White Paper – themildewmuncher7

Working Proposal 1:

The goto approach to dealing with drug and alcohol addiction has always been rehabilitation of some sort. Its intuitive design of edging addicts away from their narcotic crutch makes logical sense, and is thus adopted by most of the world. As with everything, however, it is not the only way to deal with the issue. Recently, cities like Vancouver have begun to introduce a significantly different tactic in helping addicts of drugs, specifically heroin. Instead of attempting to lean the individuals off of the drug, they are challenging another front by actually supplying the addicts with drugs for free. Not only will this help curb the drug-related crimes in the area, but it will allow addicts to focus on leading a more productive life while not worrying about how they’ll get their next fix.

Working Proposal 2:

Vancouver, along with a slew of European nations before them, have begun to treat drugs with drugs. And no over the counter medicine is involved here; they’re giving heroin addicts heroin in an effort to combat some of the adverse effects of having addicts in their area, such as drug crime rates being higher than they’d like. They have adopted this in favor of traditional rehabilitation, which does not have a one hundred percent success rate like this claims to have, albeit with radically different results. In seeking to be different, cities like these have also opted to reap the rewards and consequences of this new approach.

Content Description:

  • Classic Stance on Rehabilitation
  • Ease of Counterintuitivity
  • Success of Rehabilitation
  • More to come

Working Hypothesis 1:

Sometimes traditional rehabilitation, or getting addicts clean, is not always the simplest way to solve a drug problem. Supplying them could potentially lead to a more effective, albeit nontraditional solution.

Working Hypothesis 2:

Vancouver, along with numerous other European countries, have recently been battling drug addiction in their city streets by giving the addicts what they want most: their drugs.

Topics for Smaller Papers:

  • What determines successful rehabilitation?
  • The long term effects of supplying drug addicts with drugs
  • Reasons for “traditional” rehab being preferred

Current State of Research Paper:

Yes, I’m certainly aware the paper needs more work, specifically more detail has to be delivered on each of the content elements. My intentions lie with writing a paper describing the counterintuitivity and how it functions and interacts with society, not necessarily taking a side anywhere. If this approach is not ideal then you can just say so, and I’ll change it up a bit.

This entry was posted in A06: White Paper, themildewmuncher7. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to White Paper – themildewmuncher7

  1. themildewmuncher7 says:

    Feedback was requested.

    Feedback provided.
    —DSH

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    Proposal 1.
    This states the case well, MM. As proposal, it offers to demonstrate that a counterintuitive solution to a difficult problem may prove to be surprisingly effective. As writing, it teases too long by withholding the solution as if it were a prize for lasting through the prologue. Then it short-changes readers on the delivery. Is the goal of the program still the same or different from the common rehab model? Is the new approach actually a different way to solve the old problem, or a solution to a different problem?

    Proposal 2.
    Judging from the quality of your reasoning, I would guess this is your less-preferred proposal.
    —No over-the-counter medicines have ever been successful in ending addicitions
    —I do appreciate that you’ve identified crime reduction as the primary goal; however
    —you don’t capitalize on the difference by indicating that rehab efforts have not curbed crime; then
    —you compare apples to oranges since rehab programs target entire addict communities, whereas Insite targets only those few for whom repeated rehabs have failed.
    —radically different results?
    You cheapen the motivations and the successes of the program by claiming its purpose is “to be different.”
    I just don’t think you cared much about this proposal. 🙂

    Content.
    —The classic stance is only useful by comparison. Spend no time on the techniques unless techniques are the meat of your argument. For Vancouver, these programs differ primarily in results.
    —I do not understand “Ease of Counterintuitivity.”
    —Is Rehabilitation a goal of the Insite program?

    Hypothesis 1.
    Until you specify what you mean by “solve a drug problem,” this hypothesis will be almost unintelligible.

    Hypothesis 2.
    That’s a factual claim, not a hypothesis.

    Current State.
    Clearly identifying the program’s goals and compiling evidence to demonstrate that it meets its goals (or doesn’t) would be superior to “taking a side.” It would make a substantial contribution to a controversial argument. Others may decide whether the goals are “appropriate,” or you can do this yourself. Compare the reaction of well-meaning people who object to how money is spent, for example, in schools. A fundraiser is held to stock the library with new books since the school budget can’t cover the expense. Instead of being appreciative, parents with other agenda complain that the money could have been spent on cafeteria improvements, repairs to the roof, artificial turf for the football field, what-have-you. Similar objections, but more serious ones, are being heard in Vancouver. You could address them from on grounds of practicality.

    Helpful?
    Reply, please.

    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