The media plays a large role in determining the outcome in an election

As the 40^th provincial election in British Columbia is fast approaching it is hard to miss any stories on the news, internet or newspaper. As any election approaches it is expected that there will be at least one or more stories on the news or in the newspaper each day. For this particular election I have personally learnt the most through news stories for which parties are running to become the new provincial government. In the 2013 provincial election there are four parties in the running which include the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the BC Vision Party. Each media story presented about this year’s election has played a large role in influencing my perspective on the parties.

Media stories can either cover positive or negative aspects on an electoral party or their candidates. They also can cover simple facts about the candidates that are running just as Squire Barnes from Global News has done for this current election. For the four electoral parties in the 2013 BC election Squire has interviewed all four party leaders simply about their life and briefly about the election. (http://globalnews.ca/news/537511/political-playoffs-squire-and-the-four-party-leaders/.) There are also many news stories that cover the events that lead up to the elections as well as the few candidate debates that go on. These news stories can provide information to the public about these candidates and greatly influence their perspective on the parties.

Along with there being stories on the news, in the newspaper and on the internet, recently there has also been a lot about the elections, parties and candidates on social media websites. This is one way that party leaders can campaign in a non-traditional way. This type of media is a great way to allow party leaders to get in touch with the public and maybe even get their vote. As parties put out Facebook and twitter pages or sometimes even collect e-mails to send out newsletters, the amount of people that sign-up or like a page may be deceiving. “All [of this information is] traceable, measurable and useful [to each party but] it's not directly linked to actual votes.” CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/05/03/f-vp-misener-social-media-canadian-election.html) Even though this type of media doesn’t have confirmation on playing a large role in the election, I believe it does because of my personal experiences of using social media over the past weeks. Global News presented an excellent story earlier in April of this year that demonstrated how social media can be used in a way to reach out to the public, grab their attention and votes. (http://globalnews.ca/news/467855/how-will-social-media-affect-b-c-elections/)

As media can help promote parties and candidates it can also report on the negative aspects and events of these parties and candidates. I believe that these negative news stories are stronger influences on the public than the positive. These negative news stories on the news, in the newspaper or online are more eye-opening and appealing to the public which therefore have a greater influence on them. For example, for this year’s election Global News had reported about the Liberal video released against the NDP leader Adrian Dix. (http://globalnews.ca/news/545570/b-c-liberals-launch-new-youtube-ad-attacking-ndps-adrian-dix-with-video/). If this video wouldn’t have been reported on there would had been a less amount of people knowing about it. Then with this particular incident there was a follow up story about the NDP asking to take the video down. (http://globalnews.ca/news/546730/b-c-liberals-refuse-to-remove-youtube-video-attacking-ndps-adrian-dix/). With both of these news stories on Global there were negative aspects for both of the parties. This could have been a large influence on the public and their views about each of these parties.

            In conclusion it doesn’t matter what the media reports about the candidate, party leader or actually party itself it will always have a large influence on the public. Either positive or negative the media will be informing the public with their news coverage and most likely put a new perspective into some of the public’s minds. As I have mentioned previously I believe that the media in the present day does have a big influence in determining the outcome in an election because of the fact that it is present everywhere in our communities. Media coverage about the elections around this time of the year is certainly something you can’t avoid.

Election Preparation and Reflection

Election Preparation and Reflection

1. There are many different strategies that people use when voting during election time. Most do it honestly and pick the party they want because they are considering all of the things they have to offer and what would be most beneficial to themselves and the economy. Many parties have very strong campaigns and very powerful leaders but they lack something that turns people the other way. Everything has to be perfect for someone to vote for them because everyone has their own preferences which is why there are so many parties offering a wide variety of promises in order to appeal to as many people as they possibly can. Some parties gain the vote of people by either by emphasizing on the characteristics of the person running, or by actually providing relative and important services that the public might be interested in. They do this and use these schemes and tactics because they know how people vote, which leads me to the topic of strategic voting.

