Internet Use Policy Agreement Form: Fill & Download for Free

I don not know whom you consider to be "the world's brightest minds," but I have listed a few below that would oppose fossil fuel use because of the effects of CO2 emissions on the Earth's atmosphere and the Climate Change that results from increasing CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere.Who Are the Smartest People in the World?(from Left to Right: Stephen Hawking, Garry Kasparov and Noam Chomsky)Who Are the Smartest People in the World?Stephen Hawking, renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist“As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and a period of unprecedented climate change, scientists have a special responsibility, once again, to inform the public and to advise leaders about the perils that humanity faces…As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth…"Stephen Hawking: Human-Caused Climate Change Dire Threat To Future Of WorldNoam Chomsky, “world’s top public intellectual” (renaissance intellectual)Philosopher, cognitive scientist and political observer Noam Chomsky has been called the “father of modern linguistics,” and his revolutionary work has had an impact on everything from artificial intelligence to music theory.It is the first time in human history when we not only--we have the capacity to destroy the conditions for a decent survival. And it's already happening. I mean, just take a look at species destruction. Species destruction now is estimated to be at about the level of 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the earth and ended the period of the dinosaurs, wiped out huge numbers of species. Same level today, and we're the asteroid. And you take a look at what's happening in the world, I mean, anybody looking at this from outer space would be astonished.Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (3/3)Page on 3news.co.nzNeil Degrass Tyson, astrophysicist, cosmologist, Director of the Hayden Planetarium"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."“Now we have a time where people are cherry picking science,” he said. “The science is not political. That’s like repealing gravity because you gained 10 pounds last week.”“When politicians start analyzing the science, I don’t know what to say at that point,” Tyson said on CNN in 2014. “Are we going to wait until the coastlines get redrawn as the glaciers melt off of Antarctica and Greenland?”Neil DeGrasse Tyson Has Some Choice Words For Anyone Who Votes For A Climate DenierSir David Attenborough, English broadcaster and naturalist“I have been lucky enough to spend my life exploring the world’s oceans, forests and deserts. But the Earth, with its spectacular variety of creatures and landscapes, is now in danger. Just one thing, however, would be enough to halt climate change. If clean energy became cheaper than coal, gas or oil, fossil fuel would simply stay in the ground.”David Attenborough backs huge Apollo-style clean energy research planLeave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urgesRichard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and authorWorld-famous scientist Richard Dawkins is no stranger to controversy. The evolutionary biologist shot to fame with his book The Selfish Gene and cemented his reputation as a strident atheist with another best-seller, The God Delusion. Professor Dawkins has just published the second volume of his memoirs, Brief Candle in the Dark. In it, he discusses his job as Oxford University's Professor of Public Understanding of Science. Yet recent research suggests a growing gulf between the views of scientists and the public on issues like vaccines and climate change. So I asked him, does he fear people are losing their faith in science?Richard Dawkins: I’m not that pessimistic. I think that we have a job to do. I think scientists have a job to do to try to get the message across. There may be a certain amount of organised opposition. In the case of climate change, the organised opposition comes from industry, perhaps especially the oil industry. I’m not sure. And in the case of creationism, of course, it comes from religion. Not sure where it comes from in the case of the anti-vaxers.RAW DATA: Lisa Owen interviews evolutionary biologist and author Richard DawkinsSir Richard Branson, English businessman and investor. He is best known as the founder of Virgin Group, which comprises more than 400 companies.Branson said he was "enormously impressed" with Apple's chief executive for telling climate change sceptics to ditch shares in the technology company.At Apple's annual meeting last month, Tim Cook responded angrily to questions from a rightwing thinktank, the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), about the profitability of investing in renewable energy, saying: "If you want me to do things only for ROI [return on investment] reasons, you should get out of this stock."Writing on his blog, Branson said he "wholeheartedly" supported Cook's comments and that every business in the world should emulate Cook's goal of wanting "to leave the world better than we found it", an aim Branson said Virgin shared too."The NCPPR stated there is an 'absence of compelling data' on climate change. If 97% of climate scientists agreeing that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities isn't compelling data, I don't know what is," Branson said, referring to a survey last year of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals that found 97.1% agreed climate change is man-made.Branson said that businesses should take a stand against climate scepticism. "More businesses should be following Apple's stance in encouraging more investment in sustainability. While Tim [Cook] told sustainability sceptics to 'get out of our stock', I would urge climate change deniers to get out of our way," he said.Richard Branson tells climate deniers to 'get out of the way'Virgin Earth ChallengeThe risk of doing nothing - Virgin.comCarbon War RoomWe are urging country and business leaders alike to strive towards net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 through committing to long-term targets and developing strategies to reduce emissions.Page on bteam.orgTim Cook, Apple CEOUnder Cook’s leadership Apple has stepped up its commitment to curbing its environmental impact, pledging to supply 100% of its power from renewable sources and crack down on the use of minerals mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that can fund war and human rights abuses.At the meeting last week, shareholders voted down a resolution by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) - an avid campaigner against action to tackle climate change - that would force Apple to disclose more information about the costs of its investment in tackling climate change.However, Justin Danhof of the NCPPR pursued the line by asking Cook if Apple’s environmental investments increased or decreased the company’s bottom line. He also asked Cook to commit Apple to only investing in measures that were profitable.Cook became visibly angry at Danhof’s questions and categorically rejected the NCPPR’s climate scepticism, according to the Mac Observer’s Bryan Chaffin, who attended the event. He told shareholders that securing a return on investment was not the only reason for investing in environmental measures.“When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues.Tim Cook tells climate change sceptics to ditch Apple sharesSteven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard UniversityStephen Pinker is an experimental psychologist and one of the world’s foremost writers on language, mind, and human nature. Currently Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, Pinker has also taught at Stanford and MIT. His research on vision, language, and social relations has won prizes from the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Institution of Great Britain, the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, and the American Psychological Association. He has also received eight honorary doctorates, several teaching awards at MIT and Harvard, and numerous prizes for his books The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, and The Better Angels of Our Nature. He is Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and often writes for The New York Times, Time, and other publications. He has been named Humanist of the Year, Prospect magazine’s “The World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals,” Foreign Policy’s “100 Global Thinkers,” and Time magazine’s “The 100 Most Influential People in the World Today.”http://stevenpinker.com/biocvEven climate change, that archetypal case of humanity remaining inert in the face of scientific knowledge, doesn’t do it. “I think it would be foolhardy to say we’ll solve it, but I don’t think it’s foolhardy to say we can solve it,” Pinker says. “History tells us there have been cases in which the global community has adopted agreements to better collective welfare: the ban on atmospheric nuclear testing would be an example. The ban on commercial whaling. The end of piracy and privateering as a legitimate form of international competition. The banning of chlorofluorocarbons.”In this domain as elsewhere, in Pinker’s judgement, science plus judicious optimism may yet win the day. Or, as he puts it: “We’re not on a trolley-track to oblivion.”In conversation with… Steven PinkerLawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and director of its Origins, also named the 2015 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanists AssociationKrauss lauds the Pope for the his no-nonsense acceptance of anthropogenic global warming, and his warning that climate change has the most severe impact on the poor. But then Krauss faults Francis for his solution, which is apparently to blame consumerism and rule population control out of bounds.Krauss and Pinker on the Pope's misguided climate-change bicyclePope FrancisAt the end of the day, business is a human enterprise and must strive for true human development and the common good. In the years ahead, the challenges will be large. How can we develop the technologies so that we can move to a zero-carbon economy? How can we boost living standards of the developing world in a sustainable way and give all people the ability to live the lives God intended them to live? How can we make sure all have access to nutrition, energy, healthcare and education? These are huge challenges, but we must face up to them. The answer lies with all working together—governments, international institutions, businesses, NGOS, and religions. It lies in forthright and honest debate and dialogue. But it begins in the call to ecological conversation outlined so clearly in this great encyclical.Business insights from Laudato Si'Laudato si' (24 May 2015)Pulitzer Prize winning author Chris Hedges“The system of corporate capitalism, or what political philosopher Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarianism, is not only not sustainable, but it is unravelling. We can’t continue this kind of assault on the climate, we can’t continue these kinds of wars, we can’t continue the reconfiguration of the global economy into a global neo-feudalism, where money is concentrated into the hands of an all-powerful, tiny, oligarchic elite at the expense of everyone else. We are already seeing the signs of disintegration. You look at the political farce that is happening in the United States because the system has been seized by corporate oligarchs and no-longer responds to the grievances, needs, justices, or rights of the citizenry. You see it in the refugee crisis that is besetting Europe, you see it in the wildfires that are sweeping across California. We better wake up and we better respond quickly, or we’re headed for massive societal breakdown. It is already beginning.”Chris Hedges to tell Vancouver the world needs rebels to lead a revolutionDavid Suzuki, C.C., O.B.C.Professor Emeritus, University of British ColumbiaScience broadcaster and environmental activistCo-Founder of the David Suzuki FoundationFor nearly 35 years, David Suzuki has brought science into the homes of millions on the Canadian television series, The Nature of Things. He has become a godfather of the environmental movement, and in a poll of his fellow Canadians last fall he was named that country’s most admired figure. Nonetheless, his outspoken views on climate change and the government’s collusion with the petrochemical industry in developing Canada’s oil-rich tar sands have made him the target of relentless attacks from his nation’s prime minister, corporations and right-wing ideologues.“Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness. …I think that we are being willfully blind to the consequences for our children and grandchildren. It’s an intergenerational crime,” Suzuki tells Moyers.Time to Get Real on Climate Change | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.comMauri Pelto, GlaciologistProfessor of Environmental Science, Science Program ChairDirector, North Cascade Glacier Climate Project, Nichols CollegeScientists, Tribe Study Shrinking Washington State Glacier - Flathead BeaconMeet Mauri Pelto, GlaciologistFrom a Glacier's Perspective - By Mauri PeltoFrom a Glaciers PerspectiveNorth Cascade Glacier Climate ProjectMauri Pelto | More Than ScientistsPine Island Glacier hypothesis to emergent eventDr. Eric ChivianDr. Eric Chivian is Founder of the Center for Health and the Global Environment and directs the Biodiversity and Human Health Progam. He is also an Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. In 1980, he co-founded (with Professors Bernard Lown, Herbert Abrams, and James Muller) International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. During the past 18 years, he has worked to involve physicians in the United States and abroad in efforts to protect the environment, and to increase public understanding of the potential human health consequences of global environmental change.Dr. Eric ChivianRichard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California,Berkeley and a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory.Physicist Richard Muller became a hero to the climate denial community a few years ago, after saying some pretty harsh things about climate science, and scientists.He started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to double check estimates of global warming and, in his mind, answer the criticisms of existing temperature reconstructions. Not surprisingly to the mainstream community, he came up with the same answer as all other groups over the last 40 years. The planet is warming, and the only plausible explanation is increased greenhouse gases.http://climatecrocks.com/2015/01/09/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-global-warming/Richard Muller (E)Home - Berkeley EarthRichard A. MullerRobin ChaseRobin Chase is a transportation entrepreneur. She is co-founder and former CEO of Zipcar, the largest carsharing company in the world; Buzzcar, a peer to peer carsharing service in France (now merged with Drivy); Peer Inc.; and GoLoco, an online ridesharing community. She is also co-founder and Executive Chairman of Veniam, a vehicle communications company building the networking fabric for the Internet of Moving Things.http://www.robinchase.org/#about-robinFavorable economics today cloud the minds of many legislators and business interests to cling to our system of underpriced fossil fuels. Despite the best efforts of Congressmen Waxman and Markey, the climate bill out of Congress proposed 2020 goals of only 17 percent reductions in CO2 over 2005 levels and passed by the narrowest of margins. Science tells us our 2020 goals need to 25 to 40% reductions over 1990 levels. Senators Boxer and Kerry have proposed 20%, a step in the right direction.This fall, Congress continues the debate over how quickly our country addresses our broken energy status quo. Just as in moral battles fought before, the correct action and way of life will ultimately prevail. Let's pass a climate bill that reduces CO2 emissions, on a timetable and in a quantity that science dictates, to avert the terrible calamity and suffering that lies ahead if we don't.Fossil Fuel Is the New Slavery: Morally and Economically CorruptJames HansenAdjunct Professor, Columbia University Earth InstituteFormer Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space StudiesJames Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist, is one of the most impassioned and trusted voices on global warming. People listen closely to what he says about how drastically the climate is changing.In 1981, Hansen led a team of NASA scientists in a seminal article in Science, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.”They warned: “Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”James Hansen Spells Out Climate Danger Of The ‘Hyper-Anthropocene’ AgeBut when Hansen suggests what to do about it, many of those same people tune him out. Some even roll their eyes. What message is he peddling that few seemingly want to hear? It’s twofold: No. 1, solar and wind power cannot meet the world’s voracious demand for energy, especially given the projected needs of emerging economies like India and China, and No. 2, nuclear power is our best hope to get off of fossil fuels, which are primarily responsible for the heat-trapping gases cooking the planet.Can Nuclear Energy Really Solve Climate Change?September 16, 2015: 33 prominent climate scientists and advocates join calls for MIT to heed its own committee’s advice to divest from fossil fuels as part of a multi-faceted climate action plan.Open Letter - MIT Climate CountdownAn open letter signed by 33 hugely-prominent names has called on MIT to divest fossil fuel investments from its $12.4 billion endowment.Climatologist James Hansen, actor Mark Ruffalo, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund President Stephen Heintz are among the 33 names signed to the open letter, which urges “the world’s foremost citadel of science” to divest from fossil fuels.The letter, addressed to MIT President Rafael Reif, who is serving as the 17th President of MIT since July 2012, is in no way hesitant to label the issue as “the singular great issue of our time,” and that MIT has “an opportunity … to provide great leadership by divesting the Institute’s endowment from fossil fuels as part of a comprehensive climate action plan.”These 33 signatories are not the only ones calling for MIT to take a stand on climate change by divesting, however. Over 3,000 MIT community members, including students, undergrads, and 43% of the Class of 2017, signed a petition “telling MIT to take the lead against climate change by divesting from the fossil fuel industry.” 83 members of the MIT faculty wrote their own open letter, as did a group of 29 student groups.And in a striking display, the Cambridge City Council, of Massachusetts, passed resolution R-10 officially “commending MIT’s Presidential Advisory Committee on Climate Change on their bold endorsement of divestment.”MIT Under Mounting Pressure To Divest From Fossil FuelsWilliam F. RuddimanPROFESSOR EMERITUS · PH.D., COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY"Since entering ’semi-retirement’ in 2001, my research has concentrated on the climatic role farmers played during the last several thousand years by clearing land, raising livestock, and irrigating rice paddies, all of which put increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This led to the ‘early anthropogenic hypothesis’ that early agriculture caused the observed (and anomalous) reversals in the natural declines of atmospheric CO2 (carbon dioxide) near 7000 years ago and CH4 (methane) near 5000 years ago."Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, U.Va.Paleoanthropologist Rick Potts is the director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program and curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History.“Now we find ourselves where the planetary scale of human influence is unquestionable,” Potts said. “We have the rapidity of change in landscape that is quite different from anything that has ever been experienced before in human history. The planet is packed with people. Our ways of changing our immediate surroundings and also … the atmosphere and oceans affect people we have never met and will never meet.“We have before us a grand societal project, and that grand societal project is to be carried out by the first species that has awareness of extinction – including its own extinction but also the extinction of other forms of life on Earth.“It seems to me that many of the problems we have addressed here haven’t yet brought up the matter of whether the scale of the problem can be matched by the scale of our compassion. We are a species capable of developing principles, of living in a purposeful and meaningful world, and acting according to those principles and values – depending upon how much we care.”“The future will be a world of our own making.”Exploring a 'future world of our own making' - Yale Climate ConnectionsThe Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins ProgramOver recent years, various organizations have set out to estimate just how widespread the supposed “scientific consensus” on AGW actually is. Two recent efforts were conducted by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University and by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The STATS survey found that 84% of climate scientists surveyed “personally believe human-induced warming is occurring” and that “Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.” The STATS survey involved a random sampling of “489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union” and it has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 4%.The Pew survey was taken in early 2009 and asked over 2000 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) their opinion on various scientific issues, including climate disruption. 84% of AAAS respondents felt that “warming is due to human activity” compared to only 10% who felt that “warming is due to natural causes.” The AAAS has over 10 million members, and the results of the survey are statistically valid for the entire population with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 2.5%.84% of 10 million scientist members of the AAAS is 8.4 million scientists who agree that climate disruption is human-caused. 84% of the climate scientists (conservatively just the members of the atmospheric science group of the AGU) is, conservatively, 6,000 scientists who have direct and expert knowledge of climate disruption.Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project"The regular process of economic evolution is that businesses are left with stranded assets all the time," says Nick Robins, who runs HSBC's Climate Change Centre. "Think of film cameras, or typewriters. The question is not whether this will happen. It will. Pension systems have been hit by the dot-com and credit crunch. They'll be hit by this." Still, it hasn't been easy to convince investors, who have shared in the oil industry's record profits. "The reason you get bubbles," sighs Leaton, "is that everyone thinks they're the best analyst – that they'll go to the edge of the cliff and then jump back when everyone else goes over."Global Warming's Terrifying New MathSee Also:Brian DunningAbout That 1970s Global Cooling...The Science and Politics of Global WarmingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc)Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeClimate Debate DailyNature Climate ChangeMoney Men Tally Cost Of Climate Change2015: the year businesses recognize that climate change is realInvesting in Climate Change Study l Mercerhttp://climatevoices.org/speakers/http://blogs.agu.org/about-the-blogosphere/Earth's Future - Wiley Online Libraryhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000226/fullThe Clean Revolutionhttp://www.science.gov/browse/w_119A1.htm

