In my own words heroin is a drug that is a chemical blend formed from morphine, which is a natural substance that is taken from a poppy plants seed. This drug is usually in a white or brown powder that is inhaled, smoked, injected, or snorted. In 2011, 1.6% of people used heroin at lest once, but 23% who used it became dependent on it. The problem is how is medical heroin better than something regular heroin users have. They are both harmful and people are still addicted to it. Although when given by a doctor, it prevents the crime of getting it off the street and its more likely to be clean.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/heroin

The largest argument for gun control is that a large portion of our society seems to believe that disarming our citizens, and taking away their right to a firearm will, in turn, end gun violence. The theory is simple; if the government incorporates and enforces gun laws in an attempt to bring the sale and manufacturing of firearms to halt, while also taking guns out of the houses of American families, this will eliminate all guns from our society which will prevent gun crime. However, there are many variables that are not taken into account when the general public thinks about this theory. Although this idea sounds great at first glance with hasty deliberation, the causal chain could take many darker paths.

In his Netflix original standup special, Jim Jefferies said, “In Australia, we had guns. Right up until 1996. In 1996, Australia had the biggest massacre on Earth. It still hasn’t been beaten. Now, after that, they banned the guns. Now, in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres. Since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre since… In Australia, we had the biggest massacre on Earth, and the Australian government went, ‘That’s it! No more guns!’ And we all went, ‘Yeah, all right, then. That seems fair enough, really.’Now, in America, you had the Sandy Hook massacre where little, tiny children died, and your government went, “Maybe… we’ll get rid of the big guns?'” Although this argument seems sound and valid, it is not. To compare Australia and it’s people to the citizens of the United States is illogical. They are two separate countries, with two separate cultures that hold different beliefs, with two completely different geological settings, not to mention separate political beliefs. Aside from the beliefs and feelings of individuals, Australia does not have Mexico beneath them constantly smuggling unregistered guns across their border. If we were to take firearms away from American families, we are taking away their right to protect not only themselves, but their families from the criminals who are buying these illegally transported guns. In this situation, we are essentially unarming our citizens while inadvertently arming criminals. My point is proven further, once you fact check Jim Jefferies on his statement, “since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre,” however, there have been at least twelve shootings that fit into the dictionary definition of massacre, with countless other shootings that have occurred over the past 20 years, not to mention the increase in home invasions since the ban. Jefferies also made the claim, “in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres,” which again, is not true. There were over 32 massacres before their government decided to take their rights!

Another variable that must be brought into consideration is the simple fact that there will always be people breaking the law. The law does not stop people from participating in reckless activities, they only allow governmental consequences if caught committing the crime.  In 1971, President Richard Nixon begun the war on drugs, a policy of which we are still feeling the negative results from. The main goal of the war on drugs was to drastically drop addiction and crime rates, spread the disastrous message of what drugs do to an individual, and most of all, eradicate addiction in America. However, the results were quite the opposite. Addiction rates skyrocketed, crime rates rose through the roof, and drug use is at an all time high not only for adults, but adolescents as well. Although drugs are illegal and punished so severely, people still choose to do them. They take on that risk. It is only logical to believe that people will still buy guns even though it is illegal, they will only be bought off of the black market. Except now, the only people who can fight back against these criminals are police officers. For that reason, if a criminal breaks into a family’s house, that family is unable to defend themselves from that criminal and they must wait an average of seven minutes before the police show up. By that time, who knows that may happen to that family.

Even further, it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that every single family in America will just hand over their guns; some people will either flat-out refuse and some guns will be left behind accidentally. It is also absurd to believe that with over 300 million guns compared to 324,118,787 American citizens. How can we reasonably ask for our government, which consists of 2.8 million people (a fraction of which enforce our laws), to remove so many guns, from so many families, in so many different locations? Logistically, this plan is near-impossible. The removal of all guns, in all families, across the entire United States is not a reasonable request. This will result in millions of families without a chance to defend themselves, while a small demographic of our population owns a weapon and have the rest of our population at their feet.

It is also unethical to expect all American citizens to hand over their guns. For numerous reasons. First, the American people do not need a constitution to tell them that they have a right to defend themselves or their loved ones. In philosopher John Locke’s words, they are a natural right given to us by nature. Second, the nullification of our second amendment cannot be warranted if there are actual uses for a firearm in a civil society.

It is unethical to take away the guns from the people of Alaska because most of the citizens that occupy the area utilize their guns for two things; food and defense. There is not much civilization within Alaska. There are very small amounts of roads, small amounts of people, or even stores in general so the people of Alaska mostly fend for themselves. Typically, the father of the house hunts to feed the family. Without their guns, their family cannot eat. To take away their right to a gun, because the rest of the country has grocery stores is inhumane. Also, even if our government were to include a clause that allowed the sale, use, and transfer of firearms in Alaska, that will be the new place where criminals can buy their guns and spread them across the country. This is one of the very few situations in where there are no grey areas.

As one can see, the creation of the firearm began a catch-22 within the American culture. However, no matter your opinion of guns in our society, it must be admitted that guns do serve a function within our civil society. Yes, there is evil in this world, and the longer life goes on, the more apparent it is and there is nothing we may ever do to stop it, but American citizens must have the option to defend themselves. No matter your stance on the argument, a gun is protection, and no American needs a piece of paper to tell them they have the right to protect their life, liberty, happiness, and family.

 

Works Cited

1. “Jim Jefferies Has Got Gun Control All Wrong. • /r/progun.” Reddit. Therevenantrising, 20 June 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. 
2. “List of Massacres in Australia.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
3. “Locke ‘N Load: John Locke and YOUR Second Amendment Rights.” Intro to Political Theory Blog. Sabalaba, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.
4. Ghost Guns. Perf. Anonymous Performers. Underworld Inc. National Geographic Network, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. 

The US is seen as a powerhouse nation and one of the strongest military power out there in the eyes of the people. But while having so much power can be beneficial, in today’s world more problems are occurring rather than good. Whenever there is a problem people see since we have such a strong military and have been known for changing the tides in a war we should intervene and just go in win the battle and get out but there are many more problems that US face when it comes to getting involved. Why is it that we never hear anything about the united nations getting involved which was created to prevent battles to occur and create a better world.

The US feels it has to get more involved because they can not agree terms with other following, which totally makes the whole reason why the United Nations were created pointless. This organization was made after the world war to prevent wars, but since countries like Russia and China have different plans, while other countries realize the problems going on in Syria and realize they have no need to be involved. President Obama felt upset that France and Britain are making no attempt to get involved. But understanding where France is coming from I wouldn’t want to be involved either after the attacks they received at Paris and bombing that occurred all around there, the US as well has dealt with a lot of problems with terrorism speaking that almost 1 in every 6 people say the biggest problem they face here in America are terrorism. Other countries realize there is no need to get involved, and these are countries that are constantly dealing with the United Nations and terrorism, countries like France think about there people first and safety of them, US should do the same.

A major concern for bringing soldiers to other countries where warfare is occurring is what threatens our soldiers will face such as death, as a country we shouldn’t be sending our own men to a place where they risk their lives in order to protect other  countries citizens because they don’t have the great military strength that we do have here in America to me it’s just bizarre.  Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr believes a way to defend the Syrians is to send men in and risk their lives .“Only an overwhelming land force can impose order and peace on that tortured piece of real estate. We would lose people as would our allies, but the alternative is to simply stand idly by while this tragedy unfolds.” As he describes so in the article “The U.S. Should Intervene in Syria in a Big Way” I completely disagree with this, by sending in men you risk there lives and create more chaos, and then he goes on to say “I don’t mean more bombing, more pathetic efforts at diplomacy and heaven forbid any more red lines.” to me bombing would be more of a reasonable idea if he plans on sending soldiers in. No matter what ISIS will feel threatened and strike back throughout the years they have shown no sense of hiding back and laying low they will strike back to the ones who intervene with their battles. So either way by getting involved you will cause problems so if that’s the case, blow off a few bombs take your men out and see how they react because either we send our men into a death mission or bring terror to our country which threatens the national security and the people. Which is why I believe we shouldn’t even get involved because no good will even come out of this. If the world saw this as a major problem others would be getting involved but as you can see France and England are backing out because they got more problems to deal with rather then help someone else out.

