The Effects of Cigarette Smoking

There have been numerous campaigns against cigarette smoking communicating that this vice causes death. But a threat
to health doesnt seem to be a good reason for quitting anymore. People somehow block themselves and ignore all the
information that is given to them. The purpose of this essay is to discuss three effects of cigarette smoking, besides the
broadly mentioned possibility of developing cancer or dying, which are the smell of smoke, the stained teeth, and the cost
of doing it.
The first effect of cigarette smoking, and probably the one that the non-smokers hate the most, is that it permeates
everything around it. Smokers usually have smelly hair, breath, clothes, and, if they smoke indoors, a smelly room. The
stench of cigarette smoke is very penetrating and hard to remove. Even if the person quits smoking the odor remains for a
long time.
The second effect of cigarette smoking is one that most people dont even take into consideration. It stains the teeth
yellow or sometimes even brown. Since this effect is long term, most people are not aware of it when they begin smoking.
The truth is that a cigarette stain is very hard to eliminate from the teeth, and it will probably end up costing a considerable
amount of money. Yellow teeth are disgusting because they give an unhygienic image and make people look older.
The third effect of smoking is that it will eventually end up affecting the smokers personal economy. Depending on the
country the prices of cigarettes can differ. But even at an affordable price the regular consumption of cigarettes will
eventually take its economic toll.
These are only three out of many other effects that cigarette smoking can have, but to any sensible person they are more
than enough to realize that smoking is bad. People cant possibly be proud of calling themselves smokers. It is terrible for
health as well as personal appearance. In the end, those who live in poverty, stink of smoke, and have yellow teeth are the
people who are affected the most by this life threatening activity.
Contrast Between Backpacking or Staying in Hotels
Traveling is one of the favorite hobbies almost all people have. There are several ways for traveling around the
world, and they all include some good things and some bad things. Backpacking and staying in hotels are two of
the most common ways of traveling, thats why they are used by most people. The major differences that could
be discussed between these two ways of traveling are the costs, the safety of the staying, and the availability of
plans.
Backpacking has been used by teenagers for a long time, and it has become really famous among young people
who dont have a lot of money for traveling. By backpacking people could save a lot of money and travel with less
money than what they would need for paying a hotel. As the travelers will need to sleep in a hostel, there will
always be the issue of insecurity, as any kind of people could enter and sleep in a hostel. Hostels are not always
available as there are a lot of people who use them, so change of plans will always be a possibility in this way of
traveling. People who rely on backpacking for their trips should always have a backup plan.
Hotels are one of the most comfortable ways of traveling, but only if you have enough money. This way of
traveling is mostly used by families and people who are wealthy enough to pay for good hotels. By staying at a
hotel people will spend more money than they would spend in a hostel; of course a hotel will provide a high level
of security to the traveler. To stay at most hotels, you need reservations, and once you have them you can rely
on a place to sleep every night. In this way of traveling no backup plan is needed.

The two possibilities discussed above are really good; everything depends on the economic possibilities of every
person. Personally I recommend staying at hotels even if they do not have an excellent quality because the
services you get in exchange for your money could be the difference between having a good trip or a perfect
mess.

Climbing a Mountain (Narrative)

