A Dialogue Over Marijuana And Its Characteristics Assignment

A Dialogue Over Marijuana And Its Characteristics - Assignment Example So I reached my classroom, drew a marijuana leaf, for class 11 students they thought in their current affairs class they would be discussing biology. However, they were soon proved wrong to their utter surprise. I stood firm to the ground and raised the following question to the students: â€Å"Who here thinks that Marijuana should be legalized in Europe and the rest of the world†? Many of them did not know what I was talking about, so I explained the herb and its characteristics. As everyone else would have thought, they came to the conclusion that this was a drug and they better stay away from it. Which was the point basically. However, quite of a few of them wanted to know about it more and wanted to try it before making any judgements about it. One kid asked the obvious question which was going to come up sooner or later. â€Å"Is it our right to smoke Marijuana?† Well, that question brought me back to the various arguments and confrontations I have had with people over the legal right to smoke Marijuana. ... I told my students that freedom always comes at a price. If you are willing to pay the price then you can go ahead and enjoy the freedom. However, it is pertinent to note that people in my class were reluctant to question the system as it stood there. Not many of them really thought that it was worth the spending time. I mean, why would anyone want to indulge in an illegal activity of smoking pot when one knows that he can be arrested for this? Not many were willing to take th steps and I don’t blame them. Introspection: The reason why I spoke about marijuana is very peculiar to what I think is the true value of freedom. In today’s world there are quite a few rebels out there. Not many peple aer ready to question he system and those who do have no understanding or aim to reach somewhere. Marijuana is long been known as a recreational drug. It is not really a drug, but a more recreational medicine which was used abundantly in medieval India. People in India like sadhus a nd saints used to smoke this leaf over and over again and derived great pleasure out of this. They were extremely intellectual and were always ahead of their times, not because they smoked pot, but because they were inherently like this and it catapulted them to smoking pot for recreational usage. The irony has become now that the USA whose ideology was founded by men who smoked pot ended up banning the same drug. They were not ready to allow its existence, mostly because at that time due to the external industrial forces smoking marijuana had already become an illegal and taboo thing to do. Reaction: As a teacher I am always on the lookout for students that have the knack to do something about their present in order to improve their future and utilize the best of every

All About Malaria Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

All About Malaria - Coursework Example 451). As studies indicate (Rietveld & Schlagenhauf 2008, p.214), malaria produces more complications in pregnant women and young children because these groups are more vulnerable to malaria. If diagnosis for this infection is not done at proper time, it may lead to disastrous results. The disease is said to have supplied by chimpanzees and gorillas to mankind. The comparative lack of genetic variations in plasmodium falciparum also testifies that it has the recent origin from some other primate species (ibid). How malaria is caused Normally this disease is transmitted to people by a certain kind of female mosquito called Anopheles. These parasites are usually found in the saliva of the female mosquitoes of this type. As described by Jacoby and Youngson (2004 p. 1123), when a person is bitten by a female mosquito, the parasite enters the bloodstream through the mosquito’s saliva and makes their way to the liver. Initially, they cause no troubles, but the infected liver then get s damaged releasing merozoites that badly affect the red blood cells (ibid). The multiplying parasites eventually cause the signs of malaria in the host. As stated above, the parasite that causes malaria is called a plasmodium. Typically, there are four different species that cause this disease in man. They are plasmodium falciparum, plasmodium malariae, plasmodium vivax and plasmodium ovale. Among them, the most dangerous one is plasmodium falciparum as it causes most serious complications and often becomes fatal. The rests are less malignant that cause severe fever at alternative intervals. Another peculiar characteristic of these non falciparum parasites is that they may get into the liver and be inactive for long; and the disease will be caused long after original infection (ibid). The different phases of communication and the life cycle of malaria parasites in the human body are illustrated in figure 1. (Figure 1: Source: Davis & Shiel, n.d.) Symptoms of Malaria If a person is affected with malaria, the signs will be visible from ten to twenty eight days of the mosquito bite. The first sign will be tiredness and loss of liveliness. The affected person will have continuous muscle pain and pain in the joints. Some other symptoms of malaria include fever, headache, nausea and diarrhea. The symptoms also include shivering and fever, heavy sweating and fall in temperature. As Ichhpujani and Bhatia (2002 p. 98) points out, Blackwater fever is another complication of malaria in which red blood cells break and release hemoglobin directly into the blood. Cotter (2001, p.39) finds that hemolysis, which is the phenomenon of red blood cell breakage, is the direct cause of Blackwater fever. The most alarming factor about malaria is that the parasites have developed resistance to a number of malaria medicines. Malaria Diagnosis It is a hard task to diagnose malaria with the clinical criteria as the general symptoms of malaria such as fever and headache are common to a number of illnesses. Therefore, in highly industrialized countries where malaria is rarely reported, physicians have to order special test to identify the presence of malaria. The widely used method of malaria diagnosis test is the Giems blood smear on a microscope slide that is discolored to show the parasites that have got into the red blood cells. The slide of such a blood smear showing Plasmodium parasites are pictorially represented in figure 2. (Figure 2: Source: Jacoby & Younson, 2004.). Though this test is comparatively easy, the

