When I first decided to read an essay from “who wants diversity” I automatically thought that I would not agree with the authors’ viewpoints. I want diversity and I think if you asked almost anyone they would say the same thing. However after reading “People Like Us” by David Brooks I began to question whether or not we really wanted diversity. According to Brooks we don’t really care about diversity we talk about it but we tend to segregate ourselves. The United States may be a diverse country but block by block, city by city we are not at all diverse. Some evidence suggests that areas become more segregated as time goes on. What Brooks is basically saying in his essay is that people don’t want diversity because it is human nature to look for similarities in others. He says that people with similar tastes tend to congregate by zip code. For example recent college graduates in places like Berkley Ca are big consumers of dove bars and Saturday night live, they tend to drive small foreign cars and read rolling stone. Another example he gives is successful blacks are increasingly moving to neighborhoods where other successful blacks live. This essay made me think about how diverse my daily interactions are.
Michigan is one of the most segregated states in the country not by law but by choice. We all know of certain areas that are mostly black or Middle Eastern or white. I guess we don’t want diversity as much as we thought, now that we have the opportunity to mix and mingle with other cultures we still tend to stick with those that are similar to ourselves. After I thought about it most of the people I know are very similar to myself, and I’m sure most people could say the same thing. Most of us tend to choose our friends or partners based on the fact that they have something in common with us. Why is it that we tend to stick with people that we have things in common with, is it because we feel threatened by people with opposing viewpoints? This segregation prevents us from having real discussions about politics or religion because we tend to surround ourselves with people just like us.
One thing this essay brought to mind was the typical high school lunchroom. Jocks at one table popular kids at another, rebels’, smart kids, cheerleaders all sit with others similar to themselves. In a way the U.S is like that high school lunchroom, we stick with people like us. We all say that we want diversity but don’t do anything about it, we still keep ourselves separated from each other. As brooks said “The dream of diversity is like the dream of equality; both are based on ideals, we celebrate them even as we undermine them daily.” This is a very good essay. I suggest that everyone reads it and thinks about how diverse their daily interactions really are.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
academic article summary
In their essay “The economic case against prohibition” (October 11, 2009 Journal of Economic perspectives Vol.9 NO.4 Published by the American Economic Association) Jeffery A. Miron and Jeffery Zweibel suggest that a relatively free market in drugs is likely to be vastly superior to our current drug policy. They support this position first by “analyzing the economic consequences of drug prohibition”; they compare a prohibited market with a free market on drugs. Then the authors discuss the connection between prohibition and violence “prohibition is likely to raise marginal benefits to violence.” Participants in the illegal drug trade cannot use the legal and judicial system so using violence to resolve disputes increases due to necessity. Next they discuss how prohibiting drugs encourages drugs cartels. Lastly they discuss the increased amount of accidental poisoning overdoses during prohibition. This is mainly due to the uncertainty about product quality. Quality regulations do not apply to illegal products so accidental poisonings and overdoses occur more frequently in a prohibited market. Their purpose is to provide a detailed analysis of the benefits of a free market; they want the reader to understand that from an economic point of view it is logical to end drug prohibition. One point that I found particularly interesting was the connection between violence and drug prohibition. Being a business major I appreciated the strong economic feel of the paper.
In the essay “Drug Prohibition in the US: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives” (October 11, 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Ethan A. Nadelmann concludes that “though legalization would increase the availability of drugs, decrease the price and remove criminal sanction which would invite increases in drug use and abuse there are at least 3 reasons why these risks are worth taking.” In his essay he discusses both the risks and benefits of legalizing drugs. His first reason is that drug enforcement strategies that rely on the law are limited in the effect to decrease abuse and drug dealing. One example he gives that I found particularly interesting is “since stepping up interdiction efforts have reduced the flow of marijuana into the US and have increased the price to American consumers however the US has emerged as one of the world’s leading producers of marijuana in fact the US producers are now believed to produce among the finest strains in the world.” His second reason is that many of the law enforcement efforts we have in place are limited in value and results but are very costly. Total government spending devoted to enforcement laws amounted to $10 billion in 1990. The third reason given by Nadelmann is that legalization may be less risky than most people think “especially if intelligent alternative measures are implemented.” He provides a somewhat well rounded look at legalization of drugs by including both risks and benefits, though he gives much information about benefits of legalizing drugs he leaves enough room for the reader to come to their own conclusion. Nadelmann states that legalization should be done in an intelligent way but he does not provide an intelligent solution to the problem. He does say that “the success of legalization depends upon two assumptions: most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as is commonly believed and that risky methods of drug use are unlikely to prove appealing to many people because they are so dangerous.” I did appreciate the fact that he made it clear that his reason for supporting legalization of drugs was to help solve the drug problem in this country.
