USING ANIMALS IN RESEARCH

Using animals in any research might sound viscious to anyone but the problem is if we are not doing this to animals how can we know that something is good or bad to us??

Don't you think that it is more rude if we do the research to humans?? Therefore we have to do the research to animals instead.

For example if we want to test for the effectiveness of certain medicine for certain diseases, we have got to test it to animals first before we sell it or prescribe to the patients. This is because if we give the medicine to humans directly, we might not know that the medicine might give a bad effect to humans so it is better to test it first with the animals.

Is using animal in research is bad?

Technically, I would not called it a bad thing to use animal in doing research for the benefit of society. I as the voice for every walking of life that I would rather try a new product that had already been tested and checked for the public to try it with 'doubtless wary' rather than to be concern whether it'll bring harm or good to them. In conclusion, yes, its alright to use animal for experimenting or doing research for the best interest of the stateholders. More importantly do not concern yourself (those against the usage of animals for research) the treatment of the animals because there are laws that are protecting the animals and they alone can state whether this animals is approprite for research or not.

P.S "Life in general is full of unexpected occurance so find your way how to adopt in that situation"

opinion on using animal as experiments

"I do support necessary scientific experiments that will benefit humans or animals"The issue of using animals for experimentation raises many questions. There are also levels at which people agree or disagree with animal experimentation. Most people, my self included, do not condone totally unnecessary scientific experiments that do not significantly benefit humans or animals. However, I do support necessary scientific experiments that will benefit humans or animals.

Imagine, without using these animals for experiments, how are we suppose to know these drugs or specimen is working? If we do not test it before sell it to people, we might kill thousand of people as we dont know its effects.

People come up with ideas of replacing theses animals with alternatives such as computer models and cell stuctures. These are excellent avenues for reducing number of animals used. These methods are used to screen and determine toxic potential of a substance in the early stage of the investigation.The final test however, has to be done in a whole, living system.Even the most sophisticated technology cannot mimic the interactions among cell, tissiues and organ that occurs in animals and plants.

In addition, replacing animals with the adjunct method is very expensive.

Animals used in research.

The ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to much debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20th century. There remain strong disagreements about which animal testing procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply, and to which species of animals. The dominant ethical position, world-wide, is that achievement of scientific and medical goals using animal testing is desirable, provided that animal suffering and use is minimized. The British government has additionally required that the cost to animals in an experiment be weighed against the gain in knowledge.

A wide range of minority viewpoints exist as well. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs, desires and self-consciousness. Such beings are seen as having inherent value and thus possessing rights. Regan still sees clear ethical differences between killing animals and killing humans, and argues that to save human lives it is permissible to kill animals. However, some such as Bernard Rollin have taken his position further and argue that any benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an individual animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Another prominent position is articulated by Peter Singer, who sees no convincing reason to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations. Although these arguments have not been widely accepted, in response to these concerns some governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have outlawed invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, particularly the Great Apes.

Sure enough this type of research may seem inhumane to most people. This is done to ensure that the product produced are safe to use by us. Just imagine that the researcher will need to first test on a HUMAN, which i believe no one would ever want to be a volunteer. So i still think that testing on animals are necessary, as it is the only solution left for us. Unless, someone would suggest that human should be tested on instead of animals.

Thank you for smoking.

According to the film's director, this film is neither pro- nor anti-smoking. In fact, the act of smoking is not shown at all in the movie (except only once in the deleted scenes portion of the movie: after Naylor has been assaulted by anti-smoking activists, recovers, and is told he can never smoke again. He tries one, and passes out.) The closest the movie ever comes to depicting a character smoking is when Nick reaches into his shirt pocket for a cigarette. The pack, however, is empty. The film is more inclined to attack political correctness, despite some scenes showing pro-smoking messages. Overall it slightly parodies both struggles in promoting and preventing smoking, with the Tobacco companies resorting to giving obvious lies to people and the anti-smoking movements going too far (such as the senator editing movies that have cigarettes in them). During the film, it is repeated that "there is no scientific proof against cigarettes". On The Charlie Rose Show, and in his director's commentary on the DVD, Reitman described it as a film with a libertarian message. This message is crystallized in the movie when the Senator asks Nick whether he would let Joey smoke when he reaches the age of consent, to which Nick replies "if he really wants a cigarette, I'll buy him his first pack." When asked by a Senator if he believes cigarettes can lead to lung cancer and other conditions, Nick responds, to every one's surprise, that he does. He goes on to state that he doesn't think there is a single person in the room that doesn't believe this, demonstrating that the point is that it is the individuals choice no matter what others believe he should do.

