summarize public and academic sources

User Generated

nyanrzv97

Writing

Description

you are required to write two paragraphs for these sources Paragraph 1 (Four Sentences) Sentence 1: Author’s name, title of work, and publishing info (in parentheses), an accurate verb, and a clause that contains the thesis statement/main idea of the work. Sentence 2: Explain the arguments that support the thesis/main idea of the work, as well as the evidence the author uses to support these arguments. Sentence 3: Author’s purpose for writing the work Sentence 4: Intended audience of the work

Paragraph 2: Sentence 1: How does this source fit with similar scholarship? How does this source relate to other things you’re reading or investigating? Sentence 2: How will you use this source in your research project? Sentence 3: Evaluate the credibility of the source and its author. Sentence 4: LIst any questions that this source does not answer about the topic or further research that this source has inspired you to investigate.

the sources are :

1- http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/clearing_up_hazing_opponents_are_pushing_for_stricter_laws/

2- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/books/review/john-mcphee-draft-no-4-on-the-writing-process-new-yorker.html

3- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/upshot/its-time-for-a-new-discussion-of-marijuanas-risks.html

Also summarize the sources that I attached to you in PDF files.

IMPORTANT NOTE: DON’T FORGET TO CITE THESE SOURCES IN MLA FORMAT AND BE CARFUL BECAUSE 3 OF THEM ARE PUBLIC SOURCE AND OTHERS ARE ACADEMIC SOURCE.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

2011/Hazing on College Campuses/26 HAZING ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES; WHO IS LIABLE? by Elizabeth A. Marcuccio* Joseph P. McCoUum** I. INTRODUCTION An individual has the right to be free from harmful or offensive contact by another, including intentional contact anticipated to cause physical harm and emotional distress. The common law recognizes this right to be free from unpermitted contact, as well as the corresponding duty to conduct oneself in a manner that prevents unreasonable risks to others. When dealing with hazing on college campuses, the law differs from state to state. Currently forty-four states have anti-hazing statutes. These statutes play an important role in setting forth the proper public policy on this issue. In the past hazing was seen as a legitimate rite of passage, and young people who succumbed to the pressures of classmates where believed to be getting what they deserved. Now, in addition to civil liability, wrongdoers are facing criminal prosecution for their actions.^ •Associate Professor of Business Law, Siena College, Loudonville New York **Assistant Professor of Quantitative Business Analysis, Siena College, Loudonville, New York 27/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies II. ANTI-HAZING STATUTES Typically state statutes that outlaw hazing prohibit any willful act that recklessly or intentionally endangers the physical health of a student. Only Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island recognize the mental as well as the physical aspects of hazing (see Figure 1).^ Although a particular state may not have enacted a hazing statute, often actions that constitute hazing may be prosecuted under other criminal statutes, such as the state's assault or reckless endangerment laws. In most states, hazing is considered a misdemeanor, with fines ranging from $100 to $5,000.'* However, in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, hazing that results in death or "great bodily harm" is categorized as a felony (see Figure 2).^ The New Hampshire law is also particularly aggressive, stating that in addition to the individual wrongdoers, institutions may also be charged with a misdemeanor for "knowingly condoning hazing or negligently failing to take adequate measures to prevent student hazing".^ Figure 1: Hazing Statutes Number Name Type AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, Physical Hazing 40 MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, Only NY, NC, ND, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI Mental and Physical AL, OH, OK, RI 4 Hazing AK, HI, MT, NM, SD, WY 6 None 2011/Hazing on College Campuses/28 Figure 2: Criminal Charges by State for Hazing Type No. List Felony 8 IL, IN, MO, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI Misdemeanor 23 Fine Other None 7 6 6 AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, ID, L^, KS, MD, NE, NV,NH, NY, NC, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, WA CT, LA, MA, MS, OK, OR, VT KY, ME, MI, MN, NJ, TN AK, HI, MT, NM, SD, WY Many state statutes contain stipulations outlining stiff punishment for those aiding or assisting in hazing activities. It is evident that lawmakers acknowledge the significance of the peer pressure and coercion components of hazing. In the vast majority of states, criminal statutes include a provision that bars the wrongdoers from defending their conduct on the basis of the alleged consent by the pledge or new member to the hazing activities.