U.S has admitted to already attempting to bomb Syria even though it was a failure and was believed to help ISIS rather then destroying them. In the article “U.S admits it Bombed Syrian Troops.” by Nancy Youssef, she goes on to talk about how   “as the strikes intended, the coalition may instead been a boon for the terror group.” Now by U.S doing such an awful attack in bombing not only did they set up a possible chance for a counter attack by ISIS they also made ISIS feel that they were stronger. U.S conducted such awful planning, if they were to ever attack again they better make sure they have a better plan because ISIS will be plotting a plan as well. By doing these actions many Americans can be effected whether something happens sooner or later ISIS has been notorious for attacking random place and we may never know if the United States is there next target. The government should next time realize there are more important things in life then bombing, and worry about the major concerns in America

Work Cited

Lt. Gen. Clarence E. McKnight, Jr. The Huffington Post “The U.S. Should Intervene in Syria in a Big Way” September 2015. November 11 2016. Web

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lt-gen-clarence-e-mcknight-jr-/syria_1_b_8269072.html

Spencer, Richard. The Telegraph “How Syria and the bloody conflict has torn the UN Security Council apart” October 7 2015. November 11 2016. Web

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11915649/How-Syria-and-the-bloody-conflict-has-torn-the-UN-Security-Council-apart.html

Youssef, Nancy. The Daily Beast “U.S admits it Bombed Syrian Troops.”  Sep 18 2016. Nov 20. 2016. Web

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/18/did-the-u-s-just-slaughter-syrian-troops.html

DBT Doesn’t Fail- Therapists Do

Therapists themselves have had many failures in implementing DBT, stating that in some extreme cases of BPD and emotional dysregulation, it doesn’t work. In one case, Shireen L. Rizvi had a patient named Barbara who was not affected, and whose disorder may have been worsened, by DBT. Barbara had BPD, social anxiety, severe depression, PTSD, and was an abuse survivor.

Over the course of six months, Rizvi struggled to treat Barbara, often blaming her “therapy-interfering behaviors” such as not making eye contact, asking her very personal questions, and calling her in crisis almost daily. The response to these behaviors is what makes the argument that DBT didn’t work here completely invalid. Rizvi admitted to outright ignoring some of these behaviors, when the very basics of DBT state that a patient must feel validated in order to receive treatment. Instead of indulging in and therefore validating these behaviors, maybe partially answering a question or asking her why she didn’t make eye contact, Rizvi let them agitate her and obstruct her own practice.

While Barbara did overstep the patient-therapist line (she had had a romantic affair with a previous therapist, so she didn’t understand it in the first place) the response should have been one of understanding and willingness to help, not one of agitation and rejection. Rizvi admitted to being a “novice therapist”, but as someone who is not even a therapist yet, I can see that that is no excuse. She saw someone who clearly had a mistrust of authority and no concept of patient boundaries, and did not take that into account. The bottom line is, she didn’t try hard enough to understand Barbara as a person rather than as a set of symptoms. It is these therapists who most often fail with DBT. It is not the therapy’s fault; it is the fault of the therapist administering it.

Therapists need to take into account the state of their patients and how to best treat them. They cannot look at every patient as the same textbook set of symptoms, they have to see the patient as a whole person. Though a person may fit the criteria for rigorous DBT, the person may not be able to handle it. This is another issue with the Rizvi case. Barbara most likely would have done better under a less structured form of DBT, as one who has had little structure in her life to begin with. She is not familiar with such intense dedication to one thing, a thing which she is not even convinced is worthwhile yet. So, giving her small tidbits of DBT in her therapy sessions would have not only given the therapy more meaning to her, but may have made her more receptive to it.

Another example of DBT failure is one I found on a forum for people with BPD. This time, we see the patient perspective on the issue. User cabdriver gave a list of explanations on why DBT wasn’t working for them and how it was flawed. The list consisted of a combination of them not practicing their skills and their therapist punishing them for it. They found the skills boring and unhelpful, and would lie and say that they did them when they didn’t to avoid punishment.

Therein lies the problem, a therapist should never punish a patient. Apparently, cabdriver’s therapist would become irreverent or even take breaks from therapy when cabdriver didn’t practice their skills regularly. This is probably an extreme case, but it is troubling. Again, I reference that one of the key principles of DBT is validation, and a patient cannot possibly feel validated if they are constantly fearing punishment. A person can’t fear their therapist, therapy is supposed to be a safe space where someone can admit to anything without judgement. That isn’t to say that they won’t be held accountable for their actions, but they shouldn’t have to fear a slap on the wrist. They’re adults, treat them as such.