I think this movie shows that smoking is a matter of choice, it's either you want to or you don't want to. No one can or able to make that decision for you, as you are the one that are responsible for every act you choose. Therefore, there is no absolute right or wrong when an individual picks up smoking. But if that individual smokes in places which clearly states that smoking are prohibited, then it is best that this individual are given fair punishment i.e fined $100 or so. This way they would and should learn to obey regulations and to not let the innocent citizen to suffer or became a passive smoker for being presence when someone is smoking.

movie reviews- thank you for smoking

'thank you for smoking' from the title people might think its a bad movie where it encourage us to smoke. But after watching the movies its not a bad movie at all. Nick Naylor is a lobbyist, a vice president and a spokesmen for a big tobacco company. He's job is a tough job as he has to encourage people to keep on buying tobacco in a time when the health hazards of the activity have become to plain to ignore.Nick, however, revels in his job, using argument and twisted logic to place, as often as not, his clients in the positions of either altruistic do-gooders or victims. Nick's son Joey needs to understand and respect his dad's philosophy, and Nick works hard to respond to that need without compromising his lack of values. When a beautiful news reporter betrays Nick's sexually-achieved trust, his world seems in danger of collapsing. But there's always one more coffin nail in Nick's pack

MOVIE REVIEW-Thank You For Smoking!

Thank you for smoking?

Everyone knows that smoking is a bad thing and it gives a bad impression. The movie was about how the lobbyist defended smoking in which he supported smoking and he thought that smoking is not wrong.

There was a feud between the company he is working with and the other company that was against smoking. He worked for the Academy of Tobacco Studies. There were certain authorities who tried to make people aware about the disadvantages of smoking by trying to put a warning image on each of the cigarette's packet. But this was argued by the tobacco supporters.

He also gave a briefing about smoking to the classmates of his son.By saying "no matter what you do, it is always right" to the children give an impression that smoking will never be wrong. This would make the children think that smoking is good and this statement will ruin their future simultaneously. Thus his son's teacher stopped him from saying any further.

He was once kipnapped by the anti-tobacco people and his body was plastered with nicotine patches in which this maybe fatal and lethal to him. The non-supporters of tobacco were trying to teach him on how wrong it was to support smoking and to allow other people to smoke may affect their lives and shorten their lives longetivity.

But fortunate for him that he didn't die although the nicotine patches were already to much to make him die. But at least he did learn from the lesson that any of the ingredients of the cigarette may lead to death!

What I felt about the movie-'Thank you for the Smoking'

"Thank you for the smoking"-It's basically an interesting movie since it caught my intention with full force because of the title itself. In my opinion, it's kind of hilarious because where ever I go I would see adverts about the dangers of smoking and how the elders discourage the younger generation that smoking is danger to you if you were to fall to the temptation that the smoke seem wanted you to cross the dark path of life.

So, when I first watched this movie and well it sort of make me want to laugh more instead of to inteprate what's the message of this movie trying to deliver it's real message to me. For once, I would categorise the movie under the genre' suspense and comedy that what's it all about since I can't to be stopped at that time.

To cut long story short, this movie is about Nick Taylor who's lobbilist whose job was to talk. Yes, talk as in counter everyone's points of view whether they state it wrong or right. It doesn't matter to Mr Taylor because he has his own sense of ideal that whatever he say is always true. Thus, Nick got a lot of enemies in a 360 degree notion and watch as he try to deal all this obstacles with his incredible 'smarty' mouth.