People vote for many reasons. Whether its to get their input in and try and make a difference, or the complete opposite where the only reason they vote is to mess around with the polls and cause an inconvenience. There are many ways and reasons that people can vote which are all apart of their strategy, and some of them include:  voting for a party platform, voting for a candidate, voting against a party platform, voting against a candidate, and voting just to spoil a ballot. I  believe that voting for the party platform is the most respectable and reasonable thing to do. I feel that when voting, people shouldn't care about the looks, or anything else that isn't that relevant about the candidate and that they should base their vote on something more important like what they have to offer. If the candidate is a nice, hardworking, and enthusiastic person, then sure, it's reasonable to lean towards them because they show promise unlike a candidate that gives people the impression that they aren't going to be cared for. Though it is reasonable for a person to vote for a candidate based on their personality and the type of person that people would want in power, people shouldn't vote for candidates due to their looks. Many young girls have found Justin Trudeau to be an attractive person and if they were old enough to vote, they would do so just because of his appearance. This can also be said about Christy Clark and the fact that some people find her to be attractive which is why they choose to vote for Liberals. This strategy to voting can also cause people to take her work and dedication for granted, and put a shame to all of the time she has put into her campaign when all she needed to do was show some skin. It is not a good way to look at a person that is going to try and help build a stronger economy and is not a good way to vote for the people that will have a say on a part of your future and our children's futures. Some people have made derogatory remarks about Christy Clark and then have chosen to vote for her due to those stupid and irrelevant reason but that has also made some of her voters change their minds because it has tarnished her reputation and made people unable to take her seriously due to her looks.http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/04/12/christy-clark-why-women-hate-her-and-why-she-cant-win-the-next-election/

One strategy to voting that I don't believe in is spoiling the ballot. People that don't believe in anything that the parties have to offer should just stay home and not vote. They should waste their time as well as others, to walk in and cast a vote that won;t even be considered valid. These votes are then put into another bin because they are faulty and arent even thrown into the garbage initially. Some people leave messages, some people put in their own party names, and some people just don't put anything on them at all. It's a message that does not need to be sent and the whole thing is a waste of time as well as a foolish thing to do. People should feel honored to be able to vote and have their voice heard, but instead, people take that privilege and for granted in order to commit immature acts that can be punished if they are caught. Although the people that spoil ballots might not get caught because it is private and there isn't really a way to tell who wrote it, they can be charged $500 and put in jail for up to two months. Here is the link to a page where someone tells people that they will be spoiling a ballot and asks for opinions on how he should do so. I think that it is entirely unnecessary and that this person should not vote at all instead of causing trouble for the people that have to count the votes after.

http://thecommons-ccd.com/2011/04/spoil-your-ballot-contest/

Voting in canada should not become a law

Voting in canada should not become legal. Voting in canada is a privilege and one of the most important privileges is, if you don't feel as if you dont believe in any of the parties beliefs then you should have the choice to skip the vote.

Voting in australia for example is mandatory. At times they get the  odd ballot that has a random person or another box that they create themselves because they don't believe in any of the parties theories. For this reason i think voting should not be mandatory because if people don't agree and if people don't like any of the parties they should have the choice to not waste their tame and vote.

All in all, voting should not become mandatory. Not all people are always going to agree with the choices or ideas of the parties. But at the same time I do believe it is important to get an accurate vote. Usually BC gets around 60 percent of their population voting. This is a problem but i feel as if it can be fixed in other ways. I feel as if in socials 11 the curriculum should include a large section on all the different parties to promote the parties and to teach the new and young people, ("the future") what each party believes in.

Elections, question #3, should voting be mandatory in Canada (punishable by fines)

Voting in Canada is not only a right that we have, but it is also a privilege. It is as if some Canadians have chosen to forfeit that right, causing the possibility that we may end up with a government that we do not deserve. Over the past few years the idea of mandatory voting within Canada has been looked at, and now needs to be examined even closer. With another election right around the corner, the issue of whether voting in Canada should be mandatory or not is a hot topic. Currently, voting itself is considered a civic responsibility rather than an obligation, but that may change soon.

On one hand there is the opinion that votes against this new law being put in place. If a law were to be made that voting is mandatory, you could be charged with a fine for it. Those who oppose this idea think that by trying to force people to vote, the turnout could produce an even deeper issue of democratic conflict than we are already dealing with. It is possible for government to be put in place simply because of a large number of uninformed voters, voting because they are told they have to. In the long run forcing Canadian citizens by law to vote could be seen as counter- productive in the long run, in the eyes of some individuals.

