Tension and Suspense the Novel and the Opening Scene of the Film Jaws E

Tension and Suspense the Novel and the Opening Scene of the Film Jaws Peter Benchley wrote "Jaws" the novel before it was made into a film directed by Steven Spielberg. "Jaws" is a thriller with the main aim being to build up suspense and tension. In the novel Peter Benchley uses many variations of language techniques to emphasise important points that build up suspense. He also uses sentence and paragraph structure to affect the reader in many different ways. Steven Spielberg on the other hand uses different camera angles and shots alongside lighting effects to create atmosphere and tension. In the background he uses music and sound effects to add to the dramatic visual images he creates. Finally Steven Spielberg uses specific dialogue to show the victims feelings and emotions. At the beginning of the film the soft, relaxing underwater noises of communicating sharks instantly sets the scene and creates the feeling of being deep underwater. The familiar beach sounds have a calming effect, which immediately lulls the audience into a false sense of security. The black screen that appears at the start of the film doesn't provide the audience with anything interesting to look at so the focus is strongly on the soundtrack. When the opening credits appear, the contrast between the bold, white credits and the plain black screen really stands out. The white credits could symbolize the innocence and vulnerability of the victims against the black, evilness of the shark. As the credits start to roll the first note of the chilling "Jaws" music is struck. The peaceful aquatic sounds are abruptly interrupted by the slow, deliberate minor strokes ... ... him and Chrissie really creates atmosphere. Every time the camera switches to the boy the audience is reminded of how frantic the atmosphere around Chrissie is. The contrast of these two opposite atmospheres makes the attack seem far worse in the film than in the novel. I think that the film involves the audience more than the novel because the use of camera shots can bring the audience close to the action. The shark's eye view is a very good shot and ultimately brings the audience into the middle of all the panic and confusion. It also build suspense as the audience can see exactly what the shark can see and when the shark is advancing towards Chrissie's legs they know exactly what the shark is aiming for. When the attack is going on the close-ups at water level make the audience feel like they're in the water.

Serialization in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens :: Charles Dickens

In Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, serialization is an important and effective tool that divides the literary work into episodes, creating a suspenseful plot. In addition, serialization also creates a "soap opera" effect on the novel's readers, leaving them with a cliff-hanger scenario at the end of each episode. A major effect of serialization is the change it renders in character development. Sydney Carton would be a prime example. In the novel's beginning, he is portrayed as a drunk, a loser with no purpose to his life. However, as the readers go on, they find that Carton is, indeed, not what he seems to be. Ultimately, our reprobate saves Charles Darnay's life from certain death and is instrumental in having him escape to England with his beloved Lucie, their daughter, and his father-in-law, Dr. Manette. Charles Dickens uses an unusual method of serialization that resembles that used by daytime soaps. After covering several plot developments of several characters, usually primary ones, he switches to a series of subplots involving other characters, usually secondary ones. For example, after Dickens covers the adventure of the Marquis St. Evremonde, he jumps back to Darnay. The effect is a narrative hook that encourages the readers to go on. This leads to suspense and, of course, a successful tale. A final, and obvious, effect of serialization is the steady advancement of plot development. As the novel is divided into thematic parts, it gives the readers a definite feeling for the plot and causes them to think about possible outcomes.

Food Lion-Case Analysis Essay

Food Lion LLC is an American grocery store company headquartered in Salisbury, NC, that operates approximately 1,300 supermarkets in 11 Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic states as well as Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia under the Food Lion, Harvey’s Supermarket, Bloom, Bottom Dollar Food, and Reid’s banners. With approximately 73,000 employees, Food Lion LLC is the largest subsidiary of Delhaize Group. Delhaize Group is a food retailer headquartered in Belgium, which operates in seven countries. Delhaize Group was founded in Belgium in 1867. The principal activity of Delhaize Group is the operation of food supermarkets in North America, Europe and Southeast Asia. Supermarket News ranked Delhaize America No. 10 in the 2007 â€Å"Top 75 North American Food Retailers† based on 2006 fiscal year estimated sales of $17.3 billion. By cutting its overhead dramatically, Food Lion has been able to offer â€Å"everyday low prices† to consumers and still manage to reap some of the highest profits in the supermarket industry. Faced with a struggling economy and increased competition in the form of supercenter outlets, Food Lion has responded with some store closures and work force reductions, but has also sought to revitalize the grocery shopping experience through the introduction of a store concept called Bloom, intended to provide a uniquely convenient layout and competitive prices. Key Dates in the companies History 1957-Food Town is established in Salisbury, North Carolina. 1974:Belgian grocer Delhaize acquires Food Town. 1982:Company changes its name to Food Lion. 1986:Tom Smith, who started at the company in the 1950s as a grocery bagger, becomes CEO of Food Lion. 1999:A new management team seeks to revitalize Food Lion. 2001:Food Lion becomes part of Delhaize’s umbrella company for its American holdings. Case Analysis The faced many challenges such as information technology (IT) in the managing financial records recently, with system audits and continuous failures. They broken many rules within the Sarabanes oxley act. The sarabanes Act which is also known as the ‘Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act’ (in the Senate) and ‘Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act’ (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a Unites States federal Law that set new or enhanced standards for all U.S. Public company boards i.e. food lion, management and public accounting firms. The problems latter proved to be linked to inadequate timing in planning activates, and inconsistent level changes with corporate management. Outside of the above Food Lion faces many staying afloat in the technological advanced completion such as Wal-Mart. Struggling against many influcuations in the prices and bundling package deals. Food lions attempts to offers things that others don’t to set their standards apart with a recipe area and automated shopping list that can be sent to local providing retailers. Additionally, food lion offers retailers many different purchase options with the MVP card, which also, allows them; maintain records of the customers shopping habits and budget. Creating coupons suit the needs of certain individual shoppers has revolutionized the food retail industry. These marketing strategies are not original but nonetheless quintessential for their success. One of the most innovative situations that food-lion is the vendor diversity clause which is n ot only an anti-discrimination minorities but offers specials contracts with minorities. Additionally, joining forces with exterior company guiding star, which a rating corporation for the products, services, and treatment proved by and for Food Lion. Along with Animal welfare survey and verification with produce and poultry products. They are known for deals and bonuses in the food industry. Food lion is known for sales and promotions, which as allegedly breaking the competition down to the lower deals to even remain marketable. Providing weekly sales on curtains products for a limited time only. Furthermore, offering Shoppers’ Companion online, which is where shoppers can offers suggestions and comments and concerns, i.e. management tips and unsanitary employees. The new and improved MVP card issuing not only saving, but also saving star credits which generates real money on rebate and giveaway options. The MVP card also, has Tally register where the online system keeps account on how much you have saved with the card printable coupons from home. The company will re-open over 269 stores which all are going to include free grocery giveaways. Also, large charity donations and contributions to groups such as: boy and girl scouts of America, YMCA, Feed the children, Harvest Hope, and large donations of free food to may shelters and orphanages much of the public views the company as not just a supermarket but a savior. Currently the company has plans of expanding thought the central, and western regions of the United States, but first wish to stabilize their current stations and locations. Some recent news and talks of merging with some of the completion on the level Conclusion I conclude that even though the margin for change increasing along with customer demand shifting, Food Lion has done a great job to cope with inconsistent data recorded and observed. By offering more customer demand based products instead of consumer retail they has improved on revenue. They has stood by their actions scandalous and praiseworthy, from branch closing and violating of SOX act codes to donated billions and saving many small third world countries to hunger. Moreover, their strategy is a good one lower the prices give them fresher produce and improve the overall shopping experience, and they certainly have lived up to their promises and expectations. Many of these issues have been fixed by great change in management process for hardware, software database, and application groups. The company received a dully-awaited makeover in the past few years, which will surly; sustain them for decades to come. Food Lion has many pitfalls such as competitors, and technology, however o verall with studious work ethics they will prevail and maintain.