^ HI. CIVIL LIABILITY In addition to criminal sanctions, wrongdoers face civil liability. Unlike the criminal courts, most civil courts allow those involved in hazing activities to defend their actions based on the plaintiffs purported consent, and courts are holding hazed students responsible for decisions made with informed consent. This issue, however, is more complex than it seems. Often hazing involves circumstances where the victim never truly consents to the hazing or where the consent is obtained by the forced consumption of alcohol, threats, or extreme group pressure. Ultimately, many of these students withhold their consent to hazing, but only after they have suffered serious harm.* 29/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies When injury or death occurs as a result of hazing there is no question that the individual parties involved in the incident are subject to liability. Many lawsuits also focus on the fact that the fraternity or university did not take sufficient action to protect the injured party. Whether these institutions can also be sued depends on the specific facts of the case. IV. THE FRATERNITY The national fraternity is often the hardest to reach in a lawsuit. Many fraternities are set up to shield the national organization from liability arising out of the misconduct of its members and local chapters. They are frequently formed as unincorporated associations. This is a unique legal form that is not required to be registered with the state. In a further attempt to avoid litigation, the national organizations often structure their corporate documents to "affirmatively disavow any obligation to supervise or control conduct of chapters or members."^ These corporate documents establish the national fraternity as merely a clearinghouse for information and ideas, as well as a general resource for local chapters. The documents further indicate that the national fraternity will have no responsibility for certain types of misconduct by the chapter or its members, including hazing.'" Even when a fraternity is established using this type of structure, the national fraternity can still be liable if it is found to supervise and have a measure of control over its local chapters. For example, many of the national organizations hire "leadership consultants" who are former members of the fraternity that have recently graduated. These individuals are responsible for traveling to universities to make stire individual chapters are following the laws and rules, and to provide training in alcohol and related matters. They often have the power to take away the chapter's charter if rules are not being 2011/Hazing on College Campuses/30 obeyed." This indieates that, despite what the eorporate doeuments say, the national fraternity oversees and manages its loeal ehapters. What if the eontaet between the national and loeal entities is minimal? The national organization may have eontaet with a loeal ehapter only two times per year, and eould have 300 to 400 ehapters at various universities nationwide. Does the national fraternity have suffieient eontrol over the loeal ehapters to be held liable? Under eommon law ageney prineiples it is the degree of eontrol that the national fraternity has over the loeal ehapters that determines whether the national fraternity ean be sued. Defense attorneys will argue that the national fraternity has no intent to eontrol the day-to-day aetivities of a loeal ehapter. They merely give the loeal fraternity a lieense to use their name and symbol, and offer some guidelines. Nevertheless if the national fraternity is in the position to ehange the behavior of its members, a plaintiff ean sue the national fraternity, and win.'^ In many eases there is no sueh thing as membership solely in the loeal ehapter. Also the ehapter pays dues to the national fraternity. Therefore members earrying out initiation aetivities at the loeal level are doing so under the authority of the national fraternity and direetly for its benefit. Through the authority eonveyed upon the ehapter by the fraternity's organizational doeuments, the national organization has, in faet, established the membership intake proeess. Therefore it has the authority to either modify the proeess or prevent the eondueting of initiations altogether.'^ Most fraternities have strong anti-hazing and antiunderage drinking polieies that stena from the national organization. These polieies are detailed in manuals, and representatives from the fraternity go to various eollege eampuses to give talks about these issues. By establishing these polieies the national fraternity is attempting to exereise 31/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies control over the chapters. However, it can be argued that this is not enough to render the national fraternity liable. The policy statements can be seen as nothing more than the fraternity's mission statement, especially if there is no penalty attached for violating the policy. ' V. THE UNIVERSITY Universities may also face liability for student injury or death as a result of hazing. Historically, colleges and universities were looked upon as "parental supervisors", and courts did not question the authority of universities over their students.'