okay, so for school, I have to blog about this article we read. it's called "Smoking? Combat? wait till you're 21, young recruits say." I have to answer questions and everything, so, read if you want, or not. it's up to you.
Q1: Do you think it is inconsistent of new York city to propose that the legal age for buying cigarettes be 21, while New Yorkers can fight wars, vote, and drive at eighteen?
A: yes. I think it is very inconsistent of the city to do that. you can sign up to possibly die serving your country, you can get behind the wheel of a car and possibly die in an accident, and well, while voting can't necessarily kill you, the decisions of the person you voted for could seriously impact your life. and yet you can't buy cigarettes which could give you cancer, but you would still live longer than the other options? excuse me, since when did NYC get to decide how we are to live and die? I mean, yes, I agree with bumping up the age limit on buying cigs, but they should at least do the same for the others! it's not right, it's not fair. Raise the limit on the others and then things will be, well, not completely alright, (nothing is ever that), but they'll be close. Like it says in the text, "At eighteen, you're supposed to make bad decisions.", but " eighteen is too young to make decisions like that." at eighteen, you're fresh out of high school, and you're not really ready to make a decision like that. smoking can kill you, and cars can kill you, and wars can kill you too. I don't even know if I'm getting my point across, but it said give you're opinion. it's almost like they're saying they want us to die painfully than slowly. it is inconsistent and wrong and they need to fix it by raising the age limit on all of them.
Q2: Do you think people under age eighteen are mature enough to make life or death decisions on their own? which of the activities mentioned do you think are life and death decisions? why?
A: well, quite frankly, no. Children, in most cases, can not make life or death decisions on their own, well, they shouldn't have to. and also, no one is mature enough to make a decision like that. no matter what age, in my opinion. no one should have to make a decision like that, but that's case with most people. to make a decision like that, you really have to think about your life, and the reason you might die. you have to accept the fact that you might die, that you might not come home. you have to accept it, or not choose that option at all. So no, people under eighteen can't make decisions like that for themselves, because, simply, they are too young.
Q3:What do you think should be the age or ages at which young people are allowed to do each of these things?
A: I think... 25. 25 is a good age, because the people have had time to live little, and time to "mature", and time to think things over, and have more experience. they're not too old, but not too young.
Q4: what do you think about the argument made by proponents of the new law that because the "executive functioning" portion of the brain isn't fully developed until 21, some decisions should be put off until then?
A: I think that may be true, because by the, you've had more experience than you did fresh out of high school, and because we're still kids, even though the government says we're not. "They saw a dangerous world out there, and they wanted to be protected from it as long as hey could be".
Q5:Which of these rights are you most looking forward to having? why?
A: which of these rights? well, this may not come out right, but this is a "your opinion" question, so here goes nothing. I look forward to having the right to be able to wait. to wait to make a decision like that, if I had to. time to get things in order in my mind, accept things, make my decision. that is the "right", I am looking forward to.
well, that's t for today folks. you've heard my opinion, I hope it's what you were looking for. bye for now.
word count: 754
No comments:
Post a Comment