Acute viral hepatitis is a common and serious disease caused by several viral agents ad marked by necrosis and inflammation of the liver. The first reference to epidemic jaundice has been ascribed to Hippocrates. The earliest record in Western Europe is in a letter written in 751 AD by Pope Zacharias to St. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz. Since then there have been numerous accounts of epidemics, particularly during wars. Hepatitis was a problem in the Franco-Prussian War, the American Civil War and World War I. In the World War II huge epidemics occurred, particularly in the Middle East and Italy.
There are many varieties (table1.1). Hepatitis A is a self-limited, faecal-spread disease. Hepatitis B is a parenterally transmitted disease that often becomes chronic. Hepatitis D is parenterally spread and affects only those with hepatitis B infection. Hepatitis C is a parenterally spread disease with a high chronicity rate. Hepatitis E is enterically spread, usually via water, and causes a self-limited hepatitis in under developed countries. There will undoubtedly be other members of the hepatitis alphabet.
| HAV HBV HCV HDV HEV |
| Genome RNA DNA RNA RNA RNA |
57 views
Duration : 4 years sandwich, 3 year full time, 2 year diploma course
or 5 year MText.(including sandwich year)
Introduction and Course Aims
The reputation of this successful Textile Design degree continues to increase. The course integrates creative design with marketing, business and technology. It enables you to specialise in designing printed, woven or knitted fabrics for all sectors of the textile industry. The close relationship the Department has with the textile industry through sponsored projects, work placement and bursaries willl give you a broader based knowledge of global textiles. You will be offered the opportunity to undertake a work placement in the UK or overseas. Recently, students have been to Austalia, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Italy Switzerland and the USA on work placement. Alternately, you could take part in a student exchange with universities in Finland, Holland, Germany, Czech Republic, Norway or Australia as part of your work placement year. This placement / exchange experience will enhance your employment prospects.
57 views
It is quite easy to become a well-known person in Turkey.Especially when you do something absurd.You can be a well-known person by protesting somebod or striking.However,to become a well-known person first of all you need to have some gift or talents in some fields.Of course,there are people who don’t hale talents but they become famous.You need to have,for example,a nice voice,or an ability to act well.The most famous people are singers or actors,or you can be a well-known person by playing football in a famous football team.So most footballers are also very famous and popular. On the other hand,there are other ways of becoming well-known.For example,some time ago there was a woman who put off her clothes in front of the Great National Assembly.She became famous a limited time.And there are also strange methods apart from putting the her clothes off. While most people carry out some actions to be famous,there are some cases in which people can easily ve recognized and become well-known.For example,there is a famous singer who was a construction worker.He was noticed
25 views
The Bennet family discuss the arrival in Meryton of Mr Bingley, ‘a young man of fortune’. He is seen as a possible husband for one of the five daughters in the Bennet family. Mr Bennet makes a call of on Mr Bingley who accepts an invitation to visit and soon shows his interest in the Bennet girls, especially Jane, the eldest. He goes to London to fetch a group of relatives and friends for a ball which is to be held in Meryton. Bingley, his sisters and his friends are the centre of attendion at the ball, especialy his friend Mr Darcy who is even richer than Bingley and who owns a large estate in Derbyshire. Darcy is arrogantand alat of many of his comments and makes very clear that he is not attarcted by Elizabeth overhears Darcy’s remarksbutdeals with things in a characteristically with and intelligent way
In discussion after the ball, Jane reveals her modest and positive view of events and of the people at the ball. Elizabeth is more critical, especially of the superior airs of Bingley’s sisters and of Darcy, all of whom look down on the Bennets as lacking in connections. Mr Bingley is, however, very attracted to Jane. The Lucases are introduced, and Charlotte Lucas and Elizabeth Bennet talk as very cvlose friends. Charlotte believes that Jane should be more openly encouraging to Bingley. Charlotte herself display a very unromantic view of marriage. The Lucases organize a party at which Darcy begins to feel greater attraction towards Elizabeth, although he still disapproves of her family, especially Mrs Bennet who is empty-headed and so openly scheming in arranging the marriages of her dauhgters. Elizabeth, however, proudly refuses Darcy’s offer to dance.
