Although this is the end of my Civic Issues blog, this is not the end for the problematic drug policies that the United States continues to implement and enforce today. In 2021, about 61.2 million Americans ages 12 and older used an illicit drug in the past year, and over 9.2 million people of that same demographic misused opioids. While I very evidently have a certain view of drug policy in the United States, the statistics talk for themselves.

Drug policy is such a broad and interesting topic. Not only that, but it is also extremely infuriating. Oftentimes, drug policy is a topic I gravitate towards, and it is one that I always learn more about. Personally, I started learning about the opioid epidemic a few years ago, but I had not come across the Sackler family until maybe a few months ago. I try to keep up to date on drug policy, and it was shocking to me that that was a detail that I was completely ignorant to up until late 2022. I also realized that many others are probably also ignorant to not only the Sackler family, but much of the background of today’s drug use problems in general.

It is important to learn about these problems because it often gives people a newfound sympathy for drug addicts. I can talk about how bad American drug policy is all I want, but the real goal is to help these people. Yes, drug use is often a choice. Drug addiction, though, is not. No one uses drugs with the goal to be so dependent on it that they will be sick if they don’t use it. No one uses drugs with the goal to eventually hate using it, but having to anyways just to feel normal. No one uses drugs with the goal of developing a problem. While many say its not their job to help these people because they chose to do the drug, that is just an utter lack of humanity. It’s really upsetting because drug addicts are people just like you and me. Education often spawns humanity, and it can decrease this sort of thinking.

That being said, if you want to learn more about the effect of drugs on people, I have some great resources. Dopesick Nation is a great program put out by VICE that is free to watch on YouTube; it follows to recovering addicts, Allie and Frankie, as they help pull other addicts out of their addiction. It is really interesting, but often gets heavy, so watch at your own discretion. It deals with overdose, prostitution, and more, and it is a great show to watch to see the realities of addiction.

I encourage everyone to learn a bit more on the topic because it is extremely relevant in our society today. Things need to change, but they won’t until more people realize what’s wrong.

And, we’re here. This is the last post about philosophies, and I definitely learned a lot. I knew about many of these philosophies beforehand, but I loved learning more about them. I think one important thing to realize about each philosophy is that you do not have to simply identify with one. There are different parts of one philosophy that you can really align with, but you can also align with the ideas of another. Personally, I am still most interested in stoicism, but I really enjoyed reading more about Sartre’s idea of bad faith and Camus’ idea that life’s lack of meaning should be the reason we embrace it and form our own values of it.

That being said, I think everyone can learn a lot about themselves when learning about different philosophies. Your outlook on life, opinion on our ability to make choices, or your thoughts of human existence are all something that philosophies explore; different philosophies speak to different ideals, and it is really interesting to be able to put a name to a school of thought that oftentimes feels so personal.

While it’s interesting to put a name to your own personal philosophies, I think it is also very valuable to learn about the different philosophies others hold. Whether they’re ancient philosophies like stoicism, or more modern philosophies like absurdism,  there’s something to learn from each of them. Even if they do not innately align with your perspective, they open your mind up to new ways of thinking. They allow you to not only learn about something new, but also they also allow you to look at your world differently; they allow you to approach relationships differently; they allow you to to approach your relationship with yourself differently. There’s so much more than simple process of “naming thoughts.”

Overall, I’m happy that I chose this topic. Although it was one that I had to put a little more work into researching depending on the philosophy, it was work that I enjoyed doing. I know philosophy isn’t for everyone. It is hard to imagine that our thoughts today have anything to do with some guy that wrote a book over a hundred years ago. Sometimes it seems extremely negative, and other times it seems overly optimistic. Still, with all that information, it is nice to find a good medium ground within yourself (not to mention you’ll sound smart talking about it haha).

I’ll always recommend philosophy as something to learn about. It’s interesting, broad, and oftentimes new. I hope this passion blog has inspired you to learn a bit more about some philosophies, whether they are ones I’ve mentioned or other ones. I know that I will definitely continue learning about the subject!

It’s no secret that many high school and college age students are sleep deprived. Often, people will try to seemingly one-up each other based on who got less sleep. That is why I have chosen to advocate for the importance of sleep.

Many of us know that sleep is important but don’t realize the long-term effects of not getting enough sleep; it’s hard to imagine that being sleep deficiency can go further than simply feeling tired the next day, but that’s the reality. My goal with this is to actually communicate the effects of sleep deficiency, both on the basis of short term and long term risks. The action that I would advocate for is pretty simple: get more sleep!

