Identification by Fingerprints and DNA

Lately, our topics for class have dealt with identification. Almost every time this comes up, I think that we should just use fingerprints to solve our problems. I think that fingerprints and DNA should be taken at birth. If the government has all of our fingerprints on file, they could be used to identify criminals, voters, and murder victims. The DNA could be used for the same things, although it would only be needed in the few rare cases where the fingerprints are no longer viable.

I'll talk about fingerprints first. I think this would be amazing. The only reasons I can think of for not wanting the government to have our fingerprints is that they would be able to identify law breakers easier. Criminals won't like this plan. The only reason I can see for the government not wanting our fingerprints is that it would be fairly expensive to start. After that initial period, it would be amazing. It would also be good for illegal immigration because anyone not is the system would be illegal and if you took the prints of illegals that get deported you could easily find repeat offenders.

I think it would be so easy to put in place. Other than the people that will be scanned at birth, almost everyone else could still be done in the hospitals. Most people go to the doctor at least once a year. Test them then. For the few that don't, just set up the same thing in some government place. The main cost I can see from this program would be that every site that takes the prints would need to have some new equipment and there would have to be many people to take care of the database itself.

I think that DNA testing at birth would also be amazing. There is a little more to worry about than fingerprints, but as of right now, science can't do anything to your DNA to hurt you. I could find nothing bad on the internet, only good things like this LIST.

If everyone had their DNA taken at birth, it could be analyzed to check for certain disorders. Some states already have PROGRAMS set up that look for the those disorders. I think it should be on the health care bill.

All of the science majors I have talked to so far think that this is a great idea. Overall I think it would reduce problems about identity and increase the overall health of the public.

 -Cody Dreier

Who Said Taxes Were Fair??

As we round up the tax season stress many people are either frustrated with the little amount they received back on taxes or the large amount they are forced to pay in on taxes. I know I am one of the people as well. Every week I work an average of 45-65 hours and every two weeks I am depressed when I see my paycheck. It is such a bummer to me working so much and seeing $100-$200 taken out just on my state and federal taxes. Paying that much in one would think I would get a fairly decent refund check after filing my taxes... well once again, not true. It's rough being a full time student juggling a full time job and not even getting the amount of money I deserve.
Another situation, my mom, a real estate agent, works her butt off everyday of the week, gets smashed every year on her taxes as well. Each tax season my mom has to take out a loan just so she can pay into taxes. How's that justified? Real estate agents are to be "self-employed" even though they are not. Obviously something is wrong with this picture.
Final situation, President Obama, makes more than $700,000 a year according to CNN, and yet has a lower income tax rate than his secretary whose salary is aprox. $95,000 a year. So while I'm paying in what I feel is a lot of money on each of my paychecks, President Obama can barely say he pays his fair share at all.
I personally think something needs to change with the way taxes are handled. I'm tired of paying all my money into taxes when I feel like I barely get anything out of it. The trickle-down theory that we are said to have is a bust, and we should really get a more up-to-date way of handling these things and soon.

