Antilegalization Of Marijuana Essays - Drug Control Law, Free Essays

Antilegalization Of Marijuana Essays - Drug Control Law, Free Essays Antilegalization Of Marijuana Dear Congressman, I am honored to be writing to you on such a significant topic of national concern. Average citizens are annoyed and just plain fatigued with the drugs and crime problems in America. These upright citizens, that contribute to the growth of American society, are being told that legalization is a reasonable alternative to dealing with these problems in their communities. Legalization of any drug is not a positive way to fight crime. In fact, there is no legitimate reason to legalize drugs. The Legalization of marijuana is the starting point of the pro-legalization of drugs movement. The issue of legalizing marijuana is truly a controversial one, and certainly one that requires a plethora of considerations at the top levels of the legislative branch. When considering the possibility of legalizing marijuana as a recreational drug, there are a number of concerns that come to mind. Is marijuana physically harmful to the user? Is marijuana an addictive drug? Does the use of marijuana lead to dependency situations? Does it act as gateway to more hazardous drugs? Does the notion of legalizing marijuana send an immoral, wrong message to the youth of America? Mr. Congressman, the answer to all these questions is YES. According to the DEA (1998), the supreme ruler of drug knowledge in America, there are over 10,000 scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful and addictive drug. Yet there is no reliable study that proves marijuana has any medical value. Marijuana is an unstable mixture of over 425 chemicals, which when smoked are converted to over thousands. Most of these are toxic, psychoactive chemicals which are unstudied and appear in uncontrolled strengths. Marijuana leads to many different consequences depending on the personality and general characteristics of the individual using the drug. These may include, but are not limited to: premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, mental disorders, hostility and increased aggressiveness, general unconcern of life, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, and impairment to the immune system. Marijuana is currently up to 25 times more potent than it was in the 1960's, which makes the drug even more addictive. In 1994, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug: highly addictive with no medical usefulness. Marijuana is a harmful substance. The use of marijuana for the purposes of intoxication leads to a number of serious health risks. Research has proven that marijuana damages short term memory, distorts perceptions, impairs complex motor skills, alters the heart rate, can lead to severe anxiety, and can cause paranoia and lethargy. A condition called Amotivational syndrome take places after chronic use. It is defined by Dr. Harry Avis (1996), professor of psychology as, a condition characterized by a lack of ambition or desire to succeed, presumed to be the result of smoking marijuana. As reported in The Medical Journal of Australia, Marijuana causes birth defects, fetal damage, lung cancer, long-term impairment of memory, schizophrenia, suppression of the immune system, and even leukemia in the children of marijuana-smoking mothers (Nahas & Latour, 1992). The National Institute on Drug Abuse (1996) reported that the chemicals found in marijuana smoke suppresses the neurons in the information-processing system of the hippocampus. This is the part of the brain that is crucial for learning, memory, and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and motivation. Marijuana, should it be legalized, would ruin many Americans' abilities to learn, and would abruptly decay the development and progress of the American Society. Marijuana is dangerous, and it is more dangerous than it ever has been. The federal Drug Abuse Warning Network, or DAWN, claims that recent statistics show increases in the number of patients mentioning marijuana in hospital emergency rooms (The Marijuana Debate Goes On, 1998). Inexperienced users may suffer acute anxiety the first time they use it. This could be a direct result of the increase in potency of marijuana. Growers have access to the latest agricultural technologies and scientific methods which enable them to grow more powerful marijuana. Growers have become extremely sophisticated about developing varieties of marijuana with high concentrations of THC (Is Marijuana Dangerous? Is It Addictive?, 1995). THC, or Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is one of the 400 chemicals in marijuana. It accounts for most of marijuana's psychoactive, or mind-altering, effects (Facts About Marijuana and Marijuana Abuse, 1996). The levels of THC found in the modern drug markets' marijuana are much higher than they have ever been. The concentration of THC will keep increasing in the future. This directly leads to more and stronger addictions to marijuana. One argument that the pro-legalization movement pleads is that

Human Rights Nonprofit Advocacy Organisations In Uk Social Work Essay Essays

