Opposition Against The Plastic Bag Ban

Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Austin City Council members have recently endorsed a ban on plastic bags across Austin to be considered as an action item for City Council this November. The reason for this ban is because it is estimated that 263 million plastic bags are used by Austin residents every year costing the city $800,000 per year in pollution and liter management (Longoria,2011). I am a concerned citizen of Austin and a frequent shopper around the community, in my opinion, this rationale for banning plastic bags is irresponsible of the city because they aren’t taking into consideration harmful health implications for Austinites. Therefore, a citizen of Austin, I am opposed to the ban on plastic bags. I believe that this should be a concern to other citizens with hopes that they would contact their local City Council member to discuss their opposition to the plastic bag ban. This paper will address the counter argument of this current debate, as well as, discuss issues of why citizens should oppose the ban.

Environmentalist and City Council members who support the plastic bag ban argue that plastic bags are damaging to the environment and is costing tax payers a lot of money to clean up the mess (Longoria, 2011). What they don’t realize is that the alternative to banning the bags is equally damaging and dangerous. These alternatives are utilizing reusable bags which grow harmful bacteria that can create life threatening health conditions, and paper bags, which destroy oxygen producing trees. There has been no scientific or local studies looking at the impact of plastic bags on the environment (Coppola, 2011). It is apparent that the city is more focused on saving money over concern for the health and well being of Austin citizens.

The first reason why plastic bags should not be banned is because utilizing ‘green’ reusable bags have been found to breed bacteria. Research by the Department of Soil, Water, and Environmental Science at the University of Arizona and the Department of Public Health at Loma Linda University, suggest that consumers do not clean their ‘green’ bags This creates opportunities for cross contamination of food and a greater likelihood of food-borne illnesses (Gerba, Williams, and Sinclair, 2010). This same research also found that 97% of people do not regularly clean their reusable bags, if ever. The instructions on the reusable bags state the bags need to be washed on a regular basis however it is often ignored. Of the consumers identified in the Gurba, Williams, and Sinclair study (2010), 75% mix meat and vegetables in the same bag and also use these bags for storing books, snacks, and other personal items after shopping. This type of behavior increases the likelihood of cross contamination. By utilizing plastic bags, consumers don’t have to worry about cross contamination because single use plastic bags rarely breed bacteria. Gurba et. al. (2010) also suggest bacteria from the reusable bags could be one of the primary factors contributing to the 76 million cases of foodborne illnesses every year in the United States. Due to the potential of breeding harmful foodborne bacteria, Austinites are jeopardizing their health and ultimately their lives if plastic bags are removed from stores.

City council members and environmentalist say plastic bags pollute waterways, clog drainage systems, and take up landfill space where they don’t biodegrade and also kills wildlife (Coppola, 2011). However, according to Hilex corporation, a large manufacturer and recycler of plastic bags, states there is no evidence that plastic bags kill wildlife, or are a large source of litter. While there are many people looking at environmental aspects of removing plastic bags, there is no exact percentage of the amount that various types of waste contribute to pollution (Dorigo, 2011). In addition, Austin itself has not done an Environmental Impact Survey to determine how much of an impact removing plastic bags would really have on Austin’s environment. Instead, they are strictly concerned with the amount of money they are saving. Austin seems attracted to focus on the cost of using plastic bags over the true environmental impact. “If you’re trying to collect money from people to fix something, you need an enemy. You need a symbol. The plastic bag has become the symbol. Environmental activists have gone to extreme measures to distort facts and create their symbol. It’s a great fundraising tool for them” (Smith, 2010). This statement points out that Austin is not concerned about the well being of their citizens but protecting themselves to save money.

Another reason to not remove plastic bags is because is multiple uses and ability to be recycled. In addition to recycling, plastic bags can be utilized for other purposes such as: picking up pet waste, trash liners, lunch bags, and carrying other items. According to A Bags Life (2011), a public educational campaign that unites organizations around promoting the three R’s – reduce, reuse, and recycle, it has been found that more than 90% of users reuse or recycle their plastic bags. In effect, these are not single use bags as claimed by environmentalists. The bags have important and valid uses for citizens more than just carrying groceries and also can have an impact on our environment through recycling where the bad can be made into other products.

