Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Reflection 2.2 again
I decided to change up my paper A LOT. I wasn't happy with my other paper, and I pretty much changed the whole thing. I kept some facts, but I just wanted to take it in a little bit of a different direction. I am much happier with this one, but I still have work to do.
Essay 2.2 revision (“Legalize it, don’t criticize it”)
Say I asked in front of the classroom if I can see a show of hands, how many people have ever smoked Cannabis Sativa, commonly known as marijuana? I bet that I would see that no one raises their hand. Well obviously no one would want to admit to a criminal act in front of a teacher. But why is it that smoking pot is so forbidden in our society?
Numerous famous intellectuals support marijuana. Al Gore is considered to be the leading figure in awareness of climate change and the environment, but few people know that Al Gore also supports the legalization of marijuana. Our founding father George Washington once said, “Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!” (Hemp: The World’s Most Beneficial Natural Resource, par. 5). Marijuana is one of the safest medicinal substances on the planet and is even supported by many celebrity role models, such as famous Hollywood actor Johnny Depp who stated, “I’m not a big pothead or anything like that… but weed is much, much less dangerous than alcohol” (Reich, par, 12). With the support of some of the greatest thinkers and world leaders of all time it doesn't make sense that marijuana is still illegal.
The truth is that marijuana has many benefits to society and, other than the effects of smoke inhalation, has very few negatives. Those opposed to the legalization of marijuana often claim that with legalization of it will come further problems. Some think that legalization would lead to greater drug use, or that tobacco and alcohol cause enough problems and there is no reason to add a new product into the mix, it causes health problems, or even the broad statement that marijuana will lead to more poverty, crime, and violence.
I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from, but I also think that many people just aren’t educated on the benefits of marijuana. The point is that marijuana is not considered an addictive drug, such as alcohol and tobacco which are legal, and is even in fact used for medicinal purposes. Another benefit is that the taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs. Furthermore, with the legalization of marijuana will save a vast amount of money thrown into our jail systems.
If there is one thing that we can agree on it is the fact that tobacco and alcohol use cause many problems in our society today. But marijuana is not the same as alcohol and tobacco. It is not a lethal drug; it is much safer than those two addictive drugs. Like any substance marijuana can be abused, but it is impossible to overdose on. The most common problem associated with marijuana abuse is lethargic behavior, whereas overuse of alcohol will result in an inability to walk, stand, or even death. It is as the famous reggae singer, Bob Marley, once said, “Herb is the healing of the nation, alcohol is the destruction” (thinkexist, par.1). Cigarettes are another legal substance that is far more dangerous than marijuana. Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of lung cancer in America (Linddell and Armstrong, par. 3). Tobacco cigarettes are filled with harmful chemicals such as nicotine, rat poison, formaldehyde, ammonia, and arsenic (Liddell and Armstrong, par. 8). Both cigarettes and alcohol are immensely addictive phenomenon’s that lead to very serious health problems, mostly cancer, and ultimately death. Marijuana is considered by many to be a dangerous substance but in reality many of our legal drugs are far more hazardous.
Not only is marijuana a safe drug with medical benefits but it could quickly stimulate our failing economy. At its current rate of production legal marijuana generates 35.8 billion dollars per year (Beckett and Herbet 15), these profits from marijuana exceed that of corn and wheat combined. And that’s just the legal profits of legal marijuana. Revenue from illegal marijuana is considered to be around 60 billion dollars a year (Beckett and Herbert 16). That’s a total of 95.8 billion dollars each year. Many economist already believe that marijuana could be our nation’s number one cash crop. It’s already the number one cash crop in twelve states including California, Alaska, and Hawaii (Beckett and Herbert 20). As Thomas Jefferson said, “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country”. Economists estimate that if marijuana were legalized annual tax returns would be 6.2 billion dollars (Beckett and Herbert 20). That’s over 6 billion dollars in the hands of the government instead of in the hands of so called drug criminals. This money could be spent on combating more serious drugs onto our streets.
