1: Give Heroin Addicts Heroin
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-04/vancouver-combats-heroin-giving-its-addicts-best-smack-world
It seems counterintuitive that the prescribed treatment method for heroin addicts is to give them heroin. However, this act is being done for the severest of drug addicts in the Vancouver area. Since Vancouver is a port city, there are high numbers of drugs, including heroin, arriving by ship on a regular basis. To combat crime and other related acts committed in desperation as addicts attempt to find their next fix, the city has established a program that gives addicts free heroin. The program allows addicts to use heroin without the risk of getting into trouble. They are monitored by healthcare professionals and always given sterile materials. The program is only available to 26 people in Vancouver. These addicts have unsuccessfully attempted to get off of the drug many times in a variety of ways, including the use of methadone. This program is intended to be a last resort option.
This newly established program is an attempt to lower crime rates related to drug abuse. However, many argue that it is extremely inhumane. By giving drug addicts heroin, they are slowly dying. As soon as they are not able to have the drug, he or she will be in a detrimental situation and crime will most likely resume. Many argue against the program by saying that it does not provide any sort of rehabilitation. Either way, by giving an addict heroin, he or she is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
2: Is Walmart going “organic and local?”
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/walmart-groceries-organic-local-food-deserts/
It seems counterintuitive to say that Walmart is going “organic and local” when approximately only two percent of their produce is organic and nine percent is local. Walmart’s intentions are not to provide healthier options for the benefit of society. It’s intentions are to make sales. Therefore, it makes sense that the company tries to purchase produce “locally” to save money on transportation and lessen the rotting of products. However, the term locally is used loosely. Walmart considers local to be within the state. In addition, Walmart’s expansion of organic products is not focused on produce. It is primarily aimed at other products such as milk and baby food. Advertising for having produce that is organic and grown locally is rather deceptive and not an accurate representation of the majority of Walmart’s products.
It does seem counterintuitive to advertise produce in such a way at Walmart stores. However, it is an effective advertising technique to draw in customers. With many other health food stores opening, it is not likely that the average Walmart shopper will be extremely concerned about his or her food being grown organically and/or locally. Therefore, the words “organic and local” serve as a way to get someone to enter the building and spend money, even if they are not an accurate portrayal of the produce.
3: Figure Skating Bias
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/figure-skating-judges-get-10-duplicity
It seems counterintuitive that the instatement of a rule to prevent bias in judging would cause favoring and bias to increase. However, the judging for the Olympic figure skating competition did just that after a rule was established in 2002 to keep judges scores anonymous. The rule was created in result of a scandal at the 2002 Winter Olympics, in which judges traded votes to ensure that competitors from each of their countries placed highest. Keeping the judge’s scores anonymous, although meant to prevent vote trading, caused potential bias to increase by twenty percent. It was estimated that if a judge serving on a panel was from the same country as a competitor, that competitor would score two places higher than if the two did not share a country origin. The anonymity of the vote allowed the judge to vote as they please, with no one being able to accuse of bias since their vote was not revealed to the public.
Although counterintuitive that after a rule put in place to prevent bias was instated, bias rose, the rule itself does not seem effective. The rule to keep the judges votes anonymous to prevent bias through vote trading does not seem like it would work because there is no accountability involved. Therefore, it makes sense that bias would increase.
Rowan Counterintuitive 