Why is it that Hannah Kroeger was arrested for dispensing medicine without a license at her health food store in Boulder, Colorado back in the mid 70s but now it is okay for every other advertisement on TV to be about some new amazing cure that you need to be sure to find a source for. Yes, there are some possible side effects, said in a blissful tone by a caring voice, but no worry, once you contact your doctor and ask for the medicine you'll find out if its the right medicine for you. So, the doctors' phones ring off the wall, their waiting rooms are full, people are self-diagnosing and finding it easy to convince their doctor they have the symptoms -- after all the doctor is busier than ever because the advertising has filled up the waiting room so now there really isn't any time to find out what the patient's real problem is.
What ever happened to waiting until a person actually felt ill and contacted a doctor before the diagnosis is made and the, very possibly dangerous, drug prescribed. Why must people who just want to sit and watch a show be subjected to suggestive messages that could apply to just about anyone just to help the drug industry pay for the drugs they develop. We all know that the cost of health care is through the roof and that many people's lives are increasingly unmanageable because of abuse of prescription medicines. Millions of unnecessary prescriptions of handed out, filled, and paid for by insurance companies and Medicare every day. Why is it that we as a society support pushing people ever deeper into this insidious cycle of problems.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Call for Bans on Advertising Known to be Addictive Products
Several (actually many) years ago I threw a nearly-new carton of cigarettes in the trash with a vow to my 2-year old son to join the ranks of non-smokers. I wrote a congratulations message on the refrigerator, joined the nearby health club, and looked forward to spending the money I'd once spent on cigarettes relaxing in the sauna, swimming, biking, and getting strong. I looked forward to regaining some of the strength of my youth, smelling better, and no longer feeling pangs of guilt as I exposed my baby to second hand smoke. I had always enjoyed smoking and been incensed that anyone would think it their right to tell me I couldn't smoke at my desk at work (yes, in those days it was normal for people to have an ashtray on their desk...). But, then I realized I tended to cough more than other people. There were increasing numbers of places where I couldn't go in comfort because smoking wasn't allowed, and my locker at the baby lesson pool stunk when I opened it after a lesson. I knew it was a dirty, smelly, dangerous habit. Eventually, after I caught a cold that wouldn't go away, reason got the better of my addicted mind and I threw that nearly-new carton in the trash. I felt good right away. I was glad that the hospital had a help line that I could call if I got the urge to get a cigarette. By the time I'd dialed the number the urge had usually passed and I was able to quit, one cigarette urge at a time.
The most challenging obstacle I met during my battle was advertising of Virginia Slims cigarettes on the back cover of magazines. Here I'd convinced myself to quit because I wanted to get healthy, to look better, to feel better, to be more active. But look! here is this gorgeous ballerina with her toe shoes, tied up to her calves with a beautiful silk ribbon sitting on the edge of the stage smoking a cigarette. Why could she manage to be healthy and glamorous and still smoke. Surely I could do that too! I remember catching myself with these thoughts and forcing myself to remember it was only advertising by an unethical industry trying to make a buck without concern for the destruction it caused along the way. I managed to fight off the urge by calling the help line.
I was ever so thankful that advertising of cigarettes had been banned from television and I was very glad for that because I knew that if a simple picture on the back of a magazine could have the level of impact on me then even the help line would probably not have been able to help me in my battle if I had encountered the so much more suggestive advertising media of television. Of course, now that I have been away from cigarette smoking for many years these adds have no pull on me at all, nor would television advertisements. I am no longer addicted to nicotine and can't be fooled into thinking there is anything good about smoking.
So, now to the reason for this posting...
Imagine being addicted to alcohol and wanting to sit down and watch the ballgame on TV. Every couple of minutes you are made very aware that all the cool kids and the people who are having fun at the ballgame are drinking the king of beers (or some other brand). During the holidays you need to make things cheery with this wine or that drink. All summer you need to cool down with a wine cooler or a beer. If you go to a fine restaurant your meal is obviously not complete unless you order such and such wine or if you want to eat fried clams at the clam shack you can't possibly enjoy them without a beer. Well, I've known plenty of non-drinkers and they seem to have fun at ballgames and to enjoy dinner too. They stay cool in the summer -- probably cooler! AA and other recovery programs are good at helping people learn to ignore advertising messages but it must take the strength of a giant to participate in society let alone watch a ballgame.
Consider someone who can no longer afford to go any to the ballgame because they have lost all their money gambling. They turn on the TV because that's all they can afford to do and are bombarded with scenes of a poker chip dancing its way around the casino and finally coming to rest in the cleavage of a very busty waitress. Or a couple entering the casino and leaving their old stodgy work clothes at the door. You have to give credit to the advertisers -- they are very good at their craft. And, if a person doesn't have a gambling problem then advertising is just helping remind them of their options. But, if a person is fighting addiction to gambling, laying around wondering about how to get back on their feet and enjoy life again, how much more likely are they to decide that just one more trip to the table couldn't do that much damage.
What is so difficult for me to understand is WHY did cigarette advertising get banned but not other known addictive substances and activities? These addictions cost this society untold numbers of dollars in medical bills and lost wages. They tear apart families and corrupt young minds. So, WHY are these advertisements still allowed on television? I'm interested to know what you think? If you have evidence to support what you think so much the better.
The most challenging obstacle I met during my battle was advertising of Virginia Slims cigarettes on the back cover of magazines. Here I'd convinced myself to quit because I wanted to get healthy, to look better, to feel better, to be more active. But look! here is this gorgeous ballerina with her toe shoes, tied up to her calves with a beautiful silk ribbon sitting on the edge of the stage smoking a cigarette. Why could she manage to be healthy and glamorous and still smoke. Surely I could do that too! I remember catching myself with these thoughts and forcing myself to remember it was only advertising by an unethical industry trying to make a buck without concern for the destruction it caused along the way. I managed to fight off the urge by calling the help line.
I was ever so thankful that advertising of cigarettes had been banned from television and I was very glad for that because I knew that if a simple picture on the back of a magazine could have the level of impact on me then even the help line would probably not have been able to help me in my battle if I had encountered the so much more suggestive advertising media of television. Of course, now that I have been away from cigarette smoking for many years these adds have no pull on me at all, nor would television advertisements. I am no longer addicted to nicotine and can't be fooled into thinking there is anything good about smoking.
So, now to the reason for this posting...
Imagine being addicted to alcohol and wanting to sit down and watch the ballgame on TV. Every couple of minutes you are made very aware that all the cool kids and the people who are having fun at the ballgame are drinking the king of beers (or some other brand). During the holidays you need to make things cheery with this wine or that drink. All summer you need to cool down with a wine cooler or a beer. If you go to a fine restaurant your meal is obviously not complete unless you order such and such wine or if you want to eat fried clams at the clam shack you can't possibly enjoy them without a beer. Well, I've known plenty of non-drinkers and they seem to have fun at ballgames and to enjoy dinner too. They stay cool in the summer -- probably cooler! AA and other recovery programs are good at helping people learn to ignore advertising messages but it must take the strength of a giant to participate in society let alone watch a ballgame.
Consider someone who can no longer afford to go any to the ballgame because they have lost all their money gambling. They turn on the TV because that's all they can afford to do and are bombarded with scenes of a poker chip dancing its way around the casino and finally coming to rest in the cleavage of a very busty waitress. Or a couple entering the casino and leaving their old stodgy work clothes at the door. You have to give credit to the advertisers -- they are very good at their craft. And, if a person doesn't have a gambling problem then advertising is just helping remind them of their options. But, if a person is fighting addiction to gambling, laying around wondering about how to get back on their feet and enjoy life again, how much more likely are they to decide that just one more trip to the table couldn't do that much damage.
What is so difficult for me to understand is WHY did cigarette advertising get banned but not other known addictive substances and activities? These addictions cost this society untold numbers of dollars in medical bills and lost wages. They tear apart families and corrupt young minds. So, WHY are these advertisements still allowed on television? I'm interested to know what you think? If you have evidence to support what you think so much the better.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
It Takes Too Much to Become an Independent Presidential Candidate
Let's say you decide you want to run for president in the United States. It's a job that is supposed to be open to anyone who wants to try. So, a reasonable first question to ask is what do you have to do and when do you have to do it. Well, you have to find out what fifty-one different set of requirements for getting on the ballot are! You could just identify the most important states but that would allow you to miss some votes -- possibly okay. If you decide that not hitting all states is okay you could apply strategies for choosing the states to ignore such as identifying the states with the least likelihood of making an impact and then you need to identify all the different criteria that could cause one to have more or less impact such as how the electoral college is selected, how likely the population is to go for an independent, how likely they are to go for an independent with you values and qualifications. So, yes, there are ways for minimizing the cost. But, no matter how much you work toward minimizing the impact of selective state balloting, the main stream candidates will have the advantage.
In this election year in which barely half of each of the republicans and democrats support the chosen candidate one would think that there is finally ample room for an independent such as Michael Bloomberg to enter the race with a true possibility of winning. The problem is that an independent doesn't have the party machine behind him/her to help understand and achieve ballot status in the individual states. It seems to me that given the lowered costs of communication and increased availability of national level media, and idependent candidate for president should be able to find in a central cite a set of criteria to meet for achieving balloting status and, upon meeting that criteria, be placed on the ballot of every state.
The criteria could very well be a combination of all criteria from the 50 states and Puerto Rico. The required date for declaring could be the earliest of all the states. My issue is not with the fact that there are a lot of criteria but rather that centralizing this information would allow independents to run on a more even footing with party candidates. If we don't do something along these lines the only other solution would be to create a third party called the "independent" party, that essentially did this job. But that would not achieve the same objective of leaving the race truly open to all who meet the qualifications and can muster enough support to get on the ballot.
In this election year in which barely half of each of the republicans and democrats support the chosen candidate one would think that there is finally ample room for an independent such as Michael Bloomberg to enter the race with a true possibility of winning. The problem is that an independent doesn't have the party machine behind him/her to help understand and achieve ballot status in the individual states. It seems to me that given the lowered costs of communication and increased availability of national level media, and idependent candidate for president should be able to find in a central cite a set of criteria to meet for achieving balloting status and, upon meeting that criteria, be placed on the ballot of every state.
The criteria could very well be a combination of all criteria from the 50 states and Puerto Rico. The required date for declaring could be the earliest of all the states. My issue is not with the fact that there are a lot of criteria but rather that centralizing this information would allow independents to run on a more even footing with party candidates. If we don't do something along these lines the only other solution would be to create a third party called the "independent" party, that essentially did this job. But that would not achieve the same objective of leaving the race truly open to all who meet the qualifications and can muster enough support to get on the ballot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)