Tobacco in America
Everyday 3,000 children start smoking, most them between the ages of
10 and 18. These kids account for 90 percent of all new smokers. In fact,
90 percent of all adult smokers said that they first lit up as teenagers
(Roberts). These statistics clearly show that young people are the prime
target in the tobacco wars. The cigarette manufacturers may deny it, but
advertising and promotion play a vital part in making these facts a reality
(Roberts).
The kings of these media ploys are Marlboro and Camel. Marlboro uses a
fictional western character called The Marlboro Man, while Camel uses Joe
Camel, a high-rolling, swinging cartoon character. Joe Camel, the "smooth
character" from R.J. Reynolds, who is shown as a dromedary with complete
style has been attacked by many Tobacco-Free Kids organizations as a major
influence on the children of America. Dr. Lonnie Bristow, AMA (American
Medical Association) spokesman, remarks that "to kids, cute cartoon
characters mean that the product is harmless, but cigarettes are not
harmless. They have to know that their ads are influencing the youth under
18 to begin smoking"(Breo). Researchers at the Medical College of Georgia
report that almost as many 6-year olds recognize Joe Camel as know Mickey
Mouse (Breo). That is very shocking information for any parent to hear.
The industry denies that these symbols target people under 21 and claim
that their advertising goal is simply to promote brand switching and
loyalty. Many people disagree with this statement such as Illinois Rep.
Richard Durbin who states " If we can reduce the number of young smokers,
the tobacco companies will be in trouble and they know it "(Roberts). So
what do the tobacco companies do to keep their industry alive and well?
Seemingly, they go toward a market that is not fully aware of the harm that
cigarettes are capable of.
U.S. News recently featured a discussion of the smoking issue with 20
teenagers from suburban Baltimore. The group consisted of ten boys and ten
girls between the ages of 15 and 17. When asked why they started smoking,
they gave two contradictory reasons: They wanted to be a part of a peer
group. They also wanted to reach out and rebel at the same time. " When you
party, 75 to 90 percent of the kids are smoking. It makes you feel like you
belong," says Devon Harris, a senior at Woodlawn High. Teens also think of
smoking as a sign of independence. The more authority figures tell them not
to smoke, the more likely they are to pick up the habit (Roberts). The
surprising thing is that these kids know that they are being influenced by
cigarette advertising.
If these kids know that this advertising is manipulating them, why do
they still keep smoking? The ads are everywhere, especially in
teen-oriented magazines, such as Rolling Stone and Spin. The ads also fuel
some of the reasons the children gave for starting. They represent
rebellion, independence, acceptance and happiness. These are all the things
a young person, between childhood and adolescence, needs and desires. This
type of advertising, on top of peer pressure, is the mystery behind the
rise in adolescent smoking.
How do we stop the future of America from smoking? Here are three
things that the experts recommend. Try to convince your children that
smoking is not cool. Talk to your kids at a young age about the dangers of
smoking. Identify family members who smoke and ask them to stop (Thomas).
Children are the most valuable commodity we are given in life. Let's try
to educate them while they're young to be independent thinkers and to not
be swayed by the tobacco companies who are trying to take advantage of
their mind and body.
Works Cited
"Bill Clinton vs. Joe Camel." U.S. News & World Report. 2 Sep. 1996: 12.
Infotrac. Online. 27 Oct. 1996.
"Selling Tobacco to Kids." America. 17 Feb. 1996: 3. Infotrac. Online.
27 Oct. 1996.
Roberts, Steven. " Teens on tobacco; kids smoke for reasons all their own."
U.S. News & World Report.
18 Apr. 1996: 38. Infotrac. Online. 27 Oct. 1996.
Thomas, Roger E. "10 steps to keep the children in your practice
nonsmokers." American Family
Physician. Aug. 1996: 450. Infotrac. Online. 27 Oct. 1996.
Breo, Dennis L. "Kicking Butts-AMA, Joe Camel and the 'Black Flag' war on
tobacco." JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical
Association. 29 Oct. 1993: 1978. Infotrac. Online. 27 Oct. 1996.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Marijuana
Throughout history marijuana has been used to
serve various purposes in many different
cultures. The purposes have changed over time
to fit in with the current lifestyles.
This pattern is also true in American history.
The use of marijuana has adapted to the social
climate of the time.
Marijuana, whose scientific name is cannibis
sativa, was mentioned in historical manuscripts
as early as 2700 B. C. in China. (Grolier Electronic
Encyclopedia, 1995). The cultivation of the
marijuana plant began as far back as the
Jamestown settlers, around 1611, who used hemp
produced from the marijuana plant's fibers to make
rope and canvas. It was also used in making clothing
because of it's durability. These uses fit in with
the social climate of the time, because the main
focus was on survival rather than for psychoactive
purposes.