^ This line of reasoning, the in loco parentis doctrine, saw its demise with the Third Circuit's ruling in Bradshaw v. Rawlings.^^ In Bradshaw v. Rawlings two students attended a picnic sponsored by the school at which alcohol was served. Rawlings became intoxicated. While driving back to campus Rawlings lost control of his car and struck a parked vehicle. Bradshaw, a passenger in Rawlings' car, was rendered a quadriplegic. Bradshaw later sued the college, among others, claiming that it had breached its duty to protect him from unreasonable risk of harm.'' The Third Circuit determined that since the students were no longer minors, there was no special relationship existing between the college and the students. Therefore the college had no duty to control a student's conduct to prevent him from harming another.'^ The Bradshaw decision clearly establishes a "no-duty" model, allowing courts to conclude that a "custodial, supervisory relationship between a university and its students [is] inconsistent with modem educational objectives".' Rabel V. Illinois Wesleyan University^^ is another example of this "no duty" movement. 2011/Hazing on College Campuses/32 In Rabel a student. Chérie Rabel, suffered a skull fracture and concussion after being forcibly grabbed, picked up, and accidentally dropped on the ground by a member of Phi Gamma Delta fraternity. Rabel filed a complaint against the university claiming, in part, that the university's "policies, regulations, and handbook created a special relationship with its students and a corresponding duty to protect its students against the alleged misconduct of a fellow student."^' In its decision the Appellate Court stated: we do not believe that the university, by its handbook, regulations, or policies voluntarily assumed or placed itself in a custodial relationship with its students, for purposes of imposing a duty to protect its students from the injury occasioned here. The university's responsibility to its students, as an institution of higher education, is to properly educate them. It would be unrealistic to impose upon a university the additional role of custodian over its adult students and to charge it with the responsibility for assuring their safety and the safety of others. Imposing such a duty of protection would place the university in the position of an insurer of the safety of its students.•^^ After the Bradshaw and Rabel decisions, courts were unlikely to hold universities legally responsible for the actions and injuries of their students. However subsequent case law established that, under certain circumstances, universities assume a duty of care. In Furek v. University of Delaware the court demonstrated that it was willing to depart from the strict "no duty" standard and impose liability on universities under certain factual circumstances. In Furek a fraternity pledge suffered first- and second-degree bums after a fraternity member poured oven cleaner over his head and back as part of 33/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies Hell night high jinks. Attendance at the secret Hell night ceremony was mandatory for pledges in order to be accepted into the Sigma Phi Epsilon fratemity. The events took place in the chapter house, which was leased from the University of Delaware by the fratemity. The university had an established policy prohibiting hazing. ^'^ The Delaware Supreme Court determined that the university's effort to regulate hazing exposed it to liability for hazing-related injuries. The university not only had a duty to protect its students from the dangers of hazing, it had an obligation to exercise appropriate restraint over the conduct of fratemity members. Even though the university did not control the day-to-day activities of the chapter, it had an obligation to promote general campus safety and security.'^^ Recent case law indicates that the Bradshaw line of reasoning is still a frequent and justifiable defense, but the Furek decision is a landmark example of how the "no duty" principle is not applicable in every situation, particularly when hazing-related injuries are involved.