Lack of info or lack of interest?

Posted in the Kansas City Star was the dispute of the Landmark tobacco case. Within the article, the Department of Justice accuses the tobacco companies who “defrauded and misled the American public for almost 50 years about the health risks of cigarette smoking.” As a smoker myself, I must ask the rest of you if you missed the big “Warning” on the package of your cigarettes when you went to light up.
Every since I can remember, I have always been told that smoking is bad, it’s addictive, and you can die. Even though I was aware of this, I still lit up. Yet, I was not alone in doing so. There are millions of us in this world. I admit that those who began smoking several years ago before they knew that smoking was addictive could have an argument. However, it is common sense that smoking is a bad habit that is harmful to your body. Although some may not have known the extent of the harmful affects, those of us who do now, have no excuse. I feel that we were not lied to. I think that all of us were aware of the affects that smoking could have on us. Yet, we continue to choose to harm our bodies. This argument, in my opinion, will only work for those who truly were unaware of the affects of smoking. Yet, it is hard to believe that anyone could be so naïve. I just feel that all of us understand the consequences as smokers. Therefore, I don’t see how the Department of Justice can accuse the tobacco companies of “misleading the American public.”

Religion and Controversy

I recently read an article listed in the Washington Post titled “Openly Religious, to a Point.” Throughout the article, the issues of President Bush’s religious views are questioned. Some wonder what Bush’s religious views are because he “speaks softly” about what he believes. Yet, I don’t understand why it has to be spelled out for everyone. As the President of the United States, one has the duty to serve and represent the entire population of the U.S. If President Bush were to discuss his religious beliefs, then his reasons for enforcing political policies and decisions would always be questioned. People who hold different beliefs than the President would feel misrepresented because they would feel that Bush was going off of his religious beliefs. I agree that Bush probably agrees and disagrees with certain issues because of his beliefs, but that isn’t what always affects our thinking. Many people declare themselves of a certain religion. Yet, some of these people also disagree with certain aspects of a chosen religion. Therefore, one cannot strictly determine if someone, or Bush, makes a decision based on their religion or a view they hold. Because there are so many, religion should not play a role in the issues that develop America.
Each individual holds their own views; therefore, if Bush were to discuss his position on religion, many people would be offended when he makes decisions even if it weren’t based upon his religious beliefs. People are always going to look for an argument or reason to disagree. Therefore, I feel that religion should be left out of it.

Sixteen Year Old Murderers Aren't Adults

In the state of Missouri, it is understood by most that one is considered an adult at the age of eighteen. When referring to “adult” we will mean mature and of legal age. Therefore, a sixteen year old male who shot and killed one man and seriously injured the victim’s fiancé in a carjacking would be tried as a juvenile, right? He’s only sixteen, which makes him a minor. One might think that should be the case, but why, then, are the courts debating to try him as an adult?
I find it funny how the rules always seem to bend in favor of the state government. Adults are supposed to be mature, meaning that they are grown-up, experienced, and or responsible. Consider this with the sixteen year old male. He’s obviously not what we would define as mature. More importantly, he isn’t of legal age which makes me ask why you can try him as an adult. Yes, he committed murder, and yes I agree that he should have to pay serious consequences. What I don’t agree with is how you don’t consider, for instance, a responsible sixteen year old supporting themselves and being an abiding citizen of the state of Missouri as an adult. Yet, when a sixteen year old kills someone, and proves that they are not mature or responsible, you deem them to be an adult? I’m not necessarily saying that the benefit of being regarded as an adult is unfair, because I wouldn’t consider it a privilege if I were the sixteen year old boy. However, as the responsible, independent, sixteen year old, I would want to be recognized as an adult because it would benefit me. Of course, this is not the case. It seems that the system is always working in your favor to hold back the ones who deserve the title, and lock away those who don’t.
As crime continues to grow and more and more minors begin to get involved, I believe that who you consider to be an “adult” needs to be justified. I agree that breaking the law has consequences, but your law indicates that one must be eighteen to be an adult. Therefore, it either needs to be followed or changed so that the rules apply to all and don’t have to be altered to fit your needs.