got too stoned to finish this essay on tobacco, please help

smart people only, plz.

i have a paper due in an hour thats about tobacco, i havent been able to finish it cause i just got blazed, im pretty fucked, so if you wanna sorta help me finish this paper in an hour i'd love you forever...peace.

this is what i have so far:

Up In Smoke: Tobacco Use in Teens

Itâ??s remarkable that something as wholly damaging and unappealing as tobacco should deserve its own essay. For all intents and purposes, tobacco should be a slightly comical afterthought, a nostalgic â??remember-when-everyone-sucked-down-those-things-harharharâ?� breath on the wind. But the only wind weâ??re getting is clogged with carcinogens, and our breath isnâ??t strong enough to laugh anymore. So, comedy aside, why on earth do we as a nation continue to puff religiously on sticks of rat poison and tar? Why is there a small (but fiercely loyal) faction of high school kids huddling for warmth out at â??the cornerâ?� in subzero temperatures simply to wrap their freezing hands around a Camel? Itâ??s absurd, itâ??s frightening, but itâ??s also understandable. We know the risks. We cannot feign ignorance any longer. Itâ??s time to uncover the truth about tobaccoâ??why people start, whatâ??s the big deal, and whether or not it should continue to be available. So stub out the cancer stick and take notes, because itâ??s going to be a very rude awakening.

Letâ??s start off with the biology aspect of this debate: the short and long term effects of tobacco use. Tobaccoâ??s main ingredient, nicotine, is the one that causes most of the effects a smoker grows to crave. It is a stimulant that acts to increase the heartbeat, making a first time user report feelings of nausea and lightheadedness. As use gets more regular and the user gradually gets accustomed to the practice, many feel a calming effect. After prolonged use, however, a tolerance to the drug builds and addiction begins. Soon, users need a cigarette just to feel normal, to quell the pains in their stomach or head that arise from not having their daily dose of nicotine. In fact, more than a third of all teenagers get addicted to cigarettes before leaving high school (CDC). Itâ??s a circle of death and destruction that claims 1200 lives each day (tobaccofreekids.org) and has proven almost impossible to stop. Once a teenager has become addicted to cigarettes, they have a plethora of health woes to look forward to. Young smokers especially have an increased risk of immune deficiency and stunted lung growth that will plague them into adulthood. Of course, there are all the other health risks, including cancer, emphysema, tooth decay, gum disease, impotence, heart attacks, stroke, pregnancy complications, and so many more negative side effects it would become meaningless to list them all. According to TobaccoFreeKids.com, â??tobacco use kills more than 440,000 people each year in the United States, or more than the total number killed by AIDS, alcohol, motor vehicles, homicide, illegal drugs, and suicide combined.â?� Despite all these negative effects, however, teenagers all over the country still light up at an alarming rate.