Rationale and legal significance case

Rationale and legal significance case Introduction Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift, this maxim from Milroy (1862) had been recognized as the strict rule that apply to the area of law related to the transfer of a gift. Judges and the legal profession had adopted this rule for many years. Nonetheless, this rigid requirement had been relaxed after the decision in Pennington (2002). In the followings, I will discuss the rationale and the legal significance of this case. Decision in Chancery Division Before the case went to the Court of Appeal, Judge Howarth (Judge of Chancery Division) held that Mr. Pennington was not the companys agent. He held that the gift of 400 shares became effective when Ada executed the share transfer form and there was no legal requirement for the form to be delivered to the donee /company. He also held that the breach of article 8(B) did not render the gift ineffective. Two of the beneficiaries appealed to the Court of Appeal on the points that: (1) Doctrine in Re Rose should be applied and the transfer form should be delivered to the donee/ company prior to the donors death. (2)And the transfer breached a pre-emption clause in article 8(B); (3) The donor could not be said to have done everything in her power to effect the transfer[1]. Decision of Court of Appeal The court unanimously dismissed the case, but for different reasons.[2] The summary of the judgment and reasoning will be discussed below. Arden LJs 1st Judgement The pre-emption provisions in the article 8(B) of the company did not prevent Adas share to be transferred to Harold. Reasoning Article 8(B) required a sale notice to be given. No sale notice was served on the company under article 8(B). Therefore, it appeared that Ada, Harold and Pennington were unaware of the pre- emption provisions in the article 8(B) of the company. 2nd Judgment It would be unconscionable for Ada or her personal representatives not to transfer the shares to Harold Reasoning There were 6 facts in this circumstances that give rise to the judgment : (1) Ada had made the gift of her own free will; (2) Ada had told Harold about the gift; (3) Ada had signed a form of transfer; (4) Ada had delivered the form of transfer to Mr. Pennington for him to secure registration; (5) Mr. Pennington had told Harold that there was no action that he need to take and Harold had not questioned this assurance[3]; (6) Harold agreed to become a director of the company without limit of time, which he could not do without shares being transferred to him.[4] The general rule was that Equity will not assist a volunteer [5], but AdrenLJ relied on the judgment in Choithram Although equity will not aid a volunteer, it will not strive officiously to defeat a gift,[6] and hence prefect the transfer of the shares in equity. She believed that in the above circumstances, where donors conscience was affected and it would be unconscionable and contrary to the principles of equity to allow Ada to resile. 3rd Judgment Delivery of the share transfer before her death was unnecessary so far as perfection of the gift was concerned. Reasoning Although Re Rose required the stock transfer form to be handed over to the donee, she did not think that the ratio always requires a delivery of the share transfer form to the donee,[7] and this requirement can be dispensed with in some circumstances. In this circumstance, there was a clear finding that Ada had a clear intention to make an immediate gift. The requirement of actual delivery could be dispensed with. Moreover, Adren LJ adopted the principle of benevolent construction to construct Mr Pennington as an agent for Harold for the purpose of submitting the share transfer to the company.[8] Therefore, traditional requirements of Re Rose were thus satisfied.[9] Clarke LJs The judgment of Clarke LJ seems to be different from that given by AdrenLJ. The main difference in the judgment will be explained below: Judgment Ada had executed a valid transfer of the equitable title with the result that Ada had retained the legal title as trustee.[10] The execution of a stock transfer form can have effect as an equitable assignment without the necessity of a transfer or delivery of the form Reasoning ClarkeLJ held that when Ada executed the stock transfer form, she had passed the beneficial interest to Harold. She would then hold the legal interest in the shares on trust for Harold until registration in Harolds name. Although the strict rule was that the donor must have done everything possible to effect the transfer of his equitable interest. But he believed the maxim cannot be absolutely true since there is always something more that the donor could have done. ClarkeLJ believed there was no need of a transfer/ delivery, since even Ada had delivered the transfer form to Harold, she could have done more by making a specific request to the company to register the shares in Harolds name. Moreover, there was nothing in the Stock Transfer Act 1963 s.1 which suggested that delivery was necessary to effect the transfer. Therefore ClarkeLJ believed that Ada had done everything possible thing possible to effect the transfer for the followings reasons: (1)Ada had executed the correct share transfer form; (2) Ada had given it to Pennington; (3) Ada had not thought it necessary to take any further steps to effect the transfer to Harold, and if she had been asked to do so, she would have done it; (4) Ada had not at any stage intended to reserve a right to withdraw the form; (5) The shares that she intended to