Taxing unhealthy products ("sin tax")
Should the government tax unhealthy products such as sugary drinks, processed foods, and tobacco?
Response 1
Taxing unhealthy products is indeed a necessary measure to counter the profit-seeking forces of industries producing items that can harm citizens. This approach aligns with the principle that government intervention is crucial when market forces fail to protect public health adequately. By raising the prices of unhealthy products through taxation, the government can effectively reduce their consumption, as evidenced by the taxation of tobacco products in various countries. The increase in cigarette prices due to taxation often encourages smokers to cut down or quit, leading to significant improvements in public health. Moreover, taxing these products serves as an important public awareness tool. It sends a clear message to consumers about the inherent health risks associated with these items. When consumers see that unhealthy products are being taxed, it prompts them to reflect on the potential dangers and make healthier choices.
While some may criticize this governmental intervention as indicative of a "nanny state," it's important to recognize that such measures are necessary to safeguard public health when market forces prioritize profit over well-being. In the pursuit of a healthier society, taxing unhealthy products is not just pragmatic but also an ethical imperative to protect citizens from harm and promote responsible consumer choices.
response 2
From a personal perspective, I oppose taxing unhealthy products on the grounds that it infringes on individual liberty and the right to make personal choices. While I recognize the intention behind this policy is to improve public health and raise awareness of the consequences of unhealthy decisions, it can be seen as a form of government paternalism. Adults should maintain the autonomy to determine what they consume, even if it involves potential health risks. Additionally, there are doubts about the effectiveness of taxation as a tool for behavior change, as history shows that people may continue to use these products despite higher prices, leading to illicit markets and alternative means of access. The Prohibition era's ban on alcohol and the ongoing issues with marijuana prohibition are illustrative examples. In a mature and responsible society, I believe that education and awareness campaigns are a more effective means of promoting healthier choices by providing individuals with comprehensive information and encouraging them to make informed decisions without excessive government interference.
Dr. Byrnes' TOEFL Writing Course under Government Policies: Other Policies
Targeted advertising
Do you think targeted advertising is morally permissible, or is it an invasion of privacy?
response 1
I assert that targeted advertising is morally impermissible, primarily due to its invasive nature as illustrated by concrete examples. Imagine an individual's online search for information on a sensitive medical condition, a deeply personal and private matter. In this scenario, targeted advertising mechanisms diligently track and record their search queries and website visits. Subsequently, the person is inundated with ads related to their medical condition, openly visible to anyone sharing the same device or network. This could potentially expose their private health concerns to unintended individuals, such as family members, coworkers, or friends. Such an intrusion not only infringes upon the individual's fundamental right to keep their medical history confidential but also highlights the ethical quandary that targeted advertising presents by exploiting the most personal aspects of people's lives without their consent or awareness.
response 2
I firmly advocate that targeted advertising, for its multitude of benefits outweighing drawbacks, is morally permissible. Targeted marketing significantly enhances the efficiency of advertising campaigns by harnessing data-driven insights into user preferences and behavior. Advertisers can ensure that their products or services reach individuals most likely to be interested, thereby maximizing their return on investment. Furthermore, targeted advertising delivers tangible advantages to consumers by offering relevant, personalized recommendations and offers closely aligned with their interests and needs. Additionally, targeted advertising plays a pivotal role in sustaining free online content and services, as many platforms rely on ad revenues to provide their resources without direct costs to users. When faced with data privacy regulations, such as the EU's restrictions on Facebook's targeted advertising, the platform's response to potentially charge subscription fees underscores the value of targeted ads in supporting these services. While the outcome remains uncertain, the undeniable fact is that targeted advertising facilitates the provision of valuable content and services without imposing direct financial burdens on users. Since targeted advertising has the capacity to strike a harmonious balance between business interests and consumer preferences, I believe that it is morally justified.
Punishment for drunk drivers
If the police stop a driver who is driving drunk (after drinking alcohol), do you think that the person’s driver’s license should be taken away? Support your answer.
I strongly support the idea of revoking the driver's license of individuals caught driving under the influence of alcohol. Drunk driving poses a significant threat not only to the intoxicated drivers themselves but also to innocent road users. It is a leading cause of road accidents, resulting in countless deaths and injuries, with an estimated 10,000 lives lost each year in the United States alone. Despite public awareness campaigns, the success in curbing this dangerous behavior has been limited. Therefore, I believe that implementing stricter measures, such as license revocation for those caught drunk driving, is crucial. This approach sends a powerful message that society will not tolerate such behavior and that severe consequences await those who engage in it. Knowing the risk of losing their driver's license, individuals are far less likely to take the risk of driving under the influence. The prospect of losing their license can serve as a wake-up call, prompting some to acknowledge the seriousness of their actions and seek help for their alcohol-related issues. Ultimately, the safety of all road users should be the top priority, and taking away the driver's license of those caught driving drunk is a necessary measure to achieve this.
Ban on cellphone use on the street
Do you agree with the statement that the government should ban cell phone use on the street?
Response 1
Of course, using a cell phone while walking can increase the risk of accidents as it can be distracting. People who are distracted by their phones are more likely to trip, bump into others, or walk into traffic. So, banning cellphone use on the street could make the streets safer. Despite this foreseeable benefit, I disagree with the idea that the government should ban cell phone use on the street. My reason is that such a ban can infringe on personal freedom. I firmly believe that as long as an action does not harm others or infringe upon another person’s freedom, it falls within the realm of personal freedom, and the government has no right to prevent the person from engaging in that action. I consider using a cell phone on the street a personal freedom, as it doesn’t harm others. Therefore, the decision of whether to use a cellphone on the street should be left to individuals. I trust that individuals will voluntarily choose not to use cell phones on busy streets with heavy traffic.
Response 2
The idea of banning cell phone use while walking on the street makes a lot of sense. We've all been annoyed by loud phone conversations in public places, and the street should be no different. It's about creating a more peaceful and considerate environment where everyone can enjoy their surroundings without being bothered by unwanted noise. Plus, there's a pressing safety issue here. People glued to their phones are more likely to trip, stumble, or walk into traffic, leading to more accidents and injuries. This isn't just about individuals' safety but also the well-being of drivers and other pedestrians. By putting a ban in place, we can tackle the risks of distracted walking, reduce accidents, and make our streets safer for everyone. It's a responsible move to protect public safety and encourage people to be more aware of their surroundings when they're out and about.