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?
Emily Keller
ReplyDelete1) because of the health risks they cause
2) Brian is a local store owner who is opposed to the ban because he claims it will effect his stores sales.
3) he is a historian of Stanford University. the included his claims because he has a credible title.
4) November 12
5) although i think using tobacco products is completely stupid and pointless, we live in America. the land of the "FREE". people are allowed to destroy their bodies, its their choice.
6) as tobacco is very popular banning it would cause lots of dramas, riots, protests. i think the ban would definitely backfire. they would lose citizens, the economy would be effected. although it has no actual benefits we are American citizens and its our choice as free people to smoke/ chew tobacco if we so happen to chose to.
7) no, its our responsibility. if i wanted to spend my whole life being 200 pounds i could, because its my choice. yes its good that they are looking out for their citizens but they have no right to ban things because of what they believe in. if the citizens of Westminster wanted to stop using tobacco they would. banning the product will only fuel them to use tobacco more. although their hearts are in the right place its not the job or the government to be concerned with what we put in our bodies. (this doesn't mean i don't think that the government shouldn't be concerned about infectious diseases)
Kayla Fincher
ReplyDelete1. health risks were being tied to the nicotine products
2. the owner of a local country store, he said that they wouldn't just be losing tobacco sales they would be losing sales like soda and chips that smokers buy.
3. a historian from Stanford university, ethos because he is including that the environment has always been selling tobacco.
4.November 12th
5.i think it would be a good thing because the birth defect rate would go down there would be less convenience so maybe people would quit and less people would get addicted
6.i think banning tobacco would improve the towns health tremendously because there wouldn't be a big struggle with addiction.
7. no its not it would just help people out by the drugs being less convenient. but it is up to the people to stop completely and get healthy.
Jailen Stockdale
ReplyDelete1. To protect the public health rate.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of a convenience store that says it will decrease the sales on not only tobacco products but any other items in the store in general.
3. He is a historian at Stanford University. His claims give an ethical appeal because he is a historians so he has background knowledge and expertise on this subject when it comes to time and dates so he knows more about it that most people would.
4. November 12
5. I personally feel that the use of tobacco products is a very disgusting and harmful habit that really doesn't help anyone besides the tobacco companies so I think that banning these products would be okay. That's a great start to increasing the public health rate.
6. during the Prohibition era there was a ban on the sale and production of alcohol just like what they are trying to do with tobacco products now. Honestly people don't really care much about laws when is comes to something they just really want to do, as stated in the article people would just go to the next town and begin to do all their shopping there and that would just cause their own town to lose money. So if they are going to implement something similar to the 18th amendment it needs to be on a larger scale like state-wide to make it more effective and harder to obtain tobacco products.
7. I feel that the government does play a role in keeping the public healthy to a certain extent. Like when it comes to things such as required vaccinations for school and banning tings that cause more harm than good, this is a responsibility that should be placed on the government. Since these people in higher places have a better idea and more knowledge on things like this and what is better for the majority of citizens then they should be the one to place these regulations and boundaries on specific things. But if its something as simple as whether you should take your child to the hospital for a nosebleed then there is no reason for people of such high authority to get involved.
MacKenzie Jones
ReplyDelete1.) to ''protect the public health by any rational means.''
2.) Owner of Vincent’s Country Store, cost him $100,000 a year in sales.
3.) Historian of Stanford University, his claim brings up the point of if it didn't matter then why does it matter now?
4.) November 12th
5.) Peoples health is important, but if someone makes the decision to use tobacco products I personally think we should respect that. Its their life let them do what they want. Let them damage their health and well being if they decide to because its THEIR choice. I'm not saying I support their choices or that I don't care about their health but I'm saying I respect them because I cant control it and I wont try to.
6.) It could end up a lot of ways honestly. On one hand it could be a positive impact and give people longer/healthier life's. But on another hand they could go and get it illegally and still do it or protest about the ban or even go insane without it due to having an addiction. So really I cant say.
