12 marks for a summary that includes two conditions that led to the change in policy-where appropriate, agreements are supported by points made in the lesson regarding factors that encourage change
12 mark for including 2 obstacles to social change
12 marks for summary being organized, and includes an introduction, main body and conclusion.
Hello...here is another essay looool...i have a lot of essays to hand in lol...thanks once again. I was wondering if you could look over it and tell me what you think. Thanks
Also can you tell me if my conclusion is alright
It can be argued that smoking is currently an increasing trend that is causing societal conflicts amongst the public, and government officials. This debatable issue, can be viewed from two different perspectives: A frequent argument opposing the government's legal prohibitions on restricting public smoking, is that they violate the rights of individuals (smokers) and property owners. However, this argument can be countered by public polices and health regulations that suggest individuals should be able to patronize particular establishments, without being exposed to health risks-mainly chronic and acute diseases. Smoking restrictions in public venues stems from the fact that medical studies are demonstrating that individuals can be affected with illnesses, such as heart disease and cancer, due to publicized smoking. It becomes the obvious that the modification of Canada's policy, regarding localized smoking was primarily because of the increasing rate of second-hand smoke, and health hazards. Also, Canada's demographics and leadership have to do with the alternation of smoking policies. Even though this appears as a significant achievement, economically the tobacco industry acquires millions of dollars annually. By prohibiting public smoking it may economically affect Canada, due to the tobacco industry being a profitable corporation. This could also have a negative impact on businesses, such as restaurants, bars, etc. Also this can be viewed as a prejudiced act that demonizes smokers, and is in favor of non-smokers, rather then accommodating a solution that benefits society as a whole.
Economically and culturally, smoking is now acknowledged as the "norm" within society. Yet the issue of prohibiting public smoking erupts various disagreements. Health officials regard this problem as "urgent," due it affecting the health of other human beings. Medial studies demonstrate that second-hand smoke is linked to illnesses such as heart disease and cancer, resulting in up to 2600 people in Ontario dying annually. Arguably, this emerges as one of the issues that led to change in policy. Passive smoking and involuntary smoking are a hazard to society, which is why laws are implementing bans in public venues. As smoking bans become widespread, non smokers' exposure to second-hand smoke will decline. Smoke-free bylaws are a major change in policy, but it simply occurred due to Canada's demographics.
Majority of the individuals in Canada are non-smokers, and most likely would rather attend public places, especially work, without being at risk of illnesses. Basically, Canada's demographics are in favor of non-smokers, considering most of the population does not smoke tobacco. Other individuals may view this as "biased," but the leadership of Canada reflects the needs of the people. The municipal government has already taken great measures across Canada to illegalize public smoking, especially in Ontario. Two-thirds of Ontario residents are able to attend eateries that practice smoke-free bylaws. Premier Dalton McGuinty's media director Audrey Gouskous made it clear that the government of Ontario is maintaining a commitment to the non-smoking policy. The leadership of certain provinces is another objective to why there has been a strict restriction in policy, due to individuals come to a realization that second-hand smoke is preventable.
Furthermore, smoking bans that are heavily advocated by potential patrons, medical and government officials, maybe advantageous to non-smokers, but what about business revenues, as well as the rights of individuals. This change in policy, could cause major obstacles for property owners, and major industries, predominately the tobacco industry. Delhi and Simcoe oppose the smoking bylaws, since neglects the needs of tobacco farmers. They find it completely unjustly that tobacco farmers may have to smoke outside of their work, but it appears it just might occur, due to Liberals promising prohibitions on smoking in workplaces and public buildings will be established.
Aylmars Mayor Bob Habkirk appears to be neutral in regards to the recent phenomena-smoking bylaws. Restaurants in Aylmars are adequately divided into two sections for smokers and non-smokers. John Moylan who is in charge of Tillsbourg's (restaurant) economic development committee, finds the recent regulations as something that could jeopardize restaurants. Like other individuals who are involved with businesses that maybe affected by this rule, Moylan suggests that those in power should form a decision that benefits both sides-smokers and non-smokers. Yet, this regulation helped bar and restaurant revenues in New York, considering the revenues rose 12% in the first months of its smoking ban.
On the contrary, Barry McKay who is the head of the Ottawa-based Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada believes the provincial's strategy targeting public smoking, will cause hundreds of bars to go out of business. McKay sees this as a personal attack toward smokers and the tobacco industry, since he suggests other agreements could've been arranged, such as ventilation laws for bars and restaurants. Jason Lietaer, who is the general manager of the Ontario Flue0Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board in Tillsonburg, provides factual evidence that economically the tobacco industry earns $513 million and employs 14,000. This a major aspect of Canada's economy, which can be affected by the smoke-free bylaws, if public places ban smoking. This situation may result in taxes increasing, as well an alienation amongst taxpaying Ontarians, due to the smuggling and non-smoking legislation.
Additionally, the conditions in the change policy were mainly caused by the demographics of Canada, proposing majority of Canadians are non-smokers, and are at risk of various illnesses. The leadership in Canada is suggesting a new era for Canadians to follow, in regards to health and safety. Provincial leaders and medical officials are looking out for the well being of humanity, rather then the reduced business revenues. Even though this law may be viewed as offensive, since smokers may feel demonized, innocent people are dying annually due to second-hand smoke. This begs the question: What's more important, the safety of society, or Canada's economy? Property owners will continue to make conscious decisions that smoking should be allowed, and if a non-smoker attends a public venue that practices smoking, it's their option. While medical officials argued that individuals should have the freedom to attend places without being at risk of receiving diseases. But truly, the main reason why this argument is so major, is because Canada practices a society that benefits all, but in this case, only non-smokers are at an advantage, while smokers, and individuals who own public venues are left unsatisfied.