The anti-drug campaigns aimed at youth in the USA and Britain have failed, including Just Say No! and D.A.R.E., and a huge one was counter-productive by normalizing marijuana usage. Those campaigns used logic, which is notoriously ineffective to convince addicts and alcoholics to stop using their substances. The U.S. drug overdose mortality rate is still skyrocketing upward, and naloxone will only delay solutions and keep addicts alive to overdose again. We are in big trouble if we do not change tactics. We need to try shock, awe and emotion to convey the awful truth and disapproval about illegal drugs like cocaine, meth and opioids. We need to stop tip-toeing around the problem, worrying that we will hurt the feelings of addicts. We need to follow the one successful example of a democratic country that fully overcame its opioid crisis and heroin epidemic: Singapore.The system I propose would not be for marijuana, but for the hard-core drugs of opioids, cocaine and methamphetamine. Initially, I would apply it to drug traffickers, in public, and make sure it was also broadcast on the internet and perhaps also TV. Young people would see it on the internet, and the message would be undeniable. Youth will visualize how much society disapproves of hard addictive drugs. Each State could handle the matter differently.Here is my truthful answer to the question:Public Judicial Corporal Punishment (“PJCP”). Compared to incarceration, which deprives prisoners of almost all positive reinforcement for constructive behavior, PJCP after the pain leaves open for months or years the entire spectrum of positive reinforcement provided by families, jobs, the society of normal people, participation in legal organizations, hobbies, interests, the outdoors and personal liberty.Two of my professors at Vanderbilt Law School thought PJCP was a good idea. One was a left-wing labor lawyer, a feminist, who thought it would equalize the genders and likely knew it was last used in the United States to curtail wife-beating, which is now called “intimate partner violence.” The other was our popular criminal law professor who decided not to publish on the subject since it would hurt his career.The presidents carved into Mt. Rushmore favored public whippings of offending citizens. George Washington won our freedom with it, starting in 1776. Abraham Lincoln employed it, and Teddy Roosevelt recommended it in a speech to Congress, specifically as an antidote for wife-beating. Who among us can claim to be wiser than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt?In 1994, when American teenager Michael P. Fay was caned for vandalism in Singapore, one large survey showed that 53% of Americans approved of judicial corporal punishment.[1] Another poll showed 49% of Americans approved, while 48% disapproved.[2] Claude Waife of South Bend, Indiana wrote, “That American punk is getting exactly what he deserves. If we had similar laws, I’m sure our streets wouldn’t be under control of the thugs and slugs.”[3] Despite a chorus of objections from bleeding hearts, Singapore enjoyed then and still enjoys one of the lowest crime rates in the world. At the same time, Singapore has a comprehensive drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation plan for teenagers, 97.5% of whom would “just say no” to drugs.[4] Singapore has the lowest level of drug abuse in the world regarding opiates, cocaine and ecstasy and the second lowest for cannabis and amphetamines.[5]PJCP punishes the offender and then puts the offender right back into normal society. Incarceration punishes by confining the offender in a sick, abnormal, criminal society.Deuteronomy 25:1-3 prescribes PJCP after a judicial hearing and a finding of guilt. What if, after all the things modern civilization has done to get us to our pitiful conditions, we find out the Bible was right all along? What if we believe the educators, psychologists, doctors and mental health professionals who authored The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior?[6]There is widespread prejudice and ignorance concerning PJCP. This ignorance is in the profession of behavioral analysis itself. In his book review of The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior, Dr. James M. Johnston, then of the University of Florida, observed:“For example, many professionals hold one or more of the following statements to be generally true:1. Punishment characteristically produces an undesirable emotional state.2. Punishment tends to generate aggressive behavior.3. Punishment typically produces disruption of social relations.4. Punishment usually results in escape or avoidance behavior.5. The punished behavior is often replaced with other inappropriate behavior.6. Punishment tends to result in a generalized suppression of responding.7. When a behavior is punished in one situation, it will likely increase in situations where it is not punished.In fact, none of these statements is a general characteristic of the effects of properly administered punishment procedures.[7]”PJCP has been effective everywhere rational people have ever tried it, although the ease of use resulted in significant abuses when not applied with wisdom, moderation, proportionality, limits and judicial authority. In fact, public whippings were first outlawed in the United States because they were too effective at enforcing white supremacy in the defeated South. Union generals after 1865 outlawed it in the South. Within the last two decades, the greatest disparities in incarceration, in favor of whites and against African Americans, were in the same Northern States constituting the Union from 1861 to 1865. Today, most of the former Union States still incarcerate an above-average percentage of their African American male populations, and most of the former Confederate States even now incarcerate a below-average percent of their African American male populations.