The solution here lies in both the patient and the therapist trying a bit harder. The therapist needs to try to convince cabdriver that the skills are worthwhile, as the punishment approach is ineffective and downright patronizing. Maybe cabdriver needs a new therapist altogether. But they also must realize that the skills are there to help them, and they aren’t as black-and-white as they seem. Cabdriver often said things along the lines of “Have a problem? Practice your skills!” However, “practice your skills” can simply mean applying a new approach to a situation or changing thinking. It doesn’t always mean sit and be mindful and all the world’s problems will disappear. In the end, everyone involved with DBT just has to be open minded and accepting, and go from there.

But obviously not all college students are Barbara or cabdriver and not all therapists are Rizvi. However, they may still have therapy interfering behaviors and not be the most eager to start DBT. That is why a very relaxed form of it is best. If someone doesn’t want to do something, it makes no sense to completely immerse them in it against their will, or shut them out like a failure. Introducing DBT slowly in small pieces makes much more sense. The therapist doesn’t even have to officially declare “We’re going to do DBT now.” They can simply give skills that pull from DBT and mention the name, intriguing the patient. If they see that these skills are helping them, and they know they come from DBT, they will be more eager to dive deeper into the practice.

But of course, the person has to be willing to use the skills in order for them to help. If someone completely ignores their skills and makes no progress, then what? That’s where the emotional validation comes in. As Robins and Rosenthal say, that is one of the core principles of successful DBT. Patients have to believe that the skills will help them, and that they can implement them successfully. The safer and more empowered a patient feels, the more likely they are to use therapy skills outside of the office, as I stated when giving cabdriver a solution.
The bottom line is, it all comes down to the proficiency of the therapist. If they look at patients as textbook sets of symptoms who all need the same thing, no progress is going to be made. However, if they change their style to meet each patient’s needs, looking at them as a human being, it makes all the difference. This kind of care could benefit everyone, from the most resistant BPD patient to the scared college student. Therapists just have to be willing to try.

Works Cited

Rizvi, Shireen L. “Treatment Failure in Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 18.3 (2011): 403-12. Science Direct. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Robbins, Clive J., and Zachary Rosenthal. “Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. John Wiley & Sons, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

User Cabdriver. “DBT: How Is It Working for You?” RSS. N.p., 19 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

My Thesis is that the NJ Sales Tax is not regressive because it does tax luxury or non-essential items and essential items are exempt.

So while the NJ sales tax does not tax groceries, clothing, and prescription medication, it does tax many items that people buy almost everyday that are not essential but people buy anyway. An example of this would be a daily trip to a convenience store for a cup of coffee. This cup of coffee is considered a non-essential item,so it is taxed. According to the NJ Sales Tax Guide, a cup of coffee bought ready to drink is taxable. Let’s say that cup of coffee costs $1, the current 7% tax adds the cost to $1.07. So after buying a cup of coffee every day the amount of tax one pays can add up over time, after 15 days the tax adds up to over $1. For someone who works two low wage jobs, that cup of coffee can prevent them from falling asleep on the job, so in a way the NJ sales tax does tax an essential item for people. Though I can counter this argument by saying that coffee beans are not taxable. So if someone brews their own coffee at home, they are avoiding the sales tax.

Another example of the sales tax taxing something that can be essential is labor. The State of New Jersey generally writes memos that makes it easy for consumers and people who own a business to know what is taxable and not taxable. In one memo, the State Division of Taxation says that labor like maintenance or landscaping are subject to the sales tax. So if a family is in desperate need of a new floor or had damage done due to a natural disaster, then they are paying a tax. But, insurance premiums are not taxed, so the family can buy home insurance to avoid paying the sales tax. Paying for insurance in general is better than having to pay the costs completely out of pocket. The insurance company will pay for the labor and materials.

While this may not be an issue now as much as it may have been twenty or thirty years ago, but the sales tax does tax tobacco products, which many people still use today. Some people struggling with nicotine addiction may say that cigarettes are essential for them. While the State of New Jersey not only makes tobacco subject to the sales tax, the State sets minimum prices on a pack of twenty cigarettes. According the an article from the State Division of Taxation there is a minimum price that a retailer can sell a pack of cigarettes for. It is an obvious fact that one does not need cigarettes to survive. So the sales tax should be applied to tobacco, but nicotine gum is exempt. A person who is trying to quit smoking can buy nicotine gum, which is tax free.

