In the words of mahondas ghandi “There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed.” If we continue to consume bottled water at the rate we are now, 20 years from now we may not have any water left for the need of mankind. Not only is the bottled water business draining our earth's most precious natural resource, but its waste is one of the leading causes in pollution in our society today. I first became interested in bottled water when a friend once told me that dasani is simply NY tap water. Naturally I didn't believe him because I didn't think they would be allowed to do that. Take a municipal's source of public water, pump it, and resell it?
They just believe that it is going to enhance their appearance and boost their self esteem. They are not focussing on the effects it will have on them in the future such as eye damage, pre mature aging as well as a variety of different skin cancers that are caused from the use of artificial tanning beds. Current users are not being properly warned when going to the salons of the risks it has on them. Instead, the salon workers are promoting “safe tanning” by informing them of not burning and the importance of wearing eye protection. Safe tanning should be no tanning at all due to the fact that there is no such thing as safe tanning.
Dear, American Medical Association I am against taxing soda because it is unfair for many reasons, taxing it is unnecessary, and it will not make a change anything or make a difference. The (AMA) American Medical Association that by taxing soda it will fight obesity in the United States. The first reason this kind of taxing is a bad idea because it is not fair and it is worthless to even consider. The (AMA) thinks that by taxing the product people will consume a lower amount of it, or just stop buying it and that this will fight obesity in adults but mostly children in the United States. Another reason that this kind of taxing is not a good idea is because it is a waist of time.
* Health risk Each of us have the right to be free, so why athletes does not have the right to take drugs, in fact taking drugs can help them to achieve their own goals. Even if they’re risking their lives it is still worth it. If we prohibit the people who are smoking and risking their lives, why do we have to forbid the athletes from taking drugs and risking their lives to pursue
Make sure that consumers do not mix the product with alcohol? Red Bull’s warning label is responsible to make sure that consumers do not mix the product with alcohol. The label on a can of Red Bull clearly states, “not recommended to be mixed with alcohol.” That’s because caffeine and alcohol are diuretics, and can cause a problem with the heart muscle. Many bartenders are very careful not to mix the whole can with alcohol. The company is responsible because they provide displays of their brand.
Teens are not going to drink alcohol to taste it, they are going to binge drink to get wasted. So, I think the current cutoff age of buying alcohol is highly appropriate. I feel like it would promote the use of and sale to minors if the age was
243). I couldn’t disagree more with this reason, It is not guaranteed that the lowering of the price of the narcotics would be sufficient enough where it would prevent addicts from stealing. In a lot of cases addicts have lost their jobs, family, friends, went through life savings of money so they have nothing, it’s not that they just can’t afford the drugs, they do not have and funds period. When you’re an addict you’re not in control of your actions; there are stimulants that cause people to react in all kind of ways. In Theodore Dalrymple’s paper, Don’t Legalize Drug he mentions there are drugs that have psychopharmacological properties that lead to violence, strictly based on the consumption of the drug.
Lord Henry responds to this by noting that Dorian was beginning to moralize, and this was a negative thing because he believed that the books and art themselves did not make morals, therefore art could not be poison. Lord Henry argues, “As for being poisoned by a book, there is no such thing as that. Art has no influence upon action. It annihilates the desire to act. It is superbly sterile.
If you look at alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, look how many less gangs and crime there was after alcohol was legalized again. Prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems and there is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use but there are several theories that suggest prohibition
It seems clear that if one individual harms another, through whatever means, it makes it more difficult for the harmed individual to carry out parts of their “life-plan”. According to Mill, this is where intervention should occur. This is not a valid way of exercising your autonomy because you are putting the autonomy of other individuals at risk. This is what constitutes harm. However, the state or any other individual has no grounds to intervene if you’re not seen to harm others.