When Alexis got to the University of Oregon her freshman year, she was introduced to Adderall by someone selling it in her dorm. She went on to use it a couple of times a month for long readings and writing essays, as well as during exam periods.

“If I needed to get things done quickly or jam a bunch of info into my head, it would be crazy easy,” Alexis said.

Alexis, who asked that her real name not be used because it’s illegal to possess Adderall without a prescription, is just one of many UO students introduced to prescription stimulants when they come to college. A 2016 study conducted by the University of Maryland reported that 61.8 percent of students are offered prescription stimulants at some point during their college career. The same study found that up to one in five college students reported using those prescription stimulants.

These students take and sell the drug despite the legal risks. It’s against the law to sell stimulants or possess them without a prescription. In 2005, a UO student was arrested for selling the drug from his dorm room.

Smart drugs

Nootropics, or “smart drugs,” are establishing themselves in mainstream society, similar to how athletic performance-enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids grew in popularity and notoriety in the past. The dangers of athletic doping are well documented. In the world of cognitive enhancement, the jury is still out on determining whether taking these drugs are worth the possibility of unknown long-term side effects.

In 1957, businessman Peter Drucker predicted that “the most valuable asset of a 21st-century institution, whether business or nonbusiness, will be its knowledge workers and their productivity.” This prediction seems to have come true. Knowledge workers, workers whose main capital is knowledge, are increasingly sought after as opposed to service and production employees in the information age that we live in. Many jobs are becoming more automated or outsourced elsewhere.

Unlike previous classes of working people who competed based on physical prowess or through their ability to do repetitive menial tasks, knowledge workers require a different set of skills. Brainpower — being able to think critically and creatively to solve complex problems — has become the differentiating factor required to succeed in knowledge-based jobs.

Best-selling author and entrepreneur Tim Ferriss explains that in business, “The difference between completely failing and losing all of your money, and going home with your tail between your legs, making a million dollars, and making a billion dollars is right here [pointing to his head].”

With an increased emphasis on critical thinking and problem solving, it makes sense that people are becoming more interested in cognitive-enhancing substances that hold the promise of potentially increasing focus, motivation, mood, attention and even out-of-the-box thinking ability.

Nootropics encompass a wide array of natural and synthetic drugs, dietary supplements, amino acids and other substances that are said to improve some aspect of cognition. Nootropics range from common and well-studied substances like caffeine and nicotine to pharmaceuticals like Modafinil and Adderall.

Most people are already smart drug users on a daily basis, whether they realize it or not. The FDA estimates that 80 percent of adults in the U.S. use caffeine daily. Caffeine can also improve energy, attention and certain aspects of memory.

Caffeine seems to be enough of a kick for most, though stronger stimulants such as Adderall or Ritalin — Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder drugs — make common appearances as study drugs on college campuses.

Potential Danger

Adderall increases dopamine levels in the brain, hitting the pleasure centers such as the ventral tegmental area and the nucleus accumbens to elevate mood, focus and vigilance.

That 10-page paper that’s due tomorrow morning might be enough of a temptation for a student to take Adderall in an attempt to pull an all-nighter and get more done in less time. While Adderall may help in the short run, its side effects can include insomnia and loss of appetite, and consistent use can cause withdrawal symptoms.

For Alexis, the benefits of using Adderall came at a high price.

“A side effect I’ve had nearly every time I’ve used it is a nasty comedown — I get a really lonely and depressing feeling for a couple of hours after it wears off.”

According to university physician Dr. Anna Hejinian, Adderall is a Schedule II drug — the same category as cocaine and methamphetamine. The FDA classifies medications as Schedule II if they have a high abuse potential, leading to possibly severe psychological or physical dependence. Despite the problems with drugs classified in Schedule II, these medications still have effective medical uses, according to the FDA.

The process of filling a prescription for Adderall and other prescription psychostimulants is “similar to the opioid painkillers Vicodin and Oxycontin,” Hejinian says. In order to get legally prescribed ADHD medications, Hejinian explained that patients must undergo rigorous testing to determine whether they really have ADHD.

Because it’s so time intensive, the health center doesn’t usually prescribe for or diagnose ADHD, Hejinian says.

“It’s illegal to the point where you could be in jail if you offer these medicines [prescription stimulants] to someone else for their use,” she said.

Alternatives

There are other cognitive-enhancing pharmaceutical alternatives to amphetamines, such as Modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting drug (not a traditional stimulant) prescribed to counter fatigue in conditions such as narcolepsy or sleep apnea. While commonly studied in sleep-deprived individuals, recent studies have shown benefits in healthy subjects. Twenty-six percent of students at Oxford University had taken the drug, according to a campus newspaper survey in 2014, and many professionals already use Modafinil in an effort to enhance their performance. Modafinil, a Schedule IV drug, has gentler side effects than ADHD stimulants.

