T20 World Cup: How Team India can counter the dew

via Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Live Match Scores & Sports News Headlines, Results & more https://ift.tt/2XROVcp

Australia's batters face wily Sri Lanka spinners in tricky clash

via Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Live Match Scores & Sports News Headlines, Results & more https://ift.tt/3vRNzuy

From here on we have to lift our level: Namibia skipper

via Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Live Match Scores & Sports News Headlines, Results & more https://ift.tt/2XQni3i

India rejects net zero carbon emissions target

India on Wednesday rejected calls to announce a net zero carbon emissions target and said it was more important for the world to lay out a pathway to reduce such emissions and avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures. India is under pressure to announce plans to become carbon neutral by mid-century or thereabouts at next week's climate conference in Glasgow. But environment secretary R.P.Gupta told reporters that announcing net zero was not the solution to the climate crisis. "It is how much carbon you are going to put in the atmosphere before reaching net zero that is more important." The United States, Britain and the European Union have set a target date of 2050 to reach net zero, by which point they will only emit an amount of greenhouse gases that can be absorbed by forests, crops, soils and still-embryonic "carbon capture technology. China and Saudi Arabia have both set targets of 2060, but these are largely meaningless without tangible action now, critics say. Between now and the middle of the century the United States will release 92 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere and the EU 62 gigatons, Gupta said, citing Indian government calculations. China would have added a staggering 450 gigatons by its net zero target date, he added. Representatives of nearly 200 countries will meet in Glasgow, Scotland, from Oct. 31-Nov. 12 for climate talks to strengthen action to tackle global warming under the 2015 Paris Agreement. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will attend the conference in a sign of how the country is taking climate change seriously, officials say. Chinese President Xi Jinping is not expected. While working towards net zero, countries are expected to announce new and strengthened intermediate targets for cutting emissions. Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav said India was on track to achieve targets set at the 2015 Paris conference and left the door open to revising them. "All options are on the table," he said. India has committed to cutting the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33%-35% by 2030 from 2005 levels, achieving a 24% reduction by 2016. Some environment experts say India could consider lowering its emissions intensity by as much as 40 percent dependent on finance and whether it has access to newer technologies. Yadav said he would measure the success of the Glasgow conference by how much it delivered on climate finance to help the developing world cut their emissions while ensuring economic growth.

from Economic Times https://ift.tt/3jIKvMq

T20 WC: Debutants Namibia extend impressive run with win over Scotland

via Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Live Match Scores & Sports News Headlines, Results & more https://ift.tt/3bwobl3

Sourav Ganguly to relinquish ATKMB role to avoid conflict of interest

via Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Live Match Scores & Sports News Headlines, Results & more https://ift.tt/2Zvs8mU

View: India must not mimic West's 'War on Drugs'

One of the world's most overly punitive, confusing and ineffective drug laws seems to be readying for change. In a paradigm-shifting move, India's ministry of social justice and empowerment recently sent a proposal to the department of revenue to decriminalise possession of small quantities of all 'hard drugs' as defined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The suggestions purportedly step away from subjecting drug users to irrational aspects of the criminal justice system, and puts science and public health before punishment and incarceration.Possession of drugs is as much an offence under the NDPS Act as their sale, purchase and production. The punishment does not depend on whether the possession or purchase is for personal use or for resale, but depends on the quantity of the drug. While 'decriminalisation' sounds like music to the ears, court-mandated substance abuse treatment actually maintains status quo.In the existing NDPS Act, Section 64A, which was added in 1989, already provides full immunity from prosecution to addicts volunteering for treatment. It provides immunity to the addict not only for consumption (Section 27) but also for offences involving small quantities of drugs. So, it's unclear what is new in this latest proposal. One hopes this doesn't amount to addicts getting immunity only for consumption while revoking it quietly for all 'offences' involving small quantity of drugs. This would make our drug laws even more regressive than they already are.In 2017, the Sikkim Anti-Drugs Act (SADA) was amended to recognise the difference between 'peddlers' and 'users'. This enabled Sikkim to channelise its healthcare services to the most vulnerable of drug users. However, anybody caught with small quantities of drugs were now categorised as a consumer, while those caught with larger quantities were categorised as peddlers. But differentiating between consumers and peddlers merely on the basis of the quantity of substance often led to users being arrested as peddlers.Such a quantity-based distinction fails to recognise that a large group of people turn to peddling to support their addiction, and harsher punishment becomes a big hindrance in their chances of recovery.Then there is the matter of court-mandated substance abuse treatment in the proposal. In the 2012 'Gurjit Singh vs State of Punjab' judgment, the Punjab-Haryana High Court encouraged that the petitioner be sent to a state-run rehabilitation centre for treatment on an 'experimental basis'. The court further directed the Punjab government to identify addicts involved in NDPS cases and make arrangements for their treatment and consequential rehabilitation. Referring to the rise of a therapeutic culture in the US where drug offenders are treated as victims of a biopsychosocial disease, the court suggested that state(s) be directed to provide treatment as alternative to prisons, separate youth detention facilities in jails and probation homes.This is all very well. But where is the infrastructure today to support such a rehabilitative approach? Also, addiction treatment in India remains overwhelmingly medieval, to put it lightly. There is a huge difference between a recreational user and an addict, the same way a social drinker is not an alcoholic. The new laws will give immunity to an addict, but will it provide immunity to a user? In a court, will a recreational user who is not an addict then claim to be one to avoid incarceration?The Indian State and society are still unsure whether a drug addict is a criminal or a diseased person. The NDPS Act throws a drug user behind bars, while the social justice ministry on its website says it 'recognises' drug abuse as a 'psycho-socio-medical problem', 'use' and 'abuse' being interchanged freely.We need to define addiction as an illness in the Indian legislature. The government, on its part, should launch an insurance scheme to cover the cost of treatment, de-addiction and rehabilitation for drug addicts. This will also encourage private insurance companies to include it in their health insurance policies. After decriminalising all drug use, defining addiction as an illness, and including it in the NDPS Act and the Mental Healthcare Act, GoI must ensure that all drug addicts are treated equally before the law as any other physically or mentally ill patient.India's drug policy was copy-pasted from the US via Richard Nixon's declaration of 'war on drugs' in 1971. Let's not repeat the same mistakes again of blindly copying the west if we don't make policies that are truly based on science, compassion, health and human rights. Instead, India should recognise, as WHO and the International Narcotic Control Board do, that there is no evidence that compulsory drug detention or mandatory drug treatment is beneficial for an effective environment for treatment of drug dependence.The writer is a photographer and filmmaker, and co-founder, Alliance to Protect Drug Users (APDU)

from Economic Times https://ift.tt/2ZuR6CX