a. High blood pressure b. Liver and kidney disease or cancer c. Heart diseases
2. “The direct answer to this question is that the government does not decide the legal status of drugs based on scientific assessment of potential for harm.
The ranking of drugs is a very interesting and controversial topic (subject to the apples and oranges problem), but it is simply not the basis by which governments make these decisions. The chart is worth analyzing, but it won't answer the question.
Practically speaking, making alcohol illegal is untenable. It was attempted in the United states in the 1920s, and I am not aware of any credible historians that consider prohibition to have been a success. Alcohol use has been present amongst humankind for millennia. It spans society, race, social class, etc. It does certainly present great potential for harm, individually through the detrimental health effects of abuse, and societally through the impact of impaired decision making, most notably drunk driving.
Despite that, alcohol also clearly provides some benefits that drive some people to use it. Others choose not to use it at all. Many use it without issue, and some develop problems. It is an effective social lubricant. In many cultures it is a common component of traditional celebrations, and in some cultures it is even a component of formal business interactions. It is one of the central rituals in the Catholic church.
Many of the problems associated with alcohol use can be reasonably mitigated without blanket prohibition, i.e. drunk driving and age restrictions. Many of the problems are also solved through basic social structures, in which friends and family address issues independently.
Given the above, the clear follow-on question is why these other, less harmful, drugs are illegal? If alcohol has demonstrated that it is actually more effective to manage these problems with regulation, how are other legalization decisions being made?
Those are much more complicated questions. The brief answers have to do with legacy (less history of widespread human use with other chemicals) and institutional racism.”
This is from the web so find details that will helped you and make sure to paraphrase!!
There can be many approaches to psychotherapy and studying psychology in general. For example, cognitive and behavioral perspective. Here, Dr Abbot is focusing on the behavior of individuals according to their environment. They can develop normal or abnormal behavior according to the conditioning provided to them. This perspective comes under behavioral perspective. If the doctor had focused more on what the individual is thinking and feeling subconsciously rather than their actions, it would have come under cognitive perspective.
Maybe when an organism has both an endocrine and a nervous system it is able to not only make rapid changes to be more well-adjusted in its enviroment but is also able to make changes required for survival in long-term.