7.) Personally I feel its not. Like I said before its really all just based upon that persons decision of weather or not they want to have good health or not. I just feel that as people were entitled to our own choices, plus we have much freedom so the could rebel or something I don't know. Plus its not like half of those government people actually care about our health, because if they really even cared about us in general America would be in better shape.
Ke-Anna' Rich- 1. The ban is due to health related issues
ReplyDelete2. Brian Vincent is a store local store owner who claims that the ban will not only stop the buying of tobacco, but the purchase of other items as well.
3. Robert Proctor is a historian. The author includes his claims because he is in a somewhat influential position, which is the ethos appeal.
4. November 12
5. In my opinion banning tobacco products is not exactly legal. It may be the best thing for the human race, that tobacco is banned, but even so the government has no right to ban tobacco.
6. I think banning tobacco is exactly like prohibition, because it is a ban on something that is not exactly harmful, but health hazardous. I think the ban could end up backfiring, because the people of Westminster will end up finding other ways of getting tobacco and the lack of business in the local stores could cause a problem.
7. I do not think it is the government's responsibility to help people get healthy, because it is the right of the people whether they want to shorten their lives. Since we live in a free country, we should have the right to be as unhealthy as we want, even if we should try our hardest to expand our life span.
Shalyn Dale
ReplyDelete1. For health reasons mainly. Smoking causes lung cancer, birth defects, respiratory and cardiac diseases.
2. He is the owner of Vincent’s Country Store. The ban will prompt users to drive to the next town to get their fix, and that will cut down on the stores income.
3. A historian at Stanford University. I think that the journalist included Proctor’s claim to show that this subject is really unknown by the public. I think that this is a pathos type of appeal.
4. November 12
5. To be completely honest, I think banning tobacco would be a great thing. I hate cigarettes, I hate the smell, the look, the way it makes your nails look. I just HATE them. I’m all for tobacco to be banned.
6. Banning tobacco could be a reminiscent of prohibition because people just might go crazy again and decide to be stupid do to not being able to get their fix. The ban would be a win/lose situation for Westminster, because the towns health rate may go up, but the stores income will definitely go down. I mean I guess Prohibition could teach us a lesson, but not much. I guess the lesson would be that people are going to fight for what they truly want which is what happened in Prohibition. But I do feel like those people are stupid because they know their damaging their bodies. Just saying.
7. In my opinion, no it’s not the government’s responsibility to keep us all healthy. We know what’s healthy and what’s not. Eating ice cream and burgers every day is a decision that we all make on our own. The government can’t do anything about that.
Lynsey Simpson:
ReplyDelete1. Because of the health risks tied to the nicotine products.
2. owner of Vincent's Country Store, says sales will go down rapidly because people who come in and buy tobacco get impulse buys as well.
3. Historian at Stanford University, logos, because he is showing how tobacco bans havent happened in centuries and how he doesn't think it should start back now.
4. November 12th
5. I think it is right, because society now-a-days is going downhill very quickly, and people who are consuming tobacco have a super high risk of getting lung cancer.
6.Because they are stopping the consumption of tobacco. It could backfire, and people that are addicted to it could start riots and try to overpower the towns government. Yes, because sooner or later the government will start taking away other privileges that we have.
7. It is the governments responsibility, because we are the citizens underneath their rule and if we stir up enough commotion, they would have to step in and side with the people for, tobacco, or the people against tobacco.
Lorenzo B. Winston:
ReplyDelete1. Officials in Westminster want to ban all tobacco products in the city limits because the Westminster regulation points out 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 the owner of Vincent’s Country Store. He says that the ban will cost him $100,000 a year in sales.
3. Robert Proctor is the historian of Stanford University. The journalist would probably include Proctor’s claims in the article because he works at Stanford University, which is in California where tobacco is actually legal; the reason why he says that he is unaware of a municipal ban on tobacco in nearly a century. This creates ethos of tobacco because Proctor is not really sharing beliefs, but providing information about tobacco during a period of time, or atmosphere.
