Read the following article:
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/massachusetts-town-wants-to-ban-tobacco-sales/
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. Officials in Westminster want to ban all tobacco products in the city limits. Why?
2. Who is Brian Vincent? What does he claim the ban will do to local business?
3. Who is Robert Proctor? Why would the journalist include Proctor's claims in the article? Does this create a certain type of appeal? (ethos, pathos, or logos) Explain.
4. When will the Board vote to approve or disprove the ban?
5. What is your opinion on the banning of all tobacco products? Is it right? Legal?
6. If you don't know anything about Prohibition, look it up very quickly. How could banning tobacco products be reminiscent of Prohibition? Could the ban end up backfiring on Westminster, or will it be effective in improving the town's health? Could Prohibition teach us lessons about this sort of governmental behavior? Explain.
7. Is it the government's responsibility to help people get healthy, as the proponents of the ban claim? Why or why not?
Harrison Armour
ReplyDelete1. Because their is a “conclusive evidence that tobacco smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, (and) negative birth outcomes.”
2. He is the owner of Vincent’s Country Store. He thinks it would cost him $100,000 a year in sales, and negatively effect other businesses as well.
3. A historian at Stanford University. I creates an ethical (ethos) appeal because this guy is qualified and has credibility.
4. They will meet on November 12.
5. Banning all tobacco products is wrong. Sure, it's legal to ban the use of a product that has negative effects, but people still buy it. Alcohol was outlawed then allowed purely for financial and economic reasons.
6. This seems very similar to Prohibition. Yes, it would improve the town's health, but will have negative economic side effects for local businesses. In the past, the economy is more important to the government than people's health.
Carrie-Grace Gardino
ReplyDelete1. The officials in Westminster wanted to ban all tobacco products because it causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcomes.
2. Brian Vincent is a local store owner to Vincent's Country Store. He says that the ban would cause the customers to drive to the next town, and they would lose money in the process and hurt their local economy.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian of Stanford University. A journalist would include his claims for a different perspective on the issue. By incorporating his opinion, this creates an ethical appeal. This creates an ethical appeal by showing how someone else feels about the subject. This subject also appeals to the ethics and morals of the audience and their sense of right and wrong.
4. The board will vote to approve or disapprove on November 12.
5. Personally, I don't not believe in the use of tobacco products, but if it is banned, it would be a loss to their local economy. I think it should continue to be legal for the economy because if not the people will go to the next town to buy the products and the economy will suffer from ban.
6. The banning of tobacco could help bring about secret groups that have found a way to get access to tobacco and resell it. An example would be the mafia during prohibition. I don't think this will improve the health because the people will still find a way to access to what they want. I think we should look to prohibition as an example, because it made the mafia very rich and popular and people still found a way to get access to what they wanted and the same thing will happen to the tobacco.
7. I believe health is huge concern in the United States and the government should not take part because the people will ultimately do what they want. I think that by banning certain products the people will still find a way to get access to item banned.
Micaela Tierce 1st
ReplyDelete1.) They want to ban all sales because tobbaco leads to health concerns and they don't want that in their town.
2.) Brian Vincent is an owner of a country store in this county, and states that he will lose possibly 100,000 dollars in revenue if this ban passes.
3.) Robert Procter is a historian from Stanford University that stated he hadn't heard of a ban like this in over a century. This appeals to his creditibility because of his title so it is an appeal to logos, because he is highly acredited and says it has worked for centuries to sell these products and doesn't need to change.
4.) They will meet on November 12th.
5.) In a perfect world banning tobbacco products would be ideal, but as we prove over and over again it is not a perfect world. Do I oppose the use of these products ? Yes, but that doesn't change that they should still be sold in gas stations if they are in high demand from the citizens of the United States. It isn't wrong to want these products removed from society, but at the same time it is American citizen's constitutional right to ruin their health if they want to. It shouldn't be legal to ban something that will kill small town's revenues due to moral convictions. People should worry about themselves and leave other people's decisions alone.
6.) Prohibition was where liquor and other products were banned from the United States due to many problems. This blew up in their faces, resulting in moonshiners, illegal sells of liquor, and other problems. This ban is very similiar to this turn of history, and should be learned from. Just because you tell someone its bad for them doesn't mean they will stop, and if you ban it then that will make them more rebellious and more likely to go against the rules. In this case it will ruin the town's revenue and be helping no one, since banning tobbaco is only in that territory. History can always teach us lessons, particularly in the government to not overstep their boundaries. In this case Prohibition teaches us that it will not solve the problem. Our country is at a very moral low point, and until we enforce how awful certain habits are; people will feel resentful to the government if they take their privileges away.
7.) No, they are responsible to inform HOW to become healthy but they can not enforce it.We are a very large country and not everyone will have the same beliefs as others. Should we try to make people make healthier choices ? Absolutely, but we can not force it upon them because it is their right to live their lives the way they would like.
1. Officials in Westminster want to ban all tobacco products in the city limits. Why?
ReplyDeleteThey are health risks
2. Who is Brian Vincent? What does he claim the ban will do to local business?
He is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He claims that he would lode about 100,000 dollars each year for not selling tobacco.
3. Who is Robert Proctor? Why would the journalist include Proctor's claims in the article? Does this create a certain type of appeal? (ethos, pathos, or logos) Explain.
A Historian at Sanford University.He included his claims because this is the first time they are actually banning the the use of Tobacco in nearly 100 years. He created ethos by using another persons opinion.
4. When will the Board vote to approve or disprove the ban?
Tomorrow, November 12th!
5. What is your opinion on the banning of all tobacco products? Is it right? Legal?
Tobacco use is unhealthy, but it's really up to the person if they want to use it or not or to quit smoking. Its not up to the town or state.
6. If you don't know anything about Prohibition, look it up very quickly. How could banning tobacco products be reminiscent of Prohibition? Could the ban end up backfiring on Westminster, or will it be effective in improving the town's health? Could Prohibition teach us lessons about this sort of governmental behavior? Explain.
The banning of tobacco products resembles the ban of alcohol. Instead women wanted prohibition while the city/state want to do away with tobacco. I think it could improve the town's health. But then again, someone who is in love with tobacco can somehow find a way to get more.
7. Is it the government's responsibility to help people get healthy, as the proponents of the ban claim? Why or why not?
No, it is up to that person to help themselves. You can try to help someone personally, but it is their choice if they want to do better or not.
Kalee Jones
ReplyDelete1. It is causing health problems. This quote from the post explains it... “Conclusive evidence that tobacco smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, (and) negative birth outcomes.”
2. He is the owner of Vincent’s Country Store. He claims it will it would cost him $100,000 a year in sales because when smokers come in, they not only buy tobacco, they buy chips and drinks and extra things as well.
3. He is the historian of Stanford University. It creates a pathos appeal because he was unaware and is showing pity for the ones affected.
4. November 12.
5. I think it is a good idea to ban theses items because it is not healthy for anyone or anything. It is right and should be legal.
6. I think if people ban tobacco, people will start using more alcohol and then it'll just get worse from there. People are going to end up using tobacco legal or not. This plan could backfire and just make matters worse when people illegally sell the product. Yes prohibition could teach lessons. They saw what had happened when alcohol was banned. itll just happen again with tobacco.