Dances With Wolves. . . Not

Recently, there has been controversy over the recent re-introduction of wolves into parts of  the United States.  These complaints come mainly at the behest of farmers and/or ranchers who feel that their livelihood, the livestock they raise and sell for various purposes.  The wolves used to be on the list of Federally Endangered Species but were recently removed by Congress.  This was the first time that Congress had directly intervened and removed a species from the Endangered List.  This action has outraged many environmental groups for a couple reasons.  First, they do not believe that the wolves were ready as a species, whether in terms of population or some other factor, to be released into the wild again.  Second, they were not happy in that Congress stepped directly in and intervened in something that they probably didn't have the appropriate knowledge to be making decisions with.  There has been a widespread public outrage at the release of these wolves into the wild.  Many people feel that the wolves will be a danger to farmers' livestock and pets.  So far there have not been many if any cases of livestock going missing and people blaming it on the recently re-introduced predators.  The fact is, people are just afraid that they will become a problem if they start to hunt the  livestock.  Some people, afraid that the wolves will become a problem as stated above, have decided that seeing as the wolves are no longer on the Endangered Species List, the laws against hunting and trapping said animals don't necessarily apply any longer.  People have started trapping animals and some pictures of dead and maimed wolves that appeared in the media and on social networking sites such as Facebook have caused quite a stir in the Mid-West.  Many people have responded to these pictures with enthusiasm and sometimes even support for the actions of the hunters and trappers.  The farmers and ranchers are afraid that the wolves will encroach on their property and kill their livestock but the simple fact of the mater is, the wolves were here long before the humans.  The land we call our own, was theirs to begin with.  They are not encroaching on the farmers' land, it's the other way around.  People's views of wolves depends first and foremost where they are from and whether or not their occupations and assets are harmed by the wolves.  I personally believe that the wolves have every right to live in their ancestral environment and we as humans have no right to push them out of that land.  We are supposed to live in harmony with nature, not push it out.

What's the Real Cause of Global Warming

Global warming, is it a real thing? Is it simply earth’s natural climate change? Or are humans contributing to it? These a few of the questions raised when talking about global warming. There are many views to whether or not global warming is humans caused or natural, and there’s evidence to support both sides of the debate. Many people think that humans are the main cause of global warming. I think however, that while we may have a part in it, I don’t believe we’re the main cause of global warming.

Earth’s climate has raised and lowered the temperature several times in the past and I think that is what’s occurring now. Natural Causes of Global Warming website states that scientists have studied and proven that in the past, temperatures were higher than they are today, and they also produced more extreme conditions than we’re seeing today. Why is everybody freaking out when this has all happened before? The Earth has had Ice Ages and those have melted away into nothing, hint, the Earth’s temperature has riser before. The Earth’s climate goes in a cycle and about every 40,000 years is when the cycle changes. If people have been able to study this fact that every 40,000 years the climate changes, I would say it’s occurred enough times in the past.  

Several “go-greeners” think that humans drive too much and don’t recycle enough because it pollutes the air. I think recycling is a good and necessary thing, but I don’t think it aides to global warming. Methane is a greenhouse gas that helps to trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. Methane is released from the arctic tundra and the wetlands almost year round. As the tundra freezes it releases methane gas into the air from the ice squeezing the greenhouse gas out of the soil as its refreezing. However not all of the methane in the soil is released. Some of it gets trapped underneath the ice thus having no place to go. In the article Nature published called MethaneBursts from Frozen Tundra it discusses this new phenomenon and how scientists have been studying it. The article says that scientists have discovered that the trapped methane gas escapes through plant roots and stems and is emitted into the atmosphere that way.  Also the northern wetlands release a considerable amount of methane because of microbes breaking down organic debris once the tundra has frozen.

Global warming is an important issue in our world. While humans can take precautions for ways to reduce greenhouse gases, I don’t believe we can make a huge difference in preventing it.  The arctic tundra and wetlands have been proven to release a large amount of methane yearly and recycling just won’t fix that. People say history repeats itself, and I think we’re in the midst of that repeating cycle right now.

Should there be an effort to control the booming population?

            Last year the world population reached 7 billion people. With the population constantly growing, having some control over the population might be a good idea. Other parts of the world have tired this before and the most notably being China putting a limit on the number of children families can have and preferring boys. In the mid 1970s India also went on a sterilizing spree and had quotas to meet to help try and control the population. These two examples are both very drastic and I think that there are ways to help control the population without taking these kinds of measures.

            People need to worry about the population because it helps control economical development. If the population is too large then schools and hospitals don’t function properly and there is not enough housing for everyone. Nigeria is one of the six most populous cities with 167 million people living there and is currently testing on how to help control the population. Last year the city started giving out contraceptives for free. The government has previously recommended that families limited families to four children, but this had little effect.

