Arsonic acid is the simplest of the arsonic acids. It is a hypothetical compound, although the tautomericarsenious acid (As(OH)3) is well established. In contrast to the instability of HAsO(OH)2,
the phosphorus compound with analogous stoichiometry exists as the
tetrahedral tautomer. Similarly, organic derivatives such as phenylarsonic acid are tetrahedral with pentavalent central atom.[3]
1-Naphthylamine is an aromaticamine derived from naphthalene. It can cause bladder cancer (transitional cell carcinoma). It crystallizes in colorless needles which melt at 50 °C. It possesses a disagreeable odor, sublimes readily, and turns brown on exposure to air. It is the precursor to a variety of dyes.[2]
In the UK the Defence of the Realm Act 1914, passed at the onset of the First World War, gave the government wide-ranging powers to requisition the property and to criminalize specific activities. A moral panic was whipped up by the press in 1916 over the alleged sale of drugs to the troops of the British Indian Army. With the temporary powers of DORA, the Army Council
quickly banned the sale of all psychoactive drugs to troops, unless
required for medical reasons. However, shifts in the public attitude
towards drugs—they were beginning to be associated with prostitution, vice and immorality—led
the government to pass further unprecedented laws, banning and
criminalising the possession and dispensation of all narcotics,
including opium and cocaine. After the war, this legislation was
maintained and strengthened with the passing of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920. Home Office control was extended to include raw opium, morphine, cocaine, ecogonine and heroin.[26][27]
California's broader 'three strikes and you're out' policy adopted in 1994 was the first mandatory sentencing
policy to gain widespread publicity and was subsequently adopted in
most United States jurisdictions. This policy mandates life imprisonment
for a third criminal conviction of any felony offense. A similar 'three
strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the
Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory
minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a
drug trafficking offense involving a class A drug.
Calls for legalization, relegalization or decriminalization
In the United Kingdom the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 is an Act which changed to a penal offence drug addiction
which up to then was, within the medical profession, treated as a
disease. The former was the view held by the then Assistant Under Secretary of State, Malcolm Delevingne.[1]
The Home Office was charged with implementing the Act.[2] In January 1921 the Home Secretary gave 40 days' notice of his intention to issue controls over:
The Act also said that the export, import, sale, distribution or possession of barbiturates,
had to be licensed or authorised by the Home Secretary. This proviso
also applied to dilutions of cocaine and morphine, as defined in the
lower limits set by the Hague Convention.
The Home Office, in consultation with the Ministry of Health,
as a result of this Act, produced a series of memoranda for doctors and
dentists to explain the requirements of the Act. These were known as DD
101's (Memoranda as to the Duties of Doctors and Dentists). These were
distributed to doctors, although the memorandi never had any statutory
power.[2] One particular memorandum, in 1938, added, for the first time, that maintenance of addicts if only for the 'gratification of addiction is not regarded as a medical need'.[4]
Decriminalisation as a harm-reduction strategy gives the ability to
treat substance use disorder solely as a public health issue rather than
a criminal activity. This enables other harm-reduction strategies to be
employed, which results in a lower incidence of HIV infection.[4]
In Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience, and Theory (1975), senior US government researchers Louis Jolyon West and Ronald K. Siegel explain how drug prohibition can be used for selective social control:
The role of drugs in the exercise
of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control
can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial
prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for
other types of control. An example would be the selective application of
drug laws ... against selected components of the population such as
members of certain minority groups or political organizations.[60]
Linguist Noam Chomsky argues that drug laws are currently, and have historically been, used by the state to oppress sections of society it opposes:[61][62]
Very commonly substances are
criminalized because they're associated with what's called the dangerous
classes, poor people, or working people. So for example in England in
the 19th century, there was a period when gin was criminalized and whiskey wasn't, because gin is what poor people drink.
Legal highs and prohibition
In 2013 the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction reported that there are 280 new legal drugs, known as "legal highs", available in Europe.[63] One of the best known, mephedrone, was banned in the United Kingdom in 2010.[64] On November 24, 2010, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced it would use emergency powers to ban many synthetic cannabinoids within a month.[65] An estimated 73 new psychoactive synthetic drugs appeared on the UK market in 2012. The response of the Home Office
has been to create a temporary class drug order which bans the
manufacture, import, and supply (but not the possession) of named
substances.[66]
Corruption
In certain countries,[which?]
there is concern that campaigns against drugs and organized crime are a
cover for corrupt officials tied to drug trafficking themselves. In the
United States, Federal Bureau of Narcotics chief Harry Anslinger's opponents accused him of taking bribes from the Mafia to enact prohibition and create a black market for alcohol.[67] More recently in the Philippines,
one death squad hitman told author Niko Vorobyov that he was being paid
by military officers to eliminate those drug dealers who failed to pay a
‘tax’.[vague][68] Under PresidentRodrigo Duterte, the Philippines has waged a bloody war against drugs that may have resulted in up to 29,000 extrajudicial killings.[69]
When it comes to social control with cannabis, there are
different aspects to consider. Not only do we assess legislative leaders
and the way they vote on cannabis, but we also must consider the
federal regulations and taxation that contribute to social controls. For
instance, according to a report on the U.S. customs and border
protections, the American industry, although banned the main usage of
marijuana, was still using products similar such as hemp seeds, oils
etc. leading to the previously discussed marijuana tax act.[70]
The Tax act provisions[71]
required importers to register and pay an annual tax of $24 and receive
an official stamp. Stamps for Products were then affixed to each
original order form and recorded by the state revenue collector. Then, a
customs collector [72]
was to maintain the custody of imported marijuana at entry ports
until required documents were received, reviewed and approved.Shipments
were subject to searches, seizures and forfeitures if any provisions of
the law were not met. Violations would result in fines of no more than
$2000 or potential imprisonment for up to 5 years. Oftentimes, this
created opportunity for corruption, stolen imports that would later lead
to smuggling, oftentimes by state officials and tight knit elitists.
Drug possession is the crime of having one or more illegal drugs in
one's possession, either for personal use, distribution, sale or
otherwise. Illegal drugs fall into different categories and sentences
vary depending on the amount, type of drug, circumstances, and
jurisdiction. In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and
sale can vary from a small fine to a prison sentence. In some states,
marijuana possession is considered to be a petty offense, with the
penalty being comparable to that of a speeding violation. In some
municipalities, possessing a small quantity of marijuana in one's own
home is not punishable at all. Generally, however, drug possession is an
arrestable offense, although first-time offenders rarely serve jail
time. Federal law makes even possession of "soft drugs", such as
cannabis, illegal, though some local governments have laws contradicting
federal laws.
In the U.S., the War on Drugs is thought to be contributing to a prison overcrowding problem. In 1996, 59.6%[73]
of prisoners were drug-related criminals. The U.S. population grew by
about +25% from 1980 to 2000. In that same 20 year time period, the U.S.
prison population tripled, making the U.S. the world leader in both
percentage and absolute number of citizens incarcerated. The United
States has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the prisoners.[74]
About 90% of United States prisoners
are incarcerated in state jails. In 2016, about 200,000, under 16%, of
the 1.3 million people in these state jails, were serving time for drug
offenses. 700,000 were incarcerated for violent offenses.[75]
The data from Federal Bureau of Prisons online statistics page states that 45.9% of prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses, as of December 2021.[76]
Neil Hunt's article entitled "A review of the evidence-base for
harm reduction approaches to drug use" examines the criticisms of harm
reduction, which include claims that it is not effective; that it
prevents addicts from "hitting a rock bottom" thus trapping them in
addiction; that it encourages drug use; that harm reduction is a Trojan horse strategy for "drug law reform", such as drug legalization.[108]
Mitigation is the reduction of something harmful or the reduction of its harmful effects.[1] It may refer to measures taken to reduce the harmful effects of hazards that remain in potentia,[2] or to manage harmful incidents that have already occurred.[1] It is a stage or component of emergency management and of risk management.[2]
The theory of mitigation is a frequently used element in criminal law
and is often used by a judge to try cases such as murder, where a
perpetrator is subject to varying degrees of responsibility as a result
of one's actions.
Disaster mitigation
An
all-hazards approach to disaster management considers all known hazards
and their natural and anthropogenic potential risks and impacts, with
the intention of ensuring that measures taken to mitigate one type of
risk do not increase vulnerability to other types of risks. Proactive
disaster mitigation measures are generally more effective than reactive
measures in eliminating or reducing the impacts,[2]
but not all disasters are reasonably foreseeable, and when an
unforeseen disaster occurs, mitigation is necessarily after the fact.
Proactive disaster mitigation measures may be structural or
non-structural, and will generally be based on measurement and
assessment of the risk and the cost of setting up the measures, and
possibly the cost of maintenance.[3]
Mitigation planning identifies policies and actions that can be taken
over the long term to reduce risk, and in the event of a disaster
occurring, minimize loss. Such policies and actions are based on a risk assessment, using the identified hazards, vulnerabilities
and probabilities of occurrence and estimates of impact to calculate
risks, and are generally planned in cooperation with the stakeholder
groups.[2] The principles are applicable to mitigation of risk in general.
Mitigation, a kind of defense against security issues in computing, as part of vulnerability management
Law
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, a U.S. federal legislation passed in 2000 that amended provisions of the United States Code related to disaster relief
Mitigation (law), the principle that a party who has suffered loss has to take reasonable action to minimize the amount of the loss suffered
Also in law, mitigating factors may cause a crime to be considered
less serious, or provide a reason to make a punishment less severe.[4]
Occupational safety and health
Mitigation of the effects of incidents and health hazards is one of the central precepts of occupational safety and health,
as workers may be exposed to hazards, and that it is not always
possible to eliminate the associated risk, making it necessary to deal
with the consequences on those occasions when harmful incidents occur.
The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948[5]
and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It
contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which has
been incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many
countries and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Article II of the Convention defines genocide as:
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Incitement to genocide is recognized as a separate crime under international law and an inchoate crime which does not require genocide to have taken place to be prosecutable.[53]
The Stanton paper was presented to the State Department, shortly
after the Rwandan Genocide and much of its analysis are based on why
that genocide occurred. The preventative measures suggested, given the
briefing paper's original target audience, were those that the United
States could implement directly or indirectly by using its influence on
other governments.[citation needed] In 2012, he added two additional stages, discrimination and persecution.[157]
Stage
Characteristics
Preventive measures
1. Classification
People are divided into "us and them".
"The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend... divisions."
2. Symbolization
"When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."
"To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden as can hate speech".
3.
Discrimination
"Law or cultural power excludes groups from full civil rights: segregation or apartheid laws, denial of voting rights".
"Pass and enforce laws prohibiting discrimination. Full citizenship and voting rights for all groups."
"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases."
"Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen."
5. Organization
"Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."
"The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations"
"Direct assistance to victim groups, targeted sanctions against
persecutors, mobilization of humanitarian assistance or intervention,
protection of refugees."
9. Extermination
"It is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human".
"At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can
stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be
established with heavily armed international protection."
In the early 1980s, scientists began to consider the effects of smoke
and soot arising from burning wood, plastics, and petroleum fuels in
nuclear-devastated cities. It was speculated that the intense heat would
carry these particulates to extremely high altitudes where they could
drift for weeks and block out all but a fraction of the sun's light.[30] A landmark 1983 study by the so-called TTAPS team (Richard P. Turco, Owen Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack and Carl Sagan) was the first to model these effects and coined the term "nuclear winter."[31]
More recent studies make use of modern global circulation models
and far greater computer power than was available for the 1980s studies.
A 2007 study examined the consequences of a global nuclear war
involving moderate to large portions of the current global arsenal.[32]
The study found cooling by about 12–20 °C in much of the core farming
regions of the US, Europe, Russia and China and as much as 35 °C in
parts of Russia for the first two summer growing seasons. The changes
they found were also much longer-lasting than previously thought,
because their new model better represented entry of soot aerosols in the
upper stratosphere, where precipitation does not occur, and therefore
clearance was on the order of 10 years.[22] In addition, they found that global cooling caused a weakening of the global hydrological cycle, reducing global precipitation by about 45%.
The authors did not discuss the implications for agriculture in
depth, but noted that a 1986 study which assumed no food production for a
year projected that "most of the people on the planet would run out of
food and starve to death by then" and commented that their own results
show that, "This period of no food production needs to be extended by
many years, making the impacts of nuclear winter even worse than
previously thought."[32]
In contrast to the above investigations of global nuclear
conflicts, studies have shown that even small-scale, regional nuclear
conflicts could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a
regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized
nuclear weapons (about 15 kilotons each) on major populated centres,
the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be
released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large
areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions.[33][21][22]
The cooling would last for years, and according to the research, could
be "catastrophic". Additionally, the analysis showed a 10% drop in
average global precipitation, with the largest losses in the low
latitudes due to failure of the monsoons.
Regional nuclear conflicts could also inflict significant damage
to the ozone layer. A 2008 study found that a regional nuclear weapons
exchange could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health
problems and impacting agriculture for at least a decade.[34]
This effect on the ozone would result from heat absorption by soot in
the upper stratosphere, which would modify wind currents and draw in
ozone-destroying nitrogen oxides. These high temperatures and nitrogen
oxides would reduce ozone to the same dangerous levels that are
experienced below the ozone hole above Antarctica every spring.[22]
It is difficult to estimate the number of casualties that would
result from nuclear winter, but it is likely that the primary effect
would be global famine (known as Nuclear Famine), wherein mass
starvation occurs due to disrupted agricultural production and
distribution.[35] In 2013 and 2022 reports, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
(IPPNW) voiced concerns that more than two billion people, about a
third of the world's population, would be at risk of starvation in the
event of a regional nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, or by
the use of even a small proportion of nuclear arms held by America and
Russia.[36][37] Several independent studies[citation needed]
show corroborated conclusions that agricultural outputs would be
significantly reduced for years by climatic changes driven by nuclear
wars. Reduction of food supply would be further exacerbated by rising food prices, affecting hundreds of millions of vulnerable people, especially in the poorest nations of the world.
According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[23]
a full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia might kill 360
million people directly and more than 5 billion people might die as a
consequence from starvation
due to soot created by firestorms after nuclear bombing. More than 2
billion people were projected to die as a consequence from a
smaller-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
An electromagnetic pulse
(EMP) is a burst of electromagnetic radiation. Nuclear explosions
create a pulse of electromagnetic radiation called a nuclear EMP or
NEMP. Such EMP interference is known to be generally disruptive or
damaging to electronic equipment.[38]
By disabling electronics and their functioning, an EMP would
disable hospitals, water treatment facilities, food storage facilities,
and all electronic forms of communication, and thereby threaten key
aspects of the modern human condition.[citation needed] Certain EMP attacks could lead to a large loss of power for months or years.[39]
Currently, failures of the power grid are dealt with using support from
the outside. In the event of an EMP attack, such support would not
exist and all damaged components, devices, and electronics would need to
be completely replaced.
In 2013, the US House of Representatives considered the "Secure
High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage Act" that
would provide surge protection for some 300 large transformers around
the country.[40]
The problem of protecting civilian infrastructure from electromagnetic
pulse has also been intensively studied throughout the European Union,
and in particular by the United Kingdom.[41]
While precautions have been taken, James Woolsey and the EMP Commission
suggested that an EMP is the most significant threat to the U.S.[39][42]
The risk of an EMP, either through solar or atmospheric activity
or enemy attack, while not dismissed, was suggested to be overblown by
the news media in a commentary in Physics Today.[43]
Instead, the weapons from rogue states were still too small and
uncoordinated to cause a massive EMP, underground infrastructure is
sufficiently protected, and there will be enough warning time from
continuous solar observatories like SOHO to protect surface transformers should a devastating solar storm be detected.[43]
Nuclear fallout is the residual radioactive dust and ash propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear explosion.[44]
Fallout is usually limited to the immediate area, and can only spread
for hundreds of kilometers from the explosion site if the explosion is
high enough in the atmosphere. Fallout may get entrained with the products of a pyrocumulus cloud and fall as black rain[45] (rain darkened by soot and other particulates).
This radioactive dust, usually consisting of fission products mixed with bystanding atoms that are neutron activated by exposure, is a highly dangerous kind of radioactive contamination. The main radiation hazard from fallout is due to short-lived radionuclides external to the body.[46]
While most of the particles carried by nuclear fallout decay rapidly,
some radioactive particles will have half-lives of seconds to a few
months. Some radioactive isotopes, like strontium-90 and caesium-137, are very long-lived and will create radioactive hot spots for up to 5 years after the initial explosion.[46]
Fallout and black rain may contaminate waterways, agriculture, and
soil. Contact with radioactive materials can lead to radiation poisoning
through external exposure or accidental consumption. In acute doses
over a short amount of time radiation will lead to prodromal syndrome,
bone marrow death, central nervous system death and gastrointestinal
death.[47]
Over longer periods of exposure to radiation, cancer becomes the main
health risk. Long-term radiation exposure can also lead to in utero
effects on human development and transgenerational genetic damage.[47][48]
No comments:
Post a Comment