Well, good morning everybody, it's nice to be here, it's nice to be here with Ambassador Brownfield. So I just thought I'd made some kind of opening comments, turn it over to Ambassador Brownfield and then we'll open it up for questions and answers. So it's really, I think, a particularly important time for us as we think about kind of drug policy and our work in the international arena. Really pleased to be joined by Ambassador Brownfield, who's a tremendous amount of expertise in diplomacy, I think has really moved drug policy reform efforts forward not just in the United States but internationally and so we're tremendously lucky to have him. You know, I think that we know that every country has experienced significant challenges as it's related to the consequences of drug use and drug trafficking. And these efforts, I think, have underscored our tremendous opportunities to both work on public health and public safety sectors in terms of working together. We also need to understand that people need access to essential medicines to relieve pain and improve their health and well-being. But we also need to prevent diversion because particularly as the United States has been experiencing significant consequence around prescription drug use issues, we have to pay attention to diversion issues. But we know that also we have to look more squarely at our demand reduction efforts for illegal drugs. I think we know that the demand has a ripple effect that fuels drug trafficking and violence and corruption. So addressing demand is one of the most important things that we can do. We're also, I think, squarely rooted in the understanding that substance use disorders are diseases. These are not moral failings. These are not bad people doing bad things. But we know that people need access to good prevention services. We can treat people and rehabilitate them and people can recover. The international community's focus on public health is really encouraging for making progress as we move forward. But as we make progress, I think each individual country really needs to do their own assessment in terms of how they have met the obligations under the International Drug Conventions and the 2009 political declaration and plan for action. I think we agree and support the three international conventions and understand that every country has a significant amount of latitude under those conventions to reform drug policy as we've done in the United States in terms of focusing on public health-related priorities, looking at criminal justice reform issues. Understanding that law enforcement has a key role to play, but that for too long we relied on punitive approaches to people with substance use disorders. I think we've all seen, particularly in the United States, the role that these punitive approaches have played as it relates to our overreliance on incarceration for people with substance use disorders and disproportionality for some of our communities in terms of the work that we're doing. So we've really, I think, made major strides in looking at drug policy reform efforts under our three conventions. In February, our government continued to put forward a plan that balances this approach between public health and public safety. As an example, for the first time in the history of the United States, when we look at our drug control budget, we have actually equally funded demand reduction efforts as supply reduction efforts, and I think that's an opportunity for not just the United States, but for all countries to look at how we appropriately finance public health strategies that we know to be important, specifically in the United States, the President has called for over a billion dollars to support additional access to treatment in the United States as a commitment to our public health efforts. But we know that each country has to make meaningful changes as it relates to drug policy, and our governments have the substantial obligation to continue to reform drug policy within existing treaties. But we also want to ensure that we know that not one size fits all, that we need to continue to adjust drug policy as it relates to particularly underserved populations in the United States and internationally. So when we think about women and children and youth, indigenous populations, those in the criminal justice system. So we know that unguess is just a little over a month away that this will be the first time in over 20 years that we have met to really, I think, review our understanding of where we are, where have we fallen short, what are the opportunities to really move forward science and evidence and research on evidence-based drug policy efforts, things like public health interventions, medication assisted treatment, criminal justice reform, alternatives to incarceration, and really strengthening the collaboration between public health and public safety are become important priorities for us. So you know, obviously CND and our movement to our unguess are really reflective of kind of our understanding of drug policy and science and research. So with that, I'll turn it over to Ambassador Brownfield. Well, I thank you, Dr. Botticelli, and let me offer just a couple of comments from the United Nations perspective. Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here in Vienna for the meeting, the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs or the CND. Conceivably the most important CND meeting in several decades. Why? Because in five weeks time, the leadership of the world will gather at UN headquarters for the first special session of the UN General Assembly on drugs and a review of global drug policy in nearly 20 years. There is, as we all know, an intense debate going on on our planet in terms of what global drug policy should be. I would suggest to you gentlemen that for the last 30 or 40 years, this debate has been dominated by the two extremes. One extreme which argues simplistically that if we simply legalized everything, the problem would go away. A second extreme which argues with almost the same degree of simplicity, if only we would prohibit everything, the problem would go away. As is usually the case, ladies and gentlemen, there are solutions and they are found somewhere in between the two extremes. It is the position of the United States government that there is fertile ground for serious and pragmatic reform in drug policy that the upcoming on gas can in fact consider. We can open by reaffirming the three international conventions that have governed our planet's approach toward drug policy for more than 50 years and in fact have served a very useful purpose. Within those conventions, we can find space for a greater emphasis on public health in terms of drug policy. We can find possibilities for reform of criminal justice approaches, alternatives to incarceration, sentencing reform, drug courts, court supervised drug treatment. We can find space for more development and alternative development ideas, for focus on new psychoactive substances which the pharmaceutical industry is now producing at a rate far greater than our ability as the international community to register and schedule those new products and we can find an opportunity at the on gas to recommit to combating and eventually defeating those transnational criminal organizations that traffic in the product for economic gain using violence and bloodshed as their business model. Ladies and gentlemen, there is clearly a role for civil society in this process but the word we emphasize is balance. Civil society is not monolithic, not all NGOs take the same position and on gas as well as this C and D are opportunities for us to hear both sides of the argument. May I suggest to you here in Vienna, we are in the city about which the entire United Nations organization says there is something called the spirit of Vienna and what that means in UN speak, I believe, is that unlike other headquarters for UN organizations, here in Vienna there is a tradition for finding common ground and eventually producing consensus on policy and reform. We hope the spirit of Vienna will continue through the upcoming UN gas. That's my opening comment and I throw the floor open. Thank you very much. I have one question for Mr. Botticelli, one question for Mr. Brownfield. A question to Mr. Brownfield is that yesterday Mr. Werner said from the international narcotics control board said that the legalization of non-medical use of cannabis is not in line with international conventions and as we know several states of the United States need the recreational use of cannabis legal for adults. So do you think that this is not in line with the international law and if it's not what the US government is about to do with this problem? My second question is that you mentioned there is an ongoing opioid epidemic in the US with several victims of overdose and some NGOs and even a mayor in New York state proposed the idea of opening supervised injection sites to tackle this problem. And there are several such facilities in Europe. What is your government's position on that? Let me take on the marijuana question as relates to the three conventions. It will perhaps not surprise you to learn that the government of the United States believes that we are still in compliance with the three international drug control conventions while acknowledging that four of the 50 states of the Union have in fact decided through public referendum to legalize the cultivation purchase sale production of marijuana. We believe this because it is our position that the conventions themselves provide a sufficient amount of discretion within the text of the conventions to allow this sort of approach. Our argument simply stated and as briefly as I can make it is that the conventions do not require or obligate any member state to criminalize and prosecute individuals for consumption of any particular product. The conventions recognize that member states have different constitutional systems and allow those constitutions to have an impact on how they will carry out their treaty obligations. The United States system is federal where most of the law enforcement and law enforcement authority 90% is in the hands of the individual states. The United States government has a limited number of law enforcement resources as a matter of discretion. It is the government's authority and right to determine how to use those limited resources. Our objective remains the same as it has been since we first supported the very first international drug control convention. And that is to discourage and work eventually to eliminate the harm caused by dangerous drugs on our citizens and our communities. Marijuana remains a proscribed and therefore illicit substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. And it is therefore our contention that we remain in compliance with our convention obligations. We acknowledge others have different opinions. We will continue this discussion into the future. Dr. B. Great. Thank you. So as you discussed, you know, we have a significant opioid epidemic in the United States. I think it's important to talk about our approach to this. So we know that this epidemic has been largely fueled by the overprescribing of prescription pain medication in the United States. I think that's why we understand our treaty obligations in other countries in terms of looking at appropriate access. But I think we want to give some caution as we look at how we prescribe these prescription pain medications in the United States. You know, we've seen a small percentage of people who transition from prescription pain medication to heroin. Newer heroin users, four-fifths of new heroin users actually started by misusing pain medication. So we really got to focus on how do we diminish the supply and misuse of prescription pain medication as a result of this. But you know, our approach to this has been in a number of different areas as it relates to not only