Study: Private prisons result in more inmates, longer sentences
The Labour Economics study suggests two potential reasons for the increase: corruption and increased capacity.
18 September, 2020
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>The '80s and '90s witnessed a rash of strict sentencing laws. Voters who lived through the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates" target="_blank">rise of violent crime in the '60s and '70s</a> offered full-throated support for such laws. Anxious to woo such voters, legislators hawked <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">tough-on-crime</a> rhetoric and passed ever-punitive legislation, such as Reagan's creation of mandatory minimum sentences through <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986</a>.</p><p>In hindsight, the consequences are as obvious as they are unsettling. Stricter laws gave judges less latitude in sentencing, and prison populations skyrocketed across the country. By 1990, state prison populations reached <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf" target="_blank">115 percent of their highest capacity</a>. Unable to house their new charges, nor garner equally enthusiastic support for the taxes necessary to fund building new facilities, some states turned to for-profit prison companies to manage the influx. As of 2019, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/1/20989336/private-prisons-states-bans-califonia-nevada-colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 states</a> incarcerate people in for-profit prisons.</p><p>Given this history, it's not without irony that <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537120301123" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a new study published in Labour Economics</a> found privately-run prisons don't help states manage incarceration. The presence of such prisons may actually increase the number of incarcerated individuals as well as their sentence lengths.</p>
Cool hand rebuke
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjY1NTYyOH0.0MCPKN3If94mYCNf3mMNrnTvJXjXN_bKLhgk9203EXk/img.jpg?width=917&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=453" id="1627b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6d76421ba1ea0de4b09956b97e80c384" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />A chart showing prison population rates (per 100,000 people) in 2018. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
<p>Researchers at Washington State University sought to determine how the availability of private prisons affected rates of incarceration in the United States. To answer that question, they performed a regression analysis on state and individual data from 1989 to 2008. Their analysis revealed a positive correlation.</p><p>As the number of private-prison beds increased per capita, so too did sentence lengths and the number of incarcerated people per capita. All told, the increase was 178 prisoners per million population per year. That comes to a taxpayer-funded bill between approximately $2-10 million annually—assuming those additional prisoners are housed in privately-run facilities. When it comes to increased sentence lengths, Gregmar Galinato, a professor in WSU's School of Economic Sciences who co-authored the study, notes that not all crimes are judged equally.</p><p>"For crimes like property damage, fraud, or non-violent drug crimes—crimes where judges have more leeway in sentencing—states saw higher sentencing rates and significant increases in sentence lengths when private prisons were established," he <a href="https://news.wsu.edu/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/" target="_blank">said in a release</a>.</p><p>The researchers advanced two potential explanations for this interstate discrepancy. The first is good old-fashioned <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/mississippi-closes-private-prison-walnut-grove.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">corruption</a>. In states where they operate, for-profit companies can incentivize legislators to push for stricter sentencing laws and bribe judges to inflate sentence lengths.</p><p>A haunting modern example is the "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-seeks-close-books-kids-cash-scandal-n408666" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kids for Cash</a>" scandal. In 2007, the Juvenile Law Center began receiving reports that hundreds of Pennsylvania juveniles were being tried and sentenced without defense lawyers present as representation. An investigation revealed that Robert Powell, a co-owner of two private juvenile prisons, was paying off two judges to return guilty verdicts and severe sentences to bolster incarceration at his facilities.</p><p>The second explanation is simply the availability of prison beds. As Galinato explains, judges become more hesitant to send non-violent offenders to prison in states where capacity is a concern. However, privately-run prisons reduce such concerns, making it easier for judges to mete out harsher punishments.</p>Who profits with for-profit prisons?