4. The Board will vote approve or disprove the ban on November 12th.
5. My opinion on the banning of all tobacco products is that it is useless. If they ban it in a local area, people will drive to a certain area where tobacco isn’t ban and just smoke some there and drive back to the previous area. But if they ban it all over the nation then that would be smart because most likely no one would cross a country border just for tobacco. I don’t think that is right but at the same time I don’t think it is wrong because it is always right to be drug-free and that could put a great impact on the community but it would be kind of stupid if it is banned just from a local area. I think that this should be a choice on whether it should be legal or not because I wouldn’t go into that category about whether banning tobacco is legal or not. I could care less anyway about it being legal or illegal.
6. It can be reminiscent to Prohibition by causing people to sell, trade, or use it illegally as it was done in the first half of the 20th century. It can have both pros and cons to ban. On one hand, it can help to improve the health of the population, while on the other hand people may secretly use it, trade it, or sell it. Prohibition could teach us lesson about this sort of governmental behavior because Americans are used to having a free society and bans often cause people to have bad responses, file lawsuits, or simply ignore the laws.
7. I don’t think that it is the government’s RESPONSIBILITY to help people get healthy but it is optional if they choose to help people get healthy and if the government does I think that is superb. I don’t think that the government should watch everyone’s weight and check everyone’s mouth, tongue, and other body parts to see if it is healthy. Us as Americans should be able to take care of our even body even though a huge percent of us don’t do that. It would be even more frustrating and complicated for the government and for the society of health all relied on the government. Most likely people would just move out of the country and find them a new life. Some people don’t like to be told or instructed about their health, especially if they know their health isn’t where it should be.
Carter Billings 3rd (1 They say that nicotine causes health problems, so they are banning it to keep the population healthy. (2 He is the owner of Vincent's Country Store. It will drop their income because the people are not buying as many products. (3 He is a Historian for Stanford University. The journalist adds his claims into the article to show how this is odd and support it with a fact. This creates a logos appeal because it appeals to logic and shows you something through facts. (4 On November the 12th. (5 I believe that the banning of all tobacco products would be great. All that tobacco product bring are cancer and other harmful diseases. Even though I think that the banning would be great I don't think it is right to ban it. It needs to be their decision if they want to do that to their body, as far as it being legal I think it is up to the state. (6 The banning of tobacco products could be reminiscent of the Prohibition in the way that people will start to become angry and protest and also start to store it illegally. This ban could backfire on Westminster because people will just go to the next town and buy tobacco products. It also would be hurting the local economy and the business owners. Yes, the Prohibition could teach us a lesson about this type of governmental behavior because the country was on fire and we don't want that happening again. (7 The government has a job and that is to protect its people. So when people are going around giving themselves cancer because of these tobacco products I think that the government needs to step in. We have kids a younger and younger ages breathing in things like second- hand smoke. We also have teenagers who are using these products not fully knowing the repercussions of the products. If the governments job is to protect its people then that is what the government needs to do.
ReplyDeleteEmily Perry
ReplyDelete1. Officials in Westminster wanted to ban tobacco in the city limits because health risks were tied to nicotine products. They cause cancer and other diseases related to the use.
2. Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent Country Store; the ban would cause those who come in for cigarettes to stop buying other products such as drinks, chips, and candy from the store.
3. Robert Proctor is the historian for Stanford University; yes-logos b/c it states facts about the topic.
4. The board will gather on November 12th to discuss whether the will prove or disapprove the ban.
5. Others may disagree, but my personal opinion is that banning tobacco could lower health risks related to tobacco use. It could lower the risk of lung cancer, cardiac diseases, and other related diseases. Also, it would decrease the costs people pay for medications that they need because they are unhealthy due to their smoking habits. But today people will not always try to get rid of their addiction. They might just go to other places to purchase tobacco products.
6. It would be reminiscent of Prohibition because a law was passed that said that the people could not make, transport, or sell alcohol in the US, and in Westminster they are trying to stop people from smoking but this may backfire. They have to remember that the people are capable of growing and making these products themselves illegally and selling them. IF the people actually do follow the ban, then it could possibly improve the towns' health. The government may want control over what the people do with their health, but Prohibition showed that people will go to great lengths to do what they want. During this time, there was so much crime associated with illegal alcohol, that the ban was eventually lifted.