My target audience for this is mainly students. Oftentimes, it’s easier for us to prioritize other things. Whether it’s homework, hanging out with friends, or going to a party, going to bed at a reasonable time doesn’t always seem like the best choice. I know people that regularly go to bed at 2 or 3 a.m., and they still somehow wake up by 8 a.m. and attend their 9 a.m.; college students were an obvious choice. That being said, I wanted to push it towards students in general because I know many high schoolers also struggle with a consistent sleep schedule, and I can imagine grad school student do as well. Students as a general population were a great audience for this. They are the people that will feel the effects of a good sleep schedule more immediately.

There are also quite a few values or motivations that people can associate with having a good sleep schedule. I think a lot of it goes into mental health, physical health, and self improvement. Mental health is one of those things that is more immediately impacted; not walking around tired is definitely great, plus improved sleeping habits have the potential to decrease likelihoods of things like depression. Physical health is something more impacted in the long run. Sleep deficiency has been linked to heart problems, increased blood pressure, and more. Doing something as simple as sleeping more could really impact your quality of life later on. Finally, it’s also a great way to better yourself. A better sleep schedule can help with paying attention in class (or even going in the first place), being more focused while doing homework, and getting better test scores.

Sleeping just a bit more is such a simple, doable change for your life, but people need to be reminded of the importance of it in order for their habits to change. By improving your sleep schedule, you can see so many positive changes in your life.

One organization that has not shied away from controversy is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The media saw that name come up time and time again, especially during the Trump presidency. Just as well as any other organization, the NRA plays on its consumer in hopes of raising funds and increasing sales. This tactic, though, is hidden by a facade of promised truth and transparency that the right so often guarantees. But this genuine honesty is too good to be true, isn’t it?

While the right wing has often championed exclusionary policies and beliefs, the NRA website somehow decided to completely omit that behavior and encourage people from a wide variety of interests to join: “Whether you are a hunter, competitor, collector, or just a gun enthusiast, you can revel in your passion and discover new interests through the NRA” (National Rifle Association). This new-found sense of inclusion is definitely worth while when it comes to getting as many donations!

After the NRA wins over some people with seeming inclusion, the next move is to secure members through throwing out lots of statistics and dates; if there are lots of big numbers, then the organization must be for a good cause, right? In just 14 short paragraphs in the “A Brief History of the NRA” section, about 17 dates or years and 13 staggering statistics are thrown at the reader. That doesn’t even include any of the historically significantly people they name, or even the NRA’s involvement in some historical events. It’s a lot of information in a little bit of space.

If I’m being honest, I thought the NRA would play on some of the more ridiculous arguments it has made in the past. While I have my own preconceptions about the association, they at the very least know how to play a person. To be fair, if I saw anything other than indisputable facts, I’d be even quicker to be wary about the organization. It’s obvious that the NRA is trying to use such a strong appeal to logic because numbers are all that are really available; when guns are the cause of thousands of deaths annuals, you can’t make much of an emotional or personal argument. That being said, the NRA does often appeal to “core American values”. Family, tradition, and, of course, freedom are some of the values that the NRA prides itself on seemingly exhibiting. For many, that is as personal of an appeal as you can get.

That being said, even a website like this has some faults. I could not find some evident fallacies, but one way the NRA is able to get some members is by offering a “free gift” that you get to pick. Of course, you only receive this gift after singing up and paying for at least a year-long membership but, hey, at least you get a free knife right? Or, you can pay $1,500 for a life-long membership and receive a cool jacket (you can either pay up front or pay $50 down and then 58 MONTHLY PAYMENTS OF $25)!

I don’t doubt that the NRA hasn’t been successful with its tactics; it is so politically influential for a reason. Still, it was interesting to think about how some of these tactics end up working.

Harm reduction policies are an effective approach to alleviating the societal effects of drug addiction.

American drug policy is hardly a beacon of light when compared to other countries. The hard-line, no-tolerance approach our country had adopted in previous decades oversaw hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result of drug abuse and millions of people arrested for violating drug law policies. On top of that, 19.7 million Americans battled a substance abuse disorder in 2017 alone. The War on Drugs has obviously failed.

That being said, drugs aren’t just a U.S. problem; the difference, though, is that while some countries have implemented hard-line policies in the past, they saw that they were not working and they implemented other policies. Many of these countries, like Canada, Brazil, the Netherlands, have implemented drug policies that have proven to be more successful than aggressive drug criminalization policies. I’ve been interested in harm reduction policies for a while, and I love getting the opportunity to express that interest in school whenever I can. A lot of people are effected by current policies; they are simply seen as common criminals as opposed to people who need help. While drug addiction is a complex issue that is hard to tackle, harm reduction policies are able to alleviate some of the effects our society, as well as the addicts, feels as a result of addiction.

