Quintarius Shelton
6/29/17
American Government
Many smokers have found themselves at the center of most debates and very controversial topics. They feel like some smoking bans are unreasonable and unconstitutional. In fact many believe that smoking pollutes the air and causes diseases. Throughout this paper we will be discussing how each branch of government view smoking bans and laws. United States is made up of three branches of government. They are Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each branch of government has an important role to play when it comes to our laws. The legislative branch makes the laws, executive branch enforces the law and the judicial branch evaluates laws.
We will begin with the legislative branch that have the important role of making laws, this branch of government is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. When it comes to smoking ban laws this branch of government is for implementing and making laws concerning smoking bans. It looks like on January 10, 2007, the House of Representatives worked together to ban smoking on the ground and inside the rooms of the United States Capitol. This much needed smoking ban was a victory for Democrats and house leader Nancy Pelosi and although many republicans were not on board with this ban, they did not fight against it because deep down inside, they knew it was the best decision for everyone (Kornblut Anne). This simply means that those who are in leaders positions and make the law for
The legislative branch is the most powerful branch in government. The legislative branch is in charge of making and passing laws. They have the power to override a president’s decision, stop laws from being passed, and basically control all decisions the governments makes. The legislative branch, also called the congress, consists of the House of Representatives and the senate. The reason for two houses of congress is to balance out the concerns of smaller but more populated states against states that are larger but with less population (www.Usgovinfo.com).
Between 1900 and 1913 more Americans began to drink more and more alcohol with the production of beer jumping from 1.2 million to 2 billion gallons; three times more alcohol than the average American drinks now.1 Prohibition was a movement sparked by women since women thought they were the ones who suffered the most from the cause of alcohol and women though that alcohol was a threat to a happy family. Women wanted to pass prohibition because many men would go to saloons and go home and be abusive towards their wives and children. Women and other groups eventually got 46 of the 48 states to ratify the 18th amendment on January 16, 1919.2 The 18th amendment on article one says, "...the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."3 The first article on the 18th amendment is saying that the sale, making, or even bringing liquor into the United States or any of the United States' territory will now be illegal. Prohibition began to show its weakness right away when the United Sates government did not show much support. After the first year of prohibition the American people started to show less support and even led to organized crime. In 1933, the United States Constitution was amended to repeal the 18th amendment in the form of the 21st amendment.4 Even
Everywhere you look or go, there are no smoking signs and laws that are put in place to prevent one from smoking , whether it’s the restaurants, schools, government buildings or one’s own home. In fact it’s one of the most controversial topics discussed in today’s society and although they have been put in place to protect the health of everyone, many smokers believe that smoking laws are unconstitutional. The United State is made up of three branches of government. They are legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch. Each branch has an important job to do, the legislative make the laws, the executive
The late comedian W.C jokingly said,” Once, during the Prohibition, I was forced to live on for days on nothing but food and water. Even Though, he said this as a joke it was true for majority of the public. The days before the 18th amendment was passed many depended upon liquor. At one point the use of alcohol became abuse. Then on January 16, 1919 the 18th Amendment was ratified so alcohol could not take over the life of Americans, but it didn't go quite as planned. The Prohibition banned the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of alcohol and the desperate ones found loopholes in this simple amendment. The Eighteenth Amendment was ultimately passed to keep a healthy working society and it was repealed because of the increasing organized crime and illegal activities all over the country.
Protestants, urban political progressives, those of old-world religion, and the women’s temperance unions all agreed upon one thing: the outlaw of alcohol consumption in the United States. For many years, these groups all rallied to have this outlaw take place, this outlaw would later be known as Prohibition. In 1913, crusaders gathered in Washington, they marched and demanded change. In “The War on Alcohol” Lisa McGirr states, “Antiliquor crusaders worked to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol through posters, pamphlets, graphs and charts” (19). Progressives blamed alcohol for many other “dirty” problems such as domestic violence, gambling and prostitution. What was commonly referred to as the Volstead Act (National Prohibition Act) was sent to the states by Congress on December 18,1917, it was passed on October 28,1919, and ratified on January 16, 1919 and the country went dry one year later when the eighteenth amendment went into effect on January 20,1919. Prohibition was a ban on producing, importing, transporting and selling alcohol beverages. While the goal of the ban was to reduce alcohol consumption and clean up the country, what it really did was cause organized crime to skyrocket, detrimentally affect local and national economies and ultimately cause people to drink a more potent alcohol that was far worse for them.
