Adults trying to fit into old Halloween costumes from their childhood.
This is your brain on drugs
An introduction to drugs
Drug: any chemical substance (excluding food and water) that alters the structure and function of the body. This is quite a broad definition — shampoo, soap, and moisturizer all roughly fit this description. But what we’re usually talking about when we talk about ‘drugs’ are psychoactive drugs. These substances lead to changes in the chemistry of the brain, altering perceptions, mood, thinking, and behaviour.
To know how drugs affect the body, it’s worth learning the difference between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacokinetics is the study of the movement of a drug through the body, which is often dictated by the method of drug intake.
How you administer a drug has a significant impact on the drug’s effect and duration. Routes of administration such as inhalation, intravenous, and insufflation all deliver the drug to the brain very quickly; however, the faster a drug is delivered to the brain, the faster it will be broken down and its effects eliminated. Other routes of administration, such as oral ingestion or transdermal administration (on the skin), will have a slower onset, but the drug’s effect will last longer.
Pharmacodynamics, on the other hand, is the study of what a drug does to the body. In order for a drug to have an effect, it must be able to enter your brain and affect its cells. These cells are called neurons, and you’ve got roughly 100 billion of them. Neurons communicate with each other by secreting chemicals called neurotransmitters — psychoactive drugs alter the activity of these neurotransmitters, leading to changes in perception, behaviour, and mood. This is what we think of as a ‘high.’ Not all drugs affect everyone in the same way, but there are observable patterns for specific drugs.
The most common psychoactive drugs tend to fall into two categories: stimulants and depressants.
Central nervous system stimulants, or simply stimulants, are one classification of psychoactive drugs. Drugs in this category enhance alertness, wakefulness, and increase physical movement.
Caffeine
Caffeine is usually ingested orally through coffee, tea, or caffeine pills. If it is taken orally, caffeine is subjected to first-pass metabolism, which means your body breaks down some of the drug before it is able to reach your circulatory system and brain.
At the neuronal level, caffeine blocks adenosine receptors. Adenosine dampens brain activity, and is associated with behavioural effects such as lethargy, fatigue, and decreased locomotion. By inhibiting adenosine from binding to its receptors, caffeine helps you stay aroused and alert. It can also increase the amount of serotonin in the brain, a neurotransmitter associated with elevated mood.
Other behavioural effects of caffeine, in moderate doses, are increased arousal, mood, energy, locomotion, and sociability. Furthermore, caffeine is widely accepted to have some beneficial effects such as decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. In higher doses, however, caffeine can lead to feelings of anxiety, panic, and irritability.
Believe or not, you can overdose from caffeine consumption. However, it would take roughly 80–100 cups of coffee, consumed in a relatively short time, to accomplish this.
Like any other drug, if you consume a lot of caffeine, you will develop a tolerance. Withdrawal symptoms will also occur if you are a regular latte sipper and you stop drinking coffee entirely; headache, lethargy, and fatigue are all common.
Cocaine
Cocaine comes from the coca plant native to South America. Recreational use of cocaine is usually administered through insufflation (snorting), or intravenously. Both routes of administration bypass first-pass metabolism, and quickly enter the brain.
When the neurons in your brain send neurotransmitters to communicate with other neurons, some of the remaining neurotransmitters are recycled and return to the neuron that released them; cocaine blocks this mechanism. Since the neurotransmitters that were released cannot go back into the cells that released them, they continue to stimulate adjacent neurons.
Cocaine acts on neurons that secrete dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin — all of which contribute to your arousal and mood.
In moderate doses, the behavioural and physiological effects of cocaine include increased energy, heart rate, self-esteem, talkativeness, and feelings of euphoria, but decreased appetite. In high doses, irritability, anxiety, hostility, aggression, and delusions of grandeur are often observed.
High doses of cocaine can often result in tachyarrhythmia (rapid irregular heartbeat), as well elevated blood pressure. Overdose from cocaine can lead to respiratory failure, stroke, heart failure, or cerebral hemorrhaging.
The body breaks down cocaine relatively quickly, and its effects are notoriously short-lived. This leads many individuals to administer additional doses, which can quickly lead to tolerance. Common cocaine withdrawal symptoms include lethargy, hypersomnia, dysphoria, and temporary depression.
Amphetimines
Amphetamine is a synthetic derivative of ephedrine, a stimulant used as a decongestant and appetite suppressant. The route of administration will vary with an amphetamine due to its chemical composition. When most hear the word amphetamine, they may attribute it solely to methamphetamine. However, methamphetamine is only one variation.
Although methamphetamine is usually inhaled through smoking, other forms such as dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine, which are found in medications such as Adderall or Dexedrine, cannot be vaporized. Despite this, common routes of administration range from oral ingestion, intravenous, insufflation, and inhalation.
Like cocaine, an amphetamine will alter levels of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine in the body’s nerve cells. After it has reached the brain, an amphetamine will enter nerve cells and displace neurotransmitters, forcing them out of the cell. The neurotransmitters then bind to other surrounding nerve cells, increasing levels of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine — thus boosting arousal, locomotion, and mood.
In moderate doses, the behavioural and physiological effects of an amphetamine are similar to cocaine: increased alertness, heart rate, locomotion, talkativeness, restlessness, euphoria, along with a decrease in appetite, are all common effects. In high doses, irritability, anxiety, hostility, and aggression can be expected.
Common causes of death by amphetamine overdose are respiratory failure, cerebral hemorrhaging, circulatory collapse, and kidney failure. Withdrawal symptoms include fatigue, temporary depression, hypersomnia, increased appetite, and decreased movement.
Another classification of drugs are central nervous system depressants, or simply depressants. These drugs decrease wakefulness, alertness, and physical movement.
Alcohol
Ethyl alcohol is usually consumed in the form of beer, wine, or spirits. One very common misconception about alcohol is that different alcoholic beverages will give you different experiences while drunk — in truth, alcohol will do the same thing no matter what beverage it’s in. How much you drink, body composition, stomach contents prior to drinking, tolerance, and other factors will affect blood-alcohol content or ‘drunkenness,’ but whether you drink 40-proof tequila or 40-proof whiskey will not.
Consumed orally, alcohol is subject to first-pass metabolism and is broken down. After entering the brain, alcohol binds to specific receptors on nerve cells called GABA-A receptors. This allows specific ions to enter nerve cells, which decrease the ability of said nerve cells to send messages to adjacent neurons. The result is an overall decrease in brain activity.
In moderate doses, the behavioural and physiological effects of alcohol include decreased alertness, relaxed inhibitions, and some loss of motor coordination. In higher doses, effects include slurred speech, exaggerated emotions, severely impaired motor coordination, and loss of consciousness.
When an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration reaches 0.45, coma or death can occur. Death from alcohol overdose is a result of paralysis of the medulla oblongata, which controls and regulates breathing. At high enough doses, alcohol will inhibit the medulla oblongata entirely, resulting in asphyxiation.
Acute withdrawal symptoms, such as those you might feel after a night of heavy drinking, include an inability to sleep, headache, cold and hot flashes, nausea and vomiting, and a feeling of restlessness. Chronic withdrawal symptoms may include shaking, increased blood pressure and heart rate, seizures, and hallucinations. In the case of some chronic alcoholics, withdrawal can even lead to death.
There are a number of problems associated with chronic alcohol consumption, such as liver damage, coronary heart disease, cancer, stroke, and brain damage. However, despite chronic effects, moderate alcohol use — alongside good nutrition and regular physical activity — is associated with some health benefits such as a decrease in cardiovascular disease.
Heroin
Heroin is a derivative of morphine, and both come from the opium poppy. Interestingly, differences between heroin and morphine are almost nonexistent — heroin is basically morphine with two acetyl groups added to it.
This difference allows heroin to enter your brain more quickly. But once the drug does enter your brain, the acetyl groups are cleaved and the molecular structure becomes identical to morphine. Common routes of administration for heroin are intravenous, insufflation, and inhalation. All of these routes quickly deliver the drug to the brain.
Heroin acts on the brain’s opioid receptors, which are distributed in different areas of the brain. Heroin’s effects on neurons will vary depending on which type of receptor is located in a particular neuron. No matter what, though, heroin always decreases neural communication. This is reflected in its depressive physiological and behavioural outputs.
A moderate dose of heroin will induce euphoria, shallow breathing, pupil constriction, constipation, decreased sex drive, and muscular weakness. At high doses, heroin’s effect on opioid receptors in the medulla oblongata can shut down respiratory function entirely, leading to a likely death.
Some of the withdrawal effects of heroin include dysphoria, irritability, pain, hyperthermia, diarrhea, restlessness, insomnia, and — if you have a penis — spontaneous ejaculation.
