Thursday, February 16, 2012

Change Can Wait


With the current debt situation, the Obama administration has been searching for ways to alleviate the financial crisis. Earlier this week, the Obama administration released its Fiscal Year 2013 National Drug Control Budget. Despite the federal debt problem and current budget deficits, the administration increased federal anti-drug funding by 1.6%, spending nearly $26 billion on federal anti-drug programs.

The proposed budget does not seem to make any changes from previous years, especially when you examine its 40:60 ratio for treatment and prevention versus supply reduction. The 40:60 ratio has been in place for many years and this proposed budget only slightly shifts the ratio, allocating 41.2% for treatment and prevention and 58.2% for law enforcement.

Bill Piper stated that, “This is very much the same drug budget we’ve been seeing for years. The Obama drug budget is the Bush drug budget, which was the Clinton drug budget. Little has changed.”

Sean Dunagan, a former DEA intelligence analyst, agreed with Bill Piper claiming, “It’s really just more of the same.”

Honestly, I believe that we should be disappointed with the Obama administration. He promised change by claiming to bring intelligence to the White House. Obama is both a University of Chicago law professor and a Harvard graduate, and said that these roots would affect how the White House would be run. However, this proposed drug budget illuminates how he is the same president that the United States continues to elect. There will be no change of drug policy as long as Obama is still in office, and we will continue to waste billions of dollars annually on a failed war on drugs. This money could be allocated in many other more beneficiary ways, but instead it will be used detrimentally.

In my opinion there are two reasons as to why Obama would propose this budget. The first reason is that it is an election year and changing the budget is an extremely risky move, a move that may cost him thousands of voters. The other reason is that the war on drugs is not a failed endeavor. In fact, it is very beneficiary for other governmental processes. For example, both the Justice Department and DEA will receive funding increases. Ultimately, the budget proposal is beneficial for some; unfortunately, it does not benefit the public at large. Regardless, I wish Obama would grow a pair and follow through with his promise of change. Yet even if he does not, Obama will likely have my vote because the Republican opposition is vastly more frightening.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Piracetam and the FDA


In the past two decades, student abuse of stimulants has nearly tripled, even though scientific studies have shown that they may have damaging effects on a user’s dopamine system. Stimulants produce increased wakefulness and help the user focus. Due to these appealing characteristics, the use of stimulants, specifically Ritalin and Adderall, have become common drugs found in university and professional settings. When prescribed by a psychiatrist, Adderall and Ritalin are used to reduce symptoms associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to treat excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy. The drugs not only have the ability to increase energy and focus in ADHD and narcolepsy patients, but students without ADHD or narcolepsy who use stimulants are able to focus their energy and concentrate at a much greater level than normal. Through understanding Adderall and Ritalin’s mechanism of action we can see why it is able to combat both ADHD and narcolepsy, along with why it is widely regarded as a “study drug.” Both of these stimulants work by increasing dopamine levels in the brain—Adderall binds to the dopamine transporter (DAT) inhibiting the reuptake of dopamine and also enters the cell causing an efflux of dopamine to the synaptic space, similarly Ritalin acts as a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor by blocking DAT. Dopamine is known to help decrease “background firing” by increasing the signal to noise ratio in target neurons, which is why neuroscientists believe that Adderall and Ritalin improve attention. However, research has shown that use of stimulants may actually be neurotoxic. One such studied conducted in 1981 at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden reports that continuous administration of dextro-amphetamine, one of the components of Adderall, led to acute neurodegenerative damage of central dopamine neurons in the caudate nucleus. A more recent study conducted in 2010 at IWK Heath Centre in Canada showed that chronically using Adderall XR at a low dose down-regulates cfos expression in rat striatum and cortex, symbolizing that the neurons have decreased activity.

However a class of drugs known as racetams may be advantageous for students, while not exhibiting neurological damage as seen in the use of stimulants. Unlike stimulants which give the user a sudden burst of energy and an increased ability to concentrate, racetams are considered nootropics—or cognitive enhancers—and increases the user’s cognition, memory, intelligence, motivation, attention, and concentration. The most renowned racetams are piracetam and aniracetam. Unlike stimulants which work primarily on the dopaminergic systems of the brain, piracetam is believed to be a positive allosteric modulator of glutamate via the AMPA receptor and a positive allosteric modulator of acetylcholine via muscarinic cholinergic receptors. Furthermore, it is believed that racetams increase learning and memory due to its interactions with the muscarinic cholinergic receptors and NMDA glutamate receptors, which are both used in the learning and memory process. But not only does it seem to aid the learning and memory process, piracetam has also been shown to improve neuroplasticity, be neuroprotective, and is extremely well tolerated in almost all patients. Due to facilitating neuroplasticity and being neuroprotective in vivo, racetams have been used to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease patients. The effects of the racetams clearly present advantages not only to students, but to people with neurological degenerative diseases.