            Different cultures are the main reason why recommendations of a smaller family have gone unchanged. In Africa a large family is a sign of wealth and prosperity. These cultural differences have just divided the rich and the poor even more. The poorer populations just keep having more children, while the richer populations have realized they can no longer afford have lots of children. People are finally realizing it costs a lot to raise a child.

            I think that things need to be done to help curb the population growth, but within measures. Offering free contraceptives like in Nigeria I think is a good idea to help curb the population growth. I do believe that what China has done in making a law on the number of children a family can have is drastic and not a good way to go about this problem. I don’t know of many other ways besides offering free or more easily accessible contraceptives to people to help with population control. Many people don’t want the government to get too involved, but there are ways other ways to help control the population besides laws. If our population keeps growing as much as it is now it is projected that by 2100 our world population will be over 10 billion. With that many people economies, schools and hospitals will all have trouble running. Many people will be without food or shelter. If people would be more aware on how much it costs, the consequences and responsibilities of having children then maybe some people will think twice about wanting so many children.

Becoming an Active Citizen

Political knowledge shows exponential growth from the time of birth, to the time of one’s epiphany: by epiphany, I mean one’s final conclusion that it is important to know everything and anything they can to best support their country by becoming an active citizen.

I believe I am approaching this epiphany as this semester concludes, and I believe I can devote my drive, or at least some of it, now, to Dr. Maloyed’s political science class. My growth in political involvement can best be described by taking a look at my very first blog post uploaded almost three months ago. I have never been even half this knowledgeable about politics until I entered this class and was “forced” to become an active citizen and try to understand the workings of the political world.

With that being said:

I feel like it is a great life to live, being a college aged student, because we have so many opportunities: one of those being political understanding and involvement of our government and its process.

I believe the most logical way for one to progress out of their shell at this age is, first, to distance one’s self from their guardians and stretch out to form their own opinions with the knowledge that is given and that is found, and grow as an active citizen.

Second, a necessary component to creating an opportunity out of being a college student is to have an open mind. It is important to not fully believe nor fully doubt ideas until you have taken a look at both sides and, more or less, understand each one and then form your opinion.

Third, there are an abundance of classes offered in the college atmosphere that can open one up numerous different views. It is important to take advantage of these classes that are offered and broaden your horizons.

Beyond college, there are oodles of different views among the people you know; including family. During this year’s Easter dinner discussion, we talked about the ongoing presidential race, where taxpayer money goes, the recent contraceptive controversy, and the successes and faults of previous presidents. Politics has always, and I believe will always make me nervous around my family. When talking with peers or friends, it isn’t as difficult for me to express my opinions, however when approaching an issue from a different standpoint than my elders, it is extremely difficult to convey my thoughts towards a political topic. However, this brings me to my fourth and final point, it isn’t impossible to share one’s information or to soak up information from others, including one’s elders. It opens up doors for each person in the situation. My grandparents got a taste of my views and in turn I now have a better understanding of their opinions. In fact, they swayed me a little in the opposite direction as I listened to their argument. Debating issues is an important part of the political process so each side can understand where the other is coming from.

It takes drive to want to learn as a citizen about one’s community, one’s country and one’s world. As Jason Matthews states in his article, “it is both a right and a duty to have a certain amount of involvement in the policies of the nation.” I feel like many choose to sit back and let others deal with the opinions, as it is a difficult duty to become an active citizen and educate yourself along the way. I think the world has a positive future when its citizens are involved and burden the process of creating success among the human race.

Illegal Immigrants

Should America be so lenient toward illegal immigrants? No. If you want to come to this country, then you need to go get a green card. In other countries, illegal immigrants are severely punished for going to the country ILLEGALLY. America on the other hand, hands out jobs to those who don’t even pay taxes. Why? Because we like cheap labor. Well cheap labor is awesome when you’re hiring actual citizens of this country. Why should the poverty stricken people of this country stand by and allow illegal immigrants to take American jobs? They shouldn’t. If somebody wants to come over to America and be a part of this country, he or she needs to take the necessary actions to become a citizen. I do realize that attaining a green card and all of the requirements to become a citizen is difficult. But if you really want to live in a better place and have more opportunities, is some paperwork really that much to ask? In 1993, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, then president of Mexico, said that NAFTA would allow Mexico to “export goods and not people.” This promise has obviously not been kept. 