7. Yes. The government is supposed to keep people healthy, but they don't. They just made marijuana legal and that's not keeping people healthy. The banning of tobacco isn't going to change anything. Itll just make maters worse.
Abigail Long
ReplyDelete1. Because they said it causes negative health effects on users.
2. owner of Vincent's Country Store. he says it will diminish local sales by $100.000/year
3. historian at Stanford University. He uses this to create an appeal of logos because its a logistical fact and its to show people how radical this would be.
4. november 12th
5. i dont think it is a bad idea, but it would need to be done in a reasonable and proactive way. it shoudnt be done in just one town because it will hurt that town but since it does cause harm to people i think they have every reasonable right to ban it.
6. if they do this it will backfire on Westminister because people will just smuggle them in and use them anyways just like prohibition, so yes it does not seem to be a good idea for them, it is not the governments job to decide what is right and what is wrong for people
7. i think there is nothing wrong with promoting good health and letting people know the consequences of their poor health choices, but its not their job to force people get healthy by enacting laws.
Emylee Tull
ReplyDelete1. They are trying to ban tobacco products to protect public health.
2. Brian Vincent is a local convenient store owner. He says that those buying tobacco will also stop buying other products causing the local stores to lose about $100,000 a year.
3. Robert Proctor is the historian of Stanford University. The journalist includeds Proctor's claims to show that this situation will not be affecting the entire country anytime soon and that it is just a small town thing. This creates a logical appeal by using facts and statements to prove that this situation is small and not yet affecting the entire nation.
4. The Board votes on November 12.
5. I do not think that banning tobacco is right or legal, it's not up to the government to choose what people do with their lives and the decisions that they make, even though the consequences of tobacco are damaging their health.
6.The ban of tobacco will be like the Prohibition law in that it denies a product that a lot of Americans use and will continue to use by hiding it and keeping it secret. The ban could definitely backfire on Westminster because so many people buy and use tobacco products that fewer people would not buy there any longer and stores would close because there wouldn't be as much money coming in to support the store. Prohibition could teach a lesson about this sort of governmental behavior because like prohibition not many will stop using tobacco and the law will eventually be repealed because it will not work.
7. I don't think that the government is responsible for the health of people and should not have the power to ban tobacco. It's the governments job to protect the people, but that should not interfere with the personal decisions that Americans make to use tobacco or not.
Will Larsen
ReplyDelete1. health risks to nicotine
2. owner of Vincent Countys country store Claims people will just drive to the next town hurting local buisness
3. historian of Stanford to show that he was unaware of any bands of tobacco anywhere logos
4. November 12
5. I think that while it would be morally right I am not sure if it is legal to ban a certain item
6. It could cause crime and other non tradtional ways to cause worse harm. It taught us that we can be doing more harm thane right with banning.
7. No it is not the governments responsibility. If people smoke and want to harm themselves that is totally up to them.
Ashby Shelley
ReplyDelete1. There are health issues tied to the nicotine.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of the Vincent Country store and it will cost them 100,000$ a year.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian and this creates an ethical appeal.
4. They will approve or disapprove the ban on November 12, 2014.
5. I think it is very leagal, although it wont stop people from going to another town to purchase it.
6. Just because we ban the products doesn't mean people are going to come to their senses and stop purchasing them from other towns. This will just back fire on them and cost them more money.
7. I do not think the government should be responsible. The people need to want to be healthy and take that initiative upon themselves. The government cant do too much unless the people are willing to get healthy, which that will never happen. Most people all already dying because of the nicotine and tobacco so they don't see the need to get healthy now.
Jagory White
ReplyDelete1. To protect the health of the citizens.
2. Owner of Vincent's Country Store. He thinks it will also stop them from buying the other items they buy when coming in for tobacco.
3. He is a historian. He appeals to your logos because he doesn't get the logic of disregarding the effect of tobacco after not caring for real for almost a century.
4. November 12th
5. I think they are contradicting there actions due to the fact that they are trying to legalize marijuana.
6. I think trying to ban tobacco would have the same effect as prohibition had which is almost no positive effect. Smuggling tobacco would begin to occur and I think it would be worse considering the sizes that tobacco comes in.
7. It is the government's responsibility but, they can't really do anything about it. They have done all they can. If they try to ban it completely, then crime will increase.
Jordan Twilley
ReplyDelete1. Officials in Westminster want to ban all tobacco products in the city limits because they feel the government should take action over the public health rather than business.
2, Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He claims the ban will not only cut down the profit from tobacco, but it will also cut the wages from the additional products smokers buy when they come in to purchase tobacco (i.e. snacks, soda, etc.).
3. Robert Proctor is a historian from Stanford University. The journalist included Proctor's name in the article because it establishes an authoritative appeal. With Proctor's credentials, such as his degrees from Stanford, it proves his authority and intelligence on the situation, which creates the appeal of ethos.
4. The Board will vote to approve or disapprove the ban on November 12th.
5. I believe banning tobacco products is wrong. If the consumer is ignorant enough to not be knowledgeable of the harmful effects of any type of tobacco, then there is a problem. There are warning labels on tobacco products for a reason. Technically it is legal when it comes down to a democratic vote, but I do not believe it it right by any means. Honestly I smoke and have been since I was thirteen years old. As a smoker for four years, I am completely aware I should not continue the horrid habit; however, no one should feel so morally obligated or concerned about another person's bad habit to try and make them discontinue it. It is solely up to the nicotine addicted individual to quit the habit, not anyone else especially the government.
6. Prohibition and the banning of tobacco products directly correlate in the sense they are both completely and utterly dumb. The ban could and will backfire on Westminster, if they approve it, because the economy will go down. People of the Westminster community could feel so obliged to even move out of the town based on the decision of banning tobacco products. The tax on tobacco is already raised, and there are millions of people in America who are consumers of tobacco. Therefore, America is making a plethora of money on it since it has excised taxes. With that being said, the government lost tons of money due to Prohibition in the 1920s. That is exactly why the 18th amendment was vetoed. The same thing will happen if this repeats for tobacco. Not to mention many angry nicotine-withdrawal citizens of America will most likely not let this ban spread any further seeming as how there has to be a vote on it.
7. It is not the government's responsibility to push public health. It is their responsibility to have warnings if the product is hazardous. That is why tobacco products have the Surgeon General's warning and why food has nutrition labels. It is also why there is an age restriction on buying tobacco and alcohol products. If the government felt so morally obligated to watch out for our health over business, fast food restaurants and added hormones in our meat would not exist. Attempting to ban a product that has less deaths annually over fast food is unprecedented since the government is making more money off of tobacco.
Amber C. Price
ReplyDelete1.The tobacco products are being banned because they contain nicotine that can cause cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcomes.
2.Brain Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store and he claims it will will cost him $100,000 a year in sales.
3.Robert Proctor is historian of Standard University that said he was unaware of any bans on tobacco products in his city and there has not been any in a long time and they would include this to show how important and create logos by using facts to show this reoccurring issue.
4.The Board will vote on November 12th during a public hearing.
5.I think it is kind of right because they are trying to save peoples lifes by getting rid of the tobacco products but the people also have the right if they want to be healthy or by the products and is legal to ban products that could kill people.
