Smoking Should be Banned in all Public Places

Smoking Should be Banned in all Public Places The numbers of people who smoke have increase over the years. Although they are equipped with the knowledge of how unhealthy smoking can be, people still choose to smoke. It is a personal choice and a highly addictive habit. Smokers choose to subject themselves to the health risks of smoking. It is not for the government or any third party to dictate whether or not a person should be allowed to smoke. However, smoking does not only affect the smoker negatively. It also affects all the people around those who smoke because when people smoke in pubic the smoke travels everywhere through the air, and the negative effects of this smoke affects all living, breathing creatures. Therefore smoking should be banned in all public places. People who smoke in public portray a bad example. Children are easily influenced in their growing stages. They imitate the people around them because they cannot differentiate between right and wrong. Therefore they perceive the actions they see around them as the way things should be. Besides that, teenagers who see people smoke in public take it as precedent to start smoking as well. There is a saying that goes monkey see monkey do, which tells us that people imitate the actions of others as they see it in their daily lives. Teenagers happen to think that smoking makes a person cool. When they see adults doing it on the streets it strengthens their belief in the coolness of smoking. Some teenagers think that smoking marks their transition into adulthood and maturity. Hence, more teenagers start smoking due to the influence of seeing other people smoke in public places. If smoking is banned in public areas, it will promote a healthier lifestyle for everyone. People will see it as a government endorsement for a healthier lifestyle of everybody. This is because by banning smoking in public areas the government sends the message that the government cares about the health of the citizens and that the government discourages people from smoking. Thus, when smoking is not allowed in public areas it reminds people that health care is very important. It reminds each and every person that the government is seriously concerned for the well being of its citizens. Therefore, people would be reminded to live a healthy lifestyle. If smoking is banned in public places it safeguards the life of the smoker as well as that of the public. Studies have shown that second hand smoke kills. Second hand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections and asthma attacks in children. Besides that, second hand smoke causes heart diseases and lung cancer in smoking and non-smoking adults. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer (CDC, 2009). These studies have proven that second hand smoke can cause cancer and is extremely bad for both the smokers and non-smokers health. In addition, the CDC also states that, The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in theUnited States (CDC, 2009). This means that just by being near people who are smoking, innocent people are dying of diseases that are caused by second hand smoke. This violates a non-smokers right to live a healthy lifestyle because just by being in public places where other people smoke they are subjected to breathing in toxic fumes. Consequently, the health of innocent non-smokers who are in public places are being jeopardized against their will. By disallowing people who smoke from smoking in public, it will cause smokers to smoke less. Because smoking is not allowed in public, people are only allowed to smoke in their homes. This would mean that as long as they are out of their homes: at work, when they eat out, at the movies or even at the parks, they cannot smoke.ÃÆ'‚Â   Smokers will have to wait until they get home to light up a cigarette. As a result, their cigarette consumption reduces and they smoke less. This in turn will benefit the smokers who have been trying to quit smoking but are unable to because they have more reason to stop. The law prohibits them from smoking in public areas, so cigarette consumption is reduced. Also, should they have an urge to smoke in public they will put in extra effort to quash the craving because it is punishable by law. In addition, there is less temptation for smokers who want to quit smoking if the ban is enforced because no one will offer them cigarettes. Therefore, this a llows them to abstain from smoking. This theory is proven in a report published in The Daily Mail (2008), stating, At least 400,000 people inEngland have quit smoking as a result of the ban on lighting up in public places that was introduced last July. Smokers will benefit from this ban because it will help them reduce the amount as well as the frequency of smoking and it could also help them break their addiction to cigarettes. In the long run it could help them quit, and also help them develop healthier lifestyles. If smoking is not allowed in public areas it discourages non-smokers from starting to smoke at all. People will not be tempted to start smoking because they know that smoking is addictive, and if smoking is not allowed in public they will suffer from withdrawal from their addiction to the nicotine from cigarettes. The Wiltshire Times (2007) postulates, New research shows that one in ten smokers claim to have quit and over half of south west smokers have thought about quitting since the nationwide ban was introduced on July 1. If smokers choose to quit or even think of quitting because of the inconvenience of not being able to smoke in public, would it not, more so, prevent a non-smoker from smoking? Surely one would not intentionally subject themselves to an addiction knowing that they will suffer withdrawal symptoms due to that addiction. By banning smoking in all public areas, the government shows support for the fact that smoking is bad, and it helps to set changes to the mind set in people reminding them that smoking is not a healthy habit. Furthermore, smoking will no longer be an issue when it comes to the influence of peers because nobody is allowed to smoke in public, so peers cannot pressure a person to start smoking. Some may argue that by preventing smokers from smoking in public, it infringes upon their rights. It is true that smokers have rights and these rights should not be infringed upon. However, a non-smokers right to breathe clean air should be taken into consideration as well. When people smoke in public areas the toxic fumes travel through the air and into the lungs of others. Many non-smokers breathe in the second hand smoke and as a result their health is compromised. Should non-smokers be subjected to these unhealthy and vile smelling fumes every time a smoker chooses to light up a cigarette? Certainly not! Smoking is a personal choice and people can choose to smoke but others should not be subjected to the health risks that come from inhaling second hand smoke. Peoples rights to breathe fresh and clean air should be protected, and along with that their right to maintain a healthy lifestyle without breathing in second hand smoke should be protected too. If people are prohibited form smoking in public it would be safer for the environment. When smokers smoke in public they tend to throw their cigarettes on the ground wherever they are. These cigarette buds are detrimental to the environment because they take a long time to decompose. According to McLaren (2005) Traditional butts are made of synthetic polymer cellulose acetate and never degrade, only breaking apart after roughly 12 years. Because the cigarette butts are not biodegradable they pollute the land. Most of the cigarette butts that are littered all over the place end up the rivers, and in the bellies of fishes and other aquatic creatures. McLaren (2005) also postulates that, within an hour of contact with water, cigarette butts can begin leaching chemicals such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into the marine environment. This pollutes the water supply that will inevitably end up in the stomachs of all living creatures. If the smoking ban is enforced the littering of these buds will no longer be an issue and the environment will be cleaner and healthier for everyone. If the current situation continues, the health of many people will remain in danger. The death toll for heart and lung diseases as well as the death toll for cancer will continue to gradually increase if the current smoking situation is not corrected. By putting forth a ban of smoking in public places the government promotes a healthier lifestyle for everybody and it protects every citizen from many diseases and health risks such as cancer and other deadly diseases. Besides that, the ban will eliminate the bad example set fort by people smoking in the public. Children and teenagers will then have a mindset implemented by the government that smoking is bad. The ban will discourage non-smokers from starting to smoke, thus preventing them from getting addicted to cigarettes. Also, it will encourage smokers to quit, and aid them on the difficult journey to be freed from the bounds of addiction. Consequently there will be no cigarette buttes littered all over the place affecting the environment negatively.ÃÆ'‚Â   By prohibiting people from smoking in public the go vernment is protecting the God given rights of its people to live a full and healthy life. It encourages people to take steps to better their quality of life and to take care of themselves as well as the people around them. Therefore, smoking should be banned in all public places. References McLaren, W. (2005). Cigarette Butts: One Huge Problem, Two Solutions. Treehugger. Retrieved December 7, 2009 from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/cigarette_butts.php One in Ten Quit Smoking Since Ban (2007). Wiltshire Times. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/1706214.one_in_ten_quit_smoking_since_ban/ Secondhand Smoke (2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit (2008). Mail Online. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1030575/Smoking-ban-spurs-400-000-people-quit-habit.html

