Should wild animal kept in zoo?

First of all, zoos can be expensive and the animals can be at risk if local people are starving. There have been cases where people have taken zoo animals to eat. There is also the problem of justifying a zoo when people live in poverty.Zoos can be very useful and educational, but the animals' welfare is important. Any animal should be kept in an adequate enclosure with food, water, shelter and companionship, if required, as well as having access to medical care. Keeping a social animal by itself is cruel. The animal must also be protected from cruel visitors, who may want to feed it with harmful foods etc or to poke, prod or otherwise molest it. I have heard of lots of horror stories in various zoos.Zoos can be helpful in making people interested in their local wildlife, but many people are more interested in large 'Noah's Ark' animals, even if these are kept in small cages, rather than small local species.Enclosures need not be expensive. I have seen hoofed mammals kept in large enclosures, bounded by simple fences, but the animals must be protected from the public and the public from the animals, if either side is at risk. Today, many zoos are moving away from cages and being more imaginative about enclosures, but many zoos in the third world lack the financial resources for modern enclosures. Hence, if a good zoo can provide education for vistiors and a safe, stimulating environment for the animals, it is possible for a third world country to keep animals. I have been to zoos in Thailand and Madagascar and found that some enclosures are just as good as they are in some zoos in Europe and America.

Should smoking be banned?

In my opinion smoking should definitely be banned in public places as it not only has delitirious effects on the non smokers present there but also may cause alergic coughing to many people.Besides,many youngsters are fascinated by the act of smoking and try to immitate it which may later develop into a habit. Smoke which arises when a person smokes a cigarette,bidi or cigar is more hazardous to a passive smoker who inhales the smoke being in close vicinity of the active smoker. The smoke being inhaled by the former is unfiltered thereby causing more ill effects.Several pulmonary diseases such as cough,bronchitis,asthma and last but not the least carcinoma of lungs may occur as a consequence of smoking. Many countries such as india have implemented a ban on public smoking.It has become mandatory to have no smoking zones in all eating joints,recreation centres etc.This practice may seem as a curbing of ones right to freedom especially to the smokers but surely this step will go a long way in achieving a healthier life style.Manypeople who gradually become aware of the ill effects of smoking are turning towards deaddiction centres to get rid of this habit.Even the advocates of smoking in public areas dissapprove of the practice when it comes to their offsprings.Witnessing the elders smoking kindles similar desire in a youngster thereby giving birth to a new generation af smokers. To avoid these evils of smoking and ensure a healthy platform for the youth it is not only our duty but need of the day to condemn such practices if not completely then atleast socially.

Why should smoking be banned?

In the United Kingdom people complain about the health service. Not enough GPs and sometimes there is a need to wait for weeks for an referral appointment. The NHS (The health service in the UK) spends every year 1.4 and 1.7 billion on smoking related illnesses. Every day 1000 patients are admitted into hospital because of smoking related illnesses. Just imagine how many beds it would free up if there would be no smokers anymore. I know that if they would stop smoking that it would not immediately make things better but eventually it would. It would free up the health service in the UK and other countries. So why does the government allow smokers to continue. Well for the start because in the UK the government collects every year 9 billion an tobacco duty. But with the cost of smoking rising in the UK and the flights into eastern European countries falling many people actually buy cigarettes abroad for which the government actually doesnt get any tax duty. On tobacco plantations children as young as 3 are working every day to provide the tobacco needed for cigarettes. I personally think that this is a disgrace and the tobacco companies should be fined for this. But often they blame the contractors and avoid any responsibility.Smoking is also one of the biggest polluter. In a cigarette there are around 4000 chemicals and 400 toxic substances. These chemicals and toxic substances are then filtered and what is done with the cigarette filter? Its thrown away. Often simply on the road and eventually ends up in landfill sites.

Homework Should Not Be Abolished

School without homework is not an image I can fathom. There are many reasons homework should not be abolished as it is beneficial towards the student, allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weaknesses; in turn giving them an opportunity to improve and acquire new skills. Also, taking time each night to do homework is a chance for students to catch up on missed class and further reinforces the day's lessons so it is permanently etched in the student's mind where the information is stored and used when called upon. Several studies have proven that homework, in fact, does improve the stability of the student in school; this strengthens the statement that time spent completing homework is time well spent. Rather than giving students another hour of leisure time, doing homework entitles the student to an hour of enriched education; this can greatly benefit the student, as consistently finishing homework will reap great rewards such as a favourable test score or report card. Why are we posing such a ludicrous question about the possible abolishment of homework if doing homework is what it takes to succeed in school? It is a common emotion to students regarding the distaste of homework, but legions of teachers know better because they recognize the importance of homework in the success of students in school and outside of school. Moreover, the meaning and goal of homework is profitable towards the students. It allows students who missed the day's lesson to catch up with the rest of their classmates. Likewise, homework reinforces the new concepts taught that day and helps the student develop a deeper understanding of what they have learned. On the contrary, if teachers were to assign no homework daily, then the new ideas they have brought forth will fall on deaf ears and the students are the ones who lose out on the wondrous opportunity of learning something new. Are you ready to give up an opportunity where new notions are introduced and planted firmly within your mind" It is incredulous to suggest that homework should be abolished; students greatly benefit from homework as it can possibly raise their grades, teachers have the opportunity to plot student's next steps to improve and new ideas and concepts are engraved inside your mind forever. Although many may hate the mention of homework, no one can deny the fact that homework's benefits overshadow its cons. To put it succinctly, homework should not be abolished!

Should Cell Phones Be Allowed In Schools?

Many parents are purchasing cell phones for their children so that the child can stay in touch with them when the family is not together. Some of these adults argue that their children need these devices at school in case of an emergency, such as a shooting or a terrorist attack. School authorities disagree and some schools have banned cell phone use on the grounds. These administrators have given several arguments supporting these bans. School shootings are frightening situations which unfortunately are on the rise while terrorist attacks are not as common. Yet many parents feel that they want their child to be able to call someone for help if these situations occur. School authorities point out that during the Columbine shootings in April,1999 so many cell phone calls were made that whole cell phone systems were knocked out, not only making the children's' cell phones useless but some emergency personnel's as well. Educators believe that administrators and crisis teams can deal with these emergency situations more efficiently if the children are not trying to call their parents. They also point out that it may be easier to evacuate children if school authorities have their complete attention, rather than one child getting left behind because he is talking on the phone and not listening to instructions. Cell phone use can also lead to too many parents arriving at the crime scene while school officials are trying to evacuate the children to another area. Many school officials use this example as a warning that cell phones give children too much freedom outside the control of their parents.School administrators do not approve of every day cell phone use either. Their complaints range from cell phone calls disrupting the class to students using text messaging to cheat on exams. In some schools, administrators have confiscated cell phones from students who were taking inappropriate pictures in the locker room and putting them on the Internet. As the argument between school officials and concerned parents goes on, some school administrators have made suggestions that will enable children to keep their cell phones in school. One idea is to have the children turn their cell phones off while in class. In the hallways, however, they would be able to check their voice mail and return any calls that they needed to. Another suggestion is that parents can program their child's cell phone to only dial 911 and block out any incoming calls. As parents, the choice to have a child carry his cell phone to school may no longer be yours. If more parents agree to the ideas put forth by school officials that would enable their child to have their phone but to limit its use, perhaps a solution to the conflict could be found. After all, a limited cell phone is better than none at all.