6. The banning of tobacco could be the reminder of prohibition because people will find away to get some even if it is illegal. It will most likely end up backfiring on Westminster because people will find a way to get what they want no matter what. Prohibition could tell us that the government is trying to make people healthy and acting like they care.
7.I think it is not the governments responsibility to keep people healthy because its the peoples bodies and they can do what they want but it is good to see the government cares about the people by suggesting something that could make people more healthy.
Spencer Budzius
ReplyDelete1. They believe thatthe health probems that come with it are not worth the economic boost.
2. Vincent, a store owner, believes that if tobacco sales are banned then many owners like himself could lose up to $100,000 annually.
3. Proctor is a historian at the University of Stanford. He states that he does not expect there to be a ban on tobacco for another 100 years most likely to create an appeal to pathos, possibly to increase popularity of the University.
4. November 12.
5. I do agree with the ban of tobacco products but i believe that is due to the fact that i lost a grandmother because of it. I do not believe, however that it is legal at this day in time to completely ban all uses.
6. I do believe that it could come back to hurt the town afterwards, but also like prohibition iwould expect it to improve conditions over a long period of time. Finally, yes, I think that prohibition could be used as a lesson.
7. Heck no. If people want to be healthy then hey, they better do it already.
1. Officials in Westminister say that tobacco is a proven cause of cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcomes.
ReplyDelete2. Brian Vincent is the owner of a drug store who says that if the government officials in Massachusetts ban tobacco, then he will lose sales of $100,000 a year.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. He said he was unaware of the tobacco ban for over a century. The journalist chose to add this to show that a highly intelligent person who majors in history does not recall of a ban on tobacco. This creates and logical and moral appeal of why tobacco should not be banned in Massachusetts.
4. The board will vote on November, 12.
5. I think all tobacco products should be banned. Why would you produce and sell something that practically kills your own kind? In my opinion, the sell of tobacco is basically a form of murder. It is not right, and it should not be legal.
6. Banning tobacco is like prohibition because prohibition prohibited alcohol and the distribution of alcohol. Officials in Westminister are trying to prohibit tobacco and the sell of tobacco. This will create a vast improvement in health, but police forces would have to be more strict because tobacco smuggling would become prominent in the future.
7. At this point in society, government officials should put the hammer down. This nation will become increasingly more ignorant and people will become more ill if tobacco sells are not halted. The nation is almost depending on the government for these type of decisions because without it, we would be helpless.
Lizzie Walker
ReplyDelete1. They want to ban all products because of the health risks tied to nicotine.
2.He is the owner of Vincent’s Country Store. He said that it will cost him $100,000.
3. Who is Robert Proctor? Why would the journalist include Proctor's claims in the article? Does this create a certain type of appeal? (ethos, pathos, or logos) Explain. He is the historian of Stanford University. The journalist added his claim in the article to add credibility. This creates a logical appeal because he gives a detail about the ban of tobacco and is backed with an approximate date.
4. They will vote on November 12th.
5. While I think the ban would positively improve the health of many people, I don’t think that they have the right to ban tobacco because the effect on the economy would be dire.
6. If you don't know anything about Prohibition, look it up very quickly. How could banning tobacco products be reminiscent of Prohibition? Could the ban end up backfiring on Westminster, or will it be effective in improving the town's health? Could Prohibition teach us lessons about this sort of governmental behavior? Explain. The ban on tobacco would be similar to the Prohibition, just instead of banning alcohol it would be tobacco. I don’t think it will help the health of the town because if people want tobacco, all they have to do is go over to the next town to get it. I think it could teach us lessens because just like people went behind the government’s back during Prohibition and sold alcohol, people will sell tobacco on the sly.
7. It is not the government’s responsibility to help the people get healthy because that is up to the people, The government makes a health warning be present, which is all they can do; the decision is left up to the people .
Donedra Falls
ReplyDelete1. Because of nicotine-linked health risks
2.The owner of a local store. He claims that the ban will cut not only sales on tobacco products but also on the sales of impulse buys,
3. The historian at Stanford University.His comments were included in order to add some credibility to the claim that the idea of of a town-wide ban of tobacco products is a new idea. This creates an ethical appeal because the journalist is using the comments of someone with prestige to support his or her claim.
4. November 12 (today)
5. I don't think it is right and quite frankly, I think it's pointless. I think the use of tobacco products is detrimental to one's health and is a terrible idea, but as was mentioned in the article, if the ban were to succeed, people would just go elsewhere to get them.
6. Banning tobacco could be reminiscent of Prohibition because, as mentioned before, people would just find ways around it. In a town as small as Westminster I think the ban could definitely backfire economically. I think Prohibition, or the failure of such, serves to show that morality cannot be legislated.
7. It is not the job of the government to get people healthy. I think it is great for the government to try to encourage healthy living, but personal health is ultimately a personal choice.
Jordan Smalley
ReplyDelete1. they want to ban tobacco because they believe they have a right to regulate certain substances if it is effecting the health of the population.
2. he is a store owner in the city and he says that it would make him loose so much profit because cigarette and tobacco buyers don't just buy those items they buy food and drinks too.
3. historian of Stanford University, he adds his statement in because he says he was unaware of the whole thing making you appeal to the fact that it is useless to ban tobacco products because people will just drive to the next town.
4. November 12
5.i believe there should be no ban on anything. if the human right is to smoke and maybe get cancer and die then let them do it. the people should be able to do whatever they please with their life especially if the government is making money off of it. they should just let people do what they want until they are breaking the law. don't create more laws for them to break.
6. it could be remembering prohibition but even then people broke the law to get their alcohol and when the alcohol finally came back the prices of any alcoholic beverage was way overpriced. even though prohibition was popular the human population eventually gave up on it because humans are gonna do what they want to do if they want those goods, even if it means breaking the law.
7. some yes and some no . I think its total bs about the government caring about our health because they would let all these power plant companies and motor companies and oil companies ruin our atmosphere so why would they try to stop some trend so big as smoking when they know they arnt gonna get it to totally ever stop? because they want more money and more power and control. but the thing is either way we are going to have tobacco if we want tobacco and just like prohibition have alcohol if we want alcohol I think they are wasting their time and effort when they could be focusing on more important things.
Kali Sturgis
ReplyDelete1.The officials in Westminster want to ban all tobacco products because of health risks related to nicotine products.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store and he says that the ban will reduce impulse buys the smokers get and cost him $100,000 in sales per year.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. The journalist includes Proctor's claim to show the unawareness of bans on tobacco. This creates a logical appeal because it is showing statistical evidence that even people you would expect to know certain prohibitions are unaware of bans on tobacco.
4. The Board will vote to approve or disprove the ban on November 12, 2014.
5. I think the banning of tobacco will overall improve the health of Americans, but what some officials don't understand is that some people don't want to be helped and that the ban would cause controversy from an economical standpoint; but pertaining to if its right, I think that yes, it would help many to quit and achieve a healthier lifestyle, but legally it's up to the government to decide if our health is more important than finances.
6. Banning tobacco could be reminiscent to Prohibition because it would probably cause many protests and economic downfall. The ban could go either way with Westminster, either people will appreciate their overall importance to the government officials or they will be outraged with the lack of tobacco. Prohibition could teach us lessons on this type of governmental behavior so that we won't repeat the same mistakes.