-Works Cited-

“NJ Sales Tax Guide.” (n.d.): n. pag. 2006.<http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/pubs/sales/su4.pdf&gt;.

NJ Division of Taxation – S & U Tax: Home Improvements.” NJ Division of Taxation – S & U Tax: Home Improvements. N.p., 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. b. 13 Nov. 2016. <http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/su_6.shtml&gt;.

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION MINIMUM LEGAL PRICES ON CIGARETTES AS OF AUGUST 2, 2016 (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/other_forms/mlpcig.pdf

The Benefits of Failure

The public’s attitude toward standardized testing plays a large role in its implementation and development. Over the past few years, state education departments have faced increased scrutiny due to worries about high-stakes tests and their effect on education. Most recently, the achievement gap between lower class minority students and high class white students has been brought to the public eye and fought against.  However, there are still many that argue that standardized tests are actually beneficial to students, teachers, and education as a whole. In Latasha Gandy’s “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good For Children, Families, and Schools,” she claims that standardized tests actually help minority or low income students by displaying the inequality of schooling. She argues that these tests are one of the most effective and convincing tools to use to fight for educational justice. Since she public is now aware of the achievement gap between minority and white students, schools will now be forced to answer to the inequality and eventually fight to fix it.

To begin, standardized tests are more than just one test taken and eventually forgotten about. The implications of these tests grow more and more over time and could follow the students for months even years after the final answer is circled on the paper. So yes, while standardized tests may be a tool to show the inequity of schooling for minority and low income students, that realization is not directly benefitting these schools, students, and communities. In fact, it is likely harming them. Low performing schools lose funding, low performing students are held back academically, and communities with low performing students are more susceptible to crime. Two studies, The Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development and the Pittsburgh Youth Study, both found links between low academic performance and adolescent delinquency. Although these tests are showing the score gap for the public to see, the students still have to suffer the consequences of the gap. The inequity that is shown in the test results ruin futures and lessens already scarce resources for schools. It is hard to find benefit in those student’s lower performance.

The constant failures and lower scores of minority and lower class students would be to overlook if they were not in vain. However, the “achievement gap” still exists and has existed since the beginning of standardized testing. According to the NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Caucasian American and African American gap in mathematics for 17 year olds was 32 points in 1982 while in 2004 it was 28 points.  In reading achievement tests, the gap for 17 years olds in 1984 was 32 points and in 2004 it was 29. For hispanic Americans, the gap in mathematics was 27 points in 1982 for mathematics and 24 in 2004. In reading, the Hispanic gap 27 points in 1984 and then increased to 29 points in 2004. Therefore, to say that these tests are benefitting these students because it helps communities recognize the gap so that they can close it is just not true. That would be an excellent concept, if it were actually happening. In reality though, the gap still exists. Although it is narrowing in some cases, progress is slow. It took twenty years for the gap to narrow by three points. In that time, hundreds of thousands of students suffered the consequences of lower performance of standardized tests.

All in all, to say that standardized tests are benefitting minority students is insulting to the students who every year face the uphill battle of these tests and continued to be frustrated by the results. In theory, the concept of standardized tests being used as the tool to identify and abolish the achievement gap is amazing. However, in reality, that goal is just not being achieved. The achievement gap still exists today despite its existence being discovered over thirty years ago. There is now a lot more awareness for the problem but that is no consolation to the students who are failing and the schools that are getting less funding. To say that a racial achievement gap is beneficial is to undermine the effect it has on minority students.

Works Cited

“Education and Delinquency: Summary of a Workshop.” Linking School Performance and Delinquency. The National Academy of the Sciences, 2000. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Gandy, Latasha. “Don’t Believe the Hype: Standardized Tests Are Good for Children, Families and Schools.” Education Post. Education Post, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

“NAEP – Achievement Gaps.” NAEP – Achievement Gaps. National Center for Educational Statistics, 22 Sept. 2015. Web. 12 Nov. 2016.