Unfortunately, in 2010 the FDA has revoked piracetam’s classification as a “dietary supplement” and no long can be sold as such. The FDA have clarified that they are not banning piracetam entirely, but many companies that sell or manufacture piracetam have been receiving a lot of grief from the FDA. This is extremely disappointing because many studies have shown that piracetam is safe and actually has cognitive enhancing properties.

Why then are they reclassifying piracetam? In Europe, piracetam is sold as a prescription drug and I can only assume that is what they are trying to do here in the United States. Sure it will take time, but piracetam's reclassification as a prescription drug will be inevitable. I can only wonder why our government is so conservative concerning all types of chemical substances. They are taking a perfectly safe product with cognitive enhancing effects and making it so that it is more expensive, more difficult to obtain, less competition, and more red tape. Then again that’s the American way, right?

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Noam Chomsky Examined



The opinions of public intellectuals have served as a voice of reason and logic to the general public by examining both the advantages and disadvantages of the various stances on political and public issues. Of those who have been labeled a public intellectual, Noam Chomsky’s many contributions to both academics and international politics have proven to be worth investigating. To begin, Chomsky’s research in linguistics is considered to have advanced our understanding of grammar more than any other work this century. Furthermore, his academic work is utilized by several fields, including psychology and philosophy. In addition to contributing to linguistics, Chomsky is also one of the most influential libertarian socialists. Known for questioning the legitimacy of authority and making harsh criticisms of the United States’ democratic values, Chomsky’s political opinions continue to be highly respected in this day and age. Noam Chomsky most definitely fills the criteria required to be titled a public intellectual. However, we should consider what drives a person to become a public intellectual. By examining Chomsky’s life we will see that early on in his life Chomsky was driven by opposing forces that led him to become both an academic intellectual and a public intellectual.

Linguistics, Philosophy, and Psychology

Chomsky has been described as a major figure of analytic philosophy and thefather of modern linguistics.” He earned this title as a result of creating the Chomsky hierarchy, universal grammar theory, and Chomsky-Schutzenberger theory. Formulating these theories took many years of research, and through a critical examination of Chomsky’s linguistic work his upbringing proves to be a critical element in his focus of linguistics.

Chomsky began his career as an intellectual by studying philosophy and linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in 1945. Numerous times throughout his college career, Chomsky considered dropping out of college. Overall, he was discouraged that the institutional structure at Penn was similar to the structure that he loathed in high school. Although he was interested in the academic opportunities provided by Penn, Chomsky reflected upon leaving college, “to go to Palestine, perhaps to a kibbutz, to try to become involved in efforts at Arab-Jewish cooperation within a socialist framework”. The struggle of whether or not to stay in college was a crucial decision to make and symbolizes how Chomsky’s life is divided into two realms: the academic and the political.

Ultimately, Chomsky decided to defer his planned departure of working on one of the cooperative-labor kibbutzim and instead chose to continue his studies at the University of Pennsylvania. One of the most influential factors of this decision was meeting Zellig Harris in 1947.

Zellig Harris, a professor who shared many interests with Chomsky, was a key reason Chomsky sought out to research linguistics. Harris was born in Balta, Russia and left Russia to complete his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania. These factors led him to teach at Penn and there he founded the first department of linguistics in the United States. Harris was known for his discovery of transformations as a mathematical analysis of language structure, but he is best remembered for attempting to organize descriptive linguistics into a single body of theory in his book Methods in Structural Linguistics (1951). In fact, it was Harris’ work on Methods in Structural Linguistics that influenced Chomsky’s decision to major in linguistics as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania:

My formal introduction to the field of linguistics was in 1947, when Zellig Harris gave me the proofs of his Methods in Structural Linguistics to read. I found it very intriguing and, after some stimulating discussions with Harris, decided to major in linguistics as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania.

Chomsky realized that the main reason he remained at Penn was because of Harris’ unconventional teaching approach. Unlike most other professors, Harris encouraged unstructured, lively, and creative debate, rather than course requirements and memorizing information. This led Chomsky to pursue a B.A. in Linguistics. Chomsky’s B.A. honor’s thesis, Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew, set the stage for his later work and was influenced by both his Hebrew upbringing and Harris’ work on the transformations of language structure.