Pathogens Essay

Pathogens are everywhere. They are in people, animals, and the environment. Pathogens come in a wide variety. The types are fungal, bacterial, viral, and other parasites. All pathogens can be dangerous, but two of them are more dangerous. These two types that more dangerous are fungal and bacterial. While both fungal and bacterial pathogens cause illness, they differ in the way they are transmitted, the way they are treated, and the diseases they cause. First, the way fungal and bacterial pathogens are transmitted is different.Most fungal pathogens are not transmitted person to person but instead by inhaling fungal spores. On the other hand bacterial pathogens are transmitted in many ways like through touch and air. Bacterial pathogens are also transmitted by bodily fluids. The most common infection that is transmitted by airborne pathogens is Tuberculosis. Some of the Bacterial diseases that are transmitted Group A Streptococcus, Invasive Group B Streptococcal, Haemophilus influenza . Some bacterial diseases transmitted by bodily fluids are Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and Chancroid.Second, they are different in the way they are treated. Bacterial infections are usually treated with antibiotics pills. Penicillin was discovered in the 1920s by a British scientist named Alexander Fleming. Fleming almost accidently discovered the natural growing substance. He named it Penicillin after the Penicillium mold that made it. The first antibiotic discovered that could attack certain bacteria was Penicillin. In 1940 two scientists, Howard Florey and Ernest Chain, were researching projects in bacteriology looking for ways to enhance or continue with chemistry.Using chemistry they created a brown powder that kept its power for more than a few days. After experimenting they found it to be safe. It was needed right away on the front lines of World War II so mass production started right away. Penicillin saved many lives that would have been lost due to bacterial infection even in minor wounds (Rosenberg, n. d. ). On the other hand fungal infections are usually treated using antifungal creams or injections. Antifungal creams are used to treat things like athlete’s foot, ringworm of the groin and body, skin infection because of Candida yeast.A serious systemic infections like crypotococcal meningitis. Antifungal injections are used to treat infections like Candidiasis, Coccidiomycosis, and Crypotococcal Meningitis. Antifungals work by exploiting differences in mammalian and fungal cells to kill the fungal organisms with no dangerous effects on the host. Fungal and human cells are alike at the molecular level. Antifungal drugs can cause side effects; some could be fatal if the drug is not used properly (Antifungal medication, n. d. ). Finally, the diseases that fungal and bacterial pathogens cause are completely different.Fungal diseases are rarer and more likely to be fatal. One of the most fatal fungal pathogens is Candida. Candidiasis infectio ns have many types the most common non-fatal type is oral also known as thrush. Invasive Candidiasis infections occur if Candida yeast gets in your bloodstream and you have a weakened immune system and a yeast infection goes untreated. Candidiasis infections have a forty to fifty percent mortality rate for systemic infections (Hidalgo, 1994-2013). Bacterial diseases are more common and there are so many different types.Some bacterial infections are Botulism, Lyme disease, and gonorrhea. Botulism is a disease that causes neuroparalysis because of a neurotoxin produced by Clostridium Botulinum. The three types of botulism are infant botulism, foodborne botulism, and wound botulism. Infant botulism is caused by ingested C Botulinum spores that germinate in the intestine and produce toxin. Infant botulism has less than a one percent mortality rate. Foodborne botulism is most commonly caused by improperly canned or home-prepared foods. Foodborne Botulism carries a mortality rate of five to ten percent.Wound botulism is caused by contamination of a wound with toxin producing Botulinum. Wound botulism has a mortality rate of fifteen to seventeen percent (Chan-Tack, 1994 – 2013). Lyme disease is caused by bacteria called borrelia burgdorferi. It is carried by black legged ticks that have bitten mice or deer infected with Lyme disease. Stage one of Lyme disease is when the bacteria has entered the body but has spread throughout the body. Stage two is when the disease has spread through the body some. Stage is a widespread infection.Each stage of Lyme disease also has different symptoms. Stage one symptoms are like the flu. The symptoms include fever, body-wide itches, and muscle pain. Stage two symptoms are paralysis or weakness of face muscles, pain or swelling the knees or other large joints, muscle pain, and heart problems. Stage three symptoms are muscle weakness, numbness and tingling, abnormal muscle movement, and speech problems. Stage three of Lyme disea se can cause long term joint inflammation, heart rhythm problems, and brain and nervous system problems.These problems include concentration problems, memory problems, nerve damage, sleep disorders, and vision problems. (Lyme Disease, 2013). Gonorrhea is caused by a bacterium called Neisseria gonorrhoeae. The bacteria grow in warm, moist areas of the body, like the tube that carries urine out of the body. In women the bacteria can be found in the reproductive tract. Symptoms normally appear in two to five days after infection. Sometimes symptoms take up to a month to appear and some people never have any symptoms. Some symptoms are burning and pain while urinating, sore throat, and discharge from the penis or vagina.Complications like joint infections, heart valve infection, or meningitis may occur in both men and women. Scarring or narrowing of the urethra or pus around the urethra may occur may occur in men. Pelvic inflammatory disease, scarring of the fallopian tubes, infertility may also occur in women (Gonorrhea, 2013). In Short, while fungal and bacterial pathogens are different in the way they are transmitted, the diseases they cause, and the way they are treated. They are dangerous to us because the hold a form we can’t see without a microscope.They cause diseases like Candidiasis and Botulism. The infections are treated with pills, creams, and injections. These pathogens are most commonly transmitted by touch, inhalation, bodily fluids, and air. They can’t be avoided all of the time. We will never see them coming but, we can increase our knowledge about them. Increasing our knowledge will decrease our chances or getting them by knowing what causes them we can avoid them better. References: Rosenberg, J. (n. d. ). Alexander Fleming Discovers Penicillin. Retrieved from http://history1900s. about. om/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin. htm Antifungal medication. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Antifungal_medicatio n Hidalgo, J. A. (1994-2013). Candidiasis. Retrieved from http://emedicine. medscape. com/article/213853-overview#showall Chan-Tack, K. M. (1994-2013). Botulism. Retrieved from http://emedicine. medscape. com/article/213311-overview#show Lyme Disease. (2013). Retrieved from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002296/ Gonorrhea. (2013). Retrieved from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0004526/

School Finance Article Analysis

After the Second World War, there has been a dramatic increase on school finance in the United States. Through the article, Guthrie explains some of the critical incidents that contributed the considerable increase of the per-pupil expenditures in public elementary and secondary learning institutions. Upon reading the article, one should have an understanding on how do certain events affect per student spending in America. Some of the factors cited by Guthrie are the constant expansions regarding the services offered by schools, more pricey specialized classes on high school students, and special education programs. Also, Guthrie includes that grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with disabilities make a contribution to increased costs. In the article, Guthrie suggests that it is very likely that the increasing expenditure on school finance continues. With this, the author offers some solutions to be considered to put a halt or, at the least, control its growth rate. Some of these are privatization and contracting. Just like the article states about the increasing per student expenditure, school finance in Massachusetts is also affected by the factors stated earlier. Thus, one can say that Massachusetts is on its way on a much higher education budget. In the event that the education status in Massachusetts will continue (that is, its school’s productivity is increased), there can be a possibility that the trend will snap, thus making the funds for public elementary and secondary schools could be minimized.