7. I think that some people might appreciate that the government is trying to help people get healthy, but, honestly, it's up to the people whether they should take responsibility in how healthy their lifestyles appear to one another.
1. Officials in Westminster want to ban all tobacco products in the city limits. Why? Because nicotine products cause health products.
ReplyDelete2. Who is Brian Vincent? What does he claim the ban will do to local business? He is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He says it will cut the incomes of local businesses.
3. Who is Robert Proctor? Why would the journalist include Proctor's claims in the article? Does this create a certain type of appeal? (ethos, pathos, or logos) Explain. There has not been a ban on tobacco products for almost a century. He includes his statements because Proctor is a professor at Stanford. This creates an ethical appeal because it increases the credibility of his beliefs.
4. When will the Board vote to approve or disprove the ban? They voted on the 12th of November.
5. What is your opinion on the banning of all tobacco products? Is it right? Legal? I agree with trying to remove harmful substances from public areas, but what people do in their own homes without harming others is none of the government's business. I don't think it's right or legal. If the town wanted a more effective way to reduce the use of tobacco products, then they could have raised the taxes they place on these products. They should also try to make it a county or even a state issue to make it harder for consumers to drive away and find a cheaper price.
6. If you don't know anything about Prohibition, look it up very quickly. How could banning tobacco products be reminiscent of Prohibition? Could the ban end up backfiring on Westminster, or will it be effective in improving the town's health? Could Prohibition teach us lessons about this sort of governmental behavior? Explain. It will only encourage people to find ways around the law. It's impossible to monitor every person accurately, so the practice would continue and the town would still lose money. Prohibition shows us that governmental bans are ineffective and are usually repealed.
7. Is it the government's responsibility to help people get healthy, as the proponents of the ban claim? Why or why not? The government should oversee the health of people in public places, but they should not overstep their boundaries. This would justify the banning of tobacco in public places, but not the ban of all tobacco products, the ban of alcohol in schools or libraries, but not in people's homes or businesses, or the regulation of our food in the lunchroom, but not in places like Burger King or our grandmother's house.
Lizzy Liston
Tempie Ennis
ReplyDelete1.So that people will be healthier.
2. He is the owner of the Vincent's Country Store. That it will make people buy less stuff.
3. He is the historian at Stanford University. He was unaware of a ban on tobacco products. Yes, it does. Ethos because it is appealing to emotion.
4.November 12.
5.I think it is not right. Because people are addicted to tabacco so they are going to go to all extremes to get it, even if it is illegal.
6.Because people are going to protest and they are going to get it no matter what. Yes, if majority of people use tobacco products, they a lot of people are going to go to extremities to get the product. Yes, you cannot ban a product that has always be given to the people.
7. Yes it is the government is responsible but you cannot force a person to be healthy.
Cameron Stone
ReplyDeleteOfficials claim it will help the communities health because tobacco causes cancer.
The owner of a country store in the town, he says this ban will cut convenience store profits greatly and tobacco users will just go to another town.
Robert Proctor is a historian from Stanford university. This is included to show that this hasn't been done in recent years and creates a logical appeal by stating the facts.
The board will vote on November 12th to pass or reject the ban on tobacco.
I think it is wrong because people should be able to do what they want with their bodies as long as it doesn't affect another person. It might be right on moral or religious grounds but America isn't a religious country and thus the government has no right to pass this ban.
Prohibition was the banning of alcohol which caused the mob to form which could happen if this ban is passed but on a smaller scale. This ban would backfire because town revenue would greatly decrease and many convenience stores would go out of business. Prohibition should teach a lot about this but as usual the government just continues on pushing their agenda.
It is the governments job to protect people from foreign powers and domestic violence not from peoples own addiction. People should have the right to smoke or chew most things as long as it doesn't affect other peoples health.
Maya Turner
ReplyDelete1. They believe it is linked to health problems with nicotine.
2. He owns a country store; it will cost him at least $100,000 in sales.
3. He is the historian at Stanford University; He uses it to add credibility but logos because he provided credibility.
4. After Nov 12, the Board will have had the hearing about the ban and so they will vote either for or against it.
5. I think they should ban all tobacco products. It poses a threat for everyone, even those not smoking. I think that makes it right although it may not be legal because it would put on the challenge of taking all the tobacco companies out of jobs.
6. For Prohibition, it failed miserably and alcohol probably will pass and then fail miserably; I think because the town is so small it could backfire and really hurt the town's businesses; it could teach us that it will always fail if enough money is involved.
7. The government can try all the want just to influence the health of the nation but it all depends on you and what you want to do with your life. The government in the end doesn't really have an effect.
1. Tobacco smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcomes.
ReplyDelete2. An owner of a Boston convenience store. It will ruin the local businesses because the smokers buy other items as well as tobacco products.
3. He is a historian of Stanford University. Using Robert Proctor brings a more educated, logical appeal.
4. The board will meet or has met today, November 12.
5. I feel like people should not smoke, but they have the right to smoke their lungs. So if that is what they want to do then let. But I do like the banning of smoking in public parks and playgrounds approach.
6. If they ban tobacco, then it would not last long. People loved their alcohol just like people love their tobacco. They will find a way to smoke. It will help the towns health a little bit I believe but it will backfire because the town would lose money.
7. NO! The government cannot tell you how to take care of your own body. The most the government should be able to do is promote healthy decisions.
Harrison Armour (Continued...)
ReplyDelete7. No. The duty of the government, in its simplest form, is to maintain and keep peace and order. As long as something does not pose a threat to peace and order then the government should allow it, especially if it has economic benefits. Tobacco is not very healthy and does affect those around a person who uses it, but it is not the government's job to do something about it. Yes, smoking in most cases can lead to negative side effects, but that is why the government has many organizations and programs in support of healthy living. So, at the moment there should not be a ban, but we can not throw out the potential of one later. Also, they could have a city-wide vote. If the people decide that the sell of tobacco poses a threat to order and peace in their city, then it should be done.
Jon Owens
ReplyDelete1. They want to ban it because it causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcomes.
2. He is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He claims that not only will the income from tobacco products go down but items they buy like chips, a soda, and scratch tickets will also go down.
3. He is a Historian at Stanford University. The journalist did this to juxtapose the article seeing as Mr. Vincent relies on tobacco product income and how Mr. Proctor doesn't really pay attention to tobacco products. This creates an appeal to logos because he's a Educated Historian who doesn't rely on tobacco for money and the store owner depends on the tobacco for money. So this creates logos by saying if you don't rely on tobacco then your life will be easier.
4. The Board will vote on November 12.
5. You shouldn't ban tobacco products. Its not right or legal cause then it would be taking away the freedom of those who chooses to use tobacco. Its been here since the Colonial times, why stop now?
6. People are going to start smuggling tobacco or growing their own just like those who made bath tub gen or how their going to have speakeasies for tobacco users. Its going to backfire on Westminster because everyone is going to wanna smoke, chew, or dip tobacco products just for the thrill if they do ban those item. That type of governmental behavior is suicidal, every one is going to start protesting, then people are going to get rowdy, and shots by the police will be fired randomly, and some ones going to die. There's no need for that. Lets just avoid all the commotion and not ban tobacco. Its not worth it.