If a product kills million of consumer would we keep it out in the market? If an industry is costing the federal government 955 billion dollars would we keep subsidizing it? If there is a group of the work force that could be using their skills to aid in the hundreds of other areaas that they could be helping why wouldn’t we take action already? In 1920 the United States Government decided that the consumption, production and transportation of alcohol had enough of a negative effect on the nation as a whole that they banned liquor all together. The same action should be taken with the consumption, faming, distribution and even the possession of tobacco and cigarettes. Cigarettes should be banned because they have a countless amount of health consequences, tobacco farmers cost the federal government billion to bail them out instead of reinvesting that money to aid in really any other are of farming that is struggling, and lastly because of the environmental impact and footprint that the growing of tobacco and manufacturing of cigarettes produces.
The FDA is going to kill a industry of young and old entrepreneurs. They are trying to pass bills to ban Electronic cigarettes also known as "vapes". Vape culture has help hundreds of tobacco user to quit nicotine and prevent them from putting the hundreds of cancer causing chemicals found in tobacco.
The worst habit that humans have grown on is smoking, smoking either tobacco/any other drug. Each year the amount of people smoking is rising rapidly. The cause of this is the fact that most companies that supply tobacco are trying their hardest to increase their profit and sales, resulting in tobacco becoming easier to use (evolving from the classic ‘Pipe’) and easier to get. The price of tobacco/cigarettes are also dropping every year which is another reason why the number of people starting to smoke are rising. www.cdc.gov have studied that 6 million deaths and more than 16 million people are living with diseases caused by smoking occur every year.
Smoking bans are public policy regulations to eliminate tobacco usage in public and private places to protect health and prevent unhealthy environments. For the purpose of this assignment, I’m going to focus on ethical and moral backgrounds related to smoking bans in private cars with minors. Legal issues, regional and cultural differences are not analyzed in this work. Public policies that establishes smoking bans are based on the idea of paternalism. The public health paternalism is justified on grounds of inability of addicted smokers to seek and restore their healthy lifestyles. These policies are created
The research design is appropriate for answering the research question, which was determining the consequences and perspectives from patients and health care providers on the new policies mandating smoke-free hospital properties. The research design is appropriate because ethnographic research is based on studying patterns of behaviour within a culture. This study was based on studying patterns of behaviours on smoking-policies but the study mostly aimed to gain perspectives from a variety of individuals. Ethnographic method is great for the study in the fact that it can be used to include behavioural and cognitive perspectives, which in this case the study focused on observing behaviours of smoking and if the policies were being followed and also included the perspectives on the new smoke-free policies. Also ethnographic research usually focuses on studying one culture. This study did try to focus on one specific culture, but the population had “diversity” consisting of smokers and non-smokers. The culture that was viewed in the study was tobacco use and management.
Smoking cigarettes causes more deaths than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, and firearm- related incidents combined. Some people say that banning cigarettes would be bad because the government makes a lot of money from the tax revenues. Or that it would increase illegal trade. But based off of the fact that millions of people die each year, cigarettes should be banned because it causes many health issues, it affects a lot of people, and it costs the government a lot of money.
One major issue of the Smoking In Public Ban is how will the economy react. Some people avoid businesses that allow people to smoke there because they don’t want to endanger themselves, their family, or both. Another pro for the ban in sense of the economy would be the odor of the cigarettes would be gone (Rutherford np).The ban will make businesses more family friendly which will add more money to the economy and cause more jobs be added to the workforce, internal improvements, and many other things that will strengthen our nation. The cons of the smoking in public in terms of the economy would be that it would encourage smokers to smoke less, which is good for the smokers but not so much for the economy because the tobacco industry would
Cigarettes are the leading cause of death in canada, and the most preventable. The topic of the ban of cigarettes has a deep history to consider, and there will always be both supporters and critics who continue to debate this topic.
There is no debate on the fact that second hand smoke is extremely dangerous to the individual exposed to that harm. Not only does passive smoking cause short term affects such as; dizziness, headache, coughing, wheezing, eye irritation, sore throat, and nausea, but the person also experiences long term affect that might decline their health dramatically. These long term affects consist of the dramatic increase of the risk of lung cancer as well as other lung related issues. The fact that someone else's own selfish actions can so dramatically influence and affect those around them is quite shocking and lurid.
If you’ve watched television it’s likely you know about the no cigarette law campaign, over the years there has been less smokers and nevertheless a campaign came along trying to make an anti-cigarette law. As a critical thinker, i decided there should NOT be a anti-cigarette law but, I do agree with the message to rid of smoking.