Comparison of Indirect Cost Multipliers for Vehicle Manufacturing Essay

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or The University of Chicago. COMPARISON OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS FOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURING INTRODUCTION In the process of manufacturing and selling vehicles, a manufacturer incurs certain costs. Among these costs are those incurred directly as a part of manufacturing operations and those incurred indirectly in the processes of manufacturing and selling. The indirect costs may be productionrelated, such as R&D and engineering; business-related, such as corporate staff salaries and pensions; or retail-sales-related, such as dealer support and marketing. These indirect costs are recovered by allocating them to each vehicle. Under a stable, high-volume production process, the allocation of these indirect costs can be approximated as multipliers (or factors) applied to the direct cost of manufacturing. A manufacturer usually allocates indirect costs to finished vehicles according to a corporation-specific pricing strategy. Because the volumes of sales and production vary widely by model within a corporation, the internal corporate percent allocation of various accounting categories (such as profit or corporate overhead) can vary widely among individual models. Approaches also vary across corporations. For our purposes, an average value is constructed, by means of a generic representative method, for vehicle models produced at high volume. To accomplish this, staff at Argonne National Laboratory’s (ANL’s) Center for Transportation Research analyzed the conventional vehicle cost structure and developed indirect cost multipliers for passenger vehicles. This memorandum summarizes the results of an effort to compare and put on a common basis the cost multipliers used in ANL’s electric and hybrid electric vehicle cost estimation procedures with those resulting from two other methodologies. One of the two compared methodologies is derived from a 1996 presentation by Dr. Chris Borroni-Bird of Chrysler Corporation, the other is by Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA), as described in a 1995 report by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Congress of the United States. The cost multipliers are used for scaling the component costs to retail prices. ANL METHODOLOGY The ANL methodology described here is based on an analysis concerned with electric vehicle production and operating costs (Cuenca et al. 2000; Vyas et al. 1998). The analysis evaluated the cost structure for conventional vehicle manufacturing and retailing and assigned shares of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) to various cost contributors. Multipliers developed from the ANL methodology are applied to the manufacturing cost of an individual component in order to scale the component cost to the retail price. Several cost contributors are included in the methodology, as summarized in Table 1. Some of the vehicle components for electric and hybrid electric vehicles would be procured from outside suppliers. This assumption is applied to electric drive components, excluding the battery; the vehicle manufacturer would produce the rest. Thus, two cost multipliers, one for the components manufactured internally and the other for outsourced components, are necessary to estimate the price of electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Outside suppliers would incur some of the costs normally borne by the vehicle manufacturer. In the ANL methodology, we assume that the costs of â€Å"Warranty,† â€Å"R&D/Engineering,† and â€Å"Depreciation and Amortization† are borne by the Page 1 suppliers of outsourced components. The outside suppliers would include these costs in their prices. The following two cost multipliers are computed by using â€Å"Cost of Manufacture† as the base: Cost multiplier for components manufactured internally = 100/50 = 2. 00. Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(50 + 6. 5 + 5. 5 + 5) = 1. 50. Table 1 Contributors to Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price in ANL Methodology Cost Category Cost Contributor Relative to Share of Cost of Vehicle MSRP Manufacturing (%) Vehicle Manufacturing Cost of Manufacture 1. 00 50. 0 Production Overhead Warranty 0. 10 5. 0 R&D/Engineering 0. 13 6. 5 Depreciation and Amortization 0. 11 5. 5 Corporate Overhead Corporate Overhead, Retirement and 0. 14 7. 0 Health Selling Distribution, Marketing, Dealer 0. 47 23. 5 Support, and Dealer Discount Sum of Costs 1. 95 97. 5 Profit Profit 0. 05 2. 5 Total Contribution to 2. 00 100. 0 MSRP METHODOLOGY DERIVED FROM BORRONI-BIRD PRESENTATION In his presentation, entitled â€Å"Automotive Fuel Cell Requirements,† at the 1996 Automotive Technology Development Customers’ Coordination Meeting, Borroni-Bird included charts on the â€Å"Typical American Automobile: Price/Cost Breakdown. † The charts provided a graphical breakdown of vehicle price, showing cost contributors and profit. We used the charts to arrive at percentage shares of vehicle price by various contributors. Table 2 shows the resulting allocation. Page 2 Table 2 Price/Cost Breakdown Based on Borroni-Bird Presentation Cost Category Cost Contributor a Vehicle Manufacturing Fixed Cost Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP a Material Cost Assembly Labor and Other Manufacturing a Costs Transportation/Warranty Amortization and Depreciation, Engineering R&D, Pension and Health Care, Advertising, and Overhead Price Discounts Dealer Markup Automobile Profit. Relative to Cost of Vehicle Manufacturing 0. 87 0. 13 0. 09 0. 44 Share of MSRP (%) 42. 5 6. 5 4. 5 21. 5 0. 10 0. 36 1. 99 0. 06 2. 05 5. 0 17. 5 97. 5 2. 5 100. 0 These two contributors are scaled to sum to 1 in the third column, as in Table 1. In his presentation, Borroni-Bird did not evaluate the treatment of in-house or outsourced components. His methodology does not lend itself to easy computation of cost multipliers comparable with those in the ANL methodology, unless we make a few assumptions. We have assumed that â€Å"Material Cost,† taken together with â€Å"Assembly Labor and Other Manufacturing Costs,† would form the â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† base for the in-house components. The costs of â€Å"Transportation/Warranty,† â€Å"Amortization and Depreciation,† and â€Å"Engineering R&D† would be borne by the suppliers of outsourced components. However, â€Å"Amortization and Depreciation† and â€Å"Engineering R&D† costs were merged with â€Å"Pension and Health Care,† â€Å"Advertising,† and â€Å"Overhead† costs by Borroni-Bird. We assumed that half of the costs under this category would be borne by the suppliers of outsourced components. Our assumptions led to the following cost multipliers: Cost multiplier for components manufactured internally = 100/(42. 5 + 6. 5) = 2. 05. Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(42. 5 + 6. 5 + 4. 5 + 10. 75) = 1. 56. These cost multipliers are very similar to those computed with the ANL methodology. Comparison of ANL and Borroni-Bird Methodologies The information from Tables 1 and 2 is shown in terms of cost categories in Table 3. Both methodologies use vehicle manufacturing cost as the base and add other costs to it. The share of MSRP attributable to â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† is 50% in the ANL methodology, compared with 49% in the Borroni-Bird Methodology. Borroni-Bird combined several cost contributors under â€Å"Fixed Cost. † These contributors include (see Table 2) â€Å"Amortization and Depreciation,† â€Å"Engineering R&D,† â€Å"Pension and Health Care,† â€Å"Advertising,† and â€Å"Overhead. † Except for the inclusion of â€Å"Advertising,† â€Å"Production Overhead† and â€Å"Corporate Overhead† in the ANL methodology can be combined to form an equivalent category. ANL’s total of 24% by production Page 3. and corporate overheads is slightly lower than the total of 26% by Borroni-Bird. The ANL category of â€Å"Selling,† which includes â€Å"Distribution,† â€Å"Marketing,† â€Å"Dealer Support,† and â€Å"Dealer Discount,† is broader than that of â€Å"Price Discounts† and â€Å"Dealer Markup† specified by BorroniBird, and this category’s contribution is