Now we ask ourselves why. Weâ??ve already learned that over a third of US teens are in danger of becoming (or already are) addicted to a drug that boasts carbon monoxide, radon, arsenic, and other â??funâ?� additives as its main ingredientâ??presumably to give it that tasty â??cancerâ?� flavor. This would have been understandable in the 1960s, where doctors puffed Marlboros in their offices and probably thought it was good for you, but this is the new millennium. Weâ??re a lot smarter now about what drugs can and cannot do to you, and tobacco is arguably the least disputed when it comes to how dangerous it is. Kids are subject to multiple hours of DARE and other health education that state clearly the drastic effects of prolonged tobacco use. Nurse offices, gym locker rooms, hallwaysâ?¦all plaster gruesome photos of diseased, cancerous lungs meant to scare teens. There are brochures, websites, ad campaigns, all of which are dedicated solely to preventing kids from smoking. But despite the onslaught of negative advertising the tobacco companiesâ?? face, cigarettes still prevail on the street corner. The easy answer is peer pressure, but Iâ??m a teenager myself and letâ??s face it, nobody out there is forcing a cigarette into anybodyâ??s hand or saying â??youâ??re not cool if you donâ??t smokeâ?�. No, the answer is far more subtle, and far more complicated than that. Itâ??s true that many teenagers smoke cigarettes because their friends or parents do. This isnâ??t due to peer pressure, but due to the constant presence of cigarettes in a teenâ??s life. After a while, they grow accustomed to it, and feel compelled to â??see what all the fuss is aboutâ?�. Many anti-tobacco groups claim that cigarette advertising is the culprit, citing the Joe Camel debacle of yesteryear as proof. But cigarette advertising is currently so limited by state and federal laws that it has a negligible influence on our already media-saturated teens. Perhaps a more accurate explanation of why teens smoke is their natural tendency towards rebellion, and with nurses, teachers, and parents so vocally opposed to cigarettes its easy to see why teenagers would reject those opinions and do the exact opposite. The curse of adolescence is the constant need for independence from the moral views of their parents, and this is just another of the countless examples of ways for teenagers to assert their own identity. Smoking in itself is a community, as places like ABâ??s â??cornerâ?� demonstrate. Kids joke about getting cancer, unite in their addiction, and thrive in their own little microcosm of society where they are different and rebellious. These DARE-educated kids may be aware of the danger theyâ??re doing to their body, but they simply donâ??t care. Teenagers are furthermore inclined to try cigarettes because their budget allows them to, as they arenâ??t yet fiscally responsible for much besides the occasional bottle of hairspray or movie ticket. Despite the absurdly high cost of cigarettes (anywhere from 4-7 dollars a pack), teenagers are willing to shell out a few bucks to keep their addiction going. All of these factors contribute to why teenagers smoke, but there is no clear cut reason


ok if you can finish that i love you.

You're in a world of shit.

(I am in a world of shit!)
orly?
..:)

You should have done it before you got too stoned....

.....well, we live and learn...

:)

yea man im blazed too and theres some loud pink floyd playing right now so i dont feel like doin an essay

I'm not the one in school, you finish your own damn essay. Got too stoned? Not our fault, do it yourself. Let alone tobacco...you think we have nothing better to do than sit here and do your homework...geez.

That was a great essay, i love your writing style. You remind me of me. But 'got too stoned to finish' is a bullshit excuse. I do everyone of my essays stoned and they always get A's. C'mon now dude, the fun is writing it. Just skip class and hand it it next time, say you were sick.

haha i finished it.

some of you guys need to chill.

essay ended up ok.

i wasnt really expecting a completed essay in an hour, anyway.

just curious to see if anyone could contribute.

anyway, thanks for the random feedback...

-heather

Five hours, later...

Here's your ending.

Tobacco can be best summarized by the following: T is for Tobacco, O is for Oboe, B is for Bassoon, A is for avatar, C is for Caring, C is for Caring, and O is for Oboe.

hhhmm very nice but i was wondering is pipe tabaco as bad as cigs ?

lol, a few years ago in chemistry some friends and i did a project on nicotine. we made a movie. one of my friends pretended to vomit, and this guy ran around in short shorts. and passed out. no reason why. it was just funny.

i have an essay too what do u guys think of it. do u think i will get a good grade on it ? please read





Death Penalty Needed to Protect Society


The death penalty is an issue that will continue to be debated over for many years to come. Some believe the death penalty should be abolished while others believe the death penalty should remain an option. Although there are things I would change dealing with the death penalty, I do not think it should be completely abolished. The death penalty should be administered to those who commit heinous crimes, whether it involves murder or not (Lopez, Camilla p.1).

One can look at judicial history and tell that just because someone is sentenced to the death penalty does not mean it actually happens. People have become so liberal that they are willing to give everyone a second chance. People want to give the man who raped and murdered ten women in a matter of days the same second chance as the little boy who stole a candy bar from the grocery store . It might just be me, but I see a huge difference in the effect of those crimes on the rest of the population. Women are not going to live in fear about going to the grocery store because a little boy stole a candy bar, but they are going to think twice about going shopping by themselves at night when they've heard that a serial rapist and murderer is among them. I think all crimes should have an equal punishment, but I do not necessarily believe in the eye for an eye way of thinking. Remorse can so easily be faked which is why, I think, punishments and sentences have been lightened over the years.

