Legalizing Marijuana Essays (1413 words) - Drug Control Law

Legalizing Marijuana Cannabis sativa or marijuana has been cultivated for over 5,000 years. The plant spreads like milkweed and will eventually run out any other plants nearby. In the wild, or grown with care marijuana can grow to be 3 - 20 feet high. The plant itself can be used for rope, material, medicine or for smoking. But, whatever way you choose to use this plant, it is illegal. It was made a law in the early 1900s that it was illegal to smoke, eat, or get high from this plant. The plants only legal use was for rope and materials. Even this was controlled by the government though. In the 1960s and 1970s a group of youth stereotyped as Hippies were using marijuana on a regular basis to get high. This is the term for the effects of the drug when smoked. The effects are that of ataxia, increased appetite, and a sensation of dryness in the throat. (A.P.E. L to M 193). These hippies fought to legalize it. Groups such as the major one, N.O.R.M.A.L. formed to fight for the right to smoke marijuana. Protests were formed and marches and festivals were held. On the other side of this was the government cracking down and forming new laws to keep it illegal. In the 1980s the fight to legalize marijuana was decreased, but the groups like N.O.R.M.A.L. were still around. Although the people werent so strong-willed to legalize it they still fought. New and harder drugs were now popular and marijuana wasnt as popular. In the early 1990s the drug was once again popular after the side effects of the new drugs were seen. The drugs popularity still increases today. Only there is more violence surrounding it in drug deals and gang wars. Although there would need to be regulations on it and new laws made. The legalization of marijuana would not only benefit the government but also the people. Although the government and people would benefit, it would have a bad side. After many years of fighting to keep it illegal, the government would have to spend millions on new laws, regulations, and plans. Also the government has made treaties with other countries on keeping the world drug-free. America being the largest supporter of a drug-free society would be absolutely hypocritical to go and legalize. Other countries would become angry and think of us as money greedy, drug smoking fools. This would also hurt other countries because America would be a large drug trafficking area where people would come and buy a large amount and export to the still drug-free countries. Americas reputation could go down the drain. Not only would Americas reputation go down but also the fears of American citizens conducting every day life stoned from marijuana is a scary thought. The effects of marijuana are not alcohols but would impair a persons driving ability. Accidents would increase. People who would abuse the drug would not only jeopardize themselves but also others. It would have to be treated as driving while drinking and stiff laws and enforcement would have to be inflicted. These are the downsides to the drug, but with proper laws and methods the drug turn into money for the government. If the government played it right, they could make billions of dollars from this one plant. In the early 1990s the number one legal cash crop, corn, brought 16 billion dollars to the U.S. Marijuana blew this away with an estimated 24 billion dollars. If the government grew and kept track of marijuana, and sold licenses to farmers to grow it, the government would be able to pay off debts, help the economy and reduce violence-related to the drug all at the same time. They would also be able to sell the stocks of the plant as rope or material. Currently, many farmers are secretly growing marijuana to pay off their own debts. This is an inexpensive way to earn more cash from one plant than they could from a field of corn. The majority of these farmers were growing marijuana in the Midwest, but its really growing strong in the Appalachians to the Great Plains. They look like they were torn from a page from the Saturday Evening

Explanation of the Nature of the Cold War from 1945-1963, including reference to the part played by John F. Kennedy.

Explanation of the Nature of the Cold War from 1945-1963, including reference to the part played by John F. Kennedy. On the April 25th 1945 a symbolic meeting between American and Soviet soldiers took place on the River Elbe at Torgau, Germany. Through handshakes and drinks they celebrated their common victory over Nazi Germany, but ultimately their lack of communication and misunderstandings of each other was going to be an ongoing problem into the future.History has shown us that in the past that once the common fight is over Wartime Coalitions always seem to break up, and the Grand Alliance was to be no different. However, unlike previous similar situations (World War I for example), no post-war treaty of peace was ever constructed, and no meeting ever held.Ultimately The Cold War was a struggle between conflicting Ideas, Governments and Values, and the Western fear of communism spreading and democracy dying. In the West, specifically the United States the Capitalist system was king, with the concepts of a market economy and a democratic government was considered necessary parts of their way of life.Soviet tanks face U.S. tanks at Checkpoint CharlieIn the Eastern USSR however, an autocratic leader and the concept of equality in class and wealth were highly valued. This obvious conflict of ideas and values were one of the driving forces behind Cold War.The nature of the cold war was the opposite of that to a normal war, weapons were never fired, and the war was more of an extensive show of propaganda, or a war of words than it ever was a typical war. Although weapons were never fired, this period of time had several huge conflicts that brought the world to the brink of Nuclear War, and huge political discontent between the East and the West.Early in 1945 it had become apparent to the Coalition that Germany's defeat was now inevitable, and so the Yalta Conference was held in February.

Causes of delay in public sector construction projects in Saudi Arabia Research Proposal

Causes of delay in public sector construction projects in Saudi Arabia - Research Proposal Example ave been increasingly plagued by lengthy and frequent delays that seem to have become more prevalent after the regulatory reform and subsequent construction company-restructuring of the early and mid-1990s. To improve this situation, there has been increased research interest in identifying the different factors that could cause these delays. One of the main policies and goals of public sector construction is the upgrading of project performance; including completion of projects within time and budget constraints and reduction of costs (Alzeban & Sawan, 2013). In addition, execution and completion time is one of the most important performance measures in the public construction sector. However, the construction industry is subject to the influence of unpredictable factors and changing variables, which could potentially cause project completion delays (Pretorius, 2012). There is a need to understand these causes of delay in order to save public money by identifying potential mitigatin g actions. Delay in the proposed project refers to overrun time beyond the specified data of completion regardless of whether the government grants extension time. Chidambaram et al. (2012) state that there is an increase in public construction project delays and cost, noting the need to investigate the different categories of causes that are responsible for cost overruns and time delays in public-funded projects. The authors argue that this is necessary to ascertain whether current measures put in place to mitigate project delays are valid. Consequently, the researchers reviewed questionnaire survey responses from forty-one previous studies investigating the causes of construction delays. They find that respondents across the forty-one studies reported over 100 causes for project execution and completion delays, which they were able to group into 18 categories (Chidambaram et al., 2012). Nevertheless, they caution that researchers used widely different ranking systems, resulting in