7.Although it is your right to do whatever with your health that you want, when it crosses the line I believe that the government should play a part in warning the public what it can do to your body.
Alex Turner 3rd period
ReplyDelete1. The government has any means necessary to protect public health.
2. Owner of Vincent’s Country Store and he will lose money.
3. Historian of Stanford University. I think he was put in to show that no bans on tobacco have been made in the city in a long time. Logos. It gives you information from the city that helps grasp the story better.
4. Tuesday
5. I feel that it is legal. But not all the way right. It is legal because the government has the jurisdiction to ban any and all public smoking. The government cannot take away the right of smoking in privacy but have the power to protect the public from second hand smoke or any other effects of a smoker. It is not all the way right because It is semi taking away that individuals rights but what turns it from "what I do with my body is my business" is when it effects 53,800 every year from second hand smoke.
6. The people won't need the governments permission they will just do as they please. It depends on the numbers. If more people smoke than non smokers in Westminster then it will turn to a prohibition. If other way around it will only help the town.
7. I think it is the responsibility of the government to give bans because if it is helping more people then it's hurting then whats the problem?
Kat Phillips
ReplyDelete1. because of health risk tied to the nicotine products
2. the owner of a country store and he says it will cost him 100,000 dollars in sales
3. he is a historian who is bringing facts into this discussion which would be pathos.
4. November 12
5. i think even though i disapprove on tobacco usage that they don't need to band the substance because everyone is entitled to their own choices and the city shouldn't make those choices for you.
6.i think that it would be taking away peoples rights also i think it could backfire on them because they need to look at all sides of this situation. last yes i think it could teach us a lesson for future issues like this one.
7.no again the people have the right to their choices let them make mistakes and learn from them if we do this we are giving them control piece by piece of our lives because we are letting them control us and make our decisions for us.
Sydney Emmons 3rd pd.
ReplyDelete1. Because they want to protect the health of the citizens.
2. The owner of Vincent's Country Store. He thinks the ban will also end sales of the smokers buying soda, snacks, etc. So not only will they lose tobacco business, but also their food, drink, etc. business from these smokers.
3. Historian at Stanford University. This gives us an ethos appeal because he seems like a smart figure talking about this.
4. November 12th
5. I don't think tobacco should be banned. We have the right to do what we want.
6. I think that banning anything is pretty much impossible. And since tobacco is a very popular item, it will cause a huge stir among many people if it is banned. So, I think this is an awful idea.
7. I think the government should back off. We can live how we want. We dont need to be told how to live our lives. We should have the right to be unhealthy or healthy, and obtain tobacco, alcohol, etc.
Troy Banks
ReplyDelete1. Due to the health risks associated with ingesting tobacco products
2. He is the owner of Vincent's Country Store and he says that it will heavily affect the income of small businesses
3. He is a historian at Stanford University. He uses Proctor's claims to assert how outlandish the ban is. He uses the ethos appeal, because the historian poses as an authoritative figure who is knowledgeable on the subject of bans.
4. November 12th
5. I believe that if a person chooses to use the product, they may at their expense. They should understand the risks involved before using, so if they do use the product, the repercussions lie on their shoulders. To me, a ban restricts freedom of choice, and in this case the ban is useless. Perhaps on a larger scale it would be more effective in the halting of tobacco use.
6. People would then sell tobacco of any form illegally for their own profit, just as it was done with alcohol in the early 20th century, and just as it is still being done with all sorts of drugs today. All the ban would do for Westminister is negatively damage their economy. I don't think prohibition would teach us any lessons, we seem to know what will happen. It seems that the government is clueless as to what will happen if the ban is enacted.
7. I believe it is either the state or federal government's responsibility, not the local government. I say this because, first, if it were solely up the the citizens, no progress would be made. People wouldn't agree or get along. Secondly, if it were the local government's responsibility, each town you went into would have different health guidelines, and that would be complete and utter chaos. You could go into one town that only serves organic foods, while the next would have McDonald's on every corner, while in the next heroin is legal, and you see people shooting up on street corners. If you're going to regulate something, and you want it to be effective, it must be more massive than just a local movement.
