Tobacco and alcohol are drugs that cause addition and health problems. Should they be made illegal? Or should all drugs be legalized?

 Tobacco and alcohol are drugs that cause addition and health problems. Should they be made illegal? Or should all drugs be legalized?

There has been a real tricky and confusing debate going on about a complicated matter whether to declare alcohol and tobacco products as drugs and disallow their use, or declare all drugs as lawful. 

The lobby of health experts in favor of prohibiting tobacco products and intoxicants suggests that such substances carry a great potential of making people their users sick by exposing them to various diseases and ailments like respiratory disorders such as asthma, heart ailments, lever disorders and even terminal diseases like cancer. They further purpose that even if one does not perish, they lead miserable lives due to poor health conditions. Such addicts often turn out to be unproductive components of society who do not only drain public money but also affect the overall index of the society. Thus prohibition of such material seems justified. 

Nevertheless, a lobby voices its dissent on this issue by asserting that these materials do not deserve prohibition since they have been part of social rituals since time unknown. It is the humans who invite trouble by abusing these substances. Moreover, restricting both of these would only promote illegal manufacturing and trading as people will try to source these materials through unlawful channels.   

But, there is a unanimous opinion about not allowing people access to narcotics since even a little quantity of such intoxicants can make their users completely and permanently dependent on these, rehabilitation becomes almost impossible. Additionally, these substances impede physiological functions and severely hampers  mental and physical wellbeing of ones using such stuff. 

Overall, controversies apart, I strongly feel that prohibiting alcohol and tobacco will only push people into procuring these materials through legal ways, but not dissuade  them from consuming these; thus these should remain legal, but other drugs should remain prohibited. 

Many jobs at around the house are done manually, but could have been done by machines instead. What are the advantages or disadvantages of this? Give your opinion and include relevant examples. What are the advantages or disadvantages of this?

 Many jobs at around the house are done manually, but could have been done by machines instead. What are the advantages or disadvantages of this? Give your opinion and include relevant examples.

What are the advantages or disadvantages of this? 

In contemporary times, despite the availability of automated equipment to facilitate household chores, certain tasks are negotiated with hands. Although this has been hailed as a phenomenon that is populated by numerous benefits, there are some drawbacks too. 

To begin with, this approach is exposing people to umpteen advantages, the most prominent being that one is able to stay physically active and away from the depressing thoughts. By virtue of needing to indulge in carrying out domestic work, people are able to perform a low intensity workout, helping burn calories and stay fit. Many following this practice report that they never need to visit a gym to regulate their weight and their metabolism also stays fine-tuned.

Besides this, individuals can also evade depression that usually results due to the indolent lifestyles and living alone. It has  been observed in several elite countries in the western hemisphere that the most leading cloistered lifestyles tend to do their work using their own efforts, and feel happier, since it helps them to stay away from feeling abandoned.

However, there is surely a worth considering shortfall of this habit, as the skeptical view suggests. People are condemned to devote themselves manually to perform the routine chores at homes, something that is quite taxing in the times when one returns back from professional engagements, exhausted and drained of energy. At that time, taking up yet another struggle seems to be quite dispiriting. Many also complain that they are forced to dedicate their whole weekends to these errands that bring little productivity and keep them tied to their homes.  

Overall, disputes  aside, the complaints about doing household work with manual efforts may disappoint some, nonetheless the benefits such practice affords are innumerable and the failings can be overcome with judicious approach.

Most companies are developing cars which are able to fly in order to reduce traffic congestion. Do you think this flying car approach is effective to reduce traffic congestion? What other measures do you think to reduce traffic congestion?

Most companies are developing cars which are able to fly in order to reduce traffic congestion. Do you think this flying car approach is effective to reduce traffic congestion? What other measures do you  think to reduce traffic congestion?

 

Yes? Why justify  

Assumption/ postulation/ hypothesis   

• Those supporting this concept assume that when vehicles will be able to become airborne,  they would avoid snarls and it would also reduce the traffic density 

• Cars would also not need roads to drive since they would be take to the skies from the homes and land at destination directly 

No? Why justify 

• This is impractical when it comes to resolving since traffic problems: such machines would need a lot of space to take off: it is impossible to render them space in populated urban locales   

• Traffic congestion will shift from ground to the air, and also present a hazard to birds 

• They will prohibitively expensive for common people to afford 

What other measures do you  think to reduce traffic congestion? 

•  Developing and Promoting public commute 

• Better bus networks 

• Developing fast train network  

• Encouraging people to use bicycles

• Car pooling  

• Better traffic management 

• Construct more bridges and roads 

Introduction 1

In an era, when traffic jams are becoming ubiquitous, many have come up with an inventive idea of introducing cars that can fly. Even though this proposal is hailed as appealing by some, it majorly lacks substance, making it imperative to discover plausible solutions.  

Introduction 2

Even though flying cars have been proposed as an excellent solution to surmount the challenges posed by thickening traffic, it fails to convince the skeptics who favor finding more plausible remedies. 

Those  in favor of this innovative solution assume that such automobiles would greatly help in thinning the traffic density, by virtue of personal four wheelers becoming airborne. This would make roads virtually useless because those traveling from one place to another would take off from the point of origin of their journey and directly arrive at the destination. 

Having said that, such a notion, despite being intriguing, is outrightly impractical since if this solution were implemented, it would cause a great chaos. Creating space to provide runways to such innovative flying machines will become a major worry for urban planning authorities since big cities that are plagued by traffic snarls, tend to use every inch of available area to create some facility for  the urbanites. Moreover, these vehicles are likely to remain a pipe dream because of prohibitively high prices of owning and maintaining them.

Resolving the serious challenge posed by thick vehicular traffic is only possible by adopting prudent steps  rather than squandering valuable financial resources on useless inventions. There is a need to develop and promote mass transit systems: improved bus operation networks and high speed trains, and simultaneously make possessing a car exorbitantly expensive by imposing taxes on purchase, road use, parking and fuel. This policy will dissuade a majority from driving their own vehicles,taking the pressure off the roads.

Overall, one may wonder what cars with wings could do to relieve people from their sufferings, but it has nothing to do with resolving the issue of traffic jams since judicious planning and measures are needed to alleviate this urban malady.  

Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

 Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

 

There are certain sets of typical and common traffic rules that exist all over the world to ensure safety of road users, but many are found disobeying them, this essay will discuss the same and also suggest some ways to surmount such a challenge.

To begin with, the most prominent reason why motorists violate road rules is the slackness exercised by law enforcement agencies and those who set rules, they give people the concession to break them, sometimes because of the lack of good road infrastructure; absence of appropriate strength and equipment to monitor and regulate,  be it the traffic officers or any device associated cameras to capture the law breaking incidents. In many cases, even if one is caught red-handed, the offenders are let off in lieu of gratification money, which emboldens such drivers, and persuades them to commit such infringements again and again.  

 

However, although there is not panacea available to resolve typical challenges faced and bring down incidence of breach of traffic laws, certain ways can be adopted to ease up the situation: investing more on infrastructure, traffic cameras, auto-generated and advanced systems for fines, instant accident detection alarms, and so on can help. Similarly, conducting regular car checks at check posts to make sure no driver escapes a pending fine - when one has to pay out of his own pocket they will always be more conscious of their own actions. Additionally, deploying more traffic management officers in places where there is lack of technology, and exercising strictness can also help. 

To summarize, it is true that motorists worldover tend to disobey, because of the laxity exercised by the government agencies, but a little stringent monitoring can go a long way in surmounting this challenge and making roads safer. 

Some people argue that companies and private individuals, rather than governments, should pay to clean up the pollution that they produced. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Some people argue that companies and private individuals, rather than governments, should pay to clean up the pollution that they produced. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Why private citizens and companies should do it 

• They are the root cause and if they are made to pay, the evil will be nipped in its bud 
• They can set precedents for their peers and counterparts 

Why government should take an action 

• The state is paid taxes on the name of the environment, so they should fulfill their task
• They have been elected for securing society from every possible catastrophe 
• They enjoy the jurisdiction over the land and  have been vested with powers to make laws and create a framework to persuade (with help of punitive measures) or coax (encouragement) people into following eco-friendly policies. 
• They have the resources - both money and manpower to handle task of such a greater  multitude. 
• They also have a clear view of the impending catastrophes, and issues that transcend political and geographical boundaries,  due to being in possession of expert resources. 

There is a great tug of war going on between disparate sections of society as to whether businesses and people should be made to bear the cost of cleaning up the environment, or not. While some accord to the proposal of laying the onus on the former, others out rightly dissent.  

Those rallying behind the suggestion of making citizens and commercial organizations responsible for undoing the damage to the ecology, feel that it is them, the source of the trouble, where the individuals mindlessly engage in practices that are hostile to the the planet such as overuse of cars - that emit fumes, wastage of water, food and other resources - that is leading to catastrophic outcomes, business organizations are recklessly exploiting resources, resorting to deforestation and dumping industrial  waste in all the three spheres of the environment.  Therefore, charging them for the restoration of the ecology will teach an invaluable lesson and dissuade them from following practices that are hostile to nature. 

 Nevertheless, others are quite skeptical about the former view. As per them, adopting such a policy will mean committing injustice to the common populace and companies that are already burdened with numerous taxes, some of which are collected in the name of environment protection, and imposing an additional charge will make things difficult for both the people and the organizations. Furthermore, undeniably, governments are elected to serve the society and and protect it from every possible danger and situation, and affording a healthy planet, is thus, their obligation.  

Overall, despite this move looking unfair in its intent, I feel that people and business establishments must contribute to plans made for preserving the ecology even though the state must also play a part in this endeavor instead of avoiding this area.