12 mark for including 2 obstacles to social change
12 marks for summary being organized, and includes an introduction, main body and conclusion.
Hello...here is another essay looool...i have a lot of essays to hand in lol...thanks once again. I was wondering if you could look over it and tell me what you think. Thanks
Also can you tell me if my conclusion is alright
It can be argued that smoking is currently an increasing trend that is causing societal conflicts amongst the public, and government officials. This debatable issue, can be viewed from two different perspectives: A frequent argument opposing the government's legal prohibitions on restricting public smoking, is that they violate the rights of individuals (smokers) and property owners. However, this argument can be countered by public polices and health regulations that suggest individuals should be able to patronize particular establishments, without being exposed to health risks-mainly chronic and acute diseases. Smoking restrictions in public venues stems from the fact that medical studies are demonstrating that individuals can be affected with illnesses, such as heart disease and cancer, due to publicized smoking. It becomes the obvious that the modification of Canada's policy, regarding localized smoking was primarily because of the increasing rate of second-hand smoke, and health hazards. Also, Canada's demographics and leadership have to do with the alternation of smoking policies. Even though this appears as a significant achievement, economically the tobacco industry acquires millions of dollars annually. By prohibiting public smoking it may economically affect Canada, due to the tobacco industry being a profitable corporation. This could also have a negative impact on businesses, such as restaurants, bars, etc. Also this can be viewed as a prejudiced act that demonizes smokers, and is in favor of non-smokers, rather then accommodating a solution that benefits society as a whole.
Economically and culturally, smoking is now acknowledged as the "norm" within society. Yet the issue of prohibiting public smoking erupts various disagreements. Health officials regard this problem as "urgent," due it affecting the health of other human beings. Medial studies demonstrate that second-hand smoke is linked to illnesses such as heart disease and cancer, resulting in up to 2600 people in Ontario dying annually. Arguably, this emerges as one of the issues that led to change in policy. Passive smoking and involuntary smoking are a hazard to society, which is why laws are implementing bans in public venues. As smoking bans become widespread, non smokers' exposure to second-hand smoke will decline. Smoke-free bylaws are a major change in policy, but it simply occurred due to Canada's demographics.
Majority of the individuals in Canada are non-smokers, and most likely would rather attend public places, especially work, without being at risk of illnesses. Basically, Canada's demographics are in favor of non-smokers, considering most of the population does not smoke tobacco. Other individuals may view this as "biased," but the leadership of Canada reflects the needs of the people. The municipal government has already taken great measures across Canada to illegalize public smoking, especially in Ontario. Two-thirds of Ontario residents are able to attend eateries that practice smoke-free bylaws. Premier Dalton McGuinty's media director Audrey Gouskous made it clear that the government of Ontario is maintaining a commitment to the non-smoking policy. The leadership of certain provinces is another objective to why there has been a strict restriction in policy, due to individuals come to a realization that second-hand smoke is preventable.
Furthermore, smoking bans that are heavily advocated by potential patrons, medical and government officials, maybe advantageous to non-smokers, but what about business revenues, as well as the rights of individuals. This change in policy, could cause major obstacles for property owners, and major industries, predominately the tobacco industry. Delhi and Simcoe oppose the smoking bylaws, since neglects the needs of tobacco farmers. They find it completely unjustly that tobacco farmers may have to smoke outside of their work, but it appears it just might occur, due to Liberals promising prohibitions on smoking in workplaces and public buildings will be established.
Aylmars Mayor Bob Habkirk appears to be neutral in regards to the recent phenomena-smoking bylaws. Restaurants in Aylmars are adequately divided into two sections for smokers and non-smokers. John Moylan who is in charge of Tillsbourg's (restaurant) economic development committee, finds the recent regulations as something that could jeopardize restaurants. Like other individuals who are involved with businesses that maybe affected by this rule, Moylan suggests that those in power should form a decision that benefits both sides-smokers and non-smokers. Yet, this regulation helped bar and restaurant revenues in New York, considering the revenues rose 12% in the first months of its smoking ban.
On the contrary, Barry McKay who is the head of the Ottawa-based Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada believes the provincial's strategy targeting public smoking, will cause hundreds of bars to go out of business. McKay sees this as a personal attack toward smokers and the tobacco industry, since he suggests other agreements could've been arranged, such as ventilation laws for bars and restaurants. Jason Lietaer, who is the general manager of the Ontario Flue0Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board in Tillsonburg, provides factual evidence that economically the tobacco industry earns $513 million and employs 14,000. This a major aspect of Canada's economy, which can be affected by the smoke-free bylaws, if public places ban smoking. This situation may result in taxes increasing, as well an alienation amongst taxpaying Ontarians, due to the smuggling and non-smoking legislation.
Additionally, the conditions in the change policy were mainly caused by the demographics of Canada, proposing majority of Canadians are non-smokers, and are at risk of various illnesses. The leadership in Canada is suggesting a new era for Canadians to follow, in regards to health and safety. Provincial leaders and medical officials are looking out for the well being of humanity, rather then the reduced business revenues. Even though this law may be viewed as offensive, since smokers may feel demonized, innocent people are dying annually due to second-hand smoke. This begs the question: What's more important, the safety of society, or Canada's economy? Property owners will continue to make conscious decisions that smoking should be allowed, and if a non-smoker attends a public venue that practices smoking, it's their option. While medical officials argued that individuals should have the freedom to attend places without being at risk of receiving diseases. But truly, the main reason why this argument is so major, is because Canada practices a society that benefits all, but in this case, only non-smokers are at an advantage, while smokers, and individuals who own public venues are left unsatisfied.