There are many cases and points that opponents to the death penalty bring up, but there are also several good points that pro-death penalty believers argue. Opponents of capital punishment believe the death penalty is not beneficial, but "we execute those who commit these atrocious crimes so that they do not have the chance to kill again" (Lopez, p.1). Heinous crimes seem to be no big deal and no shocking occurrence, like they used to be, which makes me very sad. The headlines are covered with people who have committed terrible crimes and sit on television laughing about what they've done, knowing they're not going to receive the death penalty for their crime. The government and the judicial system has now become a joke to people just as jail houses have become jokes to people living in them. At one point in time, jail was somewhere a person feared to go. Now, jails have all the luxuries of living at home with mom and dad, so why not go there? Jail, to some people, is a refuge where they can escape from the harshness of life. I believe one-fourth, if not one-half, of the crimes committed sending people to jail deserve a harsher punishment and in some cases, the death penalty. The crime a person has to commit in order to receive the death penalty has dramatically changed over the past several years. I don't understand the need to 'think about' determining whether or not a mother who has drowned all of her children or a man who has been confirmed in having raped, dismembered, and killed five boys under the age of ten in a matter of weeks should receive the death penalty. I believe there should be no questions asked and no second thoughts about putting those kinds of people to rest.

I support the idea of the death penalty, but I disagree with some of the procedures taken to actually make it happen. There have been so many times when a judge sentenced the death penalty and, still, twenty years later the convicted murderer was sitting on death row. I support the death penalty and agree that we should keep it, but if it is not going to be carried out within a reasonable amount of time, everyone is just wasting their time and money, paying tax dollars for "letting the prisoner drag his/her case on" (Lopez, p.2). Even with jail sentences, that seems to be what happens most of the time anyway, so I think with the death penalty at least there is some hope to try and prevent heinous crimes from occurring again. I think if the death penalty was a true deterrent to heinous crimes, we would not have so many problems. I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent to any crimes, but I do believe it is a reasonable punishment and sentence that more people should receive for the crimes they commit.

People have such a lack of respect for the government and the laws it sets that it seems the only way to deal with such people is to kill them. I know putting to death one serial rapist or murderer is not going to stop rapes and murders from happening, but at least there will be one less person out in the world committing heinous crimes than there was before. I believe the death penalty was originally created to be a deterrent to crime and I believe it could get back to being that if people could see the government taking steps in that direction. Jail houses have all the luxuries of living at home and I believe that if the death penalty is abolished people will kill because they want to kill, rape because they want to rape, and steal because they want to steal knowing that nothing too terrible could possibly happen to them. Jail might not be their first pick of places to be, but it's certainly not their last when they know they're going to have food, clothing, and shelter. I do not think the death penalty is used enough to be called our most effective method of solving crime. In fact, I do not think we have a most effective method at this point. I think if the government actually made people stay in jail for the amount of time they were assigned in their sentence, a lot less crime would be happening. People are getting sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole and in less than ten years are back on the streets again. How is that safe for the society and how is that holding to the sentence given them by the judge? That is a lot of the reason why I support the death penalty. It seems that both sides are being taken lightly but sometimes, if we're lucky, the death penalty is actually carried out and the thought of that person harming another innocent individual can be out of our heads for good. Putting someone behind bars for committing a heinous crime for ten years and then releasing them back to society should not comfort anyone.

Over the years, my opinion on the death penalty has wavered, usually according to how emotional I was that day. I am not an advocate of killing by any means, but I've learned that in order to better protect society you might have to go to an extreme. In some cases 'extreme' can be bad, but when talking about the death penalty, I think this is one of the best extremes there is.

Well, if it's graded for content, then A+.

However, since I'm not an expert on the judicial system, the only thing I can say is that you might want to state that you've never, actually, had an opinion on the Death Penalty, but it's a "yes" or "no" question, so you've always had an answer.