Is The Government Allowed To Have a Say in Managing People's Behavior?

In the article Sugar Wars by Veronica Majerol, it states how Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, is passing a law banning drinks over six teen ounces. Naturally, this is a major controversy throughout the city. Some wonder whether or not it is the governments responsibility to say what citizens can and cannot eat. This question has been asked throughout the nation as well. In the article, Majerol says, "The sugary-drink debate is part of a larger question about the role of government in managing people's behavior." Many citizens think that it is an individuals right to be able to make his/hers own decisions. However, that has not stopped some states from putting certain bans and limits on things. In Middleborough, Massachusetts they made cursing a public offense, and the governor of Tennessee banned students from sagging their pants. The question is does the government have the right to ban these things?

The author wanted us to think that the government shouldn't be able to ban these things. She does a very good job of staying unbiased. She does this by talking about obesity in New York, and talking about the increase in soda sizes. However, if you look closely you can see her opinion voiced throughout the article. She does this by showing a lot of quotes from people who don't think that the government should be able to ban these things. For example, she quotes Justin Wilson of the Center for Consumer Freedom, he says, "Fundamentally, I don't think we need the government to protect us from ourself."

Personally, I don't think that the government should have that much of a say in what we can eat and do and dress. I think that we as individuals should be able to make our own decisions. If someone want to curse, he/she should be allowed to curse. If someone want to dress a certain way, that person should be able to dress however he/she wants. If someone wants to drink 16 ounces of soda, no one should be able to stop him/her. Although personally, I wouldn't drink 16 ounces of soda, It should be up to the individual to make the decision. 

In conclusion, the article is about the government banning things that some feel aren't up to the government to ban. Also, the author wants us to think that the government shouldn't be allowed to ban these things. I personally agree with the author.

Non-Fiction Article Revised

In the article, Unsafe Behind the Wheel by Kate Zernike, there is evidence that teenagers are at a high risk of getting in a car accident. States are enforcing stricter rules for teen drivers under ager 21. According to the article, "44 states have prohibited teenagers from driving with more than one other teen." Other states have set aside a curfew for them, saying that they can't drive between certain hours. Also, many states are increasing the age of which you can get your drivers license. Other people, such as Jeffrey Nadel, President of the National Youth Rights Association, are against the teen driving limitations. A report from the American Medical Association states that restrictions against teen drivers may lead to fatal accidents later in life, because they didn't get enough driving experience when they were younger. The article also says that texting and driving is a big reason why states are setting such restrictions on young drivers. Studies show that teens have trouble multi tasking, which could potentially get them into trouble when they are trying to drive and text, listen to the radio, etc.

 The author wanted us to think that teen drivers should be restricted. This is simply because at least seventy percent of the article was why teens driving privileges are being limited. For the most part, she did a very good job of being unbiased, however, if you studied the article carefully you could see a little bit of her opinion portrayed in the article. The author shows her opinion by using a lot of strong statistics. For example she clearly states, "Distracted driving was a factor in at least 3,000 deaths in 2010." She used quotes like these to scare readers into thinking that teens should be restricted from driving because it would likely decrease the number of car accidents. Another strategy that she used was that she took quotes from all different type of people to try and get a wide variety of opinions. She took quotes from scientists, leaders of associations, parents, even teens! This helped better show her opinion by making it seem like practically everyone agreed with her and congress.

Personally, I think that young drivers should not have different laws and restrictions than adults. I think that states are being unfair, instead of restricting teen drivers from driving, why not try to strongly enforce the law of no texting while driving. Increasing the driving age will only cause more accidents when teens get older. Also, the problem of texting while driving doesn't just occur for teens, it's a problem for all ages. What the article so cleverly leaves out is that not once does it specifically say that many car accidents have happened because teens were texting and driving. Nor does it ever say that teens were involved in 3,000 deaths in 2010, where distracted driving was involved. This shows that states are limiting young drivers privileges for basically no reason at all. Reading this article has helped me realize how our government isn't respecting the rights of teens and their driving privileges. Lastly, I would like to know more about how old these people are who have gotten into accidents while texting and driving.

In conclusion, the article I read is about teens driving privileges being restricted to try to decrease the amount of car accidents that happen. The author does a good job of expressing her opinion by using strong statistics that scare people into agreeing with her. She also using a wide variety of the type of people she quotes. However, the author failed to persuade me to agree with her opinion that, teen driver's privileges should be limited. I think that states are being unfair by limiting the rights of young drivers.

Citation:  Zernike, Kate. "Unsafe Behind The Wheel? With Car Crashes The Leading Cause of Death For Teenagers, States Are Placing Greater Restrictions on Young Drivers." New York Times Upfront Magezine 8 Oct. 2012: n. pag. Print.

Restricting Privileges of Young Drivers: Yes or No?

In the article, Unsafe Behind the Wheel by Kate Zernike, there is evidence that teenagers are at a high risk of getting in a car accident. States are enforcing stricter rules for teen drivers under ager 21. According to the article, "44 states have prohibited teenagers from driving with more than one other teen." Other states have set aside a curfew for them, saying that they can't drive between certain hours. Also, many states are increasing the age of which you can get your drivers license. Other people, such as Jeffrey Nadel, President of the National Youth Rights Association, are against the teen driving limitations. A report from the American Medical Association states that restrictions against teen drivers may lead to fatal accidents later in life, because they didn't get enough driving experience when they were younger. The article also says that texting and driving is a big reason why states are setting such restrictions on young drivers. Studies show that teens have trouble multi tasking, which could potentially get them into trouble when they are trying to drive and text, listen to the radio, etc.

 I think that the author wanted us to think that teen drivers should be restricted. This is simply because at least seventy percent of the article was why teens driving privileges are being limited. For the most part, she did a very good job of saying unbiased, however, if you studied the article carefully you could see a little bit of her opinion portrayed in the article. The author shows her opinion by using a lot of strong statistics. For example she clearly states, "Distracted driving was a factor in at least 3,000 deaths in 2010." She used quotes like these to scare readers into thinking that teens should be restricted from driving because it would likely decrease the number of car accidents. Another strategy that she used was that she took quotes from all different type of people to try and get a wide variety of opinions. She took quotes from scientists, leaders of associations, parents, even teens! This helped better show her opinion by making it seem like practically everyone agreed with her and congress, although I found that deceiving.

Personally, I think that young drivers should not have different laws and restrictions than adults. I think that states are being unfair, instead of restricting teen drivers from driving, why not try to strongly enforce the law of no texting while driving. Increasing the driving age will only cause more accidents when teens get older. Also, the problem of texting while driving doesn't just occur for teens, it's a problem for all ages. What the article so cleverly leaves out is that not once does it specifically say that many car accidents have happened because teens were texting and driving. Nor does it ever say that teens were involved in 3,000 deaths in 2010, where distracted driving was involved. This shows that states are limiting young drivers privileges for basically no reason at all. Reading this article has helped me realize how our government isn't respecting the rights of teens and their driving privileges. Lastly, I would like to know more about how old these people are who have gotten into accidents while texting and driving.

In conclusion, the article I read is about teens driving privileges being restricted to try to decrease the amount of car accidents that happen. The author does a good job of expressing her opinion by using strong statistics that scare people into agreeing with her. She also using a wide variety of the type of people she quotes. However, the author failed to persuade me to agree with her opinion that, teen driver's privileges should be limited. I think that states are being unfair by limiting the rights of young drivers.