                I believe that America needs to enforce stricter laws against illegal immigrants coming into this country. If a person is discovered to be illegal, more action needs to be taken rather than just getting deported. I am not saying that we should throw every illegal immigrant into jail, that is also for American citizens. I am saying that anyone discovered to be illegal needs to be not only deported, but also heavily fined. This will hopefully make people think twice before illegally crossing that border. Along with fining the illegal immigrants, officials should also fine their American employers. There are laws and fines that have been created for the purpose of reducing the amount of illegal immigrants being hired. I do not think that these laws are enforced strongly enough. Employers are still continuing to hire illegal immigrants in order to have cheap labor. This labor should be made not so cheap by increasing the fines and consequences for hiring those without citizenship. Every state should follow Arizona and have harsher laws. In Arizona, officials can stop anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. Although harsh, this law has helped.

                If illegal immigrants continue to enter this country, the consequences need to be raised. If the consequences are worse, people will think twice about coming to America and not going through the process to become a citizen. 

A Swift Punishment for Justice

     I believe that pain is a great teacher. I remember back when I was a little kid and I stuck my hand on a stove burner and it burned my hand. I learned right then and there, through a self inflicted form of painful punishment, that touching a burner was bad and I have never done it again, on purpose at least. Pain is a great teacher, so great that it does not discriminate, it does not take sides, it deals punishment equally to everyone. If you cannot tell I am a firm believer in pain as a punishment which is why corporal punishment should be allowed in all schools in any shape or form.

     Corporal punishment has come under a lot of heat for being a form of public child abuse and, though a lot of people see it that, way I just do not. Ina Subulica states in Corporal Punishment in Schools, "There is a clear difference between punishment and abuse; responsible adults can be trustedto know that difference. Allowing teachers and parents to punish children is no excuse for abusing them, and that is perfectly clear for everyone." Though I may have made it sound like I feel that every situation should be solved with pain that is not the case. I feel that corporal punishment should be an option. We hold adults to a high standard where they should be able to decide what action is right to take. If a kid is acting in a manner not productive to their surroundings then maybe the action to take to deal with it is some sort of counseling or maybe it is corporal punishment. In Should Your Child Be Spanked at School? In 19 States, It's Legal  a boy was spanked for roughhousing with another student on a school bus. When I read that I feel that the kid deserved it. Roughhousing on a bus is very dangerous and it is got out of control could distract the driver which would put everyone on the bus at risk of getting injured in a crash. To me that seems like an action that deserves more that just the usual, non-productive saying of "don't do it again."

     I have a lot of personal experience with punishment being handed down to me through a swift spank to my rear quarters. I have had a lot of life lessons taught to me while I was bent over being paddled from behind. As a kid there are things that you do not know about how things work in the world, and if you try and do something that is not acceptable in society like I use to try, a spanking made me think twice about ever doing it again. Corporal punishment has a place in society and is a great teacher and I know this from experience.

Sensationalism In The Media

Sensationalism in the media is the process of hyping up news stories in order to sell more papers or have more viewers.  This is known as market-driven journalism. Wikipedia states, that some tactics of sensationalism include: appealing to emotions, being controversial, omitting facts, and acting to obtain attention. When watching the news it seems the most common tactic is threatening someone’s life. This video is a great example of news reporters manipulating the people’s fears and emotions.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KgrYWn7ALM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9JkU02Sgk0&feature=colike

            There are many effects of sensationalism. Buzzle.com states that these are: a lack of interest to listen to the media, degradation of values, the distinction between accurate and inaccurate news has disappeared, celebrities’ private lives are no longer private, and worst of all sensationalism is destroying the awareness level of the viewers.