Walden Theme

I believe that the overall message or theme of the novel Walden was to be simplistic. In his section â€Å"Economy† he stated that the feeling of dissatisfaction with one's possessions can be fixed In two ways; one might require more to fulfill the emptiness, or one might reduce their desires to achieve satisfaction. I think that this Is a true statement because you don't need everything In life to be happy. You could have the bare necessities and live your life with the same Joy as someone that Is successful and needs everything expensive to make them happy.It is all about your perspective on how you want to live your life. Another example that went along with the theme of simplicity was when he talked about other residents that were going through life Just trying to make mortgages and payment to all the new things that they own and still wanting the newest fashion trend. On the other hand Thoreau decided that he wanted to live his life differently he took another path that w as indeed the simple life. He left society and lived in the woods to live this certain lifestyle.If he ever came long a time that he needed new clothes, he Just patched them instead of getting the latest fashion and he only wanted the necessary accessories. He thought If you bought something that wasn't needed to survive everyday life was Just a disadvantage of living life to Its fullest. Think of the last time you went shopping for groceries. Did you Just buy what you needed or did you buy other things that you could live without? Do you really need that pack of gum to survive?Most likely you didn't need that pack of gum, cigarettes or zebra cakes. You could just buy what you absolutely need and still live. This is what Walden wanted most people to see is that you can live a simple life with only the necessities and be happy with how you have fulfilled your life. To live this simple life Thoreau built his own shack and actually owned it instead of having a house that was owned by a bank because of a mortgage. Because he didn't have all the big payments he was able to afford other things that he needed.He did say that those that have larger, more Impressive possessions actually have less when you compare them to his possessions. They might have a nice car but he has his life and all that It contains and doesn't have to worry about others taking It away because they can't pay for it. The last thing that I would like to say about the theme simplicity, is that he definitely lived a very simple life but he didn't do the same for his writing style. Thoreau writing in this book was complicated and filled with quotes, puns and double meanings that were not at all simple.He wrote this book in such a way that it was a little hard to read and understand the point he was trying to get across, but we ere able to accomplish it and at least understand a little bit of it. Overall, since I think that the theme of this book was to be simplistic I think that Thoreau achieved hi s goal in living a simple life and making his life be filled to the fullest. I also think that If he were still alive today and had the chance to see how many people are still reading his novel that he would be surprised. I bet he didn't think that his book was going to be as successful as It Is.Thoreau lived his life the way that he wanted and it was to be as simple as it could be. In his section â€Å"Economy' he stated that the feeling of dissatisfaction with one's possessions can be fixed in two ways; one might require more to fulfill the emptiness, or one might reduce their desires to achieve satisfaction. I think that this is a true statement because you don't need everything in life to be happy. You could have the bare necessities and live your life with the same Joy as someone that is successful latest fashion and he only wanted the necessary accessories.He thought if you bought something that wasn't needed to survive everyday life was Just a equidistant of living life to i ts fullest. Think of the last time you went shopping for didn't need that pack of gum, cigarettes or zebra cakes. You could Just buy what you He did say that those that have larger, more impressive possessions actually have has his life and all that it contains and doesn't have to worry about others taking it away because they can't pay for it. Fullest. I also think that if he were still alive today and had the chance to see how think that his book was going to be as successful as it is. Thoreau lived his life the