22 views
According to the UN’s estimate, 144 million people around the world use marijuana. This represents about 3.5 percent of the world population and this new “trendy” style is increasing, since the 60’s, especially amongst the under 30’s population.
This phenomenon drives the health Ministers of Netherlands (Mrs Borst), Germany (Mrs Fischer), Switzerland (Mrs Dreifuss), Belgium (Mrs Aelvoet) and France (Mr Kouchner) to take the initiative to organise a scientific conference on the subject of cannabis. The conference, as you must know, took place in Brussels, on 25 February 2002 and was hosted by Mrs Aelvoet. What is important for us is that decision to hold this conference was initiated by the ministers’ observation that “cannabis” and “cannabis policy” are frequently the subject of debate, but is not clear what the scientific and government state and opinion on its effect are. Previous consequences of this debate drive to many political decisions delays, or are made on the basis of incomplete or incorrect arguments. Therefore, the objective of the conference was to provide the ministers concerned and all others involved in drug policy, with an overview of the current state of affairs in scientific research of cannabis. It will be therefore outlined in this report as our organisation will show you the benefits of cannabis on health, and in long term through legalisation, on economy and social perspectives. This report has been developed for the Commission to understand the phenomenon of cannabis use in order to initiate an EU level action and invite further proposals for implementation of legal cannabis through a Green paper.
Our organisation, OLCIE (the Organization for Legalization of Cannabis in European Union), has been promoting new issues on the effects of cannabis for the last 20 years in Europe. We are the representatives of our anti-prohibitionist sub-organizations in all the EU members states and have closed relationship with other European and world wide organizations such as the Campaign To Legalise Cannabis International Association (CLCIA) based in London, the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA) from Norwich (UK), the International Cannabis Coalition (ICC) in London (UK), the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project (COHIP) from the USA, the Green Party of New York, the Marijuana Party of Canada (MPC) in Montreal, the Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP), Party in Sydney (Australia), etc.
Our mission is to get a common policy in the EU for the legalisation of cannabis as far as cultivation, possession and consumption for individual use are concerned. We want a clear distinction to be made between users and dealers in the European laws and the decriminalisation of cultivation, possession and consumption for individuals.
In each member state, OLCIE local branch has done a great effort to represent most of the national anti-prohibitionist organisations. OLCIE has been lobbying at the member states level and our main interlocutors were local ministers for justice and home affairs, ministers for health and education, ministers for economy and in some case, OLCIE had the opportunity to lobby the local prime minister himself.
We are focused on the European Union region of activity as well as providing support and advice to other international organizations.
For the next Action Plan that should be established in January 2004 for four years till 2008, it should be important for you to reconsider your objectives as to distinguish between cannabis (soft drugs) and other drugs/psychotropic substances (hard drugs). As we mentioned before, the report will give the Commission a clear outlook on cannabis issues. Distinction between users and dealers of cannabis is also a very important issue as well as, for users concerns, decriminalization of cultivation, possession and consumption of cannabis should be reconsidered as many European countries do tolerate possession for individual consumption of 5 gr daily use such as Belgium, Italy, Spain and even more.
All European countries are trying to respect the Action Plan that has been implemented for the 2000-2004 period, but the principle of subsidiarity, as you must know, exists. EU countries are driving their own policies on drug issues as for instance France has signed a new law concerning high punishment on driving under drugs effect at the beginning of October 2002, Spain tolerates personal growing of three cannabis plants minimum height of 1 meter and Netherlands is just tolerating cannabis paradise but there are no laws established that it allows sells. On the other hand, we can speak about a “Catch 22” (Joseph Heller – 1961) where the EU countries are using their own policies on drugs regulation (not following step by step EU Action Plan) whereas their policies should be driven by UN Convention (1966-71-88) that established clearly drugs issues. By forming just one EU block on cannabis issue, especially
on the first step to distinguish between soft and hard drugs, could give an opportunity to open on new perspectives within the UN. It is important to use a common action on the EU level.