prescription drugs but heroin use. One, wider access to medication assisted treatment. You know, we have these three highly effective medications that are underutilized in our treatment system. They're underutilized in our healthcare system. They're underutilized in our criminal justice system. So we've really been focusing on more widespread access to medications. As well as more widespread distribution of naloxone, which is an overdose prevention reversal agent. We've seen a tremendous uptake not only in the health community but in the law enforcement community to reduce overdoses. We've also been significantly concerned by the dramatic increase in viral hepatitis that we've seen associated with injection drug use and some isolated cases of significant HIV exposure in parts of the country where we haven't been doing that. We were very happy to see that Congress, after decades, reversed a long-standing ban on federal funding to support syringe exchange programs. You know, it still does not allow for purchase of needles, but it supports all the other programmatic areas to do that. You know, we have not taken a position on safe injection sites. I think we're very interested to see what happens at the local level with this. And let me say two things. I think of how we think about both needle exchange and other efforts to reduce harm that not only do we need to think about how do some of these interventions reduce harm from infectious disease but really provide a vehicle for people and motivation for people to access treatment. So I think that as we look at all of these interventions, it's really important that we focus not just on reducing infectious disease among folks, but how do we use that as an opportunity to really engage people and move them toward reduced drug use behavior. Thank you. I have a question about the use of the disability to reduce drug abuse. Yesterday also, Mr. Kedepo mentioned about it. And what is the US position toward it? And do you think that you can find common ground by the people on this? Sure. Let me take on that one, since it is directly tied to the potential on gas declaration and outcome document. The United States of America does not apply the death penalty to drug cases. 32 states of the Union and under certain circumstances the federal government does permit the death penalty, but they are applied to cases that involve the taking of life and murder. Consequently, the United States government has no concern, no problem with language in an un-gas declaration that relates to the death penalty on drug related cases. However, it is also the judgment of the United States government that there is not consensus in the international community on this issue. Therefore, to the extent we are taking a position, it is a tactical position, one of questioning how much time, effort, and resources should be dedicated to an effort if we already know it will not achieve consensus. If consensus builds on this issue, we will join it because it is not inconsistent with our own policy. It is our judgment that there is not consensus on this issue as of today, Tuesday, the 15th of March, 2016. Don't get me wrong, but I can really understand how the U.S. can reaffirm the convention and at the same time the watchdog of this convention is saying that the U.S. is not compliant with them. I can understand. And I have a second question about the Vienna State that Mr. Grumfield mentioned. And as you know, there is a draft that is being negotiated by convention. What means that if one country blocks something, this is not going to be in the draft, and it's not going to be today, maybe in Cami and New York and in New York. But indeed, it's somehow strange that there is going to be a debate about drafts, but some ideas are not going to be today. So I don't know what you think about that. I think that some ideas are just out of the table, because it's some kind of a taboo. Let me start. And then so relative to our obligation under the treaties, I think that our position under federal policy has remained the same. That legalization of marijuana for, I actually say personal use, not recreational use, is not consistent with federal policy. And that we have a constitution in the United States that allows certain of our states to be able to do that. And while it's remained illegal, our Department of Justice has basically said that we are not using limited federal law enforcement to go after people for low-level personal use, which I think is entirely consistent with our policy and consistent with our meeting, the conventions. I will say, and then Ambassador Brownfield can talk more in terms of kind of the role of civil society in our work. But I can tell you that in a wide variety of settings, we have significant consultation with many people in civil society and many folks in civil society who don't necessarily agree with the entirety of kind of U.S. drug policy issues. And I think it's important for us to continue to maintain ongoing dialogue with our civil society and with the wide variety of NGOs as it relates to their input in terms of drug policy. And we actually had a reception last night with a lot of groups that I think where we have a significant amount of consensus where we are. But I think who are advocating positions that the United States doesn't agree with. So I think we have to maintain ongoing dialogue with people who don't necessarily agree with everything that we're doing. And I think that's an important role to play. But I think as Ambassador Brownfield said, we also have to make sure that we allow for the multiplicity of voices within civil society who have a range of positions on these issues to have room for their voices being heard as well. So I think that there is an important, that we feel an important obligation to make sure that we're engaging with the wide variety of opinions as it relates to what our policy positions are. And let me just add to both of your questions, which are quite specific and let me give you a very specific answer. A gentleman that I hold in the highest esteem and respect enormously, I believe he is and has been a superb president of the INCB. The INCB, when it speaks and utters and renders a decision, there is a process by which it is communicated. All 13 members of the board discuss, debate and reach a conclusion. That conclusion is then placed in a written document and provided to whatever member state or whatever organization is the subject of the decision. When a member of the board speaks, the member of the board is offering his personal opinion, just as the president of a Supreme Court, when speaking only as an individual member is offering a personal opinion, when a court renders a judgment, there is a process by which the judgment is delivered to the larger public. That, I believe, is the difference. It is not that I do not respect Mr. Sips' views. In fact, I think his views are even a bit more sophisticated than you have suggested. I merely say the INCB as an institution, as designated by the United Nations and the UN system, has not rendered a formal judgment on this issue at this point in time. The second question is kind of a question that I submit is about 60 years in the making and that is the United Nations system and their inclination to make decisions by consensus. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Perhaps it is a question we should have asked in the year 1945 when the United Nations Charter was first endorsed. It is a reality. But what kind of reality is it? It is a democratic reality. There is no censoring on who can express a view at the young gas in five weeks' time. If a president, prime minister, minister, or other delegation head wishes to express a view on any issue whatsoever, he or she will do so. It will become a matter of public record and if there is a groundswell of support, one assumes that that will become the decision or the policy of on gas. However, if it is a minority view in a democratic institution, the minority does not get to make the decisions for the entire organization. I know that's a simple response, but at the end of the day, that is the system of the United Nations as we have had for more than 60 years. I just wonder in terms of that, you mentioned that a minority view wouldn't be the one that results, but in effect, when a minority of countries is blocking something that the majority of countries would like to promote nation or death penalty, and obviously that's a touchy, but I still struggle to see how that is democratic. That seems to be what's going on here and four countries are standing in the way of certain aggressive things. And on that note, you mentioned it on Mr. Brown, on the death penalty that you're not going to advocate for that policy of the U.S. that shouldn't happen. Are there red lines for the U.S. in terms of what does need to be in the document or is it really kind of, you're giving it up to other countries? And for you, I was wondering federally, in terms of marijuana, something like the schedule of marijuana, do you think that it should be not listed as a schedule one drug federally? I mean, that seems to be something that is reasonable as you can imagine you could say that people that smoke weed shouldn't go to jail. So should it not be scheduled anymore? So it's not up to my personal opinion whether or not marijuana should be scheduled. There's actually a scientific process that we have to go through and that we rely on in the United States to look at where drugs should be scheduled. Let me say a couple things about the scheduling, which I think are important. One of the things that I've heard about where marijuana is scheduled is it's in the same classification as other drugs. And I think it's important to understand that scheduling is not a relative risk scale. So I think it's really important to say drugs are scheduled based on what's the therapeutic value of those drugs and what are the health harms associated with those. So there is a pretty rigorous process that the United States government looks at in terms of where those drugs get scheduled. And you know, I think that, you know, so again, it's not my personal opinion. I think we have to continue to rely on that scientific process to determine whether or not drugs meet those criteria in terms of where they get scheduled. Yep, and I'll offer a quick comment on your red line question. Of course the United States government, like every government in the world, has certain, call them red lines, firmly held positions on which it will take a strong, strong position. I've suggested to you that that death penalty as applied to drug cases is not one of those. Is there an issue in terms of minority or majority? I suppose so. I suggest you're asking the wrong person on this question. However, I have said before, I repeat right now, the United States government does not take a position on whether a language that addresses the application of the death penalty on drug cases is incorporated into the declaration. If you have a comment that is connected to that, perhaps you should be talking to some other representatives, not the representatives of the United States government. But let me go back to a point that you were making before, and I hope that's not what you were saying, that, you know, because there's a majority, because there's a minority of countries who are pushing for progressive reforms, it almost has like the rest of the kind of, majority of countries are not pushing for progressive reform. And I think that we have demonstrated and I think the vast majority of countries are saying within the existing treaties there is a significant amount of drug policy reform that we can do. And that includes things like enhancing a public health approach to this issue, of looking at criminal justice reform related issues and alternatives to incarceration. And Brownfield later today is actually hosting a side event on alternatives to incarceration. So I don't