Harlequin Case Analysis Essay

Harlequin Enterprises has been able to capture 80% of the series romance market. Our great existing strategy (see exhibit 1) has allowed us to be the biggest player in the series romance market. Now we face the opportunity to capture a rapidly growing market of single-title women’s fiction novels. I recommend that Harlequin aggressively pursue the single-title market, using its extensive back list collection to reissue novels by best-selling authors. Even though the consistent, well defined product, combined with an optimized supply chain and distribution in the series market has provided valuable margins, the stagnant growth in the series market is insufficient to meet company growth objectives. Operating income is currently projected to grow at 3% for next 5 years (see exhibit 2). With the launch of MIRA, Harlequin can add an incremental $10MM in the next year, and $57MM in the next 5 years. This is 16%-19% incremental profit (see exhibit 3). We will have to focus on the women’s romance fiction segment of the market. At Harlequin, we have cost efficient printing resources, which allow us the flexibility to print single title. We will need to switch from same format printing, to match the need of each individual title. We also have great editor-author relationships. Using the backlist of best-selling authors will save the company $45MM in the next 5 years in author advances (see exhibit 3). Each unit is more profitable without an author advance. (exhibit 3). We will have to abandon our current process of front-list printing only. Coincidently, our editors will need to cultivate existing series authors into single-title authors, who ensure quality content to maintain our reader’s trust. Our editors will have to adapt the editing criteria to the strengths of each individual author. Harlequin will have to rely on single title solicitation, and no longer our standard order procedures. We will utilize our existing wide distribution network, but we will have to reduce our distribution to mass merchandisers while increasing our penetration in bookstores to significantly greater than 55% (exhibit 4). Offering greater distribution margins than our series novels will help us grow our volume, and our distribution partnerships, while still maintaining healthy margins. We will allocate and spend marketing funds to promote each individual book and author, rather than the just the Harlequin brand. We will use our existing large customer base, but promote with MIRA branded covers to build brand identity and loyalty, as we aim to become a strong player in the single-title romance novel market. We will create an order system for the direct to reader channel, and eventually, we will need to implement a system to be able to forecast demand to optimize supply and profitability. If within the first two years, Harlequin does not capture atleast 5% of the unit volume sales from the market using existing back-list collection, we will invest in current best-selling authors. Even after paying the large advances, we will be able to gain an incremental $12MM in profit in the next 5 years (see exhibit 6).

Mise-En-Scene in Napoleon Dynamite - 1631 Words

In Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess, 2004), the character known as Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) is quite a unique fellow. His quirkiness and eccentricity are what make him as a character; they are the primary traits of his personality. Keep in mind, however, that he is not the only odd character in the film, but he has his own peerless way of defining himself separate from any other character(s). This effect is achieved through certain cinematic techniques that director Jared Hess utilizes in order to bring out Napoleons persona in ways other than simply guessing who he really is. Rather, these techniques explicitly imply certain character traits; they are like clues that allow one to see the character just as the creator intended.†¦show more content†¦This not only shows his weakness as a person, but his immaturity as well, considering that high school students typically do not resort to this sort of behavior; it is normally reserved for younger children. He is a figure of mockery to nearly everyone at school, his uncle Rico, even his own brother Kip. Albeit he hardly tries to defend himself, he does attempt to make up for it by trying to look cool, but in extremely ineffective ways. The initial instance of this phenomenon of Napoleons is when he first meets Pedro. He brags that a gang at his school wanted him to join (specifically for his bow staff skills), which is almost certainly not true. Also, he tells Don a ridiculous, overly exaggerated story when he went to Alaska the previous summer. He claims that he went wolverine hunting with his uncle, and shot like fifty of em. Either there is an entire flipside to Napoleons character that is never revealed, or he is embellishing a story that may not even exist in the first place. The latter seems like a much more reasonable conclusion. Not only does he fail to seem cool to the people at school, but he does not exactly have the best skills in picking up women. In more blunt words, he is just not very smooth. One example of this is when he talks to Deb in the cafeteria, and uses the corny pickup line, I see youreShow MoreRelated Mise-en-Scene in Napoleon Dynamite Essay1575 Words   |  7 PagesMise-en-Scene in Napoleon Dynamite In Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess, 2004), the character known as Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) is quite a unique fellow. His quirkiness and eccentricity are what make him as a character; they are the primary traits of his personality. Keep in mind, however, that he is not the only odd character in the film, but he has his own peerless way of defining himself separate from any other character(s). This effect is achieved through certain cinematic techniques that