[8] The greatest racial disparities as of 2016 were in Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin.[9] Another reason for its disuse was that judges did not like having to witness it or order it executed.The penitentiary was to isolate prisoners, have them change into penitents and thereby improve their characters. Baron Auckland advised imposing PJCP and brandings with great caution, and only to crimes considered infamous.[10] Cautious use of PJCP might include using it after several drug treatments or parole conditions have already failed, but before incarceration or by previous agreement with authorities.The brain disease paradigm holds that addicts are sick, that we should treat medically and that punishment is not appropriate for the diseased. Psychologists state otherwise: “Extensive scientific evidence indicates that reinforcement plays an important role in the genesis, maintenance, and recovery from substance use disorders.”[11] Reinforcement includes both rewards and punishments. In addition to ignoring the effects of reinforcement, some problems with brain disease logic are that few of those who need treatment seek it, only some treatment is evidence-based, sometimes addicts leave their treatment programs early and some 85% relapse within one year after treatment. The huge majority are in denial, angry, rationalize, avoid the topic, do not believe they need treatment, do not want to quit, cannot afford it, do not have insurance coverage or otherwise do not pursue abstinence. Drug treatment would help more people if there were strong incentives for addicts to enter, complete and continue treatment and abstinence. The experts call for transformational and “innovative approaches to increase treatment access for individuals with substance use disorders.”[12] The discussed offerings are not likely what they had in mind. But if the purpose of PJCP was to cure addicts of their addictions civilly, then it would surely pass constitutional muster.[13]Criminals and addicts need to be convinced that their lives will improve if they obey the law and stay clean. Logic, upon which our current criminal sentencing and drug treatment systems are based, and the sound arguments in support of personal reform, are often ineffectual and sometimes backfire. How does society break through the personal outer shells of denial, impulsivity, thrill-seeking, selfishness, self-delusion, dishonesty, ignorance and outright stupidity? How do we promptly and emphatically convince offenders and addicts that they need to change for their own good and that society strongly disapproves of their conduct? How do we overcome the sinister power of the drug-addicted brain?[There is] evidence that people addicted to recreational drugs respond to small changes in their personal situations. For example, the receipt of small financial rewards or the avoidance of 24 hours in jail by providing clean urine samples, substantially decreased drug use in people with drug addiction. The responsiveness of drug users to these small incentives is hard to reconcile with the claim that drug use is a compulsive behaviour over which people who are addicted have little or no control.[14] How might drug addicts respond to big changes in their personal situations?The credible threat of PJCP, without ever using it, provides, encourages, forces or constitutes, together with post-discharge adherence monitoring and checkups, most of the criteria needed for a successful recovery from drug abuse, to-wit: problem orientation, desire for help, self-efficacy, self-help involvement, and a recovery environment.[15] It would work on drunk drivers, too, if they were subject to testing for a few years after conviction. PJCP could be suspended or eliminated upon completion of drug treatment and/or time in a recovery residence, a series of clean urine, blood, hair or other tests for intoxicants or any other pro-social behavior.“Thousands of studies illustrate potency of painful events inducing learning where mechanisms of learning are investigated using Pavlovian paradigms, the majority of which use pain (electrical shock) as the unconditioned stimulus to which various events are associated to. [S]tudies repeatedly show that single painful stimuli are learned and remembered for weeks and months. Such studies also illustrate that once the associated learning occurs then the extinction of this association requires repeated exposure of the organism to the conditioned stimulus in the absence of the painful event.”[16] Michel Foucault equated punishment with learning and curing.PJCP, when reinstituted, might cause addicts and alcoholics to flock to drug addiction treatment programs, rehabilitation centers, The Salvation Army and every other system or program that will help them avoid PJCP. The number of people subjected to public PJCP is likely to be small compared to the droves of people who choose less painful socially acceptable routes. In most cases, the redirection of government checks, an overdose leading to 30 days in mandatory buprenorphine or methadone maintenance, some form of drug treatment, the stocks or the pillory would precede PJCP. All of those sanctions are less expensive than prison.Many believe there is a place in the brain where we feel or respond to pain. Not true. There are at least six places in the brain where we experience, feel, respond or process pain: “Analysis of experimental pain neuroimaging shows six areas of the brain that consistently respond to acute pain and are believed to play an important role in the sensory-discriminative, cognitive, and affective aspects of pain processing. These are the thalamus, the insular cortex (IC), the primary and secondary somatosensory cortices (SI and SII), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and the prefrontal cortex (PFC).”