7. It is not the government's responsibility to help people get "healthy" by banning something people love to use. All they can do is say it causes cancer and be through with it. Its a right to use tobacco. Apart of peoples freedom and its fully American.
Jessica Lewis
ReplyDelete1. Officials in Westminster wish to ban all tobacco products due to the massive health issues they cause. They put this ban to a ruling by the state’s highest court holding that “the right to engage in business must yield to the paramount right of government to protect the public health by any rational means.”
2. Brian Vincent is a shop owner from within Westminster who has run a petition getting 300 signatures opposing the ban and raised concerns about the ban as he proposes that all it will do is heavily damage stores within the town. He also attributes Tobacco sales to “the additional impulse items smokers buy, a bottle of soda, a bag of chips for the road, scratch tickets.”
3. Robert Proctor is a historian from Stanford University who claims that he has not seen any attempts of banning tobacco products completely in nearly a century. The journalist most likely included this as it gives greater weight to the seriousness of proposing such a ban. Proctor claims show that the proposal is an unheard of idea for at least the last century.
4. A public hearing will be held/was held on November the 12. However, it is never stated when they will vote.
5. Banning of tobacco products is a move in the right direction and is perfectly legal. However, just a town-wide ban will do very little to prevent the consumption of tobacco products as people will just drive to the next town, buy some, then come back. The shop owners within the town will suffer. A much wider ban would only drive the sales underground. At this point in time the most councils and governments can really do is limit the locations of consumption.
6.6. Banning tobacco is quite reminiscent of Prohibition as alcohol is a widely consumed beverage with negative effects and an almost addictive quality which is extremely similar to tobacco products. Banning such products will cause people to illegally create and sell them in a black market. And eventually somebody will gain enough power to legalize them again. The ban could backfire on Westminster as the council would lose popularity with the public and also the general town income would fall. There would most likely be health increases within the town as a portion of people will be unwilling to go to such lengths to gain such products and thus will be unable to continue their addiction. Prohibition shows more of how the government sometimes tries to correct an issue by doing something about it but just ends up going back to how it was because whenever the person or people in power change so does the ideas of the government.
7. It is the government's job to look after the GENERAL health of their citizens. This does not mean forcing them to live healthy lives but to make it easy for people to be in a healthy state.
Adrianna Boyd
ReplyDelete1. Officials in Westminster wants to ban all tobacco products because of health risks.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He says the ban will cut the store's income.
3. Robert Proctor is a Historian of Stanford University. The journalist including Proctor's claim in this article will draw an appeal to emotion to get the audience feeling a certain way.
4. The Board will vote on November 12th.
5. In my opinion, there should not be a banning on tobacco products. It's the people's decision to either smoke or not. If tobacco was to be illegal, companies would lose money and there would be bootleggers who are making an unhealthier brand of tobacco.
6. The ban could end up backfiring on Westminster because they'll lose a lot of their income which comes from tobacco alone. Prohibition could teach us lessons about the governmental behavior.
7. It is not the government's responsibility to help people get healthy. Those decisions are chosen by the people themselves. You cannot help someone that does not want to be helped.
Karen Otts
ReplyDelete1. Because they are citing health risks tied to the nicotine products such as conclusive evidence that tobacco smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, (and) negative birth outcomes.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent’s Country Store. He said the ban will cost him 100,000 dollars a year.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. He is unaware of any bans of tobacco in the last century. It is appeal to logos because he does not know of any ban of tobacco that has happened.
4. November 12th
5. I think that they should let people do what they want. I do not support smoking but if you ban it it will become illegal and when it becomes illegal that won’t stop people from buying it. They will still have access to but the government won’t be making any profit and the only people who will make profit off of it is the people who sell it. The prices will go up and people will be willing to pay more for it and the people who are selling it illegally will not have taxes on it like the government would.
6. The government knows how prohibition ended. Why would they want to repeat their actions? We record history for a reason, for us to not repeat it. If the banning of something didn’t work then what makes you think it will work now. If you discontinue selling it and making it illegal it will still be there but sold illegally. The town will bring in less money because it isn’t being sold and the people will find another way to get it so technically it won’t be gone it will just be illegal.
7. the government should try to convince the people but if the people don’t want to listen what makes you think they will take the ban. You can’t force somebody to do something they don’t want to do.
Sarah Snyder
ReplyDelete1. It causes health risks for many people.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner Vincent's country store, he opposes the ban of tobacco products.
3 He is a historian for Stanford University, they use the journalist include proctors claims in the article because he is very well educated. this gives it a logos appeal.
4. They will vote on November 12.
5. I think it is a good idea. I think that it is right because this helps people be able to know what they are doing will hurt them in the future, there is a reason people want this banned. though letting the government have so much control as to letting it decide what people can and cant buy.No, it is not illegal.
6. Prohibition is the forbidding of sale or purchasing of alcohol. This is related because its trying to do the same to the tobacco products. It could end up backfiring because it would hurt some profit of the town, but it will be better in the end for everyone's health. It could teach us a lesson because the government has so much control it is telling people what to buy, this is violating freedom.
7.I think it is great to help people try to get healthy, but at the end of the day it is a persons choice, not the governments control.
Drew Forrester
ReplyDelete1st period
1.) The officials in Westminster are wanting to put a ban on tobacco products because they feel that it is their duty to protect public health.
2.) Brian Vincent owns Vincent's Country Store and he claims that the ban would lower the purchase of junk foods and cost him alone around $100,000 a year.
3.) Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford. The journalist would include Proctors claims in order to give the article a logical weight to it.
4.) The board vote on the matter was on November 12th.
5.)The banning of tobacco is a horrible idea; it may be morally right, but it will take a large chunk out of Westminster's economy. It has to be legal if they're going to make the law. They'll have made the law.
6.) This attempted ban of tobacco is reminiscent of the Prohibition in that there is a party attempting to ban a substance for the good of the public. The ban could easily backfire because it will, with no doubt, hurt Westminster's economy. Prohibition shows that the government is sensible but not sensible enough to see the damage a tobacco or alcohol ban would do to the economy.
7.) It isn't the government's right to intervene on public health along the lines of tobacco use. They can't just take away consumable items at will; that seems to be unconstitutional.
Riley Holmes
ReplyDelete1. Tobacco leads to major health problems.
2. Owner of Vincent's country store. He says that it stops the impulse to buy other things too when customers come to buy tobacco.
3.A Stanford University historian. To show that he doesn't support this. This creates a sense of pathos because it shows how this hasn't happened in forever.
4. November 12th
5. No people should have the right to make their own decisions while being informed of the risks.
6. Then they banned alcohol here they ban tobacco. It will backfire as shown with prohibition people will still do it on the low. It shows when you take something away that people have always had they will find a way to get it.
7. No they need to warn people of the risks and the person feels okay with those risks and still wants to do it then they should be allowed. It is ultimately your body to do things to. Making our own decisions is a right that shouldn't be taken away.
Caitlin Lavender
ReplyDelete1.Because they are seeing health risks.
2.He is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. That the other things in store wont be bought because of this.
3.He is a historian of Stanford University. Because it shows that some people didn't know about the ban on tobacco products so they didn't know that it was illegal to sell them.
4.November 12.
