Smoking is not a Right

SMOKING IS NOT A RIGHT! by Semih Sönmez Would you take drugs if it wasn't banned? What are the criterias to ban things? If something is banned it is mostly because it intervenes other people's rights and the word "right" refers to the basic human rights. Do you think living in a healthy area is one of them? So what about smoking? When smokers were asked if they would accept a ban for smoking, most of them said "Yes". 18 years old smoker Ali Sanli Kucuk mentioned ; "It is like a doctor who says that we have only 3 months to live if we don't give up smoking. We need someone or something to force us stop smoking. It would be nice." However, nearly none of them think that it may be possible to ban smoking in Turkey right now. Maybe this idea of "impossibility" is their reason to continue smoking because this is human nature to behave as if bad things doesn't happen to him/her. Is it normal to behave according to our instincts like our anchestors did in the prehistorical ages? Experts say the results of the surveys, which are conducted to learn what smokers think about a "smoking ban", may be misleading because the smokers who say "Not all the smokers will accept the ban." may be one of those opposing smokers in fact. They may be ashamed to confess that they are opposed to a "smoking ban". According to experts another issue to consider is the facilities which should be

  • Word count: 494
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Australia's need to change its constitution.

Australia does need to change its constitution. The change need not be a complete over-hall of the constitution, however, change none the less. Australia needs to have an Australian as head of state. Conventions and the reserved powers of the head of state are ambiguous and need to be codified. Australia needs a Bill of Rights. The present structure of our system of government, a responsible government in a federalist system, does not need to be changed, just certain elements within it. Head of State and Popular Sovereignty Australia needs a head of state that is Australian. Currently the Queen of England is the head of state in Australia. The Australia Act of 1986 marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the British Parliament and allowed the ultimate sovereignty to reside in the hands of the Australian people.1 However, today, 2002-09-24, we still have the Queen of England as our official head of state. Justice Dawson remarked that, "the legal foundation of the Australian Constitution is an exercise of sovereign power by the Imperial Parliament".2 Justice Dawson continued on to say, "The continuing legal authority of our constitution derives from its original enactment at Westminster and subsequent retention by those empowered to amend it, which includes the Australian electors. But the latter derived their legal authority from the former".3 If the Queen of England is

  • Word count: 2150
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

"The Royal Prerogative remains a significant source of constitutional law which is largely immune from scrutiny by the courts."

"The Royal Prerogative remains a significant source of constitutional law which is largely immune from scrutiny by the courts." The question here is, do we agree with the view that the Royal Prerogative is immune from scrutiny by the courts, and whether it remains a significant source of constitutional law. In addressing this view, the first point to consider is the definitional controversy of the term, 'royal prerogative' and its origin, then consider its nature, modern position and its significance within the UK Constitution, and finally, whether or not the royal prerogative is immune from scrutiny by the courts. Under the UK Constitution, all actions of government are undertaken in the name of the Crown. Historically, the term, 'royal prerogative' has been applied to those special rights and privileges, which the King had as a feudal lord. There are two schools of thought on the definitional controversy of the term. Blackstone advanced the first 'narrow' or 'restrictive' interpretation. Blackstone defines the prerogative in his Commentaries1 as: .....that special pre-eminence which the King hath over and above all other persons, and out of the ordinary course of the common law, in right of his regal dignity. And hence it follows, that it must be in its nature singular and eccentrical ; that it can only be applied to those rights and capacities which the King enjoys

  • Word count: 2430
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

A Parliament with a strong party system, such as that of the UK, is inherently flawed as a means of holding Government accountable Discuss

"A Parliament with a strong party system, such as that of the UK, is inherently flawed as a means of holding Government accountable" Discuss Parliament began as a court of advisors to the King. It later developed into a more formal body with representatives from different regions and its function moved gradually towards the control of the King's powers. Soon the power of the Crown was 'controlled' so heavily that the power to legislate began to move to Parliament. Since then, Parliament's role has retracted, and we are left with a Parliament intended to ensure that the early Monarch's replacement, Government, is kept in check. In this capacity it has two main roles, to ensure firstly that Government is trying to enforce good and proper policies, by means of effective scrutiny of legislation, and secondly to maintain good and proper implementation of these policies. In this essay I will discuss these two roles of Parliament, and investigate whether, considering the nature of the Assembly today, they are still performed effectively. Parliament is composed of three parts; the Monarch, House of Lords, House of Commons. Each has their own role in the maintenance of a fair government, the importance of which increases respectively. The Queen's role today is minimal, although, the right to deny an act royal assent is reserved for the queen's pleasure; assent has not been withheld

  • Word count: 2500
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Public Law - Problem Question - Judicial Review

Coursework II (i) Val was a single mother with two children who was granted a tenancy in a two bed roomed maisonette owned by Singleton Council pursuant to the council's duty to rehouse under the Homeless and Housing Act (fictional). After eighteen months the property was transferred to Hometrust, an independent housing association, set up by the council. Shortly, afterwards, Val had a dispute with one of her neighbours which resulted in a heated exchange of words and a slamming of doors. This was reported and she was subject to a disciplinary procedure organised by Hometrust. Without being given the benefit of legal representation or a hearing she was found guilty and informed by Hometrust that her tenancy agreement would be terminated in six months time. This would mean that Val would be made homeless. Advice Val whether she would be able to use the judicial review procedure to argue that her rights under Article 6 and Article 8 of the ECHR have been breached. (ii) Under the Ancient Monuments Act (fictitious) the Secretary of State has the power to list for preservation purposes important remains of archaeological or of historical interest. While digging the foundations of a new building for Globe Developments in the centre of Barchester, Ron discovers several well preserved pieces of Roman glass. The find is reported in the local and national TV, radio and press. Despite

  • Word count: 2877
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Essay on the function of Judicial Review

PUBLIC LAW ASSIGNMENT 2 MICHAEL ROBERTS TUTOR GROUP L ANNELIESE BLACKWOOD 'The primary purpose of judicial review ... is to keep the powers of government within their legal bounds, so as to protect the citizen against their abuse.' Discuss with reference to the common law grounds of review. Judicial review is a process which is widely recognised to incorporate three functions or purposes. Firstly there is the function whereby citizens of the state who have been wronged and caused grievance by a public authority may be redressed. Secondly there is the 'normative and expository' role which encourages good governance through the promotion of fundamental principles. Finally, as the title statement propounds, there is the control of government element which helps to ensure that the power exerted by parliament and public authorities does not go unchecked, although judicial review is only concerned with the procedural correctness and legitimacy of such power and usually administrative or political checks are present to assess the merits of decisions made1. The most effective way to explore these purposes would be to go through the three common law grounds of judicial review as set out by Diplock LJ in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety) plus the effects of the Human Rights Act

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1823
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

What kind of political legacy did colonial rule bequeath to independent India?

What kind of political legacy did colonial rule bequeath to independent India? In the approximately two hundred years of British rule in India, the British did many things that still have an impact on India. The civil service set up by the British has managed to survive relatively intact until the present day for example, and large parts of the Indian transport network were built under British supervision. Two hundred years of colonial rule must have a major effect on the colony, for it's people were not allowed to govern themselves; they had to rely on the colonial power to impose laws on them as they had little power in their own right. This paper aims to examine closely the British rule in India and its subsequent independence, and attempt to ascertain what impact British colonial rule has had on Indian politics since the British left. India's colonial experience is in many ways untypical of the colonial experience of the rest of the British Empire. One of the major reasons for this was the exceptionalism of India itself, the 'jewel in the crown' of the British empire. Logistically, India was (and is) a massive country, one that did not lend itself to harsh rule from the centre, unlike some other British colonies. It would be wrong, however, to paint a picture of the British as some kind of enlightened educators of the Indian masses, for their original and major reason

  • Word count: 1858
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

The House of Lords Should be entirely elected by a system of proportional representation. Discuss.

487 Words The House of Lords Should be entirely elected by a system of proportional representation. Discuss. The House of Lords is the second chamber of the United Kingdom's parliament. In all matters, the House of Commons has primacy over it. Its main functions are to scrutinise legislation, both domestic and European, and to debate on issues of public policy and public concern. Since the passing of the parliament act 1911, the Lords can no longer obstruct government legislation. With the Salisbury-Addison convention, the Lords recognises that it should seek to facilitate the passage of legislation regarding to manifesto commitments of the government as they are seen to be what the public wants1. The Lords is entirely appointed. Majority of the members are life peers whom are appointed by the queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister decides how many new members of each party to appoint as well as how many independents. The general aim being that the party balance in the Lords should be in a similar proportion to the Commons. Nominations from each party are submitted by the party leaders themselves and are accepted by the Prime Minister. For independents, the prime minister takes advice from the non-statutory Appointments Commission. In addition, the Prime Minister appoints some independents individually; generally only retiring distinguished civil

  • Word count: 1516
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.[1] Despite being the Mo

Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.1 Despite being the Monarch's powers, they are being exercised by the Government. With no direct control, they are constantly being abused being seen as an indefinable constitutional power appearing in any form and under any circumstances. Prerogative remains a extensive mixture of rights, powers, duties and immunities operating in all the spheres of government.2 The most classic definition is by A. V Dicey ' the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority, which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown.'3 Exercise of royal prerogative is expressed by formal documents, by orders in Council or by instructions from Ministers acting on the Monarch behalf. Some of them belong to the Monarch (like appointing Ministers, power to dissolve parliament, assent to legislation, granting honours), but most is exercised by the Government on the Monarch behalf. In case of domestic affairs it is: appointment and regulation of civil service (GSHQ case4), directing the deposition of the armed forces and commissioning its officers (Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 763), the prerogative of mercy (R v Foster [1985] QB

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1171
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

The Nature of the Britains Constitution and the advantages/disadvantages of it

The Nature of the Britains Constitution and the advantages/disadvantages of it If a constitution means a written document, then obviously Great Britain has no constitution. In countries where such a document exists, the word has that meaning. But the document itself merely sets out rules determining the creation and operation of governmental institutions, and obviously Great Britain has such institutions and such rules. The phrase 'Britains Constitution' is used to describe those rules. There is no written codified constitution or comprehensive Bill of Rights; Britain's constitution is to be found partly in conventions/customs and partly in statute. The Act known as the Bill of Rights (1689) deals with the exercise of the royal prerogative and succession to the Crown. It does not set out ideals of the rights of man, unlike for example the French's declaration of rights. The main reason for Britains lack of codified constitution is the fact that Britain has nearly always been sovereign. Britain was never granted freedom or gained it through revolution, so there has never been a need to set about culminating all the different constitutional legislation. Richard Grossman describes the British constitution as "autocracy tempered by public opinion polls". What he is implying is that Britain's constitution has evolved over time and modernised according to changing

  • Word count: 798
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay