Blog Posting #6 (due MONDAY 3/19, 11:59 P.M., Comment by Tuesday): Eating 'Reality'

The guiding proposition, sort of 'anthropological': 

From any 'eating / food event,' closely read, we should be able to infer just about anything about a society / culture.

Why?  because of what Latour calls 'networks' or 'hybrids.'  It's all connected: The food. The channels of economics, technology, commerce and so on by which it gets to us. The vastly complex rules on 'cultural practices' like Kosher or Hallal (obvious, explicit ones), or subtle ones like table manners, dating protocols, etiquette, restaurant practices ('Hi, I'm Pam, and I'd like to tell you about our specials...'.)  Food ads. Systems of distribution, pricing, sourcing, manufacturing, marketing. Representations of eating and food in literature, film, TV, visual art. Food stores: the isles, the racks, the displays, the signs, the free samples, the workers--all of it. And finally: our bodies, shaped by culture to crave some things ('go get sliders, anybody?'), and find others gross and disgusting.  

Case in point: that's a LOT of grease on these burgers.  'Yum'?  or 'Oh, ish!'

Sample Case:  In this piece from Culver's webpage, we can watch a vid of Craig Culver (son of the originator) talking to a classic Swede fisherman about cold-water cod — as he breads and fries a fillet. Craig's a big boy, with a comfortable, Midwest manner. He says he comes from a long line of Wisconsin farmers and cheesemakers, and helped his dad invent the Butter Burger. It really couldn't be more pure Mid-West America, and it couldn't argue louder for great, glorious eating excess as a way to express ourselves. Meat: great greasy piles of it. Feels so good. 

Or not?

Going to Culver's, ordering a 'Bacon Deluxe.' Eating it with your family. Reading about Craig and his family; looking at the picture of Craig in his ballcap with the rancher and feeling good. OR:  making fun of Culver's and driving right by, or following a plant-based diet, or asking for the dressing 'on the side' all constitute 'eating / food events.'  

Such events construct us, consolidate our identities. Make us — literally, bodily.  Pierre Bourdieu says our bodies are a sort of fleshy historical record of where we've been. You can 'read' them. And they shout messages about social class, race, gender, everything. Pollan notes that we're largely corn C4 carbon. I would note that we're also oil (which Koch Refinery makes into ammonium nitrate, which farmers knife into their fields).

••• Read an Eating / Food Event.  Show how it constructs 'food' and the culture that supports it.  And us •••

Like what?  Well, obviously things like food advertising. Food in film. Actual food sources (read the Wedge). 'Food porn' — cookbooks, Gourmet, high-end food-tool stores. Restaurants (and what the natives do in them). Your family at table. Food packaging. Eating-disorder clinics.  But also things that may not have an easy 'object' to post — like how meat production companies (Perdue, Hormel) treat immigrant labor (and how The Donald treats immigration). Or Lorenz Meats (Cannon Falls) 'glass abbatoir' (Pollan pp. 226 & 333). Or some little-known facts about actual agricultural practices or economic systems.

1.  Use your expertise; find something that you know or care about. 

2.  Take a position if you want: if it really pisses you off, or if it's an unshakeable 'guilty pleasure,' or you deeply love it, welcome to explore and share why.

3.  Use some of our work to analyse it.  Latour's idea that 'instruments' of all sorts delimit what we can see and talk about.  Or his idea that economic / political forces are part of all production (not just science).  Or any of the Pollan work on the economic / political history of corn.  Or Goodwin on advertising and the creation of things like need, surplus and value.

Have some fun.  Check out 'Colin the Chicken' (Portlandia) HERE (great satire and cultural analysis). OR the obvious fun Pollan has in exploring and telling.  Like that.

Caffeine Nation (blog post #5)

Ok, so we're all familiar with the seemingly endless variety of diet pills and workout supplements that are out there. We've seen the ads and heard the testimonials. Each product seems to have made a new "scientific breakthrough" that will ensure that you lose that extra ten pounds of belly fat or unwanted "cellulite" from your butt and thighs. Each product also seeks to separate themselves from the pack by claiming to have perfected "secret formulas" and include  "exotic, miraculous ingredients" that will ensure success where other products have previously failed.

So, just what are these miracle ingredients and secret formulas? What makes these new products so special? As it turns out, aside from the outrageously high price, nothing much at all. 

All of the 15 different diet pills and pre-workout supplements that I looked into carried one ingredient: Caffeine. The amounts of caffeine varied somewhat, but all contained between 60mg-200mg per dose. The supplements also varied somewhat in that pre-workout supplements often included high amounts of niacin (a vasodilator) and choline, while weight loss pills often combined caffeine with various types of diuretic ingredients. 

One company "Genius" markets a three product "value pack" (ironically) for $95 that consists of "Genius Diet Pills", "Genius Fat Burner" & "Genius Caffeine." This "value pack " lasts for 30 days. In doing some research I found that by purchasing off-brand, time-release caffeine, niacin, choline/inositol and a multi-vitamin I could concoct essentially the same supplements as "Genius" for about $12-14 a month. It doesn't take a "genius" (sorry, couldn't resist) to figure out what the better bargain is.

The fact is, the science isn't that complicated concerning caffeine. It works. It's a stimulant. You'll feel "energized." And, whether you drink two cups of ethically sourced and farmed, organic Peruvian coffee from the Feminino Estate, take an expensive diet pill or pop a Vivarin you are still ingesting and will feel the effects of 200 mg of caffeine.

Post #4: Alcoholism

As I was thinking about what subject I wanted to focus on for this post, I decided to complete a Google image search of temperance movement political cartoons. I selected alcohol addiction based on what I found in my search. I find alcohol use and alcoholism particularly interesting because of my many interactions with it. On both sides of my family, the males are or were alcoholics. The majority of my older male relatives are now dead because of a combination of poor lifestyle choices, smoking, and alcohol use. I also work in a hospital and so am constantly taking care of people in end stage liver disease who are dying or patients who are withdrawing from alcohol. This happens much more often than you would imagine, and not just in older populations but in people in their 30s and 40s. So, I've always found alcoholism fascinating because as a society, we have decided that this highly addictive and destructive substance should be legal, yet other drugs should not.

As I was looking through the Temperance images, a pattern started to emerge. Almost all the images contained either a drunk heading towards to the point of no return (the drunks are always males) or a women (usually a mother with children around her) facing off with an alcohol lobbyist/brewer. I've inserted an example to the left.