In order to make it clear why our organisation calls for the legalization and regulation of soft drugs, we would like to draw your attention to three aspects, including 1) medcine, 2) economy and 3) crime.
There are some medical facts herewith. A study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Canadian Medical Association by Carleton University researchers in Ottawa evaluated the intelligence quotient of 70 people aged 17 to 20 through self-reporting and urinalysis and compared it with the subjects’ IQ score when they were aged 9 to 12,before they began using drugs. Through the intelligence of a group of heavy users who smoked five or more joints weekly differed from that of light pot smokers, “a negative effect [in IQ] was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance”, the researchers say, “We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.” Many medical reports also state that cannabis addiction is uncommon. Only 0.3% of cannabis users are reported as addicted.
Recently the French National Assembly has voted through a law making it an offence to drive while under the influence of drugs. However, French drink-driving limits are set very low. It is a truth that marijuana has less adverse effect on driving than alcohol. The data of Table 1 were collected in a survey of 8,598 male inmates in Canadian federal penitentiaries using a Computerized Lifestyle Assessment instrument. From the table, we notice that the figure of crime in ‘driving while intoxicated’ caused by drugs is 0, while by alcohol is 83. Thus we can safely draw a conclusion that driving while intoxicated and assault are more likely to be committed by alcohol users instead of drug users. In addiction, alcohol is also more strongly associated with crimes that have raised the level of concern in society more than other: crimes of violence. Table 1 shows that there is a rather clear distinction between acquisitory crimes and violent crimes in the prevalence of use of drugs and alcohol. It is obvious that homicides and, more pronouncedly, assaults and woundings were predominantly alcohol-related, while Marijuana seldom instigates violence. It was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user, and generally producing states of timidity and passivity. Up to now, there has been no death due to overdose of marijuana.
| Table 1. Use of alcohol or drugs on the day of the most serious crime, by type of crime (Percentage) |
||||
| Crime (and number committed) | Drugs | Alcohol | Alcohol and drugs | No substance used |
| Robbery or attempted robery (1,811) Drug offence (1,427) Break and enter (1,146) Sex offence (1,052) Assault or wounding (581) Murder or manslaughter (535) Theft (466) Fraud or forgery (262) Driving while intoxicated (235) Possession of stolen property (174) Attempted murder (130) Possession of a weapon (128) Other crimes (632) |
25 18 24 3 9 8 30 10 0 13 10 13 12 |
15 5 20 30 38 31 19 10 83 22 28 27 23 |
17 6 12 11 22 19 17 2 10 7 19 13 12 |
43 72 44 55 31 42 34 78 6 58 43 47 53 |
| Total, all crimes (8,579) | 16 | 21 | 13 | 49 |
MARIJUANA IS NOT A GATEWAY TO HARD DRUG USE. The most liberal of EU governments are resisting any attempt to blur the borders between hard and soft drugs. Indeed Netherlands – famous for its coffee shops permitting the sale and smoking of small quantities of cannabis – argues that tolerance of soft drugs actually reduces misuse of harder drugs.
Netherlands allows hundreds of coffee-shop owners to sell 5g of cannabis to each customer. These drug cafes survive in a legal limbo. It is illegal to supply a coffee shop with the soft drugs yet acceptable to sell them to customers. The police simply turn their gaze away providing that no one under 18 is served cannabis, that the coffee shops do not advertise or display drug menus in the window, that neighbours are not annoyed and that hard drugs, amphetamines and Ecstasy are not sold on the premises.
Dutch officials say the policy works. The easy access to soft drugs keeps many young people out of immediate contact with hard-drug providers. In fact, in some ways, the Netherlands has more control over the problems associated with drug use. It has been observed that soft drug users rarely turn to hard drug use. In addition, although compulsive drug use has not been eliminated, hard drug use has decreased. As a result, the number of registered hard-drug
addicts in Netherlands is, at 0.16 per cent of the population, significantly below the EU average. Certainly France and Britain have more addicts.
