Youth Case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Youth Case study - Essay Example This paper provides a comparative study about the proliferation of youth gangs in East Timor and the United States of America. It introduces the characteristics of the gangs in both countries by pointing out the differences and similarities. East Timor obtained its independence from Indonesia after a prolonged freedom struggle, in which tens of thousands of East Timorese were killed, captured or tortured. The political turmoil of April 2006 led to the disintegration of the security forces into multiple factions and large organized street gangs. Research has found out that large numbers of young and marginalized males have joined these organizations, factions and street gangs (Scambary, 2006). Youth gangs are not a new phenomenon since they were used as instruments of repression during the Portuguese and Indonesian rule. After gaining independence, East Timor has witnessed sporadic clashes in the western highlands and Dili. A riot in March 2001 between rival gangs destroyed several houses in villages like Olobia and Boramatan (Scambary, 2006). The current conflict and nature of the violence has been focused in the market areas around Comoro and Taibesse. Sintu Kulao and Gaya Anak are two of the western gangs arrayed against two big eastern gangs, Lito Rambo and Lafaek in Becora and Comoro respectively (Scambary, 2006). Ethnicity has also played a large role in the formation of these youth gangs as a struggle between West and East Timor. Revenge has been the motive for the random violence, which has taken place. Another reason for the huge proliferation of gangs in East Timor is the land disputes, which have arisen in the aftermath of independence. A strong campaign of house burnings and intimidation against easterners has revolved around individual property disputes. Some gangs are being led by former resistance figures like Lito Rambo and Sintu Kulao (Scambary, 2006). Many gang members have infiltrated the political parties and security forces.

Mergers and Acquisitons Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Mergers and Acquisitons - Case Study Example A merger actually refers to a business combination of two or more firms in which only one firm survives and the other firm or firms go out of existence. In a merger, the surviving firm acquires the assets and liabilities of the other firm(s). A relevant example here is the recent merger of HDFC Bank and Times Bank. After the merger, Times Bank will go out of existence and expanded HDFC Bank will continue to exist. A merger takes place when the firms involved in the combination are of unequal size. The larger or stronger firm continues to exist because of its stronger bargaining power and the smaller or weaker firms go out of existence. Four periods of economic history have witnessed very high levels of merger activity, which are called a merger waves. These periods are characterized by cyclical activity i.e. large number of mergers followed by relatively fewer mergers ((ICMR), 2003). The current period is called as the fifth wave. In the first three waves, merger activity was concentrated in the United States of America. The fourth and the fifth waves were global in nature though the impact of the wave is most pronounced in the United States of America. The current merger wave began in 1992. This wave is marked by a large number of mega-mergers and cross-border mergers. Prior to this, there had been four different waves of mergers and acquisitions happening each being predominantly different. A famous example of the acquisition in the fourth wave of merger and acquisition row is the acquisition of Safeway, Britain's fourth largest supermarket group (Sky News, 2003) by William Morrison Supermarkets which operates in Central London and England (Arla Foods, 2003). The major drivers for the current wave are deregulation, globalization and technology. The increasing levels of deregulation are enabling companies to enter or expand their operations in areas which had significant regulatory barriers. The sectors where the impact of the wave is most visible are telecommunications, entertainment and media, banking and financial services. Safeway PLC was going through a troubled phase of business and was also struggling to cope up with the competition from the other retail giants in UK. As part of this struggle to compete, Safeway has also started experiencing the decline in its brand equity. All these struggles of Safeway were despite its strong national portfolio of having almost more than 450 outlets all across the United Kingdom. Going ahead, though William Morrison is a regional retail player in the United Kingdom having its strength in Midlands and in Northern Europe. Though William Morrison PLC is a regional player, the main strength of the company is its brand image and reputation in the market. One of the fundamental motives that drive mergers and acquisitions is the growth impulse of firms. Firms that decide to expand have to choose between two generic growth strategies, one is the organic growth and the other being the acquisition driven growth. The former one is a slow,

Federal Reserve and the Great Recession Research Paper

Federal Reserve and the Great Recession - Research Paper Example One of the major causes of the Great Recession was the bursting of the housing bubble. Being a regulator of the monetary system, the Federal Reserve could have seen a crisis coming. The major cause of the housing bubble bursting was that the Fed opted to expand their monetary policy; though the regulation was effectively done, this policy was a contributor to the problem. The Federal Reserve might have bowed to the pressure from the government to have the implementation of the housing policy be implemented. It happened that the dot-com crash was followed by a substantial increase in the printing press that resulted in an increase in the monetary base. Additionally, there was a great cut in the federal funds by Greenspan (from 5.6% in 2001 to 1% in 2003). These factors contributed to an increase in the housing among other investments that utilize huge amounts of capital. The Fed could have intervened at this point and develop a regulatory mechanism to prevent the situation from escala ting to the financial crisis and ultimately the Great Recession. The Federal Reserve failed to develop adequate measures that would deal with the insolvency. Two institutions at the center of the Great Recession, Lehman Brothers, and Washington Mutual became insolvent resulting in their collapse. The Fed made a miscalculated attempt to go ahead and support these institutions instead of giving them a chance to fail, the outcome would have been an increase in the amount of savings as well as investments.

Civil Rights and Responsibilities Essay Example for Free

Civil Rights and Responsibilities Essay The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution shortly after its ratification. These amendments guarantee certain political, procedural, and property rights against infringement by the national government (Patterson, 2009). â€Å"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on influence (Thomas Jefferson). The First Amendment provides the foundation for freedom of expression which is the right of individual Americans to hold and communicate views of their choosing (Patterson, 2009). The motivation of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee individual rights and freedoms. The First Amendment reflects this tradition, providing for freedom of religion along with freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition. The three provisions of the First Amendment are the freedom of speech, assembly and religion. The freedom of speech states that you are free to say almost anything except that which is obscene, slanders another person, or has a high probability of inciting others to take imminent lawless action. The freedom of assembly states that you are free to assemble, although government may regulate the time and place for reasons of public convenience safety, provided such regulations are applied evenhandedly to all groups. The freedom of religion states that you are protected from having the religious beliefs of others imposed on you, and you are free to believe what you like. Freedom of religion simply means citizens have freedom to attend a church, synagogue, temple or mosque of their choice, or not to attend at all. The First Amendment allows us to practice our religion the way we want to. When talking about freedom of religion and the First Amendment I think about religion in the schools. Every since the Supreme Court held school-sponsored prayer unconstitutional in the early 1960s, there has ben a concerted and well-funded campaign to reintroduce religion in public schools. Public schools themselves should not be in the business of promoting particular religious beliefs or religious activities and they should protect children from being coerced by others to accept religious (or anti-religious beliefs. A Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission inquiry ruled in July that the Saskatoon Board of Education must end a practice of giving teachers the option of conducting prayers in public school classrooms and assemblies. In practice, the choice has been primarily the Lords Prayer. The ruling will not change practices in separate schools. The inquiry followed a complaint six years ago by nine parents, including Muslims, Jews, Unitarians and atheists. About 20% of the 550 public school classrooms in Saskatoon begin the day with prayer. The decision may be appealed in court (Globe and Mail, 1999). The relationship between religion and government in the United States when it comes to the United States Constitution is governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which both prevents the government from establishing religion and protects privately initiated religious expression and activities from government interference and discrimination. The First Amendment thus establishes certain limits on the conduct of public school officials as it relates to religious activity, including prayer. Prayer should not have been taken out of schools. Parents should be sent home a letter opting out of religious activities and employees should be given the same option, but taken it out of schools was ridiculous. The case of Engel v. Vitale (1962) went to the Supreme Court and the case was about a time in 1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education) approved a 22-word â€Å"nondenominational prayer â€Å"for recitation each morning in the public schools of New York. It read: â€Å"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.† The Regents believed that the prayer could be a useful tool for the development of character and good citizenship among the students of the State of New York. The prayer was offered to the school boards in the State for their use, and participation in the â€Å"prayer-exercise† was voluntary. In New Hyde Park, New York, the Union Free School District No. 9 directed the local principal to have the prayer â€Å"said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of the school day.† The parents of ten pupils in the New Hyde Park schools objected to the prayer. They filed suit in a New York State court seeking a ban on the prayer, insisting that the use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to their own and their childrens beliefs, religions, or religious practices. The State appeals court upheld the use of the prayer, â€Å"so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents objection† (infoplease.com). The Freedom to Assemble gives people the right to assemble peacefully without causing any harm to others. As much as I do not agree with the KKK views and opinions they should be able to assemble if they do it in a peaceful manner. The First Amendment prohibits government from abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble. This basic freedom ensures that the spirit of the First Amendment survives and thrives even when the majority of citizens would rather suppress expression it finds offensive. Over the course of our history, freedom of assembly has protected individuals espousing myriad viewpoints. Striking workers, civil rights advocates, anti-war demonstrators and Ku Klux Klan marchers have all taken to the streets and sidewalks in protest or in support of their causes. Sometimes these efforts have galvanized public support or changed public perceptions. Imagine a civil rights movement without the March on Washington or the womens suffrage movement without ranks of long-skirted, placard-carrying suffragists filling city streets. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of this freedom in the 1937 case De Jonge v. State of Oregon, writing that the right to peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. â€Å"According to the Court, † the right to assemble is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions† (archive.firstamendmentcenter.org). The KKKs right to assemble peaceably was secured by the famous 1977 case of National Socialist Party v. Skokie, in which the American Civil Liberties Union successfully argued that the First Amendment prohibited officials of Skokie, Ill., from banning a march by the National Socialist Party. Skokie is a Chicago suburb that is home to many Holocaust survivors. One federal judge reasoned that â€Å"it is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear† (archive.firstamendmentcenter.org). In conclusion, the First Amendment of the United States protects the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression as well as freedom of assembly from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are two clauses in the First Amendment that guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the separation of church and state. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion. The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. With that being said, all people should be having some kind of freedom. They should be able to boycott and assemble peacefully without causing any harm to anyone. People should be free to have their different views and opinions of religion, be it that they religious or anti-religious. To sum it all up I would love for everyone to feel that they are free. References http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468 http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/program-freedom-religion-and-belief-government-funded-religion Religion in schools (teachers in Saskatchewan will no longer have the option of conducting prayer services in class). Humanist in Canada 130 (1999): 4, 39. General OneFile. Web. 25 June 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html

Proposal to De-criminalise Recreational Cannabis Use in Australia

Proposal to De-criminalise Recreational Cannabis Use in Australia In Australia there is a metaphorical ‘war on drugs’ that has failed comprehensively and as a result there is an ever-increasing level of support for the movement for drug reform.[1] There are a plethora of drug offences that relate to cannabis and a variety of statutory doctrines covered by both Commonwealth and State Law which assist in the prosecution of drug offences. The following report includes an overview of drug offences in NSW with a focus on cannabis. As well as an examination of policy issues associated with the criminalisation of recreational cannabis and potential risks and benefits related with alternative legal frameworks, in addition to a recommendation relating to the decriminalisation of cannabis. Drug Offences: The drug offences covered under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1966 (NSW) (DMTA) include use, possession, supply, trafficking, cultivation and manufacturing of prohibited plants and drugs as well as aiding and abetting and taking part in offences involving prohibited drugs and/or plants. These laws apply to cannabis as the substance is a prohibited drug as specified in Schedule 1 of the DMTA and is a prohibited plant as outlined in s 3. Additionally, cannabis is a poisons and can be found under s 8 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW), cannabis is a Schedule Nine substance and therefore is a substance which may be misused or abused and the manufacture, possession, sale and/or use is prohibited by law’[2] Under s 40 of the DMTA the ‘deemed drug’ provision, makes it an offence to attempt to supply or misrepresent a legal substance as an illicit drug e.g. representing parsley as cannabis. The definition of supply in s 3 makes the offence complete upon making the offer contrary to whether supply eventuates or whether there was an intention to supply is irrelevant. Under s 29 of the DMTA where a person is found to be in possession of a certain amount of a prohibited drug it is assumed that they are a drug trafficker, for cannabis leaf this weight is 300grams and the onus falls on the accused to prove otherwise. Traffickable offences also include possession of prohibited plants (s 23) and supply of prohibited drugs (s 25) as outlined in the DMTA and carry fines of 2,000 penalty units and/or 10 years imprisonment. DMTA prohibits the manufacture, supply, possession and/or use of prohibited drugs including cannabis. There are a variety of drug offences in NSW. As outlined in Pt 2 Div 1 of the DMTA including possession (s 10) and self-administration (s 12) which are summary offences and mean that an individual is liable for a fine of 20 penalty units and/or 2 years imprisonment (s 21).[3] Under s 11 of the DMTA it is an offence to be in possession of equipment for administration of prohibited drugs. The Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1996 (NSW) also assists in the prosecution of drug offences as it regulates, controls and prohibits the supply and use of different categories of drugs of which cannabis is classified as a drug of addiction thus a prohibited substance under Schedule 9 of the Poisons Act. The above-mentioned statutory doctrines must also coincide with the elements of criminal offences mens rea and actus reus before a person is found guilty. Major policy issues Statutory doctrines and court decisions created to assist in the prosecution of drug offences have contributed to the over criminalisation of drug-related behaviours. Drug policy in NSW is increasingly concerned with promoting approaches to minimise health risks and other harms caused by the use of cannabis and other legal and prohibited drugs.[4] There are a number of practical and ethical policy issues that are associated with the criminalisation of cannabis. Many policy issues arise regarding harm minimisation through ‘therapeutic’ criminalisation and harm minimisation. This includes the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme (CCS) which was introduced in 2000 and is a formal cautioning of adult offenders detected for minor offences relating to cannabis. As well as the Medicinal Cannabis Compassionate Use Scheme (MCCUS) which allows police to use their discretion as whether or not to caution terminally ill patients.[5] Other policy issues that arise as a result of criminalisation include a lack of medical supervision inevitably leading to the spread to preventable disease, overdose deaths, adulterated substances, drug related violence, distraction of police resources. ‘Prohibition is counterproductive — it causes significant harms additional to those resulting from drug use’ instead of funding for health and social services funding is diverted to law enforcement, prosecution and incarceration.’[6]   There are concerns as to criminalisation over targeting many low risk offenders such as those dealt with under the CCS.[7] This encroaches on users feelings of personal and financial security as it is often low level offences that are being dealt with pushing users further into poverty.[8] There is a slow movement in Australia to decriminalise cannabis however the CCS is a ‘punishment so disproportionate, because even if you end up having no real penalty you have a charge, the impact on employment opportunities and family can be lifelong.’[9] The purpose of criminalisation is often questioned and policy is concerned as whether there are benefits to criminalisation or whether criminalisation is implemented as it is a highly visible â€Å"solution† to real and perceived harms and risks associated with the recreational use of cannabis.[10] The framework is increasingly utilised as it can be enacted quickly, is visible and is often correlated with a strong government. It is a common opinion that the NSW Government are contradicting their actions and intentions between attempting to criminalise cannabis while minimising the harms associated with drug use which is supported by Tadeh Karapetian’s statement ‘the Government’s objective of minimising harm has been undermined by the criminalisation policy, through the stigmatisation of cannabis users, the preservation of the black market, the limitations of diversion schemes and the restriction of medicinal use.’ [11] Recently, the Court of Criminal Appeal in NSW, extended criminal liability for drug offences, fortunately, the High Court prevented on over reaching prosecution attempts to extend criminal liability in drug offences. In the case of Burns v The Queen the High Court found that unlawfully supplying a drug to someone does not ‘by itself, form the basis for unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter’.[12]   However, if supplying a drug did amount to manslaughter, over criminalisation would occur. As a result, users and suppliers would be more reluctant to call authorities for assistance for fear of being penalised and the criminal justice system would be over-exhausted and burdened as a result.[13]   It is estimated that Australians spend over $7 billion on cannabis annually, this is a concern for the Government as they are losing out on a potential revenue stream by criminalising cannabis use.[14] The National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2013 found that the recent use of cannabis in NSW dropped from 16.7% in 1998 to 9.5% in 2013, this is a concern for policy makers as it cannot be concluded that the ‘data does not support the notion that a criminalisation policy is more effective in preventing cannabis use.’[15] While the current policy criminalises the use of cannabis, policy is gradually de-criminalising cannabis and central to the policy debate is the belief that cannabis is a ‘gateway drug’ that raises concerns as to what other drugs users may be exposed to if cannabis is de-criminalised.