“The words mandatory and voting should not be in the same sentence”

http://www.sagennext.com/2010/03/10/

On the other hand, there is the argument that laws should be put in place to make voting mandatory for all Canadian citizens. This opinion is also where my vote lies. I feel as though a vote towards our government is a duty we have as Canadian citizens, and it is the way we express how we feel. With this being said, those whom wish not to vote should be able to express how they feel in a new way. As suggested in the article posted below, it is proposed that a new option be added to each ballot, “none of the above”. With this new option, it would be unnecessary for any ballots to be spoiled, but rather know who does not agree with any of the options provided. With this is would be clear who does not like the governments running, rather than leaving those unidentified individuals votes in limbo. Also, with mandatory voting some individuals may take it to heart and do a little bit of research. For example, if you had an option of taking a quiz in school most kids would opt out so they didn’t have to study. But, if that quiz was mandatory, they would probably study rather than receive a bad mark. Relating this to the election, if voting was mandatory, more people would step up and take responsibility for their vote.

 http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=405

In conclusion there are many arguments supporting both the mandatory vote and opposing it. This is a topic that needs to be further explored and discussed in order to find a solution to the problem. Sure the spoiling of ballots would not be as common with the option of “none of the above”, yet with mandatory voting could come a major outrage. Overall this controversial argument needs a lot of looking into. 

The right to die

The right to die is a very serious area to talk about. This is involving being killed on purpose due to physical pain, depression, feelings of lonesomeness, loss of hope, and just people giving up. The right to die has two very convincing sides but i think the right to die needs to stop, and nobody should ever be allowed to take their own life. 

People should never be killed on purpose. The right to die is a very serious thing and i think people just don't enjoy their lives but what they don't realize is that they need to be thankful for being in this world even though something has changed immensely. By doctors giving options that involve people taking their own life should be banned. Their should be no such thing as people taking their own life because something is wrong with them or they don't want to be here because by people dying, it can not only change you but it may also change the people around you.

The right to die gives people a way out if the patient feels as if her life doesn't mean as much as it once did. By people being allowed to take their own life may be the best choice, in moderation. By giving people the power to take their own life it can give people that sense of relief. Their would be no need to suffer and no need to be depressed anymore.

The right to live in my opinion is a gift. A gift that is a one and a million chance. I don't believe in someone being allowed to take their own life. The reason for that is because life is something that should never be taken for granted. People need to start living their life without depression, and always hating on their life eve if their in their deathbed because once your gone your gone, and nobody likes to hear that someone has passed away.

In conclusion, their should be no reason whatsoever to allow a person to take their own life. It may cause instability in the family, depression for other people, and maybe even another reason for another person to do the same thing. The right to live on the other hand is much more grateful. The right to live means so much and everybody is so lucky to have a life which is why nobody should ever give up and take the easy way out by taking their own life. The option to take your own life needs to be stopped and never thought about again. 

Alex Petra

  

The Right To Die

The topic of whether or not people have the right to die goes back over 2000 years ago. This issue is highly controversial and definitely has more of an individual level that has yet to be understood by many. Each and every scenario  is different and given certain situations and conditions, opinions can vary. This issue is talking about physician assisted suicide where a doctor is the one that provides the euthanasia and the patient is killed quietly and peacefully. There is another way to look at this topic as a whole and that is suicide of another nature, where the individual takes their own life without the help of anyone and most of the time it isn’t peaceful at all. 

On a television show named “Dr.Oz”, they hosted a “Right to Die Debate” where people were invited to share their stories and opinions on the topic. Many seemed to be in the middle, where they considered certain circumstances and how the individual that wanted to end their life was feeling. This seems to be the most reasonable approach to a topic like this because it considers all the other variables before coming to a conclusion. A woman by the name of Dana (last name was not given) suffered from degenerative neuromuscular disease that made her unable to move any part of her body other than her head. She could not bathe her self, brush her own teeth, she needed to be fed, and she couldn't provide her children with the proper attention and care that they required. She is bed ridden almost 99% of the day and knows that her future won't be full of dignity and prosperity because of her current condition and lifestyle. This leads her to want to end her life and stop the suffering she is currently going through, so that her children can learn to move on and live happier lives, while other believe that she should continue on with her life no matter what pain she's going through.

