Should marijuana be legal nationally?

Forbidden Flower?

So, let’s first start with addiction. Is the drug addictive? Yes. Can we think of a drug that isn’t addictive though? There are far worse drugs out there, and those most definitely should not be legalized. For one, according to the National Cancer Institute, “Because cannabinoid receptors, unlike opioid receptors, are not located in the brainstem areas controlling respiration, lethal overdoses from Cannabis and cannabinoids do not occur.” But, at the same time, it has been shown that habitual users of pot do experience addiction withdrawals, such as: psychosis, anxiety disorders, and respiratory & cardiovascular problems. So, while you can’t OD, it can still be a dangerous and addictive thing. Prescription pain killers, on the other hand, which are legal nationwide, results in thousands of overdose deaths a year. In fact, CNN posted a couple years back on how with the implementation of marijuana laws in 13 states, the number of overdoses on painkillers was cut by nearly 25%. Impressive, right? So maybe legalization of weed would reduce the number of overdoses. It’s a hope, but we have the science to back it up. 

Next, let’s think about all the people that might abuse the legalization process. Think about all the jokes in some of your favorite movies and shows. *Character gets pulled over by an officer* “Oh, it’s for my glaucoma!” … Granted, the cop never falls for that trick, but still. With legalization will come abuse, there’s no doubt about that. People will forge doctor’s notes and they find loop holes in the system. Legalization can lead to a huge problem in the US. Think about it, once it’s legal, there will be plenty of pot farms in every state. It will be readily available to thieves who jump fences, liars who forge documents, and crooks who fake illnesses that are difficult to actually diagnose, such as anxiety. Do we really want those people to readily have access to drugs? As mentioned above, you cannot OD on pot; however, there are downsides to the drug.

1. long-lasting delusions – So we’ll make the liars, crooks, and thieves mentally unstable, not able to tell right from wrong, real from fake…
2. slow reaction time or trouble paying attention – In a country where everyone is so connected, and the roads are always busy and crowded, this cannot be a good thing for anyone. If someone is high, and gets behind the wheel, they can easily get distracted, stop paying attention, and run a red light. By them running a red light, they’ve now crashed into the high school cheer captain walking home from practice.
3. limited judgment abilities – This probably goes hand-in-hand with the trouble paying attention thing…. but… First thing that comes to my mind is, someone gets high. This person then thinks they’re the king/queen of the world, and they decide to do a little online poker. Next thing you know, they’re bankrupt, not a cent to their name. I know the scenario seems a little fishy, and out there, but it can happen. A high schooler unaware of all the side affects. Or anyone for that matter because he/she never really got “the talk” after it was prescribed, whether the doctor was lazy, or the drug was not prescribed to them.
4. difficulties sleep – This should really be self-explanatory for people who are not morning people, people who knows someone who is not a morning person, newbie parents, grad students, college students, … basically everyone know what it’s like to not sleep. It sucks, people are grouchy, irritable, and annoying.

I’ve listed quite a few bad things, but marijuana has been used to do some wonderful things as well. In places where it is legal, and heavily monitored, marijuana has been prescribed to treat muscle spasms associated with multiple sclerosis, treat nausea after chemotherapy, make people who generally lack an appetite (like HIV patients) hungry and actually eat, treat patients with Crohn’s disease, etc… It has great potential, and can help treat diseases that either have no cure or come with excruciatingly painful or dreadful treatments.

For more facts, and some light reading on the drug, I highly suggest you start here.

So, I guess what I’m saying is I think marijuana should be legalized nationwide. But. If pot is legal, we need to make sure that we have a strong legal system, that will justly penalize people abusing the drug. While marijuana can do wonderful things in the medical field, it can seriously damage our communities resulting in misuse, crankiness, and addiction.

Don’t do drugs … unless they’ve been prescribed to you. And if they have been prescribed, stay safe!

How to Combat Antibiotic Resistance.

http://www.beatricebiologist.com/2012/08/why-you-should-finish-antibiotics.html

Due to the most recent string of emergent antibiotic-resistant bacteria, including methicillin‑resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and resistant N. gonorrhea, the government has been put on high alert. Some work has been done to thwart antibiotic resistance in the past few years, however, that is not enough. Antibiotic resistance is inevitable; bacteria are evolving mechanisms fairly rapidly in order to survive. Therefore, big steps need to be made if the United States is going to slow down the progression of antibiotic resistance.

Firstly, the United States must stop all non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock. By feeding animals antibiotics every day, we are only aiding in the growth of antibiotic resistance; the bacteria that are always in contact with antibiotics are going to inevitably mutate to avoid the harmful effects of the drug. Do we really need to keep our animals on antibiotics just to make them bigger? It’s not as if they are gaining more meat, they are gaining more fat. Naturally, there will be consequences to taking the animals off regular antibiotic use, but those consequences are far less harmful than consequences of keeping livestock on antibiotics. Which would you rather see: an outbreak of MRSA on a pig farm, or an outbreak of treatable S. aureus?

Along the same lines, a lot of work needs to be done to monitor the use of antibiotics in humans as well. Doctors often prescribe antibiotics to their patients based off of symptoms as opposed to the presence of bacteria. This is because the doctor wants to treat the patient then, and the bacteria causing the sickness may take days to culture. Therefore, new screening techniques need to be incorporated into doctors’ offices nationwide, to allow for a quicker diagnosis. This testing should not only tell if the patient is infected by bacteria, but it should also tell the doctor what bacteria the patient has so the best antibacterial can be prescribed (i.e. the patient has penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae, therefore the doctor may prescribe a cephalosporin instead).

Since we cannot avoid bacteria from developing antibiotic resistance, we need a full and complete arsenal of both antibiotics and non-antibiotic treatments. Therefore, to encourage more research, public and private funds should be set up to fund prizes and grants for researchers. Also, researchers should be protected with complete proprietary rights to all treatments invented, such as, the lag time between the release of a drug and the time until its generic counterpart can be created.  The research, however, is not the only answer to combating antibiotic resistance. The best thing that can be done, by the general public, is to be preventative. Healthy people will be able to fight off a bacterial infection much better than unhealthy people. Many businesses offer refunds on gym memberships, to encourage an active lifestyle for their workers. This should become a more common practice. People should also keep up with their vaccinations and medications. In order to curb the resistance to antibiotics, fewer antibiotics need to be given out on a regular basis; generally, when people are happy and healthy, they do not need antibiotics, because their immune system will be able to control infections.

People need to be educated about antibiotics. It is already included in school curriculum; however, people tend to forget what antibiotics are or what they do. Therefore, people need to be “reeducated”. The easiest way to do this is for pharmacists to fully explain all the side effects of the drugs before giving them to the patients. They also need to stress to patients that they need to take the full course of antibiotics, even if the symptoms go away. Along the same lines, doctors’ offices need to call patients to follow up. This follow up phone call would serve as a time for patients to ask any questions that may have arisen, and also as a reminder to the patient to continue taking their medications. Proper use of antibiotics needs to be established. Yes, doctors and pharmacists are busy enough already, and do not have time to “waste” talking to their patients, but it is their duty to be honest and to do their best to treat the patients. This is in the patients’, and the nation’s, best interests; it needs to be done.

Should Vaccination Be Required Nationally?

Due to the most recent anti-vaccination campaigns, many people are misinformed and are choosing not to vaccinate their children. This has resulted in current outbreaks of measles, mumps, and pertussis. All of these diseases are preventable by vaccination, and should not be leading causes of outbreaks in the United States. People should not be afraid to vaccinate their children. One main argument made by the anti-vaccinators is that there are risks associated with vaccines. No one can argue against that; of course there are risks with vaccines. However, the harm that can occur after vaccination is far less than the harm that can occur from acquiring the pathogens in question.

Proper education is required so people can make educated decisions about whether or not to vaccinate their children. Doctors, nurses, and midwives should be trained on how to talk to their patients during prenatal and pediatric visits. Medical professionals are well informed on the pros and cons of vaccination, but do not know how to convey that information in a simple and concise manner. With crash-courses on how to talk to their patients about vaccines, professionals will educate adults, and these parents will know that vaccination does more good than bad. Also, “how vaccines work” should be included in the health curriculum in grade school. By adding vaccination into the curriculum, children, too, will be aware on how vaccines work, and why they are important.