Difficult But Possible

The concept of teaching about religion rather than teaching religion really is great in theory. However, like so many other “good ideas”, the current plan for execution is flawed. For this to work, the school district would need to ensure that each and every teacher has been properly trained to teach this rigidly strict curriculum in an entirely unbiased and neutral manner. Furthermore, we have to consider the teachers that would disregard their training and take advantage of their position of influence in the classroom to sea students’ opinions in one direction or another. This is particularly dangerous when they’re teaching students of a young age. The younger the child, the more malleable the mind and thought processes. Children are frequently compared to sponges because they are constantly and consistently absorbing every piece of information their senses perceive. When placed in a supposedly safe environment where someone they are meant to be able to trust is manipulating their minds, the outcome could never be positive. This is why finding teachers and supervisors who are dedicated to being objective in this matter is crucial to the success of these programs and is becoming increasingly difficult.

The John C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University in St. Louis runs a blog titled “Religion & Politics.” In January of 2014, Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote this in her article “The Dangers of Religious Instruction in Public Schools”:

“The Freedom From Religion Foundation is continually contacted by students and parents who encounter teachers and principals who view their captive audience of students as a ripe mission field for recruitment. We handle more than 2,000 complaints a year by members of the public concerned about violations of the separation between church and state, and the vast majority of these concern violations in our public schools.”

Too many educators see these situations as a game, making sport of convincing students that their way is the best way. This attitude is dangerous and harmful in every way. I’m in no way saying that every teacher is determined to brainwash their students into believing a certain way. However, it’s exceptionally difficult to pick out the bad from the good. Furthermore, the observation and evaluation processes required to determine which teachers are fit for their position and time consuming and disruptive to the general learning environment. However in a situation such as this, I full believe these extensive measures to be more than worth it. I don’t believe any valid argument has been made against the need to educate students on religion in order to make them more aware of the current climate we’re living in. That being said, we simply need to work towards making it happen in a way that will satisfy both sides of the conversation.

There are plenty of educators all over the world who believe in this cause the way the rest of us do and I believe they would adapt to the situation in whatever way needed in order to accomplish our common goal: to properly educate the up and coming generations of students on matters of religion and culture that other generations were not privy to. The school district of Modesto, California is living proof that this can work. Modesto’s unparalleled success should be recognized and their methods be used as the starting point for school districts across America. Specifically, their experiment highlights the importance of well-trained teachers, a good understanding of the law, finding compromise and working towards a common goal. Progress cannot be made with two forces pulling in opposite directions, we’ll simply remain in the same place but end up more frustrated.

Citations

1. Kilman, Carrie. “One Nation, Many Gods.” Teaching Tolerance. N.p., 2007. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.
2. You are being redirected… (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/religion.html
3. Fischer, M. W. (n.d.). Teaching Religion in Public Schools: Removing the Angst. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/profdev027.shtml
4. Pros and Cons of Prayer in School. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from http://www.allabouthistory.org/pros-and-cons-of-prayer-in-school-faq.htm

Ineffective Treatments

On May 30, 1991, John Balcerzak, a police officer of the Milwaukee Police Department, discovered Konerak Sinthasomphone, a 14-year-old, wandering the street naked and bleeding from his rectum. Jeffery Dahmer, an unknown serial killer at the time, told police that Sinthasomphone was his 19-year-old boyfriend, and that they had an argument while drinking. Dahmer acted embarrassed about the situation and insisted that the child return home with him. Officer Balcerzak willingly handed over the child and escorted them back to Dahmer’s apartment, while neglecting to take the child’s wounds into consideration. When they arrived back at the apartment, Dahmer showed the officers two polaroid photos that he had taken of Konerak in his underwear. Once officer Balcerzak saw proof that they were lovers, he told Dahmer to take good care of him. Later that night, Dahmer killed and dismembered Sinthasomphone, keeping his skull as a souvenir. Not only did Officer Balcerzak witness the suffering of a child, he let the criminal walk away. Officer Balcerzak was immediately fired, but took his termination to court where a judge reinstated him. Yet, the fight for his job was only half of his worries. The family of Konerak Sinthasomphone was outraged by the reinstating of officer Balcerzak and made it publicly prevalent of his disgrace to law enforcement. Police officers lives are constantly threatened, but to watch a victim visibly suffer and then watch the criminal get off must have been psychologically unbearable.

The pressures of law enforcement have lead to high blood pressure, insomnia, increased levels of destructive stress hormones, heart problems, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and suicide. The exposure to this case in particular must have been stressful beyond belief. A study conducted by Badge of Life in 2016 found that there are about 17 suicides per 100,000 officers compared to a mere 7.5 per 100,000 suicides among college students whose lives are impacted by astronomical college tuitions and societal pressures to acquire a degree. Support and therapy could help mitigate the mental health damage caused by this type of trauma. Police officers deserve all the help we can give them to regain their original selves. Officers are constantly exposed to dangerous situations by virtue of their job, but the system to help police officers cope with their stress is woefully inadequate. It is inexcusable how many lives have been damaged and/or taken from the lack of support for people who sacrifice their lives on a day-to-day basis to keep us safe.

In response to growing physiological problems in law enforcement, police programs have been developed to defuse these high levels of stress. These programs have made efforts to help their traumatized officer’s. But the truth is, police whose lives are under constant stress, do not receive the help they need to cope with their physiological complications. The common problem lies in the lack of trust that police officers have in their Employee Assistance Programs. Police officers do not feel a personal connection with their therapists; they would rather talk to someone in their line of duty. The attitude seems to be related to past experience and concern about not being understood by a superior when stress-related behaviors develop. Gary Allmers, a detective in the Bergen County Prosecutors Office, said, “There is a lack of understanding in these programs to help officers cope with their problems. We do not want to sit down and talk to a therapist who cannot relate to our situation. We need to talk to someone, perhaps a retired officer, about the common stressors in law enforcement. There is good intention, but we need someone who has been in our shoes before. I feel alone most of the time, which scares me quite frankly.” Employee Assistant Programs should consist of retired officers who have dealt with similar problems in their line of duty. Police officers, the guardians of our safety, should never feel alone. We need to meet police officer’s half way and stop supplying them with mediocre support systems. If one cop is saying a therapist is not enough, imagine the officer’s who have yet to come forward about their symptoms.

Employee Assistance Programs in law enforcement are also not mandatory. Police officers are given the option to seek help. But the truth is, the largest barrier to effective treatments and support systems is the culture that exists within law enforcement. The profession requires officers to restrain from their emotions and feelings of pain or suffrage. It is presumed by law enforcement that officers can make that emotional switch and focus on another case, regardless of what they may be experiencing. In a predominantly male culture emphasizing toughness and a shrug-it-off, suck-it-up mentality, officers are forced to keep their feelings to themselves and resort to unhealthy methods of coping, which result in negative outcomes (such as alcohol abuse, risk-taking behaviors, etc.). Police officers commonly face internal stressors, such as administrative stress, that include long hours, lack of support, overtime, no room for advancement, and family complications. External stressors are correlated with outside factors such as the attitude of the general public, daily exposure to trauma, negativity, and uneasiness when dealing with challenging and dangerous situations. Police officers, who do not come forward because of the stigma of appearing weak, are putting themselves at risk for the development of serious physiological or physical complications. These programs are seemingly noneffective if they are not mandated in police departments.

(Add in if necessary) Many police departments provide wellness benefits in exchange for a small discount health care costs for employees. The goal of these programs is to ensure employees’ fitness for duty. Law enforcement agencies have spent significant financial resources to address issues of officer safety, with great success. Sadly, only a small fraction of most organizations’ budgets goes toward addressing the psychological needs of their officers and families. (Research funds)

(Add in if necessary) These support systems also fail to identify an officers symptoms of distress until it is too late. Expand on how symptoms such as PTSD are not recognized until it’s to late.

As a nation that prides themselves on a strong law enforcement system, America has ignored the calls for help from the people who have set out to protect our nation. (Finish Conclusion)

Works Cited

“https://adrenalfatiguesolution.com/police-stress-fatigue/&#8221; The Adrenal Fatigue Solution. 4 Dec. 2014. 11 Nov. 2016.

“https://www.policeone.com/health-fitness/articles/137133-Police-Officer-Suicide-Frequency-and-officer-profiles/&#8221; PoliceOne. Michael G. Aamodt, Nicole A. Stalnaker. 20 June 2006. 11 Nov. 2016.

“https://psmag.com/aversion-to-therapy-why-won-t-men-get-help 7998d34f1d4e#.p3fmegm8r” PacificStandard. Betsy Freed, David Freed. 25 Jun 2012. 11 Nov. 2016.

Allmers, Gary. “Employee Assistance Programs.” Personal interview. 11 Nov. 2016.