[17]Pain has many facets and dimensions. There are two kinds of pain, sensory and psychological. PJCP inflicts sensory and psychological pain together, multiplying the effects of each. The brain disease paradigm of drug addiction emphasizes the neuronal adaptations caused by drug addiction and does not fully employ the three types of learning, which I discuss below, and reversal of neuronal adaptations. Public PJCP involves all three types of learning plus changes in brain neurons and neuropathy, neuroplasticity. Probably the social learning and psychological aspects are the most powerful aspects of PJCP and pain. The offender is helpless, guilty and everyone knows why he or she is receiving punishment. Humans do not like to be shamed in public and will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid it, keep it from happening again or reverse it with some public accomplishment. Humans dislike floggings, which are more painful by virtue of public administration. PJCP further controls through physiological, cognitive and behavioral means. Even some glands are involved in mediating pain.Reduce Intimate Partner Violence. President Theodore Roosevelt in his December 6, 1904 State of the Union message, said:“There are certain offenders, whose criminality takes the shape of brutality and cruelty towards the weak, who need a special type of punishment. The wife-beater, for example, is inadequately punished by imprisonment; for imprisonment may often mean nothing to him, while it may cause hunger and want to the wife and children who have been the victims of his brutality. Probably some form of corporal punishment would be the most adequate way of meeting this kind of crime.[18]”In 2016, the Surgeon General linked intimate partner violence to drug abuse.[19]In Springfield, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln and his friends used corporal punishment on an alcoholic cobbler who was beating his wife. Lincoln told the offender that they would whip him if he beat his wife again, which he later did. The vigilantes caught and restrained the wife-beater, then summoned his wife to whip her husband with a tree branch.[20] Lincoln and his friends thought it was funny. Despite threatening retaliation, the chastened Springfield wife-beater did not later offend against his wife.[21]PJCP offers to lessen the indirect social costs of massive incarceration, which are felt by women and children in the form of lowered income and family disruption.”[22] Delaware was the last state in the Union to abolish PJCP. “It [wa]s, however, stiffly contended by Delaware magistrates that as a restraint over wife-beaters and other cruel and vicious criminals, the whipping post is a distinct success and of marked benefit in its influence in the community.”[23]PJCP offsets the physical imbalance between genders. “States that aggressively target intimate partner violence (IPV) in their healthcare systems have lower rates of HIV infection among women, according to a new study led by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health. The findings reinforce the belief that exposure to intimate partner violence increases a woman’s risk for HIV infection and suggest that integrating comprehensive IPV policies at the state level can positively impact women’s health.”[24]PJCP equalizes the genders significantly by countering the greater physical power of most husbands, boyfriends, assailants and fighters. It curtails intimate partner violence as long as threats against women exist and after most administrations of PJCP. It would provide “the bottom” many spousal abusers need. PJCP could provide the incentive aggressive intimate partners need to stop beating their partners. Most of the time, in the old days, PJCP was only needed once where the possibility of being caught in the future was high. The last State to outlaw it was Delaware in 1974, and by coincidence, that is when massive imprisonment started in the United States.Stepped-Up Response. The United Nations in June of 2018 said the international community needs to step up its responses to cope with the increased amount and diversity of addictive drugs in the world. Here is a stepped-up response:“The hallmark of a public health problem is that it occurs frequently throughout a population and can be prevented through population-based interventions designed to modify individual behaviors.”[25] The federal government, the States, cities and counties with appropriate legislation should reinstitute traditional public judicial corporal punishment (PJCP) as described in Deuteronomy 25:1-3 and as practiced in Colonial America and our early Republic.[26] PJCP would supplement or replace all the other punishment routes, methods and laws, simply giving the Courts more options to punish crimes. This means adopting as criminal or civil punishment the stocks, the pillory, public whippings, perhaps branding and other methods of PJCP, including in some cases shock collars at the option of authorities, all within the sound discretion of the judge or jury and within a sentencing schedule adopted by the individual State, city or U.S. A key element of public PJCP is public humiliation, shaming, the creating of emotional pain that will stick with offenders over time and more importantly impress the innocent. Usually, PJCP executed in a local environment where the probability of future apprehension was high only had to be imposed once. A few took it a second time according to Texan William Byrd, but after that, the punished person usually obeyed.[27] This is what the British Navy found after a study.