Almost all the messages claim some sort of sacrifice on behalf of a mother and her children because of alcohol use by her husband. I understand where this is coming from. Women from this time period very rarely worked outside the home and so were completely dependent on their husbands for financial support. But the Temperance movement are using women and children as a selling point for prohibition. Aren't they taking advantage of these groups as well by using them to further their own goals?

I started to reflect on modern alcohol advertisements and how they use women to sell a product as well. I've inserted an example to the left. From my own viewing, I know alcohol advertisements are often the most sexualized and demeaning images of women produced. But really, it's not much different than what the Temperance movement was using women for 125 years ago. One women is being used to illicit pity and guilt while the other is used to illicit desire and fantasy.

This plays into how alcohol use has changed context in those 125 years, and how the public has come to view it. In the past, it was seen as a morally corrupt thing. One of the reasons it was viewed that way was because of how it impacted the family unit. Now, alcohol use is seen as normal and desirable because beautiful women will want to spend time with you if you drink Budweiser. Either way, both sides are using women to further their own agenda.

Blog Posting #5 (Due Saturday 3/3 @ 11:59 PM): Field Work — Drug Hybrids

Field work: explore a drug / procedure / treatment / condition, and so on, hybrid

MINI-CASE 1: Here, Vicks is selling their night (Nyquil^®) and daytime (Dayquil^®) cold / URI medications.  But (IMHO) they are also selling a view of mother and fatherhood, working conditions, and appropriate compensation for labor. Go HERE and HERE and HERE for the YouTube links to the actual TV ads. Watch a few.

In Robin's Humble Opinion, neither of these ads could work in Europe, because people there all get sick time, and maternity leave. Works here. Sells drugs. Sells ideology. 'Makes up' our world.

So Vicks is selling cold meds (pharmacology discussed below) at twice the price of the Walgreens  unbranded exact equivalent you'll find next to the Nyquil^® on the shelf.  But are they are also selling a politics of sexual identity (hetero-normative?), fecundity, labor, compensation, how to dance at your daughter's wedding, and a good deal more—like how to decorate a kid's room, and how to talk 'business' as a man or woman ('Hey Amanda, sorry to bother you…')? 

Note the richness of the phrase 'Power through your day.'  

'OK? Got it? OK? OK?' — as The Donald would say. THIS IS A HYBRID — made of all these things, and doing all this 'cultural work.'

THEORY:  On p. 100, Latour gives us a diagram (good one) of 'science's blood flow.'  He argues that 'the facts' / data / laws of science are not the 'real stuff' with everything else just noise, corruption, superstition, bias, background and so on.  Science literally IS its (1) instruments (2) allies (the money) (3) colleagues (fellow scientists) (4) public representation (literally the PR; getting 'the public' to go along), and the web of meaning he calls (5) links and knots (what we used to call 'the facts'). In sum: science (for us 'techno-science) is ALL of the activities in and around science that make it possible.  It flows.  Neil deGrasse Tysen on TV looking cool is doing science, just as he is in front of a radio-telescope or computer screen. Neil negotiating his salary is doing science. Neil telling people of faith they aren't rational is doing science. Neil telling us that facts are facts is doing science.

And Vicks peddling Nyquil^®, motherhood, and crappy working conditions is doing science. Nyquil^® recommending that we spread disease is doing science (remember that many Japanese stay home with colds and wear masks in public.  Losers).  God Bless America. Let's be great again and work through our colds.

What to DO (however you want to structure it):

1.  Get in the field. Go to Walgreens and look at the sexual  — uh — 'stuff'  counter.  The diet pills.  The sleep aids. Go to The Wedge or Whole Foods and scan the vitamins / supplements section. Go to GNC and feast your eyes on the body-building supplements. Note that you can define 'drug' really, really widely—just make your case. Remember that in 2018, 'the field' is also virtual. And this might be a good project to do with a buddy or two, or as a group—share the work; share the fun.

2.   Find a good one (sorry I hogged Nyquil^®), and:

3.    Read the heck out of it, as follows:

·      Get the data (the pharmacology, the ingredients, the prices, the info on who owns what, the visual details of the packaging, marketing and so on. Detail colors, wording, language, mini-dramas ('Dave, I'm sorry to interrupt; I gotta take a sick day…'),. Get online and do some private-investigating or investigative journalism.

·      Theorize it, using all of our work; show us the organization of the hybrid phenomenon you found.  All the links, all the connections.

4.  Show us something new and important. This is your 'new knowledge,' the part where you show us something in our everyday / science lives that is interesting and surprising.

MINI-CASE 2: When I was looking fast for examples hybrids for class, I went back to a Daily piece from 2 years ago on the U deciding to allow official 'trans*' names. Naming is so important; it's 'circulating reference'; once the U decides to let us re-name ourselves as we transition, 'trans*' becomes differently (and maybe more) 'real.'

But then I saw this banner ad, seeking  egg donors for pay. OK, 'men,' listen up: while not a dangerous procedure (it's done laproscopically, but it still means a hole in the abdomen, a hole in the ovary, and general anesthesia). Ouch, it hurts.  And that egg is 'half' a 'person,' in some views.  I can't begin to count the issues here, but let me give a list of possibilities:  Heteronormativity (again).  Tissues as commodities. Sex as 'procreative' (a little side piece on something like 'multi-culturalism' with those three cute, differently-colored women). 'Breeding' and 'the future.'  And lots more.

Without understanding ALL the parts of this vast hybrid, we don't really get it.  We don't really 'believe in reality.'

Like this, guys.  Find something cool and read the heck out of it.  

____________________________________________________________

Extra Stuff: Nyquil^® sucks (pharmacology and marketing)

Well, it doesn't really suck, but ALL 'cold remedies' are made up out of the same 3-5 ingredients, made different and distinct by BRANDING (CF: Economix, p. 167)

Here's Dayquil^®:

Acetaminophen 325 mg	Pain reliever/fever reducer
Dextromethorphan HBr 10 mg	Cough suppressant
Phenylephrine HCl 5 mg	Nasal decongestant, slight antihistamine potential

Here's Nyquil^®:

Acetaminophen 325 mg	Pain reliever/fever reducer
Dextromethorphan HBr 15 mg	Cough suppressant
Doxylamine succinate 6.25 mg	Antihistamine, soporific / hypnotic

Dextromorphan (a bromide salt, here, but used in several salts, all the same) is the universal cough suppressant.  Give it names, it's Robitussin^®, Walitussin (Walgreens, poaching the brandname), or Delsym^®.

