There are many reasons and facts that are in favor of lowering the drinking age. Fifty-eight percent of Americans believe the legal age should be lowered. As a great professor once said “today we are repeating history and making the same mistakes. Prohibition did not work then and prohibition for the young people under the age of 21 is not working now.” (web; Indiana.edu). In other words restricting the American people from alcoholic beverages in the past was unsuccessful and a way was found to break that law.
It isn’t the “beginning” of the working world or the “end” of the college life and it seems like a purely random number with no logical decision behind it. By lowering the drinking age I am not implying it should be so low as to allow high school students to drink, but an age of nineteen is more logical. At nineteen, it would not be accessible to high school students. Nearly all nineteen year olds have graduated; therefore they are not a threat as promoters of underage drinking on high school campuses. A common argument against lowering the
Both sides of this issue will not be happy. I think the decision should be up to the people. I do believe that marijuana will be legalized because of its permissibility today compared to ten years ago. To prove an increase in acceptance of Marijuana, before this year, to work for the federal government, you had to have a record free of any drug charges. Now, you have to have a record free of any drug charges, but marijuana is excluded.
In that respect, these books are written from a historical perspective but the book by Cherrington is from the era of prohibition, which has a major impact on his perspective making it vastly different from Szymanski's, who is a modern author who has had the opportunity to observe and study the effects of prohibition. This is why the authors have a different view of the subject, Szymanski looks at the entire movement as a thing of the past and treats it as more of a study of social and political causes and effects, while Cherrington's book tries to support the movement by showing how the older methods failed and what led to the current success of the temperance movement. Albeit, the authors have different perspectives, they still spoke of the early temperance movements, often some of the same parts of the movement. Cherrington's book starts talking about prohibition in the 1700s and the multiple, often small, lesser movements that sprung up during that time. Cherrington details some of the older movements such as the relevance of the year 1826 as the beginning of a period of organized temperance movements in the United States, stating that prior to 1886 numerous local and state societies had sprung up, and influenced the movement.
There are a lot of companies today that are focusing their marketing on environmental protection, which can be very productive tool. Furthermore it is very hard to decide whether corporate change would gain better satisfaction or public promotion and reputation but as far as ethos I definitely agree that it would. In my opinion I would keep existing ethos since they are already recognizable for Bayer Company but would also add respect for environment and safety of workers. If company would truly believe in that ethos it will be more than expectable that outcome of the dilemma would be very different. First of all recycling process would be upgraded and safety would be guaranteed and most of issues won’t even exist if company would truly follow their ethos.
Wordplay is the reason why most politicians seem to be lawyers not politicians. The questions brought up have been and always been either avoided or rather ingeniously walked around since the establishment of our constitution. Was it because our forefathers didn’t have an exact answer, did they foresee possible problems and left it open to time. Either way the lack of exact translation has shaped America and allowed alternate ideals to flourish. The author brings a question that although it almost has an obvious answer has been and still is a strong problem in the establishment of a fair and equal nation, and that question is “Who Is A Person”.
So then, why is the intake of alcohol not allowed until the age of 21 and the consumption of cigarettes not? To be an adult signifies; responsibility and maturity. The education starts from home, since little kinds we learn from our parents and adults around us, from our expressions to how to drive, to how to control alcohol in a responsible manner. If given a good education at home as well as in school about alcohol and its consequences, there would not be a problem with an 18 year-old person drinking. Just like it is given the right to vote, go to war, and get married among many other things it should also be given the right to drink since they are considered adults.
It was interesting to see how the drug war has possessed and really made me think about whether or not the point of the drug war should be to lock people up, or to get them rehabilitation and treatment. I am honestly not sure even after thinking about it where our money as a nation should go. The last website I looked up was just to see how easy it was to get the information on how to make these drugs. While this site did not give me exact directions on how to make different drugs, it did give me the ingredients. Now, my search was pretty vague on Google.
Jerry was accused of a medical malpractice because of prescribing a refill without the authorization of a physician. There were many legal and ethical issues that affected the decision Jerry made in ordering the prescription refill, and the knowledge of right and wrong deterred Jerry from deciding to refill the prescription. There are several methods and types of values at hand that Jerry could have used to help him make an ethical decision. Determining the appropriate course to take when faced with a difficult ethical dilemma can be a challenge, but it is always important to engage in a carefully considered ethical decision-making. Everyday health care workers around the world are faced with tough decisions.
Production and sales of marijuana by the government rather than by criminals, will save lives, create jobs, and generate money which can be used for social program, education, health care (Beccasurez 85 Oct 2008). Crime related to marijuana production, tariffing and dealing will be reduced or eliminated. A user might see this as freedom for anyone, regardless of medical status, to use marijuana for therapeutic reason without the approval of a physician, or diagnosis of specific medical condition. By setting an age limit on the marijuana use, there can be stricter controls on whether younger people can access it. Other arguments are more positive and are focused on free will and potential benefits of marijuana use.