Marijuana
Marijuana does not fit perfectly into the classification of depressants, as some of the effects of marijuana can include small amounts of stimulation. Hallucinations can even occur at extremely high doses.
Marijuana is most often burned, and its smoke inhaled into the lungs. This route of administration results in the drug contained in the plant, THC, entering the circulatory system very quickly. However, THC in marijuana can also be infused into edibles such as cookies or brownies. If consumed this way, the effect of THC has a slower onset, but the duration of the drug’s effect will be much longer than inhalation.
The psychoactive compound in marijuana, THC, binds to cannabinoid receptors in the central and peripheral nervous system. There, it induces a sequence of actions which inhibit a neuron’s ability to send neurotransmitters to adjacent neurons. As a result, there is a minor decrease in neural communication.
In a moderate dose, some of the effects of THC include euphoria, muscle relaxation, dry mouth, red eyes, increased appetite, and slight impairments in judgement and motor coordination. In higher doses, anxiety, paranoia, and hallucinations can occur.
Unlike many others on this list, THC does not have a significant effect on the brainstem, which controls vital bodily functions, such as respiration and heart rate. This means that respiratory failure, the most common cause of death due to drug overdose, cannot occur as a result of THC consumption.
Debunking drug myths with Dr. Jones
Most of us are familiar with the media image of drug addicts, namely the physical effects of drugs like meth and heroin. But are drugs the sole cause of physical deterioration in their users?
Not according to Dr. Bryan Jones, professor of psychopharmacology at SFU. He notes that “many of our images of the typical drug user and the images of physical deterioration associated with drug use are not actually due to the drugs’ physical effects. [. . .] Conditions like ‘meth-mouth,’ [for instance] in which adult methamphetamine users have decayed teeth and receding gums, are most likely due to lifestyle factors, such as lack of oral hygiene, decreased water intake, poor diet, and decreased sleep.
“People who use meth regularly as prescribed by their physician, such as children with ADHD, do not experience this condition.”
As for drugs as inevitably addictive substances, Dr. Jones says, “There is no such thing as an inevitable addiction. The most addictive drug we know of is tobacco, and heroin is the most addictive of the illegal substances. However, according to the National Institutes of Health in the USA, about 23 per cent of people who use heroin become addicted to it, while approximately 20 per cent of prescription opiate users may have difficulties in stopping despite pain cessation.
“With methamphetamine, again using American data, less than 10 per cent of people using meth in their lifetime have done so in the last year — hardly the mark of an inevitably addicting drug.”
Dr. Jones also responded to the fear that the legalization of a drug might threaten national health. “While it is certainly possible that legality — or regulation of a drug, like we have with tobacco and alcohol — could increase overall rates of use, there is no evidence that it would increase addiction or deterioration,” he explains. “In fact, the opposite has been seen. Multiple studies have shown that when heroin addicts have been given access to pure heroin by their physicians, their physical health actually improves, as do their employment prospects.
“In countries where drugs have been regulated or decriminalized, rates of use have actually decreased.”
Sobering up after the latest coffee craze
At times, I find that coffee is the only reason I manage to make it to that 8:30 a.m. class. Every day, people around the world brew themselves a cup to de-stress, or to lift their spirits. This is why we need to wake up to the damage being done by the latest brewing trend: single-serve coffee pods.
In the past few years the big names in the coffee industry — Keurig, Starbucks, Nestle and others — have invested in this new coffee technology. Many of us have seen or used coffee pods at some point, but have never considered what happens to those plastic cups after making ourselves a fresh brew.
Around 95 per cent of all coffee pods are made of composite plastics, meaning they’re not easy to recycle. The amount of pods that are recycled is difficult to measure, but according to microbiologist Thomas Clark, the chances that many pods make it to a depot are slim.
While companies such as Keurig have promised to develop more sustainable options, the amount of waste being produced in the meantime is shocking. According to journalist Murray Carpenter, last year alone Keurig sold enough of these pods to wrap around the equator more than 10 times.
Last year Keurig sold enough coffee-pods to wrap around the equator more than 10 times.
After a single use, the pods reach the end of their life and are thrown out only to sit in landfills. This is especially problematic, as plastic is not biodegradable the same way drip-brew filters are. Plastic photodegrades over time, meaning it breaks down into smaller bits and eventually finds its way into our ecosystems.
In recent years we’ve seen a push to reduce plastic bags as well as disposable coffee cups, yet these inherently wasteful pods have not been criticized nearly to the same extent. In order to work towards a cleaner environment, we must move away from this kind of destructive plastic.
As if the environmental impact isn’t enough, it is also important to note that the plastic used to create the pods is potentially dangerous to our immediate health. While the United States’ Food and Drug Administration greenlighted this product, recent research suggests that even non-BPA plastics can test positive for synthetic estrogenic activity.
Moreover, Keurig could not confirm or deny the presence of polystyrene in their pods — a chemical known to cause damage to the nervous system. This means that our bodies could be absorbing these chemicals without our knowledge.
Sales for coffee pod machines are at an all-time high; Keurig shattered all previous records by raking in an impressive $1.62 billion in gross income last year. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters cites ‘convenience’ as a leading factor in the success of these single-brew coffee pods. But the immediate personal convenience should not outweigh the long-lasting environmental and health impacts of these cups.
A simple solution to this growing issue would be to move away from this coffee fad, and back towards traditional brewing methods such as drip brew machines or French presses. I encourage all of you to think twice before investing in the coffee pod craze.
Banning public displays of affection is not a solution to violence
Burnaby mayoral candidate Sylvia Gung promises to ban all public displays of affection, including the wedding kiss ritual and hand holding, if elected. When I first read of her platform in the Vancouver Sun, I was stunned that such a person would run for mayor, and absolutely terrified that such a person might win the position. As expected, she is undergoing a lot of rapid fire from the media and community.
Gung feels that public displays of affection lead to violence, and can hurt public decorum. In a phone interview with Drex, a radio host on CKNW AM980, she cited an incident where a same-sex couple seen kissing in public was subsequently tailed and severely injured by homophobic bystanders. Her belief is that ‘bedroom behaviour’ is unacceptable on the streets because it encourages blatant sexuality, and leads to rape and assault. Even if Gung’s solutions to these problems of violence are well-intentioned, they are terribly ill-founded.
Her logic criminalizes passionate innocents, and blames them for giving criminals opportunities to take advantage of them. Essentially, she blames the rape victim for the rapist’s actions, which is exactly the kind of mindset that our society is trying to reverse. There are definitely more relevant and effective ways to curb violence.
[Sylvia Gung’s] logic blames passionate innocents for giving criminals opportunities to take advantage of them.
Even if, just for a moment, we hypothesized that her motion had legitimate grounds, how could it be enforced? How many people would be fined or incarcerated for such ‘acts of misdemeanour?’ How much taxpayer money would be wasted on a non-issue, rather than fighting the real criminals? This is an extreme logical fallacy that can only ever be impractical and counterproductive.
As for public decorum, in an interview with National Post, Gung said that people who insist on showing public affection are “bullies” — in other words, they do not care about how uncomfortable their actions make to those around them feel. That, however, is a personal opinion, and while it may be shared by others, it is a personal prejudice that should not infringe upon an entire community’s public behaviour, or a person’s freedom of choice.
I don’t know Gung personally, and so any value judgments I can make about her derive from how the media chooses to portray her. When questioned on her standpoint, it did not appear that she knew what she was talking about. Her ‘logic’ was illogical, her responses did not fully answer the questions posed, and any evidence she provided was merely hearsay or, at best, of isolated incidents in the newspaper with no statistical proof.
Gung may mean well with her ideas to ‘improve’ Burnaby, but at the end of the day, she is not a reliable spokesperson for the city. We need individuals in government who can carry society forward — who can advance it and not regress it. In this day and age, there is no room for Sylvia Gung in Burnaby City Hall.
Why your environmentalism is nauseating
Recently, I’ve been in the throes of a group project that requires students to address a social issue. At the start of the semester, I groaned inwardly when classmates expressed their interest in an environmental topic. During presentations about environmentally related issues, I resisted the urge to roll my eyes.
Before you peg me as the anti christ of environmentalism, let me tell you that I believe we need to take better care of our environment. In fact, my summer job for the past three years has been picking up garbage and planting greenery.
However, the idealistic and utopian ideas that tumble out of my peers’ mouths like rainbow-coloured vomit is appalling. Not only does this show a lack of understanding in terms of how things work realistically, but it is often only substantiated by information gleaned from biased pieces that exclude the full picture and have no accountability for misinformation.