One side of this argument believes that our sole purpose as human beings is to help prolong life and make sure that people live as long as they can. They believe that no matter what pain one is going through, they should continue on with their life and they shouldn't be able to have the choice to end it or not. The other side believes that someone should have the choice to end their life or not because they are the only ones that truly know what they are going through and if committing suicide is the right decision for them or not. They believe that they should have the choice to do what they want and end their life when they desire to do so. The first side says that there is a lot more to consider and that someone can't end their life without taking into consideration the lives and health of the rest of their family. They also have to consider the financial aspect of it and think about how if they leave this world, their children or family members might not be able to continue on the way of the life they were used to. 

I believe that people have the right to die and should be able to end their lives when they want to by means of physician assisted suicide. Nobody other than themselves knows what they are truly going through and the amount of pain they have to endure on a daily basis. Some say that people drive themselves to assisted suicide not because of the pain they are going to through physically or mentally, but the situation they are currently in financially as well. This includes, being in poverty, not meeting the required income, or being burdened by debt. If this were the case, then I believe it is wrong to turn to suicide but it is not. One of the main reasons that people choose to end their lives is because for once, they would like to take control and choose their path. They didn't choose to be in the current condition that they are in and want a way out because their future doesn't include living a life full of dignity. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=warCR3I88X8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8wKen-dQ7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em18TbejAVI

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a6frw7CYrQA/TzclMdyN1xI/AAAAAAAABPA/-mVlHGZkwRs/s1600/euthanasia.jpeg.gif

Should prostitutes be allowed to operate brothels in Canada?

Recently in Canada the Supreme Court has made the decision to review the legal rights of sex workers to work in brothels, hire body guards and drivers. As it stands today it is legal for prostitutes to work in brothels but illegal to proceed with street prostitution. Prostitution as a whole isn’t illegal but as I have learned through many new articles that a lot of activities that involve prostitution are banned. Brothels in Canada are seen to be “the safest way to sell sex is for a prostitute to work indoors in a location under her control”. This was stated during the ruling of the legalization of brothels by the judges. For this reason some provincial governments have made prostitutes operating brothels legal. These brothels are used for the protection of these prostitutes and allow them to carry out their jobs in a legal environment. The final ruling of issue will now be Canada wide as this appeal was by the Supreme Court.

During the ruling over the legalization of brothel houses and the legal rights to allow there to be body guards and drivers for prostitutes, there were actual and former prostitutes present to argue their side. These prostitutes have felt that the government has been disrespectful towards them and their profession. Although, in Ontario with the legalization of working in brothel houses, hiring body guards and drivers there has been some relief. Valerie Scott, a former prostituted has felt relieved in a way that “[they] are now brought into society” and “almost full citizens”. The prostitutes don’t understand why their safety matters less than other individuals in the province. These prostitutes believe that brothel houses will provide a place of safety to carry on with their job, just like most Canadians have safe work areas. 

            While reading any articles about this situation I have found it very interesting to look at both sides. These articles have provided me with a lot of useful knowledge to come up with my own opinion about this topic. I must say that in the beginning I was set with my own opinion but as I was reading articles there were situations and ideas brought up that I didn’t even take in to account when I first built my own opinion. An opinion that I have come across that also finely states my opinion is one from the Prime Minister Stephen Harper. As he has stated and I firmly agree with is that “prostitution is bad for society and harmful to communities, women and vulnerable persons”.

In my opinion I believe that prostitutes shouldn’t be allowed to operate brothel houses in Canada to carry out their jobs. These brothel houses promote prostitution which I believe is very harmful to society. Prostitution demoralizes women as the idea that you can purchase a women comes along with these prostitutes and brothels. Safety of every human being in Canada is very important although in such a case I believe that the prostitutes should know the dangers of their occupation as they chose this type of work. Making brothels illegal in Canada will be to protect society and the morals of women and some men. This law is not to add extra risks in this field of work but unfortunately won’t make it any safer.