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="97ac37e6c7f6f22ec130ea2d56871701"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dB78NV2WpWc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>The Labour Economics study suggests that privately-run prisons do convicts a few favors at the moment of sentencing. However, proponents of private prisons often point to other benefits when making their case. Specifically, they argue that private prisons reduce operating costs, stimulate innovation in the correctional system, and reduce recidivism—the rate at which released prisoners are rearrested and return to prison.</p><p>In regard to recidivism, the research is mixed. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank">One study</a> compared roughly 400 former prisoners from Florida, 200 released from private prisons and 200 from state-run facilities. It found the private-prison cohort maintained lower rates of recidivism. However, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00006.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">another Florida study</a> found no significant rate differences. And two other studies—one from <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oklahoma</a> and another out of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016813478823" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Minnesota</a>, both comparing much larger cohorts than the first Florida study— found that prisoners leaving private prisons had a greater risk of recidivism.</p><p>The research is also inconclusive regarding cost savings. <a href="https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/economics_of_private_prisons.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Hamilton Project analysis</a> noted that such comparisons are difficult because private prisons, like all private companies, are not required to release operational details. In comparing what studies were available, the authors estimate the costs to be comparable and that "in practice the primary mechanism for cost saving in private prisons is lower salaries for correctional officers"—about $7,000 less than their public peers. They add that competition-driven innovation is lacking as the three largest firms control nearly the entire market.</p><p>"We aren't saying private prisons are bad," Galinato said. "But states need to be careful with them. If your state has previous and regular issues with corruption, I wouldn't be surprised to see laws being more skewed to give longer sentences, for example. If the goal is to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals, increasing the number of private prisons may not be the way to go."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
You want to stop child abuse? Here's how you can actually help.
Sharing QAnon disinformation is harming the children devotees purport to help.
14 August, 2020
Photo: Atjanan Charoensiri / Shutterstock
- The conspiracy theory, QAnon, is doing more harm than good in the battle to end child trafficking.
- Foster youth expert, Regan Williams, says there are 25-29k missing children every year, not 800k, as marketed by QAnon.
- Real ways to help abused children include donating to nonprofits, taking educational workshops, and becoming a foster parent.
<p>Though Marjorie Taylor Greene is scrubbing her social media conspiracy theory mongering clean after her <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/901628541/qanon-supporter-who-made-bigoted-videos-wins-ga-primary-likely-heading-to-congre" target="_blank">victory</a> in Georgia's 14th Congressional District's Republican primary, the internet's graveyard is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rtYok4fdbQ&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">vast</a>. Greene appears to be distancing from her belief in QAnon, an online "movement" founded on the idea that Donald Trump is secretly battling an elite cabal of pedophiles. She went so far to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/11/marjorie-taylor-greene-georgia-qanon/" target="_blank">call</a> the secretive Q "a patriot."</p><p>Media Matters <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/here-are-qanon-supporters-running-congress-2020" target="_blank">counts</a> at least 75 current or former GOP congressional candidates that support the QAnon conspiracy theory. Thus far, 600,000 Americans have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/01/nearly-600000-people-have-voted-candidates-who-support-qanon/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">voted</a> for Q-endorsing candidates. As with "Pizzagate"—the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/technology/qanon-save-the-children-trafficking.html" target="_blank">origin myth</a> of QAnon—there have been real-world consequences. Q adherents have been tied to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/21/nyregion/gambino-shooting-anthony-comello-frank-cali.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">murders</a> and <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-mom-charged-with-kidnapping-her-kids" target="_blank">kidnappings</a>. The group also traffics in <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-dark-virality-of-a-hollywood-blood-harvesting-conspiracy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">anti-Semitic rhetoric</a>. </p><p>While our president is tied to an <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/07/why-are-right-wing-conspiracies-so-obsessed-with-pedophilia/" target="_blank">actual pedophile ring</a> via his longtime friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell ("<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/jul/22/donald-trump-on-ghislaine-maxwell-video-i-wish-her-well" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">I wish her well</a>"), the QAnon conspiracy theory has been little more than a dangerous distraction. Popular "QAnon researcher" Jordan Sather uses his rhetorical bombast, in a page stolen from Alex Jones, to sell supplements and, I kid you not, pendants that provide "powerful protection from EMFs" (electromagnetic fields). </p><p>What's a good conspiracy theory if you can't monetize it?</p><p>One group that isn't monetizing anything from QAnon—a group being actively harmed by it—is traumatized children, the very people these clicktivists somehow believe they're helping. Sharing a conspiracy theory on social media is easy. Working to actually help victims of sexual abuse and child trafficking, not so much. In fact, if you want to "do the research," it takes years of hard work, which is why I talked to Regan Williams earlier this week. </p>
Real ways you can help stop child trafficking
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="21fc2dc85391501eec28c4bf46d7db15"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AXL0q9jNZGU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Williams is the founder and CEO of <a href="http://www.seenandheard.org/" target="_blank">Seen and Heard</a>, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that helps foster youth develop character through the performing arts. She's been involved with foster youth for years; I <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/child-sex-trafficking" target="_self">wrote about her work</a> in child trafficking just over a year ago. Tragically, since that time, the situation for these children has only gotten worse, in large part because of QAnon.</p><p>Williams says child trafficking is an easy cause to rally people together. Fear is also a powerful unifying force, one that QAnon believers are already primed for via the news they consume. Almost every parent cares about their children, making them the ideal target to solidify groups. </p><p>The real problem, she says, is that the youth she works with are falling for these conspiracy theories. Trauma is a particularly powerful tool for indoctrination. If you're a teenager that's been abducted or abused, your trust level is already extremely low. Then you read about a global cabal of powerful men (and a few women) secretly abusing children, and the narrative seems ready-made for your personal history.</p><p>When Williams tried to "lovingly and kindly correct" the youth she was working with after learning about the Wayfair conspiracy, the girls' response was, "well, who owns the media?" </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"She goes from this small little thing to a QAnon talking point. I've been thinking about why she would believe such a preposterous idea—and there are others; it's not just one student, and they're in in deep. I think that when something horrific happens to you as a child, it's a lot easier to distance yourself from the immediate reality that it was an uncle or a parent or a sibling that hurt you. By detaching from that immediate person, they project it onto Bill Gates or Chrissy Teigen. Then it's not so personal, it's global." </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU1OTA1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTQ5NjU0MX0.YURinVpKeknLypoY2aIQc45HjSDN-I8hv6kifut1V8o/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C87%2C0%2C36&height=700" id="5d16d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1708c66e792b4b3bf4bf37502a4e195a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="man wearing" />
A man wear a shirt with the words Q Anon as he attends a rally for President Donald Trump at the Make America Great Again Rally being held in the Florida State Fair Grounds Expo Hall on July 31, 2018 in Tampa, Florida.
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images
<p>As Williams mentions, there are over 30,000 kids in foster care in the Los Angeles area alone. It's easy to fall through the cracks. The systems in place aren't perfect; they're certainly underfunded. When you're in a system trying to support you yet isn't capable of doing so, viewing the world as imperfect, and even harmful, becomes the lens through which you see reality. Again, this makes for a perfect indoctrination tool.</p><p>One popular QAnon talking point is that 800,000 children are missing. As Williams says, child trafficking experts "don't buy this for a minute." The number makes for a good meme but a poor representation of the problem. </p><p>To source better data, Williams turns to the <a href="https://www.missingkids.org/" target="_blank">National Center for Missing and Exploited Children</a> (NCMEC) and the <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">National Crime Information Center</a> (NCIC). An important factor when reading data: if a teacher <em>and</em> a caregiver report a missing child to NCIC, that counts as two children, not one, which accounts for some of the fluctuations in numbers. In total, between 25,000 and 29,000 kids go missing every year. Importantly, 94 percent of those children are recovered within four to six weeks. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"They're not documenting the recovery rate. It's not like these numbers are perpetually hanging out there. So this 800,000 number is just ludicrous." </p><p>Williams compares what's going on to Black Lives Matter. Blacking out your Instagram profile picture is performative. It signals that you actually care, which is great, but if you're not supporting Black-owned businesses, for example, there are no teeth to your activism. </p><p>Of course, blacking out your profile doesn't cause the real-world harm the QAnon virus does. Sharing misinformation is ultimately harmful to the children in need of help. Williams offers the resources below—ranging from donations to nonprofits to educational trainings to becoming a foster parent—for people that actually want to do something to help victims of sexual and physical abuse. They might not make a great Twitter meme, but in the actual world, this support makes all the difference. </p><p><strong>To report abuse/neglect, call the child abuse hotline: 800.540.4000 (LA county) / 800.422.4453 (National)</strong></p><ul><li>Support anti-trafficking organizations by donating to <a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="http://savinginnocence.org/" target="_blank">Saving Innocence</a>, which runs the continuum of care from rescue to recovery, <a href="http://gozoe.