[28] Compliant sailors, the majority, did not need any corporal punishment, which is why they had all hands witness PJCP.High-intensity punishment delivered early in the process of extinguishing behavior is effective.[29] “The higher the intensity of punishment, the greater degree of suppression produced.”[30] “[A] large body of evidence suggests that the effects of punishment are not temporary and that the effects of high-intensity punishment often endure better than those of reinforcement.”[31] “The positive side effects of punishment typically consist of improvements in social behavior, emotional responsiveness, imitation and discrimination learning, appropriate play, and attention.”[32]To those who oppose PJCP for addictions like heroin, I would have them tell me what the addict’s best bottom is, what is the “baseball bat” that best knocks them into recovery and treatment? Right now, the most common bottom for heroin addicts consists of multiple years of living life as a drug addict, which all describe as hell. And how best do we reverse the opioid-induced neuroadaptations or fully convince young people that drugs are bad? Meta-analysis shows that the success of methadone maintenance treatment depends on the commitment of the addict to the treatment. PJCP would provide the commitment to this treatment better than most motivations.[1] David Usborne, Joe Public backs caning of American, The Independent, London (April 2, 1994).[2] Ronald Brownstein, Singapore’s Caning Sentence Divides Americans, Poll Finds, L.A. Times (April 21, 1994).[3] Mike Royko, “Readers get ‘behind’ flogging of vandal”, Daily News, New York (March 30, 1994).[4] Keeping Singapore Drug Free, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore @ https://www.mha.gov.sg/docs/default-source/others/mha_drugbooklet.pdf[5] UN World Drug Report.[6] S Axelrod & J Apsche (editors), The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior (Academic Press 1983).[7]James M. Johnston, Controlling Professional Behavior: A Review of The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior by Axelrod and Apsche, The Behavior Analyst 1985, 8, 111-119 No. 1 (Spring).[8] The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons, Table 2. Rate of adult black male incarceration, The Sentencing Project (2016).[9] The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons, Table 2. Rate of adult black male incarceration, The Sentencing Project (2016) @ The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons | The Sentencing Project.[10] Wm. Eden, The Principles of Penal Law, Ch. 7 – Of Corporal Punishments, and of Infamy, §3 (1771).[11] ST Higgins, SH Heil & JP Lussier, Clinical implications of reinforcement as a determinant of substance use disorders, Annual Review of Psychology. 55 (Annual 2004): p431+.[12] Blanco C, Iza M, Rodríguez-Fernández JM, Baca-García E, Wang S, Olfson M. Probability and predictors of treatment-seeking for substance use disorders in the U.S. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015 Apr 1;149:136-44. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.01.031. Epub 2015 Feb 9 (abstract).[13] See, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 668 (1962) (Justice Douglas concurring).[14] Wayne Hall, Adrian Carter & Cynthia Forlini, The brain disease model of addiction: is it supported by the evidence and has it delivered on its promises? Lancet Psychiatry 2015; 2: 105–10 Published Online December 12, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S2215-0366(14)00126-6.[15] Scott CK, Dennis ML, Foss MA. Utilizing Recovery Management Checkups to shorten the cycle of relapse, treatment reentry, and recovery 2. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;78(3):325-38.[16] Apkarian AV, Hashmi JA, Baliki MN. Pain and the brain: specificity and plasticity of the brain in clinical chronic pain. Pain. 2010;152(3 Suppl):S49-64.[17] Morton DL, Sandhu JS, Jones AK. Brain imaging of pain: state of the art. J Pain Res. 2016;9:613-24. Published 2016 Sep 8. doi:10.2147/JPR.S60433.[18] Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union Message, Dec. 6, 1904 @ Welcome to The American Presidency Project.[19] Facing Addiction in America – The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health 1-14 (2016).[20] William H. Herndon & Jesse W. Weik, Herndon's Life of Abraham Lincoln 151–52 (1889).[21] William H. Herndon & Jesse W. Weik, Herndon's Life of Abraham Lincoln 151–52 (1889).[22] J.D. Gleissner, “Prison Overcrowding Cure: Judicial Corporal Punishment of Adults,” Vol. 49, No. 4, The Criminal Law Bulletin (2013).[23] Alice Morse Earle, Curious Punishments of Bygone Days 84 (1896) @ Curious Punishments of Bygone Days,.[24]Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, HIV Rates Lower in States That Target Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) @ HIV Rates Lower in States That Target Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).[25] Ending the Opioid Crisis: A Practical Guide for State Policymakers 7, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (Oct. 2017).[26] Deuteronomy 25:1-3: “If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes.”[27] William Byrd, Texas Slave Narratives, Vol. XVI, Part 1, 182-184.[28] Alan G. Jamieson, Tyranny of the Lash? Punishment in the Royal Navy during the American War, 1776–1783 (1985), @ http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol09/nm _9_1_53to66.pdf.[29] R Van Houten, Punishment: From the Animal Laboratory to the Applied Setting, citing (Boe & Church, 1967) in The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior 18 (1983, ed. S Axelrod & J Apsche).[30] Id., 20, citing (Appel, 1963b; Azrin, 1959a, 1960b; Azrin, Holz & Hake, 1963, et al.).[31] Id., 19.[32] C Newsom, J Favell, A Rincover, The Side Effects of Punishment, in The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior 302 (1983, ed. S Axelrod & J Apsche).Selection from Get Tough & Smart: How to Start Winning the War on Drug Addiction - Kindle edition.