give to Harold during her lifetime did not form any part of the subject matter of her will. Controversial This case is regarded as being controversial since ArdenLJ adopted two innovative ideas to perfect the transfer even without actual delivery of the share transfer form; they are (1) Unconscionability Test and (2) Benevolent Principles of Construction. The idea of unconscionability come from the decision of Choithram that if in the circumstances, the donors conscience is affected and it would be unconscionable and contrary to the principle of equity to allow the donor to resile from the gift. But in the judgment of ArdenLJ, she didnt give any concrete explanation of what will satisfy the requirement of unconscionability nor give any guideline. Arden LJ explained that the constitution of unconscionability is solely relied on the finding from the facts and depended on the interpretation of the court. Particularly, Harold did not show any evidence of detrimental reliance in order to fulfill the test. Therefore the requirement of what will satisfy the Unconscionability Test is blurred and depends on the discretion of the court. In Milroy, the court will not give a benevolent construction as to treat ineffective words of outright gift as taking effect as if the donor had declared himself a trustee for the donee.[11] But Arden LJ adopt the principle of benevolent construction on the meaning of words This requires no action on your part used by Pennington in writing to Harold and she constructed the words as meaning that Ada and, through her, Pennington became agent for Harold for the purpose of submitting the share transfer to the company. ArdenLJ did not give any guideline on the principle of benevolent construction, such as what will satisfy the requirement of benevolent construction; and when will the court adopts the usage of benevolent construction. Differences from the prevailing law The general rule in Milroy is that settlor must have done everything necessary to be done to transfer the property. If settler has not done everything necessary to effect transfer, the court/ equity will not construe a failed gift/transfer as a declaration of trust. The rule has been applied strictly in cases such as Richards (1874)[12] and Re Fry (1946). The strict application of the rule in Milroy had been relaxed in the cases of Re Rose (1952), Mascall (1984) and the recent case of Choithram (2001)[13]. In Re Rose, the court relaxed the strict rule and held that it was not necessary that the donor should have done all that it was necessary to be done to complete the gift. It was sufficient if the donor had done everything in his power to transfer title to the trustee, even there was short of registration of the transfer. Therefore in Re Rose, trust constituted if donor does everything in his power to divest himself of the trust property and transfer of legal title fails for another reason. The doctrine in Re Rose has been followed in Mascall (1984)[14]. But the execution of the document of assignment by the donor and the actual delivery of the form/ document of the assignment to the transferee were still the essential requirements. In Trustee of the Property of Pehrsson v von Greyerz (1999), the transfer is failed due to the lack of actual delivery of the transfer. In Choithram (2001), the court had further relaxed the strict rule in Milroy. The judge held that although equity will not assist a volunteer, it will not strive officiously to defeat a gift[15] This case introduced the idea of unconscionability as discussed above in para.5. In the decision in Pennington contravened the decision in Milroy that equity will not assist a volunteer. In this case, Harold did not give any consideration except he agreed to become a director. It also contravened the doctrine in Re Rose. Ada didnt deliver the transfer form to Harold, it contravened to the requirement of actual delivery in Re Rose. The adoption of the principle of benevolent principle contravened to the decision in Milroy, that court will not give a benevolent construction so as to treat ineffective words of outright gift as taking effect as if the donor had declared himself a trustee for the donee[16] The judgment of ClarkeLJ, that Ada had executed a valid transfer of the equitable title with the result that Ada had retained the legal title as trustee, it contravened the decision in Choithram. Since Choithram required the donor to declare himself to be one of the initial trustees and Ada didnt declared herself as trustee in this case. Whether the decision was correct I think that the decision in Pennington is not correct. Although if the court held that the transfer of share was ineffective, it would be unfair / unconscionable to both Harold and Ada since both parties did have the intention of completing the transfer. Certainty in law must be strictly respected and it should be the first priority. Judges should follow Milroy and Re Rose strictly. I think that the lack of actual delivery of the transfer form is fatal in this case. Since I agreed that the actual delivery is the strongest evidence in showing the intention of transferring the beneficial interest. And this evidence was absent in this case. It is also incorrect for ArdenLJ to construct that Pennington was the agent for Harold only by the words This requires no action on your part in the letter that Pennington had written to Harold. It was only an assumption by ArdenLJ. There was no evidence that neither Ada nor Harold intended to appoint him as an agent. Moreover, the unconscionability test set out by ArdenLJ should not be satisfied either. It is because detrimental reliance is always the central element in the idea of unconscionability. Harold didnt show detrimental reliance. Harold only signed the form and accepted to become a director. He had neither financial contribution nor any change in his position that could constitute to a detrimental reliance. The decision in Pennington do not left the law in a reasonable situation. Since after Pennington, unconscionability and the principle of benevolent construction were introduced. ArdenLJ did not give any guideline/ requirement of the unconscionabilty test. That means that the unconscionability test would give the court a wide discretion in allowing equity to perfect a transfer. It would cause flood gate in this area of law, since every parties will use the idea of unconscionability in arguing their cases. The amount of law suits in this area of law will definitely be increased. Moreover, it is unclear that when the court could adopt the principle of benevolent construction and also where the construction should applied. ArdenLJ did not give any direction /guideline in this area. The well established formula in this area of law that developed in cases such as Milroy and Re Rose have been totally broken by these two innovative ideas of unconscionability and principle of benevolent construction. Practical implication This case has a greater practical implication on individuals. Individuals usually do not have specific legal knowledge on the transfer of a gift. Therefore individuals would easily miss some critical requirement such as actual delivery. After Pennington, lack of delivery it is not fatal. Since individuals can argue that in the specific circumstances, it is unconscionable for the donor to resile. Then it is the courts interpretation on whether the unconscionability test is satisfied in the circumstances that the individual encountered. The practical implication in business is that it is more difficult to ascertain the real legal requirement in the constitution of a valid transfer. Before Pennington, businessman can rely on the rule set out in Milroy and Re Rose to ascertain legal certainty. After Pennington, it becomes difficult for a businessman to interpret the meaning of unconscionability. Certainty in law is essential to give confident to businessman in doing economic activities. Precaution should be made due to the uncertainty in law. The implication on legal advisers is that flood gate situation would likely to occur. Lawyers can rely on unconscionability to bring legal action for their clients, and the amount of law suits will increase dramatically. Application in later UK case In a later UK case, Jordan v Roberts (2009) in Chancery Division, the concept of unconscionablity/ inequity that used in Pennington have been adopted by the Judge George.Bompas.Q.C. The fact was that the donor(B) wished the first defendant (D1) to hold 51% of shares and therefore transferred his shares to D1. The legal issue was whether the donor(B) has successfully transferred his shares to D1[17] . In any event, the relevant shares could not simply have been transferred to D1. It required an instrument of transfer, but donor failed to do so. It was similar to that of Pennington. The Judge citied Pennington v Waine in perfecting the transfer and held that it would be inequitable for the donor (B) to resile. Conclusion The concept of the unconscionability and the benevolent Principles of construction might give the court a greater discretion to apply justice depending on the special circumstances on each particular case. Nevertheless, certainty in law is the most fundamental issue in common law legal system. In my opinion, the decision in Pennington disrupted the legal certainty and left the law in this area in a doubtful and non-predicable manner. Ian Hunter, Equity and Trust: The Constitution of a trust, Case Comment, Coventry Law Journal 2002 John Mc Ghee 2003 Ian Hunter, Equity and Trust: The Constitution of a trust, Case Comment, Coventry Law Journal 2002 Judith Morris, Question: When is an invalid gift a valid gift? When is an incompletely constituted trust a completely constituted trust? Answer: After the decisions in Choithram and Pennington, Private Client Business Article 2003 Para. 52 of the judgment in Pennington v Waine (No.1) [2002] EWCA Civ 227; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2075 (CA (Civ Div)) Para. 60 of the judgment in Pennington v Waine (No.1) [2002] EWCA Civ 227; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2075 (CA (Civ Div)) Ian Hunter, Equity and Trust: The Constitution of a trust, Case Comment, Coventry Law Journal 2002 Para. 67 of the judgment in Pennington v Waine (No.1) [2002] EWCA Civ 227; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2075 (CA (Civ Div)) John Mc Ghee 2003 Ian Hunter, Equity and Trust: The Constitution of a trust, Case Comment, Coventry Law Journal 2002 Para. 60 of the judgment in Pennington v Waine (No.1) [2002] EWCA Civ 227; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2075 (CA (Civ Div)) Richards v Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq II Mascall v Mascall (1984) CA Judith Morris, Question: When is an invalid gift a valid gift? When is an incompletely constituted trust a completely constituted trust? Answer: After the decisions in Choithram and Pennington, Private Client Business Article 2003 Para. 60 of the judgment in Pennington v Waine (No.1) [2002] EWCA Civ 227; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2075 (CA (Civ Div)) Jordan v Roberts [2009], EWHC 2313

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) :: essays research papers

Facts: The petitioners, the leaders of the Communist Political Association (CPA), reorganized the Association into the Communist Party through changing its policies of peaceful cooperation with the United States and its economic and political structure to into the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the Communist Party. The Communist Party set itself apart from other political parties by disregarding the normal process of change set forth by the constitution. From the literature, statements, and activities of the petitioners, the Communist Party leaders, it is clear that their goal was to achieve a successful overthrow of the government of the United States through the use of force and violence. Procedural History: Petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party, were convicted of violation of sec. 2 and 3 of the Smith Act due to the fact that the pretrial motion to stop the indictment on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional was denied. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, and the defendants once again appeal the verdict. A writ of limited certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court. Issues: 1.)Are sec. 2 and 3 of the Smith Act violates the First Amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights? 2.)Are the rights to advocate the overthrow of the government protected by the First and Fifth Amendments? Holdings: The convictions are affirmed because the court ruled that the Smith Act was constitutional and that the governments’ right to self-preservation at times overrules the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Analysis of Majority Opinion: Shenck vs. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919) created the precedent allowing for the right of freedom of speech to be violated when there is a â€Å"clear and present danger† to the government. The petitioners clearly intended to overthrow the government because they advocated this action. This is important because it passes one of the major tests of justice in America, intent. It is understandable for the government to put forth its best efforts to protect itself from rebellion making the Smith Act entirely reasonable. Analysis of Concurring Opinion- Frankfurter: The individual is not the only one who as the right to self-preservation, the government shares this right as well as it is shown through the Smith Act. Whereas the individual has a right to self-preservation, the government as well shares this right, and it is manifested in the Smith Act. Also, the Constitution does not entirely guarantee the freedom of speech which was set forth in the early years of the Constitution to prove this.

Psychology Analysis Essay

1. What specifically is studied in the following areas of psychology: developmental psychology, personality, neuroscience, abnormal psychology (deviance), clinical psychology, social psychology, organizational psychology and cognitive psychology? 2. Describe the different fields of sociology in terms of their focus and purpose: demography, criminology, gender studies. 3. What are the four distinguishable fields of anthropological research? Describe each field of research and what cultural phenomena each seeks to research? 4. Applying your understanding of the different fields of Social Science research, how would each of the three different areas of the Social Sciences research the following topics: violence in the stands at a soccer match; the desire to seek close loving relationships; and the function of Canadian correctional facilities. Select one of the examples and write what is central to each Social Science approach and the questions a sociologist, psychologist and an anthropologist may pose to better understand this topic. 1. Developmental Psychology: Developmental psychology is the scientific study of changes that occur in human beings over the course of their life. Personality: Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and its variation between individuals Neuroscience Psychology: Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. Abnormal Psychology(deviance): Abnormal psychology is the branch of psychology that studies unusual patterns of behavior, emotion and thought, which may or may not be understood as precipitating a mental disorder. Clinical Psychology: the branch of psychology concerned with the assessment and treatment of mental illness and disability Social Psychology: the branch of psychology that deals with social interactions, including their origins and their effects on the individual. Organizational Psychology: is the scientific study of human behavior in the workplace and applies psychological theories and principles to organizations. Cognitive Psychology: Cognitive psychology is a sub discipline of psychology exploring internal mental processes. It is the study of how people perceive, remember, think, speak, and solve problems. 2. Demography: It is the statistical study of the human population. Criminology: The study of crime and criminals. Gender Studies: This is the study of women studies, men studies, and the lgbt  studies. 3. The 4 distinguishable fields of anthropological research are biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and archaeology. Biological Anthropology:(other known as physical anthropology) is a scientific discipline in which research is concerned with the biological and behavioral variation of human beings, other non-human primates, and extinct hominin ancestors of the human species. Cultural Anthropology: focused on the study of cultural variation among humans and is in contrast to social anthropology which perceives cultural variation as a subset of the anthropological constant. Linguistic Anthropology: is the interdisciplinary study of how language influences social life. Archaeology: The systematic study of past human life and culture by the recovery and examination of remaining material evidence, such as graves, buildings, tools, and pottery.

Pareto Principle Essay

The term â€Å"Pareto principle† can also refer to Pareto efficiency. The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Business? management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; he developed the principle by observing that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas. It is a common rule of thumb in business; e. g. , â€Å"80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients. † Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there must be a number k between 50 and 100 such that â€Å"k% is taken by (100 ? k)% of the parcipants. † The number k may vary from 50 (in the case of equal distribution, i. e. , 100% of the population have equal shares) to nearly 100 (when a tiny number of participants account for almost all of the resource). There is nothing special about the number 80% mathematically, but many real systems have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution. The Pareto principle is only tangentially related to Pareto efficiency, which was also introduced by the same economist. Pareto developed both concepts in the context of the distribution of income and wealth among the population. In economics The original observation was in connection with population and wealth. Pareto noticed that 80% of Italy’s land was owned by 20% of the population. He then carried out surveys on a variety of other countries and found to his surprise that a similar distribution applied. Due to the scale? invariant nature of the power law relationship, the relationship applies also to subsets of the income range. Even if we take the 10 wealthiest individuals in the world, we see that the top three (Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim Helu, and Bill Gates) own as much as the next seven put together. A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so? alled ‘champagne glass’ effect was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world’s population controlling 82. 7% of the world’s income. The Pareto principle has also been used to attribute the widening economic inequality in the United States to ‘skill? biased technical change’—i. e. , income growth accrues to those with the education and skills required to take advantage of new technology and globalization.