understandably slightly higher in the ANL methodology. The share of MSRP by â€Å"Profit† is the same in both methodologies. The absolute differences, computed as ANL value minus Borroni-Bird value, are 1% for â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing,† –2% for â€Å"Fixed Cost,† and 1% for â€Å"Selling† cost. Table 3 Comparison of Vehicle Price/Cost Allocation by ANL and Borroni-Bird Methodologies ANL Methodology Cost Contributor or Category Vehicle Manufacturing Production Overhead Corporate Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP EEA METHODOLOGY The methodology of Energy and Environmental Analysis is summarized in the OTA report OTAETI-638, entitled Advanced Automotive Technology: Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car, published in September 1995. The values of some cost contributors are not listed in the report. Moreover, depreciation, amortization, and tooling expenses are assumed to be case-specific and therefore must be computed for each case. In order to make the EEA and ANL methodologies comparable, some assumptions were necessary. These assumptions are described in the summary below. The EEA cost equations can be simplified as follows: Cost of Manufacture = Division Cost ? [1 + Division Overhead] Manufacturer Cost = [Cost of Manufacture + Assembly Labor + Assembly Overhead] ? [1 + Manufacturing Overhead + Manufacturing Profit] + Engineering Expense + Tooling Expense + Facilities Expense Retail Price Equivalent = Manufacturer Cost ? [1 + Dealer Margin] Borroni-Bird Methodology Share of Cost Contributor or Category Share of MSRP (%) MSRP (%) 50. 0 Vehicle Manufacturing 49. 0 17. 0 Fixed Cost 26. 0 7. 0 23. 5 Selling 22. 5 97. 5 Sum of Costs 97. 5 2. 5 Automobile Profit 2. 5 100. 0 MSRP 100. 0 Page 4 The report lists the following values for overhead, profit, and dealer margin: Division Overhead = Supplier Overhead = 0. 20 (We assume that division and supplier overheads are equal; only the supplier overhead is given in the report. ) Manufacturing Overhead = 0. 25 Manufacturing Profit = 0. 20 Dealer Margin = 0. 25 Because the documentation in the OTA report does not provide values for â€Å"Assembly Labor,† â€Å"Assembly Overhead,† â€Å"Engineering Expense,† â€Å"Tooling Expense,† and â€Å"Facilities Expense,† cost multipliers cannot be computed directly from these data. The â€Å"Assembly Labor† and â€Å"Assembly Overhead† share of MSRP is 6. 5% in Borroni-Bird’s presentation. The engineering, tooling, and facilities expenses can be taken as the sum of â€Å"R&D/Engineering† and â€Å"Depreciation and Amortization† from the ANL methodology, at 12% of the MSRP. In deriving the division cost and price relationship below, we use the term Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) from the OTA report instead of MSRP. The RPE can be computed as follows: RPE = = = {[Division Cost ? 1. 2 + 0. 065 RPE] ? 1. 45 + 0. 12 RPE} ? 1. 25 Division Cost ? 2. 175 + 0. 268 RPE Division Cost ? 2. 175/(1 – 0. 268) = Division Cost ? 2. 97 Putting ANL and EEA Methodologies on a Common Basis As it was described in the OTA report, the EEA methodology did not provide enough data to compute the cost multipliers. We assumed some cost shares to be the same between the EEA, Borroni-Bird, and ANL methodologies while developing the above relationship between Division Cost and RPE. The EEA methodology is based on the material and labor costs of a division of the vehicle manufacturer, with other costs added on. The ANL methodology evaluates an assembled vehicle, using the vehicle manufacturing cost as the base cost. The ANL methodology also assigns additional costs to the outsourced components, whereas the treatment of such components is not clear in the EEA methodology. We have attempted to develop a common basis for the ANL and EEA methodologies by assigning shares of the final vehicle price, RPE in the EEA methodology, to individual cost categories similar to those listed in Table 1. Table 4 presents such a summary for the EEA methodology. Three cost contributors, â€Å"Division Cost,† â€Å"Division Overhead,† and â€Å"Assembly Labor and Overhead,† are combined under the â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† category. Two cost contributors, â€Å"Manufacturing Overhead† and â€Å"Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses,† combine to form the â€Å"Overhead† category. The â€Å"Dealer Margin† in the EEA methodology represents a factor applied to all manufacturer costs and profit. We assumed that this factor represents all costs of selling the vehicle. Although the profit is computed at the manufacturing level by EEA, we moved the profit to the bottom of the table to be consistent with prior tables. The cost allocation in Table 4 allows us to compute the in-house components cost multiplier as follows: Cost multiplier for in-house components = 100/(33. 7 + 6. 7 + 6. 5) = 2. 14 Page 5 To compute the cost multiplier for an outsourced component, one more assumption is necessary. In the ANL methodology, we assumed that the supplier will bear the costs of â€Å"Warranty,† â€Å"R&D Engineering,† and â€Å"Depreciation and Amortization. † However, the EEA methodology does not identify the warranty cost separately. We assumed it to be half of â€Å"Manufacturing Overhead† at 5. 05%. This, with the earlier assumption related to â€Å"Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses,† led to the following computation: Cost multiplier for outsourced components = 100/(33. 7 + 6. 7 + 6. 5 + 5. 05 + 12) = 1. 56 These multipliers, adapted from our extension of the EEA information on vehicle costs, are very close to those derived from the ANL and Borroni-Bird methodologies. Table 4 Contributors to Retail Price Equivalent in EEA Methodology Cost Category Cost Contributor a Vehicle Manufacturing Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit Manufacturing Profit Total Contribution to RPE a Division Cost a Division Overhead Assembly Labor and a Overhead Manufacturing Overhead Engineering, Tooling, and Facilities Expenses Dealer Margin Relative to Cost of Vehicle Manufacturing 0. 72 0. 14 0. 14 0. 22 0. 26 0. 49 1. 97 0. 17 2. 14 Share of RPE (%) 33. 7 6. 7 6. 5 10. 1 12. 0 22. 9 91. 9 8. 1 100. 0 These three cost contributors are scaled to sum to 1 in the third column, as in Table 1. Comparison of ANL and EEA Methodologies The information from Tables 1 and 4 is presented in terms of cost categories in Table 5 for easy comparison. The â€Å"Vehicle Manufacturing† cost share is 46. 9% in the EEA methodology, compared with 50% in the ANL methodology. EEA’s RPE share of 22. 1% by overhead is lower than the ANL value of 24%. The cost of selling is 22. 9% in the EEA methodology, which is close to the ANL value of 23. 5%. The largest difference is in the RPE share by profit, which is 8. 1% in the EEA methodology, more than three times the ANL value of 2. 5%. According to Economic Indicators: The Motor Vehicle’s Role in the U. S. Economy (American Automobile Manufacturers Association 1998), the average net income before taxes for the three domestic manufacturers was 3. 9% during 1994-1997. Aside from vehicle sales, this value (3. 9%) includes income from spare parts sales and vehicle financing. Thus, the profit share appears very high in the EEA methodology. The absolute differences – computed as ANL value minus EEA value – are 3. 1% for component/material cost, 1. 9% for overhead, 0. 6% for selling, and –5. 6% for profit. Page 6 Table 5 Comparison of Price Allocation by ANL and EEA Methodologies ANL Methodology Cost Contributor or Category Vehicle Manufacturing Production Overhead Corporate Overhead Selling Sum of Costs Profit MSRP SUMMARY An attempt to put three methodologies for automobile cost allocation on a common basis is presented in this technical memorandum. This comparison was carried out to verify the reasonableness of the cost multipliers used in ANL’s cost models for electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles. When put into a common format, by means of certain assumptions, the three approaches yielded the cost multipliers provided in Table 6. Table 6 Summary of Cost Multipliers Computed on a Common Basis Multiplier for In-House Components Outsourced Components ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding for the analysis presented here was provided by the Planning and Assessment function of the Office of Transportation Technologies of the U. S. Department of Energy, managed by Dr. Philip Patterson. This technical memorandum is produced under U. S. Government contract No. W-31-109-Eng-38. REFERENCES American Automobile Manufacturers Association, 1998, Economic Indicators: The Motor Vehicle’s Role in the U. S. Economy, Detroit, Mich. Borroni-Bird, C. , 1996, â€Å"Automotive Fuel Cell Requirements,† Proceedings of the 1996 Automotive Technology Development Customers’ Coordination Meeting, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Washington, D. C. ANL 2. 