Lastly, vaccinations against the most contagious and relevant pathogens should be required before children enter both public and private school. Herd immunity is immensely important in order to protect the entire population from disease. Schools are close quarters for children, and if one child is not vaccinated, and becomes sick, they are putting other children, possibly an immunocompromised child at high risk for infection. However, we need to remember that children are not the only ones at risk of infection. Businesses should also require vaccinations for all workers before hiring them, as well as requiring employees stay current with their vaccination schedules, i.e. people should stay current with their seasonal flu vaccines. In many cases, pathogens that children are susceptible to, like chickenpox, infect adults significantly worse. Lastly, while the United States has a low incidence rate of certain pathogens, such as measles, foreign countries have high rates of incidence. This is because vaccination is not required, or sometimes even available, in most other countries. With that, vaccinations should be required for travel to or from foreign countries. By requiring vaccination, we are protecting not only the travelers from foreign pathogens, but we are also protecting our citizens.

Here’s nice map that shows all the cases / outbreaks of diseases that could have been prevented by vaccines:

http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/index.html?cid=nlc-news_release-news_release–link2-20141023&sp_mid=47257856&sp_rid=ZWFuZHJld0BsYWJ4LmNvbQS2#map

It’s quite disheartening that we have so many cases of measles and whooping cough in the US alone, where the vaccines are readily available. The risks associated with the MMR vaccine (Mumps, Measles, and Rubella) include:

• Mild fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
• Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
• Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75) – due to the vaccine triggering a strong immune response, which is a good thing.
• Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
• Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
• Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
• Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
• Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
  • Deafness
  • Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
  • Permanent brain damage

  However, these are severe complications are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

The symptoms of contracting the actual pathogen include: rash all over the body, fever, cough, runny nose, pinkeye, encephalitis (brain swelling in 1 in 1,000 people), ear infections (1 in 10 people), pneumonia (1 in 20 people), and death (in about 1 or 2 out of 1,000). Also, measles is very easy to contract if you have not been vaccinated, seeing as it is transmitted in air droplets. One can be infected by simply being near an infected person who is breathing, sneezing, or coughing. It is highly contagious.

The risks associated with the Pertussis vaccine include:

• Mild fever (up to about 1 child in 4)
• Redness or swelling where the shot was given (up to about 1 child in 4)
• Soreness or tenderness where the shot was given (up to about 1 child in 4)
• Fussiness (up to about 1 child in 3)
• Tiredness or poor appetite (up to about 1 child in 10)
• Vomiting (up to about 1 child in 50)
• Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets DTaP vaccine, including:
  • Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
  • Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
  • High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)
  • Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
  • Permanent brain damage.

These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

Babies are most at risk for this disease, and the pathogen is highly contagious. These symptoms are very severe, and almost half of the babies (younger than 1 year) that acquire this pathogen are hospitalized. The pathogen is easily spread through air droplets of coughing or sneezing patients. The symptoms actually start off like a common cold – fever, runny nose, sneezing, mild coughing, etc… Then by week 2, the more sever symptoms begin, including a severe “whooping” cough, which causes severe damage and pain in the chest and lungs, apnea (a pause in breathing), pneumonia, and sometimes, even death.

The risks associated with the vaccines are far less severe than the risks associated with disease. Given that these pathogens are highly contagious, it should be a requirement that people be vaccinated.

Should the sale of raw milk be made legal nationally?

Currently, the sale of raw milk is governed by each state, individually. Some states allow for the sale of raw milk, some states allow for “cow shares”, and some states make the sale of raw milk completely illegal. The Food and Drug Administration, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, frown upon ingesting raw milk, yet they cannot regulate the sales if each state has their own laws regarding the sale of raw milk.

Raw milk, while it is perfectly safe for calves, it is not safe for humans. It’s true that cow’s milk contains various nutrients; however, it also contains numerous bacteria. Most of those pathogens can result in diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and sometimes can lead to hospitalization, and in extreme cases, death.  The CDC reported that between 1998 and 2011, 79% of milk-associated outbreaks, 148 outbreaks in total, were due to raw milk or cheese. These outbreaks resulted in over 2,384 illnesses and 2 deaths, and most of the cases were caused by E. coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. The outbreaks generally occur where the sale of milk is legal.

