Critically evaluate how psychological theories Essay Example

Critically evaluate how psychological theories Essay Example Critically evaluate how psychological theories Essay Critically evaluate how psychological theories Essay Psychology has been applied in many different areas of everyday life to try and explain why we behave in the ways that we do. However it is important to note that although psychology does give a broader insight into understanding most human behaviour, it is not possible to have one single conclusive theory. It is more often the case that many different theories can be combined in order to produce a more comprehensive explanation of behaviour. This is true when psychology is used to explain addictive behaviours; there is not one conclusive theory that explains substance addiction and dependence. An addiction is a syndrome involving behaviour and feelings of impaired control (West 2006). Addictive drugs are those whose reinforcing effects are so potent that some people who are exposed to the drugs are unable to go for very long without taking them, and whose lives become organised around taking the drug. Drug dependence is said to occur when the individual continues use of the substance despite significant substance related problems (Davies 1997). This essay will draw together and discuss the various psychological theories, concepts and explanations in order to evaluate how effective these have been in explaining drug addiction and dependence. As with many areas of psychology, problems arise when behaviour needs to be defined. This is particularly true with addiction. How do we know when someone is addicted? Where are the boundaries? Addiction is yet another socially constructed term that is difficult to define because what constitutes an addiction to one person is not addiction to another. In order to understand why it is that addictive behaviours occur, we must first acknowledge that there are two types of dependence. Eddy et al (1965) defined psychological dependence as A feeling of satisfaction and a psychic drive that requires periodic or continuous administration of the drug to produce pleasure or avoid discomfort (cited in Ghodse 1995). This kind of dependence demonstrates an overriding compulsion to take the drug, even when the individual is certain in the knowledge that it is harmful, or when aware of the consequences of possession of the substance (Ghodse 1995). The other type of dependence is physical dependence, also defined by Eddy et al as An adaptive state manifested by intense physical disturbances when the drug is withdrawn. The body becomes so accustomed to the drug and withdrawal symptoms are much more apparent. The unpleasant nature of the withdrawal syndrome can lead to an individual actually increasing the intensity of their drug taking, in order to avoid or relieve this withdrawal discomfort (Ghodse 1990). Psychoactive substances all have very different chemical properties. Not all drugs are obviously addictive. For example, long term, regular use of cannabis leads to tolerance and increasing difficulty stopping despite wishing or attempting to do so. Although the risk of dependence is substantially less than for nicotine or opiates, it is similar to that of alcohol (DiClemente 2003). Heroin addicts often take daily doses that would kill a normal person and experience very unpleasant symptoms if they go cold turkey and try to stop. In these terms, tobacco and cocaine were not obviously addictive, yet it was clear that these were extremely difficult habits to break. (Drugs: dilemmas and choices 2000). This is  where the distinction between physical and psychological dependence emerged. It is possible for a person to be psychologically dependent on a drug, without manifesting any physical dependence on it. However, it is generally accepted that although someone may be physically dependant on a drug, the state of dependence cannot be said to exist without some kind of psychological dependence present (Ghodse 1995). Under the Rational Informed Stable Choice (RISC) model, we do things because we expect them to produce benefits, and we know about and are willing to accept the adverse consequences, whether this is smoking, drinking, or drug taking. For example, a drug user continues to take drugs because it is preferable to the alternative to living without drugs, not necessarily because they cannot stop (West 2006). In other words, the pleasure or escape the addict obtains from a drug is worth whatever the consequences might be. This model is rather simplistic, as its main point is that each individual chooses to keep taking the drug, and does not take into account any biological factors that may or may not be relevant.

Extraterritoriality and Extraterritorial Rights

Extraterritoriality and Extraterritorial Rights Extraterritoriality, also known as extraterritorial rights, is an exemption from local laws. That means that an individual with extraterritoriality who commits a crime in a particular country cannot be tried by the authorities of that country, although often she or he will still be subject to trial in his or her own country. Historically, the imperial powers often forced weaker states to grant extraterritorial rights to their citizens who were not diplomats - including soldiers, traders, Christian missionaries, and the like. This was most famously the case in East Asia during the nineteenth century, where China and Japan were not formally colonized but were subjugated to an extent by the western powers. However, now these rights are most commonly granted to visiting foreign officials and even landmarks and plots of land dedicated to foreign agencies such as dual-nationality war cemeteries and memorials to famous foreign dignitaries. Who Had These Rights? In China, the citizens of Great Britain, the United States, France and later Japan had extraterritoriality under the unequal treaties. Great Britain was the first to impose such a treaty on China, in the 1842 Treaty of Nanking that ended the First Opium War. In 1858, after Commodore Matthew Perrys fleet forced Japan to open several ports to ships from  the United States, western powers rushed to established most favored nation status with Japan, which included extraterritoriality. In addition to Americans, citizens of Britain, France, Russia, and the Netherlands enjoyed extraterritorial rights in Japan after 1858. However, Japans government learned quickly how to wield power in this newly internationalized world. By 1899, after the Meiji Restoration, it had renegotiated its treaties with all of the western powers ​and ended extraterritoriality for foreigners on Japanese soil. In addition, Japan and China granted each others citizens extraterritorial rights, but when Japan defeated China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, Chinese citizens lost those rights while Japans extraterritoriality was expanded under the terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Extraterritoriality Today The Second World War effectively ended the unequal treaties. After 1945, the imperial world order crumbled and extraterritoriality fell into disuse outside of diplomatic circles. Today, ambassadors and their staffs, United Nations officials and offices, and ships that are sailing in international waters are among the people or spaces that may enjoy extraterritoriality. In modern times, contrary to the tradition, nations may extend these rights to allies who are visiting and often are employed during military troop ground movement through friendly territory. Interestingly, funeral services and memorials often are granted extraterritorial rights for the nation the monument, park or structure honors as is the case with the John F. Kennedy memorial in England and dual-nation cemeteries like the Normandy American Cemetary in France.