like, and I don't think that's what you're saying, this kind of polarization of views where you have kind of, you know, folks who are entrenched in terms of drug policy work and those other minority countries who are pushing for progressive reforms. Because I don't think that that's the consensus of most countries. And I certainly don't think it's emblematic of the United States position on this. Yeah, I was actually saying that, I'm not sure if that's what you meant, that there's a minority that are acted against kind of progressive laws. And they tend to have an outsized influence. I mean, I think we could all name a few, but I won't because you guys don't want to report on that. But that process, that does seem to happen here. You talk to anyone here they say, this is blocking things. So just that, I mean, I can understand how the consensus process works, but it seems like that could raise some issues. Please. Is the term harm reduction is that something that the U.S. can even in the U.S. take into declaration on it? And to use of that, the don't accept Mariana, but in the U.S. you must have control over your territorial, that in some states, Colorado, for instance, you really will allow it, they will allow it. But is this a way, like snake, you can't save, full out and stop them or not? So you have control over your territorial in the question also, Mariana? So let me kind of talk first and then I'll let Ambassador Ronfield talk about this issue on harm reduction. I've been doing public health work for longer than I care to admit. Since before I was born. I like to think. And the term harm reduction I think is challenging because it means so many different things to so many different people. And I think part of what we're trying to look at is, what is the consensus in terms of approaches to reducing the harms associated with drug use? And how do we move people toward health and well-being? And I think there is a consensus in our position is, there is a tremendous amount of consensus around kind of this principal focus on reducing the harms. And I'll turn it over to Ambassador for how that gets discussed as it relates to the processes here. But I think it's important if you look at kind of the technical consultation and if you look at the interventions that are supported or those kinds of interventions. The United States I think is very forward leaning in terms of its support for those kinds of interventions. In fact, and this is not my intention to reveal an entire negotiating strategy or negotiating process within the CND and the upcoming on-gas at this meeting, but in many ways for the United States government, the discussions over harm reduction are a labeling issue. In the United States, and I acknowledge, I am now offering a national position, not a global position. Over the last 10 or 15 years in common public usage the term harm reduction has come increasingly to be interpreted as a backhanded way to describe legalization. What we have asked respectfully, modestly and humbly in these discussions you find a new description or a new label. We are as Mr. Botticelli has just indicated. In fact, not only comfortable with but believe we play a leadership role in much of the rest of the world in terms of much of the substantive matter that the international community means when they say harm reduction. And in order to avoid the confusion that would ensue in our own country, our request is a very simple one of finding a new subject heading. If we mean reducing social damage caused by drugs perhaps we can say reducing social damage caused by drugs and in that way not contribute to both confusion and passionate debate in at least one country in the United Nations system. Briefly on the matter of international convention obligations and national territory, you are of course correct that that language appears in two of the international drug control conventions. But also the language appears in the two international drug control conventions that states that individual member states through their own constitutional processes will be permitted to enforce the conventions in accordance with their constitutions. So we have in a sense two different parts of the convention that can lead one to different conclusions. I have offered you our conclusion reasonable minds may differ at least up until this point in time there has not been a formal adjudication on that point. Of course there is debate over this issue. Of course there are disagreements on this issue this is part of what democracy whether in a national or international context are all about and in fact I think it's quite healthy for the international system if others disagree I welcome hearing your views. Having written a dissertation 25 years ago on the war on drugs in the 19th which was the time of the president of the great George Bush father I was quite astonished in the advent of this Angus conference to find almost everybody taking distance to war on drugs. Also in the interview, the television interview you were inviting us to look at in the invitation for this press conference to the past war on drugs so the question linked to it would be will we see any changes in the field of international cooperation from the United States of America? I'll get my asses. Possibly possibly linked to that back in these times there was the perception in Congress that certain drug producing transit countries would let the political world to take action against drugs. So there was a certification process established. Will certification go on? So I'll get my asses. So I like to think that we've learned a lot over the past 40 years. Our scientific evidence I think as it relates to understanding addiction as a disease I think has really influenced our approach to this. I've often talked on our over reliance on punitive approaches to this. Our jails and prisons are full of people who are there largely as a result of their substance use and I think we've really learned that we can have effective prevention, intervention treatment programs that we can divert people away from our criminal justice system without increasing crime. So there's a confluence of this. I will also say too though that there is a role for law enforcement but we need to use that law enforcement response for people who traffic drugs in our community that we still have to reduce the supply of drugs. Much of our overdoses these days are attributable to heroin and fentanyl that are just flooding the streets of the United States. So law enforcement, supply reduction does continue to play a critical role but this is all about balance. This is about making sure that we have a balance release of this and my take at least over the past few years is that there is a tremendous amount of consensus among that kind of balanced approach to this. Are there outlier countries certainly but I think that the vast overriding consensus is on this balanced approach on greater focus on public health strategies and alternatives to incarceration and reserving our criminal justice system and law enforcement for really those serious violations. Just a couple of additional points. Some historical context for you. In the year 1973 the then president of the United States Richard Dixon said publicly we were engaged in a war on drugs. He was trying to make I believe he's no longer around to consult but I believe the point he was making was that this is such an important issue for the United States of America. We will treat it as though it were a war. Twenty years later the recently inaugurated new president of the United States Bill Clinton said both in private and in public this is not a war. We do not make war on our own citizens. We have not been engaged in the United States government in a war on drugs at least since the year 1993. I understand it is a popular expression. I cannot stop others from using it but you should not operate on the assumption that it in any way reflects the United States government policy on drugs nor has it for more than 20 years. Do we have a certification process? I would use this as an example of what Mr. Botticelli was just describing which is the evolution the adjustment the modification that changes in policy over 40 or 50 years. More than 40 years ago when the United States Congress passed the International Narcotics Control Act they required the Department of State and specifically that part of it which I run today to engage in an annual exercise by which we assessed and determined whether other governments were in fact taking sufficient statutory steps to address the drug problem and the drug crisis. That is no longer the law. Why? Because we realized over time that that process which came to be known as the certification process was actually causing more damage than good. What we have now is a much more fact based annual report process called the International Narcotics Strategy and Control Report or INXER. It is factual in nature every government has the opportunity to express its own view and quite frankly they can disagree or differ in terms of the judgments reached. It is an improvement over where we were. 20 or 30 years ago it is an example of what Mr. Botticelli is describing when he says governments will learn adjust, change their policies as they deal with current and changing realities. The International Cooperation you mentioned how are we coming from Afghanistan now? Not Afghanistan. Go ahead. Go ahead. I am sorry to finish the question. Before the California Cooperation with the Russian Victorino in this matter with the International Cooperation now we have the sanction and now we have Iran it has opened up these hotliners country do you have the cooperation and we have the cooperation with the European Cooperation trafficking in the future? So let me just correct the vast majority of heroin is actually coming to the United States from Mexico and traffic into the United States and I think Ambassador Brownfield would agree that over we have always had some pretty significant positive relationships with Mexico I think that over the past particularly six months we have had a series of very positive and strategic engagements with the Mexican government as it's related to not only the increase in heroin that we see but the violence in Mexico associated with poppy cultivation Ambassador Brownfield and I were just in Mexico last week? Week and a half ago where we had significant I think productive discussions with the Attorney General with every segment of the Mexican government in terms of both their willingness to focus action and attention on this issue and our support for their work so while we want to continue to make sure that we and they are taking actions on this issue that I think we've been heartened by the conversation. I will also say too that I think it's fair for our partner nations to also come to this table understanding that there's a shared responsibility here and I think we certainly understand our demand reduction responsibilities as it relates to how that drives the drug trade internationally and I think we have very positive movement in what we've done in the United States to say this is a shared responsibility that when we continue to move forward in very very strong ways to reduce the demand for drug in the United States which has consequences not just here but internationally so I think it's a good opportunity for understanding that there is shared responsibility in this issue. I'll add a point on that because the way you frame the question was and you described it as hardline countries I would prefer to say every country every one of the 196 countries I believe that are part of the United Nations system has to deal with its own realities that one size does not fit all every country in the world does not confront exactly the same drug abuse and drug control situation as every other this is part of the United Nations reality this is part of the reality that we must deal with as we try to work