Many people are headstrong and believe that raw milk is better than pasteurized milk. They claim that is provided many more nutrients that are destroyed in the pasteurization process. This is not true. The main nutrients found in raw milk are fats and lactose. These are not affected by excessive heat, and therefore remain in milk after pasteurization. Raw milk supporters are correct in saying that the number of vitamins is reduced after the pasteurization process, however, this is not a good selling point given that milk, whether raw or pasteurized, is not a good source for vitamins. In fact pasteurization increases the vitamin A content in milk. Also, after pasteurization, vitamin D is added to milk. This is not because it is lost in the pasteurization process, but rather because pasteurized milk is simply a fortified product. Another fact supporters tend to use is that pasteurization kills Lactobacillus, a probiotic that aids in digesting food. This is true, pasteurization kills these bacteria; however, the bacteria are also part of our normal flora, and thrive on their own in our bodies as it is. There is no need, scientifically, to drink raw milk, whether it is for nutrients, vitamins, or Lactobacillus.

The data suggests that the sale of raw milk should be made illegal in the United States. However, making the sale of raw milk illegal would be a very difficult process. Not only will the farmers still need to harvest the milk to sell to pasteurization companies, but it also seems outrageous to tell farmers they cannot drink raw milk on their own farms, from their own cows. By making raw milk illegal, you are taking away something families have been drinking for centuries. Also, there is no way to truly enforce the law, if raw milk was made illegal. Instead, it has been proposed that the sale of raw milk be made legal in all states, and regulated by the federal government. The sales would only be allowed from farm to consumer; the sale of raw milk should not be allowed in retail stores. This is to ensure that only people who truly want raw milk, and are aware of the risks, will purchase the product. If raw milk sales were allowed nationally in retail stores, people who are unaware of the risks may buy the product, and this could result in more outbreaks. Also, with the national legalization, all raw milk products would require a warning label that explains that raw milk is not generally recognized as safe. Along the same lines, to help deter the myths about pasteurization, the legalization of raw milk should also require a change in the education curriculum. Children should learn about the process at a young age, just as they learn that raw meat is not generally recognized as safe. With peoples’ liberties in mind, the sale of raw milk should not be made illegal; however, raw milk is very dangerous, and therefore people need to be fully aware of what they are ingesting before it is too late.

I’ll just let this sit here, peruse if you’re still unconvinced of the dangers in raw milk.

 

Should We Destroy the Smallpox Stocks?

The Variola virus (smallpox) has been eradicated globally since 1980. Before its eradication, the virus was a major source of destruction during many time periods, including the Middle Ages and the Crusades. The virus was the cause for the fall of the Aztecs and Incas, as well as the steep decline in Native American populations from the 15^th through 19^th centuries. Any population that had previously been naïve to the virus suffered high mortality rates as a result. Mortality rates were approaching 98% in Berlin in the late 1800s. Unfortunately, if an epidemic of smallpox was to occur again, a vast majority of the population would be considered naïve, since vaccination ended once the virus was eradicated, and it is unclear as to how long the effects of the vaccine last.

Every year, the World Health Assembly meets to discuss the policies and budgets of the Organization. At the most recent meeting held in Geneva, Switzerland, from May 19^th to 24^th, the assembly discussed whether the last stocks of the virus should be destroyed. In the meeting many people brought up very valid, but contradictory points of view. Some people felt the live virus was no longer needed to develop diagnostic tests and vaccines, but it was still needed to develop antiviral drugs. Others felt that there was no research justification for keeping the viral stocks because other models could be used besides live virus. Some people argued that with two drugs (tecovirimat and brincidofovir) close to licensing, virus stocks were no longer needed. However, others rebutted that the virus should be kept in case the drugs failed to get licensed, and thus required the development of other compounds. Unfortunately the meeting resulted in a stalemate, and the decision has been put off until the next meeting.