If oil were a person, I am certain some of my fellow students would form a mob, hang him in the Academic Quadrangle and feed his remains to the koi fish in the pond. However, what they neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives. Did you wear a sweater today? Oil product. It rains a lot in Vancouver, thank god for umbrellas! Oil product. Did you brush your teeth today with a toothbrush? Oil product.
What students neglect to consider is just how many petroleum products touch our lives.
I’m not advocating that you go out and purchase a foam finger with the words “#1 Oil Sands Fan” printed on the front, but I do think it’s high time that students opened their eyes to reality. Unless you are hiking the mountain to school, sporting ‘Adam and Eve’ leaf couture, you cannot feasibly say that you are accustomed to a lifestyle without petroleum products.
The grim reality is that we currently do not have any other energy sources that can replace and improve on what we get from oil. So no, the oil sands are not in business solely because greedy oil tycoons want to watch the world burn as they soak in bathtubs full of crisp hundred dollar bills; oil is actually something we rely on to maintain the quality of life modern society demands.
In a tutorial, my TA asked if we supported pipelines. I was the sole person to raise my hand in support. My classmates’ eyes burned into me as the TA asked for my reasoning. My answer was simple enough, but a revelation to the dissenting crowd: oil was going to be transported regardless, and I’d rather have it done via the lesser of evils.
A quote from a Forbes article serves as a poignant reminder that “1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in a single day last year in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, and 47 people were killed” during a railcar accident a little over a year ago. Plus, let’s not forget that “five out of the 10 largest oil spills in US history were from boats.” Pipelines aren’t perfect, but are you really advocating what’s best for the environment by protesting against them?
When it comes to the environment, enough is enough. Students, of all people, should know that, while ideals are really nice and we all yearn to live in the romantically simplistic world they paint, these notions are just not realistic.
Protesters clash with Kinder Morgan surveyors on Burnaby Mountain
Protesters continue to clash with Kinder Morgan over a proposed pipeline route that would expand the project through the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area and Burnaby Mountain Park.
Kinder Morgan has now filed an injunction against five individual protesters, demanding that they allow them access to two testing sites. The company is also suing these individuals for $5.5 million in direct costs and $88 million in lost revenue for Trans Mountain for each month that the project is delayed.
This confrontation follows the National Energy Board’s (NEB) ruling on October 23, which stated that the City of Burnaby cannot stand in the way of Kinder Morgan’s plan to test at sites on Burnaby Mountain. The energy company announced on October 24 that they would resume testing after 48 hours.
In response, protesters worked over the weekend to reinforce two blockades which have been present on both sites for the past month. Stephen Collis, an SFU professor of English and spokesperson for the protesters said on Monday, “We’re going to peacefully and non-violently stand in their way.”
On Wednesday morning at approximately 10:00 a.m., protesters spotted Kinder Morgan crews advancing into the woods towards the first testing site. Protesters, journalists, and film crews rushed to the site where self-proclaimed caretakers were already blocking crews by linking arms.
One young protester pinned himself under a Kinder Morgan jeep, saying oil was destroying the earth and that he would stay under the jeep for “as long it takes.”
Some minutes later, the surveyors left the site. In an e-mail to the Vancouver Observer, Greg Toth, senior project director of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project said, “At some locations, our crews were obstructed and have left for the day.”
The company is also suing these individuals for $5.5 million in direct costs and $88 million in lost revenue
For professsor of molecular biology and biochemistry, Lynne Quarmby, this was a victory for the people. “We put out the call, we let people know that we were going to be here, and it’s just phenomenal the number of people that are still pouring in, so there’s just a tremendous amount of support from the community,” she said.
When asked what she thought the next few days would bring, Quarmby replied, “We expect that they’re going to try to outwait us, but [. . .] I don’t think you can overestimate the commitment of this group of people. We will outwait them.”
The repulsion of Kinder Morgan crews only brought a short reprieve from the pressure, however, as the company filed their injunction on Thursday afternoon.
In the application, the company asks that the court “restrain the defendants’ trespass upon Burnaby Lands, and their wrongful obstruction, impeding, interfering with and prevention of” its field work on the mountain.
In a press release Friday morning, Collis and Quarmby, along with Alan Dutton of Burnaby Residents Opposing Kinder Morgan Expansion (BROKE), wrote, “The US-based corporation has the audacity to claim residents are ‘trespassing’ in the park. Clearly, Kinder Morgan is using the courts to silence opposition, suppress dissent, and deprive Canadian citizens of their constitutional rights.
“This is Big Oil against the people, in its most raw and offensive form.”