Both Doxylamine and Phenylephrine are in the same class ('decongestants' because they speed and dry, antihistamines because they—duh—block histamines. One sedates (Doxy…), one's a little speedy (Phenyl…).

Acetominophen is good ole Tylenol^®, and will take out your liver if you overdose.  So wouldn't it be good to know it's IN there? 

Point: 3-4 cheap, universal ingredients that, recombined and branded, fill a wall at the drugstore. All the same. All marginally helpful. But check out the pretty ads!

Post #4: Mental vs Chemical Addictions

I find it interesting the way in which the views on addictions have changed throughout time. There are different types of addiction, both chemical and mental. Chemical addiction being when the body becomes so accustomed to having a certain substance in it, builds up tolerances to it and rewires certain pathways, that a withdrawal from said substance can cause the body to revolt. Withdrawal from chemical substances can be dangerous and even fatal. Some examples of this are alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and other "hard drugs".

On the flip side, mental addictions I am defining as addictions to substances or actions due to the perpetuity with which individuals try to chase the feeling they have when they are doing the substance or action. Examples of mental addictions are eating disorders, gambling addictions, sex addiction, kleptomania, and anything else you can think of that an individual feels little or no power in controlling but were they to stop there would not be a dangerous physical withdrawal within their body.

Marijuana is a drug that has been heavily debated as to the addictive properties of it. Does one experience THC withdrawal? Is it a chemical addiction, or is it a mental addiction? Many people who are frequent marijuana smokers argue that they can stop any time, that they are not addicted, that when they do stop they only experience minor withdrawal symptoms for a few days, and mostly that marijuana is a safe drug because you cannot become addicted to it. Scientifically, however, marijuana withdrawal does exist. It isn’t as dangerous as heroin or cocaine withdrawal, but it does exist. I personally have seen people I went to high school with, who smoke multiple times a day, experience nausea, depression, headaches, and the shakes from not smoking (although the “shakes” could have been just from them feeling so crappy and exhausted). This is a bit scary, that individuals start smoking in high school, a drug that they are told by those older than them that is safe and they won’t be able to get addicted to. I’ve seen many of my friends come to me, telling me they wish they could quit, but they always find themselves coming back to it. There is both a chemical and mental addiction component to marijuana, that people often times don’t comprehend. Marijuana is the casual drug that everyone seems to use, but when used too frequently it is no longer casual.

Also, which is worse, chemical or mental addiction? I’ve never had a chemical addiction, so I can’t speak from personal experience, but I have suffered from eating disorders and other mental issues. These are extremely difficult to treat since there doesn’t seem to be a physical cause that you can pinpoint and either ween off of or fix. Addiction is a difficult subject to conceptualize, because there are so many different types and they have to be treated differently. And some don’t seem to have a treatment. Addiction is something that we do not seem to have an effective way of communicating about, YET.

Blog #4 Addiction - Syeda

When thinking of particular addictions on which to focus this entry, I can’t help but wander towards alcohol--but not to drink it, mind you. Rather, what interests me most about alcohol is not the addiction itself nor the particular representations of this addiction in general, but instead, the vast and often muddy ways that alcoholism is understood, of course changing on the basis of our unique lived experiences. With regards to my perspective, I was raised as an American Muslim with both halves of my identity telling me different things. As a young Muslim, I was taught that drinking alcohol is forbidden, first because that’s what my religion tells me and then because it’s harmful and causes us to lose our faculties. As an American, I learned early on that alcohol is just how adults socialize, that once you’re 21 years old, then drinking is just something adults do. This contrast doesn’t end there--In elementary school, we went through the D.A.R.E. program that told us again to stay away from drugs and to say no. But, the rebellious kids, on the other hand, were badass because they knew how to disobey. And they’d later drink in high school, so if they did it, it had to have been at least somewhat cool, right? In college, parties and alcohol are rampant as much as the Freshman 15 is inevitable. People drink copiously to have fun, loosen up, and be accepted, despite the knowledge that that looming hangover that will always come. We’ve learned about the prohibition and moonshiners. We’ve seen drunken bar fights, but we’ve also seen Dos Equis’ “Most Interesting Man Alive” advertisements--We’re constantly bombarded with conflicting associations that can be difficult to navigate.

In the academic and professional settings, the pattern continues. There are the studies that say 1-2 glasses of wine can be good for heart health, as well as studies that link excessive alcohol consumption with certain cancers and neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s. In the ER, the pattern repeats itself time and time again: you see a doctor treat a patient for severe liver failure due to alcoholism, but after a stressful night, hear him remark about all the alcohol he’ll be drinking tonight. So, there’s evidence to justify alcohol use, but also evidence for the contrary as well. So what do you follow? Is there ever really one representation of alcoholism? Perhaps what interests me most is that there never seems to be one cohesive message. Unlike heroin, which was once regarded as a hero drug and is now, even by heroin users themselves, known to be harmful and addictive, alcoholism’s representation in popular culture today remains quite tempered and benign.

Romanticization of Addiction in Punk Music

Punk music has a long and complex history, with highly progressive and inclusive scenes, and deeply problematic subsections of the genre as well. While I'd rather talk about feminist, queer punk music like Bikini Kill, Babes in Toyland, G.L.O.S.S., and PWR BTTM, their music doesn't really speak to addiction and vice. Rather, their music deals with sexual assault, sexism, homo/transphobia, identity, and resistance to patriarchy. 

However, in the more straight white-male driven punk scenes, addiction and vice strike a chord. One of the most famous punk bands of the 70's, the Sex Pistols, exemplify many of the main themes of this iteration of punk music. The primary themes of their music include anarchy, anti-capitalism/consumerism, violence and rioting, drug references, critiques of the music industry, and apathy. Nihilism is characteristic of the Pistols' music, as well as a number of other punk bands from the time. The unfeeling nihilism of their lyrics and the violent mosh pits at their shows catered only to a specific subsection of the population: those who could afford not to care. Women, queer folks, and people with less-able bodies were often made to feel unsafe at their shows, due to the culture of not caring. 

Addiction fit perfectly into this apathetic scene, lyrical themes referenced drug paraphernalia and justified drug use by wanting to "feel something." Sid Vicious (of the Pistols) had the most public experiences with drug use. He frequently referenced only ever loving himself and alcohol, and romanticized addiction via his extreme privilege and popularity, and his "rockstar" lifestyle. He contracted hepatitis from intravenous drug use, and allegedly killed his girlfriend during a drug feud. Vicious died of a heroin overdose before he went on trial for his girlfriend Nancy's death. Sid Vicious is the ultimate example of how horribly the apathetic and narcissistic lifestyle mix with addiction. I won't necessarily say that the band's music condoned or encouraged drug use, but they definitely did not do anything to try to prevent it. Furthermore, their music and band members increased the associations between punk music and dangerous drug use. 

These themes of nihilism and drug abuse also manifest contemporarily. FIDLAR, a very popular punk band from LA, has obtained a huge fan base particularly consisting of young white men. Their music also embraces apathy and repetitively refers to getting blackout drunk, using cocaine, and primarily refers to women as objects that just exist for sex. Their shows also feature violent mosh pits, and in general encourage their fans to have a wild night (which would probably involve drinking too much and using drugs, as their lyrics suggest.) Their "fuck everything" politics are particularly appealing to disengaged young men, who see the four band members who look a lot like them sustaining themselves and their vices making popular music. 

I acknowledge that all of this information is kind of anecdotal, and doesn't illuminate anything concrete about addiction in popular culture. However, I think my examples illustrate how certain music and scenes can encourage a utopian ideal of excessive drinking and drug use with little to no consequences. As for Sid Vicious, his overdose was pretty widely publicized, but the music of the Pistols is still widely celebrated outside of the negative association of heroin overdose. (See: Sex Pistols credit cards and t-shirts at Walmart!) Vicious is still seen as a founding member of mainstream punk music, and as tragic as his story is-- is still kind of "punk", isn't it? "Punk" ideals and rhetoric in a popular sense are pretty self-destructive and careless, which automatically implicates privilege, because only some people can afford to "fuck everything." 

Blog #4 - Brittney McLaughlin

While I hate to stick with the heroine bandwagon, this is a particularly interesting topic to me right now, and I just binge-watched season 5 of Shameless, where heroine and cocaine play a prominent role. The idea of media romanticizing drug use presented in Robin's original post really resonates with me at this time. While I've undoubtably questioned wether or not young, impressionable minds may be swayed toward the world of drugs after watching how freely it is used in Shameless, as well as other shows such as Breaking Bad, I feel that Shameless in particular is an interesting case as it also shows some of the consequences of drug use (spoiler - Fiona's boyfriend leaving cocaine on the table and her young brother ingesting it, landing Fiona in prison). But, why does this show and it's characters still glorify drug use when all parties are clearly aware of the side effects? Is this really true to life in low-class neighborhoods of America? It's difficult for me to understand, as I've never been exposed to any sort of heroine or cocaine use in my life; the people in the neighborhood I grew up with didn't suffer from drug addiction, to my knowledge. At that point, I'm left to wonder if neighborhoods are really so dependent and focused on drug use, or if these shows are just another Hollywood dramatization.

But then, my even bigger question is: how do people get addicted to drugs? Why do people start taking drugs? I know there are plenty of answers. Is it because it's considered "cool," as the conversation we had in class surrounding how tobacco usage used to be a social status symbol? Especially with so many TV shows and movies making it out to be this exciting thing? Are people just raised around it - with parents and neighbors and friends using drugs - so they just naturally feed into the addiction as well? Or is it a coping mechanism - do people use it as a way to numb pain or forget the past? Again, I know there are people who fall into each of these categories, but how do we begin to stop drug addiction, or even help addicts recover, when there are so many different reasons that the addiction begins to occur? Obviously, many methods have been successful up to this point, so perhaps it's silly that I'm questioning it. But there's a reason that addiction remains an issue and it goes beyond the mind and body, to me. You have to stop it at the source, but how do we do that?

And how do you tell the woman dying of cancer, in excruciating pain every day, that she can't shoot up to relieve the pain and feel euphoria for a while? This leads me back to previous conversations in the last unit - just how many rights does a person have to their own body & health? But then again, I suppose that allowing this woman to use heroine means that there still has to be a supplier, and now I've come full circle and still find my questions remaining just as unanswered as they were before. Ultimately, I do believe that media has influenced many people to use drugs, leading to their addiction. In the end, though, there are several reasons that people use drugs, and it's hard for me to imagine a way to convince a person sick with a different disease that heroine is bad for them when they no longer fear for their health.

Drug Addiction

When I was 8 years old, my family and I moved from Sudan to Hamtramck, MI, a city surrounded by Detroit. Growing up, I knew plenty of people in my neighborhood who were heavy drug users. However, from a young age, I never knew that those individuals were using. It was obvious that they were acting strange, and showing abnormal behavior. My first encounter was with an older woman, who was shaking and excessively twitching. She was trying to light her cigarette, but I guess she couldn't even use her lighter properly. She walked up to me, handed me her lighter and asked me to light her cigarette for her. I did it, and all I remember was me walking away and thinking, "I wonder whats up with that lady, she's crazy." As I got older, these types of encounters became ordinary to me. The endless number of people who would walk down the street laughing to themselves, yelling absurd things to the neighbors, acting strange were not crazy. They were addicts. The other kids who were born and raised in the neighborhood knew this from a very young age. They had been exposed to it their entire lives, and for some, their own parents were victims of addiction. Soon enough, I knew who many of the sellers and users in the neighborhood were. By the age of 13, I could look at a person and tell whether or not they were drug users.

With all of this in mind, I think it is extremely important to talk about representation. Had I not grown up in that neighborhood and experienced the events that I have, I would have been like most people. Everything I would have known about drug addicts would have come from me watching TV shows. For many people, they choose to judge others based off of what they see in movies, social media, and so on. However, the fact of the matter is that ever single addict I have ever met in my entire life is nothing like what is portrayed on TV. In fact, many of them are extremely great people. Unfortunately, they made wrong decision(s) in life that led them towards addiction. It may have started off as a "one time" thing. They never imagined themselves becoming addicts, but it happened. Instead of judging them and referring to them as "crackheads," we should be encouraging them to seek help.

Addiction of the 21st century

Alcohol. Tobacco. Drugs. All these addictions at some point in history were considered as part of  a successful life, as sign of being "cool". And in our century we got a new addiction that was impossible even 50 years ago - social media.

Ask yourself: how many times today your checked your Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/even your email? And how many time you actually got something useful or important out of there? We connect to the Internet even without thinking, automatically, and most of the time when we disconnect we can't remember what exactly we saw there. Can you remember the last post on Facebook you saw today? Or at least three you saw during the day that impressed you? I can't.

And what we mostly find in social media (except rare moments of really useful information)? Cute kittens, evil jokes, fake politics, someone else's lives. We lose ourselves in this huge stream of information. We try to follow other's lives so we forget about our own life. And if something is happening with us what people do the very first moment? Exactly, make a post to share with everybody that they still exist. The whole process is just an attempt to catch attention, to show that you're not worse than others.

And the problem is that in our contemporary society you barely can survive without being connected all the time. "I'll send you photos in Facebook. You don't check it? You don't even have a page there? How are you living?" - this is a exclamation we could hear several years ago, but now it is nearly impossible, everyone is online. You get some school/work announcements, you get updates of your favorite blogger/musician/artist, you keep in touch with your relatives/friends even if they are on the other side of the planet. It is great, of course, but then people become angry at you that you haven't checked your messages for 15 minutes (I have some friends like that).  Community around force you to keep connected every second, so it turns into a vicious circle: you can't disconnect because people around you want you to be connected and so you start to expect that other are connected all the time as you are.

Unfortunately, this addiction is still in phase of measurement of "coolness". People compare numbers of followers, likes, comments. If you don't post a photo every day you're considered boring. And it will never end. People will start to fight with this addiction (they've actually already started) but always there would be people who will "go high" after each moment being connected to the pipeline of social media. And when society is forcing you to do that it is much more difficult to stop. 

P.S. While writing this post I checked my Facebook and Instagram at least twice.

P.P.S. To make bad effect of overusing social media more science based here is a link with overview of several researches: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2017/06/30/a-run-down-of-social-medias-effects-on-our-mental-health/#47b37f832e5a

This Is Addiction

My mom and I love watching the TV show This Is Us and recently on the show, drug and alcohol addictions were discussed. Kevin, an aspiring actor, misuses pain killers and alcohol, and it turns out his dad and grandpa were alcoholics. He had the pain killers because he had two knee surgeries, one in high school and one after an accident on the set of a movie, and he was taking too many pills because he thought that would help him get better. When he could no longer get the pain killers prescribed, he turned to alcohol. So, the show represents addiction as a hereditary thing that starts with pain control, and affects everybody, but celebrities are more susceptible.

In media in general, there is always some celebrity that is doing some type of drugs or is in rehab for something. Is this because celebrities live their lives in the spotlight, or because they end up turning to addiction to deal with the spotlight? The writers for This Is Us easily could have written Kevin's twin sister, Kate, as the alcohol addict, but they chose Kevin, the celebrity. Also, you hear more about males with alcohol addictions rather than females. When bad things happen to others and its in the media, normal people always say "that won't happen to me", so I think they made Kevin the addict because normal people, like Kate, don't have these problems, only celebrities do. Celebrity Kevin with the alcohol addiction will sell more magazines than Nobody Kate with the eating addiction. Also, celebrities can bring awareness to addictions because of all of the attention on them.

People always find some way to make addictions hereditary, this is a common-sense thing. I know my parents always told me "So-and-so's dad was an alcoholic, so it makes sense why so-and-so is one too." We know that people who have parents that were addicts are more susceptible to becoming an addict, but Robin is an example that not everyone with this addict gene expresses it. Some people are able to control themselves (free will?) and not drink if their parent(s) was an alcoholic, but some aren't able to. So, I think the portrayal of addiction in This is Us was an accurate construction of what we currently know about addiction.

Blog #4

The older I get, the more I come to believe that addiction in this country is not just big business, but it is a form of control.  I could turn just this idea into a chapter-long diatribe, but I will try to stay focused on just one small aspect.  Movies and television shows quite often show drug use as cool (Fast Times at Ridgemont High), a way to fit in (Breakfast Club), a way to make money (American Gangster), a way to solve problems (Breaking Bad).  The same goes for gambling (21).  There are examples for nearly every type of addiction.  Examples of real world consequences are more rare (Requiem for a Dream and The Man With the Golden Arm).  That is all fiction.  I feel the real world is worse.  Nearly every television show is sponsored in part by a prescription drug.  Psoriasis, erectile dysfunction, back pain, headaches, etc.  These ads are mingled with beer ads.  Drinking and taking drugs are promoted on your favorite shows.  The drug companies even tell you in their commercials that if you have a symptom (that might be common to many conditions) to directly ask your doctor for that drug by name.  People are free to shop around until they have a doctor willing to prescribe that drug.  Most MDs will prescribe, even if they know it is unnecessary, rather than risk losing that patient to another drug.  Prescription drug abuse is then treated with counselling and...different drugs from the same drug company.  I read somewhere that the USA is only 15% of the world population, but we take 75% of the prescription drugs.  I don't have a solution, but I clearly see this problem.  My personal solution is to avoid drugs and medication whenever possible

Blog 4: The Fast and the Fourious

Like most college students who choose to avoid doing their homework through mindless bouts of Netflix and Hulu, I started a new show and became quickly sucked in to the world of Grown-ish, the spinoff from ABC's amazingly hilarious Black-ish. Grown-ish deals with Zoey Johnson, the Johnson's eldest daughter who is starting her first year in college. Like all new tv shows, the first episode deals with character introductions but in the second episode, the topic immediately deals with Adderall and the students' dependence on them to juggle schoolwork and their social lives. This show doesn't glorify this addiction but it also doesn't show the dire consequences of it either. Instead, the only repercussions Zoey suffers after taking some Adderall is a spending spree on shoes that amounts to a fee of over 500 dollars. And while regret is shown, Zoey is still shown taking it at the end of the episode. This is a departure from a Save By The Bell where an episode had Jesse experience a breakdown after being confronted by Zack for abusing caffeine pills (I had to look up caffeine pills because I didn't understand how this was dangerous because I assumed it's just like drinking a ton of coffee. Apparently, I'm right. Minus some side effects. Actually, never mind, don't listen to me, I'm an over caffeinated, cheap college student). That episode had a serious tone and, ironically, has spawned many meme's and jokes despite the seriousness of it. It's also interesting how the setting of school has changed over the years. Back then, hearing about an addiction like that created a life teaching lesson while nowadays, it's more like:

 "I took some Adderall for my exams so I could stay up late to study" 

"Yeah?" 

"Yeah"

"Those exams were super hard dude. I literally knew nothing" 

"Oh my gosh, right?" 

and that's how the conversation would probably go. Of course, this is my view from past experiences with friends so this doesn't apply to everyone. Just wanted to clarify that.

So to sum it up, Grown-ish treats Adderall addiction like a habit that most college students have or know of. If I had just watched this episode with no prior knowledge of the side effects (loss of appetite, weight loss, dry mouth, stomach, upset/pain, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, headache, diarrhea, fever, depression) or that it's a controlled substance that can be easily abused and snorted (I had no idea that was a thing) then I wouldn't think that much of it. But of course it's an issue because anything that's taken in excess is always a problem. That's the common sense part.

Blog #4

Turn on the radio; listen carefully to the song playing, what is it talking about?  I'd be willing to bet that the song has something to do with drugs or alcohol.  As a fan of country music, I know most of the songs that I enjoy involve drinking alcohol.  Chicken Fried by Zac Brown Band is a good example because it appeals to an average person.  The song begins with a "cold beer on a friday night" which implies that the people are working the week for hopes of the weekend.  The song is normalizing drinking at the end of the week; almost as if it is a must to have a drink at the end of the week.  Because I grew up in a small town, country music was very popular when I was growing up.  There were people that strived to live like a country song.  This seemed to involve drinking heavily every weekend, which turned into something that was all they talked about.  The  people had an extreme devotion to drinking it was all they looked forward too.  There would be times that I would hear them say, "I need a drink" quite often.  With that level of obsession, it is easy to see the possibility of addiction.  I believe popular country music that has glorified alcohol has played a large part in that addiction. 

Blog Post 4-Kayla

When I was in high school, I was absolutely sure that I was going to grow up to be a part of the medical field. Therefore, I started taking any medical related class our somewhat small high school offered. What I enjoyed about the classes was that every now and again, our teacher would turn on the TV show "House." It was such a fascinating adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, set in a hospital in the modern day. The main character, Dr. Gregory House, had a Vicodin addiction. What I found interesting was that this addiction sounded so similar to what my family always told me about substance addiction: that it was a way to escape reality and avoid the problem. However, there was a difference because House was trying to escape a chronic physical pain in his leg, rather than an emotional pain. Another odd aspect of this portrayal was that this type of addiction was that it seemed to make sense to me the way alcohol, cocaine, tobacco, and other addictions didn't. For all the others, it is possible for the addict to go to therapy for their addiction, sort out the root of the problem, and put their life back in order. For House, there was no possible way to fix the root of the problem, so I could understand better why he would be an addict. I suppose this comes from a very naive perspective, because I do not understand what would drive a person to become an addict. Still, it is odd that there is a situation where the representation of an addiction "makes sense" while other situations do not.

Lets talk about cigarettes - Blog #4 Alissa Carlson

 Since the 1930's, smoking has turned from sexy to deadly. Cigarettes have been depicted as a sign of glitz and glamour, sophistication, and sexual allure. It was highly popular amongst Americans and as many as one out of two smoked cigarettes. During the 1930's, many Americans smoking were unaware of the significant health effects as they had yet to develop. After World War II, there were major developments in the effects of smoking cigarettes and an increased risk of lung cancer was acknowledged. Some of the most famous magazine ads and commercials depicted doctors in their white coats smoking their 'favorite' cigarettes, Camel (as seen in the picture beside this). This picture (and others just like it) suggest that if a doctor doesn't have a problem with smoking a Camel cigarette, then you shouldn't either because you should trust your doctor. Not only is this incredibly interesting and today there is more common-sense about smoking cigarettes, but the depiction of a doctor versus a regular person suggests that it really must be okay. We as Americans put a lot of respect in our doctors and we are trust that they will put us in the right position and help us feel better when we are not. Today, I can imagine that you would have a much more difficult time with finding a doctor on a Camel or Marlboro endorsing them. There is much more statistical proof and evidence on the effects that come from smoking cigarettes. Not going to lie, this is definitely a disturbing image. If I was looking at this in 1935, I would think that it's cool or "yeah, I'm going to go buy a pack!" But today I am looking at it in almost disgust. However, it wasn't until the 1980's did scientists discover that nicotine is actually extremely addictive. A lot of the tobacco companies denied these claims because if people started to believe that, they would smoke less cigarettes and these companies would make less money. They actually went as far as to put more or extra nicotine in cigarettes so there would be an even more difficult chance of quitting. This is quite savage. 

To conclude, it's pretty obvious (or at least we hope it is) that smoking is not good for your health. Actually, it can literally kill you if you let it. This clearly was not the case during the early 1930's up until the 1980's with the understanding of nicotine, and today there is a better understanding of what exactly is in that Camel cigarette and what it can do to you if you smoke too many. However, we can acknowledge that smoking cigarettes aren't all the glitz and glamour that the 1942 film Casablanca suggested it was. With hard data and statistical evidence on the effects of smoking (and secondhand smoke), there is more common-sense that come with smoking cigarettes and even help  for those with addiction. We can agree to disagree that there is a serious difference in how smoking is depicted today.

http://adage.com/article/news/rewind-1949-cigarette-spot-declares-doctors-smoke-camels/236635/

My all time favorite way to waste time is to scroll through twitter. It is my all time favorite social media and that is an opinion I share with millions of people. There is this thing that people call "twitter culture". Basically what this means is that there are things on twitter that are funny to (usually) only twitter users. People who don't understand twitter might not find the humor very humorous. Often times the jokes are pretty self deprecating and dark. There is a major trend of jokes that are usually from users who are college aged and the premises of the tweets is that the person is an alcoholic. It sounds weird, but if you are on twitter, you know exactly what I'm talking about. There are jokes about being unable to refrain from drinking for a night, or drinking a ton because they are depressed, or drinking till belligerent on a regular basis. It makes the excessive use of alcohol seem like a normal part of being a teenager. Normalizing this is a dangerous thing  to the millions of impressionable teens using this social media platform. I also see this attitude of apathy towards alcohol dependency transfer into real life. If things are good, we drink. If things are bad, we drink. Pretty soon we are never not drinking. This dependence eventually forms, and no one even realizes it because it is happening to everyone and it is "normal"

Usually people say that the reason habitual smoking cigarettes spreads among the youth is because it is the 'cool' thing to do. That is not at all what I am observing. The twitter community is completely aware that some of the things they joke about on twitter may be pathetic or even sad. They just do not care. Nobody cares, because everyone is making the same jokes and everyone is participating in the same unhealthy hobbies. It has become a vibe, or an aesthetic, to have a twitter account where you talk about how depressing your life is and how you drink an unhealthy amount of alcohol to deal with your problems.

All in all, who's to say that college students wouldn't be drinking to drown their problems if there wasn't twitter.

Chantix advertisements and smoking cessation

From a medical perspective, Chantix (varenicline) is the gold standard in smoking cessation. It has been found to be more effective at helping smokers quit than bupropion (Wellbutrin) or nicotine replacement therapies (patches, gum). The drug is heavily advertised, so I thought I would examine how Pfizer markets Chantix.

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/ws46/chantix-mark

This ad starts by introducing Mark, a real life person who smoked for 26 years but was able to quit with the help of Chantix and "support". He details how he tried quitting cold turkey and with patches, but these methods were ineffective. Pfizer is implying that Chantix is unique and more self-empowering than other smoking cessation products. The other implication also seems to be that the pharmaceutical industry is so clever that they have created a product that allows patients to restore their self control. Taking Chantix seems to be a no brainer!

Chantix, methadone, and other pharmaceutical addiction treatments assume that addiction is primarily a chemical process. Therefore, it makes sense that there could be a chemical that would interrupt this process and cure the patient. This premise is generally well received by addicts because taking a pill is much easier than addressing deep-seated patterns of behavior and negative thought patterns. The medical community also likes this because pharmacology seems to be a much more concrete science (with receptor sites and binding affinities) than psychology (with feelings and perceptions).

The end of the ad is where the legal disclaimers come in and the list for Chantix is disturbing. Nausea, sleep-walking, seizures, and allergic reactions are all mentioned as possibilities. The viewer is also advised to exercise caution when driving and to tell their doctor if they have unusual changes in thinking or thoughts of suicide. Quitting smoking with Chantix doesn't seem so easy by this point of the commercial.

While the list of horrible side effects is rolling off, Mark can be seen enjoying a glass of water at a pizzeria with his wife. The commercial closes with Mark saying, "I'm finally free of smoking." Chantix has restored Mark's ability to make free choice and now he enjoys simple things like pizza and cold glasses of water. The message is simple here: you are powerless over your smoking and you should turn to modern science to correct what is wrong with your brain. There are vague allusions to the addition of "support" to help smokers quit, but this messaging takes a back seat to a pharmaceutical solution.

An aside on Chantix and suicidal thoughts:
For several years, the FDA required a black box warning on Chantix packaging that warned that the drug should be stopped if the patient has thoughts of suicide or self-harm. The FDA required this label after reports that some smokers trying to quit with Chantix experienced these symptoms. However, after post-marketing studies showed that those taking Chantix did not have disproportionate risk for suicidal thoughts and tendencies relative to other smokers trying to quit, the label was removed. While this is good for Pfizer, it raises a disturbing point: some people become so disturbed while trying to quit smoking that they begin having suicidal ideations. Clearly addiction has a psychological component that transcends simple pharmacology. The Wikipedia entry for Chantix does a nice job on summarizing the FDA's decisions (with citations).

Hui Lin Zheng Blog #4: Representations of Cigarette Smoking

An addiction that is vastly different from how it is represented in the United States is the smoking culture in China. The Chinese are one of the heaviest smokers in the world. Smoking is associated with masculinity and is a rite into manhood. It is also essential for socializing and people who don’t smoke are often pressured into smoking to fit in. The Chinese are aware that smoking is a dangerous addiction, but the smoking culture in China is so predominant that the addiction problems are often ignored. Smoking cigarettes is considered a normal ritual in the everyday lives of Chinese people.

We can even see this culture of smoking here on campus among the international students. Many of the international students at the University smoke on a regular basis and have started smoking from a young age. They smoke to de-stress, to socialize with friends, and even during networking events.

I have three roommates who are all Chinese international students and two of them smoke cigarettes on a regular basis. To them, smoking is a casual pastime and they started smoking because they saw friends and acquaintances smoking and smoked to fit in. It is not so simple as smoking to feel like they fit in, but rather fitting in to make connections with their peers and network. And this networking is essential for finding jobs in the future. The representation of smoking is so entwined with the social culture in China that they overlook the fact it is an addictive substance. I think it’s interesting to look at a culture where cigarettes are not associated with addiction and is instead seen as a successful habit.

This article provides more information about the smoking culture in China:

https://thediplomat.com/2015/10/chinas-deadly-smoking-habit/

Smokeless Tobacco Addiction Post #4 Regan Bradley

Opioid addiction. Alcohol addiction. Marijuana addiction. LSD addiction. Cocaine addiction. Tobacco addition.

We all know and have heard of the epidemics behind numerous drugs addictions. These addictions are recognized by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). They have numerous scientific studies about the effects on the body both physically and psychologically. The American Society of Addiction Medicine states "addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry" that is "characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one's behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response." In general, the inability to stop a particular activity even if the consequences outweigh all good.

You're a small town student. You occasionally get up to go to your class but mainly you get up each day to hang out with your friends as you drive around the empty fields surrounding your area as you listen to music and chew. It's only a few times so it won't hurt. Every once in a while is bad. It doesn't matter because you also love to lift and are a smart student. You have a career already set so you don't have to worry. The chewing will stop when you are a little older. Down the road, you notice your teeth starting to turn black as necrotic tissue and fall out. You lose your gorgeous jawline as the carcinogens begin to play their role in your gums and mandible. Now you cannot breath. You thought yesterday was your last time. In weeks you will die from an aggressive pancreatic cancer you did not know you had.

More than 3 in every 100 adults aged 18 years and older use smokeless tobacco. Any one of these people who use smokeless tobacco run the risk of becoming extremely addictive to the addictive substance. I use the stereotypical small town student because I have seen this happen to previous classmates. The effects are scarier in person. A commercial aired in an attempt to make these effects of smokeless tobacco use and addiction know. The images haunt me to this day as I see classmates and friends partake in this addictive activity. The Real Cost released this video to show what can all start with just a can of dip. This addiction is represented as disgusting and harmful in all ads I have seen. Any video or comment of social media pulls on the gross action and effects of chewing tobacco. This video is a clear example.

This common-sense mentality of not partaking in smokeless tobacco seems like a easy decision. Then why have I seen people in my own life loss to this addiction? Is the information not given early enough? Is it not representative of the worst case scenarios in order to place a fear factor in people? Do people just not care about where they will be years late? Is there no point to trying to stop what people will evidently start no matter what we say?  This all goes back to our debate about if the state is responsible for addiction epidemics. Why are these products available? How many people have to die before we start to go crazy over this addictive?

Video:

The Real Cost Commercial: "Face of Dip" (:30s version)

Source for American Society of Addiction Medicine Definition:

https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction

Blog #4- Alcoholism in NYC

In looking around for material for this post, I kept coming across interesting ads for things like cigarettes and alcohol. The common thread between many of these ads, especially the older ones, was a focus not on the product itself, but rather on the culture which surrounds it. This got me thinking about when I lived in New York City, and how the culture there pushes constant drinking and smoking as an assumed way of life rather than an option. Media representation certainly reinforce this: shows like How I Met Your Mother show drinking as the primary social activity of young, vibrant professionals in the city, and for years virtually every representation of a professional in NYC showed them smoking. However, I noticed that it is not simply media representation that pushes a dependence on alcohol and cigarettes on residents of the city. The use of these products is woven into the day to day culture of NYC in a way that I haven't found to be true of other cities.

In New York, there is an expectation that just about everyone drinks or smokes, at least the "real New Yorkers" anyway. I noticed this idea reinforced by some very basic facts about living there. For instance, with the expected high-speed work environment that is prevalent throughout the city, smoking gives workers much needed short breaks throughout the day. When I worked at a restaurant in the village I was the only non-smoker on the staff, and I definitely felt the pain for lacking those breaks that everyone else got to take. Obviously people know that smoking is harmful to them, yet this pervasive culture makes smoking seem almost necessary to survive in the city.

On the drinking side of things, something that drove me crazy while I lived there was that all of the coffee shops closed at 5pm. All of them. Except the chain stores in Times Square. Compare that to Minneapolis, where shops open until 11pm or midnight are easy to find. The difference is the culture. In NYC, it's simply expected that by 5pm, you should be at a bar drinking, so why would they keep the coffee shops open?

The representations of alcohol and smoking in New York City as almost crucial to life are created by the culture of the city itself, not just the media. It's also very hard to pin down the source of this culture because it is so widely and deeply ingrained into so many aspects of life in the city. Of course, living in this culture leads to increased problems with addiction because mild addiction is pretty much expected! I think this shows just how sneakily representations of addiction can be inserted into culture. It isn't always blatant, like in an advertisement encouraging you to smoke. It can instead be small cultural expectations that gently push citizens in the direction of addiction.

Brent Clanfield Post #4

When looking at old cigarette and tobacco ads, they are shocking compared to what is known today. Smoking was glamorous and sophisticated. It was widely accepted and considered to even have health benefits like an easy way of losing weight. Take this ad for example. It brags about being the most used cigarette among scientists and educators. Of course you would want to do what scientists and educators do because they wouldn't do something unhealthy. You would want to be just like the guy on the ad. Suave, sophisticated, and smart like scientists and educators.

Fast forward to today. Scientists and educators would never tell anyone to smoke, and ads would not be able to make such claims. Instead, scientists have proof of the dangers of smoking and cigarette packaging has started being covered in scary, fear inducing, images to make the purchaser think twice before smoking. It shows the stark difference in how the world perceives smoking today versus back then, and the difference some knowledge about the effects of smoking can make.

Making cigarettes look cool - Blog Post 4

I’ve been watching this show recently called the Peaky Blinders which is on Netflix. It’s a pretty silly show about this gang in Birmingham who are trying to take over everything around them basically. And it’s only silly because they are trying way too hard to be very serious. But this show is really a great example of how some drugs can be really glorified in television shows. The main character in the show Thomas Shelby is the epitome of a “cool guy”, every scene with him in it basically involves some cool music with him walking in slow motion, he can never do any wrong with the decisions he makes, and he runs the family business which is now bringing in more money than ever before. And this guy is smoking a cigarette in every single scene, no kidding. Cigarette smoking in this show is glorified like I have never seen before. I even want to start smoking when I watch it even though I know I am not a fan of tobacco. But that is the image that they are getting across. The successful, badass business man is always cool, calm, collected, and encircled by cigarette smoke. It creates this amazing aesthetic of cigarettes as if they clear the mind and calm the body, but I’m telling you, if anyone smoked as much as they are showing this guy smoke, they would definitely not sound like this guy does, they would have some serious lung problems. And not only do they glorify smoking in this show, they also glorify alcohol. The family business also runs a pub which obviously sells alcohol, and everytime someones walks into a building they find the liquor and pour themselves a glass of straight brandy and down it right there. The reason why this is so glorified is because the successful “cool” people in the show never, ever get drunk off of it, yet they take a shot nearly every 30 minutes. Again it gives this aesthetic of badassery because they can hold their liquor and it shows that they are restraining their emotions of anger or frustration because they just take a shot instead. You can definitely see that if someone had never had an alcoholic drink, or a cigarette in their life that it would look quite appealing in this show. It is just another example of how easy it is to make bad things look good in a TV show or a movie.

Blog Post #4; Caitlin Barth

As it is for many of us – addiction to cigarettes has surrounded me most of my life. Personally, I do not smoke, however, I grew up around a grandpa, a grandma, and – still today – a sister would have succumbed to the small metaphorical stick. It is almost comical how something that has been advertised in the past to bring you pleasure, stress-relief, or short-lived happiness (pun intended) is slowly, sometimes quickly, killing you. So why did the industry grow in popularity… so quickly? False representations, of course. 

            Luckily, most of us in this course did not feel the pressures of smoking cigarettes as those who grew up in the 1960’s where the custom was everywhere – restaurants, airplanes, even in classrooms. The cigarette industry flourished so well because of their advertisements that led people to believe they were actually healthy by using rhetoric such as “fresh, clean, smooth, and satisfaction.” They further legitimized the act by placing doctors in their ads. 

Yes, we all have seen these ads before. Especially growing up in the time we did we learned about the cigarette corporations ability to “reel in” the consumer. Today we are lucky to be presented with much more transparency. Just the other day I heard on the radio that a cigarette company’s motto is to “get ‘em while they’re young” and how parents should be diligent to prohibit their kids to fall into the vicious cycle of smoking. Also, the companies are required to state the product causes lung cancer or other health problems.