1. I am studying/trying to learn about ____the benefits of cigarettes being made illegal__.
2. I am studying/trying to learn about __cigarettes___, because I want to find out who/what/why/when/where/whether or not __it has a direct effect on there being less illnesses, people checked into hospitals, deaths, etc___.
3. I am doing this in order to ___see if the world would be a better place as a result__.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Revision
If the supreme court were to order a ban on cigarettes, it would probably pass in the court of law. To say the government has power to ban marijuana, but not cigarettes is inconsistent; if they have enough control to ban one, they can ban both. Cigarettes pose a grave public health hazard. If the government cannot restrict or ban dangerous and addictive substances that pose a personal and public health risk, then how can the enforcement of anti-drug laws be justified? It can be argued that although the government can ban public smoking, there is no legitimate basis for laws restricting private smoking; the individual right to privacy should allow people to harm their own bodies with dangerous drugs, should they chose to do so.
There is little dispute that if the Supreme Court were to order a ban on cigarettes, the law would probably pass. It would be inconsistent to say the government has power to ban marijuana and not cigarettes; with control to ban one, they have control to ban both. Cigarettes pose a great hazard to the health of the public. If the government cannot restrict or ban dangerous addictive substances that pose both personal and public health risks, then how can the enforcement of anti-drug laws be justified? A common opposing argument for the illegality of cigarettes is that there is no legitimate basis for laws restricting private smoking; the individual right to privacy should allow people to harm their own bodies with dangerous substances if they chose to.
There is little dispute that if the Supreme Court were to order a ban on cigarettes, the law would probably pass. It would be inconsistent to say the government has power to ban marijuana and not cigarettes; with control to ban one, they have control to ban both. Cigarettes pose a great hazard to the health of the public. If the government cannot restrict or ban dangerous addictive substances that pose both personal and public health risks, then how can the enforcement of anti-drug laws be justified? A common opposing argument for the illegality of cigarettes is that there is no legitimate basis for laws restricting private smoking; the individual right to privacy should allow people to harm their own bodies with dangerous substances if they chose to.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Blog Eleven
As i am writing on the issue of whether cigarettes should be made illegal, i feel the best place for my essay would be in an anti-smoking campaign or a political issues magazine such as The American Spectator.
Although there is not a article directly linked to the topic i am covering in The American Spectator, there are many issues which take a stance towards one opinion and form a rebuttal. For example, there is an article in The American Spectator stating that cell phone use in cars should be banned. The writer has a strong conviction that we should not be able to drive and use a cell phone at the same time. He first relates it to being like gun control- as a cell phone, like a gun, is a tool people do not know how to use properly. He then talks about the facts saying that talking and driving is akin to drinking and driving, which is illegal. He then talks about Mothers Against Drunk Driving which is a campaign. From this, he talks about how a drink over dinner plus an inadequate driver and a cell phone is an accident waiting to happen. I agree with the writer, i know that a lot of accidents are due to drivers being on cell phones and he made many valid points. I liked the examples the writer used to convey the negative message of driving recklessly.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/14/sail-fawns-and-one-for-the-roa/1
Another example from The American Spectator, is an article on antisemitism. This article is about the extremity of antisemitism. He believes that the scale and extremism of the anti-Semitic literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, magazines and TV shows, etc is "comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst."He organizes this by first explaining to the reader that its a huge issue. He then goes on to give the reader some background information on antisemitism in the middle east. After that, he mentions how it has been attempted to make peace within these middle eastern countries however, antisemitism is basically fed to them so it is difficult. He talks about how Obama, the president of America got involved and the results were still 'meager', although he mentions how we should not give up. I do agree with the writer, the wounds are not too deep to heal within these countries however, it is not up to us, it is up to them. One technique he used which i liked was bringing in both sides of the argument. Putting in other points of view made his opinion seem stronger.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/05/the-reality-of-middle-east-ant
Although there is not a article directly linked to the topic i am covering in The American Spectator, there are many issues which take a stance towards one opinion and form a rebuttal. For example, there is an article in The American Spectator stating that cell phone use in cars should be banned. The writer has a strong conviction that we should not be able to drive and use a cell phone at the same time. He first relates it to being like gun control- as a cell phone, like a gun, is a tool people do not know how to use properly. He then talks about the facts saying that talking and driving is akin to drinking and driving, which is illegal. He then talks about Mothers Against Drunk Driving which is a campaign. From this, he talks about how a drink over dinner plus an inadequate driver and a cell phone is an accident waiting to happen. I agree with the writer, i know that a lot of accidents are due to drivers being on cell phones and he made many valid points. I liked the examples the writer used to convey the negative message of driving recklessly.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/14/sail-fawns-and-one-for-the-roa/1
Another example from The American Spectator, is an article on antisemitism. This article is about the extremity of antisemitism. He believes that the scale and extremism of the anti-Semitic literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, magazines and TV shows, etc is "comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst."He organizes this by first explaining to the reader that its a huge issue. He then goes on to give the reader some background information on antisemitism in the middle east. After that, he mentions how it has been attempted to make peace within these middle eastern countries however, antisemitism is basically fed to them so it is difficult. He talks about how Obama, the president of America got involved and the results were still 'meager', although he mentions how we should not give up. I do agree with the writer, the wounds are not too deep to heal within these countries however, it is not up to us, it is up to them. One technique he used which i liked was bringing in both sides of the argument. Putting in other points of view made his opinion seem stronger.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/05/the-reality-of-middle-east-ant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)