In conclusion, citizens of Austin should go to their City Council member immediately to ask them not to support the ban on plastic bags because their life depends on it. This paper has identified three reasons not to support the ban which include, reusable bags breed bacteria, the environmental impact on plastic bags has not been proven, and plastic bags can be reused for many purposes and recycled. As more and more Austinites work to improve their health and well being, what is important here is that the focus isn’t so much on how much we can make a contribution to our environment or lessen the financial burden to the city, but how we can keep ourselves healthy as individuals and live our lives in a stress free and healthy manner. Therefore, it is imperative for Austinites to take action to not support the ban on plastic bags.

References:

Dorigo, E. (2011) Will banning plastic bags help the environment?. Science 2.0, retrieved from http://www.science20.com/enrico_dorigo/will_banning_help_the_environment-75598.

Gurba,C.P., Williams, D., & Sinclair, R.G. (2010). Assessment of the potential for cross contamination of food products by reusable shopping bags, retrieved from http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/25/study-reusable-bags-green-but-not-clean/

Longoria, B. (2011, July 25). “Austin city council members push plastic bag ban”. Community Impact Newspaper, retrieved from http://impactnews.com/central-austin/293-recent-news/13889-council-members-push-to-ban-plastic-bags-city-wide.

Smith M. (2010) Austin weighs on plastic bag ban, sparks debate. Abc news, retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/austin-weighs-plastic-bag-ban-sparks-debate/story?id=11334974#.TsLsgHOLGjU

Coppola, S. (2011). City council moves ahead on plastic bag ban. Austin American – Statesman. Retrieved from http://www.texasenvironment.org/news_story.cfm?IId=1061

A Bags Life. (2011) Recycle Me. Retrieved from http://abagslife.com/recyle-me.

Kerrington Hill Final Essay

Kerrington Hill

Rhetoric of Health

Final Essay

There is no standard procedure for testing ADHD and the disorder is more common and diagnosed more frequently. To control ADHD, doctors can prescribe Adderall, an amphetamine that stimulates the brain by increasing dopamine, to help control ADHD symptoms. This drug has been used by many people worldwide and even people who have not been diagnosed with ADHD or prescribed Adderall by a doctor. The reason why the drug has been available to non-prescribed users, generally college students, ranges from the lack of extensive ADHD testing, to friends simply sharing the drug. However, whatever the cause of the drug being spread may be, problems have been created in many communities between two groups; the legally prescribed users of the drug, and the illegal non-prescribed users of the drug. These problems include debates over unfair advantage of prescribed users, and not always positive outcomes after using the drug. In this essay, I will come to a verdict agreeing that the drug Adderall should not be made available to the public without a prescription.

In the counter argument, stated by the non-prescribed users, more so college students, proclaims that people use ADHD medication to help them study, be more focused, attentive, and productive, stay awake, and help exercise. To go against these individuals I will make the argument that Adderall can be similar to athletes using steroids that are kicked off of teams because they obtain an unfair advantage. This happens to be the same general principle. You are abusing a drug to be above average not thinking about the costly detrimental outcomes that face them in the future. In continuance with athleticism, I will bring myself into my argument and state that I am a student-athlete that has been diagnosed with ADHD, have a prescription for Adderall, and have my prescription cleared by the NCAA. I have sympathy for individuals who have ADHD that are not able to obtain the drug or have to pay a large amount to obtain it because of this shortage. My case of ADHD is not severe but I understand that it is so much easier to get distracted, not pay attention, or focus when I am not on the medication. I despise the idea that many college students abuse the drug to stay up late to study or gain an advantage in the classroom, use the pill as a weight loss strategy, or any other excuse listed. People have asked me before to spare them some of the Adderall pills but I swiftly decline to prevent this abuse.

In addition, I would like to also mention in relation to the health issues, I was not able to use Adderall immediately after the testing because of having high blood pressure. It took me a few months to get my blood pressure lowered to a safer level before I took the medication. Most of the non-prescribed users of Adderall do not know if their blood pressure is at a safe quota because they have not been tested. Also, since most of them are generally college students, alcohol is most likely involved at some point during their week. Some students may have an urge to take the pill so that they can sustain energy throughout the night. Unfortunately, I have personally seen a friend become very ill and get rushed to the hospital because of dehydration and seizing out.

Ongoing, I have read that while individuals are benefitting from the use of Adderall, the victims are the patients who are in need of the drug that is not available to them. According to an article in The Controversy Behind ADHD, “this is not only creating an issue amongst patients, but also creating an issue and huge burden upon pharmacies, doctors and nurses”(Eakman). As stated by an article in The New York Observer, the shortage of Adderall is “wrecking havoc all over the country and amphetamine-starved denizens are finding themselves out of luck” (Kramer). These individuals that take the abuse of Adderall for granted do not see that addiction can be a possibility in store for them in the future. Adderall can be helpful or can be abused just as any drug can; hence people should not rely on it that do not need it for medical reasons. A website entitled The Republic - Columbus, Indiana, mentions that “any abuse of amphetamine may result in serious heart and blood pressure problems and become habit-forming, drug dependant, and withdrawal symptoms may occur after stopping the drug”(Melvin). The Republic article also agrees with my argument stating that, “abusing prescription stimulants can result in death, addiction, respiratory problems, seizures and cardiovascular tissues, such as irregular heartbeat” (Melvin). To back up my argument above of addiction and drug issues I will now bring in the negative results that come from the use of college students abusing the drug to study. In an article entitled, Ask a Patient, the individuals remain nameless, but one in particular, a 21 year old studying for college exams stated that his girlfriend took 30 milligrams within an hour of each other to study for her exams. “She didn’t sleep that night or the next day” (college student). the student stated, “the day after she only ate 2 eggs throughout the entire dosage and took a nap because she was exhausted and an hour later when I tried to wake her she did not respond and also had a blood pressure of 110” (college student). In an anxious concern he kept trying and it was not until 20 minutes passed he got her up and she was hyperventilating. “She could not talk or catch her breath for a minute or two and kept falling back asleep, we were ready to call an ambulance,” (college student) he stated, “she recovered shortly but had a head ache the rest of the day. I am concerned because she only takes this to study.” (college student) This was the experience of a college student that took Adderall to study. On the top of the article it also says for the individual to rate Adderall between a 1 and 5, 1 being the lowest, 5 the highest. He rated Adderall with a 2, more so not recommending to take the drug. Now, I will compare this to the result of an individual who was actually diagnosed and prescribed with ADHD. This 27 year old individual mentions that Adderall increased attention and motivation revealing that “this medication is truly heaven sent for true ADHD individuals,” (prescribed user) she continues with saying that “Although people are abusing this drug and giving it a terrible name it has worked wonders for me. You must be truly disciplined with this med if you choose to take the med-holiday-found this to be extremely helpful in controlling dependency and tolerance, but it has truly worked wonders (prescribed user).” She rated this drug a 5 in her experience with it, a 3 point difference than the student using it to study for an exam.

Overall, you cannot expect medication to solve and workout your issues, you have to develop coping skills to better organize yourself and make the effort. Some make it a priority in life to rely on drugs. ADHD is a chemical disorder that some individuals cannot help. For them, they need this narcotic to keep their mind from running a million miles an hour and not be able to get anything done. People who use the drug to help them in school, athletics or other selfish reasons put themselves at high risks and make life harder for people who actually need the drug. Regardless of the appeals of Adderall, it is not for everyone. The last thing a mother wants to hear is that her son died because he had high blood pressure and took Adderall or an NCAA athlete loses eligibility for using the drug without proper documentation. All of the Adderall tragedies can easily be avoided if the prescribed users will be more responsible with the drug and for the non-prescribed users to simply put the drug down.

Works Cited Page

Eakman, Beverly I., and Mary A. Block. "The Controversy Behind ADHD." Death from Ritalin the Truth Behind ADHD. Death From Ritalin. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. .

Kramer, Foster. "The Great Adderall Shortage of 2011 Rages On | The New York Observer." The New York Observer. The Observer, 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. .