5.I think that it should be banned. I think that the ban on tobacco products can help the population of Massachusetts reduce the number of people who smoke and this can actually make a turning point that can help them quite smoking.
6.the government had prohibited things like alcohol and tobacco during the Prohibition era. They are bringing the prohibition on tobacco back to this era. I think that some people will take this as an opportunity and try to quite using tobacco products. no.
7.Yes, because the government feels that if the states would only just try to ban tobacco for a while that people would quite using it and try to become more healthier.
Cole Turner 1st
ReplyDelete1.) Because tobacco smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcomes.
2.) Vincent's Country Store owner. & he claims that it will cost him $100,000 a year in sales.
3.) A Historian at Stanford University. & the author probably included his name to create a logical appeal considering Proctor instructs at Stanford and is a Historian.
4.) November 12th, 2014. The day Im doing this blog. (lol for procrastination.)
5.) I think it is not legal. Though, many ignorant Americans who care not to listen and comprehend the harmful effects of tobacco products who use them with disregard to their health and the people around them (smokers) should probably be forced to attend a session on the effects. It is not legal and it is not right. It is a right for them to buy what they want. (Pursuit of happiness.)
6.) This ban is reminiscent of the prohibition by means of the government regulating morality. The ban could and would backfire on Westminster. During the prohibition alcohol sales grew even larger than when it was legal. The same would happen with tobacco. & the effect the ban had on health wouldn't be detected until many years later, thus at first seeming an unnecessary ban. Yes, the prohibition teaches us a lot about this governmental behavior. The government can't regulate morality and when they try Americans find ways to do it anyway and to do it more often. Because people are naturally immoral.
7.) It is not the government's responsibility to keep people healthy. The choices you make are yours. You have no choice in whether or not you accept the consequences. They are your choices, your consequences. You were informed. You chose to do it anyway.
Trent Ray
ReplyDelete1. They want to ban tobacco in the city because of its negative effects on the human body.
2. Vincent is the owner of a local country store and he claims that the ban will only hurt local business.
3. Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. The journalist included him to create an appeal to ethos. It appeals to ethos because it brings credibility to the article because it uses findings of a well-educated historian.
4. The board has a hearing planned for the 12th of November.
5. I agree with the health concerns behind it, but I think it is unrealistic to think that tobacco could be completely banned from a certain area. I do not know if it is legal, but it is a terrible idea to try to ban tobacco from a certain area because it will only hurt that area economically.
6. Banning tobacco is reminiscent of prohibition because prohibition was the banning of alcohol in the US. The plan could certainly backfire on Westminster just like prohibition backfired. People would still find ways to get tobacco and use it; however, Westminster would not be making money off of the tobacco anymore. If it is going to be there, you might as well make money off of it.
7. It is not the government's job to help people to get healthy, but it is part of the government's duty to place limits on how unhealthy the people can be.
Anna Williams
ReplyDelete1.They want to ban tobacco products because of the health risk.
2. Brian Vincent is a convenient store owner and he claims that it will majorly hurt and cost local businesses.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian. They would include his claim to show that these kinds of things do not happen often and it has a logical appear. It has a logical appear because he is explaining why this is a strange thing.
4.The board will vote on November 12.
5. I do not think it is fair. As Americans we have the right to tobacco once we are of legal age and that right should not be taken away. Harmful or not, it is the persons choice if they choose to harm themselves with tobacco.
6.Because they banned alcohol and in a way tobacco and alcohol go together in the way they are both harmful. It could backfire because they are taking rights away from people.
7. No, it is not the governments responsibility to help people get healthy. They have control over enough. I person should have control over themselves. They can be unhealthy if they want because it is their body.
Nicholas Ratliff
ReplyDelete1) they believe tobacco is a danger to public health.
2) he is the owner of Vincent's country store, he thinks it will ruin local business.
3) he is a historian, and it is an appeal to logos.
4) they will decide on November 12th.
5)because tobacco is harmful then it is right to ban it.
6) unlike tobacco, alcohol is not as harmful in moderation and most people drink instead of smoke so it wouldn't be like prohibition.
7) the government should control things like drugs and monitor food for safety but not control everything.
London Williamson
ReplyDelete1. There are serious health problems coming from nicotine.
2. He owns a convenience store within the town. He says that it will reduce business and take away more purchase other than tobacco.
3. Historian at Stanford University. His claims appeal to logic because a ban town-wide is not something that happens normally.
4. On November 12, 2014.
5. No, people have a right to buy and tobacco as they please. People know what the risks are to using tobacco, yet they choose to use it anyways. They will also continue to use it in the future even if it is banned. It is an addiction to most people and they are not going to give it up just because the health department wants them to. They will go out of their way to get it if they have to.
6. Yes, because they are trying to legally ban tobacco use. I believe it could backfire on Westminster, because after all any plan can go awry. Some people are still going to keep using tobacco even if there is a law banning it so I do not believe if will be effective in approving health.
7. To a certain extent, yes it is their job to help people get healthy. However, it should not be forced. If someone is aware of health issues and they want to continue to make bad decisions towards their health then let them. Using tobacco is a choice that you make on your own while knowing the risks. If someone wants help to get healthy then they should receive it.
Addie Melchior
ReplyDelete1. They want to ban tobacco products because they know how badly tobacco affects your body and they know that it is causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcome.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He estimated it would cost him $100,000 a year.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. It appeals to logos because Proctor is a reliable source which makes the information he gives seem valid.
4. November 12.
5. I think if we decided to ban all tobacco products it would turn out the same way the Prohibition movement turned out. People will just find alternative, illegal ways to get the tobacco that they want. If we banned tobacco and it actually worked then it would be very beneficial considering how bad tobacco is for people.
6. I just used Prohibition as an example in number 5, but I think that banning tobacco would turn out the same way the Prohibition movement turned out. I think that people should have learned from the Prohibition movement, that banning substances like alcohol, tobacco, etc. are pointless because people will always find ways to get what they want.
7. I do not think it is the governments responsibility to completely try and make everyone fit and perfectly healthy, but I do think they should at least try to lead people in the right direction. They should at guide people down the right path because our country is seen as a whole and I doubt that anyone wants to see the people in our country slowly dying off because of how unhealthy we all are.
Brittany Davidson 11/14/143
ReplyDelete1) The reason they want to ban the tobacco products because of the health risk that goes along with nicotine; such as cancer, respiratory and cardiac disease, and negative birth affects.
2) He is the owner of Vincent Country Store. He claimed he would lose $100,000 dollars a year in sales.
3) He is a historian at Stanford University. They added in his comment because he was able to give an answer for the future smoking purposes. Logos because he is logically thinking about what will happen in the future because of decisions made now about smoking.
4) November 12
5) I think health reasons it should be banned. Yea I think it is the right thing to do because that will save people the stress of getting future health problems. Legally, yes also.
6) They are banning something that could be dividing a home and also harming children. Yes it probably will backfire in the future. No, because people are still going to do it secretly just like they did in Prohibition days.
7) No, because the government can't and will not be able to control our actions. The people will do want they want to do even if they support the government or not.
Jaida Minor
ReplyDelete1. Because it is effecting health problems
2. He is a local store owner and believes it effects the productions of stores. People will now have to go out of the city to receive cigarettes
3. He is the historian of Standford University ; they included him to appeal to emotion so that these people will stop banning the production of cigarettes
4. November 12th
5. I don't think they should ban these products because it can release stress but it is causing health problems such as cancer..
6. It may last a little while but just at the prohibition, it won't last long.. People will protest and will break the law. This can back fire on Mr. Westminster. It will drop many people's health rates and lower lung cancer rates .
7. It should be the government's responsibility but then again , the government can't do everything. They people should take care of their own bodies ..
Mi'Asia Barclay
ReplyDelete1. So they can stop the diseases in the cardiac and respiratory systems and lung cancer.
2. He is a country store owner and he say that it will make his business go down and he would cost him $100,000 da year.
3. Robert is an historian of Stanford University. Because Robert didn't know the ban of tobacco products for centuries. this creates a logic appeal because most people don't know the dangers of smoking and they don't know the story and evidence behind it.
4. on November 12.
5. It isn't legal but it could be right because most people are dying from cancer and majority of the time people don't care and they think that smoking calms their nerves but it really doesn't but they still proceed to buy it. They will eventually get tired of driving back and forth and wasting gas just for cigarettes.
6. The banning of tobacco will cause a riot and eventually the town would have to start back selling it because history repeats itself. But it could be good for the peoples health but some people don't care and they don't want people getting into their business and don't want the government telling them what to and what not to do.
7. No it isn't the governments responsibility to help people get healthy because most people don't like for family to help them so they why would they want anyone else to get into their personal life and tell them what they should and shouldn't do. they are going to do whatever they want to do and they may feel like they are having their freedom taken away from a legal substance if they are told they cant smoke cigarettes.
Angel Wynn
ReplyDelete1. They want to ban all tobacco products because smoking tobacco has been proven to cause cancer, respiratory & cardiac diseases, & negative birth outcomes.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He claims the ban will lower the sale of certain items.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian for Stanford University. He included his claims so that people know that this ban has been unheard of in a while. This creates ethos because the author wants you to believe what Proctor is saying.
4. The Board will approve or disapprove this on November 12.
5. You cannot ban all tobacco problems even if it does cause health problems. No it is not right or legal.
6. During Prohibition, all alcoholic beverages were banned. Now they are trying to ban all tobacco products. The ban could end up backfiring. Yes, Prohibition could teach us about this. People will get upset about this ban & decide to do something about it.
7. No, it is not the government's responsibility. It is the people's choice about whether they want to be healthy or not, nobody elses. People are going to do what they want to do & harm they own bodies if they choose. The government can't do anything about it.
Batrina Reid
ReplyDelete1. The officials want to ban all tobacco products in the city limits because they have negative birth outcomes, cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases.
2. Brian Vincent is an owner of a country store. He claims that the ban will make local businesses lose money.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. The journalist would include his claims in the article because he stated he was unaware of the ban. I believe this appeals to logos, because a smoking ban is logical and it has been proven that it causes health problems.
4. The board will vote to approve or disapprove the ban on November 12.
5. I believe that if they ban tobacco then they will see an increase in illegal drugs. I know that banning tobacco products are probably not right but it is legal. The states have the right to ban what they want if they feel it is needed for a specific town or the entire state.
6. The banning of tobacco could be reminiscent of Prohibition because it could be smuggled into the town or the state. This could backfire on the town, but it could also be an improvement on the health of the town. This can teach about governmental behavior because if there are those who decide to sell the tobacco products illegal then they could be in serious trouble.
7. It is not the government’s responsibility because the government does not tell the American people to buy cigarettes to kill themselves.
Sidnie
ReplyDelete1. Health officials in Westminister say that tobacco has been known to cause cancer, cardiac diseases, respiratory issues, and negative birth outcomes.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He claims that by banning tobacco sales local businesses such as his, will close due to the fact that most of their costumers are tobacco users and they not only buy tobacco but also drinks, food, etc. from his store.
3. Robert Proctor is a Historian of Standford University. The journalist put his name in this article in order to prove that even a historian is unaware of the possible ban of tobacco which means it's not the states number one priority. This creates a sense of logos. The journalist is persuading by the use of reasoning. He's also using pathos in order to calm the readers that this affects.
4. November 12th
5. I feel like even though our country was based on this product, it should be banned. The product is useless. People use it because they are addicted to it not because they need it. Not because it's a necessity. Pot is healthier than tobacco, yet it's banned in most states. I find that ridiculous. What does tobacco do to improve your health? Nothing.
6. Prohibition was the movement to ban alcohol and for a while, it was banned. That's when speakeasies came around and women began to change their sense of style and the way they live their life. Society was "falling apart" as some men would claim. I feel like Prohibition had a positive outcome as well as the banning of tobacco would.
7. If it's the governments responsibility to stop Ebola in our country then isn't it already the government's plan to keep this country healthy?
1. They want top ban them b/c of public health risk
ReplyDelete2. He is the owner of Vincent Country Store. It would cost him a 100,000 a year
3. He is the historian of Standard University.
4. The vote will be Nov. 12
5.In my opinion I don't think it is right to ban tobacco because if they want to smoke their life away and shorten their lives that's on them. But it does become a social problem when it effects innocent by standards.
6. In the early 1900's they prohibited alcohol and it was mainly women saying the slogan "Those lips that drink it will not kiss mine" or it was something like that. It basically the same thing by trying to make it illegal to sell tobacco. It does teach us a lesson that if the government wants to over rule something or take it away they will.
7. Its not the governments responsibility to make someone "healthy: it is that person self determination and self wants of they want to live a healthy lifestyle or un healthy lifestyle.
-Keniece Johnson
Solomon Bolden
ReplyDelete1.They want to ban all tobacco products in city limits because of the health risk.
2. Brian Vincent is a convenient store owner and he claims that it will hurt and cost local businesses.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian. They would include his claim to show that these kinds of things are not common and this appeals to logic. It has a logical appeal because he is explaining why this is a strange thing.
4.The board will vote on November 12 to approve or disapprove.
5. I do not think it is fair. Yes, you should warn them of the potential health risks. If they want to ruin their body, let them.It is not legal because it infringes on their freedom of choice.
6. People would just bootleg like alcohol in Prohibition. It will backfire because people are going to do it anyway and they are just losing potential tax dollars. Prohibition can teach us that banning something makes people want to do it even more.
7. It is not the governments place to keep us healthy. It is their place to warn and caution us, but we should have the final judgement. Whats healthy for me, may not be healthy for others.
Solomon Bolden
1. The officials believe it is in the best interest of the government to provide the public with better health.
ReplyDelete2. Brian Vincent is the owner of the Country Road Store and he believes that the ban of tobacco sales will have repercussions stretching further than just loss of tobacco sales.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at the University of Stanford and has been unaware of the ban of tobacco sales.
4. The voting will be on November 12
5. My opinion on this is that it is insanely unconstitutional. I believe it is in everyone's right to be stupid or smart and that is the whole reason why we received independence.If this town bans this sale then it will probably cut their funding to their funded departments such as their fire and police department and that is completely unfair.
6. Prohibition was the total outlaw of everything alcoholic. This was an amendment to the constitution and we had to make another amendment just to get rid of it. This will backfire incredibly upon Westminster and the town has no right to regulate their health.