[16] Alternative Legal Frameworks A national drug policy has been implemented in Australia since 1985 and accepts that the eradication of illegal drug use is not achievable. Instead it aims to minimise harm by reducing demand and supply.[17]There are multiple different legal frameworks the govern the use and supply of drugs: Depenalisation means drug use and possession carry lighter criminal penalties, whilst drug supply remains a criminal offence.[18] A benefit of this framework is that drug supply is still illegal which may assist in reducing the amount of cannabis that is supplied to users. Another benefit is that users are able to use the drug with a lesser penalty which may deter some users. Conversely, due to the lesser penalty, users may use cannabis rather than a drug that has harsher penalties. This will be detrimental to the government as they will be spending money in order to assist in imposing lighter penalties such as offering drug education and treatment services.[19] Decriminalisation results in drug use and possession no longer carrying criminal penalties but are replaced with civil penalties. Those who use or possess drugs may still be charged especially if fines are not paid or attending assessments are not complied with.[20] The supply of drugs is still a criminal offence. Many politicians are concerned that the decriminalisation of cannabis would ‘send the wrong message.’[21] Additionally, researches have supported this argument, arguing that ‘removing criminal penalties would lead to increased drug use, with harms falling hardest on the deprived communities that are already the most damaged by drug-related problems.’[22] Conversely, research undertaken in Sweden has shown that ‘as a result of decriminalisation, drug use does not increase among existing or new users, but reduces demand on, and the cost of the criminal justice system.[23] There may be reductions in problematic drug use, drug-related HIV and AIDS, deaths and reduced social costs of responding to drugs.[24] However, the way decriminalisation is implemented may affect the extent of net-widening which is an increase in the number of people arrested or charged.[25] Legalisation: the use and supply of cannabis is legal.[26] Approximately one in four Australians (26%) believe that the recreational use of cannabis should be legal.[27] The biggest risk is that supplying the drug is legalised. This makes it difficult to control the risks and harms associated with cannabis. Many people may abuse the legalisation of cannabis and treat it as a â€Å"gateway drug† to harsher and riskier drugs. It may result in reducing black market and criminal networks associated with cannabis drug trading, shift in responses and funding from the police and the criminal justice system towards heath, treatment and education programs. The taxes raised from the legalisation of cannabis could be used for the benefit of the community. By legalising cannabis there may be a significant increase in drug use, based on the harms and costs associated with legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Recommendation It is essential that Governments recognises that they cannot strictly control the behaviour of citizens.[28] In response to the War on Drugs, the government needs to consider ending ‘the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others’ and ‘Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.’[29] The civil penalty applicable to minor cannabis offences creates fairness and justice as it is a more proportionate response. As a result, criminal justice resources will be freed up and civil penalties will generate a revenue for the NSW Government. ‘The only way to achieve goals of rational drug policy is to replace black market for drugs with form of legal availability under highly regulated system’, this means that the NSW government should adopt the non-commercial model which is popular in Uruguay, and allows the government to retain control over the production and sale of cannabis.[30] There should be a minimum age purchase such as 21 in the case of Colorado or 18 in Uruguay.[31] The drug should be purchased through pharmacies, with there being a limit on how much can be purchased per month as well as the purity, what forms it can be sold, the training and responsibilities of suppliers, education about the drug and much more.[32] Conclusion As a result of the ineffective ‘war on drugs’, there has been a global movement for drug law reform.[33] Former Victorian police commissioner Ken Lay, has explained that ‘you can’t arrest your way out of this problem’, showing the need for the NSW Government to reconsider the drug policy in regards to the recreational use of cannabis.[34] The key drug offences and major policy issues associated with the recreational use of cannabis is over criminalising and as a result placing strain on law enforcement and users. The government needs to be more concerned with harm minimisation rather than prohibition because ‘drug law enforcement has had little impact on the Australian drug market.’