No wonder the people care less and less about the news. When the media is projecting false or exaggerated information, why should anyone watch it? It is almost better to not watch the falsified information than be terrified of the world.

            With this constant threat of life coming to an end, of course people aren’t paying attention. In order to prevent sensationalism effects, we as viewers need to take the power away from the media. When watching the news, do not just accept; think critically and question what you are seeing. When reading the news online, do not just use one source; obtain information from a number of sites. It is surprising the number of deaths in accidents can miraculously change from story to story. Even if the media does not change their tactics, the way we interpret the news can. When the media lies to the masses, the masses must rise and defend themselves.

            Sensationalism in the media is a huge problem. It is bringing apathy and ignorance to the people. It causes hysteria and a lack of awareness. It is one of the few problems in our country we can easily fix. It is our obligation to solve the problem of sensationalism.

The New Way to Win Elections

The 2012 upcoming elections and various debates seem to be leaving most Americans questioning what ever happened to elections being civilized. With all the new technology, it really isn't any surprise that the elections have taken the turn that they have. You are probably thinking that I am discussing the presidential election like everybody else, but honestly, those old farts couldn't use technology if their life depended on it. Instead, I am discussing the downfall of our Nebraska Senate election.

Recently, candidates Jon Bruning and Don Stenberg have gone head to head over something so juvenile: Twitter. During a debate, Bruning accused Stenberg of trying to follow his 14-year-old daughter, Lauren Bruning,  on Twitter according to Fox News. Bruning kept repeating how he thought it was very 'creepy' of a 62-year-old to be following, or trying to follow in this case, a 14-year-old. Stenberg rebutted with the fact that he doesn't run his own account like most politicians, including Jon Bruning. He also stated that his account has a database that scopes out prospective people to follow including things such as their last name or party. He figured that this was all due to a mistake the computer had made and apologized for everything. Seems like a good ending, think again.


The reason for the downfall of our elections is the fact that this all happened in the view of the public eye. Bruning, even now, will not drop this matter and keeps discussing how creepy it was for him to try to add him. Personally, I agree with Dan Parsons, a spokesperson for Stenberg, with what he discusses in the Kearney Hub. Parsons brought up the fact that this was all said in the middle of a debate, when it should have been handled privately. I completely agree and I am a little appalled by Bruning's character. Serving on the Attorney General's Youth Advisory Council last year, I had the pleasure of meeting Jon Bruning and he didn't seem capable of dirty politics. It seems that this was all just a strike against Don Stenberg's character. If we all truly acted like adults, Bruning would have had his daughter's best interests in mind and spoken to Stenberg about the matter privately. Bruning tried to accuse Stenberg of dragging his daughter into the race when that is exactly what Bruning did himself.


After watching the debate, I am just shocked what politics has really come to. Is this any way to win? To try to prove someone's character is horrible by what they do on Twitter? I realize that we have to accept that technology will be apart of every aspect in our lives but this just seems outrageous. What I take from it is that Bruning devised a perfect plan to dodge the question of Stenberg's and his different opinion on the cabinet members. Stenberg was bring up a legitimate issue when Bruning brought this out. I admit, there are some things that need to be brought up during debates, but this sure as hell isn't one of them. The ironic part of this whole thing is that Bruning also has some minors that he is following on Twitter, including a 16-year-old. Now let's talk about creepy. The only person that doesn't seem to have stooped this far is Deb Fischer. I am sure she will be considered more when it gets closer to the election based on this whole thing. But is there a way to truly know our candidates fully? Each one seems to be able to point out the flaws in the other but not acknowledge their own flaws. I would almost rather vote for someone who knows their flaws and doesn't let them slow him/her down.

Political Public Radio

Listen to the latest episode of PPR here.

Do We Need Another Civil Rights Movement?

In the article, “We Don’t Need another Civil Rights Movement,” posted by Lester K. Spence on theroots.com, the subtitle states the exact thoughts of Spence, saying “We have become so distrustful of the political process that we think marches and cultural transformations will solve our problems.

Further into this article, Spence states that “there is no relationship between black cultural traits and educational outcomes. Having a child out of wedlock, for example, has little bearing on educational outcomes if the parent has a high income.” Spence believes that we focus on culture far too much I'm not saying that culture is unimportant, but we focus on it far more than the data suggest we should.

In the article “Why blacks need another civil rights movement,” Murray A. Fortner is questioned by Judy Howard Ellis; And according to Fortner, a civil rights movement is a need.

Contrary to the ideas of Spence in the article I referred to earlier, Fortner says, “Earning money has nothing to do with how socially responsible one happens to be. It is not what you do from 8 to 5. It is what you do from 5 to 8.” He also states that that there is a number of African Americans that are focus too much on their status and individual achievement.

It seems to me that there are two extremely different viewpoints with facts that don’t quite match up. One thinks we need another civil rights movement and believes that the determining factor to success lies within what happens in ones’ home life and that money has no effect; likewise, the other thinks that we don’t need another civil rights movement and believes that what happens at home doesn’t matter if there is a high income.

I think Spence focuses more on the effects of one’s life on their general success and he is saying is that if there is a high income, cultural matters don’t make as much of an impact, but in a low income situation, cultural things matter a lot more. Fortner, though, is more focused on the effects on one’s social responsibility and is saying that one’s social responsibility comes from their cultural background and how they were raised.

I think ideas on what you think is needed for civil rights is truly up to your opinion and where you come from and what you have been exposed to. I think that the need for a civil rights movement can be looked at in multiple ways, and can be “fought” for different reasons. Possibly, there is a need for a movement to improve social responsibility, and possibly, there is a need for a movement to improve success rates. Also, I am sure there are many more ways to look at this, I just don’t know if a full civil rights movement is needed. I think there might be a need for further examination on the situation.

Womens Rights in the Workplace

Although names like Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt no longer have a large role in our modern day society, this isn’t to say that there is no longer a need for women’s rights activists. When talking about the workplace, women don’t make as much money as men. As pay increases along with job title, the pay gap difference between men and women widens. According to a study by PayScale, in jobs paying less than $100,000, women earn only 6 percent less than that of men in their positions. However, in jobs that pay greater than $100,000, women earn 87 percent of that which their male counterparts receive.

What accounts for this difference? I find it unlikely that the disparity comes from blatant discrimination, like “He is a man, thus he deserves higher pay.” Rather, a suggestion from PayScale seems more plausible, and that is that “higher-paid jobs often have less concrete or quantifiable measures of productivity and duties.” Meaning, subjectivity comes into play. Subconscious gender roles unveil themselves even more so as jobs become more about quality over quantity. If a job is quantifiable, then men and women are more likely to receive equal pay because merit can be directly tied into job duties. Thus, if a job is not quantifiable, then it is more subjective, so a man may receive higher pay because of characteristics attributed to men that aren’t necessarily job qualifications.

According to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to discriminate against a person in the workplace based off of gender. This includes confining an individual to gender roles. For instance, a woman cannot be barred from promotion, because her employer perceives all women as being pushovers. I believe that gender roles are a main reason for pay disparity in our modern day. While this reason is usually not intentional, it results in unequal employment opportunities and benefits for women.

Some people argue that women don’t seek out male dominated occupations such as being a CEO of a company or being a doctor, because women have an inherent tendency to not want such positions. Perhaps there is a long line of discrimination in such areas, thus women are discouraged from them. As Laura Fitzpatrick states, “A dearth of role models might, in turn, influence the next generation of girls to gravitate toward lower-paying fields, creating an unfortunate cycle.”