Dave Asprey is an entrepreneur and founder of Bulletproof, a lifestyle brand that sells coffee and supplements engineered to improve performance. He went on CNN and ABC Nightline to publicly discuss the impact of Modafinil in his life. He gives the drug credit for allowing him to work full-time at a startup that sold for $600 million, while getting an MBA from Wharton.

“One reason I like [Modafinil] is that it shares many of the benefits other stimulants do, without the addiction or withdrawal,” Asprey said. “Modafinil is a prescription drug though, so you will need to talk to a physician to obtain it.”

Modafinil is compared to the fictional NZT-48 pill that Bradley Cooper’s character takes in the movie “Limitless.” In the movie, Cooper’s character is a disheveled bachelor with writer’s block who starts taking the pill and is able to quickly finish a novel, learn multiple foreign languages and make millions trading stocks.

A review paper found that Modafinil improves decision making, planning ability and performance on lengthy tasks. Anna-Katharine Brem, a co-author of the study, stated, “In the face of vanishingly few side effects in these controlled environments, Modafinil can be considered a cognitive enhancer.”

While smart drugs steal the show and gain lots of media coverage, natural substances can also enhance brain performance. Vitamins and minerals are essential for healthy brain function. Vitamin B12 deficiencies can cause cognitive difficulties and memory issues, and can even result in severe depression and paranoia in extremely deficient individuals. Low vitamin D levels can result in as much as twice the cognitive impairment as compared to people with optimal levels, according to a recent study.

Steven Fowkes, an organic chemist and founder of the Cognitive Enhancement Research Institute, said fixing nutritional deficiencies can result in the same effects that a drug delivers.

“The first place to start is with B-complex vitamins. See if there’s an objective increase in cognitive performance,” said Fowkes.

This approach, working from the ground up to improve our neurochemistry, is a safer and potentially more impactful option than taking pharmaceuticals that carry risks.  

Asprey said exercise, sleep, and nutrition “are bigger levers than drugs.”

While popping a pill is much easier than developing a healthy lifestyle to increase your brainpower, it might not be the most effective choice.

An Uncertain Verdict

Smart drugs also carry risks, many of which are not well-studied in humans, and the long-term side effects have not been determined in many of these substances. Smart drug usage certainly presents ethical dilemmas. Some argue that smart drugs, like doping in sports, provide an unfair advantage. People might feel compelled to take smart drugs if their co-workers and classmates are taking them and doing better as a result.

Smart drugs and other cognitive enhancing substances offer the possibility of altering human cognition. A radical leap ahead in human consciousness is possible in the ever-expanding world of nootropics, although weighing the rewards with the risks of taking cognitive enhancers is a necessary component.  

The post Buying a boost: Smart drugs on campus appeared first on Emerald Media.

In this age of political correctness, people seem to be less able to take a joke than ever. Humor is a great diffusing force that enables us to move through life easier. But people are taking things so seriously that humor is disappearing, and is being replaced with anger and hostility, with less understanding of each other.

To give one example, a few weeks ago my roommate had a couple friends over one afternoon. One of the friends was a girl. At one point, she got up to use a bathroom in one of my roommate’s rooms. Someone made a comment about how messy the room was and how you could barely walk in there. I followed with a remark about her being brave to attempt to navigate through the room covered with dirty clothes. A couple weeks after this encounter, one of my roommates told me that the girl was highly offended by the remark I made. I hadn’t even remembered what I said. She had taken it as an insult to question whether she had the audacity to go into a guy’s bathroom. The conversation that took place was not at all related to gender, although this girl was able to spin a friendly joke into a supposed sexist verbal attack.

Finding out that I had offended my roommate’s friend a couple weeks after the incident, and from a roommate no less, didn’t sit well with me. I wish she had felt comfortable enough to share her disdain for my comment with me directly,  although I can see how she might not be ready to share her thoughts with an acquaintance. This barrier in human communication leads to a lot of difficulties in being able to communicate effectively with one another. 

When people base their perceptions of a person on subtle comments such as the example I provided, they form opinions of others that may or may not coincide with who that person really is. Our brains make judgements about people very quickly, for better or worse. When we interact with others, it’s not as if we’ve prepared a rehearsed speech that is sure to communicate exactly what we want. Conversations don’t always flow smoothly, people say dumb things and sometimes we regret the mindless things that occasionally fly out of our mouths.

What causes people to perceive comments in such drastically different manners?

The way we each perceive the world is convoluted by our own experiences, and can distort our communication with others. When we’re having a bad day, we’re much more likely to explode when someone does something that irritates us. When we’re in a good mood, it’s easier to look past miniscule things.

The more we let other people’s actions or comments interfere with our own well-being, it’s a sign of emotional instability on our part, rather than a problem with the person who said it.

“If people are being outright nasty to you it’s pretty obvious. It’s insane to me that people can take something that was supposed to be funny and twist it into malice and hate,” explains UO Sophomore Jesse Fox.