If the fact that legalizing marijuana will gain enormous sums of money isn’t enough, it is also shown that it will save enormous amounts of money in the jail systems. Approximately 7.7 billion dollars is spent annually due to the overall cost of enforcement of marijuana charges (Austin and Fabelo 5). Legalizing marijuana would eliminate all of these costs. Another taxpayer expense that would be reduced is prison expenses. A Federal Bureau of Investigation statistic shows that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 45 seconds (Austin and Fabelo 7), so by the time you finish reading this paper more than 20 people will have been incarcerated on marijuana related offenses alone. Also, 88% of all people in jail, meaning 2 million of them, are there due to marijuana offenses. In the case that marijuana is legalized that number will be reduced to 440,000 people, quite a large decline. The lack of operating prisons would also diminish dramatically. The cost of operating prisons comes directly out of taxpayers’ pockets. Currently a 40 billion dollar per year expenses would be cut back to 8.8 billion dollars, still a huge amount but much, much less than what it was. With this amount of savings and profits I find it amazing that our capitalist society hasn’t already demanded the legalization of pot.
The way to compromise the two views would to be to set an age limit on the possession of marijuana, like there is on alcohol and tobacco. They are both considered drugs as well, so why wouldn’t it be the same rules? By setting a limit on the age of possessing marijuana, it will make people become more responsible and less likely to end up in jail. I also think that there should be a limit on how much you can have at one time. This would limit any problems by not having too much at one time.
-------jail systems paragraph needs citations, need to work on compromise, need conclusion------------
1. http://www.dope-seeds.com/untoldstory/hemp_2.htm
2. http://interview.johnnydepp-zone2.com/2001_03Reel.html
3. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/herb-is-the-healing-of-a-nation-alcohal-is-the/406854.html
4. http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/46/1/5
5. http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf
6. http://www.jfa-associates.com/BlueprintFinal.pdf
Numerous famous intellectuals support marijuana. Al Gore is considered to be the leading figure in awareness of climate change and the environment, but few people know that Al Gore also supports the legalization of marijuana. Our founding father George Washington once said, “Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!” (Hemp: The World’s Most Beneficial Natural Resource, par. 5). Marijuana is one of the safest medicinal substances on the planet and is even supported by many celebrity role models, such as famous Hollywood actor Johnny Depp who stated, “I’m not a big pothead or anything like that… but weed is much, much less dangerous than alcohol” (Reich, par, 12). With the support of some of the greatest thinkers and world leaders of all time it doesn't make sense that marijuana is still illegal.
The truth is that marijuana has many benefits to society and, other than the effects of smoke inhalation, has very few negatives. Those opposed to the legalization of marijuana often claim that with legalization of it will come further problems. Some think that legalization would lead to greater drug use, or that tobacco and alcohol cause enough problems and there is no reason to add a new product into the mix, it causes health problems, or even the broad statement that marijuana will lead to more poverty, crime, and violence.
I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from, but I also think that many people just aren’t educated on the benefits of marijuana. The point is that marijuana is not considered an addictive drug, such as alcohol and tobacco which are legal, and is even in fact used for medicinal purposes. Another benefit is that the taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs. Furthermore, with the legalization of marijuana will save a vast amount of money thrown into our jail systems.
If there is one thing that we can agree on it is the fact that tobacco and alcohol use cause many problems in our society today. But marijuana is not the same as alcohol and tobacco. It is not a lethal drug; it is much safer than those two addictive drugs. Like any substance marijuana can be abused, but it is impossible to overdose on. The most common problem associated with marijuana abuse is lethargic behavior, whereas overuse of alcohol will result in an inability to walk, stand, or even death. It is as the famous reggae singer, Bob Marley, once said, “Herb is the healing of the nation, alcohol is the destruction” (thinkexist, par.1). Cigarettes are another legal substance that is far more dangerous than marijuana. Smoking cigarettes is the leading cause of lung cancer in America (Linddell and Armstrong, par. 3). Tobacco cigarettes are filled with harmful chemicals such as nicotine, rat poison, formaldehyde, ammonia, and arsenic (Liddell and Armstrong, par. 8). Both cigarettes and alcohol are immensely addictive phenomenon’s that lead to very serious health problems, mostly cancer, and ultimately death. Marijuana is considered by many to be a dangerous substance but in reality many of our legal drugs are far more hazardous.
Not only is marijuana a safe drug with medical benefits but it could quickly stimulate our failing economy. At its current rate of production legal marijuana generates 35.8 billion dollars per year (Beckett and Herbet 15), these profits from marijuana exceed that of corn and wheat combined. And that’s just the legal profits of legal marijuana. Revenue from illegal marijuana is considered to be around 60 billion dollars a year (Beckett and Herbert 16). That’s a total of 95.8 billion dollars each year. Many economist already believe that marijuana could be our nation’s number one cash crop. It’s already the number one cash crop in twelve states including California, Alaska, and Hawaii (Beckett and Herbert 20). As Thomas Jefferson said, “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country”. Economists estimate that if marijuana were legalized annual tax returns would be 6.2 billion dollars (Beckett and Herbert 20). That’s over 6 billion dollars in the hands of the government instead of in the hands of so called drug criminals. This money could be spent on combating more serious drugs onto our streets.
