English Essay
Police in the United States (U.S) have been using tear gas as a response to protesters including pregnant women, breastfeeding parents, and young women. Tear gas is a chemical weapon that poses a very big risk to pregnant women, women menstrual, and generally young women. Police are making protesters unsafe and this does not mean that people who participate in protests are reckless. Tear gas is an unsafe chemical and referring to it as anything else will only serve to disguise its drive and the impact it poses to individuals. An instant prohibition of using teargas on unarmed protesters by police and formulating a law illegalizing the selling of tear gas to the police by makers will help in solving the problem of the dangers it poses to women.
Definition of problem
The use of tear gas by police to unarmed protesters has posed a great danger to women and other people. Police use this chemical weapon to disperse unarmed protesters. They use tear gas on protester without considering the risk it has on people’s bodies and health. It is a dangerous chemical weapon especially to pregnant women it since it leads to abortion. Tear gas is very risky to developing fetus and most pregnant women who are exposed to tear gas during protest experience miscarriages. Women also experience many menstrual cycles in short periods and an abrupt start of the menstrual cycle. Additionally tear gas is very dangerous to people with breathing diseases such as asthma. The chemical weapon burns nose, throat, skin, and eyes which leads to coughing, steaming of eyes, vomiting, and gagging.
Facts about the problem
Police have been using tear gas on protesters in the United States. According to Feigenbaum (99), the use of tear gas has gained widespread acceptance in the United States as a means of controlling protesters. Teargas use in the U.S. has dramatically increased in recent years. Police officers have been using teargas repeatedly against unarmed protesters. The use of tear gas in the recent situation has demonstrated and exposure to the chemical weapon is dangerous and the police often use them incorrectly. The chemical weapon has led to miscarriages on pregnant women and other dangerous risks on women. There have been an increased number of severe disturbing harms from exploding tear gas bombs and deadly toxic harms. According to Feigenbaum (103), the majority of pregnant women who have been exposed to tear gas ended up losing their child. Women have reported having a sudden menstrual cycle and several cycles for short periods after they left the demonstration. Difficulty in breathing amongst people with respiratory illness after a protest has been connected to tear gas exposure.
Proposed solutions
Banning the use of tear gas on unarmed protesters and formulating laws to make the selling of tear gas to the police illegal will be an immediate solution for the problem posed by the use of tear gas by police on unarmed protesters. The banning of the chemical weapon will protect pregnant women, young women, and other protesters from the effect that put their bodies and health at risk. The use of tear gas causes physical injury and even death which violates the human right. Women are more vulnerable to severe injuries from toxic chemicals especially pregnant women. The government should criminalize the use of tear gas on unarmed protesters and action should be taken against police officers who use tear gas to disperse unarmed protesters. The government should also find an alternative way of dispersing protesters without using teargas. Additionally, police should focus on their responsibility and not use tear gas. The police union and the police benevolent society should come in agreement that prohibits using tear gas on unarmed protesters. The agreement should include the firing of police who use teargas on protesters. The U.S. should amend the constitution to incorporate the concept of the Geneva convention and those of the universal declaration of human rights which prohibits the use of a chemical weapon against unarmed protesters. The government should come up with regulations to prevent tear gas manufacturers from selling products to the police officers. The regulation should also prohibit the import of chemical weapons from other countries. The law will ensure that there are no chemical weapons available for police officers.
Refutation
The police and the United States government give various reasons to support the use of teargas to protesters. According to Rothenberg et al. (96), the U.S. police union considers tear gas as a nonlethal weapon that is an essential medium force option for controlling gathering and it is not a chemical. However, tear gas is a lethal chemical that is harmful to human health. The government supports the use of tear gas as a way of riot control. However, using chemical weapons should not be used as an option for controlling unarmed protesters. The government should find an alternative way to control a riot. The military uses a riot control agent to test the speed and the ability of their personnel to use a gas mask.
Possible compromise
Instead of using tear gas on protesters the government and the can come up with peaceful alternatives that do not cause harm to protestors. The council of human right should adopt a resolution that promotes and protect the right in the context of peaceful protest which encourages the police to stop using chemical weapons on unarmed protesters. The government should support the right to freedom of peaceful gathering. By supporting this right, unarmed protesters will not be hindered from protesting. Additionally, the police union team can form a surveillance team to keep an eye on protesters to investigate and prevent crime rather than using farce and chemical weapons.
Final Solution
The department of law enforcement should ban the use of tear gas on unarmed protestors. Tumbarska (104) indicates how the U.S lawmakers propose the banning of police use of tear gas during the peaceful protest. Thus the department of law enforcement should consider the negative health outcomes resulting from prolonged exposure to the chemical, including miscarriages, sterilizations, and multiple and irregular menstrual cycles. The department should prohibit the use of tear gas to enable the police to adhere to the guideline of the fourth amendment of the U.S constitution, which advocates for the safety and liberty of people. The prohibition also promotes adherence to the universal declaration of human rights which forbids the use of chemical agents and violence against unarmed protestors.
Besides banning the use of tear gas, the law should prohibit chemical weapon manufacturers from selling their products to the police. Tumbarska (105) explains that lawmakers suggest the enactment of the law that forbid chemical weapon manufacturers from selling tear gas to the police. The enactment of the law criminalizes the selling of chemical weapons to the police to use against peaceful protesters. Additionally, the law should require the police department to dispose of the tear gas stored in their arsenal. Therefore, the U.S lawmakers ought to formulate laws that forbid manufacturers from selling chemical weapons to the police.
Conclusively, the use of tear gas on unarmed protestors is a prevalent issue in the U.S. It associated with many negative health outcomes, especially on women, including miscarriage, irregular, and multiple menstrual cycles, and sterilization. The negative health outcomes associated with exposure to tear gas attracted the attention of human rights activists and lawmakers who present a proposal of reformation. The prosed solution to the tear gas issue involves banning the use of tear gas by the police, amendment of the U.S constitution, creating agreement between Police Benevolent Society and the Police Officers Unions, and criminalizing the sale of weapon chemicals, such as teargas to the police. However, the banning of the use and enactment of a law that forbids the manufacturers from selling tear gas to the police.
Works Cited
Rothenberg, Craig, et al. “Tear gas: an epidemiological and mechanistic reassessment.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1378.1 (2016): pp.96.
Feigenbaum, Anna. “Tear Gas: Design and Dissent.” (2019): pp.97-104.
Tumbarska, A. “Remotely controlled non-lethal weapon systems in the context of law enforcement.” Security & Future 2.3 (2018): pp.102-105.