Having looked at some medical facts, let’s focus on the economic effects, which can be very useful for you to understand our reasons to act.
First of all, we have some very interesting facts about the economics of drug trade that you might never have thought before. Drug trafficking is a $ 400 billion per year industry, equalling 8% of world’s trade (Associated Press, 1997, June 26). This was the U.N. estimate on the drug business and this rate has been increasing nowadays. As we said before, we are not talking on behalf of hard drugs. Our concern is only soft drugs (cannabis). In this fact, which is almost greater than automobile exports worldwide, trade of cannabis is also included. As we can see, the rate of drug trafficking is relatively high compared to other industries; however, it still remains illegal for cannabis, which was scientifically proved less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. So, why not get benefit from production and trade of cannabis? By legalizing this misunderstood product, we can also abolish the black market of it, which was created by all of us. Moreover, it is very obvious that cannabis producers grow their plants and it costs to them, let’s say 1 Euro, but they sell it in the streets or in the secret places for 300Euros. So, there is 300 times price increase from source to sales. The interesting thing is that this profit is out of control as it is taken illegal. Our assumption is that legalization will deflate prices and reduce the profit levels.
On the other hand, it costs approximately $8.6 billion a year to keep drug law violators behind bars (Drug War Facts, August 1998). An investigation commissioned by the European Community found that the identifiable costs of drug trafficking and abuse amounted to $3.2 billion in the United Kingdom in 1998, equivalent to 0.4 per cent of GDP or about $60 per capita. Of that amount, about 85 per cent was the value of stolen property, thus clearly identifying crime as the most important side-effect of drug abuse. Other major cost categories were the value of drug law enforcement and legal costs (per cent), prison costs (5 per cent) and government prevention. Moreover, another study in Germany estimated the costs of drug abuse, related criminal costs and prevention efforts by the Government as at least DM 13.8 billion, i.e. $9.6 billion or approximately $120 per capita (1995). This above-mentioned figure
is, again, equivalent to approximately 0.4 per cent of GDP. Based on these findings, the calculated costs per drug abuser are, on average, approximately $30,000 per annum. Here, the amount paid to police costs occupies 13 per cent, 10 per cent to courts and prisons and 5 per cent to prevention activities. So, with the scientific proof of cannabis and these investigations carried out by different bodies, we can clearly state that present law on cannabis produces more harm than it prevents, i.e. it creates unnecessary time and resource intensive for the criminal justice system and especially of the police. Furthermore, there have also been government funds transferred to criminal organizations acting against drug abuses without making any differentiation among drug types. By legalizing it, this another kind of money inflow, which increases government spending, can be reduced, so that governments can focus on hard drug activities, after separation of cannabis.
Moreover, as potential profits, we propose to apply existing tobacco laws to cannabis production and sales, so that governments as well as European Union can make profit by taxation. In present situation, as we all know, cannabis’ illegal position prevents them from using this opportunity and leads them to spend much more money for prevention strategies. However, we see it as an opportunity to increase government revenues. In addition to this, we also believe that, if it is legalized, this action will boost the agricultural sector, which can be conceived as an alternative to tobacco farming. In the future, it can create a branch of industry of agriculture and increase the employment and in the end, it surprisingly will have added value to the economy.
Naturally, some social problems result from drug-related crime. We notice that 95% of arrest related to marijuana has been for possession. Moreover, most of the crimes related to marijuana have been for trafficking reasons rather than under influence. Drug-related crime occurs primarily in the form of trafficking-related criminal activity, including violence between groups in competition for increased market share at the wholesale and retail levels. Nevertheless, the media, police, policymakers and politicians often describe the problem simply as the financing of terrorism through the drug trade. Their analysis stops there. They ignore the role of drug prohibition. Prohibition alone is what makes the drug trade so profitable for terrorists. We can not maintain prohibition and yet still hope to deprive terrorist and criminal organizations of the profits associated with the drug trade. It is as simple as that. Without prohibition, the drug trade would not be a factor in terrorism. Because of prohibition,
the drug trade is the major source of financing of terrorism. We must decide which version of drug policy we want–one that fosters terrorism and enriches terrorists, or one that does not.
Nowadays, the attitude towards drugs has become more discriminating. It must be concluded that drug use is not the only factor to consider when analysing the link between drugs and crime. Other factors, such as the price of a drug in relation to marginal income from illegal sources, the other sources of income available and the level of addiction should also be carefully taken into account.
Is drug use a kind of criminal offence or social offence? Normally, both, but drug use is considered a criminal offence only when it takes place in a group. Take Netherlands for example, the Dutch view drugs and drug use as a social welfare issue as well as a criminal one. This is evident from the fact that the Departments of Health, Justice and the Interior share the responsibilities of administering the drug policy. In addressing drug and drug use issues, the Dutch make a distinction between “hard drugs,” or “drugs presenting unacceptable risks” (i.e., cocaine and heroin), and “soft drugs,” or “cannabis products” (i.e., marijuana and hashish). The drug policy of the Netherlands is based on the Opium Act of 1928 as amended in 1976. The amendments were integrated as part of Dutch welfare legislation, rather than criminal legislation. The policy acknowledges the fact that, by virtue of human nature, people experiment with drugs, and society’s demand cannot be eradicated by prohibition. Therefore, instead of strict prohibition, the policy follows the principles of “separate markets” and “risk-reduction”. Risk-reduction is the theory that measures should be taken to make inevitable drug use as safe as possible for both the individual and society. This is accomplished through a variety of welfare programs and harsh penalties for drug-related offences that are a nuisance to the community or that harm society. This element of the drug policy is also pursued through the separate markets approach because it is believed that the isolation of the soft drug culture will reduce the risk of cross-over to the more dangerous hard drug culture.
On the whole, legalizing cannabis may make you more likely to try it, but it does not make it more likely that you will continue to use it. There is no complete “solution” to the harms associated with drugs. However, dismantling prohibition will resolve or greatly diminish many of the harms, including trade-related violence, corruption, the spread of disease, the lack of quality control and the waste of scarce government resources.
Prior to implementing our proposals, after receiving the Green paper, to the member state countries, it is considerably significant to choose an appropriate time to take actions. Due to the fact that we have found that three major institutions: UN convention, EU, and National governments interdependently exist, we need to take into account their movements such as convention and organizational changes. By acknowledging events taken place at these levels, we can gain a ‘timeline’ that gives us effective ideas with respect to exactly when we are ought to take actions. We strongly believe that our proposals effectively promote the information flow running within all the three levels.
We have found three events taking place respectively in a few years:
The presidency in E.U. council will be taken over by Greek from Denmark next year. This organizational change implies that we may have difficulties in implementing our proposals after Greek gains privilege regarding decision-making. We assume that Greek may not take into consideration our proposals as a feasible issue due to the country of Greek retaining its legal which the drug use in this country is illegal. Therefore, when our proposals reach to the council level, we assume that the importance of our issue might fade way. For the purpose of avoiding this situation and in order to give stronger pressure on the council, we have to practice our proposals at least before the presidency is taken over by Greek. Eventually, we may be able to keep our proposals significant.
Secondary,
Since there is an agreement between UN and each member state country promising that each state does not legalize the drug use (I might be wrong, and WHEN?), we consider that drug-related issue has to be one of the most important topic in this convention. We also understand that UN and E.U. are interactively working together in terms of international issues. Thus, to activate our proposals at all levels, especially at national level, our organization needs to take actions before this event begins.
Finally, regarding E.U. action plan,
In fact there is no possibility to give pressures to this action going on from 2000 to 2004, our organization needs to take into account next E.U. action coming in 2004. Since this plan directly and indirectly affects the decision-making process at national level as to whether or not drug use should be legalized. Therefore, we strongly think that this plan should be banned because we believe that it is impossible for the E.U. to intervene every member sate country regarding whether drug use is legal due to each country has specifically different conditions and opinions. Thus, we are intent to give pressures to this action plan. For this reason, we have to take actions before 2004.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I need some quotations that prove these statements above; e.g. date of events, supportive sentences from web, and etc.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(PHRAB)
phrabu,I have add some Reference in the doc.named ‘drug referrence’.pls check!!!!!
Dear all,
Pls be informed that I won’t be here this afternoon because I have to go to preferture for my carte de sejour. bonne chance tout le monde and bisous…….
JE VOUS AIME!!!!! I will still remain
Sincerely yours
ELAINE
75 views
In our day, usually one of the peoples of a multinational state mentions historical mistreatments and most commonly these allegations are accepted internationally without any further research. The success of these claims is hidden in the loudness of the claimers’ voice and the power of their supporters. For this reason, the owners of these claims have an intention to find a public opinion to support themselves. When we look to the national struggles in the world, we find many similar occurrences. If we analyze these occurrences, we find that really mistreated people never cries but evil and aggressive side wins with the assistance of its economically powerful supporters. For this reason, we should evaluate the current affairs in our environment with the methods of political psychology.
We cam limit our subject according to the Armenian claims as follows:
a. During the Russo-Ottoman War and the First World War the Armenians have supported and reinforced the Russian Army, but both wars ended with disappointment as Russia had failed to keep her
24 views
Suleyman I was born on 27th April 1495, Monday in Trabzon. His father was Sultan Selim I and his mother was Hafsa Sultan. Suleyman I was a tall man with a round face, hazel eyes broad forehead and a thin beard.
Suleyman the Magnificent had reigned for forty six years (1520-1566) and this is the most memorable epoch of the empire, when it reached a pitch of grandeur and prosperity which was never afterwards surpassed, and from which it soon began to decline.
70 views
Yavuz Sultan Selim was born on 10th October 1470. His father was Sultan Bayezid II and his mother was Gulbahar Sultana from Dulkadirogulları State. Selim I was a tall and a strong man. He was a very brave soldier and naturally tough. He was very well educated. Selim was very much interested in science and theology beside the governmental issues. He attended the lessons of famous scholar Mevlana Abdulhalim.
During the sultanate of his father Bayezid II, Selim was appointed as the Governor of Trabizon (The Black Sea Region of Anatolia). He learnt the administrative regulations and the military system of the Empire there. He ruled the region very successfully. He improved the Ottoman relations with the neighbourhood states. He organised three campaigns to Georgia against their continuos anti-Ottoman propagandas. With these successful campaigns Selim invaded Kars, Erzurum, Artvin (1508). All the Georgians living in those regions converted to Islam.
26 views
Mehmet II was born on 29th March 1432, in Edirne. He was the son of Sultan Murad II. His mother was Huma Hatun. He was a tall, strong and muscular man. Mehmet II was a statesman and a military leader. He was also interested in literature, fine arts and monumental architecture. He was educated by famous scholar Aksemseddin. Mehmet was speaking seven languages fluently. Another worthy tribute to the Ottoman ruler is the famous portrait of him by Gentile Bellini. He also interested in philosophy and science. He invited Ali Kuscu the famous astronomer to the observatory in Istanbul.
18 views
Murad I was born in Bursa, in 1326. His father was Orhan Gazi and his mother was Nilufer Hatun (Holofira) the daughter of a Christian Byzantine Prince. Murad I was a tall man with a round face and a big nose, he had a muscular body. He wore a cap with Mevlevi coins and a testar wrapped on it. He dressed up simple and he liked red and white cloths. He had his first education from his mother. Afterwards, he attended to Bursa Medrese (University) to complete his education and he lived with scientists, theologians and artists.
11 views