 Here is a link to a CNN article:

 http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/world/americas/canada-ontario-legalizes-brothels

 

Gun Ownership

Does gun ownership cause crime or deter it? This is a question that can easily be argued back and forth for many different reasons as well as points of view. After reading a few articles about town that make it mandatory for home owners to own firearms, I have proposed a new question for myself:

Should it be a right to own a firearm, or is it a privilege? 

There are two sides to the argument of whether guns should be kept in a household or not, there are the people who believe it should be mandatory; and the people who don’t. First off I looked at those whom held the opinion of having guns in their possession, as well as everyone else as well. It is clear to see that for these people guns provide the sense of security as well as stop crimes from happening; at least they seem to think. The studies in the articles did show that fewer robberies had taken place, but the laws have not been in effect long enough to serve as evidence for this specific case. In many cases this gun law has been placed to prove a point in many towns. An example of this is a clip taken from an article in the Vancouver sun stating that the people in Georgia are “largely seeking to make a point about the right to bear arms after a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that left 26 children and educators dead.”  From this it is easy to conclude that many people feel that by having a gun on their possession, they will be safer from society and whatever may come to them.  After looking at the opinion of those whom would like it to be mandatory, I looked at those who do not. The majority of opinions I saw stated that more crimes would be provoked as well as accidental deaths and shootings. 

Read more:  (article referenced in first paragraph (Georgia) ) http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Georgia+town+makes+ownership+mandatory/8184764/story.html#ixzz2PuoT8bd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HBISLpVkbo

About 50 seconds into the link posted above, you will see a woman at which appears to be at a kitchen table in her home. The woman is at first examining a gun as if it is a foreign object, and then it proceeds to startle her when the gun goes off. This is an example in my opinion of why it should not be mandatory for all home owners to have a gun in their possession.  For one thing, it is clear that not everyone will understand how to properly use a gun, nor know when to use it. Nowhere in any article had I read was anything mentioned about free training on how to use the firearm that they are being forced to own. On top of this, even if you could pay to obtain lessons, not everyone would be up for this costly expense. Yes, the mandatory ownership of guns may prevent crime such as break-ins, but the accidental use and purposes of the gun will soon be abused. Without having people properly trained, gun use will become carried away and far too many problems will occur. 

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Earls+Restaurants+drop+Albino+Rhino+brand+response+human+rights+complaint/7972167/story.html

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? do you find it proper to take out a legendary drink that has been in the company for over 20 years. This drink is an essential necessity to this company and needs to stay in the company. Is it fair that there are very few albinos in the world and how is this even offensive?



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/us/california-16-charged-in-drug-ring.html?ref=drugenforcementadministration&_r=0

Is drug trafficking okay to do? this is very bad and should never be done, these people shoukd be going to jail for a very long time. are there any other punishments that they should have to do?

Thinking Like A Lawyer

Questions

1. Where did the child get their alcohol from?

2. Who was aware that they were consuming alcohol under age?

3. Is there any background history where the family has had similar problems?

4. How long have they been drinking for?

Website

1)      http://alcoholism.about.com/od/binge/a/teen_death.html

This article is about a 16 year old girl by the name of Julia Gonzales. This incident occurred in 2008 and the girl was found deceased at Pedretti Park in Turlock, California. She was found by a person just passing by and the reason of her death has puzzled both the media and the public for three months. Nobody knew the cause of her death but it was found out when her toxicology report came in. At the time of her death, her toxicology report was at 0.52. This is an incredibly high blood content level and is equivalent to 16 drinks in one hour. For a girl like Julia, being 5 feet 2 inches and only 100 pounds, this turned out to be devastating. Her body couldn't handle all the alcohol and doctors predict that she suffered from acute alcohol poisoning.  

It was said that no one called the police after her disappearance on the day of her death. She had been out of the house starting at 7 p.m. and was then found at 5 a.m. the next morning. The article also states that she was with her friends but they had then ditched her and she was by herself which was how she was found in the morning. What confuses me is why her friends weren't with her, why no one called the police, and why her parents weren't concerned about her whereabouts. No fingers are being pointed at anyone else because I believe that she is to be blamed for what she did to herself but I am just confused as to why no one cared about her and the things she did so late at night. There should have been someone with her and monitoring her actions throughout that period because even if she didn't drink and then die, there are still other dangers out there that could have led to her death or another tragedy of some sort. If I were out that late, I would have calls every hour asking where I was and when I was going to come back home. This same situation might not apply because of the lack of information on the relationship her and her parents had. She was also 16, which is a relatively young age to start drinking and the possibly "care-free" relationship she has with her parents could have potentially influenced her actions or made her think that it was okay.