[35] In conclusion, with the application of sensible and reasonably strict criteria the decriminalisation of cannabis for recreational cannabis would benefit the NSW justice system, users and the community. Bibliography A Articles/Books/Reports Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government, Alcohol & other drug treatment services (2018) Caitlin Hughes and Alison Ritter, A Summary of Diversion Programs for Drug and Drug-Related Offenders in Australia (2008) National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre Cannabis legalisation: what model for regulation? (7 December 2017) Alcohol and Drug Foundation Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research and Innovation, Review of the Medicinal Cannabis Compassionate Use Scheme (2016) NSW Government Conrad, Chris, Hemp for Health: The Medicinal and Nutritional Uses of Cannabis Sativa (Healing Arts Press, Rochester, 1997) Drug Programs and Initiatives (2018) NSW Government Featherston, James, Simon Lenton, Effects of the Western Australian Cannabis Infringement Notice Scheme on Public Attitudes, Knowledge and Use: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Change Data (2007) National Drug Research Institute Curtin and Curtin University of Technology Hari, Johann, About Drug Policy Australia (2018) Drug Policy Australia Hall, Wayne, Pacula Liccardo, Rosalie, Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy (The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2003) Hughes, Caitlyn, Alex Stevens, ‘What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?’ (21 July 2010) The British Journal of Criminology Gettman, Jon, Top 10 Marijuana Policy Issues For 2018 (2 January 2018) High Times Gotsis, Tom, Chris Angus and Lenny Roth, Illegal Drug Use and Possession: Current Policy and Debates (Briefing Paper No 4, NSW Parliamentary Research Services, 2016) Featherston, James, Simon Lenton, Effects of the Western Australian Cannabis Infringement Notice Scheme on Public Attitudes, Knowledge and Use: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Change Data (2007) National Drug Research Institute Curtin and Curtin University of Technology Lee, Nicole, Alison Ritter, Australia’s Recreational Drug Policies Aren’t Working, so What are the Options for Reform? (2 March 2016) The Conversation Mostyn, Ben, Helen Gibbon and Nicholas Cowdery, The Criminalisation of Drugs and the Search for Alternative Approaches   ‘24(2)’ Criminal Justice State Library New South Wales, Drug Laws in NSW (29 October 2015) http://legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/drugs-and-law-hot-topics/drug-laws-nsw State Library New South Wales, Drug Offences (1 October 2016) Stephen Odgers, Editorial: Drug Law Reform (2014) 38(6) Criminal Law Journal Karapetian, Tadeh, Criminalisation of Cannabis in New South Wales: Is Harm Minimisation Going Up in Smoke? (2017) University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series 17 B Cases Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35 C Legislation Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) [1] Ben Mostyn, Helen Gibbon and Nicholas Cowdery, The Criminalisation of Drugs and the Search for Alternative Approaches ‘24(2)’ Criminal Justice, 265. [2] Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW) [3] Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) [4] Johann Hari, About Drug Policy Australia (2018) Drug Policy Australia [5] Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research and Innovation, Review of the Medicinal Cannabis Compassionate Use Scheme (2016) NSW Government [6] Mostyn, above n 1, 265. [7] Tadeh Karapetian, Criminalisation of Cannabis in New South Wales: Is Harm Minimisation Going Up in Smoke? (2017) University of New South Wales Law Journal Student Series 17. [8] Ibid. [9]Caitlin Hughes and Alison Ritter, A Summary of Diversion Programs for Drug and Drug-Related Offenders in Australia (2008) National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre [10] Tom Gotsis, Chris Angus and Lenny Roth, Illegal Drug Use and Possession: Current Policy and Debates (Briefing Paper No 4, NSW Parliamentary Research Services, 2016) 19. [11] Karapetian, above n 9. [12] Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35. [13] Mostyn, above n 7,264 [14] Ibid. [15] Ibid. [16] Wayne Hall, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy (The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2003) 4. [17]Gotsis, above n 12. [18] Ibid. [19] Ibid. [20] Lee, above n 18, 26. [21] Caitlin Hughes, Alex Stevens, ‘What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?’ (21 July 2010) The British Journal of Criminology ‘50(6)’ [22] Ibid. [23] James Featherston, Simon Lenton, Effects of the Western Australian Cannabis Infringement Notice Scheme on Public Attitudes, Knowledge and Use: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Change Data (2007) National Drug Research Institute Curtin and Curtin University of Technology 50-62. [24] Lee, above n 18, 26. [25] Ibid. [26] Ibid. [27] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government, Alcohol & other drug treatment services (2018) [28] Karapetian, above n, 9. [29] Mostyn, above n 1, 262. [30] Stephen Odgers, Editorial: Drug Law Reform (2014) 38(6) Criminal Law Journal, 335. [31] Ibid. [32] Ibid. [33] Mostyn, above n 1, 269. [34] Lee, above n 18, 26 [35] Ibid.