I think that there is no question that equality has yet to find permanence within America’s workplace. I also believe that society has made progress with this issue. However, I am afraid that progress is tapering off and this issue of gender pay difference will find itself complacent before being resolved.

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying as defined by Canadian teacher Bill Belsey is "the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." In other words, using cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media platform to harass an individual. While this is a very serious occurrence, and shouldn’t be something that is happening, I personally feel that the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. To me, cyberbullying is just the latest way that bullies bully other kids. What used to be giving kids mean nicknames and pestering them about this or that has simply just followed everything else in our culture and made it’s way to the internet and social media. Now in no way am I saying that this is right, I’m very against it happening, and precautions against it should be taken, but I feel that trying to eradicate it and abolish it from schools and other institutions is just foolish. Not only will there always be that person or persons who just flat out ignore the rules and do it anyway, but one tricky thing about cyberbullying is that what one person views as being cyberbullied, another might just call having a little harmless fun with no intentions of harm to the individual feeling wronged. This article from the anti bullying website bullybeware.com asks the question “What would Cyberbullying look like if there were no screen to hide behind?” I feel that is a legitimate question, but one that I think has a rather simple answer. It would look like regular, “good” old-fashioned bullying. I believe that there are definitely some things that are said by cyberbullies that they wouldn’t say face to face solely because not having to literally say it allows them to be more aggressive, but I really think that at the end of the day you’ve got to come to terms with the fact that some people out there are just bullies, and outright mean people who will do their best to put down others for whatever reasons they believe justifiable. I hope that I’m wrong in saying that I don’t think that there will ever be a final, end-all solution to cyberbullying, but I do believe that with time and the proper education about the subject, there will be much more hope for individuals who are being cyberbullied and a safe outlet for them to be able to receive help for their situations.

Illegalize Smoking???

In the United States there has been a rise in concern about the health effects smoking has on individuals and the individuals who live with smokers.  Because of these concerns many states and cities have banned smoking in public areas like parks, businesses, and restaurants.  I support these laws because I do not think people who dislike smoking should have to be in the presence of lit cigarettes while they are in public.  However, I am concerned about the fact that there has even been talk of making cigarettes illegal altogether.   Personally I do not think the government should be allowed to illegalize smoking.  Let me be clear that I do not support smoking in any way.  My dad has been smoking since before I was born, and the number of health issues he has had because of it has completely turned me off smoking in any form, but I still do not think the government should be allowed to illegalize it.  People should have the choice to pick whether they want to or not.  The biggest reason the government has is that people need to be healthy.  But when I hear that it also means to me that they are saying it will make people healthier is their reason for the law. This leads me to think about diet and exercise.  Those also make people healthier. An article in Time Magazine says that would be the best way to make health care cheaper and easier.  If they are going to ban cigarettes on the basis of health, then shouldn’t the government also regulate diets and exercise. According to an article on Health Habits the top 12 leading causes of preventable death were:

    1. Smoking: 467,000 deaths.

    2. High blood pressure: 395,000 deaths.

    3. Overweight-obesity: 216,000 deaths.

    4. Inadequate physical activity and inactivity: 191,000 deaths.

    5. High blood sugar: 190,000 deaths.

    6. High LDL cholesterol: 113,000 deaths.

    7. High dietary salt: 102,000 deaths.

    8. Low dietary omega-3 fatty acids (seafood): 84,000 deaths.

    9. High dietary trans fatty acids: 82,000 deaths.

    10. Alcohol use: 64,000 deaths.

    11. Low intake of fruits and vegetables: 58,000 deaths.

    12. Low dietary poly-unsaturated fatty acids: 15,000 deaths.

Smoking may be at the top of the list, but look at the next 11.  They all have to do with bad diets and lack of exercise.  So how can the government justify banning cigarettes on the basis of its bad for public health, when the rest of the leading causes are just as easily preventable.  The government would never get away with regulating those things, so why should it get away with illegalizing cigarettes?