Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $572 million for its role in Oklahoma’s opioid crisis

Link to Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/johnson-and-johnson-is-responsible-for-fueling-oklahomas-opioid-crisis-judge-rules-in-landmark-case/2019/08/26/ed7bc6dc-c7fe-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html

Image:
 

Summary: This article is about a court case in Oklahoma where Johnson&Johnson was found responsible in part for the opioid crisis and ordered to pay millions of dollars for treatment and recovery. Since the 1990s, companies like Johnson&Johnson have been encouraging doctors to prescribe strong painkillers that people then got addicted to. This has led to thousands of deaths and overdoses. This is one of the first cases where a drug company is being held responsible for their role in creating the crisis.

Reaction: This is somewhat encouraging. I know that the opioid crisis is a really serious issue so it is good to see that someone is being held accountable. However, I am not optimistic because the article says that the company is going to appeal, and that the government has settled with other companies out of court, meaning that many of the people responsible have probably gotten away without consequences.

Connection to US History: This connects to the Prohibition period of the 1920s when alcohol was outlawed in the US. Many of the arguments for prohibition centered around the dangers of alcohol to people's health and to their families (e.g. think of the women and children who will be left destitute when their men die of alcohol poisoning!). Just like that time, people are pushing for restrictions on opioids and highlighting the health risks associated with them.

Questions for Discussion: What do you think is the best way to address the opioid crisis? Should drug companies be held responsible? Why or why not?

The Global Machine Behind the Rise of Far-Right Nationalism

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/world/europe/sweden-immigration-nationalism.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Image:


Summary:
This article is about the rise of far-right nationalism in Sweden. Sweden has taken in many refugees in the past few years, more per capita that most other countries. At the same time, Sweden has one of the largest social safety nets, with high taxes and many services (like health care and education) provided by the government. The article talks about how Russian and American groups have been pushing the anti-immigrant narrative on Swedish websites and this has led to the increase in support for the Neo-Nazi political party in Sweden and an increase in nativist and anti-immigrant political arguments in the country.

Reaction:
I was shocked by the level of interference and interconnectivity between the Swedish nationalist groups and Russian news outlets, government sites and American far-right organizations. The article talked about the irony of how global the "nationalist" movement really is and that stuck with me. I was also shocked to hear about the Russian journalists trying to bribe immigrant youth to act out in front of the TV cameras. That seems crazy to me but it was verified by multiple sources.

Connection to history:
This connects to US history because nativism (the rejection of new immigrants) has often been a theme of US political groups, especially during/after periods of higher immigration. For example, the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s was reacting to increased German/Irish immigration, and the nativists of the 1920s went so far as to reduce legal immigration down to 2% of what it was with the National Origins Act of 1924.

Question for discussion:
1. Does it surprise you that support for Swedish nationalism is coming from groups in other countries? Why or why not?

Advice to California immigrants seeking to stay in US: Don’t work with pot

Link: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Advice-to-California-immigrants-seeking-to-stay-14294647.php

Image:


Summary:
This article discusses the issue of immigrants (both documented or not) working in the marijuana industry in California. While marijuana is legal in California for medical and recreational use, it is still illegal at the federal level. Therefore, while immigrants can legally get a job working in the industry, when they apply for citizenship or are detained, it can be used as evidence of what the government calls a lack of GMC (good moral character), and can result in deportation or a delay in naturalization.

Reaction:
This is one of the many weird aspects of states legalizing marijuana without federal action. Because of federalism (the idea that national laws trump state or local laws), even though states are making marijuana legal it technically remains illegal, states just aren't enforcing it. I also think the idea of judging people on their "moral character" seems outdated and very subjective depending on who gets to decide.

Connection to history:
The concept of using GMC as a requirement for citizenship began with the Naturalization Act of 1790. Over time the concept has come to mean different things, but it generally is used to deny naturalization/citizenship or residence to immigrants convinced of crimes.

Questions for discussions:
1. Do you think "good moral character" should be a qualification for citizenship? Why or why not?
2. Do you think use of marijuana should have any impact on whether an immigrant can be a citizenship? Why or why not?