Total Ban for Firecrackers. Negative Side.

For a firecracker wont explode once ignited, and wont be destructive if properly handled. This side believes that it is useless to enact a law rendering a total prohibition against fireworks. (If the argument is hospitalized victims of fireworks) It is true that there persons hospitalized because of fireworks. I mean victims of the improper handling of fireworks. It should also be noted that according to the updated reports from DOH. Almost 50% of adult victims are drunk. These persons, even in the state of inebriation are aware that they are intoxicated by alcohol and that the firecrackers are dangerous. Now, my point is that these drunken persons should not blame fireworks for their misfortune. For a firecracker wont explode once ignited, and wont be destructive if properly handled. Furthermore, the government authorities and the makers of the firecrackers (in the packaging) didnt fall short in warning the public not to use it when drunk. Therefore, my point is that these persons have been consistently negligent, thus a successful enactment of this law would also mean a tolerance for this negligent persons. (If the argument is hospitalized child victims of fireworks) Again it is true that 465 of the victims of fireworks involve children. Be it the children acted passively or actively, they cannot again blame a firecracker for their misfortune. For a firecracker wont explode once ignited, and wont be destructive if properly handled. Who should be guilty? It is their parents. The parents are guilty of CULPA! For the parents must have been watchful and careful for their children. I pity these children, not because of the pain brought by their wounds, but because their parents love and care for them less. I commend the parents of the children who are safe after the New Year, for they acted with extraordinary diligence in safeguarding their children, and for they are complying with the essential marital obligations required by the Family Code. (If the argument is Air Pollution) Contradicting their argument, it is irrational to blame the firecrackers guilty of polluting the environment. Firecrackers are only bought and used for the celebration of the New Year and in some special occasions. Therefore, it will only emit smoke probably few times a year, or contribute 0.001% of smoke to the air, far from the emission brought by the top pollutants operating on a daily basis. If there will be a total ban for firecrackers, the contribution of this ban to the environment would be unseen since 0.001 is an insignificant number in Science and Mathematics. Moreover, the bad effects of the firecrackers to the environment are insignificant as effected by its disregarded as a pollutant to the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 and to the United States Clean Air Act of 1963. Now if persons from the affirmative side want a clean air to breathe, why not go against the factories, smoke belchers, cigar smokers, and those who burn their garbage. Why not go against the fraudulent waste disposal of the Industrial, Agriculture,

and Transport sectors since they are the worlds top pollutants. If you are advocating for clean air and for better results, you should aim at the whales, not the anchovies. (If the argument is additional waste/garbage) It is non-sense to blame the firecrackers of an increase in the garbage. As we see, those persons who buy firecrackers are aware of the waste that firecrackers bring. And so with the street sweepers by the nature of their jobs, expects to clean the firecracker residues after the New Years celebration in streets. They are compensated in doing so. It is but irrational to think of the welfare of these persons, who are willing to take the consequences from the moment the latter enter such jobs and from the moment the former bought firecrackers. With regards to the disposal of this waste, 2/3 of the composition of a firecracker is paper, which is biodegradable and recyclable. The remaining is composed of thin plastic and chemical powder. Plastic as we all know is recyclable. And the chemical powder turns to smoke and its bad effect is minimal as discussed earlier. Furthermore, thinking that firecrackers are additional garbage once used is a manifestation of absurdity, for garbage from firecrackers is relatively small as compared to those from the Residential, Industrial, and Commercial sectors. Areas like Metro Manila (if cited/any place cited) that the affirmative side is citing doesnt need a ban for firecrackers to lessen the garbage problems. These areas need to further implement and enforce the provisions of the Republic Act 9003 or The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, and the realization of the objectives of the so called Metro Manila Solid Waste Management Program.

HAHAHA. Sorry sa wrong grammar.

GOOD LUCK SA DEBATE.