On the opposite end of the spectrum from emotional reactivity is what some have called being “unfuckwithable.” The site positivewordsresearch.com defines the word as “when you’re truly at peace and in touch with yourself, and nothing anyone says or does bother you, and no negativity or drama can touch you.” This is a state where you can choose how to react to what another person says or does, no matter how insidious, and make a conscious decision about how to react.

If we let ourselves be influenced by the uproars of offense that other people make when we say something controversial or edgy, we turn into boring drones who just say what we think other people want to hear. The true mavericks, such as Steve Jobs, Martin Luther King, Elon Musk and others never let the fear of being judged negatively by others prevent them from speaking their mind and sharing their truth. While all were ridiculed at first, once people are able to expand their horizons and open up to new ideas, the world can change.

I would much rather have someone get upset by something controversial that I said, rather than bore them with the drones of cliched small talk that we’ve all heard a million times in an attempt to be socially accepted.

The post Pasman: We can’t be too quick to judge appeared first on Emerald Media.

We live during a time where there is an incessant need to document everything in our lives. Instagram, Snapchat, tabloids and other sources of media have created a culture of non-stop sharing. Public figures such as celebrities and athletes are no longer able to step away from the spotlight after their respective events or games; the cameras continue to flash. So why are we so intrigued by the day-to-day mundane activities that other people partake in?

Professional stalkers, also known as paparazzi, provide tabloids and other entertainment journalism outlets with photos of celebrities going about their lives, walking into a restaurant, leaving the airport and even following them to their homes. How could people make a living by simply following celebrities around all the time? The only reason paparazzi have jobs is because of the demands our society makes for entertainment news by purchasing tabloids and watching TMZ videos. It comes from our same attraction to mindlessly watching reality TV shows or newsfeeds. Maybe wanting to watch and fantasize about the lives of the upper echelon of society allows us to temporarily escape the boredom of our lives? For whatever reason, entertainment journalism has taken away the mystery that used to surround famous people.

Although people think celebrities love media attention, but many singers, actors and actresses, and athletes didn’t sign up to constantly live in the eyes of the public. Everyone’s watching them while they are performing, but celebrities deserve the right to privacy just like the rest of us. It’s clear that getting stalked doesn’t sit well with some of these folks; see Kanye West’s assault on a photographer in 2013.

On the other hand, it seems that some celebrities flip the script and actually use the paparazzi to their advantage. There have been reports that some fame-hungry stars call the paparazzi to inform them of their whereabouts in order to gain more attention. Reality TV stars, if I can even call them stars, already have the goal to become more famous just by being famous. This happens through media attention, whether it be self-directed personal promotion through Snapchatting pictures of their food, or pictures taken by paparazzis, which is ultimately driven by the same wants of the public. If people tune in, users get more views, encouraging them to consider expanding their online presence.

While it makes sense that people are drawn into the lives of famous people, knowing each and every detail about a person takes away the important element of mystery and distracts from what’s important. When you google a famous person, the headlines are nothing about what they’re currently working on professionally, but instead are often trivial snippets used to gain more views. Case in point: googling Leonardo DiCaprio results in stories titled “Leonardo DiCaprio Attends Mother’s Day Brunch in Malibu” and “Leonardo DiCaprio spotted chatting with a mystery woman.” It’s much more difficult to find interesting in-depth stories done by respectable news outlets such as Rolling Stone or Billboard, as opposed to the cheap headlines that you see from entertainment journalism companies such as TMZ.

Having a mysterious presence is much more interesting than showing all of your cards at once, leaving you with nothing left to reveal. This goes for social media as well. Cultivating a revealing online persona allows people access to your life and enables them to form an impression of you that may or may not be just a facade. Why should you even bother asking your friend what they did last weekend when they already shared every detail that happened online?

“Social media has become an all-too-comfortable mask that we wear to fool our peers. In some of my darkest moments of depression and self deprecation, I chose to post pictures of my ‘good times’ on Instagram and Facebook, rather than reach out to my friends and family,” comments sophomore English major Mark Rempel. Sometimes revealing less online leaves people wanting more, which creates more chances for genuine human connections.

While being more known for your artistry over anything else is hard to do nowadays, there are exceptions. The Weeknd, now one of the biggest pop stars in the world, rose to fame through a cult online following, not showing his face or doing any press interviews for the first few years of his career. He was so good at retaining the cloak of anonymity that “co-workers at American Apparel would listen to his music while he was working without realizing it was his,” according to a NY Times feature story. Daft Punk, the world-famous French electronic music duo, have stayed out of the spotlight, conducting few interviews and wearing their signature sci-fi futuristic helmets in public, maintaining an aura of mysteriousness. You have to dig a bit to even find a picture of the two’s real faces.

