Mini Cases in Psychoactive Drugs and Their Effects on the Brain by Darlene Mitrano. Case copyright held by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Originally published September 2, 2011.
Study 2: Jill (Let the smoke clear…)
It has been a long day and you are glad it is Friday. Earlier you called and made plans with your friend, Jill, to order delivery from your favorite sandwich shop and to start a movie marathon around 6PM. When you arrive at Jill’s condo you smell a distinctive odor in the hall. You knock and she opens the door. A smoky cloud lingers in the kitchen. Jill has invited her cousin Shelly over and they seem to have been smoking something. Their eyes are red, they seem extremely relaxed, and there are food and candy wrappers all over the place. Jill says that she totally forgot you were coming over, but you should stay and hang out anyway. What have Jill and Shelly been smoking?
Questions: Answer question 6. Choose at least 3 additional questions to discuss.
- What drug has the individual in this case been using? What led you to believe this?
- What are the subjective effects of the drug (i.e., what would a person taking this drug report feeling after using the drug)?
- What receptors, transporters, or neurotransmitters could be involved? How does the drug affect these receptors, transporters, or neurotransmitters?
- Provide at least one relevant website concerning the drug in question.
- Is this drug addictive? What are the consequences of continued use of this drug?
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).>GET ANSWER