Purposeful summary- frogs02

Vancouver combats its heroin problems by giving its addicts the best smack in the world

Heroin Deaths have increased by more than 500% in the last 10 years. These numbers continue to go up and the access to the drug is growing even faster. It seems counterintuitive to allow Vancouver’s heroin addicts to shoot up under the supervision of a nurse and without the fear of being arrested by police. Most people who take heroin will become addicted to it within 12 weeks of consistent use. Approximately 7,000 people die from heroin a year and now governments are going to look the other way and ignore it. Supervised or not, to allow addicts to continue injecting an addicting and illegal drug into themselves to lower a crime rate is a crime itself and morally wrong.

Vancouver started a program that is going to treat heroin addicts. Heroin addicts are being given heroin by doctors and they call it “treatment” for them. All this does is slowly kill them off or get rid of them so that they are someone else’s problem. If these people are given doses of heroin every day and kept comfortable and docile, no one will likely be seeing them dead or in the middle of the street begging for money. Most heroin addicts lose their houses for drug use and money they spend on drugs. Only 26 addicts are in this program right now but if people think they won’t get in trouble by the police for heroin usage, they are going to start injecting heroin. People are less likely to get addicted to heroin if they don’t know of a safe spot to go to inject. This program is being compared to blackmailing because they are stating that these people will always be heroin addicts, and that there is no hope of getting off heroin, so let’s give the patients more heroin so they are less dangerous. This is completely counterintuitive because the program are just killing heroin addicts in a more polite way.

Why are people happy?

It seems counterintuitive that both someone who lost a leg and someone who won the lottery are equally happy with their lives. Studies show that achievements or failure have far less impact, less intensity, and much less duration than people expect them to have. It is assumed that major life traumas have no impact on happiness. Happiness can be synthesized by a positive mindset.

Humans have a psychological immune system: a “system of cognitive processes that help them change their views of the world, so that they can feel better about the worlds in which they find themselves.” Many think that happiness needs to be found rather than synthesized. There is no way people can be happy after losing everything they ever worked for. However, Jim Wright was in this situation before when he lost his power. He stated he is so “much better off physically, financially and mentally and in almost every other way.” His mindset had a lot to do with the beginning of his happiness. He made his life great from his reaction to something terrible which is synthesizing. Synthesizing happiness is what we make out of life when we don’t get what we want. Our longings and our worries can be dramatic. We have preferences that lead us one way or another, but happiness is synthesized.

There’s more to life than being happy

It seems counterintuitive that it is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness. In a study, psychological scientists asked Americans from 17-78 if they thought their lives were meaningful and/or happy. This is when they discovered that there is a difference between a meaningful and happy life.

A happy life has more to do with how people receive happiness without giving to others while meaningful is how people give happiness to others. Happiness can mean selfishness if the people are only receiving happiness and not giving any in return. The pursuit of happiness is ironically leaving people less happy. No one should be looking for happiness, if feeling good, happiness just comes. Happy people live an easier life because they are only worried about themselves while meaningful lives are all about making others happy. Most Americans do not have a strong sense of what makes their lives meaningful. The pursuit of happiness is associated with a taker who only takes what’s given to them. Satisfaction is happiness. If being selfish makes someone happy then how does the pursuit of happiness thwart happiness. It is counterintuitive because it is saying that the pursuit of happiness which is being selfish and happy prevents happiness.

This entry was posted in frogs, Purposeful Summary. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Purposeful summary- frogs02

  1. davidbdale says:

    You’ve correctly linked your first story to it source, frogs, but not your second and third. Can you link them while I’m working on your feedback to make it easier for me to read your summaries alongside the text?

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    VANCOUVER
    You create some confusion with your first opening, frogs. There’s nothing counterintuitive about heroin being addictive, but your sentence seems to say that there is:

    It seems counterintuitive that heroin is one of the most addictive drugs, but addicts could shoot up under the supervision of a nurse and without the fear of being arrested by police.

    I do eventually understand what you mean, but better phrasing would avoid the confusion:

    It seems counterintuitive that Vancouver’s heroin addicts could shoot up one of the world’s most addictive drugs under the supervision of a nurse and without the fear of being arrested by police.

    See the difference? Emphasis on the counterintuitive shooting up.

    Another phrasing issue:

    To those who are addicted, they are simply getting heroin on a daily basis as what their doctors describe as treatment.