Harris served not only as a major factor in keeping Chomsky in college, but motivated Chomsky to enter graduate school at Penn. Within a short period of time, Chomsky completed his master’s thesis, a revision of Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. In the published version, Chomsky reinterpreted the notion of grammatical transformations Harris examined in Methods in Structural Linguistics, arguing that the grammatical transformations were operations on the productions of a context-free grammar.

Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew was Chomsky’s first major contribution to linguistics. However, one of Chomsky’s strongest works came out a few years later. After receiving his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, Chomsky joined MIT’s staff in 1955 and in 1961 was appointed full professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics. In 1957 while at MIT, Chomsky published one of his best-known works in linguistics, Syntactic Structures.

In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky lays down the foundation of transformational grammar and tries to construct a formalized theory of linguistic structure. He begins by focusing on the grammar of a language, stating that the grammar of a language is the device that generates all sensical and nonsensical sequences of words for a language. Afterwards, Chomsky argues that the fundamental aim of linguistic analysis of a language is to separate grammatical sequences from ungrammatical sequences of a language and to study the structure of the grammatical sequences. From there he concludes that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning. For the rest of his book Chomsky argues that language utilizes a transformational grammar that has a natural tripartite arrangement consisting of: phrase structure rules, transformational rules, and morphophonemic rules.

Syntactic Structures is regarded as one of the most influential pieces on current linguistic theory. From there on out, Chomsky continued to prove that he is an academic intellectual. His later linguistic and philosophical works assert that most of grammar is innate knowledge and has been termed universal grammar. This has had strong support in the field of psychology and has directly challenged many behaviorist theories and prior theories that have attempted to explain how children learn language and gain the ability to use language.

Before we move onto Chomsky’s political views, it is important to analyze what factors caused Chomsky into becoming an intellectual. It is obvious that Zellig Harris was a key reason as to why Chomsky studied linguistics and stayed at Penn, but even before Penn, Chomsky was highly motivated to become an academic intellectual. As it turns out, there are two very key factors for this drive: his father and the teaching style of his elementary and middle school.

Noam Chomsky’s father, William Chomsky, was a noted professor of Hebrew at Gratz College. William Chomsky was born in Russia and immigrated to the United States to pursue higher education. Within ten years of becoming a professor at Gratz College, William Chomsky became faculty president of Gratz in 1932 and held the position for thirty seven years. William Chomsky specialized in the history of Hebrew grammatical tradition and Jewish and Semitic studies and, like Noam Chomsky, was considered to be one of the world’s foremost Hebrew grammarians.

Noam Chomsky has admitted that at an early age his father would discuss his work. Noam Chomsky admired his father’s work and considered it a “normal” child behavior to become deeply intrigued by his father’s studies. It was not until his high school years that Noam Chomsky discovered he was extremely intelligent for his age.

It was this exposure at an early age that first got Chomsky involved with linguistics. Although Harris was a very influential figure later in Noam Chomsky’s life, this initial exposure at a young age was also crucial to Chomsky later becoming one of the most prolific linguists of this century. Even if Chomsky was never introduced to Harris, Chomsky would still become involved with linguistics. This is supported by fact that Chomsky cannot let things go unexamined. As previously discussed, Chomsky considered leaving college to go to a kibbutz. Although he chose not to leave college, in 1953 Chomsky left the United States to spend time living in HaZore’a, a kibbutz in Israel. When Chomsky left the kibbutz he said that he loved the experience, but he could not stay indefinitely because apart of him told him there is more to be done. Chomsky’s inner struggle between politics and academics forced him to see what it was like to live in a kibbutz because it was one of the closest things to an anarchistic society, but ultimately his academic studies tore him away from remaining in that society. If Chomsky left college to go to the kibbutz, Chomsky would still have chosen to only temporarily live in the kibbutz because his academic intellectual side would tear at him, forcing him to return. While Harris was an extremely important figure in Chomsky life, it was his father that sparked Chomsky’s academic lifestyle and interests in grammar and linguistics.