our way through a final ungas declaration and decision because it must take into account the differing realities of 196 countries and their governments I for one am extremely sympathetic to a government and a country that is suffering a major drug epidemic whether it is heroin and opioids or cocaine or methamphetamine or new psychoactive substances I believe we have to take into account their own positions and their own realities as we try to formulate a global policy I believe a global policy does have to have space within it to allow all different sets of realities to be incorporated within both the conventions and the policy strategy plan that is endorsed by a special session of the UN General Assembly to this extent I think this is a response to some of our earlier questions part of the reality that we must deal with that is why consensus is not necessarily a bad thing if at the end of the day you want a policy that every nation in the world can accept endorse and support it has to have space for all of those differing realities it's a fair question but the very nature of the question leads you to this sort of United Nations solution speaking of Victor Ivanov you know since Russia annexed Crimea I'm pleased to shut down the methadone centers because in Russia methadone is illegal and more than 30 people died and we asked Ivanov yesterday what his ideas about this and he said that yeah because methadone is bad and there's proof that more people died because of methadone than there without it we have a good experience of a lot of science in research in the US about methadone so do you think he can somehow let them know that it's working or not in terms of yeah you know I'm not sure to what extent that we can kind of influence in terms of their decision I mean I think you know in terms of US policy and practice on what that is and part of it is relying on the science methadone has been around for 50 years it's been one of the most evaluated medications that we have here and so I do find it you know unfortunate when kind of other countries don't rely on science and data to look at both their policies and practice particularly in the midst of you know kind of widespread heroin and opioid use you know I can tell you that in the United States you know that's why more widespread access to all the three FDA approved medications for opioid use disorders is part of our prime strategy so because we know that you know again that people on methadone have particularly people who are maintained on methadone do far better than those who would just get no medications as it relates to their ongoing therapy I think you beat them by a couple seconds so you get to go micro seconds just following on that I was curious I'm sure it's probably difficult to declare on this stuff but in terms of policies implemented in other countries say Portugal decriminalizing how both of you make clear there's no one size it's all it's a very small country in the U.S. I don't know how many times it's larger than Portugal but I actually don't know he probably does just in evaluating the process internally for evaluating within the U.S. government how decriminalization is worth would you consider Portugal's steps and success in that national context public I mean or it bites too soon although that probably would be a success or not a strategic legalization but how do you evaluate those? So I'll start from the broadest possible framework I think we have to look at a whole host of issues not just here in the United States but internationally as they roll forward I looked at the Portugal evaluation and part of even their own evaluation as a result to some of the positive outcomes that they have been achieved by their own attribution has said well some of this can probably related to the fact that they significantly amplified their public health demand reduction strategies and so again I think we're always open to seeing where the science and evidence takes us and to look at how we can continue to update and refine drug policy based on all of the scientific information that we have in front of us to do that so again but I think looking at what other countries have done I think become equally important one of the things that I think is important and lots of discussion here internationally is let's implement the things that we know to be effective and so we know that those public health strategies demand prevention, intervention treatment, recovery supports are effective and I think what we have been doing in the United States and I think there's a consensus internationally is let's first before we start experimenting with other things let's first start implementing the things that we know to be effective so people have been talking about new approaches and a new approach is let's fully implement the things that we know to be effective and I think that's been our approach in the United States let's make sure that we're implementing those things that we know to be effective as it relates to reducing drug use and its consequences sure I would only add that from an international kind of policy and even legal perspective reinforcing the point we were making earlier of having learned lessons over the last 40 or 50 years one lesson that perhaps we as an international community have learned is that the route to success is not for one government to judge another government in its efforts but rather to accept the reality that individual nations will pursue individual national drug control policies the obligation that we all have is to comply with the terms of the three international drug control conventions that is an obligation we have because we have all individually chosen to ratify the conventions and as a consequence we have taken on that obligation to determine if a government is in compliance or not in compliance that is not a decision for an individual government to make that is a decision in accordance with the conventions for the international narcotics control board which in turn has a procedure by which it makes a judgment and issues that judgment that's my suggestion I agree with everything Mr. Botticelli has just said this does not mean we're not learning lessons we're not paying attention we're not determining what has worked and what has not worked both in the United States and in the other 195 nations in the UN system but it is not that one nation judges or renders judgment on another Okay I think that's about all the time we have so thank you very much for coming and thank you Director Botticelli and Ambassador Brownfield for joining us and taking your time to discuss everything with us if you have any further questions if you don't know how to reach me I can give you my call and we can ask them on I have a question Yes It was a tie He did have his hand up Sorry about that We're good for one more minute I know that that government is in the fourth state but is the government monitoring what's happening there just to share and take account of if the market is shrinking or if there are more people that are increasing number of people that are smoking or I don't know are you monitoring what's happening there in the national community or Sure so let me first say a couple things to answer your question simply yes so we're looking at this I also think it's important to understand that some of these states actually didn't have a tremendously good monitoring system in place to be able to do that so I think the first and foremost is do we have the monitoring systems in place to look at both the public health and public safety impact of what's happening I think that our approach to this has been ongoing monitoring whether it's state level and national level databases to be able to look at kind of both again both the public health and public safety impact of these issues I will tell you that I think it's so first of all it's not while we'll continue to be transparent about those implications it's not our intent to publish a report we will in terms of success or failure but just to be very transparent on the data as we get the data I do think at this point it's really kind of too soon to tell since many of these have not been implemented that long ago to really understand kind of what the impact has been but that's been our plan all along to continue to monitor those


What is up everybody? This is Chris from the Rewired Soul where we talk about the problem but focus on the solution and if you're new to my channel I do some commentary trying to see what's going on in the world and see if there's any lessons that we can learn from them and something that I'm very passionate about is mental health so if you're into that stuff make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell and since since we are on the topic of Instagram today make sure you're following me over on Instagram and Twitter at the Rewired Soul. I love chatting with all of you engaging with all of you getting video ideas having discussions and everything like that so make sure you're following me at the Rewired Soul alright but yeah let's talk about Instagram removing likes and then we'll kind of talk about why people are freaking out try to get into the psychology of this thing and some possible reasons why people are freaking out and why everybody needs to maybe chill out a little bit and do a little introspection if you will alright so this is actually a story that I was made aware of by watching the Philip DeFranco show the other day and Instagram they they haven't like fully rolled this out yet alright but I think it's interesting like whenever a social media platform is testing anything like people lose their minds I've seen it happen on YouTube a million times they'll test things out with like thumbnails or like the trending page and recommended things and they'll just like do some A and B tests and people lose their minds but anyways Instagram is to my knowledge I believe they're only testing it out in Canada for some users what they're doing is removing the likes so people can't see them alright I'm not sure all of the details of it I'm not sure if the creator can actually see the likes or not but Philip DeFranco actually talked about how Jack Dorsey the founder of Twitter has thought about this as well okay but one of the many reasons that Instagram discuss is how how the likes are affecting people's mental health and there's a million different topics that we can spring into about social media and how it affects people's mental health but in the context of just Instagram specifically there's been a lot of research a lot of studies and it's just human nature of how Instagram affects people okay and a lot of it is one of my favorite sayings which is we we judge our insides based on somebody's outsides so what that means when talking about Instagram is we're constantly comparing our lives to others right Instagram is mainly visual okay and people are using things like Facetune or they're just photographing like their best moments and everything like that and it can cause a lot of people to look at it and judge their own life based on it because they're comparing which is something that you should never do because social media is a place where people post their best moments I have I have known I have known so many people in my life who were absolutely miserable but if you went through their Instagram like they're just they're they're posting like they're living the best life on earth right like just always remember when scrolling through social media we're all human I don't care how much money you have I don't care what race or gender or whatever you are we all have struggles okay and it's just some people don't post their struggles online so never think by looking through Instagram or any other social media platform that you are the only one struggling and this person lives this fantastic life all right but people are freaking out about this people are freaking out and I'm gonna try to talk from both point of views of the consumer as well as the creators right so creators are freaking out because well here's the thing a lot of them are freaking out saying that it's gonna be harder to get brand deal sponsorship deals and things like that because one of the things that they show as far as their own analytics is their followers and their likes now I think that's a part of it but something that a lot of people won't open up about publicly is that a lot of people are looking for that validation these numbers are tied into validation and there's a lot of people out there who aren't even like social media influencers who are freaking out like I need to see my likes I need to see my likes because so many of us tie who we are as a person our self-worth and everything like that to these numbers okay I was actually having a conversation with my beautiful girlfriend Tristan this morning and like we were talking about MySpace back in the day and she reminded me like back in the MySpace days like it was gauged on how many how many friends you had right and if you were to do a one-to-one comparison of MySpace to Facebook like someone's amount of friends on Facebook doesn't necessarily mean like they're super popular like some people just add everybody on earth like I can honestly say on my Facebook there's a good chunk of those people that I haven't talked to in years right but on all social media platforms there has been some way to kind of gauge how how great or how popular that person is and it's something I often think about too as a YouTube creator something that I try to look at and analyze and everything like that when I'm looking at other videos and how they're getting views and everything like something I think about is are people more likely to click on a video that already has a lot of views my theory is yes because seeing a video that has a lot of views on it already you're kind of curious it's kind of like if you're walking down the street and you just see a huge crowd of people like surrounding something and you kind of want to peek in and be like yo what what's going on what's what's happening over there right so a lot of people are freaking out about this now something that's not talked about enough is all social media platforms just about every major social media platforms have people there who are trying to figure out ways to get you hooked I talked about this in a video I made the other day about YouTube but all social media platforms are designed to keep you on their platform as long as possible okay there are people who have been I don't even know if I necessarily called them whistleblowers but there are people who have worked at these companies who talk about how they have specific departments that are designed to try to figure out how to people get people hooked on their platform so they did a study and the NPR interview on this a while back where they hooked some teenage girls up to FMRI brain scans so they can monitor the brain activity of them and they they monitor them on Instagram and whenever a person got a like on Instagram they got a little a little spritz of dopamine so dopamine gives you pleasure it is a neurotransmitter in your brain so one of the reasons people say like oh that person's a dope fiend or whatever is because drugs and alcohol release dopamine well what they have found is that these things on social media likes comments retweets followers whatever it is every one of those notifications gives you a little dopamine hit so what I'm sitting here and I'm watching people freak out about Instagram possibly removing likes like I'm a recovering drug addict I've been clean almost seven years I'm like oh my god these people look like fiending addicts right like don't get rid of my likes don't get rid of my likes you know like I need them but it makes sense because one of the reasons that addicts go through withdrawal is not only when the drugs or alcohol metabolize out of their system and their their brain is saying you need more but just even the thought of the future not getting drugs anymore can make a drug addict go into panic right so like when I'm sitting here I'm watching this I'm like holy crap I seeing how many people are actually freaking out about Instagram possibly removing likes from their platform now one of the other issues that I see on all social media platforms is that people are working for the likes for the views for the comments for the subscribers for the retweets and I think that's why you see a lot of people post really dumb stuff right like on on like Twitter or on Instagram or whatever because people are hoping that they're gonna their next thing is gonna go viral and there's a whole psychological theory about why like like even gambling is addictive like some things are more addictive when the results are up and down or sometimes it's amazing and then sometimes it's not right so a lot of people are just posting things like oh man I wonder how many likes or retweets this tweet is gonna get and they'll try to make it sensational or outrageous or whatever it is and one of the things that Instagram talked about is too many people are doing that a lot of people are gearing away from like creating actual content that they love and they're trying to see how viral it can get you see it on the YouTube platform all the time creators are always trying to one up themselves and get as many views or whatever you know and a lot of creators who struggle with mental health issues we've seen it a million times like one of the number one things you'll hear from YouTube creators about their mental health being affected is that they stopped making content that they liked all right so think about how that's affecting people's mental health when they're just only pushing out content whether it's on YouTube or Instagram or Twitter or whatever it is just to get those numbers here here's some of the theories that I have I believe and you can let me know your thoughts down in the comments below I believe that people are freaking out because a lot of people in their real lives lack power all right a lot of people feel maybe it's at their job maybe it's you know in society maybe it's in the country they feel as though their voice is not heard and one of the things that will mess you up the most is when you feel like you don't matter like your voice is not heard so I believe that a lot of people freaking out about disabling likes so you can't see them they're freaking out because that takes away some of their power every time a person likes something I believe and I wish maybe there's some kind of experiment I could do to test this theory out but I believe that they're just like this is their little hit of power like when they like something boom they had some power when they don't like it boom they have some power right and it makes sense because so many people lack lack power in our society especially you know in the united states and other parts of the world and maybe it's just even in your in your household where you don't even have an opinion on things right so I think the threat of that being taken away and having your voice you know not even silenced or muted but just kind of dampen a little bit I think that's messing with people's heads so like I promised you in the intro of this video like I'm going to discuss real quick why I turned off the likes and dislikes on my youtube videos so I had a little bit of a controversy a couple months ago and something that was happening was people were just doing these drive-by dislike bombs right just coming in not even watching the video just dislike like screw that guy screw that guy and it would just kind of snowball right and I sat there thinking I sat there thinking I was like are people is one of the factors are people disliking these videos because they see how many other people are disliking these videos so I wanted to kind of figure that out so what I did was I turned off the likes and dislikes on my videos now to debunk a few things I had one not one person I had multiple people comment this and somebody said why did you turn off the likes to dislikes on your videos how are you going to know if you're making content that people like well to let you all know as a creator I can still see all the likes and dislikes I can see them you can't next thing I've seen a lot of people ask why did you turn off the likes and dislikes now there's there's some people who ask this out of curiosity so I'm answering that now but they're the majority of people I'd say 70 to 75 percent of the people asking about the likes and dislikes they are the people who I believe are the people who would do the drive-by dislikes right or dislike all the videos and these are people who I believe are upset with me for turning off the likes and dislikes because they feel like I took away some of their power right but the other thing that comes to mind when I think about this thing is it's almost like you want to see that number to know if your opinion is right right because we have this craving for confirmation bias where we want to know that we're part of the the tribe part of the group oh oh a lot of people dislike this I dislike this too so if you can't see that how do you know if you're voting the right way but think about that think about the presidential elections like are you only voting because other people are voting that way are you making your own decision you see what I'm saying so think about that for a little bit I don't know if I'll ever turn them back on it's just been really fascinating I like I I like doing little experiments and stuff like that and just seeing human behavior and how it works out but at the end of the day my theory was correct because when I turn off the likes the dislikes the dislike bombs stopped and my likes are actually way up than they used to be before so take with that what you will like you can let me know down in the comment section below let me know why you think the likes started to go back up and the dislikes went down once I made it so people could no longer see them let me know down in the comments below or let me know what your thoughts are on Instagram removing likes and everything like that I just actually tweeted out um if you want to reply there I said you know something along the lines of like imagine all these social media platforms were created and none of them had any kind of numbers to base anybody's you know social status on no no followers no subscribers no likes no comments no just nothing like how do you think that would kind of affect you psychologically if you can go back in time and just completely erase that off of these platforms where do you think your mental state would be all right but anyways that's all I got for this video if you like this video please give it a thumbs up if you're new make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell because I make a ton of videos and a huge huge thank you to everybody supporting the channel over on Patreon you're all amazing and if you would like to become a patron get your name up on the credits right here get involved in our monthly Q&A some other perks and benefits click a tap right there all right thanks again so so much for watching I'll see you next time