    You create a problem when you name the people (those who are addicted) and immediately name them again with a pronoun (they). The trouble would be the same if you said, “My professor he gave me some feedback.” One or the other is the solution.
    1. Those who are addicted are simply getting heroin on a daily basis as what their doctors describe as treatment.
    2. Addicts are simply getting heroin on a daily basis as what their doctors describe as treatment.
    3. Some users are addicted; they are simply getting heroin on a daily basis as what their doctors describe as treatment.

    THE BANNED 2ND PERSON.
    We don’t use “you” or any of its variations in this class, frogs. It creates an adversarial relationship with readers to do so. Eliminate it from any academic paper or writing.

    If you give these people doses of heroin every day and keep them comfortable and keep them docile, you will most likely not be seeing them dead or in the middle of the street begging for money.

    After all, you and I are not going to dose anybody. Try:
    1. Addicts who receive daily doses remain comfortable and docile; they’re not likely to end up dead or begging for money in the middle of the street.
    2. If you can do that, you don’t need a 2.

    I’m getting lost at this point about your Purpose. You started out sounding outraged or at least astonished that anybody would give addicts heroin (or think it was good public policy). But now you’ve identified an obvious benefit to the addicts and to society of dosing them daily and safely. Your new sentence about addicts losing their houses isn’t judgmental in either directlon.

    Then you turn again and suggest that the program will encourage new drug use and addiction.

    [It might help to know that heroin isn’t given to casual users, and certainly not to someone who wants to “try out” heroin. It’s for hardened addicts who have already failed several attempts to quit the drug and rehab.]

    This sentence makes perhaps a better argument if you oppose the program:

    People are less likely to get addicted to heroin if they don’t know of a safe spot to go to inject.

    But again, they’ll have to go through hell first before they’re admitted to the program.

    By the end of your summary, your point of view is well established, but it might rest partly on a misunderstanding of the policy. You may certainly oppose the program on any grounds you wish, provided you’re clear about the facts and are fair and accurate.
    Before I go, one other device (like the 2nd person) we ban in this class is the Rhetorical Question. It’s almost invariably a bad strategy, challenging your readers to provide the wrong answer. Always substitute bold, clear claims for any question you’re tempted to ask. So, not:

    Supervisor or not, why are we allowing people to inject an addictive drug in themselves anyway?

    But something more like:

    Supervised or not, no government should be injecting an addictive drug into its citizens just to achieve a reduction in the crime rate.

    I hope some of that feedback will help you improve your other two summaries, frogs. Please respond so I’ll know if you find this sort of advice helpful.

    Like

  3. davidbdale says:

    I’ve seen your improvements to the Vancouver entry, Frogs. You’ve made useful clarifications there. The next step in the feedback process would be for you to respond, not simply drop the post back into Feedback Please without comment. Without instruction, I will simply react to whatever strikes me first, which may not be the most useful reaction for you.

    What strikes me first is that the opening paragraph for the Happiness entry does not guide your reader to any clear understanding of your point of view. You say:

    It seems counterintuitive that both someone who lost a leg and someone who won the lottery are equally happy with their lives. Studies show that achievements or failure have far less impact, less intensity, and much less duration than people expect them to have. It is assumed that major life traumas have no impact on happiness. Happiness can be synthesized by a positive mindset.

    These appear to me to be unrelated claims.
    —Surely there’s a disconnect between different fateful episodes and their psychological consequences, but we don’t know much about the individuals who suffered them, so anecdotally, it’s just a tease.
    —If we were hoping for some clarification, your next claim about the short-term impact of episodes on individuals seems to suggest that happy people will stay happy even after they lose a leg, while miserable people will still be miserable after winning the lottery.
    —Your “it is assumed” is completely no help in guiding us to a confident conclusion. Most authors use the phrase to mean, “silly people assume,” so it feels like a trap.
    —”Happiness can be synthesized” is another detour. I’m lost.

    Part of my confusion can be explained by the lack of transitions between your claims. Therefore. However. On the other hand. Those little clues to how the author values the evidence and the connections between claims are essential to persuading readers by guiding them to conclusions.

    Does that help? Whether you revise this post or not, Frogs, I expect you to respond to demonstrate that you value the process. Otherwise, I’m less likely to help you (or provide the sort of help you prefer) in the future. Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

    • frogs02 says:

      Thank you for the feedback! It really helped a lot and I completely understand where you are coming from. I understand the lack of transitions and how I need to fix that.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s