^^ The Furek decision has left colleges and universities in a dilemma. If they exercise strict control over fratemities they have an implied duty of care that can expose them to liability if breached. Conversely, exercising no control is not the answer. Many states now have laws that require universities to adopt anti-hazing policies, and failure to do so can result in liability. VL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In our statistical analysis we studied 43 colleges in New York State that have Greek Life on campus and 41 colleges that do not have Greek Life. Our data was retrieved from the websites "mynextcollege.com" and "collegeprowler.com". Our goal was to determine what factors may influence the 2011/Hazing on College Campuses/34 absence or presence of Greek Life. The first factors studied were geographical location of the college, the cost of going to that college, and average undergraduate size for the college. As Figure 3 clearly indicates, only undergraduate size differs significantly. College campuses with Greek Life have an average undergraduate population approximately 2.25 times larger than colleges without Greek Life. Figure 3: Comparing Campus Life in New York Colleges Greek Life Without Greek Life Number in Suburban Areas 18 20 Number in Rural Areas 12 8 Number in Urban Areas 13 13 Ave Cost of Tuition 20,123 19,995 Ave Cost of Room and Board 8,965 8,714 Ave Undergraduate Size 6,374 2,852 Ave Percent of On Campus Housing 55 56 The reason it appears that Greek Life prevails on larger campuses is because 21% of colleges with Greek Life have undergraduate populations in excess of 10,000 students, and 71% of colleges without Greek Life have less than 3,000 students. However Greek Life exists on both large and small college campuses. For example Hartwick College, one of the smallest colleges, (under 2,000 students) and New York 35/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies University, one of the largest eolleges, (over 20,000 students) both have Greek Life. Next, we determined how many males and females partieipated in Greek Life and found the average number of Fraternities and Sororities on eollege eampuses (See Figure 4). Figure 4: Facts About Greek Life in New York Colleges Ave. Percentage of Males in Fraternities Ave. Pereentage of Females in Sororities Ave. Number of Fraternities on Campus Ave. Number of Sororities on Campus 8% 7% 10 8 Roughly 15% of students on eollege eampuses partieipate in Greek Life. Sinee the average undergraduate size is 6,374 students, approximately 956 students on a typieal New York eampus belong to a Greek Organization. Therefore eaeh Fraternity or Sorority on eampus has approximately 53 members. Figure 5: Type of Governance for Greek Life Colleges With (Out of 43) Type of Council 38 Dean of Greek Life 27 Panhellenie Couneil Interfratemity Couneil 21 26 Greek Couneil 7 Other It was important to our study to determine whether New York eolleges with Greek Life-have a Dean or Director of 2011/Hazing on College Campuses/36 Greek Life, and whether any govemance councils exist on these New York campuses. Figure 5 above summarizes the type of govemance that colleges have in place. The following definitions are helpful in understanding Figure 5: The Interfratemity Council (IFC) is a council formed by members of all the fi-aternities on campus. The IFC, as defined by Comell University, is a "form of common goveming council, in which the member chapters collectively assemble and discuss issues affecting the Fratemity and Greek System as a whole". ^' The Comell website goes on to mention that "The council's primary concem is the safety, security, and advancement of each member fratemity house". ^^ I I The Panhellenic Council is a council formed by members of all the sororities on campus. The Panhellenic Council, as defined by Columbia University, is "an umbrella organization to promote mutual collaboration among individual chapters of the Greek system". ^^ The Columbia University website further states: "in order to achieve its goals [the association] implements programming that foster the universal sorority ideals of leadership, integrity, and scholarship among its members". ^'^ I I | ! j ! ! \ I I Figure 5 makes it clear that colleges are putting safeguards in place to govem Greek Life. Over 88% of New York colleges that have Greek Life also have a Dean to oversee their Greek organizations. It appears that these colleges have assumed a duty of care for their students. Nevertheless eleven deaths have occurred due to some type of hazing on nine New York campuses since 1970. ^' In other words, approximately 21% of the colleges in New York State that have Greek Life have had a death due to hazing. The most recent were Kevin ¡ ! I ! i 37/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies Lawless at lona in 1999, Jonathan Marconi at SUNY Cortland in 2001, Ben Klein at Alfred University in 2002, Jerry Hopkins at Rochester Institute of Technology in 2003, Walter Dean Jennings at SUNY Pittsburgh in 2003, and Arman Partamian at SUNY Geneseo in 2009. It should be noted that the deaths of Walter Jennings, Arman Partamian, and Jonathan Marconi were all associated with unrecognized Greek Organizations. These deaths, along with injuries suffered by Bryan Parslow at SUNY Brockport in 2009, have prompted some colleges to list unrecognized Greek