Indonesia And Burma Possess Similar Political Systems History Essay

Indonesia And Burma Possess Similar Political Systems History Essay Both Burma and Indonesias political landscapes are shaded with military domination since their independence. However, Indonesia has experienced democratization after the fall of Suharto and Burma remains aloof. We need to have a look at why Burma did not experience the political transformation and why Indonesia did. While we consider this, we also have to examine the political history and the elements that shape the systems. Geographical landscape Indonesia is geographically the biggest country in Southeast Asia and Myanmar is the second biggest. Indonesia also enjoys (rather suffers from) the biggest population size in the region. Scholars have noted that Indonesia has a potential to become a regional powerhouse given its geographic and demographic size but has not asserted to be so, mainly because of its failure for economic transformation which is also deterred by political instability. On the other hand, scholars have also mentioned that Burma could be an important country in the region if its doors were open and its political and economic reforms were introduced. Speculation are good to be made, however, in contrast, the practical situations are different. There are several elements that hinder both countries successes. Colonial periods The countries that became independent after the Second World War usually point their fingers to the western colonialists to justify their failure to implement modern state-building. The case is quite true with Both Indonesia and Burma. Both countries were colonialised by the western powers Burma by the British and Indonesia by the Dutch. The creation of Modern Burma was essentially the British creation and the Indonesia unavoidably by the Dutch. Both countries, as noted above, have failed to become successful both politically and economically after independence. I would like to assert here that it is true that the British and the Dutch made the geographical demarcations on the basis of their economic interests neglecting the composition of the diverse ethnic groups within the created regions. However, it is the fundamental fault of the domestic rule to accommodate the diverse ethnicities and to bring about a workable and economic-oriented political attitude. I would like to focus mo re about this later on when I further talk about Burma and Indonesia. Struggle for Independence and the rise of nationalism A similarity exists in the struggle for Independence in both countries. They experienced the surge of nationalism in the immediate pre-war period. Burma oversaw a peasant uprising in 1930. The event made an epoch in the struggle for social liberation leading up to nationalism. The leader of the rebellion, Hsaya San, was a member of a social group called YMBA (Young Man Buddhist Association). (Gravers 2005, p36) Even though there were some small scale outbreaks of the revival of nationalism previously in Burma, I totally agree that Hsaya San was a major inspiring figure in the struggle for liberation and the establishment of nationalism. Thus, we know that the rise of nationalism is comparably quite late in Burma. We can look at the Philippines and India to compare this trend. The same is true with Indonesia. The landmark in the nationalist movement in Indonesia happened in the immediate pre-war period. Brown noted as below: The Indonesia nationalist movement, emerging in the first decade of the century and a prominent part of the political and social landscape by the 1920s, had been remarkably successful. In the space of less than half a century, it had apparently not only defeated Dutch colonialism, but also succeeded in overcoming historical ethnic and religious differences between Indonesians. And these are the terms in which many Indonesians today view that movement. (Brown 2003, p105) Brown went on to say that the nationalist movement accomplished much in Indonesia. However, in the case of Burma, I just would like to say that the Burmese gained the independence from the British not with the assistance of firepower but with the situational timing and diplomatic negotiation. The evidence is the sheer lack of serious bloodshed with the British forces and the agreement of AungSan-Attlee. Political structures after Independence Burma gained independence from the British on the 4th of January, 1948. The first Burmese leader, General Aung San, visualized Burma as a plural society in which diverse political structures coexisted within a framework of overarching consensus. (Tarling 1999, p80) That was the reason why he promised the Shan and the Karenni the right to secede from the Union after ten years of independence unless they were satisfied with the Union. But after Aung San was assassinated, the structure was changed. Burma developed a Westminster style parliamentary system with the lower house possessing large amount of legislative power and accordingly the Prime Minister became exceedingly powerful. The upper house, containing the equal proportions of the different ethnic nationalities, was not granted overriding power of the lower house. Thus, the establishment of a federation failed. The powerful Prime Minister U Nu (also the first PM of Burma) tried to develop a political structure based on a synthesis of Buddhism and Socialism, with an especially heavy dose of the former. (Tarling 1999, p87) This structure was opposed by the ethnic minorities who are Christians. Socialists did not support this program as well. Along with this structure appeared several different kinds of revolts, particularly the communists and the Karen National Union. The rebels controlled large area in the countryside and the central government was confined within the Rangoon city limit. The deteriorating political situations paved the way to the military takeover of the country. Indonesia proclaimed independence on 17th August, 1945. However, proclamation of the independence does not mean a real freedom. The Dutch