If you have ever climbed a mountain, you know how exciting it is to realize that you are about to get on top of one of the
worlds roofs! Especially for the first time, when you do not yet know what to expect, or how it is going to be like.
I can remember my first ascension to a mountain top well. It happened about three years ago, when it was autumn, and
the weather in the mountains was gloomy. My friends offered me to travel to the western Carpathian Mountains, and after
a short period of hesitation, I accepted their invitation. There was nothing much to do for me at the time, so I thought that
a change of surrounding would only be of use to me.
The Carpathian Mountains are not too high. If you compare them to, say, the Caucasian Mountains, the Carpathians look
more like hills although on average, they are about 4500 feet high. Anyways, this is more than enough for a novice, and I
am glad that my experience of climbing mountains started there.
The hillside that we started our ascension from was rather sloping, in the beginning. This side of the mountain was covered
with a pine forest. The trees were incredibly high and thick; their knotted large roots cut the ground here and there,
forming natural footsteps that made walking the terrain a little bit easier. The air was really fresh and clean; after about 30
minutes of climbing, we heard the sound of a stream and rushed to it to drink from it. I think it was the tastiest water in my
life: it smelled of moss and soil, was subtly sweet, and was so cold and clear that dipping our stained hands in it seemed
almost a crime.
After about an hour of walking, we left the forest, and walked along the slope, overgrown with shrubs. The ground beneath
our feet changed its color, but we did not pay attention to it, until it started to rain slightly; after it became slippery, and
one of our friends fell because of thiswe realized that we were walking on clay. Fortunately, there was a plateau a bit
higher, and somehow we managed to reach it; still, our clothes were covered with clay. Further, the slope gradually
became steeper, so instead of walking we actually had to climb, but instead of clay there were mostly stones and branches,
and we could grab the shrubs nearby to help ourselves climb. There was another small plateau on our way to the top; on
that plateau, we found a lot of wild blueberries and strawberries, which were delicious.
When we ultimately got to the top, we did not even realize it at first, because of the cloudy and foggy weather. The rain
stopped, but we could still barely see our surroundings, so we felt disappointed but nevertheless happy because of
making it to the top. We had a teapot and a touristic primus with us, so we made some hot tea, and drank it, discussing
where else we would go next time. And suddenly, when we were ready to leave, the sun somehow broke through the
clouds, and cast the fog away. We were awed to see the incredible scenery below: green misty valleys, shady mountains
around, and a shining serpent of a distant river. Amazed, we stood there for about five minutes, before the sun hid behind
the clouds again. But these five minutes made us feel much happier than if we saw all the scenery while climbing the
mountain.
In the following years, I climbed several more mountains. Though there was almost nothing extreme that happened, I still
feel happy and proud for discovering more mountains firsthand. But I guess I never again had the same feeling as at that
very moment when the clouds vanished and revealed the whole world below the first mountain that I climbed.

I think we all have a beautiful place in our mind. I have a wonderful place that made me happy a lot
of times, years ago. But sometimes I think that I am the only person who likes this place and I'm
asking myself if this place will be as beautiful as I thought when I will go back to visit it again.
Perhaps I made it beautiful in my mind.

A beautiful place (descriptive)

This place is meaningful to me because it is part of the county I loved, is part of the county where I grew up and is part of
my childhood. This place is in the country in an old region named Appalachia, a small piece of the Appalachian Mountains,
in a town named Pikeville.
Pikeville is a polluted town because of the coal industry. People live in apartment or condominium buildings because of its
little space available. I grew up in one of the many buildings in Pikeville admiring from my bedroom window the beauty of
the mountains, always exploring with my eyes the forest or the meadows, looking for a clean and quiet place. And, I found
one on a hill in the back of the town. It is about 100 feet square, it has seven old trees, wild flowers and a lot of bugs and
ants during summer time.
I used to go there to sit down on a rock and watch the town and my trees. There was a very old tree, a maple tree, with a
huge trunk. The others were smaller, three in the back, three on my left side and the old maple tree on my right. There
were flowers, many kinds, white, yellow, purple and blue. It was nobody's place. Nobody owned that hill, but it was
beautiful and peaceful and I dreamed many times about a white house over there.
I think that, these kinds of places are meaningful to people because they are natural and people can be there alone, away
from their everyday life.
I used to go there to be alone or to dream with my eyes open admiring the blue sky or the clouds. I liked to go there to lay
down on the grass, listen to the wind, kiss the flowers and watch the leaves moving. It was hard to go up the hill to get
there, but I wanted to see everyday my seven trees, to see how the color of the leaves changed and to feel the softness of
the grass.
I used to go there with a reason or with no reason at all. I knew that I had to be there to forget who I am, to breath and refeed myself with hope. That was the only place I could go to dance, or sing, or cry. That place was part of me. The wind was
part of my breath, the leaves were part of my song, the flowers were part of my purity and the trees were my friends that I
used to hug every time when I got there. I used to go there even in winter to play with clean snow. In my native town, even
after a fresh snow, we got a gray-black layer of soot over the snow. All the town was covered with dirty snow.
During winter time my place was still beautiful. My trees had branches full of white, heavy snow. The flowers, the birds,
the grass were gone, also the rock I used to sit on was hard to be found, but it was still peaceful, quiet and especially clean.
The snow angels I made kept watch over this natural splendor.
This place is far, far-away in time and space, part of my childhood and my adolescence. It means a lot to me because it is
beautiful and natural, is a clean and quiet place in a world of noise and dirty air. This place is maybe beautiful just in my
mind, but it is one of the few friends I had, back in Romania. I really hope that the new construction will spare this place
and others like it, for these are the places that can bring us happiness.