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Zoe</a>, a reputable faith-based organization, and <a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="https://withtwowings.org/" target="_blank">Two Wings</a>, which helps to rehabilitate female survivors</li><li><a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="http://www.nolabrantleyspeaks.org/" target="_blank">Nola Brantley</a> offers in-person and online trainings to help combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children</li><li><a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="http://instagram.com/imrebeccabender" target="_blank">Rebecca Bender</a> is a trafficking survivor that runs "Myth Busters," which combats conspiracy theory disinformation</li><li>The <a href="https://www.instagram.com/missingkids/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">National Center</a> of Missing and Exploited Children</li><li>Operation <a href="https://www.instagram.com/ourrescue/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Underground Railroad </a></li><li><a href="https://www.instagram.com/defendinnocence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Defend Innocence</a> offers tips for parents and caregivers to keep kids safe</li></ul><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Consumer advocacy groups are mostly funded by Big Pharma, according to new research
An article in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry raises questions about the goal of these advocacy groups.
06 July, 2020
Image by Jukka Niittymaa / Pixabay
- Two-thirds of American consumer advocacy groups are funded by pharmaceutical companies.
- The authors of an article in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry say this compromises their advocacy.
- Groups like the National Alliance on Mental Illness act more like lobbyists than patient advocates.
<p><span></span></p>
<p>In 1905, the muckraking journalist, Samuel Hopkins Adams, published an 11-part series on patent medicines for Collier's. Packaged as "<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44325/44325-h/44325-h.htm" target="_blank">The Great American Fraud</a><em>,"</em> Adams pointed out that many patented medicines were causing harm to consumers. His reporting helped lead to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.</p><p>This was a different era in journalism. In 1906, Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle," which also influenced the above congressional action (as well as the passage of the Meat Inspection Act). While President Roosevelt decried Sinclair as a socialist crackpot, he relented after reading the book and appointed inspectors to investigate the meatpacking industry. </p><p>Imagine that: A president who reads and even acts on criticism of his administration. </p><p>During this era of eye-opening exposés, consumer advocacy groups demanded better public health programs and governmental intervention in health care. As a new <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11673-019-09956-8.pdf" target="_blank">research article</a> published in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry points out, these women-founded and led programs pushed back against junk science and lack of oversight.</p><p>While the article details essential work female groups performed during the last century, it concludes with startling data regarding the corporate takeover of modern advocacy organizations by pharmaceutical lobbyists. The takeover was intentional. </p><p>Advocacy groups were founded with the best of intentions. As the authors—Sharon Batt, Judy Butler, Olivia Shannon, and Adriane Fugh-Berman—write, </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Some women's clubs moved this knowledge to the level of 'citizen science,' pushing to establish local health boards, then demanding the boards investigate the problems they documented. The women also provided fodder for muckraking journalists, bringing sensational cases to the attention of local newspapers and women's publications to be investigated and exposed."</p>
The Corruption That Brought Prozac to Market — Robert Whitaker, Journalist
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bea9cff2b25efc18b663a011a679ba16"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UyaJExxFPAE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Consumer-oriented groups gained steam over the ensuing decades. Their efforts helped inspire the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act after over 100 people (mostly children) died from a sanctioned drug, Sulfanilamide. If not for the hard work of these advocates, this case might have been overlooked.</p><p>Early efforts also focused on the food industry, which was increasingly using chemical preservatives. The origin of Consumer Reports can be found in the consumer advocacy movement. Both the food and drug industries were getting a free pass to experiment on citizens with few repercussions.