Human Rights Nonprofit Advocacy Organisations In Uk Social Work Essay Essays Human Rights Nonprofit Advocacy Organisations In Uk Social Work Essay Essay Human Rights Nonprofit Advocacy Organisations In Uk Social Work Essay Essay The constitution of public policy requires strong protagonism administrations as they are boosters and Godheads of policy thoughts, suppliers of indispensable resources ( expertness, financess and information ) and makers of public sentiment needed to accomplish effectual policies. There is an ample diverseness within the population of protagonism group, some are good set up advocators with memorable histories of policy work while others are freshly emerged administrations recommending for a cause. Working on a assortment of subjects, they operate at all degrees in the policy sphere. They have many organisational signifiers, support beginnings, and protections. Their activities cover a broad scope of tactics that include lobbying, forming, research, run finance, and so forth ( McNutt, 2010 ) . Nowadays it s non an easy undertaking to measure who and how many administrations engage in protagonism activities. Measuring lobbying outgo is non plenty as lobbying is merely one among assorted activities included in protagonism pattern. Advocacy includes a huge scope of undertakings such as researching, letter-writing, analysing, educating, skill-building, constructing relationships, mobilizing, forming, protesting, petitioning, facilitating, rousing power, convention, etc ( Avner, 2004 ) . There are plentifulness of chances for administrations to progress a policy and societal alteration without even prosecuting in lobbying. Advocacy is an indispensable activity for non-profit-making administrations in United Kingdom. In its assorted signifiers, whether implies buttonholing or instruction and agenda-setting, protagonism plays an of import function in the non-profit-making sector. Therefore understanding what non-profit-making protagonism is, how and to what extent protagonism is practiced and what are the nucleus organizational features with an impact on protagonism engagement is of a important affair. Most non-profit-making protagonism is carried by administrations with a nucleus mission of protagonism but direct service administrations gained recently a significant function in the protagonism sphere. An of import issue is that this type of administrations face particular challenges when practising advocacy non as a primarly but as a secondary organisational map to back up the nucleus mission of direct service. ( Kimberlin, 2010 ) Assorted philosophical and practical barriers are faced by direct services non-profit-making administrations when they try to implement effectual protagonism activities. The chief philosophical barrier is related to the unwilligness to to the full authorise components as advocators expressed by some service oriented not-for-profits. In this instance components are regarded more as service receivers instead so active organisation representatives. Althought there is a clear tendency in public policy doing to back up the demand for non-profit-making direct service administrations to leverage the cognition and expertness of their components and staff to recommend for societal justness ( Donaldson, 2008 ) . Practical barriers can be deficiency of support, fright of requital from nucleus organisational funders or limited protagonism accomplishments among staff. Literature reappraisal There are many ways to specify non-profit-making protagonism. Even if many non-profit-making administrations advocate on behalf of single clients, more frequently non-profit-making protagonism refers to collective protagonism. A frequent definition of non-profit-making protagonism is produced by Jenkins who describe protagonism as any effort tp influence the determinations of an institutional elite on behalf of a corporate involvement. ( Jenkins, 1987:297 ) . Scholars have advanced definitions that emphasize the struggle inherent in protagonism, for them advocacy organisations do public involvement claims either advancing or defying societal alteration that, if implemented, would conflict with the societal, cultural, political, or economic involvements or values of other constituencies and groups. ( Andrews and Edwards, 2004:481 ) Assorted researchings differentiate between self involvement organisational protagonism and progressive protagonism. If self involvement protagonism is designed to protect administration support contracts, progressive protagonism pattern refers to advocacy that ( 1 ) seeks to reference underlying structural and power unfairnesss as distinct from protagonism motivated by organisational involvement, and ( 2 ) applies strategies that meaningfully prosecute clients or components in all facets of the protagonism procedure. ( Donaldson, 2008:26 ) In this instance protagonism s primarly intent is to progress the involvements of components, instead so self involvements. Furthermore components are engaged in the protagonism sphere. Another position in specifying non-profit-making protagonism is the scope of administrations categorized as not-for-profit. In a research about protagonism administrations engaged in the political procedure, Andrews and Edwards ( 2004 ) include involvement groups, societal motion administrations and direct service not-for-profit bureaus. Some protagonism research workers ( Reid, 2006 ) analyzed administrations for whom protagonism is a nucleus mission. Others ( Donaldson, 2008 ) have explored direct service administrations that consider protagonism as a secondary organizational activity. Few researches focus on protagonism across both types of non-profit-making administrations ( Salmon, 2002 ) . Research purpose The intent of this thesis is to analyze the patterns of service orientated non-profit-making administrations in the specific field of human rights ( LGBT sector ) . The purpose of this survey is to