Prescription Drug Abuse on the Rise in America and Responses of Authorities

Pattison, James Bryan 한국공안행정학회 2013 한국공안행정학회보 Vol.22 No.2

Prescription Drug Abuse on the Rise in America and Responses of Authorities James B. Pattison** Professor of Police Administration, Keimyung University 【Abstract】 Non-medical prescription drug use is a modern threat to American society. The United States recently got the problem under control. The core of the problem is that prescription drugs have a color of legitimacy. People attach little to no stigma to the use of such drugs even when outside of prescription. Society just recently addressed the problem for the same reasons—even government has attributed legitimacy to drugs that originate in lawful manners from legitimate sources (namely pharmaceutical companies, pharmacists, and doctors). Things are changing. Congress passed laws that enable the FDA to regulate medications at their sources. States have established PMPs to scrutinize prescription relationships between pharmacists, physicians and patients. Healthcare professionals are more vigilant regarding the problem so that they adequately manage pain in their patients and limit the amount of prescription medications left over. Awareness-raising efforts among the general population and the medical profession have had the greatest effect of limiting abuse. Youth, the primary population at risk of suffering the effects of non-medical prescription drug use (NMPDU), benefit from the raising of both awareness and vigilance of collaborating stakeholders. Nations that see what is happening in the United States would do well to gird their populations' value systems as a prophylactic against such epidemics as NMPDU. Nations should control their pharmaceutical companies, physicians, and pharmacists so the phenomenon in America does not become an international one.

Sex Offender Registration in America: Controlling the Beasts Among Us

Pattison, James Bryan 한국범죄심리학회 2014 한국범죄심리연구 Vol.10 No.1

When convicted sex offenders have completed their prison sentences they are released back into society. Sex offenses continue to occur in American society. When sex offenders commit other sex offenses, the relatively isolated events get a disproportionate amount of media attention. The public naturally associates prior sex offenders with current offenses. Public frenzied response to media attention on anecdotal events further heightens the fear of the public of sex offenders. The public then engages in wild conjecture and manufactures unsubstantiated theories about sex offenders, calling for responsive legislation. Legislators pass laws to satisfy the public’s demand for security and satisfactory laws. But the legislation is often as ill‐considered as are the public theories that define the problem in the first place. In response to the problem of sex offenses in America, the United States has passed Megan’s Laws (and a host of similar legislation) to control the behavior of sex offenders. Such laws require that offenders register with the state of their residence, and that the public have access to information regarding the identities, offenses, and locations of such offenders in their area. Registration and notification legislation is only as effective as its premises are true. The premises of Megan’s Law‐type legislation are that sex offenders are incurably sex criminals, compelled to commit sex crimes, that they have a higher recidivism rate than other types of criminals, and that registration and notification laws will both deter sex offenders from re‐offending and forewarn the public so that it can defend against known sex offenders. Unfortunately, none of the premises are true. Sex offenders are treatable. Sex offenders are not compelled to re‐offend in the same way. And recidivism rates for sex offenders are far lower than they are for other major crimes. The facts undercut the wisdom of bringing registration and notification legislation against sex offenders. But the legislation brings with it a host of other problems as well. Megan’s‐type laws give the public a false sense of security. Believing that they have identified the threat, the public may be less vigilant against the true source for sex offenses in America: most sex offenses are committed not by strangers, but by family and acquaintances. Megan’s‐type laws have a suppressive effect upon property values in neighborhoods where offenders live. While the knowledge that a criminal is living among them provides some sense of security so long as individuals can monitor the actions of the offender, all potential buyers have access to information showing the presence of criminals in the midst of the neighborhood in which they are contemplating living. And buyers pay less for property near perceived threats to their security. Megan’s‐type laws have a derogatory effect on both offenders and their family and friends. While many of us consider that the offenders deserve the "scarlet letter" such legislation places upon them, the distinction interferes with employment opportunities, school and social activities of family members. Residence restrictions further depress opportunities for offenders and actually have the effect of increasing recidivism rates. Registration and notification laws regarding sex offenders were bad ideas in America in the mid‐1990s, and they remain so today. Such laws are certainly a bad idea in the rest of the world, unless legislation can overcome the faults of the underlying premises and find new supporting premises. One obvious way to overcome the faulty foundation is to not make registration and notice a post‐conviction/post‐penalty iteration at all, but to make it part of the punishment itself. In essence, this would be a modern version of the Puritanical "Scarlet Letter" of three centuries ago.

National Security in America: Over-Abundance of Caution & Lack of Practicality

James Pattison,Hakkyong Kim,Sungyong Lee 보안공학연구지원센터 2016 International Journal of Security and Its Applicat Vol.10 No.4

After 9/11, the American intelligence community (IC) grew from few to uncountable, and the money allocated to the community could only be guessed at, given the secret and other funds that accompanied allocated funds for expanding intelligence capability. Out of this spiraling confusion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was born to coordinate the disparate efforts of known and lesser-known intelligence organizations. However, the DHS could not handle the tremendous IC activity by himself, and by 2010, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Top Intelligence Officer in America was additionally established. Most of the work in bringing the IC together has been done by the DHS. It seems to have been successful in identifying the directions from which a threat may enter into the country. Where the effort is lacking is when terror comes from so-called “home-grown” or unaffiliated terrorists. For these, a neighborly approach is best, and can be accomplished with minimal investment. The DHS has implemented a reporting system, together with reporting training, which will allow local law enforcement personnel to participate in the national security effort by logging their observations and disseminating them throughout the DHS system. That system is designed not just to collect information, but to share it with participating agencies (including local law enforcement). Part of this initiative is the “See Something, Say Something” campaign that involves private citizens in the national security effort. Of all of the ODNI and DHS efforts, the private citizen observation campaign holds the most realistic promise and provides the best lesson for nations that would learn from the American terrorism response experience.

Sex Offender Registration in America: Controlling the Beasts Among Us

James B. Pattison 한국범죄심리학회 2014 한국범죄심리연구 Vol.10 No.1

When convicted sex offenders have completed their prison sentences they are released back into society. Sex offenses continue to occur in American society. When sex offenders commit other sex offenses, the relatively isolated events get a disproportionate amount of media attention. The public naturally associates prior sex offenders with current offenses. Public frenzied response to media attention on anecdotal events further heightens the fear of the public of sex offenders. The public then engages in wild conjecture and manufactures unsubstantiated theories about sex offenders, calling for responsive legislation. Legislators pass laws to satisfy the public's demand for security and satisfactory laws. But the legislation is often as ill-considered as are the public theories that define the problem in the first place. In response to the problem of sex offenses in America, the United States has passed Megan's Laws (and a host of similar legislation) to control the behavior of sex offenders. Such laws require that offenders register with the state of their residence, and that the public have access to information regarding the identities, offenses, and locations of such offenders in their area. Registration and notification legislation is only as effective as its premises are true. The premises of Megan's Law-type legislation are that sex offenders are incurably sex criminals, compelled to commit sex crimes, that they have a higher recidivism rate than other types of criminals, and that registration and notification laws will both deter sex offenders from re-offending and forewarn the public so that it can defend against known sex offenders. Unfortunately, none of the premises are true. Sex offenders are treatable. Sex offenders are not compelled to re-offend in the same way. And recidivism rates for sex offenders are far lower than they are for other major crimes. The facts undercut the wisdom of bringing registration and notification legislation against sex offenders. But the legislation brings with it a host of other problems as well. Megan's-type laws give the public a false sense of security. Believing that they have identified the threat, the public may be less vigilant against the true source for sex offenses in America: most sex offenses are committed not by strangers, but by family and acquaintances. Megan's-type laws have a suppressive effect upon property values in neighborhoods where offenders live. While the knowledge that a criminal is living among them provides some sense of security so long as individuals can monitor the actions of the offender, all potential buyers have access to information showing the presence of criminals in the midst of the neighborhood in which they are contemplating living. And buyers pay less for property near perceived threats to their security. Megan's-type laws have a derogatory effect on both offenders and their family and friends. While many of us consider that the offenders deserve the "scarlet letter" such legislation places upon them, the distinction interferes with employment opportunities, school and social activities of family members. Residence restrictions further depress opportunities for offenders and actually have the effect of increasing recidivism rates. Registration and notification laws regarding sex offenders were bad ideas in America in the mid-1990s, and they remain so today. Such laws are certainly a bad idea in the rest of the world, unless legislation can overcome the faults of the underlying premises and find new supporting premises. One obvious way to overcome the faulty foundation is to not make registration and notice a postconviction/post-penalty iteration at all, but to make it part of the punishment itself. In essence, this would be a modern version of the Puritanical "Scarlet Letter" ofthree centuries ago.