It’s time to leave trashy entertainment journalism behind and stop wasting our lives living vicariously through famous or successful people. The over-documentation of everything in our lives compromises the quality of them and leaves us starved for more despite the fact that we already know everything about people. If asking for the over documentation epidemic to stop is too extreme, people should at the very least have the choice to document what they choose, instead of having it dictated by others, as is the case for celebrities. We should all think a little more before we post on social media and consider the implications our online personas have on our actual lives and the way people perceive us.

The post Pasman: From paparazzi to snapchats: our obsessions with celebrity appeared first on Emerald Media.

In his screenplay “Because the Internet,” Donald Glover alludes to the fact that “On the internet you don’t really have to feel much of anything unless you want to.”

This line appears to be particularly relevant to the current landscape of online news. There is so much news coming at us that many people don’t even read anything besides the headlines. The way we pay attention to news has changed, and so has the way we interpret events in the world.

In this age of social media and information overload, it’s easy to get sucked into an endless spiral of reading breaking news on Twitter and other social media platforms. Social media has revolutionized the way people receive news. Instead of waiting to watch the nightly news, people can tune in 24/7 and hear about news stories right as they happen. The concept of live-tweeting has taken off, where people discuss news events right as they unfold, sometimes right in front of their eyes. A noteworthy twitter user, with the twitter handle @TheePharoah, tweeted first-person, minute-by minute accounts of  Michael Brown’s killing in Ferguson right as it happened.

When you scroll from headlines of tragedy to tragedy, it seems to deaden our ability to process what has happened and instead cheapens the news event. We are receiving news at such a rapid pace that the humanity seems to be taken away from the occurrence. We don’t have time to really take in the magnitude of one event because we are already being bombarded by news of the next. It’s a lot easier to read statistics about how many people died in an accident or attack rather than actually reading about who those people were and who they left behind.

Part of the problem seems to be coming from online journalists’ use of sleazy “clickbait” headlines, using misleading or sensationalist titles in order to get more views. It’s a simple concept: get more readers to click on the story and more revenue is generated for the website and journalist. Sites like BuzzFeed use attention-grabbing headlines to draw their readers into their latest quiz to see which Kardashian they’re most like. There is no real point in reading these articles besides their entertainment value. These practices contribute to the quantity-over-quality trend of online journalism, with some going so far as to even call clickbait the death of journalism.

Another major problem with following the news is that it gives us a distorted perspective of what’s happening in the world. News outlets know that stories about terrorist attacks, killings and other problems will generate the most traffic. This leads to people believing that the world is an awful place. While the unfortunate news may be true, there are also stories of triumph and good deeds that don’t gain much attention. One news site called Positive News, founded by Sean Dagan Woods, is attempting to provide empowering news that leads to solutions, not just informing us of problems.

Absorbing news is a passive activity. People sit on their smartphones surfing Twitter or curl up on the couch to catch the nightly news. There is nothing inherently valuable about learning what’s going on in the world without taking action to change it. As Napoleon Hill states in Think and Grow Rich, “Knowledge is only potential power. It becomes power only when, and if, it is organized into definite plans of action, and directed to a definite end.”

Most people read news stories and then use them to complain about everything that’s wrong in the world to their friends. Complaining about Donald Trump seems to be the most cliché topic in America right now. Very few people actually take action when they read about a problem in the world. 

Not only is paying attention to the news oftentimes a waste, there is actually evidence that in some cases it can be harmful. Due to the endless stories of terrorism throughout the world, many people have begun to live in fear of being the victim of a terrorist attack, which actually only has a one in 3.6 billion chance of happening to someone. Israeli researchers have found that there are actually real health consequences associated with living with this fear. There was a higher resting heart rate associated with elevated cardiovascular risks found among those who feared terror the most. Fearing these attacks because of frequent media coverage actually leads to real physical health issues.

Although we seem to be trapped in an endless onslaught of media, there is a way out of. Professor Peter Alilunas leads a yearly digital detox project in his Journalism 201 class. Students are asked to take an eight hour break from all forms of media. The purpose behind the assignment is to bring awareness to how much of our lives are taken up by media and to realize the potential downsides that our habits have.

“Social media tends to distract people from human relationships. And I think this assignment shows students that. We’re forgetting the ability to talk to other humans,” argues Professor Alilunas.

Maybe the way we get more connected to the world around us is by detaching ourselves from the constant stream of input that is media. I do, however, realize the irony in all of these issues–I’m still writing about them for the news.

The post Pasman: Don’t watch the news — your sanity depends on it appeared first on Emerald Media.

In the movie “Shawshank Redemption,” when Andy Dufresne is asked why he is in prison, he responds by saying “My lawyer fucked me. Everyone’s innocent in here. Didn’t you know that?” Although it seems to be a running joke among inmates to claim their innocence, are there really people in prison who are truly innocent of the crimes that they have been convicted of?