</p><p>These movements provided a social foundation for important advocacy work in the second half of the century. Female-led groups evolved to focus on women's reproductive rights, AIDS, and mental health. As the authors write, these groups struck a balance between working <em>with</em> and <em>against</em> current trends. Sometimes you need to craft legislation with officials; at other times, you have to rage against the machine with everything you've got. </p><p>Advocacy marked an important turning point in public health (and culture in general). These groups were tired of placating to a medical model that treated the male body as the standard. This wasn't limited to anatomy. As I <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/pandemic-warnings-rp-eddy" target="_self">wrote about last week</a>, a high-profile 1970s-era conference about the role of women on Wall St featured no women on stage. You can imagine what reproductive health looked like during that time. </p><p>Advocacy groups made real impact in public health. Then the money began pouring in. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"These groups were funded largely by individual donations with some foundation support, but in the late 1980s, newer women's health groups moved to professionalize, effectively splitting the women's health movement."</p><p>A number of groups resist corporate ties to this day, such as the National Women's Heath Network and Breast Cancer Action. Too often, however, groups argue that their existence depends on corporate funding. This can lead to uncomfortable compromises. </p><p>An estimated two-thirds of patient advocacy groups in America accept funds from the pharmaceutical industry. Pharma companies gave <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11673-019-09956-8.pdf" target="_blank">at least $116 million</a> to such groups in 2015 alone.</p><p>For example, over a three-year period, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), which was founded by two mothers whose sons suffered from schizophrenia, received nearly $12 million from 18 pharmaceutical companies. The largest donor was Prozac manufacturer, Eli Lilly. By 2008, three-quarters of NAMI's budget was funded by the pharmaceutical industry. It gets worse:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"An Eli Lilly executive was even 'on loan' to NAMI, paid by Eli Lilly, while he worked out of the NAMI office on 'strategic planning.'"</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQzNzk3Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyODMyOTMzM30.a6T2_mJigIQCILlxZNfADzKzNlY5QBvZEHNCkzq9Lf8/img.jpg?width=980" id="c9dff" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2f4c75f4489b818d2ee22fb5a2837e06" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="man sitting at "headache bar" pharmacy counter" />
<p class=""><br></p><p><span></span></p>A customer waiting for his medication at the Headache Bar in a pharmacy in Sydney, Australia. Among the items on sale are 'Paigees with Chlorophyll' and Alka Seltzer on tap.
Photo by Dennis Rowe/BIPs/Getty Images
<p>This influx of cash skews public understanding of drugs. It also influences advocates to overlook real problems caused by pharmaceutical interventions, especially when it comes to mental health.<br></p><p>For a real-world example, consider how Xanax came to market. As journalist Robert Whitaker <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e829xdb4AA" target="_blank">explains</a>, an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1463502/?page=1" target="_blank">initial study</a> was conducted to determine efficacy in treating panic attacks. After four weeks, Xanax was outperforming placebo, which is common with benzodiazepines over short-term usage. But it wasn't a four-week study; it was a 14-week study.</p><p>At the end of eight weeks, there was no difference in efficacy between Xanax and placebo.</p><p>At the conclusion of the study after 14 weeks, the placebo outperformed Xanax. By a lot.</p><p>Why is Xanax still prescribed for panic attacks? Because the pharmaceutical company, Upjohn, only published the four-week data. The 14-week data was not in its favor. Nearly forty years later, over <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/781816/alprazolam-sodium-prescriptions-number-in-the-us/" target="_blank">25 million</a> Americans receive a prescription despite its <a href="https://drugabuse.com/xanax/effects-use/" target="_blank">long list</a> of side effects and addictive profile. </p><p>As the authors note, many consumers are not aware of how advocacy groups are funded.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"An international study of groups in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and South Africa found that the extent of relationships with industry was inadequately disclosed in websites that addressed ten health conditions: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy, depression, Parkinson's disease, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis."</p><p>That's a tangled web of relationships. Pharmaceutical industry funding negatively impacts the work advocacy groups should be focused on: protecting us. NAMI, for example, claims that as a "natural ally" to the pharmaceutical industry, it helps consumers access "all scientifically proven treatments." When the industry ignores evidence of long-term damage caused by its treatments, you have to wonder what's being advocated. </p><p>Although, as the authors conclude, that question is easy to answer. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Instead of drawing insights from patient experience to set organizational agendas and challenge industry agendas, today's groups are silent on high prices and drug harms, oppose efforts to regulate these basic rights, and demand access to drugs that challenge the safety and effectiveness."</p><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
How #Unity2020 plans to end the two-party system, bring back Andrew Yang
The proposal calls for the American public to draft two candidates to lead the executive branch: one from the center-left, the other from the center-right.
