Banning Evolution

The case for banning cigarettes.

Lifelong smokers lose on average a decade of life vis-à-vis non-smokers. Globally, tobacco causes about 5-6 million deaths annually. One billion tobacco-related deaths are predicted for the 21st century, with about half occurring before the age of 70. In this paper, we consider a complete ban on the sale of cigarettes and find that such a ban, if effective, would be justified. As with many poli...

Would banning atrazine benefit farmers?

Atrazine, an herbicide used on most of the US corn (maize) crop, is the subject of ongoing controversy, with increasing documentation of its potentially harmful health and environmental impacts. Supporters of atrazine often claim that it is of great value to farmers; most recently, Syngenta, the producer of atrazine, sponsored an "Atrazine Benefits Team" (ABT) of researchers who released a set ...

Banning Trophy Hunting Will Exacerbate Biodiversity Loss.

International pressure to ban trophy hunting is increasing. However, we argue that trophy hunting can be an important conservation tool, provided it can be done in a controlled manner to benefit biodiversity conservation and local people. Where political and governance structures are adequate, trophy hunting can help address the ongoing loss of species.

Banning smoking outdoors is seldom ethically justifiable.

" Debate " is a new series oVering opposing sides of a continuing, controversial issue in tobacco control. In this and the two responses that follow, the pros and cons of banning smoking outdoors are discussed by the Banning smoking outdoors is seldom ethically justifiable Several Australian hospitals are proposing to extend their indoor smoking bans outdoors. In 1996, the mayor of Friendship H...

Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable.