldn't doubt either scenario, but in this case I'm leaning toward the latter. Koch Industries has a net worth of $115 billion. Say what you will about these boys, but they know how to make money, and they aren't going to sink hundreds of millions of dollars into an investment without expecting to turn a profit. Don't be fooled — that is exactly what these political contributions are: investments. They are apparently very lucrative investments at that, evidenced by the fact that Koch Industries has been dumping an exponentially increasing amount of cash into campaign coffers and lobbying efforts since 1998. In 1998 they spent $200,000 on oil and gas lobbying. Last year they spent $13.8 million and lobbied on 63 different bills. They threw their proverbial two cents in on a wide array of issues, arguing against everything from environmental and public safety regulations to campaign finance reform and sustainable energy development. The billionaire bros lobbied in favor of a few things as well, most notably tax reform and ever more subsidies for the oil and ethanol industries. The Tax Reform Act of 2014 is designed to fix the tax code so that it "works for American families and job creators." (Can you guess who those so-called "job creators" are?) Proponents of the act claim it will generate $3.4 trillion in economic growth and eliminate barriers to corporate expansion by lowering the federal income tax. This, I suspect, is what Rubio was referring to when he purported T that his billionaire benefactors just want to be left alone: They want lazy liberals to stop pestering them about paying taxes. Not that the brothers don't want to pay their taxes. In fact, I suspect the opposite is true. It was recently revealed that the Koch boys are big-time tax evaders. Through a complex internal banking system, they are able to transfer their prodigious profits to bank accounts in Switzerland and Luxembourg, thus avoiding U.S. corporate taxation. In response to these incriminating allegations, Koch Industries and its defenders claim they aren't evading taxes, they are merely delaying taxes. After all, they point out, they will eventually want to bring their money back home to the states, at which point it will be taxed. Therein lies the ROl on tax reform lobbying. If the reform act or its equivalent is passed, they will be able to return all of their American-made money back to the U.S. without having to pay the current 39.1 percent corporate tax rate. (It shouldn't come as a surprise that every serious Republican presidential candidate enthusiastically supports corporate tax reform.) Thus, by investing less than one percent of its total capital in campaign contributions, Koch Industries can hope to save nearly 38 percent of its net worth, while finally shedding the ignominious taxevader label. I consider myself to be pretty politically active, yet I only emailed legislatures on six issues last year. I was happy to receive automated messages basically saying, "Thanks, we'll take your concerns into consideration:" Meanwhile, this deviant pair of deep-pocketed oil tycoons lobbied relentlessly on 63 different bills and were sickeningly successful. What's more, I actually paid my taxes — on time! There was a time in American history when we proudly rebelled against the tyrannical government policy dubbed taxation without representation. Today, we are living under a government that affords the wealthiest individuals in the country a ridiculously unequal amount of political power. They are awarded billions of hard-earned American dollars in the form of government subsidies, bailouts and contracts without having to contribute their fair share. This repugnant practice might be termed representation without taxation, and it is equally as unjust as the policy that our founding fathers once rebelled against. Will we have the courage to follow in their justice and freedom-loving footsteps? Or will we continue to allow rapacious corporations to hijack our beloved democracy? The decision is ours. At the end of the day, money can buy media coverage and extravagant political campaigns, but it cannot completely mask the truth. It is our responsibility to be engaged and informed citizens, and so long as we uphold that democratic duty, we will forever reap the fruits of political freedom. letters@chronicle.utah.edu V Do you feel like you're going in circles.` Find your purpose at The Daily Utah Chr'3'hiele. E-mail g.adainsOchroniclemtah.edu to apply to be a sportswriter. KINGSBURY HALL PRESENTS "This is a company that brings its audience pure joy." —The Seattle Times Les$ allets Trockadero deMonte Carlo TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24 I 7:30 PM Nancy Peery Marriott Auditorium TICKETS: 801-581-7100 I WWW.KINGTIX.COM U of U Discounts Available OKUED 7 tr* KINGsBuRy= THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH U . LAKE OUNTY museums ART WORKS. 11 |