Hey, what's up guys? It's Isaac David and this is The Daily Disciple where I hope you follow Jesus daily. Today we're doing something a little bit different. The rapper NF, as you guys might know, just dropped a mixtape and I know that's kind of like, what, Isaac, where is this coming from? What are you talking about? If you're not familiar, the rapper NF put out a number of albums over the last five years and it's kind of risen to fame. He kind of got his start within the Christian rap circle and that's actually where me and a lot of other Christian young adults, teens, got to know him and actually began to like his music. I think back to like seven years ago when he featured on one of my favorite rappers, Flames, of Songs Start Over. From that point on NF, yeah, he did some rebranding. He wasn't that cookie cutter Christian rapper that you might have gotten used to. He began to put out more and more albums that began to hit a chord with not just Christians but non-Christians too. Some of the key aspects of what he was talking about and rapping about, singing about was really his struggle with his mental health, trying to, what it's like to follow your dreams and all the struggles that come with that. Actually exploring his faith and like what he believes about God and his doubts and his questions and his struggles and it began to hit a chord with a lot of people including myself. And I think that's what a lot of people appreciate about NF is that, yeah, he says he's a Christian but he's also not afraid to say, hey, I'm having questions here, I'm not totally convinced of all that. I'm like, I'm still trying to figure it out. And there's a great clip from an interview and we'll get into the album, I'll tell you what I think about it and all that stuff. But there's a great interview that happened about last year and where he talks about growing up in the church and then also like needing to take a step back. The way that I feel about myself or, I don't know, the way I thought about God growing up kind of, I don't blame this on God, I think I just myself sometimes I just, I just don't do it, you know, I just don't talk to God and if you believe there's a God, I don't know why it would be weird, or why I wouldn't sometimes like in the most desperate times in my life, I think sometimes I go to God and then I kind of feel guilty about it, you know, because I'm like, why do I only do it when I feel this way? Yeah, you know, so it's such an interesting thing. I remember when I was young, I don't know if you believe in God or whatever, but when I was young, I, because I was brought up in church, I actually went through a stage in my life where I was like, I don't even know if God's real. You rebel. So hearing that he's not completely convinced or he's not necessarily sure or he's asking questions, that can be kind of concerning.  But I think there's a time and I think there's some grace that we got to allow people that grew up in the church that were reading the Bible that believed and like God older and then needed to take a step back to actually realize if they own the faith, if they, if that's actually theirs, if they're not just tagging along because their parents weren't it, but they just want to suppress the questions that they have, but actually begin to explore what they really believe. And yes, we want them to go back to the truth and we want them to be guided back to the truth and to God and to the gospel. And that's what my prayer is that, you know, NF will continue to be searching and find that truth in God. But the music itself is kind of an expression of that search. His last album was called The Search actually and explored a lot of these questions. Now we're into his new mixtape, which is really intriguing to me because it's kind of I, honestly, this is how white I am. I had to ask Google, what is a mixtape? I didn't know. Apparently it's just kind of a compilation of songs that didn't fit in one cohesive album in listening to it. Some of my favorite songs. And if you've listened to the album, maybe, you know, let me know what your favorite songs are down below. But some of my favorite songs are layers. He's talking about all the different things that come with being at his level of fame and the obligations that he has and the people that honestly say, oh, man, he's off base. And the people that say they're praying for him.   And it's an extremely challenging thing to balance and wait and stay true to your beliefs and what you want to produce. And as a rapper, like an F, like that's something he deals with in his music quite a bit. One of my favorite songs, I think it's my favorite song. It's called Drifting. There's an amazing line in this song. Tell me I'm worth it, God. I found that, I don't know. I found that phrase to be so, so impactful because we often think like in the context that we've got to break it down for you here in the moral context, right? In terms of our standing before God, we are all guilty before him. We are all, you know, broken people that deserve God's judgment. But then God looks at us and he sacrifices his son. He like, that is mind blowing, right? And we don't deserve it, but he does it. And in that, he is, he is putting worth on our head.   And sometimes, man, we just need to know, like, God, am I worth anything to you? Like, I just don't know. Like, and God is the one that we ought to be going. We are to that for, like, don't go to other people to ask, am I worth it? Am I worth something? Go to God and ask him that because he's going to come down to a resounding guess.  And I've demonstrated that in the cross and look like once again, make this clear. It's not because of what you did. And he created you in his image. And that has an intrinsic worth, value, dignity, all that stuff. And man, I think one of the things that NF really touches on really well throughout his music is this idea of this kind of like the self-hate and then also like trying to work towards your goals and like try to make it in this world is something you're passionate about. Because often that can be like a really toxic cycle where when you're not getting to where you want to be, when you're not getting to what you want to achieve, man, you just tear yourself up. And even, I mean, NF's music demonstrates that even when you get to that point, you still are not totally like that doesn't fix your mental health and that doesn't fix your perspective of yourself and, you know, self-worth or it doesn't give you total security and who you are and what you do. Like you can't do that. And I think that was one of the things that really impacted me in the interview that happened last year with NF was just him talking about getting to the point of accomplishing his dream. The lowest place I've ever been touring and doing all that and not feeling anything. And that's what's so interesting about it is I feel like everybody's chasing that thing that I've been chasing my whole life, except I arrived at it. And I think other people do that, too. They're like, hey, I'm going to get this job and I'm going to save money. I'm going to get married. I'm going to have a house. Yeah, I'm going to have a kid. I need to save up so I can get this house. Oh, we're going to need this kind of car for this and like all this stuff. And it makes sense. I'm not like knocking that I do the same thing. I'm not saying you wouldn't smile or be happy. If someone came today and was like, hey, here's two million dollars. It all sounds so positive. So this is going to sound so weird. But if you achieved your goal, let's say you weren't even giving it. Let's say you your whole life, you were trying to be a musician or you were trying to write a book and you're like, if I could just get the number one selling book and then you put out a book finally after years and years of work and it went number one and you had this little moment of joy or happiness and then it kind of like went away very quickly. You at least for me, I was just kind of left sitting there like, well, what else? He's so open and honest about what he's going through. I think that's why he connects with so many people. And I think that's a theme as we've been talking about Billy Eilish or, you know, NF, it's like that authenticity really does make a difference. And yes, I want people to know truth and I want people to be secure. And we find that through understanding gospel truth. And we find that through community and being in secure relationships with people who are able to be nurtured and say, have those questions, but also like real people in and not let people go into a spiral of introspection and all that kind of thing. But it's important to air these questions. Like it's important to air these insecurities. And and I think NF's music gives people an opportunity to do that through the music. And my hope would it would be is that they wouldn't stop there. I think that could be a really, I don't know, toxic thing where people can just dwell in their sadness, depression, questions, insecurities, and that can lead them in a spiral, a death spiral, really, where this can be an opening place to really verbalize and I don't know, explore your emotions, but then be reeled in with the security and the grace that God has for all of us, even in our doubts, even in our questions. I think that's an amazing gift that God has given each of us to explore our emotions through creativity, but then also reel us in to his loving presence and security and knowing that he is in control, knowing that he loves us, knowing that he has his grace is sufficient for us, even in the midst of our doubts, questions and insecurities. I want to give a shout out to his music video story. This is really impactful and unique. It's basically him rapping a story, a mini movie, you could say. And I'm not going to spoil it for you, but the cinematic like just prowess of this short film and also the music that goes behind it. It is really creative. And those are the things that really, I don't know, inspire me because it is something out of the blue that you don't necessarily expect. I don't know how the song would actually sound just listening to the audio because it's really a very narrative, just kind of him explaining exactly like what's going on in thought processes and just narrative dynamics. So it's quite interesting. I don't know how that would sound just audio, but man, that video is so impactful. It really is very creative, very inspiring. So kudos to him on that. Bear with me. This is from one of my favorite lines from his song Lost. Failings, how you grow and learn your lessons, kids, take the worst and try to make the best of it, because when you fail, just know it's a test. And if you can learn to pick yourself up again and train your brain to not be such a pessimist, it's OK to make mistakes. Just don't forget that there's a high road, but I skip the exit when I'm lost. I think we've all felt this way from time to time. When we experience a challenge or something that hits us to the ground, there can be easily that like mindset of of letting that become a pattern or a way of thinking like every time I'm going to try something, I'm going to fail or it's going to be bad or I'm going to be anxious about it or it's going to be stressful as opposed to when we have things in like we can take a further out perspective, even God's perspective and see it's not usually as bad as we think it is that even if it is that bad, we can know that God has his sovereign hand over our whole life. But it's that thing when we get lost, right? We get distracted and we convince ourselves this is the way that life goes. And we actually lose hold of the good desires and hopes and dreams that God has put in our heart. And I love this song because it really does reflect a lot of, man, sometimes my mentality, but it also reminds me, hey, look, you know, when I am lost, I know who to look to in order to be found. I know who to look to in order to ground myself and where I am in reality. God is with me. God loves me. His power and presence are with me and in me and I can do this. And even if it doesn't turn out exactly the way I wanted it to, that's OK. Well, that's my take on NF and his new mixtape and some of his albums and all that stuff. I hope you enjoyed it and got something out of it. Share this with a friend that enjoys NF and let me know your take down below. What's your favorite song? What's your favorite album? What do you appreciate about NF and maybe some questions that you have about his music or whatever? I don't know. Let me know. Thank you again to everyone that supports me on Patreon. I love you guys and I will see you next time. God bless.


We are doing vapor liquid equilibria, this is the fugacity of the vapor phase is equal to fugacity of the liquid component I which is equal to this is the saturation pressure this is a pointing correction then there is non-ideality correction at saturation up to this is pure this is the fugacity of pure I so looking at each of the terms how one would compute each of these looking at the fugacity coefficients is fairly straight forward this is by definition integral 0 to P bar is partial of respect to N9 of V I think we start we discussed example of the virial equation of state so V is approximately equal to discuss binary and we had delta 12 this is definition default option is delta 12 equal to 0 so this is called the mixing rule for the virial equation of state it is an exact rule can be you cannot derive this mixing rule or the combinatorial rule this is the combined combining rule so you need two rules empirically is regardless of the phase the composition dependence of the chemical potential is not given uniquely by thermodynamics so what you are saying here is instead of the composition dependence of the chemical potential I can use the composition dependence of the partial molar volume to calculate the behavior of the chemical potential but thermodynamics does not give you anything about the partial molar volume either it gives you one equation less than the number of variables so you still have one degree of freedom for which you have to use empiricism when you use the empirical route through the equation of state you have a B mix for which if you have an equation of state that is derived from molecular theory that is derived from mechanistic description then you can get an exact mixing rule otherwise the mixing rules is also empirical the combining rule is always empirical except in limiting cases for example B12 is equal to B11 plus B22 by 2 is a limiting case where if you have take very similar compounds of similar molecular size between methane ethane ethane propane etc you can set ?12 equal to 0 otherwise this is not an exact rule this as far as diameters are concerned that is if you take this diameters the molecule ?12 equal to ?11 plus ?22 by 2 is an exact rule in for hard spheres if you use that rule B will be like a volume therefore B will be like ?3 so ?312 will be equal to ?311 plus ?322 by 2 that would be an exact rule for hard spheres but not for real molecules so the various ways of deriving this but all of them are empirical ultimately only in limiting cases some of these rules are exact so this combining rule is empirical this is this can be exact depending on the kind of equation of state you use as of now for most equations of state both are empirical but if you do this then you can calculate Vi and therefore get the complex independence of the chemical potential then you can solve this equation you still have only one term which is ? I and this comes from we have already seen from G excess by RT expressions these are also empirical so as far as theory is concerned thermodynamics runs out of steam here both this this is also empirical and what is was essentially gives tells you that you will run out of steam forever I mean there is nobody classical thermodynamics does not give you an opportunity to derive expressions for G excess from without see by classical thermodynamics I mean thermodynamics that does not refer to structure of matter so if you go back to molecular theory you can derive expressions for G excess by RT you have to make other assumptions in all of these there is still one empirical assumption that will be at the base of all theories of solution for example even one large equations essentially I got this through a series of assumption again you have to make these assumptions for A and B in one large equation so this is the root let me start with a simple example we will ask an example that has no application at all this is a tree typically now I want let us assume that unlike madras this soil is saturated with water what I mean is the roots are covered with water I want to know how tall this tree will grow in absolutely no direct use but the idea is that thermodynamics can be used for this purpose the assumptions I make in all these assumptions perfectly valid there is a certain partial pressure in the atmosphere take madras for example your saturation the such you can calculate the value of partial pressure of H2O in air simply from the vapor pressure of water at 25 degrees let us say the temperature is 25 degrees at 25 degrees C you can find out what the saturation pressure of water is right now my contention is the following that if there is a leaf here for a leaf to grow at the highest place the water has to go from here to here and this leave the water in the leaf here will be in equilibrium with the water in the vapor in the air so I have P H2O in the leaf is equal to or F H2O if you gas the I will start with chemical potential chemical potential of water in the leaf should be equal to mu H2O in air now if you have water here my let me write this out mu H2O in air is this is a mixture so it is mu 0 plus RTLN PY water in air this is a mixture so you also have to count for non-ideality this we can take as 1 since pressure as P is less than 1 atmosphere less than or equal to 1 atmosphere I am talking of atmospheric pressure and growing trees inside a compressed chamber now the water there is water I am assuming there is water here so mu water liquid pure is simply mu 0 plus write it like this this is equal to this mu water liquid pure is equal to mu water vapor pure which is mu 0 plus RTLN P saturation for water was P saturation water plus a correction the chemical potential is actually as long as pure substance is concerned it is the Gibbs free energy per mole in G is U plus TS minus U plus PV minus TS to remember when we wrote the first law we should not have used the internal energy we should actually have used the total energy so the potential normally potential energy and kinetic energy negligible so you use the internal energy otherwise they should really be replaced by E so in all our derivations wherever you have chemical potential equality this chemical potential should include the potential energy if the potential energy is significant in this case from here to here the potential energy is significant so I will have to add that also so the chemical potential will be this plus I should take into account the height also now this term is negligibly small I can show you that this term is and simply say negligible I told you this is called the pointing effect and basically all of the literature you will have books on vapor liquid equilibria at low pressures at high pressures at the only difference between those two is that at high pressures this pointing effect is important I can make an estimate of this for you for example the pointing effect is exponential of V liquid into P minus P saturation by RT and this V liquid for water is 18 let us keep this as P P in atmospheres then R is 82 cc atmospheres this is 18 cc is per gram mole so this will be 82 cc atmospheres per gram mole into temperature is say 300 degrees for typically I am just making an estimate so this is 2 this is about 9 approximately this is 150 so this is approximately P in atmospheres by 1350 the pointing correction which is the correction for the vapor pressure because the presence of a second substance because the pressure is greater than the saturation pressure is significant only if exponential of this factor exponential of P by or P minus P saturation if you like P minus P saturation P saturation is anyway for water for example at 25 degrees it is 25 millimetres of mercury so it is negligibly small so what counts is P but you can see that unless P is about 50 atmospheres are higher this number is very very small so as a thumb rule you do not worry about the pointing correction at pressures below 25 atmospheres you want to make very accurate calculations you take it into account but otherwise generally below 25 atmospheres you do not have to worry about the pointing correction so that just to give you an idea so I do not have to worry about this so I am equating this is the chemical potential of liquid pure here from here to here it passes through the veins in the stem and get gets there it has to get there if there is chemical potential here this is in contact this chemical potential also be covered by the same law except that the chemical potential is altered by the height so essentially what you get here is mu 0 plus RTLN PW saturation I will throw this out this is one typically PW saturation is about 25 millimetres I told you so there is no fugacity there is no fugacity coefficient correction this can be neglected only that plus mg H so you get mg H is equal to logarithm of P by W water in the air by P saturation by RT there must be an RT by RT so what is the H equal to equal to RTLN this is what you call is essentially the relative humidity in the air if the saturation pressure will represent the maximum water that it will hold and therefore you should get RTLN of R this is a relative humidity this is reported in the papers even the Hindu has it every day all you have to read is the relative humidity there by RT by mg should have picked up a minus sign yeah this the energy here there should be minus because this is the energy that you have had there should be a minus sign here this relative humidity is always less than 1 this is the height to which a tree can grow and still have water supplied from the root to the top if it grows any higher it will not have water from here and so without water supply the leaf would just dry up give you an idea as to what this height is give me the units here or do it in SI units what will the value be or if I start with 8 to 2 cc atmospheres per gram mole degree k into 300 I am looking at only this factor by molecular weight is 18 what is g it is terrible units it is easiest to work with Joules R will be what 8.3 Joules per mole degree k into 300 is degree k so if I am working with Joules this is 9.8 that correct I am making a mistake in unit yeah this is alright point this comes to 0.018 you know yeah you need you know this is 18 kg gram per mole okay you what you want you are saying is you divide by 1000 so it is about take this is 10 this is 0.2 it is about 40,000 200 approximately or 12,000 0.2 into 10 40 into 300 yeah 12,000 so you are talking of 12 km into so h is approximately – 12 h in km and then r so thermodynamics just set a limit this r will have to be the you know you have to take this value of r as close to in the wettest season possible so r can be close to 1 if it is r is 1 then there is no choice no tree can grow there the relative humidity will be less than 1 but if it is less it will vary from season to season in the monsoon season for example in Madras it can be 90% humidity it will be about 0.9 so ln of 0.9 is about 0.1 so in principle it can go to 1.2 km the thing is not interesting by the number is not so fascinating because no tree ever goes to that height before that it gets knocked off by wind or whatever but the fact that you can set a limit to the height is purely from these arguments all these arguments had nothing to do with trees but using those arguments you can finally set a limit on this but let us look at actually what happens where do you use this most in chemical engineering use it actually in a distillation column the most important distillation column in the chemical industry till date is the oil fractionation column you take crude oil distillation column actually somewhat looks like this you know I am bad at pictures but does not matter let me you have a series of trays and show you what each tray looks like give you an idea then this is the feed this is the bottom product this is the top product crude oil is basically a mixture of compounds of different molecular weight and you can actually see this in the dross refinery I promise that I will arrange for you to go and see it we will talk to them what you have is crude oil coming in at some point each of these let me take one tray for example a typical tray now there are much better trays typical tray looks like this drawing the cross section of the tray what you have is from below the vapor comes up we will find out and there is liquid that comes from the bottom from the top explain what this is supposed to be there is a hole in the tray through which the vapor rises this vapor there is a cap on top this tray is called a bubble cap tray the bubble cap is the name of the tray what happens is there is a hole and through which the vapor rises the liquid this there is a small tube attached to the plate and as the vapor rises it will have to bubble through the liquid is up to this level the vapor has to bubble through and escape like this as the vapor bubbles through and escapes like this it has comes into intimate contact to the liquid the contact time may be only a fraction of a minute but during this time