Texts, Sexts, What's Next?

In responses to “Give parents, authorities, teens tools to deal with sexting,” the author explains the soon possibility of a new law, charging teens who “sexts” with a Class C up to a Class A misdemeanor, and that parents too would be held responsible. Proposed by Senator Kirk Watson, this law could ruin a teen’s life with a Class A misdemeanor. Meaning that they could spend a year in jail or a $4000 fine. If teens were sent to jail for a year, they are more likely, or will have to drop out of school. Parents would be responsible by having to participate in some educational program with their teen, which they are likely to pay legal fees for. As stated in the article, “If the legislature does pass the bill, it is important to get to the world that sexting carries consequences,” I for one agree with that statement, but I do not agree with the consequences it carries. They are giving the same charges to teens as they would do to an adult, which is too harsh on them, and is not fair. Yes, this world is full of ignorant teens that are too immature to understand their actions and should be punished, but should not face any jail time. It would ruin their lives and education. I agree with the authors argument when he says “we should not treat teens as we treat adult caught with pornography.” Teens should be given a more gentle consequence, such as a simple fine. The author also points out that the legislature should give teens and adults a separate charge, which I highly agree with.

Smokin' Hospitals

In A.G. Sulzberger’s “Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban,” Sulzberger explains how hospitals and medical businesses are adopting a policy to refuse smokers of a job. Hospitals says that “smoking is a reason to turn away a job applicant.” They imagine that hiring non-smokers would increase worker productivity and reduce health care costs. It is said that applications will have a warning of  “tobacco-free hiring,” and that those applicants will receive a drug test for nicotine, or they will be terminated. I for one oppose this policy. Yes it may have some advantages of having more work done, or a healthier environment, but it restricting many people from getting a job. Lets say someone went to medical school, hoping to earn his or her degree into becoming a doctor or nurse, but is a smoker. If they were to graduate, they should not be turned down a job because of a habit due to past mistakes. Smoking is not easily given up on, it is a very hard habit to quit. If more places were to ban smokers, almost half of the adult population would be jobless and in poverty.