Makenzie Taylor
ReplyDelete1) Officials want to ban all tobacco products in the city limits because they want to abide by their state's court ruling by "protecting the public health by any rational means". They are basically banning tobacco products because of health risks.
2) Brian Vincent is the owner of Vincent's Country Store; He claims that the ban will hurt the local businesses and that it will cost him 100K a year in sales.
3) Robert Proctor is an historian of Sanford University; The journalist included Proctor's claim in the article to emphasize prevalent the production and selling of tobacco has been. The appeal his statement makes is ethos. Stating that he is a historian and noting that he hasn't seen any town considering the band of tobacco products is implying his authority over the subject.
4) The board will vote to approve or disprove the ban November 12.
5) Personally, I believe that banning tobacco products would allow people to live healthier lives because of all of the negative affects tobacco can do to you. But then we wouldn't know how the bodies of tobacco addicts would react to the sudden withdrawal of tobacco. Also, if one should feel the need to smoke tobacco, then I think tobacco should be available to them. I think that the Board should definitely take all of these scenarios into consideration. Again, I know this isn't health class, but banning tobacco products could save lives. But then again, like store owners have said, if they really want it bad enough, its not like they cant just drive over to the next town to buy it there. That would really cause a lot of store owners unnecessarily lose money.
6) Tobacco products could be reminiscent of Prohibition because people will always find a way to get what they want; even if getting it would be illegal. I'm guessing that lot of things similar to smuggling, "bootlegging", and illegal manufacturing of tobacco would take place,
7) I don't think that it is necessarily the government's responsibility to help people help people get healthy. It would be nice of the government to try to help do something like that, but it is honestly not their job. Banning tobacco products would help FEW people get healthy. Either this process will start bad and end well, or start good and end badly. I think it will end up backfiring. It's going to take a lot more than banning the products to stop people from receiving them. Prohibition has already taught us that if the government makes tries to enforce something we don't want enforced, it won't end well.
Grace Singley
ReplyDelete1. Because of citing health risks tied to the nicotine products.
2. The owner of Vincent's Country Store. He opposes the ban claiming that along with banning tobacco products, its also making the smokers buy less extra snacks and items from convenience stores.
3. A historian at Stanford University. The journalist would include his claim to be able to see the story in different perspectives. This creates ethos appeal because it looks at the ethical point of things.
4. November 12
5. I think its a good idea to ban all tobacco products because its bad for people. However, I think even if they ban it, people will still use the products.
6. Yes i think it could improve the towns health obviously. But if they don't look at all sides of this then it could backfire on them.
7. Well really its the individuals choice but i understand how the government would want to help improve the towns health.
Khushi Patel 3rd
ReplyDelete1. Because of health problems.
2.Owner of Vincent's Country Store. He opposed the ban and said that it would cost him 100,000 a year in sales!
3. Historian of StanFord University. I think that it is Ethos because its basically making an appeal to ethics.
4. Nov 12
5. Yes i feel like ALL tobacco products and even alcohol should be banned! It should be right because it is saving people's lives. Everyday so many people die because of lung cancer from smoking or mouth or teeth cancer from tobacco! And if the government is going it, it would be legal if they pass a law for that.
6. Because they are telling them not to do it and they are putting a ban to it so they are forbidding them to use tobacco products and prohibition means to forbid something. It could a little of both. The people who use tobacco in their everyday lives would oppose the ban for sure. They could do strikes and cause a lot of chaos. But on the other hand, it would be really good to those folk's health. The town's health would improve a lot by not using tobacco at all. But i mean they could always go to another town and get their weekly use on it.
7.No i don't think so. Its our own's job and responsibility to take care of our health. The government doesn't tell us to smoke or chew!The people make the choice and later regret it. And if the government doesn't do anything about it, people aren't gonna stop on their own.
Olivia LeComte
ReplyDelete1) Because of the negative ways that tobacco effects your body.
2) A convenience store owner. It will take money away from local businesses and put it into the hands of stores towns over.