Another key factor for Chomsky’s academic success was the structure of his elementary and middle school. Chomsky attended Oak Lane Day School, an independent school that honored its student’s individuality by creating a setting that fostered intellectual, creative, and academic growth. The classes were somewhat unstructured and allowed Chomsky to become an infovore. Chomsky was not tested on what he knew or memorizing basic facts; instead Chomsky was challenged to think critically and examine the world for what it is. Chomsky has said that he vastly preferred his elementary and middle school teaching structure over his high school teaching structure because the students grew by learning from one another. High school proved to be extremely boring for Chomsky because he could easily learn what the teachers had to teach, but the teachers did not want to push their students to go beyond what was discussed in class. The open-ended nature of his elementary and middle school teaching pushed Chomsky to think critically at a young age, a trait which made him excel later in life becoming known as one of the greatest analytical philosophers of his time.

Without question, Chomsky’s work in linguistics has led him to become one of the most influential figures in modern academia. His father served as one of his most influential figures, being a key reason, along with Zellig Harris, that Chomsky pursued linguistics and grammar. Furthermore, the open-ended nature of his elementary school and middle school taught Chomsky early on to pursue knowledge at a deeper level. Altogether, these factors allowed Chomsky to thrive and become an academic intellectual.

Noam Chomsky the Public Intellectual

As a major figure of analytic philosophy and the “father of modern linguistics,” Chomsky is an extremely well accomplished intellectual. However, we are only starting to touch upon Chomsky’s career. As discussed, Chomsky is as influential in politics as he is in linguistics. Chomsky is a renowned libertarian socialist, but tries to avoid the ambiguity of labels. After a thorough examination of Chomsky’s political views, we will see that like his academic work, he was inspired very early on in his life.

Put simply, Chomsky asserts that all authority is inherently illegitimate and that the burden of proof is on those in authority to prove that they are legitimate or justified. Furthermore, if this burden cannot be met, the authority in question should be dismantled and replaced by alternative structures which are free and participatory and not based on authoritarian systems. However, Chomsky believes that sometimes an authoritative figure can be justified—for example, if your child runs into the street and you grab and pull them away. Chomsky uses this as an example of a justified authoritarian relationship. However, Chomsky argues that in most cases it is not that easy to prove that the authority is justified.

Furthermore, Chomsky envisions that future societies should be stateless, non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, and without private property in the means of production. He proposes that the economic system be executed in a manner that maximizes the liberty of individuals and minimizes concentration of power. In order to obtain this, Chomsky argues that we "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer”.

Chomsky admits that most of his life he favored an anarchist lifestyle, but he became a recognized public activist after the start of his teaching career at MIT with the 1967 publication of his essay The Responsibility of Intellectuals. In the essay, Chomsky attacks the intellectual culture in the United States and argues that they merely obey those in power. Chomsky believes that the people who oppose the Vietnam War on moral grounds are intellectuals who are not willing to stand up to the atrocity that our government is engaging in. According to Chomsky, social scientists and politicians use fake justifications to support the war while the intellectual culture ignores their lies. In The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Chomsky says that it is the intellectuals’ responsibility to search for the truth and expose the lies used by figures of authority. After The Responsibility of Intellectuals, Chomsky established himself in the realm of international politics. This initial criticism of the United States raised controversy; however, Chomsky has continued to contribute his political opinion over a vast variety of topics.

Chomsky has also focused on analyzing mainstream mass media, which he believes quite often is used as a tool to promote the interests of corporations and government. In Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the two present their idea that the news media follows a propaganda model. The propaganda model explains that more democratic societies like the United States use subtle, non-violent means of control. Herman and Chomsky explain that there are five filters that all published news must pass through. These five filters are controlled by the government and the elite, ensuring that all published media support their interests. Ultimately, the pair warns us about the published media and once again focuses on questioning all forms of authority and government.

Another focus of Chomsky’s work is the balancing of religion and politics. For many years there has existed a paradox of religious individuals being considered as public intellectuals. The most obvious reason against this view is that religion and democratic politics do not mix. Stephen Mack examines the topic of religion and public intellectuals in The Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual explaining that religious figures and public intellectuals are mutually exclusive because religion and democratic politics make overlapping claims to meanings attached to humanity. However, Mack also explains that public intellectuals in America are a product of America’s secular and religious traditions. Therefore, religion seems to be tied to their opinions, although it may be in the best interest that it is not.

Chomsky himself responded to the paradox of religious public intellectuals in a 2007 interview conducted by Amina Chaudary titled On Religion and Politics. The interview focuses on religions’ influences on foreign policy today and the current religious conflict in Islam. Chomsky asserts that secularism is a vital component of democratic politics, for reasons that seem evident. A secular democracy is to uphold human rights that are neither pro- nor anti-religion and to remain neutral with regard to their own personal religious belief system. In the interview, Chomsky states that the religious intellectual should be considered a public figure that affects political policy. However, he continues that although we acknowledge the word of religious figures, we should question what they have to say in the same way we question any type of authoritarian or governmental figure. We must ask ourselves if what they are preaching is really what is best for the society as a whole, and not just buy into their demands. These words of wisdom show that although Chomsky is Jewish, he remains strong to his political belief that all authority is inherently illegitimate and the burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate otherwise.

