Blog 11

The one Bieber video I enjoy, I highly recommend it, you will laugh. http://youtu.be/6XSEi1jTR58 (Bieber attempts to explain his Ann Frank comments also).

I have little to no interest in Justin Bieber. I can honestly say I don't enjoy his music and don't understand the pubic obsession with him. The Ann Frank comments were a little off putting to me, however I can sort of understand his rationalization, she probably would of been a fan. The odd part is that after spending a few hours in an Ann Frank museum, the first thoughts to come his mind were , " Hey, I think she would have been a fan of mine". That exposes a wee-bit of egotism I think.

When thinking about his situation, I cannot help but think that I am watching just another child mega-celebrity at the beginning of the "plunge" stage of their career. When looking at past trends with child stars, there is almost inevitably a fall from grace, a "train wreck" phase. The Michael Jackson, Drew Berrymore, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Macaulay Culkin types all had their peaks, and all had their tremendous plunges into irrelevance and disgrace. I think Bieber is on his way down from the top of the mountain. If I am going by these past trends, my bet is that somewhere in the next 2-6 years Bieber will be out of the public eye and irrelevant (maybe rightfully so).

Of course I don't garner any personal hatred for Bieber and I hope he lives a happy and fulfilling life, but the "celebrity empirical data" is against him. Unfortunately child stars like him have a tendency to have issues in their later years. It is an unfortunate phenomenon.  I think in a lot of these star's cases, they have been used by adults in their lives as investment tools. These businessmen/managers/parents use them for money and notoriety, but deprive the kids of anything close to a normal childhood. It seems to be a rather nasty form of child abuse/neglect.  Only time will tell if Bieber can beat the odds and hold up to the pressures and scrutinies of fame.

"Fame doesn't fulfill you. It warms you a bit, but that warmth is temporary."

Marilyn Monroe

Blog 10

The Johnson& Johnson lawsuit/scandal startled me. With giant, established corporations like this, I find myself having a great deal of trust and faith in them. They seem so "mainstream" that I would never expect such misconduct. The fact that a company like this would willingly put public health in jeopardy, makes me question if they have any regard for the effects of their drugs. I believe there are companies that genuinely care about the public/customers, but events like this waiver confidence. I don't remember reading anything in the article about any prison sentences being brought on those high ranking executives that made the reckless decisions. I certainly hope these crimes don't go without those executives having to pay some prison time. I don't think crimes as seriously as this, putting as many people's livelihoods at risk, can simply be punished with fines. What makes the crimes even more appalling to me, is the nature of the drugs being recklessly prescribed. This was not a case of over prescription of harmless Amoxicillin, we're talking about antipsychotic drugs with very dangerous side effects.  Despite antipsychotic drugs already being controversial/ questionable, J&J was working hard to get them prescribed to as many people as possible. This is a great example of the importance of, at least some, government regulation. In this scenario the government was able to protect/save a lot of people and bring about justice for these irresponsible/careless crimes.

Blog 9

A little video to start of the blog http://youtu.be/x4c_wI6kQyE?t=4s. He seems healthy to me, I think 18 year olds can handle it.

I am always interested in government bans or restrictions of certain substances. Whether alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. I think the issue of substance regulation by government is a little more tricky than people realize. Both sides of the debate have difficult implications to deal with. Heavy regulation of substances to the point of prohibition is noble from the stand point that government is looking out for the interest of the people. However prohibition costs a lot of money and in some sense infringes on individual liberty. Furthermore, prohibitions /restrictions of substances have debatable success, some say they're even counterproductive. On the other hand, is removing all restrictions on every substance responsible? Can the government really just allow people to do what they want to their bodies? The idea of a "free for all" substance policy, suggested by politicians like Ron Paul, tends to make people uneasy. After all, toddlers will start smoking two packs a day! The difficulty seems to lie in walking the line between infringing on individual liberty and government responsibility.

The  New York tobacco legislation seems partially contradictory to me. The law aims to protect citizens from addiction and dangerous health implications. However does raising the legal age 3 years really help? Doesn't this imply that something significant changes in an individual between the age of 18 and 21 that makes the government less concerned about them? From the readings, I got the impression the law doesn't focus on prohibiting use or possession, simply purchase. That seems odd to me. Many of the young cigarette users seem to imply underage individuals already use alternative means to acquire their cigarettes. The legislation doesn't seem to address that issue.

I find it fascinating that the U.S. seems to place such an emphasis on substance regulation, yet we seem to have the most substance abuse and health issues. Countries like Germany, who have a legal drinking age of 16, seem to have far less abuse problems with teens. This makes me wonder about the effectiveness of legalizing ages and the nature of American citizens. Perhaps there is simply something about our society that makes teenagers want to use substances they're not supposed to.