Argumentative
Lynn Streeter
English 102
Prof. Paola Brown
4 February 2008
Legalize It
In 2000, George Biersons "Marijuana, the Deceptive Drug", was published by
the Massachusetts News. Bierson concludes that marijuana is harmful in many ways,
including brain damage, damage to the reproductive system, and weakening of the
immune system. He also attempts to convince the reader that marijuana is a "gateway
drug" that leads the users to venture into much harder drugs. I believe that research to
support anything can be found if one is looking hard enough, but that the fallacy of
Biersons conclusion is due to his research seeking facts to support an already-assumed
conclusion. Based on my research and my own personal experience, I have found that
several of his points, when looked at logically, do not reach his conclusion.
One of Biersons strongest supporting claims is of the physical harms of
marijuana. He argues that Heath's tests of the monkey's brain seemed to show conclusive
evidence of brain damage; however, he fails to mention that the tests were later
discredited: the monkeys were given extremely high doses, doses exponentially higher
than that of the average recreational or medical marijuana user, and the tests sample size

was too small. More current studies of people who are heavy marijuana smokers show
no evidence of brain damage; in addition, the American Medical Association has
officially endorsed the decriminalization of marijuana. I find this to be quite a bit more
compelling than an outdated and poorly executed test. His claims of damage to both the
reproductive system and the immune system are again based on invalid experiments of
nearly lethal doses administered to mice and other animals, not humans. Moreover,
several studies of the effects of marijuana on the human reproductive and immune
systems have failed to demonstrate adverse effects.
One of the longest standing arguments against the use of marijuana is that it gives
users a "gateway" to harder or more illicit drug use. Bierson states in his article that
"Marijuana is the seed from which the scourge of drug abuse grows. If we stop the
marijuana, we will stop the rest of drug abuse". I have several issues with this statement:
first, the simple fact that many heroin and cocaine users used marijuana first does not
conclude that the latter is the result of the first. Correlation is not causality. Biersons
vehement argument against marijuana alone become suspect, as most of these heroin and
cocaine abusers had also previously used alcohol and tobacco. According to government
surveys, a conservative estimate of 80 million American have tried marijuana in their life,
and 20 million admit to using it recently; if marijuana were truly a gateway drug, we
would see a higher percentage of regular users. Instead we are seeing an even smaller
percentage of abusers of cocaine or heroin. In fact, most people who use marijuana most
often quit on their own before the age of 34. If anybody is still compelled to buy into the
"gateway" theory, a real-life example is available for all to see: In Holland, marijuana has
been partially decriminalized since the 1970's. Reports show that the use of cocaine and
heroin has significantly decreased, thus contradicting the hypothesis of marijuana as a
gateway drug. Instead, these statistics appear to point to the conclusion that marijuana is
more likely a substitute for harder drugs rather than a launching pad.
While I do feel that Bierson has failed to present conclusive evidence of the
harmfulness of marijuana through the points made, it is not a proper statement to claim
that marijuana is "harmless" either. Even though the properties of marijuana have shown
not to be physically addictive, one can become psychologically addicted. However, this is
true of just about anything that can give one pleasure, such as chocolate, gambling, or
shopping. No substance will be safe for everybody, under all circumstances, or when
used in excessive amounts. For example, over-the-counter medications can be deadly for
those who are allergic or who overdose. On the other hand, marijuana overdose has never
been a sole reported cause of death: the amount of cannabinoids required to have a lethal
effect are more than 40,000 times the necessary dosage for intoxication, making it highly
unlikely that a person would be able to or could be able to achieve such a concentrated
amount in their bloodstream. This is a severe contrast to alcohol, where one can very
easily bring about one's demise, and at only a mere four times the legal limit.
Marijuana continues to be a relevant controversial issue in society today, as many
states included decriminalization and legalization proposals on their ballots. It can be
very difficult to know which side to support, partially due to the media propaganda, some
of which even contradicts itself in its fervor. This is likely the result of many wealthy
and influential organizations that have a financial interest in this issue, from the
pharmaceutical companies who stand to lose profits from legalization, the governments
who stands to gain from taxation, or the "dealers" who will be put out of business with
the elimination of the black market. It seems that those with a vested interest in the
legalization or continued criminalization of marijuana will pull whatever strings
necessary to sway public opinion to their side. This may include creating, supporting, or
merely citing biased or invalid research to support the desired conclusion, just as Bierson
has done in his article.
EUROPE UNITED?
Sixty years ago Britain was a power leading the world. It was the centre of a large and varied empire - the commonwealth,
with a navy twice the size of any other. The people were enjoying a relatively high standard of living in a country which was
not only powerful, but also prosperous.
Since these times Britain's power has been slowly asphyxiated. The navy has shrunk, the empire has all but disappeared,
our standard of living has fallen below average within the western hemisphere. Brussels mania has taken a throttle hold.
Britain is being dragged into a United Europe.

