Essay on Spirituality in Song of Solomon -- Song Solomon essays

Inclusive Spirituality in Song of Solomon    When slaves were brought to America they were taken from all they had known and forced to live in a land of dark irony that, while promising life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, provided them with only misery. In a situation such as the one in which the slaves found themselves, many people would rely on their religion to help them survive. But would slaves be able to find spiritual comfort within the parameters of a religion that had been passed on to them from the slaveholders? In Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon, African-Americans struggle to find a spirituality that is responsive to their needs and that encompasses their experiences in a way that the religion of the dominant culture does not. Song of Solomon deals with the African-American struggle to find a spirituality not defined by a religion of the dominant culture. From the beginning of the novel, Morrison alludes to Christianity with the names she chooses-Hagar, First Corinthians, Magdalene, and Ruth for example. However, the two main allusions Morrison draws on are the name "Pilate" and the name of the biblical book Song of Solomon. In the narrative in which Pilate is named, Pilate's father, who can't read, lets the Bible fall open and points to a set of lines that look agreeable to him. It just so happens that the word spelled out by those lines is "Pilate," the name of the Roman who turns Jesus over to be crucified. The midwife attending at Pilate's birth asks the father if he really wants to name the child after the person who killed Jesus, and the father replies, "I asked Jesus to save me my wife," and he continues, "I asked him all night long" (19). Yet his wife wasn't saved, and Pilate's father feels... ...sition of meanings shows both majority and minority readers that African-American spiritual experience, while touched by majority experience, does not have to be formed by it. Song of Solomon deals with the struggle of African-Americans to find a spiritual avenue that is responsive to their needs and reflective of their experience. The text helps people to examine differing ideas, learn about different experiences, and become sensitive to various needs. If we are able to learn something from Song of Solomon, really learn something, perhaps life, liberty and happiness will finally find us. Works Cited Bloom, Harold, ed. Modern Critical Views: Toni Morrison. New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 1990. Middleton, David. Toni Morrison's Fiction: Contemporary Criticism. New York: Garland, 1997. Morrison, Toni. Song of Solomon. New York: Plume, 1987.

Hate Speech - Legal, but Unnecessary -- essays research papers

Hate Speech - Legal, but Unnecessary While a clear and concise definition remains forthcoming, it is easier to establish what hate speech is not. Hate speech is wrong but legal in the United States of America mostly because we have the freedom of speech. But the First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. In this case, people are allowed to use hate speech and not get arrested or any legal actions against them. The best way to counter obnoxious speech such as this is with more speech. Persuasion, not violence, is the solution to this problem (Jouhari). Hate speech has been mistakenly tied with other categories of speech both legal and illegal. One should avoid confusing hate speech with something it is not because other legal implications might come into play. Hate speech is not obscene speech. According to the guidelines of the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) for indecent speech, which define indecent speech as, "limited to language or material that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as much by the contemporary community standards for the broadcast means, sexual activities or organs," then hate speech is not indecent speech either (Pullma). Indecent speech should also be kept apart from the category of hate speech, which involves victimization. Hate speech is offensive language towards a particular group, race, gender, or religion. These include the insulting words by which their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality (Pullma). There is no choice but to continue tolerating intolerance, until the Constitution itself would be amended, which is an event unlikely to occur. In the meantime, individual cases and court opinions add more problems to the already growing problem called the constitutionality of hate speech. Hate speech on the Internet is one of those problems, unique, but part of the whole picture. &n... ...use all hate speech is, is speech that makes people feel inferior or doleful. I believe that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have to had agree with me if he was here in this day and time about the way at tackling this problem. This method of problem solving is nonviolent and effective. Just like that in the Letter from Birmingham Jail that Dr. King wrote to the Clergyman. He never used any speech to insult or put down any race or social group. He wrote what he believed without this type of speech because he knew that the people, the majority, reading would take it personally and not listen to what he really had to say. In addition, like Thoreau says, "Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them" (Jacobus, 134). This is what I believed Dr. King did when he spoke. He got the attention of his audience then he preceded to persuading them to his beliefs. He never used hate speech even though it was legal for him to do so. Hate speech is legal and protected by the First Amendment but does that mean that people have to use it.

Rebuttal of Bell Hooks’ Article, Straightening My Hair :: Rebuttal

Rebuttal of Bell Hooks’ Article, Straightening My Hair The article Straightening My Hair by Bell Hooks makes her argument of finding the reason of why African American women straighten their hair. She first states that Black Americans straighten their hair because it is the stage of transformation; it closes the door of innocence and opens the door to adulthood. Slowly, she starts changing her views. She comes up with the statement that African Americans do not straighten their hair for reasonable reasons, but to imitate the characteristics of white women. She informs that black people repeat this process because they have low self-acceptance of their roots and background, and that they have lost beauty in themselves. My argument against this statement is that it is erroneous to claim that the straightening of African American hair is misinterpreted as their acceptance into the white community; straightening of hair is the symbolism of impending womanhood, closing the door of innocence, and sharing a time to meditate by relaxing your sou l. â€Å"Hair pressing was a ritual of black women’s culture† (Hooks 534). She stated this earlier in the article and changed her views moving into the depths of the article. With her claiming this quote, it has already set the tone that black women express their maturity and symbolism of growing into adulthood by straightening their hair. Then all of a sudden she changes her views. This change does not show the credibility of the author. The audience view that her facts are not accurate and people begins to doubt in her claim. She set the theme of the article of expressing that straightening of black people hair is the denial of self acceptance in having the confidence of their individual features. She states â€Å"Heterosexual black women talked about the extent to which black men respond more favorably to women with straight or straighten hair† (Hooks 538). She explains how they try to please other people in trying to make themselves more beautiful to others they want to attract. This is a personal opinion. She makes a broad generalization that all black men are attracted to women that have straight hair. This statistic is not efficient because there are different men that are attracted to different styles. The majority of people do not change themselves because they want to appeal to others, but to make themselves feel better about their personal beauty. She states, â€Å"Individual preferences (whether rooted in self hate or not) cannot negate the reality that our collective obsession with straightening black hair reflects the psychology of oppression and the impact of racist colonization† (Hooks 540).

The British Judiciary is Both Independent and Impartial

The Judiciary of the United Kingdom is not a single body. Each of the separate legal systems in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland has their own judiciary. The British Judiciary plays a vital part in British Politics. This is unblemished as the judicial system is significantly responsible for a multitude of political roles. The senior judiciary help interpret the meaning of law and directly enforce the rule of law. Similarly they also declare and interpret common law in addition to reviewing executive decision.Essentially the judiciary thrives as a noteworthy system that has been rooted in British history for numerous years. It substantiates to be an efficient system that functions smoothly. So much so that other countries have been influenced to directly copy the system in Britain, many countries are still changing and evolving their current systems to meet the needs of their societies. The British judiciary is widely regarded as one of the best and most independent sy stems in the world.However the question pondered recently is how independent and neutral is the British judiciary? An independent judiciary is Significant as it results in a justice system that is not influenced by either the legislative or executive branch. Moreover it is free to make decisions based upon law and not upon the pressure forced from other groups. The quote â€Å"It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other (Baroness Butler-Sloss–May 2012) visibly condenses this.Fortunately many argue that the British Judiciary is in essence the most independent of all systems in the world. This is evident due to many reasons. One of which is the constitutional reform act (CRA). The act ensures British Judicial independence as it removes the title of speaker of the House of Lords and also head of the judiciary of England and wales from the office of the Lord C hancellor. This took place when concerns aroused that a member of the judiciary who was also a member of one of the other two branches could not be suitably impartial.Before the CRA was passed, the House of Lords formed some amendments retaining the office of the Lord Chancellor, but significantly reducing his role in judicial affairs. This is not only momentous in the context of Britain but also the European convention of human rights, something the Judicial is responsible for enforcing so that all have the right to a fair trial. At the same time it can also be disputed that the British Judiciary is impartial, this is subsequently because of the broken relationship from the government.The British judiciary is not influenced by politicians as the judicial system is profoundly independent. Fundamentally the judiciary decides matters before the government on the foundation of facts in accordance with the law. Without any restrictions, improper influences inducements, pressures threats or interferences direct or indirect from any sector or for any reason. It is highly prominent that the British judiciary contains an element of ‘impartiality’ as it allows the system to be neutral in the affairs in allocates itself with.There are no major personal biases when administering justice and as a result the following rules under the law are respected; Equality, no one exceeds the law and most importantly everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Ultimately the British judiciary is both impartial and independent, both play vital roles in holding each other securely in place, the absence of judicial independence threatens judicial neutrality and in the same way without impartiality, independence cannot be guaranteed.Moreover, I agree that the British Judiciary is independent as it is assured by the nation and is enshrined in the constitution or the law of Britain. It is essentially the duty of all governmental and various institutions to respect and observe the ind ependence of the judiciary, this is due to the fact that the judiciary has superior jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and has exclusive authority to decide where an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law .In addition to this the British judiciary is independent because the judiciary cannot successfully support a government act as it would most likely backfire. This is because it would be upgraded to a European court ruling that takes precedence over a British court decision; in essence the judiciary is free from liability. However it can be argued that the British judiciary is not both impartial and independent. The concept of neutrality can be portrayed as weak due to the understanding that the Judiciary does not include a prodigious deal of Female judges.With the insight that only 23% of the Judges are women it becomes unavoidable that there is gender discrimination within the system. Another factor concerning the lack of indepe ndence and impartiality is the issue surrounding judicial appointments. It can be argued that there is lack of separation of powers relating to the appointments as the Lord Chancellor still manages a magnitude of power. This illustrates how his influence in the appointment can be unfair as it deprives the ideology behind neutral and independent nomination.Essentially judicial appointments were made by the Lord chancellor and monarch however in the modern age the judiciary cannot run as effectively if it fulfilled its old system and it must appear more transparent to aid the Judiciary with distinctive impartiality and independence. Similarly to this its profoundly comprehendible that despite the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) statistics exclaim that most of the senior judges are white middle class men with attainment of education from ‘Oxbridge’ This ultimately elucidates a separation of powers and goes against the promise of â€Å"more diverse judiciary† made by the JAC.From the information I have gathered I can gain the understanding that the British Judiciary is both impartial and independent as it is engraved in the constitution that the government has to respect the independence of the judiciary, similarly the most prominent factor elucidating this is that there is no major link between politics and the judiciary hence the judiciary can guarantee equal justice to all, judges and juries are free from influence and can make fair and honest decisions about cases subsequently creating a far more efficient system that works for the nation as a whole.Ultimately decisions can be reached without fear of retaliation of other groups or special interests. Despite the fact that the judiciary abstains its imperfections that deprive it of complete independence and neutrality, such as the factor consisting of lack of separation of powers’ and influence within the political system, there is major transmogrification that suggests the judi cial system is becoming more transparent.The JAC announced that 8% of the people recommended for judicial jobs last year were black or Asian and correspondingly 156 new women were chosen for appointment under the new system. The British judiciary ultimately proves to be an efficient and momentous system that works, it does so by being both impartial and independent.

What Do You Think About the View That There Are No Women in The Great Gatsby With Whom the Reader Can Sympathize?

Sympathy is defined as having feelings of sorrow for someone else’s misfortune. In a novel, sympathizing in a character allows the reader to relate to them. In Fitzgerald’s â€Å"The Great Gatsby†, there is no female character with whom we can sympathize. However, at various points within the novel we do offer our brief condolences to each character. Throughout the novel Daisy Buchanan appears enigmatic to the reader: why is she in a loveless relationship? Why did she leave Gatsby hanging on a thread? Many conclude that the ultimate chapters prove to us in many ways that she is incapable of loving. Shown by her choice to stay with Tom for his wealth and security; rather than choosing Gatsby, for she was â€Å"appalled by its raw vigour that chaffed†. She looks down on the vulgar nature of people that try and buy their way into the upper class as he has done. However, it is feasible to suggest that she chose Tom; after all he didn’t build his empire selling illegal alcohol like Gatsby. In addition, it is possible to argue that being in an unhappy marriage – shown by her reaction to Tom speaking to his mistress over dinner – is a liable reason to which we can feel empathy for her. Despite all of this, however, it is apparent throughout the novel that she is materialistic, promiscuous and immoral. As soon as Tom leaves she â€Å"kiss[es] him on the mouth† she is not only betraying Tom, but she acts â€Å"careless[ly]† with Gatsby’s emotions. He is a character in which the reader can sympathize – meaning she is hated. Ultimately, she chooses to run away with Tom, this is her last act that convinces we, as the reader, to deplore her. Jordan is an equally difficult character to whom we can sympathize; however, for different reasons. There is only really one instance in the novel that contrasts this view, and that’s when Jordan had â€Å"met another bad driver† in Nick. This does make her emotionally accessible to us; we can feel pity for her. However, this is overshadowed by her compulsive ability to lie. Apparently, she does not â€Å"give a damn† about the end of her and Nick’s relationship; an obvious lie, yet it implies that she will move on soon enough. We will never know if she actually met someone else during her and Nick’s meeting, yet it is unlikely, as she is a neurotic fabricator. Adding to this, we notice that Jordan is a highly destructive and careless character, rather like Daisy. She casually mentions to Nick that she â€Å"left a borrowed car out in the rain, and then lied about it† She is being careless with other peoples property, lying about it to ensure she is not affected by any repercussions†. It is apparent he that Jordan does not, as a whole, evoke sympathy with us. Myrtle does not draw any sympathy from the reader at a first glance. She is the lower-class mistress to Tom. She is a poor representation of the 1920’s woman as she carries â€Å"her surplus flesh sensuously†, meaning she is rather provocative, it is also the only compliment she receives in the book, inferring Tom’s only use for her is sex; not a particularly good role model for women. She is somewhat comparable to Daisy in that her only care is money and materialism, she wants to escape the upper class, and Tom is her refuge. Her â€Å"tremendous vitality† should aid her in this. However, we can sympathize with â€Å"Myrtle Wilson† when she fulfils her â€Å"tragic achievement†. This refers to her death, all she ever wanted to do was to escape her class and accomplish her American dream, but Nick morbidly realizes that the only way she ever would is through death. Much like Gatsby, her dream is forever doomed. Myrtle, in my opinion is a character with we can sympathize the most; her tragic story is rather like Gatsby’s. In that she had an unachievable, completely unattainable dream in her sight, but it was never to be – a doomed dream. I believe all the female characters in â€Å"The Great Gatsby† have characteristics that make us, as the reader to both love and despise them at the same time. Fitzgerald has portrayed them as merely humans with certain traits and bad decisions that moulds them into who they are. All three of these women are accessible to the reader, whilst at the same time completely detached and despised. I believe that the view in question is different for every reader, as they can make their informed opinion on each of these women. As for me, I do feel sympathy for them, but only to a certain extent.

Darwin Destroyed the Concept of Human Specialness

Darwin destroyed the concept of human specialness I would say I disagree quite strongly with the assertion that Darwin destroyed the specialness of humanity. For this relatively brief paper I am going to attempt to refute this claim and try to highlight some of the things that highlight how we have kept the same level of ‘specialness' that we have always had. There are many people who would say that we humans are the only beings with full consciousness, in the words of a great many this would translate to having a soul.Humans surely have a soul-like property, a mind, something that separates us from the multitudes of lower species from the smorgasbord of earthly life. It isn't my purpose for this paper to discuss whether or not we have a soul but I do intend to talk about what constitutes our mind, our selves. The fact that we as humans possess a high degree of consciousness to me spells a very special kind of existence.Can even our nearest intelligent creatures on the tree of life appreciate the magnificence of life? Can a chimpanzee sit back and admire the beauty of the sprawling life in the jungle? Does he marvel at his own bodies ability to repair itself after he has been in a bloody brawl with a rival? Can a dolphin be awestruck by the morning sun glistening on the surface of the water? Does he wonder what life would be like for him if he were one of those surface beings he often sees on boats in the ocean?Humans are extraordinary because, being the most advanced form of life on the planet, we possess brains larger than all other forms of life(save for some large mammals but even then ours are much bigger proportionally) With this we have evolved two magnificent features which can only set us worlds apart from and ahead of all other life forms. We have this amazing sense of self, sense of awareness- in a word -consciousness. This grants us the capability of knowing who and what we are (to a large extent anyway), and where we came from (Darwin is owed some credit in this field).It is the ability to see beauty in a sunset on a savannah, to hear the splendour in Tchaikovskys The Nutcracker, to read great works of literature and be able to travel the universe with our imaginations. The other great feature we have as a follow on from having large brains is the wonderful power of language. This splendid trait has gone hand in hand with consciousness to create the incredibly unique life form that homo sapiens has become. Our ability to understand the universe and our position in it is one of the glories of the human species.Our ability to link mind to mind by language, and especially to transmit our thoughts across the centuries is another (Dawkins 2008 p3) Our advanced cultures have truly become magnificent phenomena. We have complex, yet highly virtuous systems of ethics and values. Largely stemming from our aforementioned large brains and the use of language we have self evolved to create ways of living that set us apart from all t he rest of earthly creatures, both those alive today and all the previous inhabitants of the earth including ones from bygone eras.Humanity is replete with themes of co-operation, love, compassion, altruism, sympathy for our fellow beings as well as for all other life forms. We have been capable of many such virtues for a long time, since we became human one could say. As John Eccles (1980 p204) reminds us, there are snippets of evidence that as far back as eighty thousand years ago Neanderthal man held ceremonial burials- a truly altruistic act. Or, as he also noted- the bones of two men dated from sixty thousand years ago which show they were incapacitated for up to two years yet they had been kept alive by caring tribes folk.There is other evidence from as far back as this of the compassionate behaviour between members of humanity and we all know only too well of absolutely countless examples of it in recent history and of course in present day. For all modern mans shortcomings a nd problems in our societies, we have always been gifted with a great sense of right and wrong, of cruelty and kindness. With this majestic property that is consciousness comes the boundless faculty of thought. We are capable to reason, plan, remember to a limitless degree.Technology today has become something we could never have imagined even one hundred years ago. We have invented the most ingenious and sophisticated equipment to be able to look inside our brains. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)scans and the more recent positron-emission topography(PET) scans are machines with wonderful capabilities for seeing goings on in the brain. We can monitor which parts of the brain are being used when we experience certain thoughts. We cannot however, as Ward highlights(2008 p147), even begin to monitor in advance what people are thinking.Our thoughts are far and away more complex and profound than any other animals (or machine) can hope to have and, importantly, remain ours and ours only . If we try to look at the bigger picture, the macroscopic view of things, are we still special? When we gaze up into the night sky and contemplate our place in the universe it is very easy to become overawed by the sheer scale of the cosmos and our relative minuteness in it. How can there be anything special about us when we are almost nothing in relation to the vast universe.I believe it is not that we are in the universe but that we are the universe. â€Å"Far from exposing human beings as incidental products of blind physical forces, science suggests that the existence of conscious organisms is a fundamental feature of the universe†(Davies 1992 p21). As Davies alludes to here humanity is actually an intrinsic part of the universe and, whether or not there are other advanced conscious beings far out in space, we are or are part of the pinnacle of life, of nature, and of the cosmos.If the universe is one giant living organism, a vast clockwork mechanism, a massive computer then we are its brain, its central cog, its CPU. I try to imagine the perspective of a person who would make a statement like the title for this essay. I can understand the point whereby humanity is seen as simply the result of a very long line of life adapting and developing or, to use the term elucidated and made famous by Darwin- evolution. Life is just mechanical, they might say they have learned from Darwin, it only instinctively drives to keep living.What's so special about what is simply the as yet highest point of this unconscious , robotic like endeavour in nature. Are we more special than the animals below us on the food chain, or before us in eras like the dinosaurs. Was even the earliest amoeba not as special as us given its importance in the chain of events? This viewpoint, while largely correct in its facts and assumptions, doesn't give any credence to what homo sapiens has become since he has evolved from the ape.Hopefully this paper has made some of a case as to why the two legged big brained organisms that we are have a deep specialness to them. Bibliography Davies, Paul. 1992. THE MIND OF GOD. London: Penguin Books Dawkins, Richard. 2008. MODERN SCIENCE WRITING. Oxford: Oxford University Press Eccles, John C.. 1980. THE HUMAN PSYCHE. Berlin: Routledge Ward, Keith. 2008. The Big Questions in Science and Religion. Pennsylvania: Templeton Foundation Press

Drug Addiction Disease or Choice? Essay

Drug addiction, disease or choice, the National Institution of Drugs Association (NIDA) has determined Drug Addiction a chronic, relapsing brain disease while opposing views debate Drug Addiction as solely a choice controlled voluntarily? Drug addiction is now recognized as a chronic relapsing brain disease expressed in the form of compulsive behaviors. Hence, the estimated economic cost contributed to disease foundations is $181Billion a year? Could this be a loophole for obtaining funds and doesn’t this kind of money seem high to be contributed to a voluntarily poor decision? Weather you believe addiction to be a disease or a choice is to be seen. Many well respected professors and scientist claim addiction is a scapegoat behavior that has been incorrectly identified as a physical or mental illness, an addict is only a victim of bad science and misguided policy. NIDA has made ground-breaking discoveries about the brain and has revolutionized our understanding of drug abuse a nd drug addiction. Later to be defined is what the significant difference between abuse and addiction, which can ultimately change ones point of view. The following is a combination of research by medical institutions and well respected professional in the fields of science, along with two very interviews, with an ex drug addict turned counselor for a methadone treatment facility, an individual in active addiction, and a recovering addict. The experience, strength, and hopes of these professionals and the personal trauma had by each of these addicts is part of a message that should be heard by anyone ever touched by the disease of addiction in any way shape or form. Drug Addiction is a growing problem today and has caught the attention of many professionals these professionals have opposing views of the cause, some will say Drug addiction is a disease while others will claim it is a voluntary choice of poor decisions making. NIDA has determined that addiction is a disease. The big controversy is said to be in the difference of terminology. Before one can make the assessment weather addiction is a  disease or choice they must first understand the difference between addiction and abuse. What are the differences Between a Drug Abuser, and a Drug Addict? Many people assume that addiction is simply an overuse of drugs, and that the addict is just a drug user who chooses to use too much. But research has shown that addiction, unlike casual drug use, is no longer a matter of free choice. â€Å"Functionally you’ve moved into a different state, a state of compulsive drug use,† says Alan Leshner, Ph.D., director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Drug use really isn’t a choice of morality. By interview with a counselor at a drug rehabilitation center â€Å"Drug addiction is a mental disorder with a physical allergy.† When an addict doesn’t use they become ill physically, muscles tighten, sweats and stomach pains, vomiting and many other flu like symptoms surface. Then the voice in the brain begins to talk to them and it is a vicious cycle of emotional stress. The abuser can use at parties and on special occasions. He or she ma y like to use when they chose, but if they do not use drugs they do not have a mental relapse or physical discomforts. When an addict puts down the drug they are not cured, they are only sober. For this reason many addicts must undergo either a 12 step program or have the support of a drug counselor. An abuser can stop using at any given time and never pick up again. The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association all define this state of driven, compulsive use as the essence of addiction. Someone who abuses drugs may suffer negative consequences from using, as the addict does, but generally can and does stop when these consequences become too severe. The addict may be unable to stop, even after negative consequences, without medical and/or behavioral help. Says Steven Hyman, M.D., director of the National Institute of Mental Health, â€Å"An alcoholic taking a drink looks like anyone else engaged in that behavior, but what’s happening in his or her head is different.† He or she is in the grip of a powerful compulsion that may lead to a binge. (Firshein, Janet) Some have characterized addiction as a behavioral choice and can be controlled voluntarily. There is an interview with Gene M Heyman a professor at Harvard University, as the conversation around his ideas of addiction being  a voluntary decision and why anyone would want to volunteer to be an addict. Gene Hymens findings are and what they mean. The author argues what has been said about addiction in so many studies, â€Å"drug addiction is a Disease† this means it is not a choice. Heyman states it is simply an act of voluntary choice. While he does not pretend to be a policy expert, he does believe that treatment should consist of non-drug activities to lower the value of the â€Å"drug.† (Akst, Daniel) Heyman states, â€Å"In a most impressive display of brain technology, scientists have used scanning technologies to observe metabolic activity of the brain in action. In a typical demonstration, addicts are shown drug related videos that depict people handling crack pipes and needles. Brain scans capture the viewer’s reaction to these provocative ima ges and represent it as glowing Technicolor splotches of color that represent activation in drug sensitized brain regions. (Videos of neutral contact depict no such activity.)† Heyman goes on to make his claim that this proves that addiction is not a brain state it is a behavior. (Leshner) It’s not strange or unlikely that as soon as a person hears the word’s addiction, they are interpreted immediately as a negative and a stigma is automatically attached to the individual with the addiction. In the article called â€Å"Drug Addiction: A Brain disease?† I have found that there are studies that define â€Å"drug addiction, â€Å"as a compulsion to take drugs. There are many biological factors that are indications of â€Å"drug addiction† being a form of a mental disease do to the lack of control one has in their behavior. â€Å"Drug addiction† affects even the neurotransmitters that one uses to learn or for memory. The studies go on and on and do to the behavioral components there are some scientists and other professionals who seem hesitant to call â€Å"drug addiction† a brain disease. (Pietas’, Nicole) Some say it is a disease some say it’s a choice. None the less, he disease of addiction has become such the problem in the United States of America it is considered the most costly and damaging DISEASE by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. This kind of money being delegated for these drug addicts and alcoholics is alarming. If not a disease than what is it? The evidence and research has been done. The brain behaves differently in an addict. When one ingests drugs one of the changes is the rise in available levels of certain  neurotransmitters associated with feelings of pleasure. Key among these is dopamine; a naturally occurring neuro-transmitter that some scientists now think is implicated in most of the basic human experiences of pleasure. The pleasure of a kiss, a bowl of favorite ice cream, and a compliment may all be related to a rise in dopamine levels in the normal person’s brain. Drugs of abuse also boost dopamine levels. When a person takes a hit of crack cocaine or a drag on a cigarette the drug causes a spike in dopamine levels in the brain, and a rush of euphoria, or pleasure. While it’s not the only chemical involved in drug abuse, experts have come to believe that dopamine is the crucial one. The damage is truly done over time as neurotransmitters are not replaced pain and suffering becomes more real when drugs are not present. The cycle of addiction is so cruelly painful. How can one assume or argue that this is a choice? We would be claiming that 600,000 people currently addicted to heroin today are just gluttons for punishment. Is there a cure for this disease? Unfortunately, no cure up to date, but recovery is possible with persistence, guidance and reinforcement as learned in an interview with Charlotte Doe, an ex addict turned CDAC Certified Counselor of Drug and Alcohol addiction, at Spectrum Health, a methadone rehabilitation center. The question is how bad does one want recovery? When asked, what was her most challenging responsibility; her response was being able to know when someone wasn’t ready and knowing that any day could be their last. She explained how there is no one rule in how to counsel an addict it’s not found in a text book, and no two addicts are the same. Her best gift to offer is being able to identify with the addict from experience. Charlotte also believes strongly in that meetings and step work are incredibly important. Putting the drug down is only the beginning of a long road ahead. The experience strength and hope from a recovering addict and a drug treatment counselor is how this addict is giving back to society. The sad part is that some haven’t truly hit â€Å"rock bottom† and until they do, they will not be ready. Hence, the addict relapsing, this is a term of when an addict puts down the drugs for a period of time to endure recovery and has a setback. There is an active addict which we will call, John Doe, who I had the pleasure of speaking with who shared with me the pain and suffering he goes through. He has attempted recovery numerous times, but  just can’t seem to find a way to stay clean. He knows that when he is in recovery, for example inpatient, he can stay clean. The problem is once subjected to â€Å"life on lifes terms† its back to square one. He also admits that until his enablers, those who make his using possible, stop being providers than he will continue using. Again, hearing those words straight from the mouth of an addict one can agree that until an addict Hits â€Å"rock bottom† there may not be a chance for recovery. Charlotte said it best, an enabler is cheating the addict of his/her â€Å"Rock Bottom†. Tough love is the key in a situation like Johns. His enablers might need to take a step back and let John go through his process. Being addicted can’t be a very pleasurable habit. It’s costly, you have to answer to the drugs regularly, no vacation without them, no chance of separation from the substance while sick and suffering. You are no longer your own boss, the drugs are. Unfortunately for the addict people continue to think it’s primarily a moral and poor Choice caused by being a degenerate and having lack of willpower. As learned in the research addiction is a disease that Causes addicts to have no regard for consequences and to abandoned everyone and everything with no control. Addiction is a disease that causes changes in the brain, which then drive certain behaviors, taking the drug compulsively, but addicts can learn to change the behavior. We wouldn’t blame a person with a heart disease for having a heart attack. But we would guide them into better habits; a healthy diet, exercise, and making sure they are complying with medication. The same with an addict, we can blame them for being sick, but we should encourage and make them responsible for their recovery. The disease itself cannot be cured but can be treated. It’s been said that the public has little sympathy for addicts, but â€Å"whether you like the person or not, you’ve got to deal with their problem as an illness.† Given the views of the professionals and personally affected individuals has your opinion of addiction been altered? Akst, Daniel The 1eBoston Glob, August 9, 2009Akst Daniel www.Boston.com/ bostonglobe/ idea /articles/2009/08/09 Campbell, William G. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Nov2003, Vol. 48 Issue 10, p669- 674, 6p, 1 Chart; (AN 11539480) Falk,Daniel; Hsiao-Ye Yi; Susanne Hiller-Sturmhà ¶fel. Alcohol Research & Health, 2008, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p100-110, 11p, 4 Feske,Ulrike; Tarter, Ralph; Kirisci, Levent; Pilkonis, Paul. American Journal on Addictions, Mar2006, Vol. 15 Issue 2, p131-137, 7p, 1 Firshein, Janet, PBS Online Leshner Science 3 October 1997: 45 DOI:10.1126/science.278.5335.45, www.scienceAAAS.org the Addiction Is a Brain Disease, and It Matters Miriam-Webster, I. (2002). Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged. Retrieved www.mwu.eb.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/mwu Pietas, Nicole. Drug Addiction: A Brain Disease? Serendip Biology 1/17/08