According to The National Registry of Exonerations, there have been just over 2,000 exonerations— the release of an inmate and the reversal of their conviction— in the U.S. since 1989. It’s impossible to ever know precisely how many, but there are certainly countless prisoners who are behind bars right now for crimes they didn’t commit. Some estimates have been made, such as the study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that reported an estimated 1 in 25 inmates who were given the death penalty were later proven innocent.

Many exonerations have gained national media attention, such as the “Central Park 5,” a group of juveniles who were wrongfully identified as the perpetrators of an assault and rape in Central Park. In another case, Brian Banks, a promising high school football star who had committed to play for USC, was falsely accused of rape by a fellow high school classmate.

Numerous projects around the country, such as the Oregon Innocence Project, which started in Portland in 2014, are working hard to help wrongfully convicted prisoners out of jail. 

Janis Puracal, an appellate attorney and member of the Oregon Innocence Project, got involved in innocence work after her brother, Jason, was wrongfully convicted and spent two years imprisoned in brutal conditions in a maximum security prison in Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan prison didn’t have enough food to go around, and there was no running water or electricity. Jason was cooped up in a 12×15 foot cell (picture your dorm room) with 11 other inmates during the time he served. After a grueling two years, and an incredible effort by Janis, Jason was eventually freed and able to come home. Although this was an extreme case of being imprisoned in inhumane conditions in a foreign country, wrongfully convicted prisoners in the U.S. go through their share of suffering as well.

So how are wrongful convictions able to happen in our justice system? Mistaken eyewitness identification is one major contributor to the problem. Despite the trust we have in our memory, it may not be the most reliable metric to use for testifications in criminal cases. Researchers have demonstrated “all of the ways our memories can fail us and all of the ways our memories can be contaminated by outside influences to create memories that never actually happened,” explains Janis. It’s possible that pressures to imprison more people from privately owned prisons, false confessions and junk science may be contributing factors as well.

Wrongful convictions result in horrible psychological and physical consequences for those convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. It’s bad enough to be spending your life behind bars for a crime that you really did commit, but imagine being in jail surrounded by hardened criminals as punishment for something you didn’t even do, with no one believing in you. You are mostly forgotten by society and enter into the prison-industrial-complex which, let’s be honest, probably creates better criminals instead of reforming them. Prisoners are forced to find ways to survive in violent, corrupt conditions (that don’t resemble normal society whatsoever). Exonerated people often have difficulty transitioning back to society once released. Many states don’t even compensate exonerees for the time they served unjustly behind bars.

Although there have been rare cases of wrongfully convicted inmates who worked on their own case in jail to find evidence that resulted in an exoneration, those who are wrongfully convicted usually need help from family members or innocence projects to help get them out of jail.

“Once you’re in prison you’re pretty much cut off from the resources of the outside world,” said Carrie Leonetti, an associate professor and the leader of the Criminal Justice Initiative at the UO School of Law in Portland.

It took an unrelenting effort from Janis to get her brother freed from the Nicaraguan prison. She assembled a large team of attorneys, lobbyists and PR people in order to get Jason home. This is why organizations like the Oregon Innocence Project are crucial to help assemble the resources needed in order to overturn a wrongful conviction. There have been 16 exonerations in Oregon so far, and while the newly formed Oregon Innocence Project has yet to have their first exoneration, they currently have five exoneration cases in litigation.

Luckily, there is hope for people who have been imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit. The introduction of DNA evidence in the 1980s was able to prove the innocence of many inmates. Longtime prisoners and even some on death row were able to use DNA evidence to revisit their cases and show that they didn’t commit the crime they were accused of.

Not everyone behind bars is a criminal. It’s not an easy process, but people who are wrongfully convicted do have the chance for freedom again. Innocence projects are working hard across the country to supply the vast amount of resources to wrongfully convicted inmates needed to result in an exoneration.

The Oregon Innocence Project is hosting their annual “THIS IS INNOCENCE” event on May 11 in Portland. There will be former wrongfully convicted prisoners who will share their story and all proceeds will go to help fund efforts to help exonerate wrongfully convicted inmates.

The post Pasman: Oregon Innocence Project aims to correct a faulty prison system appeared first on Emerald Media.

Last Thursday afternoon I trapped myself into a futuristic-looking pod and submerged my whole body into an epsom salt-water concoction. Why, you may ask?

I was getting to try out sensory deprivation, the act of blocking out all external stimuli, by laying down for an hour and a half in a sensory deprivation tank otherwise known as a float tank.

Float tanks were developed in the 1970s by neuroscientist and psychoanalyst John C. Lilly in an attempt to better understand the nature of consciousness and how it relates to the brain. Despite fading in popularity for several decades, float tanks are coming back into the mainstream.

The emerging popularity of the tanks can be attributed to some notable users. Comedian Joe Rogan has talked extensively about his positive experiences with float tanks on his show The Joe Rogan Experience and NBA superstar Stephen Curry is known for regularly going to tanks between games to de-stress.

Owner of Float Om, a float tank spa in Eugene, Ankush Vimawala is excited about the future of floating. He predicts an “increase in popularity as more and more people reap the benefits of floating.”

After hearing all the hype, I wanted to try it out for myself so I headed over to Float Om on 16th Ave. When first entering the lobby there is an interesting blend of new age spirituality with an assortment of essential oils and a bookshelf with numerous scientific books describing the ins and outs of sensory deprivation.

I was led through a hallway, back past a meditation alter into a room containing an odd looking chamber that bore a striking resemblance to a coffin. After showering and putting ear plugs in, I climbed into the tank, closed the opening door behind me, and hoped that I would be able to find my way out in the pitch black darkness.

After laying down in the tepid water, I closed my eyes and began to float. For what I’m guessing was the first 30-45 minutes of my float, I was distracted by my racing thoughts and the sound of my heartbeat.

Once I could relax, my mind quieted down and I began to slip into a weird state that resembled being half asleep. This, I later learned, occurred due to my brain going into a theta brainwave state, which is correlated with problem solving and an increased learning ability.

Time no longer mattered, and I was feeling as though I lost contact with my physical body. After what seemed like an eternity I heard music begin to play, which signaled it was time for me to get out of the tank, time to re-enter the outside world.

For the first few minutes after getting out of the tank, I felt as if I was in some sort of trance. Once I became more acclimated with the outside world again, I continued to feel extremely relaxed, both mentally and physically, for the rest of the day.

Ultimately, it was a crazy and awesome first time floating.

While floating brings a number of physical benefits, including speeding up injury recovery and decreasing pain due to the body absorbing magnesium through the epsom salt-water, one of the most significant things about sensory deprivation is that it provides the chance to take a timeout from our hectic lives and be completely removed from all external input.

We live in a time that is plagued by information overload. We are all constantly texting, emailing and using social media. Research from two British psychologists in 2015 has estimated that young adults spend an average of five hours a day on their mobile devices.

You can’t even go to a concert anymore without being bombarded by a flood of phones being waved in the air.

All of the constant distractions brought on by technology really take a toll on us. Despite opening up a whole new realm of possibilities, tech seems to be destroying our ability to live in the present moment. Besides just being a big waste of time, screen time has been linked to an increase in stress levels, lower sleep quality and diminished attention.

What better way is there to stop the onslaught of distractions than by experiencing sensory deprivation? These tanks could help cure us of our cell phone addictions and constant craving for stimulation.

According to Vimawala, “There is potential for people to become better human beings by floating.”

A red-lit room in Cristopher Niell’s research lab in the Lewis Integrative Science Building is filled with mice. But these are no ordinary mice. Researchers in the lab, led by University of Oregon doctoral student Joseph Wekselblatt, are working on a project to observe how these mice’s brains respond to sensory input using microscopes.

Although scientists know a lot about the different structures in the brain, the task of observing brain activity is a difficult one. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, also known as fMRI’s, are able to detect activity in different regions of the brain but are unable to show individual neurons firing. This means that we can see what regions of the brain are responsible for different tasks but can’t actually see how the brain goes about working its magic.

This has proven to be a big roadblock for neuroscience. Without being able to see exactly how the human brain operates, it’s often a guessing game.

At the UO, Niell’s lab has found a way to break through this barrier and start unwrapping the mysteries of the brain. The lab has developed a way to breed its research mice with fluorescent protein in their brains that lights up on imaging when individual neurons fire. By running the mice through a series of different tasks, the researchers are able to pinpoint exactly what is going on in their brains while in action.

This research is huge because its implications stretch far beyond rodents. “Many parts of the brains in mice are similar to humans, including areas involving vision,” said Niell. By beginning with mice studies, it’s hoped that the research will eventually turn over to human subjects.

Niell is very optimistic about the future of this research. He says that his lab is working on research looking at schizophrenia, neurological disorders and learning. The lab is pairing with the UO department of psychology and College of Education to study the development of the adolescent brain. Niell believes that his lab’s research can be key to understanding how the brain can change and improve functioning.

This all comes at an unprecedented time in neuroscience. The White House started the B.R.A.I.N (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) initiative in 2013 in hopes of getting a better understanding of brain function. Our understanding of the brain is growing at a rapid pace and new research is coming out every day that furthers our knowledge.

Big strides have been made over just the last 20 years. It was only towards the end of the 20th century that the concept of neuroplasticity, the idea that the human brain continues to change throughout adulthood and is not ever stagnant, became accepted as true. Even someone’s intelligence is not hard-wired, and is subject to change.

As techniques to map brain activity improves, the potential for understanding how to change the brain in positive ways increases. Since our brains are control our personalities and how we interact with the world, learning how to change the brain may prove monumental for our development as human beings.

The recent developments in neuroscience are some of the most exciting things that are going on right now. We will probably look back in 20 years on our current understanding of the brain and laugh at how elementary it is. Neuroscience is progressing so quickly that what was once thought of as science fiction is quickly becoming accepted as scientific reality. Niell half-jokingly remarked that, “Anything that seems impossible will end up happening.”

The UO Institute of Neuroscience is looking to expand, planning on hiring four to five new faculty members.

An unhealthy animal, treated with antibiotics and synthetic growth hormones in order to fatten it up for quick production, is vastly different from an animal raised eating grass, its native diet, able to move around in a lower stress environment.

Different methods of meat production lead to different effects on the nutritional content of the meat as well as the environmental repercussions. Grouping all red meat into the same category is a practice that needs to end today.

With factory farmed meat, the animals are fed grains in order to cut down costs and quicken the feeding process. This type of meat may contain synthetic growth hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and heavy metals that are used in the industrial farming process.

Aside from health risks, there are also large environmental risks associated with factory farming. UO graduate sociology student Julius McGee has drawn attention to some of these problems in his research.

“Grass-fed meat helps reduce the amount of emissions coming from cows,” said McGee.

He explains that enteric fermentation occurs in grain-fed animals, one of the factors that contributes to the emission of the toxic methane gas. Methane is a large contributor to the global greenhouse gas problem.

The environmental impacts are a whole lot different with animals that are fed grass. The National Trust, a conservation non-profit in the United Kingdom, found that grass-fed beef reduces the carbon footprint, along with increasing the biodiversity of pasture ecosystems. In basic terms: it’s beneficial to the environment.

Grass-fed, organic meat has also been shown to have higher levels of Omega 3s, CLA’s and TVA’s (healthy fats), along with higher carotenoids, which is a signal of nutrient density, compared to grain-fed animals.

The main problem with people’s view on meat is that it appears to be politically based, rather than evaluating the real facts. Vegans and vegetarians are radically against the consumption of meat in general, they seem to pay no attention to the type of farming process involved with the livestock.

People like to make blanket statements blaming meat for many of the environmental problems today. It would be more worthy to direct this animosity against eating meat towards the factory farming process. It’s obvious that large, industrial meat production contributes to many environmental and health problems.

The good news is that the attitude towards red meat is shifting. Demand for grass-fed beef has grown by a rate of 25-30 percent annually in the past decade. People’s requests for meat from healthy, humanely treated animals has even seeped into the fast food sector, the group that is most notorious for using large factory farms.

Carl’s Jr. recently released a grass-fed burger option on their menu and you can even pick up a grass-fed burger from Gastro Burger in Hamilton Dining.

Burgerville, the northwest-based fast food chain makes sure all their beef is hormone free, antibiotic free and comes from humanely treated cows. Burgerville CEO Jeff Harvey is attempting to change the model for fast food production.

“I believe personally, that there are better environmental cost distinctions with local food as a whole when you look at transportation and storage and packaging,” said Harvey.

Most industrial meat in the U.S. comes from the midwest, with large meat packing processors like IBC, Inc., a subsidiary of Tyson Foods, dominating the market. Sourcing meat locally seems like an obvious answer to cutting down costs, leading to a stable business model that could increase businesses’ revenues.

While the political stigma against red meat remains strong in certain corners, as consumers become more aware of the real story on red meat, people’s attitudes will continue shifting.

“We do believe that the desire for these features [organic, pesticide-free, etc.] are going to grow over time, particularly in the Northwest,” said Harvey.

The University of Oregon recently decided that the Martin Luther King Jr. quote in the EMU would return after construction. There was a controversy on campus, which may have been blown a little out of proportion by media outlets across the country, over whether to take down a quote from one of the greatest leaders in American history and from perhaps the most iconic speech ever given.

The quote reads, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…”

The debate began when a student questioned whether the quote “represents us today.” With the gender identity and transgender rights movement in full swing, one student argued that since diversity includes more than just race, maybe we should find a quote that better represents the open and inclusive environment that we have, and are continuing to pursue, at the UO.

It turns out that the issue may have been much less of a debate than previously expected. There was only a single student who made a comment questioning whether the quote is the best fit for the university before the EMU Board decided to keep the quote.

Since the story has made so much headway, we might as well have a conversation considering the ramifications of political correctness taken to the extreme. It is important to take the time to understand the importance of the MLK quote.

We must not forget the context of this quote. When King gave the “I have a dream” speech to civil rights activists in Washington D.C., he was clearly directing his speech towards raising awareness and inspiring people to stand up to the African-American civil rights issues that were plaguing the country at the time. Although there is an intersectionality of race and gender, one person cannot stand up to everything that is wrong with the world at one time.

Take, for instance, some of the most influential humanitarians of all time. Mahatma Gandhi freed India from British rule, Oskar Schindler saved the lives of 1,200 Jewish people during the Holocaust, while MLK led the African-American civil rights movement. Each of these great men followed plans of action for specific, clear-cut goals.

It would be foolish to believe that a single person can stand up for justice for all people. Change generally happens slowly, if at all.

Words don’t really mean much unless we understand the context in which they are spoken. While the King quote does not explicitly include anything regarding gender inclusiveness, the context and meaning behind these words are powerful enough to explain why the UO has chosen this quote to be representative of the school’s values since 1985.

Freshman pre-business major Stephen Fleischman believes the quote is still relevant for many reasons.

“It can be related to today’s times where homosexuality and personal identity activists are struggling with similar forms of discrimination that African-Americans were facing in the ’60s,” Fleischman said.

Don’t get me wrong, the quest to be as diverse and accepting of a university as possible is a noble one indeed, but this has been taken too far in some circumstances. The movement for political correctness seems to be speeding forward with blinders that have prevented some people from seeing how the intent behind King’s words is more important than the literal interpretation.

We need to take a step back and put ourselves in King’s shoes, understand where he was coming from and celebrate his achievements instead of picking something trivial to criticize. I’m glad that the UO was able to quickly stomp out the allegations that we had gone overboard with the diversity and inclusiveness movement.

Different groups who feel oppressed or underrepresented on campus should be working together to help out with each other’s issues as much as possible. This controversy can serve as a cautionary tale of how political correctness can be divisive and how misleading media coverage can cause a negative impact on a school’s image.

A new group of silicon valley techies, professionals and others around the world are starting to experiment with small doses of LSD in hopes of improving their creativity and focus at work, along with alleviating issues of anxiety and depression. They are calling this idea microdosing.

By using about 1/10 of a recreational dose, the user experiences a slight mental change, what James Fadiman, a leading figure in psychedelic research and author of the The Psychedelic Explorer’s Guide, calls “sub-perceptual.”

LSD was first synthesized back in 1938 and secretly studied by the CIA in the ’50s, before peaking in popularity during the ’60s. Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters frequently dropped acid, traversing the country in their psychedelic themed bus. As the wild ’60s came to a close, the U.S. federal government made LSD possession illegal and the FDA-approved studies drew to a close in the forthcoming decades.

Ever since, LSD has made occasional appearances in the news, such as when MLB pitcher Dock Ellis threw a no-hitter under the influence of the drug, or when Steve Jobs reported it was one of the “two or three most important things” he had done in his life.

It wasn’t until recently a new trend in LSD use has appeared. Rolling Stone, Forbes and the Huffington Post all ran stories in the past year discussing the new trend of taking microdoses of the substance.

People are beginning self-experimentation using these microdoses in hopes of improving their lives. Fadiman receives anecdotal reports from people who have tried microdosing along with giving them a protocol to follow, which involves the user dosing every three days. He says that he has received reports from people ranging from a Brazilian jiu jitsu practitioner to a warehouse manufacturer, all raving about the positive effects of their new routine.

Baynard Woods, author of the Vox article on microdosing, says microdosing helped him knock his internet addiction, at least temporarily. Woods explains that he doesn’t think microdosing increased his willpower, he simply, “Didn’t feel a desire to go online.” He says the “habitual cycle got broken.”

It’s not clear how many people really are on board with this new fad, since LSD is illegal, and people are reluctant to admit to using psychedelics. But people are beginning to realize that the propaganda that has spread surrounding hallucinogenic drugs is greatly exaggerated.

As attitudes towards marijuana have rapidly changed in the U.S. over the past decade, people’s views on psychedelics are starting to follow suit. These substances might have great potential in treating trauma and addictions and aiding with positive transformational experiences if used in the right setting.

Drugs such as LSD have been around and studied for much longer than the pharmaceutical drugs that are reaching the market. Because of the outdated beliefs that are in place, we somehow feel okay dosing 5-year-olds with amphetamines (Adderall) but refuse to examine a substance because of it’s illegality or negative associations.

Fadiman said, “Microdosing is the safest known way to use psychedelics.”

He also suggests that microdosing LSD is a reasonable alternative to Adderall or anti-depressants that have addictive properties and a lot of side effects for many people.

Not all people are so convinced quite yet. “It [microdosing] strikes me as a media phenomena,” said Woods. He went on to say that the reason these sort of drugs got banned in the first place was because of grandiose claims from people who see psychedelics as a great evil.

The media frenzy surrounding microdosing may be blowing the movement out of proportion, but the important thing is that people are beginning to become aware of the potential good this substance could bring. Despite being in its infancy, formal research surrounding microdosing LSD is beginning in Europe and Australia.

People should have the right to choose what to put into their own bodies, not the government. It’s clear the drug war was a failure on all ends, resulting in racial discrimination and unfair punishments for drug use. We are moving into an age where people are beginning to see the discrepancies between what doctors, pharmaceutical companies and the government are claiming, and the truth.

The new LSD microdosing trend is just the beginning of a much bigger movement towards drug reforms and a more open approach to substances that were once thought of as destroying society.