Effect of Ph on Green Pea Germination Essay Example for Free

Effect of Ph on Green Pea Germination Essay Effect of pH on Green Pea Germination Objective: To determine how pH affects the germination of green peas and to examine the degree of germination within each pH level. We will do this by using various buffer solutions (along with distilled water) to grow green peas. Hypothesis: We expected that the group of peas that encountered a pH of 7 to have the most and highest degree of germination. Materials: tap water buffer solutions pH 3,5, 7, 1 distilled water 50 greens peas trays paper towels beakers Procedure: Wrap 25 peas (25 peas = 1 group) in paper towels. Place each group in 2. Pour 10 mL of tap water and 30 mL of distilled water or buffer solution onto each group of peas 3. 4. Add tap water accordingly to keep peas moist After one week, add another 20mL of distilled water or buffer solution onto each group of peas. 5. Observe amount of germination and degree of germination (length of the shoots) PH3 PH5 Distilled Water PH7 PH9 PHII Number Germinated 17 24 Number not Germinated Number of peas with shoots that were at least 1 inch long 14

The Indian and the White Communites in Dances with Wolves and Machimani

The Indian and the White Communites in Dances with Wolves and Machimanito The film Dances with Wolves shares a lot of its content with the story Machimanito. In Dances with Wolves, two nations come to interact with each other. While the white man is dominating the land, the Indians are trying to protect both their land and themselves. In Machimanito, the story describes the epidemic and its effects on the Indians, while describing the ongoing conflict between Indians and the white man. There is a huge cultural difference between the white man and the Indians, which is reflected on their ways of life and communities; each lives a different life style including their interaction with nature and themselves, their authority within this community and finally the resulting conflict the interactions of these two nations. John Dunbar makes contact with the Indians while being posted on the frontier. As his relationship develops with Kicking Bird and both gain each other’s trust, he becomes part of the Indian community; his final transition can be seen when he is known by the name Dances with Wolves. The differences between the white and the Indian community are shown to the viewer while Dunbar is exploring it and is becoming aware of the differences himself. Some of the differences are shown in the ways and objectives of hunting the buffalos. While the Indians use the buffalos for both food and use the skin for clothes, the white man hunts down buffalos for their skin and horns â€Å"killed only for their tongs and the price of their hides.† Dunbar says â€Å"One thing is clear however there is no buffalo and it weighs heavily on their minds.† This shows how important the buffalos are for the Indians, as their absence is a problem for thei... ...e and accurate approach of the Indians, where the reader can feel the story and the events as if he was Nanapush himself, as apposed to see and try to figure out the feelings like in Dances with Wolves. We can see that in both Machimanito and Dances with Wolves, there is a conflict between the white society and the Indian society. The white trespassing society intervenes with the traditions and customs of the Indians which causes a threat to their culture. Since the white man views the Indian community as being native and tries to educate it by colonizing and implementing their own ways. Both these literary pieces show this conflict and the effects of the colonization on the Indians. While Dunbar comes to the conclusion â€Å"Nothing I’ve been told about these people is correct. They are not beggar and thieves. They are not the bogie men they’ve been made out to be.†

Legalizing Marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse

Marijuana, a milder hallucinogen than LSD, comes from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, which originates in Central Asia but is now grown in most parts of the world. It is also known by such names as pot, grass, reefer, weed, and herb. It has for its active ingredient the mind altering substance called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC (National Institute on Drug Abuse1). The use of marijuana has been the subject of much debate and controversy in the past. Young people are drawn to it, musicians, movie stars and rock stars endorse it discreetly, and the general population as a whole is divided over whether it is good or bad for people, and whether it should be legalized or not. A website devoted exclusively to marijuana use recently ran an article weighing the pros and cons of legalizing it, and came up with the conclusion that legalizing has several economic benefits, and brings with it the ability of government to properly regulate its use (Shalom). This essay takes the latter posi tion, and argues against the legalization of marijuana because of its overall ill health and social effects.Effects of Marijuana The physical effects of marijuana include increases in pulse rate and blood pressure, reddening of the eyes, coughing and dryness of the mouth. Psychological effects include a mixture of excitatory, depressive and hallucinatory characteristics, making the drug difficult to classify. The drug can produce spontaneous and unrelated ideas; perceptions of time and place can be distorted; verbal behavior may increase or cease to occur at all; and sensitivity to sound and colors might increase. Marijuana can also impair attention and