Ultimately the decision should come down to what is in the public’s best interest. The virus can be very deadly, and therefore many believe it should just be destroyed; however, it is not that simple. The world still faces naturally occurring smallpox-like viruses. By destroying the virus stocks, you are essentially destroying an avenue of research that can be used to protect the public.  It’s true that the virus can be reconstructed in the lab from the known genome sequences; however, it is best to work with clinical isolates. In fact, lab constructed strains could potentially be more dangerous than live stocks seeing as it is difficult to construct and the genome has not been sequenced in its entirety. Clinical isolates are the best viruses to study because they show us what we may find naturally. In fact, a new virus, very similar to smallpox was recently found in the Republic of Georgia. This just shows that, while smallpox has been eradicated, its relatives have not. Clinical isolates would be closely related to new emerging strains, whereas a lab strain would be generic and potentially too broad. With this alone, it seems best to preserve our stocks of smallpox.

Knowing the destruction this virus can cause, and choosing to keep stocks of live virus, may make the general public uneasy. One thing the public should know is that the WHO keeps the stocks in two highly secure locations, at the Russian State Research Center in Koltsovo, Russia and at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Georgia, USA. At these locations, people responsible for securing the stocks, as well as handling the virus for research purposes, go through extensive background checks. The public is safe. Along the same lines, by keeping the virus stocks, the public is safe from future viral emergence. Since the stocks would be retained, research would continue on not only smallpox, but also other “cousin” viruses, such as monkey pox, which has NOT been eradicated and can still infect humans. By continuing research on the stocks we have, we are protecting future generations from similar viruses that can emerge.

However, with all this being said, is keeping the stocks in the best interest of the public? As stated at the World Health Assembly meeting, there are other models available to study the virus, and we have 2 treatments close to licensing. Smallpox has the potential to be very harmful. What if there is a lab accident, and a researcher becomes infected? It seems very unlikely, since researchers know what they’re doing, and are highly trained, but it has happened in the past. What if something worse happens? After all, smallpox is a Category A agent listed by the CDC. Getting rid of the stocks gets rid of another potentially dangerous variable, but by getting rid of the stocks, we are getting rid of a very important source for research. Can you understand why the World Health Assembly was left in a deadlock?

The Ebola Outbreak

Ebola virus is naturally found in West Africa, and outbreaks occur every once and a while; however, the 2014 outbreak is the largest and most severe in the history of the virus.  All previous outbreaks have been contained by isolating infected patients, and following thorough procedures of infection control. Those procedures are not working to control this outbreak; the outbreak has now reached epic proportions, and cannot be controlled in the current conditions. The case-fatality rate for the current outbreak is hovering around 50%, and the borders of the areas infected by the disease are growing every day. Contrary to many viewpoints, bypassing laws to fast-track experimental treatments is not the answer to this crisis. The FDA has laws to fully test drugs for everyone’s safety. By bypassing these laws, we are now ignoring potential side effects, and ignoring the damage the drugs can actually cause, in the hopes of saving lives. We do not know how these drugs will react with the average healthy person, let alone an Ebola-infected person, the young, the old, a person with heart disease, a person with allergies, etc… By introducing an unknown into a disheveled and uncontrolled environment, we are asking for trouble. Before we think about introducing new treatment options into outbreak, we need to first master the protocols we have set in place already. The virus is not being contained, because there are too many people sick, and all of them are being cared for in tight quarters. The health infrastructure is not adequate, and aid workers are not properly equipped. Before bringing another variable into West Africa, we first need to put money into building a proper healthcare arrangement.

On top of crammed treatment centers, people are scared to seek help from professional because there is a lack of trust and understanding. That, coupled with poor living conditions, is resulting in the spread of disease. Infected people do not want to seek help because they do not trust doctors, or aid workers. Another thing we need to combat before sending in new treatment options is the lack of education on the disease. If the people know about the disease (how it spreads, how it should be treated, why the doctors are working the way they are, etc…) it is more likely they will trust the workers, and seek proper help. To get that trust, though, officials need to reach out to neighborhood leaders, and gain credibility with them so that they can get the secondary trust of the locals. People need to be educated, and gaining trust is the first step to begin the education process.  If the experimental drugs are introduced before this trust and education are sustained, people are not going to be able to give informed consent and workers will not get involvement from the community, both of which are criteria that need to be met in such situations.