00 1. 50 Borroni-Bird 2. 05 1. 56 EEA 2. 14 1. 56 EEA Methodology Share of Cost Contributor or Category MSRP (%) 50. 0 Vehicle Manufacturing 17. 0 Overhead 7. 0 23. 5 Selling 97. 5 Sum of Costs 2. 5 Profit 100. 0 RPE Share of RPE (%) 46. 9 22. 1 22. 9 91. 9 8. 1 100. 0 Page 7 Cuenca, R. M. , L. L. Gaines, and A. D. Vyas, 2000, Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Production and Operating Costs, Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/ESD-41, Argonne, Ill. (to be published). Vyas, A. , R. Cuenca, and L. Gaines, 1998, â€Å"An Assessment of Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Costs to Consumers,† Proceedings of the 1998 Total Life Cycle Conference, SAE International Report P339, Warrendale, Penn. , pp. 161-172.

Bcom275 Legalization of Marijuana

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marijuana may help decrease nausea, stimulate appetite, and decrease pain (2006). Alternately, the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support smoked marijuana as medicine (1995-2013). With such conflicting opinions around this highly controversial drug, there are many questions to be answered in order to decide the steps the federal government can/should be made for a final resolution. Argument For Nearly one in ten Americans used marijuana in 2010; however, our nation spends over seven billion per year to enforce the illegalization of this natural substance. A recent poll taken in 2011 shows marijuana has increasingly become the preferred drug for Americans. Overall, 6. 9 percent, or 17. million, of the United States population used marijuana in 2010 according to the survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Increase Use of Marijuana, 2011, para. 2). Dr. Jeffrey Miron, an economics professor at Harvard University, completed a study which determined the approximate cost of enforcing the illegalization of marijuana. The report estimates legalizing marijuana would save, â€Å"$7. 7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforce ment of prohibition. $5. 3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2. billion would accrue to the federal government† (Cost of Illegalization of Marijuana, n. d. ). The United States has been engaged in a losing battle against marijuana since the implementation of the Uniform Narcotic Act in the 1930’s (Bonnie Whitbread, n. d). We are not only wasting $7. 7 billion per year, but losing potential revenue. Americans could stand to profit a substantial amount of income if marijuana were to be legalized and regulated by the Department of Agriculture. â€Å"Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2. billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6. 2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco† (Cost of Illegalization of Marijuana, n. d. ). Marijuana is not addictive and has a stark contrast of addictive properties when pitted against the addictive characteristics of legalized toba cco and alcohol. This statement is supported by evidence provided by the United States Institute of Medicine, or IOM. The IOM states â€Å"fewer than one in 10 marijuana smokers become regular users of the drug, and most voluntary cease their use after 34 years of age. By comparison, 15 percent of alcohol consumers and 32 percent of tobacco smokers exhibit symptoms of drug dependence† (Supporting evidence, n. d. , para. 2). The IOM also observed cannabis withdrawal symptoms are rare and do not require substitution medicine to stop usage. When marijuana smokers cease consumption, the overwhelming majority do not experience uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms demanding re-initiating use of marijuana according to the IOM. President Richard Nixon commissioned the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in 1972. The primary objective the commission was to expose dangers of drug use and provide a detailed report on marijuana. Nixon’s commission issued a report titled, â€Å"Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding,† which reviewed existing marijuana studies and determined marijuana does not cause physical addiction (National Commission on Marijuana, 1974). Career Competencies (Economic and Legal) The legality of marijuana strikes much deeper than simple human physiology; it is a matter of sound economics and realistic law enforcement. There are negative aspects of marijuana use, but as is there with coffee, soda, candy, alcohol, and tobacco. Americans need to revaluate old rhetoric where marijuana was deemed evil and a gateway drug. The only reason marijuana could be considered a gateway drug is because often time’s consumers are exposed to shady drug dealers on a substance deemed as illegal. If Americans opened their eyes and minds to see how much money and effort is wasted to fight a losing battle become aware of how much could be profited from the legalization of marijuana the decision is straightforward; marijuana should be legalized. Argument Against Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is addictive, and can lead to other health problems such as; lung cancer, low sexual drive (libido), and of utmost importance is to address the concern of marijuana as a â€Å"gateway† drug. Addiction has been redefined and continually evolving for decades. Whether a given substance is defined as â€Å"addictive† in a given society or culture, has to do largely with social custom and political convenience. Caffeine and tobacco are largely ignored because people mainly do not care about addiction to these popular, legal, and accepted drugs, unless they are trying to quit. According to the American Psychological Association, APA, addiction â€Å"is a condition in which the body must have a drug to avoid physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms† (2013). Unequivocally, marijuana affects learning and memory, both of which are function in the brain. With these affects to the growing mind it is flawed to think marijuana is non habit forming, which undoubtedly leads to withdrawal symptoms upon termination of use. Marijuana is sex-inhibiting. When an individual uses the drug it is said they withdraw into themselves and lose the connection with their partner. Research into this phenomenon dates back to the 1970’s in which one report showed it reduces testosterone enough to impair the libido in many women and in some men. According to this research, some of the responses included: â€Å"My boyfriend and I have smoked (fairly heavily) for the past year and I would say that it 100% has a terrible effect on our sex life. It’s been a huge libido killer for our relationship†; â€Å"As I’ve continued to use marijuana (been almost five years smoking now) it’s inhibited sex for me more and more† (Castleman, 2012). Furthermore, there is scientific evidence to support that long-term marijuana smoking alters the reproductive system. The gateway theory postulates the use of less harmful drugs (such as marijuana) may lead to future risk of using more dangerous hard drugs. To test this theory a group of researchers in Sweden administered rats the equivalent of the THC (the chemical found in marijuana delivering the â€Å"high†) in one joint to lab rats. After this administration of THC the rats were allowed access to heroin by pressing a lever. According to this study, the rats who were administered the THC took larger doses of heroin than the rats who did not receive the THC injection (Ellgren, 2007). Upon inspection of the rat’s brain, it was discovered the brain cells associated with positive emotions were altered by the THC dosage, thus lending the need for higher drive for more heroin than those without the THC. Ethical Issues More research is needed in order to legislate the use of marijuana. Contemporary medicine and pharmacology are based upon the application of scientific principles and extensive clinical research to determine the safety and efficacy of a drug. Marinol, a synthetic version of the naturally occurring component of marijuana, is a well accepted, well researched, and more effective treatment than marijuana (Kraus, 2007). This approved drug, like marijuana, helps alleviate chronic pain, reduces chemotherapy-related nausea, and with HIV/AIDS treatment it helps with symptoms known as â€Å"wasting syndrome†. Many proponents of legalizing marijuana for these specific illnesses have not looked into marinol as a safe alternative. As a matter of fact the only difference between marinol and marijuana is that marinol does not stimulate the â€Å"high† associated with marijuana. Career Competencies (Psychology) Psychologists from all over the United States attest to the negative effects of cannabis. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) a cannabis user can develop; cannabis intoxication- development of maladaptive behavior that developed shortly after or during cannabis use; cannabis intoxication delirium- a disturbance of consciousness with reduced ability to focus, sustain, or shift attention; cannabis-induced psychotic disorder, with delusions- prominent hallucinations or delusions in excess of those usually associated with the intoxication; and cannabis-induced anxiety disorder- prominent anxiety, panic attacks, or obsessions or compulsions that causes significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning American Psychiatric Association, (2000). The DSM has other classifications for cannabis use; however the mental disturbances highlighted promote the more severe effects of continued marijuana use. Conclusion Marijuana has the reputation of being a gateway drug, although not every heroin addict started out smoking marijuana. Marijuana is prohibited and it puts individuals in circumstances where they are exposed to harder drugs, therefore if the FDA had regulations on marijuana, those individuals would never have to be exposed to those situations. In regards to the effects of marijuana, like a low sex drive, just like every medication whether it is over the counter or prescribed, there will be side effects which will affect everyone differently. Marijuana has the ability to alleviate aliments such as nausea, and other types of pain. Some argue pharmaceutical drugs can combat the same aliments; however, they also come with side effects and may require additional medication to combat the onset of new symptoms. Taxation of marijuana alone would help the economy. The fact the U. S. is wasting 7. 7 billion dollars enforcing the prohibition of the substance is persuasive enough in its self, as well as the potential revenue brought in by taxing the substance like tobacco or alcohol. Keeping marijuana illegal is only keeping drug dealers in business. While law enforcement continues to chase these petty drug dealers it is costing our taxpayers millions of dollars to put and keep drug dealers behind bars. The legalizing of marijuana would benefit the economy greatly, therefor marijuana should be legalized. The use of Marijuana and Cultural difference between Japan and The United States The history of Cannabis in the country of Japan can be traced back to 300 – 500 BC. Cannabis was a widely used plant for the majority of Japanese culture and daily lives. Cannabis fibers were used to not only create baskets and fishing tools, but were also used in creating divine clothing for the Emperor’s. Burning of cannabis was also used for old traditions, for example rooms of worship were purified by burning cannabis leave by the entrance. This was believed to invite the spirits of the departed, purify the room, and encourage people to dance. Japan’s cultivation of Cannabis came to a halt at the end of World War II when allied forces occupied and began to help rebuild Japan. It was America General Douglas MacArthur and his colleagues who re-wrote the Japanese constitution in 1948 and mirrored many of the United States laws. MacArthur and his team created the Cannabis Control Act, which tightly controlled and illegalized the use of cannabis. Due to the extreme cultivating of cannabis and its widely uses in daily lives, Western companies found a market with providing synthetic products to replace cannabis. Today, cannabis is a drug guarded and considered taboo among the Japanese culture. The use and history of cannabis is all but forgotten within today’s Japanese society, and when it is discovered people have, or are using it recreationally, they are shunned and casted as â€Å"stone-cold drug addicts† (Uno, 2011). Many Japanese people consider marijuana and other ‘hard drugs’ to be the exact same and believe all drugs have the same effect. This ideal thinking of marijuana has lead Japan to be one of the strictest laws and punishments compared to other developed countries. In 1993 a Disc Jockey from New York, Christopher Lavinger, was arrested and was sentenced to 16 months in prison and 35 days in solitary confinement after Japanese police found 1. 5 grams of marijuana, 3. 5 grams of cocaine, and some LSD (Hays, 2009). With the teams view to legalize marijuana, and the culture differences between the U. S. nd Japan, the first step to move towards a ‘Pro-Marijuana’ Japanese country would be to educate the people on the benefits cannabis can provide. As described above, the financial profit gained would be tremendous and can go back to the people in various ways. The people would also need education on their history of using cannabis within their ancient traditions and target many high-profile figures to support the use of marijuana. Because of the strict laws and taboo views Japan has of cannabis, it would be a hard road, but the understanding and education used properly, Japan could create legislation that would override, or amend their constitution and current laws banning its use. References American Medical Association (AMA). (1995-2013). Retrieved from http://www. ama-assn. rg/ American Psychiatric Association, (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (4th ed. ). American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). Retrieved from http://www. apa. org/topics/addiction/index. aspx Argument: Marijuana is not addictive. (n. d. ). Retrieved March 24, 2013, from http://dbp. idebate. org/en /index. php/Argument:_Marijuana_is_not_addictive Bonnie, R. , Whitbread, C. (n. d). The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of Historian of American Marijuana Prohibition. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Retrieved from http://www. druglibrary. org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlr3. htm Castleman, Michael. Marijuana’s Effects on Sex Vary with Individuals. † Marijuana. Ed. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from â€Å"Marijuana and Sex: Surprising Results of This Blogger’s Informal Survey. † Psychology Today (1 May 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Mar. 2013. Ellgren, Maria. â€Å"Neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure in relation to the gateway hypothesis† (2007). Retrieved from http://publications. ki. se/xmlui/handle/10616/38245? locale-attribute=en Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2006). Retrieved from http://www. fda. gov/NewsEvents /Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108643. htm Hays, J. (2009). Marijuana, Legal Highs and Illegal drugs in Japan. Retrieved from http://factsanddetails. com/japan. php? itemid=664 Kraus, Mark L. â€Å"Legalizing Medical Marijuana Is Not a Good Idea. † Medical Marijuana. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current Controversies. Rpt. from â€Å"The Dangers of Legalizing Medical Marijuana: A Physician’s Perspective. † 2007. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. Marijuana use rising in U. S. , national survey shows. (2011). Retrieved March 24, 2013, from http://www. reuters. com/article/2011/09/08/usa-drugs-idUSN1E7870N520110908 Olson, D. (1998). Hempen cultrue in Japan. Retrieved from http://www. cannabisculture. om/articles/101. html/ Stirring the Pot: Could Legalizing Marijuana Save the Economy?. (2013). Retrieved from http://www. forbes. com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/04/20/stirring-the-pot-could-legalizing-marijuana-save-the-economy/ The first report of the National Commission on marihuana (1972 ): signal of misunderstanding or exercise in ambiguity. (1974). Retrieved from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC1749335/ The White House President Barak Obama. (2013). Retrieved from http://m. whitehouse. gov/ondcp/marijuana Uno, M. (2011). WEED CRISIS: Enter Japan’s Void. Retrieved from http://www. thestarklife. com/2011/06/17/weed-in-japan/ Bcom275 Legalization of Marijuana According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) marijuana may help decrease nausea, stimulate appetite, and decrease pain (2006). Alternately, the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support smoked marijuana as medicine (1995-2013). With such conflicting opinions around this highly controversial drug, there are many questions to be answered in order to decide the steps the federal government can/should be made for a final resolution. Argument For Nearly one in ten Americans used marijuana in 2010; however, our nation spends over seven billion per year to enforce the illegalization of this natural substance. A recent poll taken in 2011 shows marijuana has increasingly become the preferred drug for Americans. Overall, 6. 9 percent, or 17. million, of the United States population used marijuana in 2010 according to the survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (Increase Use of Marijuana, 2011, para. 2). Dr. Jeffrey Miron, an economics professor at Harvard University, completed a study which determined the approximate cost of enforcing the illegalization of marijuana. The report estimates legalizing marijuana would save, â€Å"$7. 7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforce ment of prohibition. $5. 3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2. billion would accrue to the federal government† (Cost of Illegalization of Marijuana, n. d. ). The United States has been engaged in a losing battle against marijuana since the implementation of the Uniform Narcotic Act in the 1930’s (Bonnie Whitbread, n. d). We are not only wasting $7. 7 billion per year, but losing potential revenue. Americans could stand to profit a substantial amount of income if marijuana were to be legalized and regulated by the Department of Agriculture. â€Å"Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2. billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6. 2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco† (Cost of Illegalization of Marijuana, n. d. ). Marijuana is not addictive and has a stark contrast of addictive properties when pitted against the addictive characteristics of legalized toba cco and alcohol. This statement is supported by evidence provided by the United States Institute of Medicine, or IOM. The IOM states â€Å"fewer than one in 10 marijuana smokers become regular users of the drug, and most voluntary cease their use after 34 years of age. By comparison, 15 percent of alcohol consumers and 32 percent of tobacco smokers exhibit symptoms of drug dependence† (Supporting evidence, n. d. , para. 2). The IOM also observed cannabis withdrawal symptoms are rare and do not require substitution medicine to stop usage. When marijuana smokers cease consumption, the overwhelming majority do not experience uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms demanding re-initiating use of marijuana according to the IOM. President Richard Nixon commissioned the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in 1972. The primary objective the commission was to expose dangers of drug use and provide a detailed report on marijuana. Nixon’s commission issued a report titled, â€Å"Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding,† which reviewed existing marijuana studies and determined marijuana does not cause physical addiction (National Commission on Marijuana, 1974). Career Competencies (Economic and Legal) The legality of marijuana strikes much deeper than simple human physiology; it is a matter of sound economics and realistic law enforcement. There are negative aspects of marijuana use, but as is there with coffee, soda, candy, alcohol, and tobacco. Americans need to revaluate old rhetoric where marijuana was deemed evil and a gateway drug. The only reason marijuana could be considered a gateway drug is because often time’s consumers are exposed to shady drug dealers on a substance deemed as illegal. If Americans opened their eyes and minds to see how much money and effort is wasted to fight a losing battle become aware of how much could be profited from the legalization of marijuana the decision is straightforward; marijuana should be legalized. Argument Against Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is addictive, and can lead to other health problems such as; lung cancer, low sexual drive (libido), and of utmost importance is to address the concern of marijuana as a â€Å"gateway† drug. Addiction has been redefined and continually evolving for decades. Whether a given substance is defined as â€Å"addictive† in a given society or culture, has to do largely with social custom and political convenience. Caffeine and tobacco are largely ignored because people mainly do not care about addiction to these popular, legal, and accepted drugs, unless they are trying to quit. According to the American Psychological Association, APA, addiction â€Å"is a condition in which the body must have a drug to avoid physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms† (2013). Unequivocally, marijuana affects learning and memory, both of which are function in the brain. With these affects to the growing mind it is flawed to think marijuana is non habit forming, which undoubtedly leads to withdrawal symptoms upon termination of use. Marijuana is sex-inhibiting. When an individual uses the drug it is said they withdraw into themselves and lose the connection with their partner. Research into this phenomenon dates back to the 1970’s in which one report showed it reduces testosterone enough to impair the libido in many women and in some men. According to this research, some of the responses included: â€Å"My boyfriend and I have smoked (fairly heavily) for the past year and I would say that it 100% has a terrible effect on our sex life. It’s been a huge libido killer for our relationship†; â€Å"As I’ve continued to use marijuana (been almost five years smoking now) it’s inhibited sex for me more and more† (Castleman, 2012). Furthermore, there is scientific evidence to support that long-term marijuana smoking alters the reproductive system. The gateway theory postulates the use of less harmful drugs (such as marijuana) may lead to future risk of using more dangerous hard drugs. To test this theory a group of researchers in Sweden administered rats the equivalent of the THC (the chemical found in marijuana delivering the â€Å"high†) in one joint to lab rats. After this administration of THC the rats were allowed access to heroin by pressing a lever. According to this study, the rats who were administered the THC took larger doses of heroin than the rats who did not receive the THC injection (Ellgren, 2007). Upon inspection of the rat’s brain, it was discovered the brain cells associated with positive emotions were altered by the THC dosage, thus lending the need for higher drive for more heroin than those without the THC. Ethical Issues More research is needed in order to legislate the use of marijuana. Contemporary medicine and pharmacology are based upon the application of scientific principles and extensive clinical research to determine the safety and efficacy of a drug. Marinol, a synthetic version of the naturally occurring component of marijuana, is a well accepted, well researched, and more effective treatment than marijuana (Kraus, 2007). This approved drug, like marijuana, helps alleviate chronic pain, reduces chemotherapy-related nausea, and with HIV/AIDS treatment it helps with symptoms known as â€Å"wasting syndrome†. Many proponents of legalizing marijuana for these specific illnesses have not looked into marinol as a safe alternative. As a matter of fact the only difference between marinol and marijuana is that marinol does not stimulate the â€Å"high† associated with marijuana. Career Competencies (Psychology) Psychologists from all over the United States attest to the negative effects of cannabis. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) a cannabis user can develop; cannabis intoxication- development of maladaptive behavior that developed shortly after or during cannabis use; cannabis intoxication delirium- a disturbance of consciousness with reduced ability to focus, sustain, or shift attention; cannabis-induced psychotic disorder, with delusions- prominent hallucinations or delusions in excess of those usually associated with the intoxication; and cannabis-induced anxiety disorder- prominent anxiety, panic attacks, or obsessions or compulsions that causes significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning American Psychiatric Association, (2000). The DSM has other classifications for cannabis use; however the mental disturbances highlighted promote the more severe effects of continued marijuana use. Conclusion Marijuana has the reputation of being a gateway drug, although not every heroin addict started out smoking marijuana. Marijuana is prohibited and it puts individuals in circumstances where they are exposed to harder drugs, therefore if the FDA had regulations on marijuana, those individuals would never have to be exposed to those situations. In regards to the effects of marijuana, like a low sex drive, just like every medication whether it is over the counter or prescribed, there will be side effects which will affect everyone differently. Marijuana has the ability to alleviate aliments such as nausea, and other types of pain. Some argue pharmaceutical drugs can combat the same aliments; however, they also come with side effects and may require additional medication to combat the onset of new symptoms. Taxation of marijuana alone would help the economy. The fact the U. S. is wasting 7. 7 billion dollars enforcing the prohibition of the substance is persuasive enough in its self, as well as the potential revenue brought in by taxing the substance like tobacco or alcohol. Keeping marijuana illegal is only keeping drug dealers in business. While law enforcement continues to chase these petty drug dealers it is costing our taxpayers millions of dollars to put and keep drug dealers behind bars. The legalizing of marijuana would benefit the economy greatly, therefor marijuana should be legalized. The use of Marijuana and Cultural difference between Japan and The United States The history of Cannabis in the country of Japan can be traced back to 300 – 500 BC. Cannabis was a widely used plant for the majority of Japanese culture and daily lives. Cannabis fibers were used to not only create baskets and fishing tools, but were also used in creating divine clothing for the Emperor’s. Burning of cannabis was also used for old traditions, for example rooms of worship were purified by burning cannabis leave by the entrance. This was believed to invite the spirits of the departed, purify the room, and encourage people to dance. Japan’s cultivation of Cannabis came to a halt at the end of World War II when allied forces occupied and began to help rebuild Japan. It was America General Douglas MacArthur and his colleagues who re-wrote the Japanese constitution in 1948 and mirrored many of the United States laws. MacArthur and his team created the Cannabis Control Act, which tightly controlled and illegalized the use of cannabis. Due to the extreme cultivating of cannabis and its widely uses in daily lives, Western companies found a market with providing synthetic products to replace cannabis. Today, cannabis is a drug guarded and considered taboo among the Japanese culture. The use and history of cannabis is all but forgotten within today’s Japanese society, and when it is discovered people have, or are using it recreationally, they are shunned and casted as â€Å"stone-cold drug addicts† (Uno, 2011). Many Japanese people consider marijuana and other ‘hard drugs’ to be the exact same and believe all drugs have the same effect. This ideal thinking of marijuana has lead Japan to be one of the strictest laws and punishments compared to other developed countries. In 1993 a Disc Jockey from New York, Christopher Lavinger, was arrested and was sentenced to 16 months in prison and 35 days in solitary confinement after Japanese police found 1. 5 grams of marijuana, 3. 5 grams of cocaine, and some LSD (Hays, 2009). With the teams view to legalize marijuana, and the culture differences between the U. S. nd Japan, the first step to move towards a ‘Pro-Marijuana’ Japanese country would be to educate the people on the benefits cannabis can provide. As described above, the financial profit gained would be tremendous and can go back to the people in various ways. The people would also need education on their history of using cannabis within their ancient traditions and target many high-profile figures to support the use of marijuana. Because of the strict laws and taboo views Japan has of cannabis, it would be a hard road, but the understanding and education used properly, Japan could create legislation that would override, or amend their constitution and current laws banning its use. References American Medical Association (AMA). (1995-2013). Retrieved from http://www. ama-assn. rg/ American Psychiatric Association, (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (4th ed. ). American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). Retrieved from http://www. apa. org/topics/addiction/index. aspx Argument: Marijuana is not addictive. (n. d. ). Retrieved March 24, 2013, from http://dbp. idebate. org/en /index. php/Argument:_Marijuana_is_not_addictive Bonnie, R. , Whitbread, C. (n. d). The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of Historian of American Marijuana Prohibition. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Retrieved from http://www. druglibrary. org/schaffer/Library/studies/vlr/vlr3. htm Castleman, Michael. Marijuana’s Effects on Sex Vary with Individuals. † Marijuana. Ed. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from â€Å"Marijuana and Sex: Surprising Results of This Blogger’s Informal Survey. † Psychology Today (1 May 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Mar. 2013. Ellgren, Maria. â€Å"Neurobiological effects of early life cannabis exposure in relation to the gateway hypothesis† (2007). Retrieved from http://publications. ki. se/xmlui/handle/10616/38245? locale-attribute=en Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2006). Retrieved from http://www. fda. gov/NewsEvents /Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2006/ucm108643. htm Hays, J. (2009). Marijuana, Legal Highs and Illegal drugs in Japan. Retrieved from http://factsanddetails. com/japan. php? itemid=664 Kraus, Mark L. â€Å"Legalizing Medical Marijuana Is Not a Good Idea. † Medical Marijuana. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current Controversies. Rpt. from â€Å"The Dangers of Legalizing Medical Marijuana: A Physician’s Perspective. † 2007. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 22 Mar. 2013. Marijuana use rising in U. S. , national survey shows. (2011). Retrieved March 24, 2013, from http://www. reuters. com/article/2011/09/08/usa-drugs-idUSN1E7870N520110908 Olson, D. (1998). Hempen cultrue in Japan. Retrieved from http://www. cannabisculture. om/articles/101. html/ Stirring the Pot: Could Legalizing Marijuana Save the Economy?. (2013). Retrieved from http://www. forbes. com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/04/20/stirring-the-pot-could-legalizing-marijuana-save-the-economy/ The first report of the National Commission on marihuana (1972 ): signal of misunderstanding or exercise in ambiguity. (1974). Retrieved from http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC1749335/ The White House President Barak Obama. (2013). Retrieved from http://m. whitehouse. gov/ondcp/marijuana Uno, M. (2011). WEED CRISIS: Enter Japan’s Void. Retrieved from http://www. thestarklife. com/2011/06/17/weed-in-japan/