Organizations on their college website and warn that they will not support a student's choice in joining these organizations. The University at Buffalo's website states: "The University at Buffalo does not advise nor control the actions of these offcampus groups. Typically, the instances of hazing are high for these groups as well. Affiliation with these groups is a violation of the UB Student Code of Conduct and puts students at risk for suspension and/or expulsion from the University. University policy in accordance with SUNY policy changes mandates a permanent transcript notation for students who are found to be responsible for hazing incidents that involve the injury of another person." It is clear that the SUNY college system is taking a stand against unrecognized chapters. The website of SUNY Oneonta goes into detail of what it is like to be a member of one of these organizations and the effects it has on the community. It states: "Being a member of an unrecognized Greek organization is likely to be an unrewarding experience, regardless of what they may tell the student. Many of these organizations pledge until very close to the end of the semester and then their dues go towards parties, shirts, and alcohol. This is where the phrase 'You pay for your friends' comes from in regards to joining a Greek organization because the dues 2011/Hazing on College Campuses/38 money is going towards nothing productive to society. These organizations are just social groups. Unrecognized organizations give a bad reputation to all Greek organizations in the city of Oneonta, which makes it harder for recognized organizations to keep their reputations positive. Unrecognized organizations are often a nuisance to society: causing fights, large amounts of noise ordinance violations, unpleasant living environments, destruction to off-campus housing, etc. Unrecognized fratemities are banned from living in many apartments, which is stated in many leases, along with fratemity and sorority hazing activities. Landlords are aware of the problem but there is only so much they can do." " What can colleges do in addition to making students aware of the risks of joining these organizations? Alfred University, after the death of a pledge in 2002, started an investigation into the hazing practices of the Greek Organizations on its campus. This investigation resulted in the tmstees of the university eliminating all Greek Life on campus. In a similar manner Ithaca College banned all Greek Life in the 198O's due to a hazing incident. However banning Greek Life from campus will not entirely solve the problem of hazing, since unrecognized fratemities will continue to exist. VII. CONCLUSION Fratemity hazing has resulted in at least one death every year since 1970.^"* Yet the practice continues despite the deaths, the enactment of anti-hazing statutes and the increasing number of lawsuits. The states' adoption of anti-hazing legislation reflects the shift in society's view of hazing. While legislation has improved greatly during the last decade to combat hazing, it is evident that more progress needs to be made. The mental as well as physical aspects of hazing should 39/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies be recognized, and heavier punishments must be imposed for hazing offenses. In civil lawsuits plaintiffs frequently use a negligence theory to recover for hazing-related injuries. When suing the national fraternity or university, the focal point of the litigation is whether a duty of care exists. In seeking to establish a duty, students will typically claim that fraternities and universities assume a duty when they attempt to regulate or control chapter conduct or activities. This puts the organizations in the awkward position of deciding whether to limit their liability by exercising very strict control, or by exercising no control whatsoever. END NOTES ' Fierberg, Douglas (2004) "Protect Your Rights", www.hazinglaw.com/rights.htm. The following states do not currently have hazing laws: Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming. ^ http://www.thegreekshop.com/hazing.html. '' Manley, Burke, Lipton, & Cook (2000). Hazing: Know the consequences of your actions. The FRMT Risk Management Newsletter, 7, 1-3. ^ http://www.thegreekshop.com/hazing.html. 2011/Hazing on College Campuses/40 s Fierberg, Douglas (2004). www.hazinglaw.eom/rights.htm. I "Proteet Your Rights", I i I ^ Gertner, Reni (2005). Fraternity Lawsuits Becoming More Common—What to Evaluate in Suing a Fraternity. Lawyers Weekly USA, 1-2. '" Id. at 2. " Id. at 4. '^ Id. at 3. '^ Id. at 4. '"Id. '^ MaeLaehlan, J. (2000). Dangerous Traditions: Hazing Rituals on Campus and University Liability, Journal of College and University Law, 26(3), 514. '^ Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F.2d 135 (3'''^ Cir. 1979). '^ Id. at 136. '^ Id. at 143. '^ MaeLachlan, J. (2000). Dangerou Ttraditions: Hazing Rituals on Campus and University Liability, Journal of College and University Law, 26(3), 521. 