2) http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/670637--teen-died-after-party-house-parents-let-friends-drink

This article is about a young man by the name of Chris Skinner, age 17, who died by the cause of alcohol poisoning. He got off of his shift at Boston Pizza at 9:30 pm on a Saturday in 2010. He was in grade 11 and went to Waterdown High School, and drank more than five times the legal limit on that night which led to his death. He drank all this in a period of five hours with both his parents and his brother fully aware of his alcohol consumption. He came back from his job and went to work with some friends. They began drinking at one of their friends houses as the played a drinking game called Kings. After they were done with the game, one of Chris's friends had stated that Chris was "sloshed" by this time, already indicating that he had drank too much. Even though he had exceeded the amount he should have consumed, he continued to party and drink alcohol back at his house with his friends. They came home and drank with his parents, then went into the basement and did a drug known as marijuana. Then they proceeded to play beer pong with his older brother, therefore intensifying his drunkenness and topping the night off with a few more beers. After finishing this rampage of binge drinking, Chris passed out and was moved to the couch where he eventually died due to alcohol poisoning.

I feel as though the parents were definitely to blame in this situation as they are not only responsible for their child, but also the activity that happens in their very own house. To me, it was shocking that the parents not only let their son drink in their own house with them (under age as well) but that they also drank with him. This, to me, sends a false message to the child saying that its okay to drink underage and that he can do it whenever he wants because they don't care enough to stop him. They might have been alcoholics in the first place which could have caused Chris to drink so much in the first place. They should have been concerned about his well being or at least notified as to how much he drank before coming home and if it was safe for him to consume any more. In my opinion, the lack of care and concern by the parents led to this individuals death, but that doesn't mean that I am directly blaming the parents. I believe that Chris was to blame for his own death because he is 17 years of age and should be responsible for his own actions. There should be some guidance by the parents but ultimately, the decision was up to Chris to either drink or not and that night, he chose his own fate.

"Thinking like a lawyer"

Questions:

1)      Where were these drugs or alcohol consumed?

2)      Who was present at this time? Were there parents supervising?

3)      Who supplied the drugs or alcohol?

4)      Was this individual peer-pressured to consume these drugs or alcohol?

5)      How much of these drugs or alcohol were consumed?

6)      Where were these drugs or alcohol purchased from?

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/19838506/autopsy-teen-died-of-heroin-overdose

In this video of a news story it goes about explaining a heroin overdose of a seventeen year old boy. This heroin overdose came as surprise to his family, school and even his mother. Kiet Nguyen was an outstanding football player that managed to be involved with athletics, maintained good grades and had a balanced social life. This unfortunate death was caused by the one time use of heroin that had been offered to Kiet and his friends by a girl in their group of friends. If only this girl would have known what permanent damage this offer would have on Kiet’s entire life. Kiet as well as some of his other friends did this heroin for the first time that night although Kiet’s body was the only one that reacted to it in a sense that it left his body lifeless the next morning. A few days after Kiet passed away, one of his brave friends admitted to Kiet’s mother that they went out together to smoke marijuana that night but ended up doing heroin laced drug called cheese.

            After watching this news story it made me think to myself who would be responsible for the death of this teenager. Would it be Kiet himself? His friend that sold the drug to him? Or the actual drug dealer that had supplied the drug to Kiet’s friend? It slightly mentioned at the end of the video that there was a lot of finger pointing about who would be taking the blame for Kiet’s death and even if there was going to be charges pressed. I believe that there are a lot of questions to be answered before the blame is thrown upon one person. I personally think that there is a partial blame on both the girl that supplied the drug to Kiet and on Kiet himself. It would be hard to be in Kiet’s mothers position where she had no idea that Kiet was involved in such activities then have such a thing take away his life. This situation will be hard for the police to investigate further into.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/14-year-dies-alcohol-poisoning-slumber-party/story?id=14065038

