Thursday, February 8, 2007
Argument: Should smoking be totally banned [Done by Jacqueline]
Singapore is widely known as the country with the ban of chewing gums. However, it is not true.
Some types of chewing gum which replaces nicotine for smokers are actually sold in pharmacies.
"If chewing gum can be banned in the last ten years, then why not cigerettes?"
Placing a fine in indoor areas and coffeeshops does not solve the problem of passive smoking.
Cigerettes should be banned for sale. However, it should be available for heavy smokers who seek help from specialists to quit smoking.
In this way, smoking will gradually decrease in the long run.
Even though smuggling of cigarettes would definitely increase, it would be harder to get hold of them and soon, smokers would give up eventually. In this way, it will benefit both the public and addicted smokers.
Hence, smoking should be banned but not totally, as welfare for heavy smokers must be thought for.
i blogged @
11:59 AM
Motion: Smoking should be totally banned [Done by Bee Em]Smoking should not be totally banned.
There is no point in totally banning smoking. As chewing gums used to be totally banned, citizens still managed to 'smuggle' chewing gums in. Hence, no matter how serious the government is with regards to banning smoking in Singapore totally, there would still be people who would do what they can to smoke, e.g. smoking at home SECRETLY. This defeats the purpose, as the true aim of banning smoking is to promote healthy lifestyle and to reduce air pollution.
Besides, like what many agree, it is more effective to let heath-related personnels to persuade smokers to give up cigarettes. The diseases and damages caused by smoking are intimidating, however, not enough to stop people from smoking. Hence, there is no exactly an effective way to dissuade people from smoking.
In conclusion, I feel that there is no need to ban smoking totally as it would not help the situation. It is ultimately up to the smokers' desire, freedom and will to live a heathly lifestyle.
i blogged @
11:46 AM
Motion: Smoking should by toally banned [ Done by: Koh Yi Zi ]Ideas adapted from :
http://www.writefix.com/argument/smokingbannedno.htmWell, smoking is rather fashionable now as many people smokes in order to raise their status. Some were influenced by their peers, while the others had already made smoking as part of their life. However, alhough i felt that smoking is indeed harmful to your body, i think that smoking should
not be totally banned.
This is because firstly, there are many people in the world who have started smoking since young. And it is very difficult for one to quit smoking since smoking had been implanted in them. It is thus extremely unfair for them if the government totally banned smoking.
The world has also heavily dependent on the production of of tobacco. There are ten of thousands of people throughout the world working for the tabacco industry. If smoking is totally banned, then people working in the tobacco industry will lost their jobs as a result of the cease of production of cigarettes.
However, smoking should be
totally banned.
This is because if smoking is not totally banned, there will be increasing people getting into debts just to buy a few packets of cigarettes. As we know, smoking is addictive. People who smokes will feel totally uncomfortable if they never smoke. Hence, this results them to smoke more that one cigaretttes a day, if worse, more than a packet. Furthermore a packet of cigarette is not cheap. Thus, if the person gets sink down into the habit of smoking, he will end up owning debts and causes finiancial problems at home.
In addition, smoking in the public areas is an inconsiderate act. This will not only cause the non -smokers to suffer from breathing problems but also lungs problems.
Generally, i felt that smoking should not be totally banned. But restrict more areas to prohibits smoking.
i blogged @
11:45 AM
Smoking should be totally banned [Done By Ramizah]
Smoking should be totally banned because it does not only harms the smoker, but the society. Among the teenagers, smoking is considered a way to release stress. They resort to smoking when they feel pressurized. Some even smoke in school toilets without the knowing of the authorities. This leads to friends choosing their peers, using peer pressure against them. Smoking is only banned in public places in most places.
The production of cigarettes should be stopped but this is impossible. Imagine how many companies would close down due to this. It can only be banned to a limited extend. If it is totally banned, smoking at home would be a crime too! This will then lead to so many people being convicted of such crime.
Smoking cannot be totally banned as there are too many factors that will be affected. However, if it is possible, it should definitely be banned.
i blogged @
11:45 AM
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Motion:
The death penalty should be completely abolished [Done by Jacqueline]
Despite the democratic world, there is still death penalty for certain actions which are not accepted. For example, the recent case of Singapore executing a Vietnamese drug trafficker.
I strongly feel that death penalty should be abolished.
Singapore should not have the right to execute foreigners even though they should have abided by Singapore's law. Foreigners might not be familiarised with Singapore's law as some countries, such as Massachusetts and Hawaii, have abolished death penalty totally.
Everyone has a right to live in their way. No doubt government has a greater power over an individual, but shouldn't an individual has the freedom to have a control over their way of life?