were eager to come to their former colony, so the Indonesians had to fight for their liberation. Sukarno and Hatta were appointed President and Vice-President respectively, and a system of regional based on a division of the Republic into seven provinces each headed by a nominated governor, was established. (Brown 2003, p159) The formal Dutch recognition of Indonesian independence came only in December 1949. The recognition established in the light of American pressure on the Dutch government and Indonesian Armys determined resistance. The seed of military domination in the politics of both countries thus was planted during the revolution periods. In Burma, the Army was formed in ally with the Japanese to fight off the British and the important role of the military was sustained in the continuous fighting in the internal revolts-the communists and the ethnic resurgence. Also in Indonesia, the Army played a big role in fencing off the Dutch during the Dutchs military launch and in addition to that, it pinpointed the two enemies within the state-the rise of communism and the formation of Darul Islam. It did not fail to struggle with them until they are toppled. Military takeover of the power Burma enjoyed a democratic state between 1948 and 1962. However, the time had come for a change. In March 1962, a military coup led by General Ne Win overthrew the elected government of U Nu, ushering in a period of military rule that has lasted more than 40 years. (Church 2006, p117) The main justification for the military coup given by General Ne Win was that the country was in tatters because of the selfish activities of the politicians, as a result of which, the Shan and other ethnic minorities were preparing to secede from Burma. One cannot imagine how many times the military leaders have repeated this same reason over the several decades since their takeover, in the newspaper, magazines and state-run TVs and radios. As a man who grew up in 1990s, I personally have heard of these kinds of statements over and over again and am just fed up with it. However, if one was a normal person who was not actually interested in politics and had no access to foreign media, he or she would pr obably just take it as true and real. Therefore this just serves as the militarys psychological warfare. Now there may arise some questions why one has to put so much blame on the Burmese military as long as it is doing good for the country. In fact, the Burmese military headed by General Ne Win at that time was not doing any good to the country. Let us first look at the economy. The military government fundamentally transformed the state economy from capitalist market to the socialist collectivism. The business enterprises were nationalized forcefully. No compensation was offered. The economy worsened acutely under military rule, with the expulsion of Indians and Pakistanis, the prohibition on foreign investment and the efforts of the one-party State to impose a command economy. In 1987, the United Nations gave Burma Least Developed Nation status, recognizing it as one of the worlds 10 poorest countries. (Church 2006, p117) There has been widespread analysis of Burmese economic development index despite the difficulties in terms of data collection and information retrieval. Scholars have pointed out that militarys mismanagement of the economy inexorably led to the demise of the economic structure. The state wanted to build an industrial proletariat while Burma is a state of little industry and to control all economic activities. At the same time it purged the administration of the civilian meritocratic bureaucratic elite who were the only civil servants capable of attempting to run a centrally planned economy. (Steinberg 2005, p 57) What the government did was, as Steinberg continued; replace the elites with military brass who did not have any economic competence. This kind of management ultimately led to the economic disaster. Now that we have seen how Burmas military economic mismanagement brought about the economic demise of the country, we turn to look at Indonesia and its militarys management of the economy. Here when we talk about the economic handling of the state, we look at the shift of political power from Sukarno to Suharto and his ambition to bring the country to the existing economic world order. We can compare U Nu and General Ne Win to Sukarno and Suharto. Even though they represent stark differences in some respect, the pattern could be tentatively drawn to the same phenomenon. However, the power change from U Nu to General Ne Win was witnessed as the move from economic development to all-round ruins. On the other hand, Suharto inherited a bleak future in the countrys economy from Sukarno. Despite of it, he initiated economic transformation and subsequently the development. There are so many things Suharto did to promote the economic development. First, he tried to make sure the foreign investment come to the country. Tax collection was properly made. In 1967 a group of Indonesias major western creditors, including Japan, the United States and Australia, formed the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia (IGGI), an organization aimed at coordinating the flow of aid to Indonesia. (Brown 2003, p 219) Thus, Suharto transformed the economy successfully. He also tried to legitimize his military takeover of the country by showing economic growth. He brought about dramatic improvements in the living standards of most Indonesians. (Fuston 2001, p77) In Asia, Indonesia became an economic tiger along with Thailand and Malaysia. However, the economy contracted again after the fall of Suharto in 1997, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis. So, comparing the two dictators seems quite different in this economic sector. General Ne Win who was extremely corrupt and was intent on centralizing the power on his own hand, pushed the country into the bottom of the ground, whereas, General Suharto, despite his authoritative manner, lifted his country up to the desirable economic standard. People usually argue that economic development comes only in the light of political stability. This statement has credible source. In the case of Indonesia, the 1997 financial crisis and political instability brought down the Suharto regime and since then, the economy did not recover to the fullest extent. In Burma, political instability is usually interpreted as the ethnic tensions and armed resurrections. Ethnic Conflicts Burma is a country infested with ethnic conflicts. All the ethnic-controlled areas of the country are situated on the periphery of the state and they want to break away from the Union of Burma. Tin Maung Maung Than (2005, p 65) rightly points out that the nation-state in Myanmar is a post-colonial construction and the issue of national identity in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious setting has played a significant role in state building since independence. He also revealed the fact that ethnic conflicts take a shape of central political stage in Burmas political background. All major ethnicities in the country want to secede from the post-colonial formation of the state. This constitutes a huge problem in nation building. Like in Burma, there are ethnic conflicts in Indonesia. Academics put those conflicts in two types; vertical conflicts and horizontal conflicts. Vertical conflicts are those happened between the state and a particular group (ethnically, religiously or ideologically-motivated) within the nation-state. On the other hand horizontal conflicts are those happened within the society itself or intra-society. It occurs between at least two culturally or religiously differentiated communities under a single political authority. (Sukma, 2005, p3) According to this definition, both types of conflicts can be seen in Indonesia. However, more dangerous conflicts that are similar to Burmas case are vertical conflicts such as Aceh and Papuas struggle for secession. These two states exist in the extreme far ends of the archipelago; Aceh being in the west end and Papua in the east. This unique geographical location of the peripheral states resembles those states in Burma, which are trying to break away from the Union of Burma. Sukma asserts that the Aceh conflict began to take form as a secessionist conflict only in mid-1970s with the establishment of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). If this is the case, their cause was much later than the ethnic conflicts in Burma; Karen National Union, for example, took up arms in 1949 to secede from the state. Although ethnic tensions played a pivotal role in Burmas political arena, most so-called pro-democracy opposition groups of the country tend to forget its role. Their main concern has always been the military domination and their chief aim is to push the soldiers into the barracks. The main justification of the military takeover of the politics, however, was and still is the disintegration of the so-called Union of Burma. The opposition groups, such as NLD (National League for Democracy) did not pay much heed into the above-mentioned cause of the military. Civilian democracy uprisings NLD was only formed after the 1988 democracy uprisings in Burma. Why did the uprisings happen? The reason was that people were most fed up with the arbitrary management of the economy by the army. I can still recall those days when suddenly we woke up in the morning and found that the money my parents have accumulated in life was declared useless by the military government. It must have been the most painful experience in life for my parents. They did not know how to go to the market and buy food and other necessary commodities. The government was, bluntly speaking, idiotic and brainless to declare the state currency worthless without any compensation. The worst is that it did it twice. Peoples anger poured out into the street. They were really fed up with the rationed food, commodities, closed economy, political suppression and so many other things. Once in a life time, people went into the street risking their lives under the shooting guns and shouted Democracy! Overnight, the whol e country was turned upside down. People from all walks of life joined the shouting. They walked hand-in-hand and demonstrated. That was a time when NLD was introduced with the head of Aung San Suu Kyi. People needed a leader to direct their cause. Students were at the forefront of the uprisings and they supported Aung San Suu Kyi. She and her party won the landslide victory in the 1990 election but she was not granted the power. Power was not a type to be granted in Burma. The power comes from the barrel of the gun for the soldiers. When the uprising was put down brutally, the students and the dissidents run into the ethnic controlled areas and made ally with them. Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest and the military went on ruling the country. Is it just impossible to bring down a military regime? Of course, yes. It is possible to kick a man out from the highest position. Indonesia is the case study. General Suharto was ousted at the wake of 1997 Asian financial crisis. General Suharto granted economic prosperity to the country but his era was marked with authoritarianism, corruption and nepotism. (Church 2006, p56) In 1997, because of the Asian financial crisis, there was a speculative bubble, and capital flight. The currency quickly crashed from around 4,000 rupiah to more than 12,000 rupiah to the US dollar. (ibid) There were massive public demonstrations. Some elements of the military organized chaos and violence against the Chinese community. The Jakarta elite turned against Suharto. The vice-president, Habibie, helped convince Suharto to step down. Military head, General Wiranto, reportedly refused to act against demonstrations. Suhartos hope of remaining in power was thwarted away. He was forced to resign. (Fuston 2 001, p79) Demonstrations in Burma also forced General Ne Win resign in 1988 while Suharto was also toppled in 1997. But in Burma, another military regime was introduced and it crashed down the demonstrations brutally, followed by the promise of elections and civilian rule. The second promise was not kept. On the while, in Indonesia, Suhartos fall and Habibies succession was seen as a transition to Democracy. Present days There is a real mess still going on in the present day of Indonesias politics as the case was in Burma. For Habibie, there was a force for him to make a change in the country. First, greater freedom of speech and assembly was ensured. Along with it, creation of political parties was allowed. An election was held in 1999. However, Habibie was not absolutely free from the shadow of Suharto and his followers. There came meetings and discussions among leading figures such as Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Sukarnoputri and Amien Rais, etc. In the elections, Megawatis party won and after series of negotiations, promises and double crosses, Wahid came to power. (Fuston 2001, p80) However political turmoil continued. Finally, in 2001, Wahid was removed by parliament and replaced by his vice president, Megawati. The summary of this chaotic period is that the political situation was not stable. So many things changed in a short period of time. Also in Burma, the military continued to rule the country with an iron fist. Since the victory of NLD in the 1990 election, little political and economic changed. There was a time the head of the Junta was replaced. General Saw Maung, the head of SLORC was ousted and took over by General Than Shwe. Still one man change did not mean a thing for the country. However, there was a short period of economic growth in 1995 and 1996 due to the open door policy. But as Tin Maung Maung Than noted in a seminar, the door was the spring door for Burma. It opened briefly but closed later on. Conclusion When we look at Indonesia and Burma, we have in fact to look at the whole Southeast Asia region. The political systems of the whole region are really messed up. We cannot actually say that they have functional intuitions. In Indonesia, the bureaucracy is extremely corrupt. Not less in Burma. Not less in Thailand. However, the governments want to claim that they are truly democratic countries. Of course, nobody wants to say that they are autocratic and authoritarian. However, in comparison, some countries are much better off than others in the region. Indonesia has better potentials than Burma in terms of economic and political development. They have experienced political transformation and long before that, the economic transformation. Even though they are fragile and volatile, they are still going on. Not in Burma. When we talk about Burma, we end up scolding the government because we cannot see a method to change the country. In fact, there is a way. That way can only come from the opposition groups stationed on the borders of Thailand and Burma. The opposition groups aggressively tightened up the rope of sanctions on the neck of the government hoping that it will kill the dictatorship once and for all. No way, the Chinese and the regional allies helped the dictators out of the loop of the deadly sanctions, leaving the country people with the effects of them. So there is no way out. Will dialogue be successful? It would have been successful if it had been the way.

Theorectical Bases For Counseling :: essays research papers

Five major theoretical bases for counseling in psychology are biological, learning, cognitive, psychodynamic, and sociocultural. Each one of these perspectives searches for answers about behavior through different techniques and researching a clients childhood or adult life experiences looking for answers to different kinds of questions. Due to the different types and styles of counseling approaches, each counselor forms their own thoughts and explanations. The premise behind the biological perspective in psychology is that all actions, feelings, and thoughts are associated with different events in a person’s life. Biological psychologists examine how the electrical impulses, hormones, and chemicals flowing through the body can affect behavior. Physocologists are concerned with how the aspects of biology effect people’s emotions and their perception of events. Many of the important findings in psychology from the behavioral theory later evolving into the social learning theory or cognitive social learning theory. Behavior therapists used to believe that actions were responses to stimuli that were learned. This concept led to a broadening of psychology. Many groups that were often overlooked by psychologists until behavior therapy became the dominant school of psychology in the U.S. after the 1960's. The cognitive perspective of psychology focuses on the thought process. Psychologists from this school argue that it is necessary to know what is going on in the mind to fully understand why a person will do the things that they do. The reason for cognitive psychology is to understand how perceptions and interpretations relate to behavior. Why some people turn to violence when insulted while another person will not. Many critics of the psychodynamic therapy do not believe psychodynamic theories have any bearing on psychology. Based upon the fact that many of the psychoanalysis assumptions could not be verified. Research psychologists were more related to philosophy rather than clinical science. Though not as scientific as the other theories the psychodynamic theory is still associated with psychology. The sociocultural perspective concentrates on an individual’s culture or society rather than the individual. To understand why people show certain behavior traits. Psychologists look at what effects the person's community and how other people affect a person. These five theoretical bases are similar because they all try to determine what causes a person to be how they are. If I were to do counseling, I think I would like to become a behavior therapist. I am fascinated by what makes a person what they are, and why does a person do what they do?

Alcohol Vignette

Tom has been arrested twice for Driving Under the Influence or DUI of alcohol, and in his most recent arrest, he has also been charged with assault of a law enforcement officer which is specifically a display of seemingly violent behavior since assault involves physical attack or onslaught.Tom’s blood alcohol level or BAL taken when he was arrested was 0.18 which was identified as the blood level for illegal intoxication (Hamilton, 2007). Aside from Tom’s BAL as indicator of his intoxication, he also admitted to forgetting what had transpired, his pupils were dilated, his speech was mildly impaired, and he displayed lethargic behavior. Assessing Tom’s situation was taken under the context of his claim that the case only happens during social gatherings with family and friends, not motivated by problems and such.Considering the circumstances presented, I would have to say that Tom is an alcohol abuser based on the guidelines set by The Diagnostic and Statistical M anual of Mental Disorders IV. An alcohol abuser is described as an individual who drinks alcohol in a manner that is harmful or hazardous to one’s health. (Buddy, 2008)Since Tom’s memory, speech, and physical functioning was affected by his high levels of alcohol intake, he fits into the category of an alcohol abuser. Another characteristic established and attributed to alcohol abusers include the non-dependence on alcohol.Alcohol abusers do not show strong cravings or dependence toward drinking. (â€Å"What is Alcohol Abuse?,† 2003) Basing it on Tom’s claim of having been drinking only after the holidays and during social gatherings, it clearly reveals that he does not exhibit strong cravings and dependence toward alcohol intoxication.Other characteristics of alcohol abusers that might be exhibited during a year-round observation includes recurrent apprehension for being caught due to reasons pertaining to alcohol, and other offenses that are fueled by a lcohol intoxication (ex. assault, etc.), and drinking without control or setting limitations despite having legal problems (ex. DUI arrests, etc.) in the past that were related to alcohol intoxication. (â€Å"What is Alcohol Abuse?,† 2003)Aside from the standards or guidelines that determines between alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, there are other standards established over the years that are used to categorize drinking patterns or problems – specifically, Type I and Type II alcoholism, and Type A and B alcoholism.Type I alcoholism is attributed to alcoholism for both the male and female populations that occurs in the latter ages of life with noticeably less serious effects or implications, specifically with actions or behaviors that are related to anti-social behavior or misdemeanor. Type II alcoholism on the other hand, is isolated to the male population that starts at an early age with serious effects and implications, particularly when it comes to the display of anti-social behavior or misdemeanor. (Johnson, 1996)Type A and Type B alcoholism are based on standards or guidelines that relate the magnitude or gravity of alcoholism to an individuals childhood background, time of use, dependence on alcohol, use of illegal drugs, and the efficiency of treatment.Alcoholics under Type A are those who started drinking in the latter part of their lives, with no known or minor emotional or psychological problems in their childhood, lesser dependence on alcohol and problems or issues that are related to intoxication. On the other hand, alcoholics under Type B are those who have experienced emotional or psychological problems in their younger years, have family members who are also alcoholic, greatly dependent on alcohol, and more alcohol-related problems. (Babor, et. al., 1992)Based on the above descriptions of Type I and Type II, and Type A and Type B alcoholism, Tom is more likely to be categorized as an alcohol abuser under Type II and Type B in progress.This is supported by the fact that Tom is starting to follow a pattern of alcoholism that leads him to become publicly arrested for being illegally intoxicated. Moreover, Tom has already displayed violent behavior towards a law enforcement officer, which he claims he does not recall. Since he was already arrested in the past for a DUI, and he was arrested again for the same offense, he refuses to acknowledge his drinking problem and the harmful effects that it poses to his health and safety as well as the safety of other people.2. Tom mentioned that he does not remember anything that happened while he was intoxicated, which obviously means that his being drunk is affecting his memory. Moreover, he displays mild speech impairment as well as lethargic behavior or demeanor.The implications of such admissions and overt behavior lead to the conjecture that there is something wrong with Tom, particularly the functioning of his Central Nervous System or CNS. The CNS is composed o f an individual’s brain, spinal column, and nerves or neurons. In general, drinking alcohol of any amount affects the CNS. However, it is the amount of alcohol which determines how strong or overpowering its effect would be to the physical and cognitive functioning of a human being.   (Dunlap, N.D.)Naturally, when an individual drinks too much alcohol, its effects would also be greater on the functioning of his CNS. Since the CNS is capable of handling the senses and the impulses which governs an individual’s thoughts and actions. As an individual continues to drink alcohol, the CNS also continues to depreciate causing irreversible or irreparable damage to an individual’s CNS functioning.Apparently, the content of alcohol which goes directly to an individual’s CNS, blocks out the circulation of oxygen to and from the brain which causes a temporary blackout blurring or blocking one’s memory. Once the alcohol dissipates from the body, the circulati on of oxygen in the brain normalizes, as well as an individual’s memory. This means that once an individual becomes a habitual drinker, his memory as governed by the functioning of his brain, and his impulses or senses as managed by his nerves and neurons, become permanently damaged by alcohol. (Dunlap, N.D.)The kind of behavior displayed by Tom is clear signs of CNS impairments or disabilities caused by his intake of alcohol. For instance, Cerebellar Atrophy is a condition associated to a part of the brain called the cerebellum, wherein an individual’s intake of alcohol causes an imbalance or disturbance in one’s muscle coordination. Cerebellar Atrophy will affect an individual’s balance as well as walking movements.This particular CNS condition explains why Tom’s actions or movements are lethargic or sluggish since he had trouble balancing, walking, or moving at a normal pace. Another condition related to alcohol and the CNS is the Korsakoff†™s Amnesic Syndrome. This particular syndrome has something to do with an individual’s memory. If an individual develops high dependency on alcohol and takes in alcohol that is more than the amount of normal intake, contracting Korsakoff’s Amnesic Syndrome will lead to losses in short-term memory. (â€Å"Alcohol Related Brain Impairment,† 2008)One factor which affects the length of time by which alcohol lingers inside the body, therefore, shortening or prolonging the harmful and incapacitating effects of alcohol to an individuals CNS is his metabolism. Metabolism is a process that occurs within the body which converts substances and other chemical compounds that are readily excreted from the human body.The process constitutes the contribution of the liver in the oxidization process which normalizes the amount of oxygen in the blood stream, including the brain. If the oxidization process is normal, then the rate of an individual’s return to consciousness is normal.However, the rate of the oxidization process as well as the metabolizing enzymes found in the liver is greatly affected by alcohol. Large amounts of alcohol intake will lead to the damage of an individual’s liver which will consequently influence metabolism rate, making it difficult for the liver to dissipate alcohol from the human body prolonging the effects of alcohol to an individual’s brain functioning. (â€Å"Alcohol and The Human Body,† N.D.)Since the effect of Tom’s alcohol intake was observable prior to his arrest which motivated a DUI charge until the time that he was apprehended, displaying bouts of memory loss, speech impairment, and lethargy, this means that the rate of his metabolism is not capable of flushing out alcohol from his system and normalizing his bodily functions through immediate oxidization.From this, we learn that Tom is an alcoholic who have been drinking alcohol either for a long time or in large amounts which is en ough to interfere with his metabolism.Tom’s stated case or situation and gathered information pertaining to the simultaneous intake of certain drugs such as Marijuana, Valium and other types of downers, and alcohol will be used to identify whether he used downers along with alcohol or not. Again, observable behaviors that may be utilized to answer such inquiry include his sudden loss of short-term memory, the dilation of his pupils, mild speech impairment, and lethargic behavior or demeanor.First, we need to understand the results or effects of drinking downers along with alcohol, differentiating it from the symptoms of alcoholism alone. Downers or depressants are intended for decreasing brain functioning or activity within the individual’s CNS in order to ease anxieties, worries, tensions, stresses, and such.Downers or depressants are appropriately prescribed for individuals who need to calm down as a means of moderating psychological tension. Since the intake of alco hol seems to display similarities to the effects of downers, the intake of alcohol and downers or depressants at the same time magnifies the effects or results of each when taken separately.

Habitat Profiles