The book I chose was Harm Reduction: National and International Perspectives. Each chapter tackles a different facet of harm reduction; whether it’s about the history, the different forms of it, or the different countries that have had harm reduction policy movements. From the very basics of the idea to the complexities of different policies that have worked or failed, it covers it all. Each chapter is written by a different person or set of people; depending on the topic, the authors are experienced clinical researchers that have researched drug abuse in the past, or well-versed sociologists that have studies the societal impacts of drug abuse. It’ll be a great book for being to explore the different pillars of harm reduction all in one place.

Because harm reduction is such a robust topic, it will be helpful to have some guiding questions:

1. Why are harm reduction policies often viewed as unfavorable to many people?
2. What are some of the different harm reduction policies the world has seen work in the past, and what are some of the different policies that have failed?
3.  What makes harm reduction policies the favorable choice in the long run (if, in fact, they are)?

I’m really excited to dive deeper into this issue. Even though I know quite a bit about drug policy and harm reduction, I feel like I am still just scratching the surface. I look forward to being about to go beyond the surface of harm reduction specifically.

It’s hard to talk about the opioid epidemic without mentioning the family that was essentially at the heart of it: the Sackler family. In 1952, three psychiatrist brothers, Raymond, Arthur, and Mortimer Sackler purchased a pharmaceutical company by the name of Purdue. Arthur Sackler also proved to be a pioneer in advertising within the pharmaceutical industry. Because of him, Valium became the first drug to pass 100 million sales. He did this by marketing it as a cure-all drug for a made-up ailment he called “psychic tension.” Before this, a drug like Valium would only be used to treat anxiety. By simply making up something like “psychic tension” that entailed a wider variety of symptoms that almost anyone could fit, Valium was able to be marketed to a much wider audience.

In the interest of condensing the story a bit, let’s skip a few steps to when Arthur Sackler’s nephew, Richard Sackler, invented OxyContin. Purdue needed to make a drug similar to Morphine and its effects, but they couldn’t simply start commercially selling morphine. By this point, morphine had gained a reputation as an end-of-life hospice drug, and they needed a new way to profit. OxyContin, which has the active ingredient of Oxycodone,  replaced the morphine. Additionally, by 1999, Purdue found that the addiction rate for opioidswas 13%, not 1% as previously thought. By 2015, Purdue was even allowed to market this drug to children as young as 11 years old. Interestingly enough, they never officially published this paper.

As OxyContin became more commonly prescribed, cases of addiction became apparent. Instead of admitting that the drug is addictive, Purdue simply blamed users for misusing it. On top of that, Purdue constantly wanted to expand their market, so they started pay people off all throughout the supply chain. Distributors were given rebates, pharmacists were given refunds, and patients were even given coupons. Most importantly, though, Purdue began paying off doctors. They were, after all, the people that citizens went to in order to receive recommendations or prescriptions for the different medications they had to take. Between 1996 and 2001, OxyContin prescriptions grew from 300,000 to almost 6 million in the U.S. alone. By 2001, OxyContin sales had passed $1 billion annually.

While Purdue was doing well for itself for a long time, they would keep pushing the limits that eventually led to their now multiple multimillion- and multibillion-dollar settlements and lawsuits.  People began complaining  that OxyContin’s promised 12-hour long effect were wearing off within 8 hours. Hearing this, Purdue could’ve done one of two things: increase the frequency of the opioid dosage, or increase the dosage itself. If they chose the latter, it would increase peoples’ risk of become addicted to the drug. What did Purdue end up doing, exactly? Choosing the latter. Opioid addiction increased rapidly.

Eventually, people began having problems with Purdue’s practices. Whether it was the misleading marketing, or purposely lying to the public about the dangers of opioids, they had to pay. There is much more to this story, and I encourage you to look into it. It’s unfortunate to see the the that people had for their doctors and medical professionals was exploited by those who wanted nothing more than profit.

When people who are into philosophy think of existentialism, they often think of two people: Jean-Paul Sartre, who we talked about last time, and Albert Camus (1913-1960). These two are often associated because they were once close friends who eventually had a great, philosophical falling out (it was a pretty big deal at the time). Interestingly enough, although many people inaccurately label him as an existentialism, Camus never called himself that (part of the reason was because he wanted to distance himself from Sartre’s existentialism ).

Camus is known for his philosophy of absurdity. He says that human existence is innately absurd, and we should embrace that in order to create value and meaning. He acknowledges that life really has no meaning; the universe is something that simply exists and it is indifferent to people’s individual lives. Let’s take the myth of Sisyphus. If you’re not familiar with the story, Sisyphus was condemned to a fate that said that if he rolled a boulder to the top of the hill that he is on. Unfortunately, before he can get to the top of the hill with the boulder, the boulder rolls down each time. So, he is condemned to an eternity of rolling a boulder up a hill. While we know that his rock will fall down each time and his work is essentially meaningless, this could also be a blessing. Let’s also remember that we are essentially Sisyphus. We are living a life without meaning, but we still study, work, get stressed out, etc. This is exactly what Camus means when he says we have to appreciate the absurdity of our existence.

Camus argued that there are simply 3 ways to deal with the absurdity of life: suicide, faith, and acceptance. Suicide and faith, though, are irrational escapes to absurdity. On one hand, suicide removes the physical form of absurdity that is human life (which in turn means the absurd cannot exist), while on the other hand faith simply defies rationality. That leaves us with one plausible way to deal with absurdity: acceptance. The sooner we accept that life has no absolute meaning, the sooner you can be free and really start to live your life. It also allows us to attach our own meaning to our lives, and realize that the meaning of our life is different than that of somebody else’s. For example, while many of us may think we need to get a certain, high paying job, or have “X” number of kids in order for our lives to have meaning, we have to remember that meaning is individual; no one is really watching us and we are free to choose how our lives will be at any point in time.

Honestly, I did not know much about Camus’ philosophy prior to writing this. If I have to pick a side, though, regarding the epic Camus vs. Sartre debate, I really enjoyed the foundations of absurdism; it seemed like a more comforting and less ignorant philosophy as opposed to some of Sartre’s views.

The world we live in is not homogenous. There’s not one type of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc. While specific people from these groups, like straight, white men, have been lucky enough to be constantly represented in media, many others have not been. Because of that, it’s time other groups of people are being represented in media. Luckily, this has become an issue more people are aware of thanks to the internet. There have been many posts, articles, and papers published regarding the effects of underrepresentation, as well as the importance of including it in the first place. Here are two great ones I think everyone would benefit from reading:

https://www.diggitmagazine.com/papers/diversity-and-representation-tv-and-movies-and-why-it-matters

https://medium.com/@Laurenwash/the-importance-of-representation-in-film-and-media-2d006149cac9

One of the articles makes an excellent point in saying that Hollywood is the exporter of culture. The things that are produced in Hollywood are able to be dispersed not only in the United States, but all over the world: “the influence that media has is a tremendously weighty responsibility and unfortunately, many of these studios have created harmful false narratives” (Washington 2019). In other words, Hollywood (aka American media in general) has not done a sufficient job with the responsibility it has been given.

The article by Lauren Washington  brought up a really good point about minority representation; for many black kids, Black Panther (2018) was the first time they watched a superhero movie with a black actor as the protagonist. Gravity (2013) was the first time many girls saw a woman as the protagonist in the male-dominated field of science and astronomy. THESE ARE BOTH MOVIES RELEASED WITHIN THE LAST 10 YEARS! Additionally, the article by Florentine Bakkenes gives some interesting statistics regarding how inclusive Hollywood really was. For example, “In the top 100 films of 2017, 42% did not include any black women” (Bakkenes 2022). Even numbers wise, it is evident that Hollywood has failed.

As a white woman born and raised in the U.S., I’ve been lucky in that I have not have had trouble relating certain parts of my identity to certain characters. Still,  even as a fairly popular depiction, I’ve failed finding similarities between myself and other characters in other ways. I’ll admit, it’s pretty easy to spot a white girl on TV. That being said, I don’t ever remember watching a character whose parents were immigrants. In turn, I always asked myself, “Why can’t my family just be more American?” Instead of embracing certain parts of my culture when I was younger, I wanted to reject them. Another example of this is when I used to tell my parents that when I got older I was going to change the spelling of my name. My name is Veronika, and I wanted it to be spelled the typical “American way” (Veronica). That’s just one part of my identity that has not been traditionally represented well in media, and it affected me a lot when I was younger. When I think about it, I would lucky enough to see people that looked like me. The parts that didn’t really line up with my identity really affected me, so I can’t imagine being a little girl and not even seeing someone that resembled me.

I don’t think it’s a question of whether or not people are affected by a lack of representation. Because of that, I don’t there should even be a question of whether or not there’s an obligation to present diversity in films, movies, shows, and more. Hollywood has been given a responsibility, and it needs to be embraced. Even if you felt as though you were represented well by the media, what parts of your identity do you think were misrepresented, or not represented at all? Additionally, because there is now a discussion regarding media representation, do you think Hollywood has improved at all? To what extent?

When thinking about some online deliberations, I didn’t know which way I wanted to go. Did I want to read about whether or not people thought Sam Smith and Kim Petras deserved the Grammy for “Unholy?” Did I want to see people argue about whether they thought Messi or Ronaldo is the greatest football player of all time? Did I want to read someone’s tweets about how they thought someone else should’ve been eliminated on the latest episode of RuPaul’s Drag Race? Any of those would’ve been fine, but I wanted to weigh my options; that’s why I decided to go to Reddit. I stumbled upon a thread titled “What is the most hilarious/stupid internet argument in existence?” It definitely did not disappoint. One user posted a link to a body building thread, and it was interesting, to say the least.

First off, here is the link for your enjoyment: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751

Basically, the body building thread starts off with someone asking if it’s safe to do full body workouts every other day, as they don’t have enough time to have an individual split for their upper body/lower body. Shortly after, someone asks, “If I go every other day I will be at the gym 4-5 times a week, is that over training?” Things quickly go south from here, and people literally seemingly formulate equations because a debate started regarding how many days a week there are.

“What do you mean you don’t start counting on Sunday? IT’s a [freaking] DAY!”

It’s hard to read this thread without laughing. Does the week start on Saturday? Sunday? Monday? Is a typical week Sunday to Saturday, or Sunday to Sunday? Are there 6 days between Sunday and Saturday, or are there 7?

It’s hard to call this a deliberative conversation to any degree. The users often swear, use all caps to convey their frustration, and use some words that would not be considered very politically correct today. I think what this post does really well is show a lack of respect for other peoples’ viewpoints, but it’s also hard to say that viewpoints are not respected where there are, in fact, only 7 days in a week. While many of these people express their (correct) reasoning as to how there’s, for example, 7 days days spanning between Sunday and Saturday, in a condescending, frustrating tone, it’s hard to blame them. The days of the week are something we learned in first grade, and it’s a little bit concerning to see how convinced people are that they are right, even though they are quite literally wrong.

I’m not really sure if this changes things, but the post was made in 2008. I would hope that we’ve maybe made some progress, at least in terms of learning the days of the week. Nevertheless, it’s funny to read something so blatantly ignorant and wrong. In moments like this, I find myself questioning whether or not people are really serious. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those times when people were completely serious when making a post.

Let’s take a step back from North American drug policy and look at my personal favorite country when it comes to the topic, Portugal. In July of 2001, Portugal made the executive decision to decriminalize the personal use and possession of illegal drugs. Just to be clear, that does not mean that drug use, or the drugs themselves, became legal. There are consequences, but incarceration is not the answer in most cases. For example, someone caught consuming, purchasing, or possessing  up to a ten days’ supply of an illicit drug is referred to an administrative panel. This panel recommends the person who was caught for treatment, fines, warnings, or other penalties. On the other hand, the possession or sale of illicit substances that exceed a ten day supply still remains illegal. This policy was put in place to specifically target high-volume drug trafficking. So, yes, if you get caught with 4 kilos of black tar heroine upon crossing the Portuguese border, you will still be arrested.

Right away, I want to debunk some misconceptions. First off, it’s important to know that while Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of drugs, it does not mean that you’re free to sell a gram of meth to Suzy down the street. The substances themselves stayed illegal. What does that mean exactly? Let’s say you’re pulled over with 6 grams of cocaine sitting in your cup holder, and the police officer sees it. They will likely refer you to the previously mentioned administrative panel, but that doesn’t mean you are sent on your merry way to snort your coke. The cocaine is confiscated. What’s important to know about Portugal’s drug policy is that it does not aim to punish the drug user, it aims to punish the drug.

Portugal saw drug abuse as a public health problem, and they decided to treat it as one. Sure, it’s easy to catch an addict and throw them in jail, but Portugal realized this was not a great long-term solution. They could’ve easily followed the U.S.’s example and spent billions of dollars militarizing their police and cracking down on “criminals,” but they chose a more rehabilitative route.

I think what’s really worked for Portugal is not only their decriminalization policy, but the expansions of their substance-abuse treatment programs. Statistically, the number of people in Portugal who were able to receive treatment significantly rose post-decriminalization. On top of that, Portugal has also implemented harm reduction policies, like needle exchanges. Many of these policies have seen much opposition in the U.S., so they are not popular here (for reference, see the previous post).

If you couldn’t tell, I am a huge supporter of drug decriminalization. It’s about time the justice system stops treating drug addict like criminals, and starts treating them like people who just need help. It’s easy to think that America is far from nationally decriminalizing drugs, but Oregon became the first state to start experimenting with decriminalization relatively recently; it will be interesting to see how the policy impacts a U.S. demographic.