the machine that one the war Essay examples -- essays research papers

In the next couple of paragraph’s, I am going to be explaining the themes of irony and conflict in the short story, The Machine That Won the War, by Isaac Asimov. The setting of The Machine That Won the War is the future of the earth, and a great war had just been won against the enemy race. Two men, Swift and Henderson, are the main characters, and are debating over who really won the war for earth. They are discussing whether or not it was the giant strategy computer known as Multivac, or the men in charge of making the maneuvers and programming the computer. The author Isaac Asimov is using description and argument as his modes of discourse for the story. In the story, Henderson who is an excitable man, explained that the fact that Multivac was nothing more than a large machine, only capable of doing what it was programmed of doing. Henderson explained that some of Multivac’s data might have been unreliable. The great computer was capable of creating a direct battle which earth forces could be used to attack their enemies. However, with Henderson imputing faulty data, this caused some of the battle plans to be unreliable. Henderson’s internal conflict between himself losing his job and wanting to keep it made him jingle with the programming until it seemed right. Quote from The Machine That Won the War, on page 201. â€Å"Since the war is won, I’ll tell you what I did. I corrected the data.† â€Å"How?† asked Swift. â€Å"Intuition, I presume, I juggled them till they looked righ...

Constantine the Great and His Influence on the Spread of Christianity :: essays research papers fc

Flavius Valerius Constantinus, also known as Constantine the Great, is believed to have been born sometime between the years 274 and 288. He was born in Naissus, which is now known as Nisch Serbia, to the Roman officer Constantius Chlorus. Constantius belonged to one of the Leading families of Moesia and his mother was a niece of the capable and soldierly Claudius, the conqueror of the Goths. Constantine’s mother Helena is said to have been the daughter of an innkeeper o Drepanum, and later became known as St. Helena the Christian Empress. There is, however, nothing to support the assertion sometimes made that she was already baptized before Constantine’s birth and her early influence ultimately brought him to Christianity. Such facts about her life as are known would suggest the contrary- Eusebius of Caecarea declares that Constantine in fact converted his mother. There are, however, other indications that Helena was not a Christian during her son’s early years. At what date Helena did embrace Christianity remains a mystery. Nor can anyone say wither certainty what gods she worshipped during her son’s childhood.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Of Constantine’s early years we know almost nothing, though we may suppose that they were spent in the eastern half of the Empire. In 293 Constantine was betrothed to Fausta the daughter of Madimian, and in this year his father Constantius was made Caesar. Constantine chose to join his father in the west at Boulogne on the expedition against the Picts and before his father’s death he was proclaimed to be his successor. After Constantius’ death Constantine’s troops immediately proclaimed him Caesar in acceptance to his father’s wishes.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  During the beginning of Constantine’s reign there were great political complications having to do with multiples of emperors ruling over different territories, which lead to the political movement of many wars between different leading parties. Constantine during this time was known to have the most efficient army, but was busy defending his own frontier and had not taken part in any of the quarrels amongst the different Caesars, until 311.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In 311 Caesar Maxentius claimed Constantine to be a tyrant and threatened Constantine's land with his overwhelmingly large and powerful army. On Constantine's march into war against Maxentius to save his land and his self-respect he received a vision. This vision assured him that he would conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors were to carry Christ's Monogram on their shields.