During the prohibition, marijuana was widely
used because of the scarcity of alcohol. Prohibition
was repealed after just thirteen years while the prohibition
against marijuana lasted for more than seventy five years.
This double standard may have resulted from the wishes of
those in power. Alcohol prohibition struck directly at
tens of millions of Americans of all ages, including many of
societies most powerful members. Marijuana prohibition
threatened far fewer Americans, and they had relatively
little influence in the districts of power. Only the
prohibition of marijuana, which some sixty million
Americans have violated since 1965 has come close
to approximating the prohibition experience, but
marijuana smokers consist mostly of young and
relatively powerless Americans (American Heritage, pg 47).
Alcohol prohibition was repealed and
marijuana prohibition was retained, not because
scientists had proved that alcohol was the less dangerous
of the various psychoactive drugs, but because of the prejudices
and preferences of most Americans (American Heritage, pg 47).
In 1937 the government issued the Marijuana Tax Act,
which levied a dollar an ounce tax on marijuana,
coupled with fines of $2,000 for drug posession and
jail sentences for evasion of the tax. For this
reason marijuana use in the United States appears
to have gone into decline in the late 30's
(Grolier Wellness Encyclopedia, pg 54).
Then marijuana was outlawed in 1937 as a
repressive measure against Mexican workers
who crossed the border seekingjobs during
the Depression. The specific reason given
for the outlawing of the hemp plant was it's
supposed violent "effect on the degenerate races"
(Schaffer, pg. 86).
Beginning in the 60's marijuana use saw a
resurgence which may be attributed to many
causes. One of the main causes was the
rebellion of youth against the Vietnam War.
They used marijuana as an escape from war to peace.
It was easy at this time to depict marijuana as
a beneficial and completely harmless substance
whose effects were far less harmful than those
of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine
because there was not enough scientific
research done during the 60's (Grolier Wellness
Encyclopedia, pg 54).
Another cause may have been the discovery of
the psychoactive component of marijuana-
tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as THC.
Users found the relation between the doses and
the effects (Grolier Electronic Publishing, 1995).
The current atmosphere provides for doctors to
suggest synthetic marijuana (THC) in a pure and
standardized form by perscription (called Marinol)
for the treatment of nausea associated with
cancer chemotherapy. Also, although there is no
scientific evidence that shows marijuana
is beneficial in the treatment of glaucoma,
it may prevent the progression of visual loss.
Marijuana, along with alcohol and a host of
other substances, can actually lower intraocular
eye pressure. The mediction however, must be carefully
tailored to the individual to prevent further eye damage.
The evidence has clearly shown that marijuana
has been around for a great deal of time
and has served multiple purposes throughout history.
Karen Sipes
Dana Pentoney
Jeni Roane
Sources
Grolier Electronic Encylopedia, Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1995
Grolier Wellness Encyclopedia, Drugs, Society & Behavior.
Vol. 3, 1992.
Ethan A. Nadelmann, American Heritage Magazine,
Feb-Mar, 1993.
Medical Marijuana, http://www.lec.org/Drug_Watch/
Public/Documents/Med_Marijuana_Paper.htm, 1995.
serve various purposes in many different
cultures. The purposes have changed over time
to fit in with the current lifestyles.
This pattern is also true in American history.
The use of marijuana has adapted to the social
climate of the time.
Marijuana, whose scientific name is cannibis
sativa, was mentioned in historical manuscripts
as early as 2700 B. C. in China. (Grolier Electronic
Encyclopedia, 1995). The cultivation of the
marijuana plant began as far back as the
Jamestown settlers, around 1611, who used hemp
produced from the marijuana plant's fibers to make
rope and canvas. It was also used in making clothing
because of it's durability. These uses fit in with
the social climate of the time, because the main
focus was on survival rather than for psychoactive
purposes.
During the prohibition, marijuana was widely
used because of the scarcity of alcohol. Prohibition
was repealed after just thirteen years while the prohibition
against marijuana lasted for more than seventy five years.
This double standard may have resulted from the wishes of
those in power. Alcohol prohibition struck directly at
tens of millions of Americans of all ages, including many of
societies most powerful members. Marijuana prohibition
threatened far fewer Americans, and they had relatively
little influence in the districts of power. Only the
prohibition of marijuana, which some sixty million
Americans have violated since 1965 has come close
to approximating the prohibition experience, but
marijuana smokers consist mostly of young and
relatively powerless Americans (American Heritage, pg 47).
Alcohol prohibition was repealed and
marijuana prohibition was retained, not because
scientists had proved that alcohol was the less dangerous
of the various psychoactive drugs, but because of the prejudices
and preferences of most Americans (American Heritage, pg 47).
In 1937 the government issued the Marijuana Tax Act,
which levied a dollar an ounce tax on marijuana,
coupled with fines of $2,000 for drug posession and
jail sentences for evasion of the tax. For this
reason marijuana use in the United States appears
to have gone into decline in the late 30's
(Grolier Wellness Encyclopedia, pg 54).
Then marijuana was outlawed in 1937 as a
repressive measure against Mexican workers
who crossed the border seekingjobs during
the Depression. The specific reason given
for the outlawing of the hemp plant was it's
supposed violent "effect on the degenerate races"
(Schaffer, pg. 86).
Beginning in the 60's marijuana use saw a
resurgence which may be attributed to many
causes. One of the main causes was the
rebellion of youth against the Vietnam War.
They used marijuana as an escape from war to peace.
It was easy at this time to depict marijuana as
a beneficial and completely harmless substance
whose effects were far less harmful than those
of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine
because there was not enough scientific
research done during the 60's (Grolier Wellness
Encyclopedia, pg 54).
Another cause may have been the discovery of
the psychoactive component of marijuana-
tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as THC.
Users found the relation between the doses and
the effects (Grolier Electronic Publishing, 1995).
The current atmosphere provides for doctors to
suggest synthetic marijuana (THC) in a pure and
standardized form by perscription (called Marinol)
for the treatment of nausea associated with
cancer chemotherapy. Also, although there is no
scientific evidence that shows marijuana
is beneficial in the treatment of glaucoma,
it may prevent the progression of visual loss.
Marijuana, along with alcohol and a host of
other substances, can actually lower intraocular
eye pressure. The mediction however, must be carefully
tailored to the individual to prevent further eye damage.
The evidence has clearly shown that marijuana
has been around for a great deal of time
and has served multiple purposes throughout history.
Karen Sipes
Dana Pentoney
Jeni Roane
Sources
Grolier Electronic Encylopedia, Electronic Publishing, Inc., 1995
Grolier Wellness Encyclopedia, Drugs, Society & Behavior.
Vol. 3, 1992.
Ethan A. Nadelmann, American Heritage Magazine,
Feb-Mar, 1993.
Medical Marijuana, http://www.lec.org/Drug_Watch/
Public/Documents/Med_Marijuana_Paper.htm, 1995.
Marijuana A Horticultural Revolution A Medical and Legal Ba
Marijuana: A Horticultural Revolution, A Medical and Legal Battle
For years there has been a wonder drug which has befriended countless sick patients
in a number of countries. A relatively inexpensive drug that is not covered by health care
plans which has aided the ill both mentally and physically--marijuana. Significant
scientific and medical studies have demonstrated that marijuana is safe for use under
medical supervision and that the cannabis plant, in its natural form, has important
therapeutic benefits that are often of critical medical importance to persons afflicted with
a variety of life-threatening illnesses. Courts have recognized marijuana's medical value
in treatment and have ruled that marijuana can be a drug of "necessity" in the treatment
of glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis. From the collection of information
we now have on marijuana's health benefits for the ill, there is no longer any reason to
keep it illegal. It should therefore be legal for licensed physicians to prescribe marijuana
for terminal patients for whom it offers the only reasonable opportunity for living without
unbearable pain.
Marijuana has been used many times to help ease pain and suffering. It often eases
nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, reduces the pain of AIDS patients
and lowers eye pressure in glaucoma sufferers. Cancer and AIDS patients often lose a lot
of weight, either due directly to their illness or indirectly to the treatment of the illness.
Dramatic weight loss puts their lives in even more danger. Marijuana stimulates the
appetite, thus enabling patients to eat more and gain weight which in turn strengthens the
immune system.
So if there are so many benefits, then why is marijuana not legal? Many states
contend that the ban on medical marijuana is necessary to prevent drug abuse and the
availability of illicit drugs and to control the purity of medicinal drug products. These
states have no compelling interest in intervening to needlessly prolong terminal patients'
suffering. States should allow the medical use of marijuana under strict regulations,
rather than uphold an outdated drug classification scheme.
While federal agencies adamantly maintain marijuana has "no accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States," the medical prohibition has come under strong legal
challenge from seriously ill Americans who have been arrested on marijuana-related
charges. In U.S. v. Randall, a Washington, D.C. man afflicted by glaucoma employed
the little-used Common Law doctrine of necessity to defend himself against criminal
charges of marijuana cultivation. On November 24, 1976, federal Judge James
Washington ruled Randall's use of marijuana constituted a "medical necessity." In part,
Judge Washington ruled:
While blindness was shown by competent medical testimony
to be the otherwise inevitable result of defendant's disease, no
adverse effects from the smoking of marijuana have been demon-
strated. Medical evidence suggests that the medical prohibition
is not well-founded.
If a judge can determine when a "medical necessity" is warranted and can rule that a sick
individual should be granted the legal use of marijuana, then should a licensed physician
not be just as capable of doing so, if not...much more capable? Well trained medical
professionals rather than inapt federal bureaucrats should be responsible for determining
a patient's medical care routine.
This is an intolerable, untenable legal situation. Unless legislators and regulators
attend to these urgent human needs and rapidly move to correct the anomaly arising from
the absolute prohibition of marijuana which forces law abiding citizens into the streets - -
and criminality - to meet their legitimate medical needs, cases of the type of U.S. v.
Randall will continue to be prevalent and will increase considerably. There is a pressing
need for a more compassionate, humane law which clearly discriminates between the
criminal conduct of those who socially abuse chemicals and the legitimate medical needs
of seriously ill patients whose welfare and very lives may depend on the prudent
therapeutic use of those very same substances.
For years there has been a wonder drug which has befriended countless sick patients
in a number of countries. A relatively inexpensive drug that is not covered by health care
plans which has aided the ill both mentally and physically--marijuana. Significant
scientific and medical studies have demonstrated that marijuana is safe for use under
medical supervision and that the cannabis plant, in its natural form, has important
therapeutic benefits that are often of critical medical importance to persons afflicted with
a variety of life-threatening illnesses. Courts have recognized marijuana's medical value
in treatment and have ruled that marijuana can be a drug of "necessity" in the treatment
of glaucoma, cancer, AIDS, and multiple sclerosis. From the collection of information
we now have on marijuana's health benefits for the ill, there is no longer any reason to
keep it illegal. It should therefore be legal for licensed physicians to prescribe marijuana
for terminal patients for whom it offers the only reasonable opportunity for living without
unbearable pain.
Marijuana has been used many times to help ease pain and suffering. It often eases
nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, reduces the pain of AIDS patients
and lowers eye pressure in glaucoma sufferers. Cancer and AIDS patients often lose a lot
of weight, either due directly to their illness or indirectly to the treatment of the illness.
Dramatic weight loss puts their lives in even more danger. Marijuana stimulates the
appetite, thus enabling patients to eat more and gain weight which in turn strengthens the
immune system.
So if there are so many benefits, then why is marijuana not legal? Many states
contend that the ban on medical marijuana is necessary to prevent drug abuse and the
availability of illicit drugs and to control the purity of medicinal drug products. These
states have no compelling interest in intervening to needlessly prolong terminal patients'
suffering. States should allow the medical use of marijuana under strict regulations,
rather than uphold an outdated drug classification scheme.
While federal agencies adamantly maintain marijuana has "no accepted medical use
in treatment in the United States," the medical prohibition has come under strong legal
challenge from seriously ill Americans who have been arrested on marijuana-related
charges. In U.S. v. Randall, a Washington, D.C. man afflicted by glaucoma employed
the little-used Common Law doctrine of necessity to defend himself against criminal
charges of marijuana cultivation. On November 24, 1976, federal Judge James
Washington ruled Randall's use of marijuana constituted a "medical necessity." In part,
Judge Washington ruled:
While blindness was shown by competent medical testimony
to be the otherwise inevitable result of defendant's disease, no
adverse effects from the smoking of marijuana have been demon-
strated. Medical evidence suggests that the medical prohibition
is not well-founded.
If a judge can determine when a "medical necessity" is warranted and can rule that a sick
individual should be granted the legal use of marijuana, then should a licensed physician
not be just as capable of doing so, if not...much more capable? Well trained medical
professionals rather than inapt federal bureaucrats should be responsible for determining
a patient's medical care routine.
This is an intolerable, untenable legal situation. Unless legislators and regulators
attend to these urgent human needs and rapidly move to correct the anomaly arising from
the absolute prohibition of marijuana which forces law abiding citizens into the streets - -
and criminality - to meet their legitimate medical needs, cases of the type of U.S. v.
Randall will continue to be prevalent and will increase considerably. There is a pressing
need for a more compassionate, humane law which clearly discriminates between the
criminal conduct of those who socially abuse chemicals and the legitimate medical needs
of seriously ill patients whose welfare and very lives may depend on the prudent
therapeutic use of those very same substances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)