War on drugs breaks through to perpetuate crime myths.America is trying a war on drugs for the last 100 years or so but it has not succeeded fully so far. They have been locking black <em>people in jail </em>perpetually but it is perhaps not helping the cause of war on drugs.This can be considered first myth.
Increasing the <em>severity of punishment</em> is also not helping the cause of war on drugs.This can be thought of second myth.US Criminal Justice system has changed over the years.
Domestic impact of war on drugs is profound.Its consequences do not stop at the border.Prohibition of drugs affects health,crime,corruption and violence.Moreover,these effects are self perpetuating.
Answer:
The answer is true.
Explanation:
Medieval European manorial system was the system where rural society was arranged around a manor house or castle on an estate. The smallest units of these estates were called manors. Free and unfree labourers worked on the owner or lord’s land in return for protection and the right to work a separate piece of land for their own needs.
The hub of these rural communities was the manor or castle – the estate owner's private residence and place of communal gatherings for purposes of administration, legal matters and entertainment. Regulations, customs and traditions varied from one estate to another and over time, but the system of manorialism persisted throughout most of the Middle Ages.
Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic republic on 1 April 1979 and to formulate and approve a new theocratic-republican constitution whereby Khomeini became supreme leader of the country in December 1979. The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world.
Answer:
he assassin – Gavrilo Princip – was a member of a Bosnian Serb nationalist group seeking to unite territories containing ethnic Serbs under Serbia's control. Convinced that the Serbian government had assisted Princip's group, Austria-Hungary issued a series of harsh demands, most of which the Serbs accepted
Explanation:
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