7. It is not the governments job to control the health of those in their nation. The constitution guarantees our right given to us by God to make our own choices, good or bad.
Tyler Poe
Alex Mayfield
ReplyDelete1. They want to ban tobacco products in the city limits because it has a negative effect on births and pregnancies, it also leads to a form of cancer, or respiratory / cardiac diseases.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent’s Country Store, he believes that the ban will lead to a decline in sales and also have a drastic effect on the businesses in the city.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University, his remarks were published because he claims he was unaware of a ban. I believe this has an appeal to logos because it is logic that smoking can have bad effects on a human and their environment.
4. The Board will vote to either approve or disapprove on November 12.
5. I believe that the banning of tobacco products is the right thing to do. It is right because it causes cancer and can cause secondhand smoke for children. It is legal to ban the products so that there is a decline in cancer and disease caused by tobacco usage or secondhand smoke.
6. I believe that taking away tobacco products is reminiscent because they had a ban on alcohol in the twenties. It will backfire because people will do what they want to do and keep smoking or buy it from other places. This should improve the town’s health, this will teach a lesson about following and obeying rules that have been set into place by the government.
7. I believe it is not, because when one is old enough to buy tobacco products they make the decision to. The government has no control over their decisions.
Shakira Kennedy
ReplyDelete1. Health officials say there is evidence that tobacco smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases and birth defects.
2.He is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. And that banning it will cause his store and other stores to loose money.
3. He is the Historian at Stanford University. They use his comments to add a little credibility to the claim that the idea to ban tobacco products is a new idea. This creates an ethical(ethos) appeal because the journalist is using the comments of someone well known with to help support his idea
4. November 12th
5. My opinion is that it really doesn't matter to me. A person is in charge of their own life and decisions. If they want to harm themselves, then let them. Honestly, tobacco isn't even the most important problem going on right now so it's not important. That's a personal decision.
6. Both are similar in a way because now they are trying to ban tobacco. Which I don't think is going to last long even if they did ban it. It could still be smuggled into the town secretly. This could backfire on the town after all.
7. It's nobody's job but your own to decide if you wanna live healthy lifestyle. It's not the government's. That's ridiculous to even say. if you care about yourself, then you'll take care of yourself.
Melody Ashcraft
ReplyDelete1. There is evidence that they can cause cancer, cardiac and respiratory diseases, and negative birth outcomes
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of the Vincent Country Store. He claims it will hurt businesses and will cost him $100,000 a year.
3. Robert Proctor is the historian at Stanford University. The journalist includes his claim in the article to show how much of an important matter this is. This creates an appeal to logos because it's stating facts and using his job as a historian to create the logical appeal to the reader.
4. They will vote on November 12.
5. I do not believe that tobacco products should be banned because they are so widely used. I think it would be illegal to ban them because it is a right that we Americans have to use them. I do believe that Americans should be properly educated on the possible consequences.
6. I believe the ban on tobacco products could be reminiscent of prohibition because I think that the people will react in the same way. I believe it will backfire because Americans will start finding more ways to make and purchase the products. I believe this could teach us about this sort of behavior from the government because it shows how the Americans react when the government tries to take away things that they have a right to.
7. I do not believe it is the government's responsibility. My body is my responsibility so I do not need them to try to control what I put in my body.
Topazia Dubose
ReplyDelete1.They want it banned because it causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and can cause negative birth defects.
2.The owner of Vincenr's Country Store. He claims that it will cost him money & effect his business.
3.Proctor is a historian of Stanford University. It creates an ethos appeal since he is qualified.
4. The board will meet November 12.
5.If you ban tobacco prices then you could cause a bug effect on your economy. If it's legal then just leave it there.
6.If you ban tobacco people will find a way to get it illegally just like they did during prohibition. It could backfire on the town if the people get upset.Yes, if they found a way to get alcohol during prohibition they can find a way to get tobacco.
7.No people will either want to be healthy or not. people smoke cigarettes everyday & know the risk but still don't care.
My Luu
ReplyDelete1. Officials in Westminster wants to ban all tobacco products in the city because limits smoking tobacco causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He claims that the ban will not only cost him $100,000 a year in sales but those who comes in to buy tobacco products not only buy it but they buy other products like chips, bottle of sodas etc too.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. He uses this to create an appeal of logos because its a logistical fact
4. The board will hold a public hearing on November 12 and go on from there.
5. I believe that banning tobacco is a great idea anywhere in the world and not just Massachusetts but that doesn't mean they're going to stop. If somebody that spent their whole life smoking, banning tobacco with profoundly affect their life. Even though it is the right thing to do, the fact that they're not smoking because their life to be worst than what smoking can cause actually cause them.
6. Banning tobacco products be reminiscent of Prohibition because just like liquor, tobacco products should be ban too. Yes, it would improve the town's health but cause a negative effect on the businesses because they depend on selling tobacco products.
7. I don't think it is the governments responsibility to help people get healthy because the government isn't getting pay to do so. But even if it's their jobs, they're not guarantee that everybody's going to be healthy.
Cassie House
ReplyDelete1. They want to ban tobacco products because they know how tobacco affects your body badly and they know that it is causes many bad diseases and problems.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. He estimated it would cost him $100,000 a year.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. It appeals to logos because Proctor is a reliable source which is what makes the information he gives seem valid.
4. November 12.
5. I think if we decided to ban all tobacco products it would turn out the same way the Prohibition movement turned out. People will just find alternative, illegal ways to get the tobacco if they really want it. If we banned tobacco and it actually worked then it would be very beneficial because tobacco is very bad for people.
6. I think that banning tobacco would turn out the same way the Prohibition movement turned out. I think we should have learned from the Prohibition movement, that banning substances like alcohol, tobacco, etc. are pointless because people will always find alternative ways to get what they want.
7. I do not think it is the governments responsibility to completely try and make everyone perfectly healthy, but I do think they should at least try to lead people in the right direction. They should guide people down the right path because our country is seen as a whole and I doubt that anyone wants to see the people in our country slowly dying off because of how unhealthy we all are.
1. Tobacco smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiac diseases, and negative birth outcomes.
ReplyDelete2. He is the owner of Vincent’s Country Store. It would cost him 100 thousand dollars of lost revenue
3. A historian at Stanford University. It gives off an appeal to a person's logos because it it's logical to listen to a person if high stature
4. They will meet on November 12.
5. Banning all tobacco products is completely against our rights as citizens of the United states. Tobacco founded this country so it makes no sense to out law it
6. This is disturbingly close to prohibition, a rather unsuccessful attempt to oppress a society and slowly take away freedom
Reagan McColl
ReplyDelete1. It's harmful to the people and causes health issues.
2. It will lead to a decline in business and have an estimated loss of $100,000.
3. Proctor is a historian at Stanford they include his claims to create an appeal to logos because there are facts about how smoking is harmful to your health.
4. They vote on November 12
5. I think it's too late to ban tobacco products. So many people throughout the country are dependent on these products and taking them away would decline business and probably cause a riot.
6. Prohibition led to boycotting and smuggling and people always found a loophole. If they ban tobacco, I think the same things will happen.
7. No, if there is some sort of warning label and people still choose to use these products, even though they may be harmful, that's on them. Not the government.