            This article here is presented along with a news story about a 14-year-old girl that had possibly died from alcohol poisoning. Takeimi Rao had invited three of her friends to sleep over at her house one night where they were presumed to be mixing vodka with soft drinks. During the night two of Takeimi’s friends were found throwing up by Takeimi’s mom, she didn’t think anything of it and only thought that it was food poisoning. She helped these girls, cleaned them up and put them back to bed. The next morning Takemini’s mother found Takemini lifeless lying on her bedroom floor. Paramedics came to the house and pronounced her dead on the scene. Unlike the other girls Takeimi did not throw up once during the night. As the bottle of vodka was found within the house it was said to be the landlord’s old bottle that was just left in the cupboard. In this situation I believe that the parents take responsibility for these four girls, especially their own child. Although these parents did not supply these young girls with this alcohol, they consumed the vodka in their house and under their supervision. It is the parent’s job to check up on these girls, especially if two of them were puking. This article and unfortunate situation shows how even under parent supervision accidents are bound to happen. The parents should take the blame and responsibility for their daughter’s death and should be thankful that it only happened to one out of the four girls.

Looking at the issue objectively there are a few questions that came to my mind first right off the bat:

-What was the background of the victim’s family? (i.e. family support, who is in the family, other factors)

-where did the event take place?

-who else was involved? (i.e. were there any bystanders, other witnesses or others directly influencing the victim)

-if alcohol or drugs were involved, was there a background of those substances or substance abuse within the family?

Example 1)

 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/18/ernest-azoadam-teen-dies-surrey-party-bus_n_2712831.html

The first example that I have chosen to discuss about substance abuse is the case of a 16 year old boy named Ernest Azoadam from North Delta who tragically died after being on a party bus with his friends. This case easily intrigued me to look into it farther due to the idea that I know people who were in fact friends with this boy and attended the same school as him. From the many articles I have read and how it has been portrayed on the news, it seems as though harsh fingers are being pointed towards the company of the party bus. When in reality, I question whether it was really their fault in the first place. Legally, party buses do not allow alcohol onto the transportation devices, but they do not stop people from proceeding with these doings beforehand. I asked myself whether it was the party bus company who did not do their job but in fact if they were following their policies, I feel that the blame should not necessarily be pointed fully at them.

                On top of reading the articles that I found, I decided to talk to a few people who actually knew him and see what they had to say about the devastating situation. One girl that I spoke to said that it was not just alcohol, but substance abuse was involved and the term overdose was used in her description of the event.  Once I learned this, I started to question if it were even possible for the party bus company to even be aware of that situation without preforming an actual test of some sort. In my opinion it is not the party bus company that should be targeted as the media is currently portraying, but rather the individual himself and family members that surround him. It was said on the news as well as in the article that Ernest’s older brother was in fact of the bus with him. With that type of family supervision right around him, the situation could have possibly been avoided or taken to a minimum level. Overall a number of questions need to be asked in order to find who is truly to blame, but the consequences for an event such as this should not be thrown all on one person or on one thing.

Example 2)

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/670637--teen-died-after-party-house-parents-let-friends-drink

                The second article I chose took place in 2010 in Ontario involving a 17 year old boy who died from alcohol poisoning. My response to this article is that the blame lies farther towards the parents of the second house party. The young 17 year old, Chris Skinner, left a party to proceed drinking at the house of a friend where his parents approved of their partying as long as it was done under their own roof. Right there, in my eyes, is the very problem to the situation. With the consent of parents, alcohol can be taken out of control to an even bigger level then normally if it were discouraged by adult figures. For a parent to allow that kind of behavior in their home, they are allowing dangerous situations to be created in what is meant to be a safe environment. Also, as a contributing factor Chris later on proceeded drinking with individuals who were of age, making the situation seem all the better in the parents eyes who owned the house, for the time being.  It seems as though the mom of the home claimed that under aged drinking was okay, as long as the alcohol was not provided by her. From looking into the situation it seemed as though the parents of the house party were to blame for not keeping the matter under control. Yet, on the other hand not one piece of information is mentioned about Chris’ parents and where they were at the time. I definitely think the fault of this case not only lies on the parents of the party but also the many others that influenced Chris’ life and who could have had the power to change the situation. 

test

Welcome to the world of blogging

Here you can connect to our class blog

Hello again

hello