In the appropriately titled “Drug Policy: Striking the right balance” (October 11,2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant suggest that drug policies should strike a balance between reducing harm done by drugs and harm that results from strict legal prohibitions and their enforcement. They do this by showing that psychoactive drugs are to varying degrees dangerous to users and society, drug consumption is influenced by availability, availability can be modified in many ways other than prohibition, demand reduction is key to ending the drug problem and drug policy should be tailored to the dangers presented by each drug to users and society. The author’s purpose is to explain how balance is the key to ending the drug problem facing the US. This is my favorite essay of the three because it is the only one that discusses ending the demand for drugs as a way to end the problem. Neither of the other essays mentioned this. I feel that it is a key component to ending the drug problem. This was also the only one to discuss varying policies based on the danger of the drug “the debate is not about oversimplified dichotomy, legalization versus prohibition but rather about the specifics of regulatory policies for each drug.” Goldstein and Kalant provided a more in-depth look at the problem and how legalization could be a solution.
Works Cited Page
Drug Policy: Striking the Right Balance Author(s): Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 249, No. 4976 (Sep. 28, 1990), pp. 1513-1521 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2877807 Accessed: 11/10/2009 22:44
Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives Author(s): Ethan A. Nadelmann Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 245, No. 4921 (Sep. 1, 1989), pp. 939-947 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1704189 Accessed: 11/10/2009 18:29
The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 Accessed: 11/10/2009 19:00
In the essay “Drug Prohibition in the US: Costs, Consequences and Alternatives” (October 11, 2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Ethan A. Nadelmann concludes that “though legalization would increase the availability of drugs, decrease the price and remove criminal sanction which would invite increases in drug use and abuse there are at least 3 reasons why these risks are worth taking.” In his essay he discusses both the risks and benefits of legalizing drugs. His first reason is that drug enforcement strategies that rely on the law are limited in the effect to decrease abuse and drug dealing. One example he gives that I found particularly interesting is “since stepping up interdiction efforts have reduced the flow of marijuana into the US and have increased the price to American consumers however the US has emerged as one of the world’s leading producers of marijuana in fact the US producers are now believed to produce among the finest strains in the world.” His second reason is that many of the law enforcement efforts we have in place are limited in value and results but are very costly. Total government spending devoted to enforcement laws amounted to $10 billion in 1990. The third reason given by Nadelmann is that legalization may be less risky than most people think “especially if intelligent alternative measures are implemented.” He provides a somewhat well rounded look at legalization of drugs by including both risks and benefits, though he gives much information about benefits of legalizing drugs he leaves enough room for the reader to come to their own conclusion. Nadelmann states that legalization should be done in an intelligent way but he does not provide an intelligent solution to the problem. He does say that “the success of legalization depends upon two assumptions: most illegal drugs are not as dangerous as is commonly believed and that risky methods of drug use are unlikely to prove appealing to many people because they are so dangerous.” I did appreciate the fact that he made it clear that his reason for supporting legalization of drugs was to help solve the drug problem in this country.
In the appropriately titled “Drug Policy: Striking the right balance” (October 11,2009 American Association for the Advancement of Science) Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant suggest that drug policies should strike a balance between reducing harm done by drugs and harm that results from strict legal prohibitions and their enforcement. They do this by showing that psychoactive drugs are to varying degrees dangerous to users and society, drug consumption is influenced by availability, availability can be modified in many ways other than prohibition, demand reduction is key to ending the drug problem and drug policy should be tailored to the dangers presented by each drug to users and society. The author’s purpose is to explain how balance is the key to ending the drug problem facing the US. This is my favorite essay of the three because it is the only one that discusses ending the demand for drugs as a way to end the problem. Neither of the other essays mentioned this. I feel that it is a key component to ending the drug problem. This was also the only one to discuss varying policies based on the danger of the drug “the debate is not about oversimplified dichotomy, legalization versus prohibition but rather about the specifics of regulatory policies for each drug.” Goldstein and Kalant provided a more in-depth look at the problem and how legalization could be a solution.
Works Cited Page
Drug Policy: Striking the Right Balance Author(s): Avram Goldstein and Harold Kalant Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 249, No. 4976 (Sep. 28, 1990), pp. 1513-1521 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2877807 Accessed: 11/10/2009 22:44
Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs, Consequences, and Alternatives Author(s): Ethan A. Nadelmann Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 245, No. 4921 (Sep. 1, 1989), pp. 939-947 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1704189 Accessed: 11/10/2009 18:29
The Economic Case Against Drug Prohibition Author(s): Jeffrey A. Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel Source: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 175-192 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138396 Accessed: 11/10/2009 19:00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)