3) Robert Proctor is a historian at Stanford University. To provide background about how this has never really been done before from an educated source. Ethos, because the journalist threw in a respectable historian to add credibility to the article.
4) November 12th
5) I feel as though although tobacco is harmful and dangerous, it should be legal to those who properly know the risks.
6) I feel as though a ban on tobacco products would be exactly like the prohibition. people would be more likely than ever to buy them just as a show of minor rebellion to the government. This ban will probably end up backfiring on Westminster. Although it might stop a very small amount of people from smoking, It will more likely take money away from the local businesses and put it elsewhere. Prohibition shows us that the american people as a whole acts like a bunch of whiney entitled children. The second we get something that is bad for us taken away we throw fits. Although i feel as though i would be right there by them throwing a fit.
7) Yes, if people that can't take care of themselves cost the rest of us money then the government needs to step in. Also when thinking about the greater good, sometimes it is best to protect the people from themselves.
1. Because smoking causes cancer, cardiac disease, negative birth outcomes, and more. With all of the negative effects of smoking, I can't see why anybody would voluntarily choose to do it.
ReplyDelete2. The owner of Vincent's Country Store; he says it will severely hurt local stores because cigarettes aren't the only things smokers buy and a ban on cigarettes will cause them to lose a lot of regular customers.
3. A historian from Stanford University; to show that a ban on tobacco has not been attempted in ages, and that this move could possibly start a new series of steps made against the sale of tobacco products; ethos.
4. November 12th
5. A ban on tobacco products is right, called for, and definitely legal in my eyes. I don't see why these products existed in the first place.
6. A ban on tobacco,while definitely needed, will just lead to the illegal and unmonitored sales of it. The more you try to stamp something out, the more it thrives. Even though a ban on tobacco would be ideal to keep the town's gene pool free from weakened sex cells and probably result in stronger children, less pollution,and less cases of cancer, people will always find ways to get what they want, even if what they want id causing their destruction. Addictions always start with a choice.
7. I don't think is the governments job to keep individual people healthy, it's their job to keep people from doing stupid things. Let's face it, when a person willingly chooses to pump thousands of harmful chemicals from tobacco into their body, 69 of which have already been scientifically proven to cause cancer, it's obvious that they are too stupid to make their own decisions. I'd rather have drug abusers be unhappy then have their weak and damaged genes polluting the gene pool.
Josie Parham
ReplyDelete1- Because of the health hazards of tobacco products.
2- The owner of Vincent's Country store who is putting together a petition to stop the ban. He claims it will decrease his sells by about 100,000 dollars a year.
3- A historian at Stanford University,I think the journalist includes Roberts name because Robert may indeed put a certain appeal in the story because he is obviously intelligent and it adds a sort of citation to add effect to the information the author is putting forth.
4- November 12
5- I think that it could go both ways because yes, it will damage store owners greatly but, it is a very dangerous health hazard. So I think we should start small and limit the places that smoking is allowed then get more serious because like the article said, they can just drive to the next town.
6- I think that it would have the same or worse scenario because the people today are so much worse with the need and addiction of tobacco products and it would just start an uprising. I think that the plan will backfire on Westminster because like the article said they could just drive to the next town over and it wouldn't make a difference. Also I definitely think so, because it could show us that taking away something that big in such a vast manor could really affect the people and status of the U.S.
7- Yes and no because we are responsible for ourselves and our health but i definitely don't think they should just be throwing all these harmful drugs out in the open for everyone to use legally. I think they should at least have some grip or handle of the situation.
Abbye Blocker
ReplyDelete1. to protect the public health.
2. Owner of the Vincent's Country Store and he is going to lose money.
3. He is the historian of Stanford university. I believe that he is there to show that there hasn't been a ban on tobacco in a long time
4. Tuesday
5. I think that it is okay to ban tobacco because they are just trying to save the public's health. I feel that it is legal but it is also that person's choice to smoke.
6. They don't need the government's permission to smoke, so they can do what they want.
7. I believe that it's the government's responsible to give bans. If it's helping people and not hurting them there shouldn't be a problem.