After grasping the general depth of Chomsky’s political views, like his academics, it is essential that we trace how Chomsky developed these ideas. At a young age Chomsky was very inquisitive and was influenced by political events going on around the world. His first anarchist article was on the Spanish Civil War and was written at the age of ten while he was a student at Oak Lane Country Day School. Although his political beliefs were still developing, in the article Chomsky explained why the spread of fascist power was frightening. The core reason of his concerns was the spread of anti-Semitism that accompanied the fascist movement. In interviews, Chomsky stated that he associated fascism with anti-Semitism because his family was the only Jewish family in a mostly Irish and German Catholic neighborhood. The lower middle-class neighborhood was very anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. The Fascist victory in Barcelona frightened Chomsky that things would only get worse.

Although his first political piece was written at the age of ten, Chomsky’s political views had been developing before then. Chomsky explains that occasionally he would travel to New York for a weekend and stay with his aunt and uncle. His uncle, who dropped out of school during the fourth grade, owned a newsstand on 72nd Street in New York that acted as an intellectual center for émigrés from Europe. Chomsky explains that the newsstand was extremely influential for his developing mind. Professors of various backgrounds would go to the newsstand and argue about different issues, and the newsstand was one of the first places he was exposed to a variety of political opinions. The newsstand in New York exposed Chomsky early on to the opinions of intellectuals, allowing Chomsky to develop a political opinion based on logic.

It seems hard to believe that someone at the mere age of ten already had a complex idea of their future political opinion, yet what influenced Chomsky actually began at birth. One of the biggest influences of his political opinion was his mother, who had been part of the radical activism movement of the 1930s. Chomsky’s mother, Elsie Chomsky, was a native of present-day Belarus but grew up in the United States. Elsie Chomsky grew up in the Jewish working class and fought for workers’ rights throughout her entire life. This exposed Noam Chomsky early on to the problems of authority and corporations. The early exposure, along with his intelligence, caused Chomsky to research the impact of authority and corporations, ultimately forming the backbone of his political theory later in life.

Without question, Noam Chomsky is both a leading intellectual and political activist. In terms of his intellectual career, he is considered the “father of modern linguistics” and is the eighth most cited source to date. His political activism started with his voice echoing through the halls at MIT, one of the premier universities in America, until he became one of the most renowned public intellectuals of the century. Even today at the age of 83, Noam Chomsky is considered the eleventh most important alive public intellectual by the 2008 Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll conducted by Prospect Magazine and Foreign Policy. However, by analyzing Chomsky’s academic and political career we see that he was influenced early on in life in both fields. His academic career was deeply influenced by his father, William Chomsky, a Hebrew grammarian, and by the teaching style of his elementary and middle school. Similarly, his political career was influenced by his mother, Elsie Chomsky, a radical activist of the 1930s, and by his uncle, who owned a newsstand and was deeply intrigued by current political issues. Overall, Noam Chomsky is not only a brilliant individual driven by logic and reasoning, but also one of my most influential individuals in terms of my personal political opinion.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Supreme Court Rules that Affixing a GPS Device to a Vehicle Constitutes a Search

The Roberts Court, 2010


On Monday, January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that affixing a GPS device to a vehicle and monitoring its every move constitutes a ‘search’. However, the majority of Supreme Court declined to say whether this type of search requires a warrant in all cases. This is extremely substantial for United States v. Jones because it holds that the search was both reasonable lawful:

The Government argues in the alternative that even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable—and thus lawful—under the Fourth Amendment because “officers had reasonable suspicion, and in-deed probable cause, to believe that [Jones] was a leader in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy.” Brief for United States 50–51.

Although they viewed this as both reasonable and lawful, the nine justices agreed to toss out the life sentence of Jones who was the subject of a warrantless, 28-day surveillance via GPS. The Supreme Court ruled that Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and that the FBI needed a warrant to track jones.

Four justices in a minority opinion said that prolonged GPS surveillance is a search that requires a warrant. But the four justices did not comment on whether GPS monitoring for shorter periods of time would also require a warrant.

With technology advancing at the rate that it is, the Fourth Amendment will continue to be threatened. The government will have new tools at their disposal to monitor the general public and catch criminals. But at what cost is this to us? Some may argue it is protecting us, but this protection comes with the loss of some of the liberties that this country is built upon. Personally, I believe that Andrew Jones is a criminal and should not be free on the streets, but my feelings towards upholding the Fourth Amendment are much stronger and more important than this belief.

The Supreme Court made the right decision and GPS surveillance should definitely be considered a search. The only thing I worry is that as technology advances the liberties our country is built upon may be threatened by a power-hungry government.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Gingrich - Death to Drug Importers

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. (Getty Images)

Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich is an American politician, author, and political consultant. Currently, he is a candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination. Gingrich is known for having some very right-wing extremist views, one of which includes a strong stance against drugs.
In 1996 as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Gingrich proposed a law that would allow the United States to incarcerate repeat drug importers to the death sentence. The bill was known as H.R. 4170: Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996 and states:
9/25/1996--Introduced.
Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996 - Amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to direct the court to sentence a person convicted of bringing into the United States a proscribed quantity of a mixture or substance containing a controlled substance in an amount the Attorney General has determined is equal to 100 usual dosage amounts to life imprisonment without possibility of release (or, if the defendant has violated such provision on more than one occasion and if certain requirements under the Federal criminal code are met, to death). Makes conforming amendments to the code.
Gingrich has confessed to once smoking pot when he was younger and has said that experimenting with drugs, “was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era.”

"That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era," he told New York magazine in 1995 of his illegal drug use. And in 1982, he penned a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association calling for the legalization of medical cannabis. Federal law, he wrote, "continues to define marijuana as a drug 'with no accepted medical use,' and federal agencies continue to prohibit physician-patient access to marijuana. This outdated federal prohibition is corrupting the intent of the state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislatures."

While it's hard to pinpoint exactly when Gingrich went from calling for marijuana legalization to introducing legislation sentencing pot smugglers to death, his peculiar evolution certainly merits an explanation.

"See, when I smoked pot it was illegal," he reportedly told the Wall Street Journal's Hilary Stout in 1996, "but not immoral. Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality... That's why you get to go to jail and I don't."

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Stop Online Piracy Act Investigated

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is a bill that was introduced to the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011 by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking of copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. More specifically, the bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. Furthermore the bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for 10 such infringements within six months.

The goals of SOPA are most notably protecting intellectual property of content creators and protection against counterfeit drugs. SOPA aims at stopping the flow of revenue to rogue websites that receive profit from illegally distributing copyrighted material, thereby ensuring that “profits from American innovations go to American innovators.” Furthermore, SOPA aims at targeting websites that sell drugs that were either misbranded or counterfeit. Commonly, shipment of prescription drugs from foreign pharmacies to customers in the United States typically violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act, and SOPA aims at countering these law breaking activities.

However, while the goals of SOPA seem admirable, it is justifiably met with extremely strong opposition. Most noticeably is the impact SOPA would have on websites that host user content. SOPA would make the owners of user-generated websites liable for users’ actions, and websites that would be affected include YouTube, Facebook, Vimeo, etc. In fact, the Electronic Freedom Foundation warned that user-generated sites would all be threatened to be shut down if the bill becomes laws. This is because these websites would all become liable if any of their users uploaded copyrighted material. Further concerns arise for websites that could link to copyrighted material, for example if a Twitter user links to copyrighted material. These types of user-generated websites seem unjustly punished by SOPA; even though only a small amount of its users may link to copyrighted material, all its members seem harmed by this piece of legislation.

My personal take on SOPA is that it cannot be passed, especially with the way it is currently worded. It gives copyright holders too much power and creates far more harm than it does good. As of today, if a user-generated site is found to have copyrighted material the copyright holder merely asks the website to take down their copyrighted material. If SOPA passes, the copyright holder could sue not only the individual that uploaded the copyrighted material, but the website for hosting the material, essentially punishing the website for merely providing a service such as video hosting. Luckily, SOPA has been shelved; however, the online community should not take this as a victory. In a few weeks the Senate will vote on Protect IP Act (PIPA) which is essentially a more “reasonable” form of SOPA. The online community must realize that the government is using a “head in the door” method to pass some form of online legislation. We must now focus our effects on PIPA and continue to keep the momentum from SOPA going strong.  I believe Glenn Beck said it best that, “It’s a different world we’re going into but it’s all based on the Internet. It’s all based on these connections. If you start limiting the connections, you’re going backwards as a society.