But to me, being British and Scottish counts for far more then being European. As a Euro-sceptic I can see through the
vision of eternal peace, national wellbeing and personal prosperity to a rather less rosy future of almost nonexistent
political rights, high unemployment and massive resource wastage.
At present even the limited links we have with Europe wreak havoc in Britain. The much praised health and safety
regulations of the EC only lead to the death of "unhygienic" local products such as Arbroath Smokies and Farmhouse
cheese. In a drive for stainless steel and scientific systems of food preparation traditional makers of these products are
forced out of business - losing not only traditions, but also employment.
Unemployment is also occurring in other areas. Fishing is an industry upon which Britain relies heavily. However, the EC is
causing severe damage. Fishermen are having limits placed upon their profession continually. Foreign trawlers misusing
Britain's traditional fishing waters has lead to a shortage of fish. As a result, British boats are limited to when, what and
how much they can fish putting many people out of work. Within a fully United Europe not only would this industry suffer
further, but resources and employment would be poached in other areas, such as the oil industry.
Unfortunately employment is not the only economic problem which is aggravated by European links. Many supporters of
unity highlight grants made by the European Community for roads, schools and other areas. Although on the surface these
may seem to be an advantage, closer examination reveals that these are not what they seem - Britain injects ten times as
much money into the system as is returned in grants.
The idea that creating a Super state Europe would secure a long-term, and stable, era of peace is a popular argument.
However. advocates of this idea seem not to realise the problems incurred when a large group of different races are
clumped together. Cultural clashes are inevitable, with the old USSR providing prime a example of the result - poverty,
unrest, economic disaster in certain areas, and eventually an internal uprising. Britain is a patriotic nation, strong wellfounded traditions. It is hard to accept that our history and culture should be lost, and replaced by a shallow, uninteresting
Euro-lifestyle. Super state Europe is a cultural time bomb before it has begun.
The Euro-proposers have one final missile with which they attempt to present a case - increased political freedom. What
they forget is that in Europe, Britain would become a region and Scotland a mere dot on the map with perhaps three MEPs
out of a total of six-hundred. All this could result in even less influence for voters than at present. There is a Conservative
Government in power, yet less than one in six Scottish MPs belong to that party. Within a Unified Europe problems of this
nature would be further accentuated.
Yet. to many people it may seem that there is no alternative to tighter links with Europe. However, there is. Britain should
remain a nation on its own, and little by little withdraw the current economic and political bonds. By doing so we can once
again gain power, and prosperity that we enjoyed in the past. In addition we can keep our history separate from that of
other European states, who if they plough on regardless, are heading towards certain disaster.
To suggest we should let Britain be sucked into a United States of Europe would be down-right disrespectful and insulting
to all those who fought and died, to avoid central ruling of Europe, during the two World Wars. Millions of people died to
prevent Britain ending up a United Europe, Empire, or Third Reich - call it what you like, it all comes down to the same
thing. As our grandfathers and our grandfathers' fathers fought for freedom against a European dominator, so must we.
We should rise to the challenge and protect Britain's prosperity by preventing European Unity.