Melvin, Lindsay. "Prescription Drug Abuse Rises on Campuses | The Republic." The Republic - Columbus, Indiana. The Republic, 17 Nov. 2011. Web. 23 Nov. 2011. .

Patients. “Drug Ratings for Adderall.” Ask a Patient.” 2 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. <http://www.askapatient.com/viewrating.asp?drug=11522>.

Federal Funding for Medical Research: Why to Restrict Congress’s Influence

The United States Federal Government has been providing medical research funding to scientists since at least 1938, the first year such appropriations were recorded (“Appropriations”). These appropriations have been largely determined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the “world's largest and most distinguished organization dedicated to maintaining and improving health through medical science” (President's Proposed 36). Next year, Congress is projected to give $32 billion to spend on research project grants (extramural research), intramural research, development and maintenance of research centers, and contracts (President's Proposed 36).

The NIH invests its money in many areas of medical research, from tackling illnesses head-on, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS and cardiovascular disease (“Estimates”), to basic research: the “fundamental observations made today [that] become the building blocks of tomorrow’s knowledge, therapies, and cures” (Fiscal Year 4). The NIH is “composed of 27 distinct institutes and centers, or ICs,” most of which “fund research in their respective health related fields” (What Happens). Every year, “20,000 independent experts from the scientific community” nationwide are selected to “review more than 80,000 NIH applications” (NIH Peer Review). The applications are graded and sent to the appropriate IC to decide how much funding should be given within that IC’s pool of money (What Happens). About one-fifth of the applications will be awarded, with an average commitment of $414,000 per year for 4.3 years (President's Proposed 39) and a maximum commitment of five years (NIH Grants IIA-44).

So which ICs get how much money? With tens of billions of dollars budgeted to the NIH every year, debate will arise as to how that money should be distributed. After an extensive review of NIH’s budgets, I find unevenness in the way their money is distributed to each IC. In arguably the most clear-cut example, $6 billion will be provided for cancer research in the 2012 fiscal year (“Estimates”). According to the FAIR (Fair Allocations In Research) Foundation, this translates to $11,000 per deceased patient (“Our Government's”). Funding for HIV/AIDS research, on the other hand, will come out to $3.2 billion, or $311,000 per deceased patient – a thirtyfold increase (“Our Government's”). The reasons for this disparity are many. HIV/AIDS in the United States has a horrific history, beginning in the early 1980s (“NIH Fact Sheets”). Until 1996, AIDS treatment was limited to “palliative care and management of opportunistic infections” (“NIH Fact Sheets”). Before 1996, HIV/AIDS funding was surprisingly small, not reaching $250 million until 1987 and $1 billion until 1992 (Folkers 459). It required grassroots activism from advocacy groups such as AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) to pressure lawmakers to bring these numbers to the level that they should been in the first place. In an episode of the television news magazine “20/20” titled “Disease Politics,” reporter John Stossel provides an explanation into the HIV/AIDS activism:

If you want to know how to make money and influence the government, look no further than the AIDS lobby. Fifteen years ago, as AIDS was killing more and more people, NIH spent little on AIDS research. So, desperate to be heard, AIDS activists rewrote the book on medical research lobbying. They heckled President Reagan, stopped traffic, marched on Congress and accused politicians who ignored their demands of discrimination against homosexuals. … The result? AIDS research now gets more money per patient than any other disease.

Significant strides have been made since in the search for a cure, including the discovery of antiretroviral treatments and developments into “neutralizing diverse HIV strains” (“NIH Fact Sheets”). Because of these discoveries, transmitting HIV and dying from AIDS is much easier to prevent than it was 20 years ago. These developments lead me to believe that the urgency nowadays to find a cure to HIV/AIDS is no more significant than finding a cure for cancer or other diseases with life-ending consequences. Yet, the difference between dollars per diseased patient is still astounding, arguably in part to the increased pressure Congress has to keep it that way.

The politicking for medical research funds didn’t stop with HIV/AIDS. Stossel reminds us of similar success with breast cancer activism and activism for diseases that have celebrity support. He highlights the struggles of Joan Samuelson, a former lawyer with Parkinson’s disease. She left her profession to “devote what time she has left to asking Congress to set aside more money for Parkinson’s” (Disease). Her committee meeting discussing Parkinson’s was unsuccessful, with “[m]ost of the legislators’ chairs … empty” (Disease). It wasn’t until actor Michael J. Fox shared his experiences with Parkinson’s that convinced Congress to put more aside for that disease’s research. Stossel provides an excellent synopsis of the problem:

Now, given that these billions [provided to the NIH every year] are your tax money, you would think they [the NIH] would be sure to spend it on the research scientists think will save the most lives or relieve the most suffering. But amazingly they don’t, because Congress makes sure that they spent the lion’s share of the money on the people who have the most political clout.

But don’t blame the activists for this problem. Don’t blame our lawmakers either. The fact of the matter is our senators and representatives are elected by the People, and are thus forced to succumb to the pressure of supporting such activism. Otherwise, they risk losing their reelection. So, to achieve a better balance of funding, I propose we rid our Congress from most of the power they have over the NIH. That power – with the exception of how much money the NIH is given as a whole – is transferred to the NIH, a non-elected, politically unbiased body that has a better idea than Congress of how money should be distributed to their ICs.

This suddenly limits the People’s voice, you might say. However, I would suggest that this isn’t the case at all, because Congress is most concerned about simply staying in office. The only way that is possible is responding in favor of lobbyists – not you, the average U.S. citizen. Anything lacking “star power” will rarely win in Congress, regardless of how attached or detached the NIH is from the government. You might also say that the only way HIV/AIDS research could have increased in the NIH was with star power and activism; the NIH wouldn’t increase funding on their own. I beg to differ. Because researchers at NIH know more than the senators and representatives that fund them, HIV/AIDS research money may have reached legit amounts much earlier, and activism wouldn’t have been necessary. I especially believe that nowadays, as we move towards a more accepting and prejudiceless culture.

Should the NIH take over all financial decisions, it is possible that they begin to provide less toward HIV/AIDS and more towards diseases with higher death tolls, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, in an effort to make funding more balanced among the medical research areas. I know many will not like this change, but all things considered, I’m okay with it. Tom Coates, a professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, and others suggest not to “drag AIDS care and prevention down to the level of every other disease, but let's bring everything else up to the level of AIDS” (“Experts”). Unfortunately, it’s wishful thinking. In an ideal world, we have unlimited funding to provide for scientific studies of all kinds. But we don’t; we’re in the worst recession since at least the 1980s.

The political influence is too great in an area that so vastly affects our well-being, and it’s affecting how money is spent. Let the NIH make its own decisions as to how money should be funded across its many ICs. We can make more rational, balanced, and effective decisions on the distribution of medical research this way. Call or mail your representative today.

Works Cited

"Appropriations." The NIH Almanac. National Institutes of Health, 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/appropriations/index.htm>.

Disease Politics, 20/20. American Broadcasting Company, 1999. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.fairfoundation.org/stossel.wmv>.

"Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC)." NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). National Institutes of Health, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/default.aspx>.

"Experts Rethinking Billions Spent on AIDS." MSNBC.com. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22726852/ns/health-aids/t/experts-rethinking-billions-spent-aids>.

Folkers, Gregory K., and Anthony S. Fauci. "The AIDS Research Model: Implications for Other Infectious Diseases of Global Health Importance." JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Assocation 286.4 (2001): 459. American Medical Association. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/directors/Documents/aidsmodel.pdf>.

"NIH Fact Sheets - HIV/AIDS." NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). National Institutes of Health, 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=30>.

NIH Peer Review Revealed. National Institutes of Health, 29 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://youtu.be/fBDxI6l4dOA>.

"Our Government's Bio-Medical Research Allocations by the National Institutes of Health." The Facts. The FAIR Foundation. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm>.

United States of America. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. By Francis S. Collins. Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request. 11 May 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/fy2012budgetrequest.pdf>.

United States of America. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. NIH Grants Policy Statement. 1 Oct. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2011/nihgps_2011.pdf>.

United States of America. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. President's Proposed 2012 NIH Budget. 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_020911.pdf>.

What Happens to Your NIH Grant Application Video. National Institutes of Health, 16 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://youtu.be/DuuAGROm_1Q>.