If the government made all illegal drugs legal for recreational use for adults all those criminal organizations wouldn’t exist because they wouldn’t be making any money. Some people may think legalizing drugs well increased the use among teenagers but that wouldn’t be the case. For example in Washington, where marijuana is legal, the number of teenagers smoking marijuana did not increase. The legalization and decriminalize of drugs will decrease the fear teenagers that do drugs have. Which is actually not that bad because the would feel safe.
This topic is very controversial because not everyone agrees but all those risks you take while driving can be avoided and not using your phone while driving can save lives. People should be safer while driving because it can have a good outcome and the roads can be easier and safer to drive
What’s more, most of the United States economy flows on entertainment, such as movies and sports. The con to be derived from this is that the United States economy will plummet into the gutters with the removal of luxuries. A large portion of the jobs that make significant amounts of money run through entertainment, meaning that this shunning of luxuries will lead to a lessening of money that could potentially be sent over to places of need. But these cons can be overcome, just with a different degree of luxury
Criminals will always find ways to get guns and banning handguns will certainly not stop them. John Stossel does make a good point when he states that having laws against guns is also restricting self defense on people. Taking away the ability to buy handguns leaves citizens with less self-defense options. This raises a much bigger and serious problem, leaving people vulnerable by taking away their right to self defense and Stossel (2008) is correct to say that gun bans preventing citizens from using guns in self-defense, and giving criminals a much bigger advantage. It is naive to think that banning handguns will keep a criminal from breaking the law.
Finally, the last advantage of drones is better aim and more control over what they do and how they do it. A counter argument that could be used to go against drones is we don’t really know what they’re going to do and the could malfunction at any minute. The main example for why drones should be used in war is less deaths or injuries. This is great because there are a lot less casualties through war and if a country is losing they don’t have to go through their population to protect themselves. A benefit of less human deaths and injuries is less money spent on health care for soldiers.
These issues support that the important of banned gun. Gun wasn’t useful as what we thought. In some case, the gun making our life more serious and bad situation. If we choose to without gun, the society will be becoming more peaceful, and more safety. If you have a choose, you would to buy a gun to fear when I will kill people by accident or thinking when people going to hurt me, or you would choose to trust people without hurting others.
That’s an average of 99 gun deaths a day” (Pratt). This explains how dangerous guns could be when it’s in the wrong person’s hands, and how it’s logical if less people have guns, then less gun violence will happen. In addition to gun violence, stricter gun laws are necessary because guns give people the ability to cause great destruction on others and cause a huge threat. In a Tylt article, it states that, “In most of these other countries, the worst thing that might happen is somebody gets hit with fists, or a glass bottle, or even stabbed, and in those cases there probably won’t be any deaths. But when there’s a gun, it really makes it so much more likely that something terrible will happen” (Hemenway).
Technology should not try to introduce a new solution to this issue, but rather simplify the issue. Issues such as hands-free in vehicles should be removed since it has been proven that there is little to no difference between hands-free and cell phones. The removal of hands-free will start the decline of distracted driving. Therefor with the reduction of distracted driving, fatalities will decrease and so will the vehicular
The first challenge faced was the design itself. The team realized there were basic features which could be removed to increase the cost reduction by a large margin. However, this also implied that the car would not be a desirable substitute two wheelers any way as it would not be changing their socio-economic status in any way. Nano would be perceived as a cheap car and would lose the target market. The year 2008 also saw massive increase in the price of all the metals.
Although implementing stricter driving laws may seem a better option, it doesn’t always have superior outcomes to its countering opinion. The driving age should stay the same because its preemptive strike to driver fatalities and its protection of basic individual driving experience. For starters, keeping the driver age the same takes a preemptive strike against driver fatalities. The people who want to change driving laws only see this option as a way to reduce car crash rates. They actually do, for 16 year olds.
Since this causes a high unemployment rate many of the people will get on a government welfare program to pay for their family and that is even more money being lost in the economy, making the nation fall into a deeper recession. In addition, the economy will not do so great in the near future if the government does not clean up its act and fix the problems that are going on; such as the national debt and how it can be causing a recession in the United States. With the contributing factors of how the taxes should be taken care of, certain healthcare programs draining the little money the government has to offer, government welfare programs not being more supervised by not allowing people to take advantage of it, and lastly not allowing the government to borrow so much money from foreign countries to make our debt rise to the
Making them legal could be beneficial but there would be problems with people being allergic to different enhancers so it will still leave them at a disadvantage. I believe that allowing enhancers in sports will defeat the purpose of competition because it would just become a contest to see who can become the biggest or fastest from a drug. Also allowing this would cause problems outside the athletic world because news would get around that athletes can use them so everyday people would want the same perks which would lead to more overdose deaths than there already is today which is up to about 20,000 people per year (“Overdose Death Rates”). These rates could multiply easily if doping was legalized so keeping it illegal is in the best interest for
Illegal immigrants would cost America around 7 trillion dollars. They would lower job opportunities for lawful citizens of the United States. Many would commit many serious crimes also. Illegal immigrants would lead America into debt, lower job standards, and raise the crime rate in America.
Every year tax paying Americans spend a good amount of the money they make on taxes, what some of us do not know, however, is where that money is going. A good amount of our money is going towards the death penalty or capital punishment. However, the death penalty is not doing us any good considering the amount of money is spent on it per year. The death penalty should be illegal in the United States because it is proving to be ineffective and is very expensive. The death penalty is not reducing the crime rate in the United States.
Lawmakers need to open their eyes and look at the bigger picture. Legalizing marijuana can make the state some money and there are many benefits to it. Legalizing marijuana won’t benefit at all for the big corrupt pharmaceutical companies, if the cannabis is passed as a drug for health issues. Maybe that’s why lawmakers haven’t maybe won’t pass the law to legalize Marijuana. Yes the companies can get involved but then somehow it will get corrupt and won’t benefit the citizens.