For example, cigarettes or smoking in general. It affects people who are not even committing the action, but people who are near it. The soda ban should not official because of those bigger problems. Stated in ¨Soda´s a Problem But…¨ on page 288, ¨There are times when the government has to step in on obviously dangerous situations- especially those, such as smoking, that affect the people other than the person whose behavior would be curbed-...¨ (Klein, 289) Furthermore, Cigarettes affect more than one person. The Soda Ban is something we shouldn't be worried about if we have another problem possibly killing someone faster and quickly.
Hold on a 2nd; Isn’t that an Amendment? Gun control laws have been a major debate over the last few years, especially in the last year because of all the mass shootings and acts of terror. Although it may seen like a helpful solution to ban certain guns or certain qualities of guns, it would not be the right thing to do. Gun control laws will not improve the safety of United States citizens and it is unconstitutional to revoke the second amendment. Most liberals say that more guns must mean more homicides (The Financial World).
It was bad because “taxes not only raise revenue but they can regulate too.” For instance, if a government raised taxes on tobacco products, it will show the governments distastes towards tobacco and make less people buy it. If the companies were to say anything and try to fight the tax the government could say it was to raise revenue because so many people use tobacco products. This shows how important it really is
Will banning of assault weapons reduce crime? The production, sale, and possession of assault weapons for private citizens should be banned in the U.S. According to “The Washington Post”, banning assault weapons will not reduce crime. It will only lead to banning of guns. In the post, they state, “It 's only real justification not to reduce crime, but to make the ownership of weapons to the public less.” By making the ownership of weapons less, the crime rate will most likely decrease, individuals will feel more comfortable walking out-side.
The prohibition of alcohol disrupted the way Americans were used to living. All of a sudden drinking was illegal. This was supported by some, and it irritated many. It opened up opportunities for organized crime to start manufacturing and distributing of liquor, while making millions of dollars along the way. This made police officers jobs more difficult because the people who wanted to drink had to do it illegally, and the cops were cracking down.
Although it is true that substances such as alcohol can be abused, the prohibition of alcohol prevented the advancement of our society due to the corruption in public officials, negative effects on the economy, and increased crime rates. Prohibition was a major event in American history. It showed the weaknesses of morale in the United States, and how much people loved alcohol.
This case proves that the beverage industry is trying to hide the connection between sugar-sweetened drinks and health issues. Although the warning label will hurt the beverage industry, it could save many lives and people should work to make the label widespread. Obesity, as well as other health issues, is a widespread problem throughout America. Beverage Industries are paying researchers to change scientific conclusions about any potential health problems that could occur from drinking beverages with sugar regularly. The majority of the population is aware that sweetened beverages have negative health effects.
Lowering the drinking age could also cause problems like violent behavior, and intoxication. Also drinking could cause more problems in schools and workplaces. The drinking age should not be lowered from 21, it would not solve the problems and with anything it would make it worse. A lower drinking age would increase deaths from drinking. Most drinkers die at a younger age due to alcohol poisoning and other issues which would increase with a lower age.