The hearing took place on Friday at 2:00 p.m. at the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver where protesters gathered to oppose the injunction. The case was adjourned until Wednesday November 5, and the hearing is expected to last three days.
Sports Briefs
Hockey
SFU hockey travelled to the Ian Stewart Complex in Victoria to face the UVic Vikes, losing 8–3. UVic scored three quick goals in the first period, and despite goals by Taylor Piller and Mike Ball, the Vikes’ lead was too much to overcome. SFU now lies at third in the league with a record of 3–3–0.
Volleyball
Clan volleyball were awarded the Great Northwest Athletic Conference (GNAC) team of the week for their performance last weekend, notching a historic fourth place in the conference, and guaranteeing a winning season for the first time in the NCAA. They were not able to carry the momentum to Thursday night’s match, however, losing in Ellensburg, WA to the Central Washington University Wildcats, by a score of 3–1.
Swimming
The SFU swim teams set new records at the swim meet in Santa Cruz, CA. Eight different Clan swimmers set records: Saveli Yungman, Gabriel Lee, Junior Kiedrzyn, Tim Woinoski, Youn Ho Choi, Nicole Cossey, Alexandria Schofield, and Adrian VanderHelm who broke three records. The men’s team won three duals, only losing to the Division I University of the Pacific, while the women went 4–4. The teams will compete next at the Clan Cup International, held November 21 to 23.
With files from SFU Athletics and SFU Hockey
Undersea pig carcasses provide forensic breakthrough
New research from SFU’s criminology department shows that the level of oxygen in the ocean has a significant impact on the decomposition of submerged bodies.
The study involved the three-year observation of three underwater pig carcasses in the Saanich Inlet, submerged at a depth of 100 metres.
Carcasses placed in the water were scavenged after about a month, when dissolved oxygen levels were “tolerable,” but when the inlet was anoxic, or without oxygen, the pig lasted many months before all soft tissue was consumed.
Gail Anderson, an SFU professor of criminology, led the study, with fellow SFU professor of criminology Lynne Bell as a co-author. Bell examines the effects on the bones remaining after ocean scavengers, like shrimp and crabs, have done their work.
The underwater observation technology, Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea (VENUS), enables researchers to watch a live video feed of the carcasses, and frequently measures the level of dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, density and pressure in the water.
“Saanich Inlet is hypoxic (deficient of oxygen) most of the year and anoxic (without oxygen) at some times,” explained Anderson.
These findings also show that this shift in oxygen levels dictates which scavengers are in the area at a given time of year. When larger scavengers are driven away by low oxygen levels, scavenging is left to smaller creatures, such as Squat lobsters. However, these animals can’t break through the skin as easily and have a harder time scavenging the body.
“This gives us a better understanding of what happens to bodies in such waters,” said Anderson.
“These studies have provided valuable information for underwater death investigations.”
– Gail Anderson and Lynne Bell, study authors
In the published study, they explain the relevance of their findings to crime-solving efforts: “These studies have provided valuable information for underwater death investigations, describing conditions of bodies over time in hypoxic and anoxic environments.”
It continues, “These data will be valuable in forensic investigations involving submerged bodies, indicating types of water conditions to which the body has been exposed, identifying post-mortem artifacts and providing realistic expectations for recovery divers and families of the deceased.”
This study is one in a series of pig carcass deployments at various depths and locations. Anderson and Bell’s latest deployment can be viewed via VENUS online at venus.uvic.ca.
The duo’s next step forward in this research will take them east of Vancouver Island to Barkley Canyon.
Canada’s recent attacks have brought out the best in our country
During the week of October 20, Canada’s role in the ongoing War on Terror reached a new level, as the country was the victim of a pair of terror attacks. Two members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed on home soil while another was injured in what appeared to be targeted attacks by ISIS sympathizers. Amazingly, these attacks have not seemed to damage the Canadian psyche, but have instead drawn out the best qualities that Canadians have to offer.
On Wednesday morning, when a rifle shot claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo as he stood ceremonial watch over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, bystanders rushed to his aid and attempted to save the reservist’s life — delivering CPR to the fallen soldier while the shooter was still in the area.
As the shooter entered Parliament, we saw police and security services perform their duties with incredible calm under pressure. While our elected members of Parliament prepared to defend themselves with whatever was at hand, retired police officer Kevin Vickers, the Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms, shot and killed Cirillo’s murderer before he could claim any more lives.