P.S "Don't try so hard to solve problems, just be the problem and eventually the solution would appear of you"

HARMFULL EFFECTS OF TOBACCO SMOKING

Tobacco smoking is the inhalation of smoke from burned dried or cured leaves of the tobacco plant. People smoke for pleasure, for ritualistic or social purposes, or for self-medication.Tobacco smokes contain 1000 of poisons and harmful substances. Everyone knows that! but why people still smoke? perhaps the desire to try something new, or influence from friends? or perhaps the mass media to be blame?
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TOBACCO SMOKING
Tobacco contains harmfull substances, Tar, Nicotine and carcinogens.
tobacco smokes affects Our body, heart, lungs, our hormones , cancer etc

Effects on your body

In your body nicotine can increase salivation (makes you drool), increase stomach acid and motility (gives you heartburn and diarrhea), and increase heart rate and blood pressure.
In your brain nicotine can act as a psychomotor stimulant, increase alertness, increase concentration, increase attention, and can make you less hungry. Maybe this sounds great, but wait there's more!!!
Repeated use produces tolerance and dependence (you're addicted and can't live without the stuff) .
And, there's even a withdrawal syndrome (so now it's even gonna make you sick when you try to quit). So when you're not smoking you might become irritable, have less concentration, gain some weight, and maybe some tremors. But the worst will probably be those intense cravings for another puff to get your nicotine.

LUNG DISEASES
Smoking is involved in 85% of all lung cancer deaths!(which is incurable). It cause emphysema, chrinic mucus secretion and chronic air flow blocks.An individual with chronic bronchitis (which is caused by smoking) is more likely to get a bacterial infection if he/she is a smoker.

HEART DISEASES
Cigarette smoking accounts for 30% of all heart disease deaths.
The carbon monoxide in the cigarette smoke increases the amount of cholesterol clogging the arteries. 3.Smoking causes a stiffness in the walls of the arteries which is harmful to the artery and increases the risk for the artery to rupture.
4.The nicotine in cigarettes can raise your blood pressure, heart rate, and the oxygen demand for muscles, especially the heart (the heart is a muscle).
5.A coronary spasm may occur during smoking, which may lead to chest pain, and a heart attack
blood clot.

HORMONES
*Women smokers enter menopause an average of 5 years earlier than nonsmokers.
*Smoking and nicotine can alter a number of hormones involved in the reproduction function.
*Women who smoke are at an increased risk of osteoporosis.
*In male smokers, the mobility of their sperm is reduced.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF SMOKING

Is smoking harmful to your health?? The answer is YES! It is really harmful to your health. Do you know why??This is because it contains about 4 000 poisonous chemicals in just one cigarette. Therefore it would cause you more that just one negative effect.

The negative effects that are caused by smoking are:

• BLOCKAGE:The fats are deposited in your artery and thus causes a blockage that makes oxygen hard to diffuse
• WASTE OF MONEY:Nicotine may cause an addiction that you need to smoke regularly that this may cause a waste of money
• DEATH: if carbon monoxide increases by 1% in your blood, this may be lethal
• CANCER: tar which contains in the cigarette can interrupt the reproduction of cells. Thus this may cause cancer
• PASSIVE SMOKER: when the other person is inhaling the smoke from the cigarette, this will also cause cancer to this person who is not smoking
• LOSS OF WEIGHT: Smoking also cause sudden lose of weight
• LUMBAR DISK PROBLEMS
• STROKE
• HEART ATTACK
• REDUCED FERTILITY
• ASTHMA
• LEUKAEMIA
• OSTEOPOROSIS
• PNEUMONIA
• PREMATURE AGING OF THE SKIN
• GUM DISEASE
• STRESS: This may cause high blood pressure
• LOSS OF SMELL AND TASTE
• STOMACH CANCER
• LIVER CANCER

Negative impacts on smoking

Smoking is kind of like an act of every individuals in the walking of life has this tendency to imitate the action of others without regards whether they actions brings harm to them or not. In certain scenario, the base example is smoking. As in the above title that I would stress out about the dangers or the negative impacts if a person were to do an activity of smoking.

20's negatives impacts on smoking.

1. Smoking gives a higher risk of starting a fire
2. Cigarette components stain the teeth
3. Gum disease and bad breath
4. Coughs and shortness of breath
5. Colds and flu
6. Mouth ulcers
7. High blood pressure
8. Asthma attacks
9. Stroke
10. Reduced vision
11. Mouth and throat cancer
12. Heart disease
13. Lung cancer
14. Stomach ulcers
15. Infertility
16. Bladder cancer
17. smoking makes you look older
18. Passive smoker becomes a victim
19. Nausea
20. waste a lot of money

p.s don't shorten your life just for the sake of bad influence