the vapor comes to equilibrium with the liquid so this vapor that leaves and at the end of the tray there is a downcomer in the liquid goes through here so because this vapor and liquid are extremely well mixed as the liquid comes from the top flows like this and finally comes down the downcomer there is a downcomer here from the previous there is liquid coming down okay this is liquid coming down from a downcomer it flows on the tray like this it goes across and then goes down to the next tray as it passes over the tray the vapor from below bubbles through it these are devices the various kinds of devices that are made in order to make sure that the gases in intense contact with the liquid typical contact time here will be only few seconds but during that thing because it bubbles through in the form of small bubbles you have large area of contact so you have sufficient contact for it to come to equilibrium as far as thermodynamics is concerned this vapor and this liquid that leave are in equilibrium with one another this is from top this is the vapor from below the vapor coming in and the liquid coming in are not at equilibrium this is coming in from another tray this is coming down from the top tray these two are not in equilibrium but the vapor leaving and the liquid leaving are in equilibrium in practice they are very nearly in equilibrium they reach about it 90% of equilibrium so you can do calculations by finding out how much how close to equilibrium they are so where does thermodynamics come in my box is like this I have liquid vapor so this is the liquid this is the vapor on top so the two compositions are related they are related through this equation so as I go up what happens is normally as a thumb rule if the saturation pressure is higher or if the component is more volatile then why I is greater than Xi right I mean there are other factors that will control but qualitatively this is correct that is the saturation pressure is higher the substance is more volatile it will be more in the vapor phase then if I have only two components one and two component one is more volatile then it will be it will appear the mole fraction in the vapor phase will be more than the liquid phase so at every tray if y n is the vapor leaving the tray n n is the tray number okay look at a binary system for a binary mixture if it is a binary mixture y n is the is in equilibrium with x n x n is the this has a composition x n for each tray and you will find y n plus 1 let us measure the trays from either up or below let me take y n plus 1 is greater than y n then x n plus 1 is less than x n so if I have a large number of trays I can get practically pure one here so if I have many components the most volatile component the lightest component will come out on top in the case of the refinery here what comes out on top is natural gas actually methane effectively lowest hydrocarbon if it comes out in more quantities than you can use you actually burn it there because you cannot afford to pollute the air so you will see the occasionally you get a whiff of it so far away from Manali but most of the time they burn it very effectively now they are trying to pipe it and use it as natural gas at the bottom here you get higher and higher molecular weights at the lowest finally in a tower you will get very high molecular weight compounds which go into lubricating oils so from methane effectively these are not exactly methane of that ratio it is a hydrocarbon mix with carbon to hydrogen ratio of something like 12 is to 4 which is the methane ratio these are all approximate ratios in a distillation column you do not get pure components in a crude oil distillation column this bottom will be some lubricating oil this even this lubricating oil is a liquid only because the high temperature that you maintain here what you this is called the reboiler what you do is send in a mix of a feed which is crude oil at the bottom is where you finally supply energy you supply enough energy to evaporate this blue boil also and this goes up as it goes up you can draw of streams at various points each representing level of purity for a molecular weight range for example the next one would be nafta after that would be petrol then there would be diesel and so on so you will get things like etc all the way to blue boil that you even get waxes but they would not be in the solid form at this stage the temperature will be high enough so that the waxes more so these products you remove depending on you can change the number of trays you can trade change the point at which you draw off depending on the market if you want more diesel or more petrol then you have a large number of trays at the top you will draw off a lot of petrol and so on and depending on that you will have to supply energy on the top the gas that comes off is condensed and is removed or it just burnt as gas so this is a condenser this is a reboiler this is a condenser should realize that higher and higher molecular weight compounds will condense and lower and lower molecular compounds will evaporate as you go up so the latent heats will balance one another so basically you do not need that much of energy in a distillation column the energy of condensation will compensate the energy of evaporation the more volatile component will evaporate and the less volatile component will condense on each tray so this will go on and this is balanced out so you do not really need normally you do not need a detailed enthalpy balance in a distillation column the enthalpy balance simply says that the latent heats of evaporation in condensation approximately equal in that is a thumb rule in thermodynamics that the molar latent heats are approximately the same for hydrocarbons so this is the actual column this is what you would be dealing with but what I need to design this is an input which tells me how the molecular the mole fraction of a component I in the vapor phase is related to its mole fraction in the liquid phase this plus mass balance plus if necessary energy balance will solve all the equations for you will be able to get exact because when you do a mass balance you have the liquid coming in from the previous tray above and the thing coming in for the feed tray there will be a special treatment because there is another stream that is being added for every between two trays if you are taking out a stream that tray will need a special treatment all this is done it is all straight forward it is absolutely the only input you need is this in this input will be given to you in the form of a graph as far as distillation column mass transfer course is concerned so you will think you did not use thermodynamics at all this input comes from thermodynamics you calculate this curve from thermodynamics so in practice what you need to do is do this calculation practice the vapor phase corrections and the pointing correction are not so important most important correction from comes from ? I if there is the non-ideality largest largest non-ideality correction is from the liquid phase that is the most important part of it so we look at for example liquid phase non-ideality in practice in a given problem in order to find out if you understand everything I may ask you to calculate everything may give you a problem at two atmospheres and still ask you to correct calculate the pointing correction just to find out if you know how to calculate not so much for but in actual practice for anything below 10 atmospheres or even 25 atmospheres the pointing correction is neglected this is neglected Phi I saturation Phi I notice also that you get Phi I saturation by Phi I so very often this ratio is one even if individual non-idealities are not one so you can often throw away the corrections for fugacity coefficients so most of the time you would use I will say at low pressures pointing correction is approximately one and you take Phi I by Phi I saturation is approximately one so the equation boils down to P Y I and include treatments we write it as K I x I this P I saturation gamma I by P this is actually a function of composition strictly speaking but in classical treatments in chemical engineering they have used Y I is equal to K I x I or more importantly Y I by Y J by this token is equal to in order to get Y I simply have to do K I x I because sum over Y I Y J is one so sum over this has to be equal to one this is equal to X I by sum over K J by K I x J this alpha J I is defined as K J by K I this K I is called essentially this is called volatility this determines how volatile component I is and K J by K I is called relative volatility it is a rather important engineering quantity because it is much more constant than K I see K I is actually a function composition dependent quantity and can vary quite a lot but usually K I by K J is approximately constant at a given temperature so this is primarily a function of temperature in a typical distillation column you can go from something like 600 degrees here to about 100 degrees here in centigrade you are talking of very wide range of temperatures so very often what they will do is to say in the lower half you use one alpha I J in the upper half use another alpha because it varies with temperature alphas will vary widely so it is convenient divided into sections and use constant alpha over each section but this gives you a representation of equilibrium very nicely for example if you have you have Y I by X I or X I by Y I if I have got alpha I J we write it for a binary so instead of giving you gamma data instead of giving you an expression for G excess from which you calculate gamma I can give you data on K which makes life very simple or data on alpha for example binary makes you get Y 1 is equal to X 1 by 1 plus alpha I I is 1 clearly alpha 21 not this is X 1 plus a very simple relationship between Y 1 and X 1 this is 1- X 1 of course so this is a relationship between Y and X this also gives you a relationship between Y and X you can then therefore calculate an expression for alpha in terms of gamma and if you had a binary this would simply mean Y 1 is equal to P 1 saturation all of that stuff pointing correction for one P 1 saturation gamma 1 into X 1 so you have to compare these two great some connection between alpha 1 this expression and gamma 1 so alpha can be directly related to gamma so the rest of it is just a lot of problems that I have to give you in vapor liquid equilibria and one of the most one interesting way one of the questions is how do you get these values the gamma values you get it through these equations but how do you get the parameters in these equations and let us look at some examples of GXS I have GXS by RT and then log gamma 1 for example already seen this for example you have a X 1 X 2 this is a X 2 squared now we know that gamma 1 goes to 1 as X 1 goes to 1 then as gamma 1 infinity is called infinite dilution activity coefficient come on infinity is limit as X 1 goes to 0 of a X 2 squared so this is simply so if you can measure non-ideality at very low compositions of X 1 then you get this coefficient here log gamma 1 infinity sorry log gamma 1 infinity is simply a so this infinite dilution activity coefficients are often the way in which data are reported that is if you have different correlating equations these constants I have to give you data on these constants for you to do predictions because if you know the GXS expression along with these constants for a particular system then you can calculate gamma and you can solve this set of equations so in order to solve this set of equations I have to give you vapor phase non-ideality which means I have to give you an equation of state or tell you the pressure is low so you throw away all the fees make them one so I have to give you a method of calculating this I have to give you the liquid volume so that you can calculate the pointing correction if necessary and then you have to calculate gammas to calculate gammas I have to give you GXS the way in which the GXS data is given is often you are told that it obeys Porta's equation it obeys some equation and to get the constants any give you the I can give you values for the constants or simply give you limiting activity coefficients so with that actually the vapor liquid equilibrium treatment is over all I have to do is give you a large number of problems and discuss individual problems in particular interest and the other way of getting these is through measurements on azeotropes I will discuss this next class I will discuss getting constants in these equations using data from azeotropic mixtures if the system has an azeotrope okay really that covers vapor liquid equilibrium in the case of liquid liquid mixtures where all the components are solvents we still have to discuss the case where one of the components in the liquid is actually solute in which case you cannot get this PI saturation you will not get PI saturation you will get some other reference value you cannot go to the liquid state okay stop there