41/Vol 26/North East Journal of Legal Studies ^° Rabel v. Illinois Wesleyan University, 161 111. App. 3d 348 (1987). ^' Id. at 356. ^^ Id. at 361. " Furekv. University of Delaware, 594 A.2d 506 (Del. 1991). ^'* Id. at 508. ^^ Id. at 514. ^^ Gertner, Reni (2005). Fraternity Lawsuits Becoming More Common—What to Evaluate in Suing a Fraternity. Lawyers Weekly USA, 5. ^'http://comellifc.com/about-the-ifc ^^Id. ^^http://www.columbia.edu/cu/panhel/aboutus.htm •^'http://hazing.hanknuwer.com/ ^^http://www.student-affairs.buffalo.edu/greeklife/grigc.php ^ ^http : 11www. oneonta. edu/development/huntunion/i gc/recunrec .html ^^ Fierberg, Douglas (2004) www.hazinglaw.com/rights.htm. "Protect Your Rights", Copyright of North East Journal of Legal Studies is the property of North East Academy of Legal Studies in Business, Inc and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on Hospital Emergency Room Drug Episodes: 1975-1978 Karyn E. Model Reprinted from Journal of the American Statistical Association . / L The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on Hospital Emergency Room Drug Episodes: 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 7 8 KARYN E MODEL* Between 1973 and 1978, 12 states with collectively over one-third of the total U.S. population enacted laws that decrimmahzed the possession of marijuana. This article uses standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) level data on hospital emergency room drug episodes collected by the Drug Abuse Warning Network to measure the effect of changes in drug penalties on substance abuse crises. The regression models demonstrate that marijuana decriminalization was accompanied by a significant reduction in episodes involving drugs other than marijuana and an increase in marijuana episodes. Although possible biases in the data preclude firm conclusions, the results suggest that some substitution occurs towards the less severely penalized drug when punishments are differentiated. KEY WORDS: Drug Abuse Warning Network; Drug policy; Marijuana decriminahzation; Substitution. Drug control policy in the United States is generally formulated under the assumption that such policies are effective in influencing drug use. This is accomplished through traditional economic channels; the fact that the possession or sale of an illegal substance carries the risk of arrest and conviction serves to increase the cost of these goods. As penalties increase, the cost of the substance may rise as sellers require greater compensation for dealing in illegal goods, while buyers must also incorporate possible penalties into their full costs of use. Thus U.S. policy proceeds on the assumption that the demand for drugs will vary inversely with the severity of penalties, because these penalties serve to increase costs. The decriminalization of marijuana by 12 states between 1973 and 1978 is one of the few instances where penalties for an illegal substance were actually reduced. Decriminalization maintained marijuana’s illegality but designated firstoffense possession as a civil (not criminal) offense. Prison sentences were abolished and replaced with small fines (typically $100) for first offense possession of (usually) less than 1 ounce of marijuana. The reduced penalties also signalled a decreased priority for marijuana possession arrests and thus served to divert police attention away from these offenses. States that decriminalized marijuana experienced a dramatic reduction in possession arrests (National Governor’s Conference 1977). Marijuana use thus became “cheaper” as a result of both the decline in probability of apprehension as well as the reduction in possible penalties imposed. Empirical research concerning the effect of decriminalization on drug use is scarce. Analysis of data from Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of the values and life-styles of high school seniors, found that seniors in decriminalized states reported using no more marijuana than did their counterpart in control states (Johnston, O’Malley, and Bachman 198 1). This study did not, however, control for demographic characteristics of subjects and did not examine the use of substances other than marijuana. Also, high school * Karyn E. Model is Associate Economist, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica CA 90407-2 138. The author thanks Joshua Angrist and Lawrence Katz, as well as the participants in the Labor Seminar at Harvard and the Workshop on The Economics of Illegal Drugs at the National Bureau of Economic Research, for many helpful conversations and comments. The author is also indebted to the many reviewers who sent their extremely helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, to those anonymous reviewers who helped shape the final version, and to Andrea Kopstein at the National Institute on Drug Abuse for help in obtaining the data. youth represent a sample that may not respond to new legislation