Abstract
This paper aims at building models in an experiment. It determines the use of drugs in social places through incorporating three models. In each of the models, the probability that people take drugs will be established in reflection to different elements and constraints such as laws, availability of drug sellers and the types of clubs or entertainment places where the people go to. Also, the state of minds of the individuals will be fundamental to distinguish whether they are vulnerable to taking drugs or not. These factors will be identified and classified either as dependent or independent variables through the study. An introduction will cover for the observation. Then, the different models with implication will be discussed and finally the data analysis and findings will be presented at the end.
Introduction
My observation is that the probability that my friends will take drugs entirely depends on different circumstances. Those who always attend to night clubs are very vulnerable to taking drugs than those who normally go into ordinary entertainment places. Evidently, the probability of taking drugs among my clubbing friends is aggregately higher compared to that of my friends who instead appear at normal places of entertainment where there is less alcohol presence (West, 2011). In establishing conditions resulting to these relationships, I have made three speculation models to explain the reason behind the occurrence of these issues. There is need to care about these observation. This is because it is interesting to note that my friends develop different characteristics even in different environments even though they initially come from a common point.
Method
Model 1
Once the nerves of people’s brain are paralytic, it makes the particular individuals lose their heads when doing something. Therefore, as evident, nightclubs are full of alcohol substances whereby people are free to drink. When they drink, there nerves become paralyze hence making people not to know what they are really doing even when its drugs that they are taking (Kenny, Kashy & Cook, 2006). However, the situation is different in normal entertainment places where there is no presence of alcohol. Therefore, my friends are safe and at a good state of mind in such places.
Implication 1
At nightclubs, people have no choice but to buy alcohol drinks. Being happy, my friends will drink and get excited and at the end, paralyze their brains hence be in a position that they will not know what they are doing (Hsu, 2000). My friends in the other entertainment places have many choices of drinks other than alcohol.
Implication 2
People who sale drugs in nightclubs are many compared to normal entertainment places. My friends at nightclubs will get excited and dance with strangers who may have drugs and expose it to them. To some extent, sellers may put drugs to the drinks of my friends and make them unconscious. However, my friends at normal entertainment places are free from this (Stewart, 2011).
Model 2
In places where law enforcement is weak expose people to do anything they like. Nightclubs are characterized with closed space hence giving room to drug dealers to do anything they like and the police cannot catch them. Other entertainment places are open hence people can be caught easily by police when they do drugs.
Implication 3
There seems to be strong laws in normal entertainment places than in night clubs. The police can easily and quickly deal with people in open entertainment places (Elberink & Vosselman, 2011). The various constraints of space and entries hinder the police to arrest people in nightclubs.
Implication 4
Drug dealers can efficiently sell their products in nightclubs than in open entertainment places. The darkness and limited space in nightclubs is the perfect environment for dealers. The situation is different in open entertainment places where there is openness and space and nobody can hide.
Model 3
It is hard for people to distinguish what is wrong and right when extremely excited. In nightclubs, my friends will drink and get too excited hence engage in the dark and may not know if they are doing any wrong when taking drugs. Normal entertainment places are quiet hence my friends will be sober and know what is expected from them.
Implication 5
The darkness in nightclubs makes people not to distinguish the wrong things from the right ones hence they can take drugs unconsciously. Normal places of entertainment have light that prevent people from doing any suspicious things.
Implication 6
Drinking and playing with strangers in nightclubs expose people to drug individual who encourage them to take. In normal entertainment places, people play with only their friends hence less vulnerable to drugs.
Critical experiment (Models 1 & 2)
My models above will lead to critical experiments. For model one and two, ill chose 40 people and divide them in to 4 groups of one being paralytic because of drinking, and have fun at strong law places. The other group does not drink and have fun at strong law places. The next group comprises of paralytic people but have fun in less strong law places while the last group do not drink but have fun in weaker law places.
Critical experiment (Models 2 & 3)
Also, choosing 40 people and take them into 4 groups, the first will constitute of people who are extremely excited and having fun in places with strong laws. The other group at weaker law places is also extremely excited. Then the next group has fun at strong law places and keeps their heads cool while the last group has fun at weaker law places.
Critical experiment (Model 1& 3)
One group of the four has fun at normal places of entertainment but their brains are paralytic. The next group has fun do not take alcohol and has fun at less noise places. Then the next group has fun in extremely excited entertainment places but do not take alcohol while the last group has fun in normal places with less noise.
Data
I would take the different variables in taking data. I would consider the aspect of drugs, noise places, alcohol, paralytic brains and the degree of excitement. Then, as discussed in the experiments, I would take the data to measure them against the various models, that is, 1 & 2, 2 & 3, and finally 1 & 3. This would lead me to comprehensively test my hypothesis and present my findings. The method of gathering the data would be through observation. Then, the data will be categorized into dependent and independent variables. Ultimately, the dependent variables will be taking drugs. The independent variables will be the laws, brain paralytic status and the degree of excitement.
Results & Findings
Here I would take the dependent variables to correlate with the independent variables. My interpretation of results will entirely gauge the extent in which people respect laws more or are vulnerable to drug substances regardless of the state of their environment. Ultimately, from the experiments models discussed above, it is evident that, the paralytic people will take drugs since they bear no sense of what they do, that is for model 1 to be true (Cleveland, 2007). The group who don’t drink will not take drugs.
For model 2, the result is that people having fun at places with weak laws will take drugs. Therefore, the strength of laws measures or corresponds to the extent in which people will take drugs or not. As per the results, people obey laws. More so, the degree of noise is proportional to the probability that people will take drugs or not. However, the ultimate decider is the environment in which people have fun at it will influence them take drugs regardless of laws, darkness or light and noise.
References
Cleveland, W. S. (2007). Trellis Display: Modeling Data from Designed Experiments.Bell Labs Technical Journal.
Elberink, S. O., & Vosselman, G. (2011). Quality analysis on 3D build models reconstructed from airborne laser scanning data. Isprs Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2010.09.009
Hsu, C. (2000). Remedial English e-Learning Study in Chance Building Model. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23418-7_16
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Stewart, G. (2011). Well test design & analysis. Tulsa, OK: PennWell.
West, M. (2011). Developing high quality data models. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