While many news networks, including CNN, gave into hyperbole and emotionalized coverage, Canada remained calm in the face of the unknown threat. CBC, anchored by veteran broadcaster Peter Mansbridge, kept Canadians informed of the situation developing in the capital without allowing the story to devolve into wild speculation.
Amazingly, these attacks have not seemed to damage the Canadian psyche.
Other Canadian broadcasters were also quick to focus on the heroes of the day, and on what makes this nation and its people great. Our political leaders were on hand to remind us that now is the time for the Canadian people to stand firm, with Prime Minister Harper informing the world that “Canada will never be intimidated.”
When Parliament reopened the following morning, it did so with increased security measures, including lack of public access, but our government representatives were prepared to do their duties. Kevin Vickers was honoured with a standing ovation from a grateful House of Commons, as he performed his daily ceremonial duties. Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair acknowledged the previous day’s actions, stating “We don’t know the names of all the heroes, but we all saw heroic gestures yesterday.”
In true Canadian fashion, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau extended a hand to the Muslim community with the statement that “yesterday was a terrible perversion of your faith” and further reminded all of us that we are “a nation of open minds and open hearts and we won’t be intimidated into changing that for anybody.”
But the strongest display of unity was to come from the Prime Minister himself. Anyone remotely familiar with Mr. Harper knows that he is not one for public displays of emotion, which makes what we saw on Thursday even more impressive, as he crossed the floor to deliver a pair of handshakes, which he then transitioned into hugs, to both Mulcair and Trudeau.
For a brief moment, Canadians were witnesses to three men — who by all accounts can’t stand each other — unified in the face of tragedy and adversity, providing a microcosm of the unity that is occurring across the country. Canada will continue to stand, the True North strong, free, and united in defence of the principles that have made this nation great.
Canada’s free trade agreement with Honduras isn’t the problem
Recently, Honduras became the eighth individual state to have a free trade agreement with Canada. Rabble’s Don Davies was quick to call out the government for providing “economic backing to an undemocratic regime that commits, or tolerates, wide-spread human rights abuses.”
This deal has become part of an ongoing discourse on the ethics of cooperating with morally reprehensible regimes around the world, but also seems to highlight the hypocrisy surrounding such a discourse, as well as the weakness of nation-focused approaches to human rights.
Economic partnership with Canada remains such a minuscule imperative for Honduras that, whether or not this partnership exists, Honduras’ domestic policy is unlikely to change. By opening up Canada’s markets to Honduras and vice-versa, we are not condoning the policies of the pseudo-democratic government, nor are we supporting them.
Similarly, by withholding a free trade agreement based on our amorphous moral code, we would not be encouraging Honduras or similar states to change their ways. The moral statements that we make, though they seem resolute and strong, bear little significance; a debate which centres around Canada’s enabling of the brutal Honduran government to commit various atrocities and human rights abuses, rather than taking a stand and making a moral statement, is unimportant.
The key to addressing human rights issues is multilateralism, not bilateral free trade agreements.
It would, however, be wrong to say that Canada is powerless against morally corrupt regimes, like in Honduras. A multilateral approach to dealing with human rights globally would involve cooperation from all states, a democratic consensus as how to approach such topics, and a concerted effort to put aside petty political agendas for the common good of the international community.
Human rights abuses in Honduras are not Canada’s problem. The international community must be far more prudent about applying its norms and developing its institutions to adequately deal with human rights issues, which are global in nature.
Empowering institutions such as the United Nations to implement elections monitoring, to add enforcement measures to ensure adherence to conventions, and to expand the scope of the UNHRC’s Universal Periodic Review would be a good start. This would ensure that human rights issues around the world are looked at equally, making human rights a dimensional issue — an ever-changing and evolving discourse in international relations.
Furthermore, Canada has its own issues with human rights to address — the NSA’s PRISM program which Canada supports, and the abhorrent discrimination against Aboriginal peoples, for example. Canada is in no position to criticize the human rights situation in other nations. Thus, a multilateral approach is not only the most effective way to deal with human rights, but it is the only morally defensible way.
When states imply the rhetoric of morality to condemn the actions of other states, it is almost always in the self-interest of the former. If Canada reversed its free trade agreement tomorrow, we would still import products from China and export weapons to volatile regions around the world.
The agreement is inconsequential, but the discourse around it is revealing. One thing is clear: civil rights are not commodities that Canada can export.