02 July, 2020
Photo by David Becker/Getty Images
- The #Unity2020 plan was recently outlined by Bret Weinstein, a former biology professor, on the Joe Rogan Experience.
- Weinstein suggested an independent ticket for the 2020 presidential election: Andrew Yang and former U.S. Navy Admiral William McRaven.
- Although details of the proposal are sparse, surveys suggest that many Americans are cynical and frustrated with the two-party system.
<p>Americans are rigidly divided on many issues, but the idea that national politics is corrupt is not one of them. In recent years, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx" target="_blank">surveys</a> on Americans' views on political corruption and their trust in the federal government reveal that cynicism stretches across both parties, even though <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/25/voters_rate_political_corruption_as_americas_biggest_crisis_140156.html" target="_blank">diagnoses may differ</a>.<br></p><p>This widespread frustration has a logical consequence: <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/195920/americans-desire-third-party-persists-election-year.aspx" target="_blank">distrust of the two-party system</a>. And now, Americans face an upcoming presidential election between, arguably, the most controversial president in history, and a challenger whose chief selling point is: who he is not. </p><p>Is there a way out? Consider Unity2020 — a proposal for a new format of federal governance that aims to replace cynicism and partisanship with compromise and cooperation. </p><p>The <a href="https://medium.com/@ArticlesOfUnity/the-articles-of-unity-f544f930d336" target="_blank">proposal</a> is spearheaded by Bret Weinstein, a biologist, evolutionary theorist and cultural commentator associated with the Intellectual Dark Web. Weinstein made headlines in 2017 after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html" target="_blank">criticizing the demands</a> of student protesters at Evergreen State College, where he was formerly a professor of biology.</p>
<div id="9e158" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="63f950051e6bd3b9389dd650479f3589"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1278511477570166784" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Unity2020 is perhaps the most important political development in decades. It is urgently needed. The Exhausted Maj… https://t.co/Cn8X8jhx5J</div> — Brendan from Dharma (@Brendan from Dharma)<a href="https://twitter.com/brendan_dharma/statuses/1278511477570166784">1593655864.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Here's how the Unity2020 plan would work, according to a Medium <a href="https://medium.com/@ArticlesOfUnity/the-articles-of-unity-f544f930d336" target="_blank">post</a> titled "The Articles of Unity":</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We the people draft two candidates: one from the center-left, one from the center-right. Once elected, they agree to govern as a team. All decisions and appointments will be made jointly in the interests of the American public. Only when they cannot reach agreement, or when a decision does not allow for consultation, does the President decide independently. A coin flip determines which candidate runs at the top of the ticket."</p><p>Each candidate must possess three qualities:</p><ol><li>They must be patriotic</li><li>They must be highly capable</li><li>They must be courageous</li></ol><p>The post doesn't mention how these qualities would be defined, or who would judge prospective candidates.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"After four years in office, the order reverses for the next election," the post reads. "This continues until the American public chooses an alternative administration or one of the members of the team cannot run for re-election, at which point a new patriot would replace them."