Prescription Drug Abuse on the Rise in America and Responses of Authorities

James B Pattison 한국공안행정학회 2013 한국공안행정학회보 Vol.22 No.2

Non-medical prescription drug use is a modern threat to American society. The United States recently got the problem under control. The core of the problem is that prescription drugs have a color of legitimacy. People attach little to no stigma to the use of such drugs even when outside of prescription. Society just recently addressed the problem for the same reasons-even government has attributed legitimacy to drugs that originate in lawful manners from legitimate sources (namely pharmaceutical companies, pharmacists, and doctors). Things are changing. Congress passed laws that enable the FDA to regulate medications at their sources. States have established PMPs to scrutinize prescription relationships between pharmacists, physicians and patients. Healthcare professionals are more vigilant regarding the problem so that they adequately manage pain in their patients and limit the amount of prescription medications left over. Awareness-raising efforts among the general population and the medical profession have had the greatest effect of limiting abuse. Youth, the primary population at risk of suffering the effects of non-medical prescription drug use (NMPDU), benefit from the raising of both awareness and vigilance of collaborating stakeholders. Nations that see what is happening in the United States would do well to gird their populations' value systems as a prophylactic against such epidemics as NMPDU. Nations should control their pharmaceutical companies, physicians, and pharmacists so the phenomenon in America does not become an international one. 처방약물의 본질은 약물사용자들이 합법성을 가진다는 것이고, 이는 약물사용자들이 공식적인 의료적 처방의 기준의 밖에서 그러한 약물들을 사용한다는 흔적을 남기지 않는다는 것이지만, 그 오용이 점차 사회문제가 되고 있다. 따라서 최근 미국사회는 합법적인 제공자(제약회사, 약사, 의사 등)들로부터 합법적으로 공급되는 약물에 대하여 관심을 가지기 시작했다. 즉, 사람들의 인식이 변하고 있는 것이다. 의회는 식품의약청의 처방약물 감시프로그램을 골자로 하는 법을 통과시켰다. 이 프로그램은 약사, 의사, 환자, 건강센터 처방의 등이 서로 약물을 교묘한 방법으로 쪼개어 처방전을 내리는 것을 감시하는 것이다. 이와 같은 처방전은 환자의 고통을 줄인다는 명분이지만, 실제로는 환자의 약물 의존도를 높이고, 처방전 발급기관의 이익을 보존하는 측면도 있다. 의료진뿐만 아니라 보통사람들에 대한 감시수준을 높인 결과, 약물사용의 제한 및 남용에 즉각적인 효과가 발생하고 있다. 이 프로그램으로 청소년 및 비 의료 처방약물사용으로 고통 받는 사람들은 약물중독에 이르지 않도록 보다 정교한 방법에 의해 이해관계자들의 관심 및 감시를 받고 있다. 미국 정부가 비 의료 처방약물사용과 관련하여 제약회사, 의사, 약사들의 잘못된 인식과 가치체계에 의하여 환자들이 약물오남용을 하는 문제를 제대로 통제하지 못한다면 국제사회로부터 따가운 비난을 받게 될 것이다.

Social Welfare Programs, Abortion And Government Interference In America: Implications for Korea

James Bryan Pattison,Christopher John Clugston 서강대학교 신학연구소 2021 신학과 철학 Vol.- No.38

There are three Tiers of Rights: natural, individual quality of life, and group identity. Natural Rights are preeminent among these. Quality of Life Rights is of a progressive type that would enhance and/or displace Natural Rights. Identity Group Rights are growing in victim-affirming efforts to address past wrongs according to whims of various Group memberships at the expense of Natural Rights. The purpose of government is to protect and nurture natural rights - life, liberty, and property. All else is left to the holders of those natural rights to respond to the needs of the people around them (the needy). The advantage of such a conservative government-populace relationship is that the people will find support for such social action as the populace believes to be moral and right. Although natural rights primarily concern life, liberty and property, they do encompass principles of anti-discrimination. However, these anti-discrimination principles being twisted from their original, natural rights, meaning and used to justify government action in support of lesser rights of the governed. While American government was conceived as the protector of Natural Rights through limited interaction with the governed, second and third tier rights demand more government interference with the governed in order to placate the needy: this is what may be called “big government.” Central to second and third tier rights is the concept of immutable characteristics. Immutability is a legal concept in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that says that only groups identified by unchangeable characteristics need protection against the violation of rights. Progressives seek to expand the definition of “immutable” so that identity groups that are not linked by immutable characteristics may lay claims against the natural rights of outgroup members. The purpose of government is simply to protect and nurture natural rights. All else is left to the holders of those natural rights to respond to the needs of the people around them (those in need). A governments’ primary purpose should be to protect natural rights, leaving it to the holders of those right to address the problems of those in need. As such, public (private) support for social “needs” that are deemed “unworthy” will naturally wane. No intrusion upon the natural rights that exist above all others in fellow members of the population need be made. Private social action, then, is most effective, autonomous (from government intrusion), and responsive to the ebb and flow of social mores. Regarding abortion, the government which governs the least need proclaim only a prohibition against murder (illicit homicide). When it presumes to be more precise than such a general prohibition, it falls prey to the machinations of various interest groups that would seek to define “life” in a manner most responsive to their cause, requiring government to cater to an ever-expanding number of interest groups regarding their private definitions. Static religious definitions of “life” may conflict with interest group definitions, but those differences are not for the government to settle fully and finally. Regarding its pending legislation on abortion, due for resolution at the end of 2020, Korea should rely upon its general criminal homicide legislation to include prohibitions of abortions, and not endeavor to address the matter separately.

국제금융구조와 국제금융기준

Fratianni, Michele,Pattison, John 동국대학교 대학원 법학과 2004 商事法 세미나 Vol.17-18 No.-

Female sterilisation in the Puerperium

Wallman, Neil,Pattison, Neil Medical Publications Korea 1997 Medical Progress Vol.19 No.12

Prescription Drug Abuse on the Rise in America and Responses of Authorities

James B,Pattison JD 한국범죄심리학회 2012 한국범죄심리학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2012 No.3

미국에서 만연하는 전문의약품의 남용은 최근에서야 통제되어가고 있다. 전문의약품의 본질은 어느 정도 정당성이 있다는 점이고 처방의도 외의 남용이 사회 전계층에서 부정적인 낙인이 거의 없다는 것이다. 이와 같은 이유로 사회와 정부 또한 최근까지 이 문제를 제대로 다루지 못했다. 하지만 변화가 일고 있다. 미국 의회는 미국 식품의약국에 전문의 약품의 제조원을 규제할 수 있는 권한을 부여하는 법안들을 제정하였으며 주정부는 의사와 환자간의 처방관계를 면밀히 조사할 수 있는 전문의약품 감시 프로그램을 도입하였다. 그리고 의료 전문가들은 문제에 대한 경계심을 높여 환자들의 고통을 적절히 관리하는 동시에 전문의약품이 암시장으로 유통될 수 있는 양을 제한하고자 한다. 의식을 고취시키는 노력이 전문의약품의 이용과 남용에 가장 효과적이다. 모든 관계자들이 경계심과 의식을 높인다면 전문의약품의 남용에 가장 취약한 계층인 청소년들이 혜택을 받을 것이다. 미국에서 만연하는 이 문제를 관찰하는 국가들은 이 문제가 국제적 문제로 퍼지지 않도록 자국 국민들의 가치관을 바꾸고 자국 의약품 제조사, 의사, 약사들을 통제해야 할 것이다. Non-medical prescription drug use is a plague upon America, only recently begun to be gotten under control. The nature of prescription drugs is that they have an air of legitimacy, and people of every demographic of society attach little to no stigma to the inappropriate use of such drugs outside of the parameters of prescription. Likewise, society and government have failed until recently to adequately address the problem for essentially the same reasons. Things are changing. Legislation has passed that potentially empowers the FDA to regulate sources of prescription medications, states have established PMPs to scrutinize the prescription relationships between physicians and patients, and healthcare professionals have heightened their vigilance regarding the problem so that they can both manage pain in their patients adequately and limit the amount of prescription medications left over to travel the stream of commerce. Awarenessraising efforts have the greatest immediate effect of limiting use and abuse. Youth, the primary population at risk of suffering the effects of non-medical prescription drug use (NMPDU), will benefit from the raising of both awareness and vigilance of all players in the collaborative effort to address the epidemic. Nations that see what is happening in the United States would do well to gird their populations value systems and control their pharmaceutical companies, physicians, and pharmacists such that the phenomenon in America does not burgeon into an international or global one.

Basel III in Reality

( Michele Fratianni ),( John C. Pattison ) 세종대학교 경제통합연구소 2015 Journal of Economic Integration Vol.30 No.1

Financial regulation has shifted from a system as an oligopoly dominated by the G2/G5 to expanded clubs like the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision. Expansive clubs have to agree to terms that are closer to the preferences of soft-regulation members. Yet, once a global agreement on minimum standards, such as Basel 3, is reached, the task is left to national or regional regulators. Deviations from the Basel 3 standards are bound to occur; the complexity of the agreement will facilitate an asymmetric implementation of national regulation and supervision. Countries like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and some Scandinavian countries have chosen higher standards. On the other hand, we should expect deviations to take place in member countries of the Eurozone that are heterogeneous having different preferences and trade-off between regulatory stringency and economic activity. The requirements of both global clubs and regional club regarding transparency, monitoring, and a level playing field will also cause a collision. This paper reports examples of heterogenous applications of supervisions and reforms.