Therefore, I strongly feel that death penalty should be completely abolished.
i blogged @
8:25 AM
Motion:
The death penalty should be completely abolished [Done by Bee Em]
Yes, death penalty should be completely abolioshed.
Firstly, no one have the right to take away someone else's life. Everyone has the right and freedom to live - we ourselves decide whether we want to live. Hence, others should not interfere. Putting yourself in the shoes of the criminals who are to be executed, would you want to be put to death? Majority would say no.
Secondly, the innocent who are executed would not be able to come back to life when there is injustice in the verdict. There is unfairness to the executed and the his family while the real victim is free. Thereby, in order to avoid unnecessary killings, death penalty should be removed completely.
Finally, death penalty compared to lifelong imprisonment is a much simpler way out of the punishment. Being confined in a cell is much more a torture compared to death penalty; the loss of freedom is more tormenting than not living. This is so as when being put to jail for life, there is basically no purpose or reason for living, thereby resulting in mental emptiness. Thus, death is a lighter sentence than lifelong imprisonment. Therefore, there should be no death penalty, if true punishment is to be carried out.No, death penalty should not be completely abolished. In rebuttal to the first point pointed out, the criminals who are given the death penalty have committed serious crimes like murder. Crimes, which harm fellow human beings, are therefore punishable. If, in the case of murder, the criminals have the right to remove other people's right to live, why can't the government, furthermore, it is ultimately for a good cause of protecting other people? Therefore, there is a right to remove life from people who do not appreciate lives. For the second point, it is up to the government to ensure that verdicts are fair and just. There is hence no need to remove death penalty, because of the fear of innocent killing, since the courts are able to judge and investigate to the bottom. For the last point, I do not agree to it totally. Different people have different views about pain and true punishment. Hence, since death is a fear of majority of the human kind, it would still serve as an effective deterrence. If replacing death penalty with lifelong imprisonment, more people would find it allright to kill. That would lead to more crimes and disorder in the countries. Thus, it is important that death penalty to remain in place. Points extracted fromhttp://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/thoughts.html#pro
i blogged @
8:24 AM
Motion: The death penalty should be completely abolished [Done by Ramizah]Adaptations from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_(legal)
http://wikireason.net/wiki/Capital_punishmentCapital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies - both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. Among democratic countries around the world, most European (all of the European Union), Latin American, many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste) and Canada have abolished capital punishment, while the United States, Guatemala, and most of the Caribbean as well as some democracies in Asia and Africa retain it. Among nondemocratic countries, the use of the death penalty is common but not universal.In most places that practice capital punishment today, the death penalty is reserved as a punishment for premeditated murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. Death penalty should not be completely abolished, it should be carried out based on certain factors.
Death penalties should be implemented depending on what kind of crimes that people are convicted for. Capital punishment is implemented mainly to psychologically scare others into not doing such crimes. If such punishments are not implemented to crimes such as murder,are there other ways to punish these offenders? Prisoners jailed for life can still kill other inmates or prison guards. Is corporal punishment enough?
On the contrary, some people feel that death penalty is a violation of the right of life and has a brutalizing or coarsening effect either upon society or those officials and jurors involved in a criminal justice system which imposes it. Scientific studies have been unable to prove that death penalty is a deterrent. Revenge is not an acceptable moral or ethical justification for murder.
The issue on death penalty is something that should be carefully handled.
Adaptations -
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/dp.html
i blogged @
8:21 AM
Motion:The Death Penalty should be completely abolished [ Done by: Koh Yi Zi ]I am neutral about it.
To a certain extent, yes. Death penalty should be completey be abolished. Having a death penalty being a law of a country, it is completely cruel and immoral. Everyone has the right to live on this world. In fact, no one have the authority to killed or "award" death penalty. From young, we were taught by our parents "to forgive and to forget" and not to bear grudges. But, why is the government still having the death penalty as a law?
Let's put ourselves into the victim's shoes. What if we are the families of the family? how will we feel if we are "awarded" a death penalty? We will be totally trumatised by what it had actually happened.
However, death penalty should not be completely abolished too.
If the government abolish the death penalty, does it mean that people who murder will escape from punishment? It is definitely not enough if the government only jail them. They don't deserve such punishment. As the chinese saying goes "一命还一命 ”means, a person who kills, shall pay his life.
In addition, the existence of death penalty will instill a thinking in everyone that, he will get his punishment as a responsibilty of what he did.
As a result, the execution of death penalty is dependent on how serious one's wrong is.
i blogged @
8:21 AM