</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="32de3db8c3344a17afcc9d7589ac5456"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pRCzZp1J0v0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Who would fit the bill? On a recent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRCzZp1J0v0&t=9413s" target="_blank">episode</a> of the Joe Rogan Experience, Weinstein suggested two potential center-ish draftees: former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, and retired U.S. Navy Admiral William Harry McRaven, who oversaw the special operations raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Here we got two people, one of them, I think, will do so out of duty, the other one is crazy enough to want the job in the first place. And what are they? Well, they're both patriots, they're both courageous, and they're both highly capable. This is the road out."</p><p>Of course, many questions remain: How exactly would Americans go about drafting the two candidates? Do Americans actually want a coalition of two centrists? And are we really going to rely on a coin flip to determine who leads the executive branch for four years?</p>
<p>Logistical questions aside, the overall sentiment of the plan is something with which many Americans would likely agree.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The need for leadership has never been greater. Yet, the parties have never offered less."</p><p>The post continues:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We will not settle for the false choice presented to us. We demand better, in no uncertain terms. We propose a solution to unify our country such that it may deliver on its immense promise. We intend to use the available tools of American democracy in a new and galvanizing way. We are keenly aware of the full history of American third parties; we will not be a spoiler or be relegated to a footnote. We fully intend to seat an administration that represents the interests of a clear and overwhelming majority of Americans."</p>If you want to get involved with Unity2020, check out this Change.org <a href="https://www.change.org/p/american-citizens-draft-andrew-yang-admiral-william-mcraven-for-a-2020-independent-ticket-unity2020?original_footer_petition_id=20691936&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=8&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uALTvXQEAAAAAXvpQ7IFx%2B9szMzViZjYzZA%3D%3D" target="_blank">petition</a> that aims to put Yang and McRaven on a 2020 independent ticket.
Keep reading
Show less
Politics is now a dating deal-breaker, according to new research
A massive Dating.com study reveals just how important politics are in the dating world right now.
12 June, 2020
Pixabay
- According to a new survey from a popular dating website, 84 percent of people currently looking for a relationship through dating apps won't even consider dating someone with opposite political views.
- Additionally, 67 percent of the dating site's users have admitted to previously ending a relationship due to opposing political views.
- Licensed marriage therapist Dr. Gary Brown says that there is more "venom and animosity" now than there was during the Vietnam War.
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul><div class="redactor-editor" dir="ltr" placeholder="Start writing..."><p>We are living in an extremely polarizing time in politics. With an American president that you either wildly support or vehemently oppose, and a world that's been pushed to the brink in more ways than one in the last few years, it's no surprise that conversations about politics could lead to make or break moments in budding new romances.</p>According to <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/datingcom-reveals-sharing-your-political-party-might-be-a-dating-deal-breaker-301073270.html" target="_blank">a new survey</a> from popular dating website Dating.com, 84 percent of people currently looking for a relationship through dating apps won't even consider dating someone with opposite political views, and 67 percent of users admitted to previously ending a relationship due to opposing political views.</div><ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
Exploring the connections between romance and politics
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4OTA0Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDEyNDU2N30.PtZ8GeZv4bc8U0wTTwP_zPcmzZq2oul73sSsqDW06Tk/img.jpg?width=980" id="4245b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6d5d17ac69c91176f0090f738a5badd5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="vote pins concept of voter registration" />Sex and politics have been closely linked for a long time.
Photo by 3dfoto on Shutterstock
<p>From the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/politics/george-and-kellyanne-conway.html" target="_blank">extremely public disagreements</a> between White House advisor Kellyanne Conway and her husband, to the tense argument you and your partner had on voting day, politics can be a breaking point for any relationship.</p><p>Sex and intimacy provide a strong driving force for humans that reaches far beyond the confines of the bedroom. Our personal relationships influence our behaviors, our thoughts, our motivations, and our even our political opinions, to some extent.</p><p><strong>If your sexual preferences align, your political values might, too. </strong></p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916310364" target="_blank">According to this 2017 study</a>, traditional behaviors in the bedroom (what some might deem to be <a href="https://sofiagray.com/vanilla-sex-gets-a-bad-wrap-heres-why-its-actually-great/" target="_blank">"vanilla" sex</a>) can be closely related to more conservative orientations, whereas more adventurous sexual endeavors can suggest more liberal ideas. </p><p>Whether you're swiping right or scrolling through, it can be hard to find a match who's values and opinions are in line with yours. While some minor disagreements and conflicts can actually <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/conscious-communication/201703/why-conflict-is-healthy-relationships" target="_blank">be healthy in a relationship</a>, pairing up with someone who has opposing political views might just mean you have two very different sets of morals that may not bring out the best in each other.</p><p><strong>Defining dating expectations allows you to see how important political views are in the beginning of a relationship. </strong></p><p><a href="https://www.itsjustlunch.com/do-politics-and-dating-make-a-match" target="_blank">According to a study</a> released by It's Just Lunch, 50 percent of single men and women stated that dating someone with opposing political views was fine for short-term relationships but would not be ideal for long-term commitments. </p><p>If you're looking for something casual and fun, perhaps politics doesn't need to play as big of a role as it would if you were swiping right to find a long-term relationship. </p><p><strong>Navigating politics and relationships is more difficult now than ever before.</strong></p><p>That same study by It's Just Lunch has around 40 percent of men and women claiming they believe it's "too risky" to bring up politics on a first date. </p><p>It's not just dating website studies - therapists around the world are struggling to defuse politically-charged landmines in relationships. <a href="https://drgarybrowntherapy.com/" target="_blank">Gary Brown</a>, Ph.D. and licensed marriage therapist explains to <a href="https://www.womenshealthmag.com/life/a19943112/relationship-therapists-politics-advice/" target="_blank">Women's Health Magazine</a> that now more than ever we are living in such an intense political climate that it is undoubtedly causing tension not just in romantic relationships but in friendships and among colleagues as well. </p><p>"It's everywhere," Brown explains. "I can't remember a time, not even during the Vietnam war, where there was as much venom and animosity as there is now. Even people who deeply love each other are falling victim to the 'politics of personal destruction', where it's not enough to disagree with someone but you have to destroy them and everything they stand for in the process." </p>How to (respectfully) broach the topic of politics with a potential match
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzM4OTA0NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTU4NjY2M30.aP7RVtnmbxWyR8TvF2X4KkAOPGQzyj_yH1vSz9irjV0/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C52%2C0%2C52&height=700" id="25b1e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4dee3450c09733a0f67664f4896e2621" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="man and women disagreeing arguing on couch" />Polarizing political views can be a deal-breaker - here's how to navigate the topic of politics on a date.
Photo by fizkes on Shutterstock
<p>"During a time where we are surrounded by politics, it is important to look at the impact that it has on the online dating industry," Vice President of Dating.com, Maria Sullivan, explains. "We have seen a huge increase in political terms being added to user profiles."</p><p>According to the study, 72 percent of singles would rather you flaunt that you voted at all (rather than who specifically you voted for) in your bio. More than half the participants surveyed said that bringing up a discussion about politics too early can be a huge turn-off.</p><p>So how do you make sure you make your view known while not being too pushy about the subject too early on? </p><p><strong>Use non-confrontational language and keep things vague in the beginning. </strong>If voting is important to you, make that known and suggest that you're open to talking politics with anyone who is interested. </p><p><strong>Choose the right time.</strong> Perhaps the first words you say shouldn't be an accusatory statement about who they voted for and why. Bringing up political views is an important test to see if the match is right, but choose the right time to insert politics into the conversation. </p><p><strong>Be open-minded (or respectful, at the very least).</strong> While you may have a hard stance on your political views (as many people do), being respectful of other people's opinions is often the best approach and the thing that might open the conversation up in a healthy way.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