place organisational features associated with engagement in protagonism, practical schemes and best patterns for easing protagonism attempts in organisations that conduct protagonism as a secondary instead than core organisational activity in the human rights field ( LGBT sector ) . Footings of mention To what extent non-profit-making organisations triping in human rights field ( LGBT sector ) participate in the protagonism sphere? There is any relationship between reception of authorities support and engagement in protagonism? Can assorted non-profit-making features, like organisational size and adulthood, have an influence on protagonism apetite? Can serve oriented non-profit-making administrations employ the same schemes used by nucleus protagonism not-for-profits? What are the restrictions? What are the most effectual patterns and schemes for non-profit-making administrations triping in human rights field ( LGBT sector ) to accomplish protagonism ends? Another unsolved inquiry in the literature that examines not-for-profit protagonism is the extent to which bureau protagonism behaviour is motivated by self or agency-interest, for illustration, to protect support beginnings, or make bureaus have a broader intent to their protagonism agenda that includes turn toing structural and power unfairnesss. the reply to these inquiries might act upon the schemes and tactics bureaus use in their protagonism pattern, that is, whether or non the bureau engages in progressive protagonism, or protagonism that is largely expert-driven and motivated chiefly by agency-interest. Advocacy is stating or showing something you know to person you know in order to better the quality of life for others ( Mitchell and Philibert 2002 ; Zeitler 2007 ) In order to be most effectual, protagonism attempts require a echt desire for alteration and efi ¬?cient communicating. Advocacy besides involves constructing relationships with fellow advocators, every bit good as elected ofi ¬?cials at the local, province, and national degrees ( LaRocco and Bruns 2005 ; Zeitler 2007 ) . Andrews, K. A ; Edwards, B. ( 2004 ) . Advocacy organisations in the U.S. political procedure. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479-506. hypertext transfer protocol: //web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.leedsmet.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=10HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol: //web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.leedsmet.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=10 A ; hid=113 A ; sid=e8d04f04-1eaf-4dc2-808a-2754c2071dd5 @ sessionmgr112 amp ; HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol: //web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.leedsmet.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=10 A ; hid=113 A ; sid=e8d04f04-1eaf-4dc2-808a-2754c2071dd5 @ sessionmgr112 hid=113HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol: //web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.leedsmet.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=10 A ; hid=113 A ; sid=e8d04f04-1eaf-4dc2-808a-2754c2071dd5 @ sessionmgr112 amp ; HYPERLINK hypertext transfer protocol: //web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.leedsmet.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=10 A ; hid=113 A ; sid=e8d04f04-1eaf-4dc2-808a-2754c2071dd5 @ sessionmgr112 sid=e8d04f04-1eaf-4dc2-808a-2754c2071dd5 % 40sessionmgr112 Avner, M. ( 2004 ) . The lobbying and protagonism enchiridion for non-profit-making organisations: Determining public policy at the province and local degree. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Donaldson, L. ( 2008 ) . Developing a progressive protagonism plan within a human services bureau. Administration in Social Work, 32 ( 2 ) , 25-47. Jenkins, J. C. ( 1987 ) . Nonprofit organisations and policy protagonism. In W. Powell ( Ed. ) , The non-profit-making sector: A research enchiridion ( pp. 296-320 ) . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kimberlin, Sara E. ( 2010 ) Advocacy by Nonprofit organizations: Functions and Practices of Core Advocacy Organizations and Direct Service Agencies , Journal of Policy Practice, 9: 3, 164 182 hypertext transfer protocol: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2010.487249 LaRocco, D. J. , A ; Bruns, D. A. ( 2005 ) . Advocacy is merely a phone call off: Schemes to do a difference on behalf of kids and their households. Young Exceptional Children, 8 ( 4 ) , 11-18. McNutt, John G. ( 2010 ) Researching Advocacy Groups: Internet Sources for Research about Public Interest Groups and Social Movement Organizations , Journal of Policy Practice, 9: 3, 308 312 hypertext transfer protocol: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2010.487247 Mitchell, L. M. , A ; Philibert, D. B. ( 2002 ) . Family, professional, and political protagonism: Rights and duties. Young Exceptional Children, 5 ( 4 ) , 11-18. Reid, E. ( 2006 ) . Nonprofit protagonism and political engagement. In E. T. Boris A ; C. E. Steuerle ( Eds. ) , Nonprofits and authorities: Collaboration and struggle ( pp.343-371 ) . Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.campuskitchens.org/kellogg/images/ves/nonprofit_advocacy_and_participation.pdf Salamon, L. ( 2002 ) . Explaining non-profit-making protagonism: An explorative analysis. Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies, Center for Civil Society Studies Working Paper No. 21. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cedag-eu.org/uploads/File/workingpaper21.pdf