Should recreational marijuana be legal?

The Wongs would partially agree with the recommendation for two main reasons. First, the Wongs would argue that total adherence to the adage would imply poor planning. A flexible approach to the recommendation, as per the Wongs, would reflect effective planning and consideration for the context. In line with the suggestions by Charles (2011), the Wongs would highlight the central role of first impressions in cultivating healthy relationships in classroom management. This role is reflected in the adage “Don’t smile until Christmas” to some extent. The recommendation suggests the need to avoid humor and jokes in the early phases of classroom engagement to ensure control. Rigid adherence to the recommendation is not desirable as suggested in the second reason presented below outlining why the Wongs would partially agree with it.

This second reason is that the Wongs would argue that the students have an important role in building classroom relationships and the teacher should share classroom plans with them. The adage does not resonate with this view because it appears to encourage the teacher to alienate students in classroom management plans. As per the Wongs, the students should participate in carrying out classroom plans (history dissertation help). The smile, therefore, should be part of the techniques the teacher employs to influence students to embrace the desired behavior. In this regard, the teacher assumes the role of leadership. As a leader, the teacher should gauge situations when carrying out plans to identify whether certain techniques such as humor or a smile would be appropriate to inspire the students. Strict adherence to the adage would limit the teacher’s ability to inspire students as a leader in classroom management.

Reference

Charles, C. M. (2011). Building classroom discipline (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.  https://historyassignmenthelp.com/category/help-with-homework/

According to the World Health Organization, public health is the responsibility of government to ensure that everybody is well. Everyone’s right to the highest attainable quality of health is a human right, and WHO is calling for all governments and other responsible bodies to work together to ensure that it is readily available and affordable to everyone (Lohman, Wilson & Marston, 2017). When health is recognized as a human right, governments are given legal obligations to ensure that acceptable, timely, and accessible healthcare is provided. Sanitation, clean and potable water, housing, food, gender equality, and education are some of the underlying determinants of health that can be given.

The highest attainable health requirements are linked to a clear set of legal obligations to ensure that citizens have access to healthcare services without being discriminated against. Human rights violations are a major factor in declining public health. Vulnerable groups are often at a greater risk of being ignored or treated unfairly. To achieve more firm and reliable results in the battle against health inequality, governments must develop a coherent and conscience strategy for supporting gender equality and human rights policies (Lohman, Wilson & Marston, 2017; learned writers). These structures will pave the way for the creation of a structure and core strengths that will boost services and everyone’s well-being.

References

Lohman, D., Wilson, D., & Marston, J. (2017). Advocacy and human rights issues. Building integrated palliative care programs and services, 185.

 

The At-Will Employment Doctrine

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Date

Pros and Cons of the At-Will Employment Doctrine

The majority of today’s work contracts are considered at-will. At-will employment means that an employee can resign or be fired from his job at any time, for any reason (other than those which are illegal). On the other hand, an employer has the right to fire an at-will employee for almost any excuse that isn’t discriminatory (Solon, Forman & Mankes, 2017). The reality about the at-will doctrine is that there are restrictions on when an employee may be dismissed, even when they want to exercise their rights under work statutes and regulations.

The key benefit of at-will employment is that an employer may fire an employee at any time without cause if necessary. When an employer knows which employee is performing poorly or breaking the company’s policies but does not want to be held legally responsible for claims, the doctrine allows the employer to terminate the contract without having to go through a lengthy court process. Under at-will employment, one of the most common drawbacks for employers is that an employee can leave at any time and for any reason. This can leave the employer short-handed and unable to fill the position with a suitable replacement. If terminated workers wish to pursue legal action, an employer will be forced to defend him or herself coursework help.

The biggest benefit for workers is that they can resign at any time for any reason without violating their employment contract. The ability to move to other careers that provide better work opportunities is flexible. The main downside for the employee is the confusion since the boss has the right to terminate the job at any moment without warning. Both the benefits and drawbacks of the at-will doctrine must be considered. Every hiring decision must be carefully considered in order to obtain the greatest possible benefits. Abuse of the at-will doctrine can result in long-term consequences (VanderVelde, 2020).

References

Solon, M., Forman, A., & Mankes, M. (2017). ” At-Will” Employment: Is It as Easy to Sack a US Employee as You’ve Heard?. Int’l. In-House Counsel J., 11, 1. https://learnedwriters.com/tag/writing/

VanderVelde, L. (2020). The Anti-Republican Origins of the At-Will Doctrine. American Journal of Legal History, 60(4), 397-449. https://onlyessayhelp.com/tag/psychology-assignment-help/

 

Marijuana Legalization

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Title

Date

The Legalization of Marijuana in the United States

In the United States, the debate about marijuana legalization has raged for years, with both sides making compelling arguments. Many who advocate for marijuana legalization claim that it has many health benefits, while those who oppose it believe that it has more drawbacks. Marijuana, for example, has been shown to have the medical advantage of reducing vomiting, muscle spasticity, and nausea, both of which are symptoms of multiple sclerosis (Morrow, 2021). According to procon.org, legalizing marijuana would help improve the economy by eliminating black markets, controlling drug cartels, and reducing illegal activity and street gangs. Marijuana has several negative effects, including impairing cognitive capacity and affecting short-term memory, all of which can lead to addiction and substance abuse (computer science homework help).

According to procon.org, legalizing marijuana would raise social costs more than tax revenues. It can result in alcohol recovery, a large number of victims as a result of drug driving, and other effects associated with second-hand smoke. Underage people will have easy access to legal marijuana and may misuse it, leading to a rise in crime. In this situation, I am opposed to marijuana legalization because the negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences. I would only endorse marijuana legalization in medical practice, where it would only be available to medical practitioners.

References

Morrow, Angela. (2021). Pros and Cons of Medical Marijuana. VeryWellHealth.com. Accessed 7th April 2021 from https://learnedwriters.com/other-services/

Procon.Org. Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal? Pro & Con Arguments. Procon.org. Accessed 7th April 2021 from https://marijuana.procon.org/