memory, which suggests that smoking marijuana is not conducive to optimal school performance. When marijuana is used daily in heavy amounts, it also can impair the human reproductive system and may be involved in some birth defects. (National Institute on Drug Abuse 1).Statistics on the issue A lot of action has been presented to leg alize the use of marijuana and it has been drawing a lot of attention lately. There are already twelve states in the U.S. where it's legal for medicinal purposes. Much of the American public now believes that the drug should be legalized but others are still concerned about health damage and other unfortunate side affects, not to mention moral concerns.One of the consequences of marijuana legalization would be a large increase in drug users. Right now, drug users have a fear of law enforcement agents, but if marijuana was legalized, they no longer would have fear and would feel that it will be all right to use marijuana. Over twenty years ago, estimates of drug use among Americans was as high as 24 million, but it is now estimated to be as low as 11 million.   In 1993, Americans spent $49 billion on illegal drugs, down from the 1988 figure of $64 billion.  Ã‚   This decline does not mean a decrease in the use of marijuana but an increase of officers on the streets and drug aware ness programs.Crackdowns being a geographically focused drug raid will only limit drug use for a time but not completely eradicate it. According to Walker, this strategy of deploying police officers in streets to catch drug users and dealers and street gangs, merely displace drugs activity to change the place of drug use. When the Violent Crime Act of 1994 was implemented, government allocated a budget to deploy additional 100,000 policemen in streets.One famous crackdown is the Operation Pressure Point in New York that for a time scared drug users away. However, in the long-term, crackdowns are not proven to be effective to totally stop drug selling and drug use despite police concentration. Eventually, the former drug suppliers and dealers were just replaced by some other persons to continue the drug activity. Even New York City police attest that the OPP may have put drug operatives in jail, but it was not an assurance that there will be no other persons to replace them.Interdict ion or the process of inhibiting the flow and entry of drugs, and eradication or the process of reducing drug plants production are two methods that are seemingly out weighted by the fact that drugs is a growing international market despite huge efforts to stop its production and entry to certain territories. Walker the author has found that despite interdiction campaigns, illegal drugs that entered the country have increased significantly from 1987 to 1991. Marijuana and coca leaf production rose by almost 50% and 33% respectively.The author attributed the failure to the large border that the enforcement agencies have to guard, making it possible for drug traffickers to mutually adapt with the enforcement measures easily by putting up new entry points, and the organized mafia that supports the drug trade. Whether we like it or not, the drug market despite its being underground has been continuously expanding in both international and domestic level.The problem is, the drug users, a s well as pushers are just a small part of the problem on drugs production. The real problem of the drug fight is the large mafia, and big people that benefit most from the drug economy. Interdiction and eradication efforts are doomed to fail when the major actors such as the plant owners and drug traders are not properly apprehended, together with some government allies.Marijuana is said to be the most used illegal drug in the United States, with 40 percent or 94 million of Americans aged 12 years or older having tried it at least once, and adolescents and teenagers in particular being particularly vulnerable to abusing the drug (National Institute on Drug Abuse 1, citing the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health).Other Health and Social Effects The ill health effects of marijuana have been well-documented. Heavy use of marijuana has been directly linked to the impairment of a person’s ability to shift the focus of his attention from one thing to another, ability to re call events, and ability to form memories (National Institute on Drug Abuse 3). Marijuana is also said to impair balance, posture, coordination of movement and reaction time, because THC affects the proper functioning of the parts of the brain responsible for those functions (National Institute on Drug Abuse 4). Such ill effects are said to be precursors of accidents.Another ill effect of marijuana use is its link to difficulty in quitting tobacco smoking. Still another ill health effect is the predisposition of marijuana smokers to the same health problems that plague tobacco smokers such as chest illnesses, daily, cough and phlegm, obstructed airways, lung infections, and cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract (National Institute on Drug Abuse 4).The heightened risks are said to be the result of marijuana smoke containing 50 to 70 percent more carcinogens than regular tobacco smoke, and because THC is said to impair the immune function thus, making smokers more susceptible to c ancer and infectious diseases (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5). Also, marijuana smoking has also been linked to an up to a four-fold increase in the risk of having a heart attack within an hour of smoking it (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5).The ill social effects of smoking marijuana are also varied and grave. Student smokers are said to perform more poorly than other students, while workers who smoke marijuana are said to have more problems with work performance (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5). Ill emotional and psychological effects such as depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances spill over into poor ability to acquire job and social skills, poor ability to cope with emotional problems because of poor problem solving and emotional skills, and lower levels of satisfaction with life in general (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5-6)An increase in drug use will result in an increase in drug related crimes if drugs are legalized. Supporters of drug legalization b elieve that crime and violence would decrease if drug use became legal. Statistics tell us that almost half of those arrested for committing a crime test positive for the use of drugs at the time of their arrest.   Marijuana's effects cause memory loss, trouble with problem-solving, loss of motor skills and an increase in heart rate, panic attacks and anxiety.Marijuana weakens the body's immune system, which could further complicate any future recovery from a serious medical condition.   Young adults observing or knowing adults who are smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes sends a misleading message. Legalization supporters claim that marijuana significantly lessens pain and relieves nausea resulting from serious diseases. However, anti-drug groups think that legalizing marijuana for medical use is merely an ulterior motive designed to gain access to a dangerous substance.Use of Marijuana in some states In some states marijuana use is legal already for medicinal purposes.   According to the NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), twelve states have legalized or decriminalized the medical use of marijuana in some manner. Since 1996, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have passed legislation that removes state-level penalties from marijuana use by patients who have a doctor's recommendation.Moreover, Maryland passed a medical marijuana affirmative defense law in 2003. This states that if a person is arrested for marijuana use but is found to be using marijuana out of medical necessity, even if at the time of use they did not have a doctor’s recommendation, he/she will only face a small fine.These state laws specify that marijuana can be used to treat diseases such as arthritis, cancer, chronic nervous system disorders, chronic pain, Crohn's disease, epilepsy and other seizure disorders, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other muscle spastic ity disorders, and help patients cope with severe migraines, severe nausea, and the side effects of chemotherapy. The requirements for patients and doctors to be protected by these laws vary from state to state. The U.S. government has challenged the California law in several cases. Federal law does not recognize a medical use for marijuana and maintains that the drug is a controlled and a banned substance under all circumstances.Mandatory Drug Testing in SchoolsThe main purpose of mandatory drug testing in school is not to expose and expel those whose results are positive. This method is done only to ensure the health and academic performance of each individual student. Those who have been found with positive results are assisted by the school counselor and are enrolled in a drug-education program. This would better help the student to alleviate his drug dependency and so that he may perform better academically.Also with the information that as much as 23% of American drug dependen ts are teenagers and perhaps in school, this could directly affect the entire school population. Peer pressure is the one of the primary causes of drug dependency. Without mitigation from the administration, drug dependency among the students would undoubtedly rise. Another cause for concern is that substances such as stimulants induce violence and aggression.This would mean that the well-being of the whole school population could be jeopardized. Therefore, mandatory drug testing is the most effective way not only to prevent drug-dependent students from harming themselves but also to prevent violence and harm to the public. Implementing it in schools in the swiftest time possible would efficiently prevent and reduce the number of drug use among the American student population. (What You Need to Know About Drug Testing in School).In sum, legalizing marijuana could potentially lead to more crime and more drug addicts. It also is sending the wrong message to our young people.   Givin g young people the impression that drugs are okay is setting a bad example.   If young kids believe that marijuana use is not any more serious than smoking a cigarette, this could lead to serious circumstances and habits for them in the future.ConclusionAdolescents in virtually every era have been risk takers, testing limits and making shortsighted judgments.   Today, the consequences of choosing a course of risk-taking are possibly more serious than they have ever been. Indeed, marijuana must not be legalized, lest we want our children to be dependent on them and ruining their lives over the long haul.SourcesInternet1) www.norml.org    NORML   (National Organization for the Reform of   Marijuana Laws)2) National Institute on Drug Abuse. â€Å"Marijuana Abuse: Research Report Series†. July 2005. Retrieved November 10, 2006 ;https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/letter-director;.Magazine1) Time Magazine â€Å"Is America Going to Pot?†Ã‚   (issue: November 4th, 2002)2) Newsweek magazine â€Å"The War Over Weed† (issue: March 16, 1998) Legalizing Marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse Marijuana, a milder hallucinogen than LSD, comes from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, which originates in Central Asia but is now grown in most parts of the world. It is also known by such names as pot, grass, reefer, weed, and herb. It has for its active ingredient the mind altering substance called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC (National Institute on Drug Abuse1). The use of marijuana has been the subject of much debate and controversy in the past. Young people are drawn to it, musicians, movie stars and rock stars endorse it discreetly, and the general population as a whole is divided over whether it is good or bad for people, and whether it should be legalized or not. A website devoted exclusively to marijuana use recently ran an article weighing the pros and cons of legalizing it, and came up with the conclusion that legalizing has several economic benefits, and brings with it the ability of government to properly regulate its use (Shalom). This essay takes the latter posi tion, and argues against the legalization of marijuana because of its overall ill health and social effects.Effects of Marijuana The physical effects of marijuana include increases in pulse rate and blood pressure, reddening of the eyes, coughing and dryness of the mouth. Psychological effects include a mixture of excitatory, depressive and hallucinatory characteristics, making the drug difficult to classify. The drug can produce spontaneous and unrelated ideas; perceptions of time and place can be distorted; verbal behavior may increase or cease to occur at all; and sensitivity to sound and colors might increase. Marijuana can also impair attention and memory, which suggests that smoking marijuana is not conducive to optimal school performance. When marijuana is used daily in heavy amounts, it also can impair the human reproductive system and may be involved in some birth defects. (National Institute on Drug Abuse 1).Statistics on the issue A lot of action has been presented to leg alize the use of marijuana and it has been drawing a lot of attention lately. There are already twelve states in the U.S. where it's legal for medicinal purposes. Much of the American public now believes that the drug should be legalized but others are still concerned about health damage and other unfortunate side affects, not to mention moral concerns.One of the consequences of marijuana legalization would be a large increase in drug users. Right now, drug users have a fear of law enforcement agents, but if marijuana was legalized, they no longer would have fear and would feel that it will be all right to use marijuana. Over twenty years ago, estimates of drug use among Americans was as high as 24 million, but it is now estimated to be as low as 11 million.   In 1993, Americans spent $49 billion on illegal drugs, down from the 1988 figure of $64 billion.  Ã‚   This decline does not mean a decrease in the use of marijuana but an increase of officers on the streets and drug aware ness programs.Crackdowns being a geographically focused drug raid will only limit drug use for a time but not completely eradicate it. According to Walker, this strategy of deploying police officers in streets to catch drug users and dealers and street gangs, merely displace drugs activity to change the place of drug use. When the Violent Crime Act of 1994 was implemented, government allocated a budget to deploy additional 100,000 policemen in streets.One famous crackdown is the Operation Pressure Point in New York that for a time scared drug users away. However, in the long-term, crackdowns are not proven to be effective to totally stop drug selling and drug use despite police concentration. Eventually, the former drug suppliers and dealers were just replaced by some other persons to continue the drug activity. Even New York City police attest that the OPP may have put drug operatives in jail, but it was not an assurance that there will be no other persons to replace them.Interdict ion or the process of inhibiting the flow and entry of drugs, and eradication or the process of reducing drug plants production are two methods that are seemingly out weighted by the fact that drugs is a growing international market despite huge efforts to stop its production and entry to certain territories. Walker the author has found that despite interdiction campaigns, illegal drugs that entered the country have increased significantly from 1987 to 1991. Marijuana and coca leaf production rose by almost 50% and 33% respectively.The author attributed the failure to the large border that the enforcement agencies have to guard, making it possible for drug traffickers to mutually adapt with the enforcement measures easily by putting up new entry points, and the organized mafia that supports the drug trade. Whether we like it or not, the drug market despite its being underground has been continuously expanding in both international and domestic level.The problem is, the drug users, a s well as pushers are just a small part of the problem on drugs production. The real problem of the drug fight is the large mafia, and big people that benefit most from the drug economy. Interdiction and eradication efforts are doomed to fail when the major actors such as the plant owners and drug traders are not properly apprehended, together with some government allies.Marijuana is said to be the most used illegal drug in the United States, with 40 percent or 94 million of Americans aged 12 years or older having tried it at least once, and adolescents and teenagers in particular being particularly vulnerable to abusing the drug (National Institute on Drug Abuse 1, citing the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health).Other Health and Social Effects The ill health effects of marijuana have been well-documented. Heavy use of marijuana has been directly linked to the impairment of a person’s ability to shift the focus of his attention from one thing to another, ability to re call events, and ability to form memories (National Institute on Drug Abuse 3). Marijuana is also said to impair balance, posture, coordination of movement and reaction time, because THC affects the proper functioning of the parts of the brain responsible for those functions (National Institute on Drug Abuse 4). Such ill effects are said to be precursors of accidents.Another ill effect of marijuana use is its link to difficulty in quitting tobacco smoking. Still another ill health effect is the predisposition of marijuana smokers to the same health problems that plague tobacco smokers such as chest illnesses, daily, cough and phlegm, obstructed airways, lung infections, and cancer of the lungs and respiratory tract (National Institute on Drug Abuse 4).The heightened risks are said to be the result of marijuana smoke containing 50 to 70 percent more carcinogens than regular tobacco smoke, and because THC is said to impair the immune function thus, making smokers more susceptible to c ancer and infectious diseases (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5). Also, marijuana smoking has also been linked to an up to a four-fold increase in the risk of having a heart attack within an hour of smoking it (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5).The ill social effects of smoking marijuana are also varied and grave. Student smokers are said to perform more poorly than other students, while workers who smoke marijuana are said to have more problems with work performance (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5). Ill emotional and psychological effects such as depression, anxiety, and personality disturbances spill over into poor ability to acquire job and social skills, poor ability to cope with emotional problems because of poor problem solving and emotional skills, and lower levels of satisfaction with life in general (National Institute on Drug Abuse 5-6)An increase in drug use will result in an increase in drug related crimes if drugs are legalized. Supporters of drug legalization b elieve that crime and violence would decrease if drug use became legal. Statistics tell us that almost half of those arrested for committing a crime test positive for the use of drugs at the time of their arrest.   Marijuana's effects cause memory loss, trouble with problem-solving, loss of motor skills and an increase in heart rate, panic attacks and anxiety.Marijuana weakens the body's immune system, which could further complicate any future recovery from a serious medical condition.   Young adults observing or knowing adults who are smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes sends a misleading message. Legalization supporters claim that marijuana significantly lessens pain and relieves nausea resulting from serious diseases. However, anti-drug groups think that legalizing marijuana for medical use is merely an ulterior motive designed to gain access to a dangerous substance.Use of Marijuana in some states In some states marijuana use is legal already for medicinal purposes.   According to the NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), twelve states have legalized or decriminalized the medical use of marijuana in some manner. Since 1996, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have passed legislation that removes state-level penalties from marijuana use by patients who have a doctor's recommendation.Moreover, Maryland passed a medical marijuana affirmative defense law in 2003. This states that if a person is arrested for marijuana use but is found to be using marijuana out of medical necessity, even if at the time of use they did not have a doctor’s recommendation, he/she will only face a small fine.These state laws specify that marijuana can be used to treat diseases such as arthritis, cancer, chronic nervous system disorders, chronic pain, Crohn's disease, epilepsy and other seizure disorders, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other muscle spastic ity disorders, and help patients cope with severe migraines, severe nausea, and the side effects of chemotherapy. The requirements for patients and doctors to be protected by these laws vary from state to state. The U.S. government has challenged the California law in several cases. Federal law does not recognize a medical use for marijuana and maintains that the drug is a controlled and a banned substance under all circumstances.Mandatory Drug Testing in SchoolsThe main purpose of mandatory drug testing in school is not to expose and expel those whose results are positive. This method is done only to ensure the health and academic performance of each individual student. Those who have been found with positive results are assisted by the school counselor and are enrolled in a drug-education program. This would better help the student to alleviate his drug dependency and so that he may perform better academically.Also with the information that as much as 23% of American drug dependen ts are teenagers and perhaps in school, this could directly affect the entire school population. Peer pressure is the one of the primary causes of drug dependency. Without mitigation from the administration, drug dependency among the students would undoubtedly rise. Another cause for concern is that substances such as stimulants induce violence and aggression.This would mean that the well-being of the whole school population could be jeopardized. Therefore, mandatory drug testing is the most effective way not only to prevent drug-dependent students from harming themselves but also to prevent violence and harm to the public. Implementing it in schools in the swiftest time possible would efficiently prevent and reduce the number of drug use among the American student population. (What You Need to Know About Drug Testing in School).In sum, legalizing marijuana could potentially lead to more crime and more drug addicts. It also is sending the wrong message to our young people.   Givin g young people the impression that drugs are okay is setting a bad example.   If young kids believe that marijuana use is not any more serious than smoking a cigarette, this could lead to serious circumstances and habits for them in the future.ConclusionAdolescents in virtually every era have been risk takers, testing limits and making shortsighted judgments.   Today, the consequences of choosing a course of risk-taking are possibly more serious than they have ever been. Indeed, marijuana must not be legalized, lest we want our children to be dependent on them and ruining their lives over the long haul.SourcesInternet1) www.norml.org    NORML   (National Organization for the Reform of   Marijuana Laws)2) National Institute on Drug Abuse. â€Å"Marijuana Abuse: Research Report Series†. July 2005. Retrieved November 10, 2006 ;https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/letter-director;.Magazine1) Time Magazine â€Å"Is America Going to Pot?†Ã‚   (issue: November 4th, 2002)2) Newsweek magazine â€Å"The War Over Weed† (issue: March 16, 1998)

Lockean Approach to Copyright Law - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1907 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Narrative essay Tags: Intellectual Property Essay Did you like this example? Article Review on à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Locke, Labour and Limiting the Authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Right: A Warning Against a Lockean Approach to Copyright Lawà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  SUMMARY Copyright law, which mostly deals with the authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right over a particular work against the general public is said to follow the Lockean theory of Labour which states of natural entitlement to the fruits of labour. This forms the basis of the argument and further criticism in the paper titled: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Locke, Labour and Limiting the Authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Right: A Warning Against a Lockean Approach to Copyright Lawà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. The author, Carys J. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Lockean Approach to Copyright Law" essay for you Create order Craig forms a basic contention that the Lockean Approach to Copyright law as such focuses only on the rights of the Author in relation to his/her work, while leaving out the important element of public interest. Following the Labour à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" Desert theory, which plays prominent role in the Lockean Approach, the author argues that privileges given to private rights over public interest is threatening the public policy goals of Copyright law. The article divided into three basic parts, deals with: 1. Basic concepts of Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s theory of acquisition and the Lockean labour model in context of copyright law. 2. Internal and External Critiques of the Lockean Approach to Copyright Law Copyright Law in general establishes a triadic relationship between the Author, his/her work and the general public. This triad is of importance in terms of justifying the need and the granting of Copyright Law, and is also the basis of the argument by the author against t he Lockean Theory. She states that the link between the author and his/her work should not only be the sole reason for the grant of Copyright. Whereas, the relationship with general Public and the authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s intellectual product has an important role not only in increasing production of intellectual work, but also plays a significant role in cultural production and communication in the society. Copyright philosophy talks about a mutually dependent relationship between the idea of originality and independent work and theory of private property and natural right. The present article only focuses on the latter concept in connection with Lockean theory. John Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s theory of Acquisition of Property, also known as Labour Theory plays an important role as one of the modern day natural rights theory. It has found its way into the realm of Intellectual Property Rights à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" especially Copyright, as one of the justifications to grant prote ction of the intellectual creation to the creator against the general public. The root idea behind the theory is that: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“People are entitled to hold, as property, whatever they produce by their own initiative, intelligence and industryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  According to the theory, the original author is entitled to receive exclusive rights over his/her work for having put in mental labour into its creation. The basic two conditions or provisos to the above principle of right given by Locke are: 1. Enough good must be left in common for others 2. No person must take from the common more than he can use The à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“enough and goodà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  proviso according to the author, is a precondition for proprietary acquisition. It states that a labourer must not worsen otherà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s position from his/her appropriation from the commons. This is not entirely applicable in the case of Ideas. The author quotes Justin Hughes that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“One personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s use of some ideas does not deplete the common; and in fact the common actually expands with useà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . The concept of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“labour addedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  or the addition or creation of a work substantially similar to the original work is given as an example as the drawbacks of this Lockean Approach as the given addition or creation will be considered as infringement irrespective of its new content. Relying on Hughes, the author tries to bring in the argument that in the nature of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"public interestà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, Lockean Approach needs to be looked into before its application into the copyright realm due to its limitation on creativity and restrictive scope on ownerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right. . Copyright, at least in its present form does not hold the proviso of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“good and enoughà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  due to the circumstances as listed above. The author thereby, clearly makes a stand that the provisos or condition of the Lo ckean theory is not possible to be followed in Modern day Copyright Law. The author also brings about the classic debate of Copyright Law which is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"who exactly will be considered as the owner of the final product?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ If one takes into account natural law thesis, property rights are given to the person over his intellectual product, ignoring the contributions made by those preceding him. The Paradox of this question is that, if the labour employed by the individual does not account for the total value of the product, will it justify ownership of the whole commodity? Thus, stating that intellectual works are necessarily the products of collective labour and therefore must be owned collectively. By treating Copyright or any Intellectual Property as a proprietary right, one not only shifts it into the private domain but also defines it along individualistic lines. The author promotes her support to the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“pairingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  of social i nterest along with private entitlement of Copyright. As the two are not opposed, the dualistic approach is said to be balanced. The author further goes on state that, Lockean theory on property, if properly understood has its own inherent limits. Natural Property right, as per Locke, are self limiting, thereby ensuring the protection of Public Interest. The author poses the question: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Whether Lockean Property Theory can be re-imagined to shape a Copyright system that furthers the policy goals (maximum creation and dissemination of intellectual works)?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  The author though ready to accept that Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s theory could be understood and used in a manner that supports restrictions upon the individual ownerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s rights while keeping in mind the interest of the public, especially in terms of waste and avoiding harm, she does not find it to be a practicable argument. The reasons for the same include that: However wide ranging the provisos of the Lockean approach might seem it is doubtful whether the Intellectual Property realm will be able to live in accordance or adequately meet the no harm and no wastage provisions. The Force behind Labour theory does not lie in the public interest domain. Therefore, the argument of the author against the use of Lockean Property theory in the realm of Intellectual Property is not practically viable even if it does present an attractive picture. Thus, Locke identifies the relationship of Copyright and author similar to that of a land and its owner, whereby an infringement is treated as par as invasion/trespass. The author further discusses the Canadian Copyright jurisprudence by listing various rulings that show the rise of the utilitarian approach, which is said to be a start of the infiltration of Lockean perceptions of Natural Right to determine Copyright Policy. CRITICISMS John Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s theory though ambiguous offers important aspects and insights over ownership, use of natural resources and the relationship between the work and general public in large. The criticisms to the article are as follows: The authorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s claim that the application of Lockean theory to intellectual property is unhelpful and harmful to the development of a sound and effective copyright system cannot be entirely accepted. Yes, it has its downfalls, but there are various positive approaches or impacts to the application of the Lockean theory in the realm of Copyright Law. Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s model in its essence provides unambiguous support to intellectual property rights. The restrictive use of proprietary rights over Ideas by the author overlooks the fact that by giving exclusive right over an Idea to an individualà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s labour does not limit the knowledge accessibility to the public domain which can lead to the creation of new ideas. The exclusivity only restricts the profitability or the right to make profits over the particular idea. Thus, to state that by following the Lockeanà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s approach to give exclusive proprietary rights over an idea restricts the creation of new ideas would be far-reaching and untrue. The criticism cited by the author, quoting Palmer that Lockean theory on Intellectual Property rights restrain liberty is baseless; as every other proprietary right, the right to exclude others from à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"any profitabilityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ of the said product/idea will not amount to restriction of oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s personal liberty. The author bases her argument against the relationship between Lockean theory of Property and Intellectual Property by basing its non-applicability solely on the grounds of its contravention to the provisos laid down by Locke. To quote Wendy Gordon, in support of the Lockean approach, one can arrive to the conclusion that creators can have all rights in their original work as long as it does not harm to other personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s ability to create or draw such inference in their work. CONCLUSION Copyright, shown normally as a rights-based individualistic phenomenon focused on protection of the creatorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s work against the general public at large, must at the end operate in furtherance of the public interest in maximizing production and communication of intellectual works. The Lockean theory, as asserted by the author throughout the article, does not uphold the stated principle but steers us away from its general direction. The purpose of the paper had been to draw out the weaknesses of the Lockean Property Theory in connection with the Copyright domain. The concept of incentives based argument à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" that is in order to increase the creation of new ideas, substantial incentive, in this case, monetary compensation to the creator of such à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"ideaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ is necessary. This forms the basis of the Lockean theory of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“enjoying the fruits of oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s own labourà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . The theory is not applicable on its own but is subject to two provisos à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" Namely the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Enough good must be left for others in the commonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“No wastageà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  proviso. The above argument, which works amicably for the land acquisition or physical object ownership, fails to help in the realm of Intellectual Property. The Lockean Copyright Theory as criticized by the author focuses mostly on Copyright as a property based concept which deals with benefits to the author to his/her work in terms of labour applied by them which creates a problem to the public-author-work relationship under the Copyright Law. The author tries to prove of such danger in the article by drawing attention to the prevalence and repercussions of the Lockean rights based theory in context with Copyright law and thereby the necessitating the argument of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Warningà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ against the said theory. It is clear from the present article that, through the positives and various criticisms, Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s theory has been misunderstood and misapplied. The ardent supporters of Private Property should note that Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s theory of Property is not the only theory applicable to Intellectual Property. Various other versions of Lockean theory view the ownership of property in terms of Utilitarian concepts that state the maximization of the welfare of the community Thus, the article concludes with the notion that the Lockean vision of property entitlement gives a problematic understanding of Copyright Law and there is a need to shift our focus back to relationship between the public and intellectual work that copyright is intended to promote. And while it has its basic criticisms, the author convinces that repercussions of the Lockean rights based theory are far reaching and points the need of the hour, in shifting away from the Lockean Approach. 1 | Page