in the same manner as the general population. Standard economic analysis would predict that legal changes impact the use of marijuana by changing its full use price. Also, one must consider the possibility of related effects on the use of substitute or complement goods. Changes in marijuana policy may affect not only marijuana use, but also the use of other intoxicating substances. DiNardo and Lemieux (1992) also used Monitoring the Future data to analyze the impact of increased minimum drinking ages (which can similarly be interpreted as imposing increased costs on seniors’ alcohol consumption on both alcohol and marijuana use. They found that higher drinking ages are associated with reduced alcohol consumption, but increased marijuana use. This result lends support to the existence of substitution in consumption between marijuana and alcohol. This article analyzes the effects of marijuana decriminalization on drug mentions in hospital emergency room (ER) episodes between 1975 and 1978. The outcome studied here is an ER drug mention. A drug mention occurs when medical staff at a reporting ER detect drug use in an ER patient (though substance abuse need not be the cause of, or even related to, the ER visit). Section 1 describes the medical and demographic data assembled for use in this study. Section 2 outlines a simple statistical model used to identify the effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room drug episodes. Section 3 presents the results of estimation of this model. All regression specifications confirm that decriminalized cities experienced a statistically significant increase in marijuana mentions as well as a significant reduction in the mention of other drugs relative to nondecriminalized standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s) . Section 4 discusses these results and offers some concluding remarks. I. DATA FROM THE DRUG ABUSE WARNING NETWORK The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) has collected data on drug-related ER episodes in 24 major SMSA’s since 1972 (though data at the level necessary for the analysis here Reprinted by permission from Journal of the American Statistical Association, Copyright 737 September 1993, Vol. 88, No. 423, pp. 737-747. 1993 American Statistical Association. 738 Journal of the American Statistical Association. September 1993 were not available until 1975). DAWN is a large-scale nationwide drug abuse data collection program sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) . Participating ER’s report all drug abuse ER episodes using a standardized questionnaire. DAWN records data on all ER episodes involving illicit drugs as well as “the use of prescription drugs in a manner inconsistent with accepted medical use” (National Institute on Drug Abuse 1976). Episodes involving alcohol are recorded only when alcohol was used in conjunction with another illicit drug or with a prescription drug used for nonmedical purposes. (For this reason, the analysis that follows does not examine alcohol-related episodes separately since they are not recorded in the data.) DAWN reports refer to ER drug episodes directly related to substance abuse (such as overdoses) as well as incidents in which evidence of drug use was obtained. For example, a victim in a motor vehicle accident exhibiting evidence of drug use would be interviewed and tested for possible inclusion as a DAWN drug abuse episode. The DAWN documentation states that for each drug abuse episode, “the drug’s causal involvement can range from being directly and totally responsible for the emergency room episode, acting in combination with other abused drugs to bring about the crisis, or have no causal relationship even though abused and present during a given episode.” The data are also periodically updated when a previously unrecorded episode is found to have involved drug abuse (National Institute on Drug Abuse 1976). One potential problem with the DAWN data is that patients may not cooperate in disclosing drug use if ER physicians do not detect the possibility of use independently. This self-reporting impediment could result in nonreporting or misreporting of information. One recent study polled current marijuana users (members of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws [NORML]) as to the conditions under which they would report marijuana use to health care professionals. Although the overall response rate was low, 95% of the respondents reported that they would disclose information regarding marijuana use to a doctor or a nurse if they had suffered a major health problem believed to be caused by marijuana (Mathre 1988). Because most DAWN respondents have suffered major medical crises, this study indicates that the majority would respond accurately to physicians’ inquiries about their marijuana use (though NORML members are certainly not a representative population sample). But the fact that individuals are more likely to divulge drug use when they believe it to be related to their medical condition may indicate that DAWN data more accurately measures drug abuse-caused episodes as opposed to drug abuse-related episodes. Additionally, because DAWN reports are also determined by doctors’ and nurses’ observation of crisis occurrences, these data should not reflect quite such substantial reporting prejudice as are found in purely self-reporting interview settings (though they are likely not as accurate as chemical tests of blood and/or urine). Issues of reporting bias will be discussed at length in the next section. The unit of analysis in this study is what is referred to in DAWN reports as a drug mention. An ER episode can involve the mention of up to six drugs, so that each drug mention is not necessarily associated with a separate individual. Also, the same individual may visit an ER more than once in any reporting period (quarter). DAWN does not record personal identifiers for specific ER episodes, so it is impossible to identify the fraction of repeat ER patients (NIDA 1977). Only quarterly SMSA-level data are published. Micro-data are collected at the hospital level but not released. One issue that arises when using such “drug abuse indicator” data is the way in which DAWN ER mentions translate into actual drug use in the population as a whole. Based on aggregate trend data from NIDA’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and relevant SMSA population data, past month marijuana use prevalence is estimated as ap proximately 12.7% of the population over the years relevant to the current study. Applied to the mean SMSA in the sample (and ignoring the issue of multiple visits), this suggests approximately 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 past month marijuana users per DAWN SMSA in any given quarter, indicating that on average each user is associated with .000 1 mentions per quarter (or, conversely, that generating one additional marijuana mention requires 9,500 additional users in an SMSA per quarter). Overall prevalence of any illicit drug use is ap proximately 13.9%, or 420,000 users per SMSA each with an average of .003 mentions per quarter (and requiring 325 additional users to generate one extra DAWN mention of any drug) (NIDA 1989). Although the population drug use prevalence figures are interesting in and of themselves, it is clear that DAWN medical crises occur in only a minute fraction of the drug abusing population. Additionally, not all ER visits are actual emergencies, and all emergencies that occur may not be reported to the local ER. Thus this article more accurately identifies changes in ER drug mentions for the ER-using population, which may not be equivalent to the population at large. DAWN attempted to include all eligible ER’s in all but three of the sampled SMSA’s. A random sample of eligible ER’s was used in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, because these SMSA’s have larger populations than the other participant SMSA’s. Eligible ER’s are defined as “ER’s which are open 24 hours a day; located in non-federal, short term general hospitals; and which have at least 1000 patient visits to the ER in a year. Specialty hospitals, hospital units of institutions, and pediatric hospitals are excluded (NIDA 1977, p. 2). Data inconsistencies arise because the ER’s in the DAWN sample change over time; occasionally new reporting facilities are added and others are dropped (NIDA, 1977). This article analyses drug mentions recorded by “consistently reporting” ER’s only. Consistent reporters are defined as those having reported on at least 90% of the possible reporting days since January 1974 (NIDA 1976). Data on numbers of drug mentions are supplemented with information on the total number of consistently reporting ER’s in the SMSA each quarter, as well as the percent of all ER’s in the SMSA participating in the DAWN system; this participation percent is referred to Model: Marijuana Decriminalization and Emergency Drug Episodes 739 Table 1. Marijuana Decriminalization in States with DAWN Cities Maximum penalties for possession Before decriminalization California: Enacted 1 /1/76 (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco) 1st: NMT’ 1 yr. 2nd: NMT 20 yrs. 3rd: 5 yrs.-life Colorado: Enacted 7/1/75 (Denver) > Minnesota: Enacted 4/1 /76 (Minneapolis/St. Paul) New York: Enacted 7/29/77 (New York, Buffalo) Ohio: Enacted 11/22/75 (Cleveland) After decriminalization 1 oz: O-6 mos. and $500 oz: NMT 1 yr. and NMT $500 oz: 2-l 5 yrs. and $10,000 1 oz: O-6 mos. and $500 oz: NMT 1 yr. and NMT $1.000 oz: NMT 3 yrs. and NMT $3,000 1.5 oz: O-3 yrs. and $3,000 oz: NMT 1 yr. oz: 3-7 yrs. oz: 5-15 yrs. lb: 15 yrs.-life 1st: 2nd: 3rd: 1 st: NMT 1 yr. and NMT $1,000 2nd: NMT 10 yrs. and/or 0-15 days
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello,Attached find the complete...


Anonymous
I was struggling with this subject, and this helped me a ton!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags