The Pros And Cons Of The Soda Ban

Some people believed it was the right thing to do while others disagreed. Limiting the amount of soda a person can purchase is not a good idea, despite its benefits. The regulation itself has a multitude of problems, such as how there are many contradictions, how involved the government is, and how the ban doesn’t really improve health. The many contradictions in the soda ban lead to many workarounds, proving how much of a bad idea the law is. According to “Soda’s a Problem But…”, an opinion

Gun control is hypocritical because the point of gun control is to limit gun violence basically to save human lives but yet there are many other forms of violence that claim more lives each year than firearms. It neglects the reality of control because everyday criminal acts that have been made illegal are still committed. So even if gun control were in effect it would not prevent the use of those weapons, which would mean there is no real control. Also if gun control was allowed it would be targeting a specific group of people; gun owners, which would be discriminating against them. Most importantly as United States citizens under the second amendment we have the right to bear arms, which is why most importantly gun control should not be allowed.

More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.

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.

The government shouldn’t be trying to control what we eat, but they should instead be giving us a healthier, affordable alternative. It’s not okay that we lack healthier alternatives, nor is it okay that we lack information about what we’re consuming, but it is definitely not okay us to look at everything possible to blame without even looking at

During those times temprence wasn 't a commonly practiced ideal so alcohol addictions were more common, it would only make sense that people would begin to see the parallels between alcohol and many of the negative things that plague society. Something that wasn 't accounted for before inacting prohibtion however was human nature, just because a law was created didn 't change the beliefs that a person had nor did it change how the individual acted. All that changed following a new law was the concequence for an action, but depending on the action which in this case was the consumption of liquor people are more willing to break laws if it gives them access to something they have a dependency towards. For many people during that period alcohol was not only a way to relax but it was an escape from the hardships of

Therefore the media should not use mental illness as a way to explain why a horrible act has occurred and instead place full, unfiltered blame onto the shooter for the acts committed. This is not to say that mental illness is not a factor in the planning of mass shootings. However the potential shooter does have access to resources to better themselves and studies show that people with mental illnesses can fully recover with continued treatments, so there should be no excuse of the horrendous actions. So when the media consistently depicts them as bad, social stigmas arise and cause more violence against them. Also, when the mental illness card is played, it takes out all other factors as to why a shooter may want to do a mass shooting.

Some gun control laws should be removed because gun control laws don't make you feel safer, they will prevent you from defending yourself and your family, and they don't stop criminals from obtaining guns or using them. Gun control laws say you can’t have a gun that doesn’t make you feel any safer at all because anyone could obtain it. They prevent you from defending yourself, so if you need to save yourself you can’t because you probably don’t have a gun. Lastly, any criminal could steal a gun and use it despite the gun control laws. Overall some gun control laws should be removed because most of them don’t really help at all.

The final reason why gun control is unright is because banning them would be an attack on the second amendment. It seems that as time goes by, the constitution becomes less and less important. Let’s take a look at prohibition. It didn’t work. All it did was create more crime and illegal buying of alcohol (The Party of Principal).

We all know why some teenagers drink because it makes them feel that they get away with breaking the law. Consequences for the teenagers can change that but we do not want them to have to experience the consequences of being under the influence of alcohol because if we do they know they are fatal. For example, dying in a car accident and killing one another is already a mess that we do not have to clean up because of a driving under the influence

05 December 2016). Despite any positive outcomes that the soda ban may bring, I believe banning soda from New Yorkers is not an effective way to reduce these numbers. Healthy living needs to be taught for it to be probably practiced across all the states.

The number just isn’t enough to build a bias. Alcohol or prescription pills aren’t included in those findings, and alcohol and prescription drugs are very much something that can be abused…heavily. It is unfortunately very common for those addicted, to exchange groceries for a smaller amount of cash and use it to buy drugs, alcohol, cigarettes. I could explain for hours the ins and outs of the TANF program but in short summary, it is very political and contradicting. If I could’ve know anything prior to hearing the sides of Larry and Russell, I’d like to have read the aspe article from the U.S. Department of Human and Health Services.

For example, drinking and driving is dreadful to our society. Drinking and driving is considered to be irresponsible, Their would be more arrest within juveniles. When a teenager turn 18, their considered as being a responsible young adult but in other cases, 18 is still a child which is not legal. “The law would irresponsibly allow a greater segment of the population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs which would increase the rate of deaths in America” (Thomas). This calls for not lowering the drinking age so the citizens would have a greater chance of living.

Before the MLDA was raised to 21, there were many positive effects that came from a lower MLDA. Lowering the MLDA diminishes the thrill of breaking the law to consume alcohol (“Should the”). Young adults experience a thrill when drinking underage knowing that they are adults, but are restricted from consuming alcohol. If the MLDA was lowered, they would no longer have that thrill and it could lead to less alcohol intake. One reason many young adults drink is because they know that hey shouldn 't be doing it, however if this was just another right given to them, they wouldn 't feel obligated to take advantage of it, because it is just another privilege that comes with growing up and maturing into an adult.

For the most part, individuals with a severe mental illness are not violent and thus, placing gun restraints on everyone with a severe mental illness would not target the correct subgroup that would most likely conduct violence (McGinty et al., 2013). Another concern about banning weapons from people with severe mental illness is that the policies cause the population to develop harmful ideas about individuals with severe mental illness (McGinty et al., 2013. Consequently, people with severe mental illness do not go into treatment (McGinty et al., 2013). Misconceptions about severe mental illness are not the only contributors to stigma; labels can also have a large effect on how the general population feels about those with severe mental