If the fact that legalizing marijuana will gain enormous sums of money isn’t enough, it is also shown that it will save enormous amounts of money in the jail systems. Approximately 7.7 billion dollars is spent annually due to the overall cost of enforcement of marijuana charges (Austin and Fabelo 5). Legalizing marijuana would eliminate all of these costs. Another taxpayer expense that would be reduced is prison expenses. A Federal Bureau of Investigation statistic shows that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 45 seconds (Austin and Fabelo 7), so by the time you finish reading this paper more than 20 people will have been incarcerated on marijuana related offenses alone. Also, 88% of all people in jail, meaning 2 million of them, are there due to marijuana offenses. In the case that marijuana is legalized that number will be reduced to 440,000 people, quite a large decline. The lack of operating prisons would also diminish dramatically. The cost of operating prisons comes directly out of taxpayers’ pockets. Currently a 40 billion dollar per year expenses would be cut back to 8.8 billion dollars, still a huge amount but much, much less than what it was. With this amount of savings and profits I find it amazing that our capitalist society hasn’t already demanded the legalization of pot.
The way to compromise the two views would to be to set an age limit on the possession of marijuana, like there is on alcohol and tobacco. They are both considered drugs as well, so why wouldn’t it be the same rules? By setting a limit on the age of possessing marijuana, it will make people become more responsible and less likely to end up in jail. I also think that there should be a limit on how much you can have at one time. This would limit any problems by not having too much at one time.
-------jail systems paragraph needs citations, need to work on compromise, need conclusion------------
1. http://www.dope-seeds.com/untoldstory/hemp_2.htm
2. http://interview.johnnydepp-zone2.com/2001_03Reel.html
3. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/herb-is-the-healing-of-a-nation-alcohal-is-the/406854.html
4. http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/46/1/5
5. http://www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/BeckettandHerbert.pdf
6. http://www.jfa-associates.com/BlueprintFinal.pdf
Monday, March 22, 2010
Rogerian Reflection
I found my second draft to be a little bit easier than the first. Although it was still difficult for me to see both sides, it was more manageable. The problem for me is I don't know when to write about the other view besides my own. I have so many points to cover just with my own view that I don't know where to begin with the other one. In one of my first couple paragraphs I wrote..If there is one thing we can agree on, it is that alcohol and tobacco are a major concern in today's society. And then I go on to say that marijuana is not the same thing at all. But I don't know if this is enough to agree with the other view because I am hardly agreeing. I need to improve on this in my final draft.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Essay 2.2- The Marijuana Challenge
Under the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, cannabis is classified as a schedule one substance. Schedule one substances are defined as currently having no accepted medical use in the USA and having a high potential for abuse (Ziegler, par.1). Cannabis is the name of the category to which the plant belongs. The preparation made from the stems, buds, and leaves of Cannabis is known as marijuana. The cannabis plant has been the topic of much debate throughout the history of this country. Since the time when marijuana first became illegal it has been grouped with other narcotics as an equivalent. The truth is cannabis has many benefits to society and other than the effects of smoke inhalation has very few negatives. Those opposed to the legalization of the cannabis plant claim that with legalization of cannabis will come further problems. Some think that legalization would lead to greater drug use, or that tobacco and alcohol cause enough problems and there is no reason to add a new product into the mix, or even the broad statement that drugs such as cannabis lead to poverty, crime, and violence.
I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from. But the point is that marijuana is not considered an addictive drug, such as alcohol and tobacco which are legal. Also another benefit of legalizing marijuana is that it would keep less people out of jail. Furthermore the taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs.
If there is one thing that we can agree on it is the fact that tobacco and alcohol use cause many problems in our society today. But cannabis is not the same as alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not a lethal drug; it is much safer than those two addictive drugs. It is established scientific fact that “marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive such as alcohol or tobacco” (Ganeva, par. 4). Today 23 million people are addicted to alcohol, and a whooping 46 million people are addicted to tobacco (Ganeva, par. 7). But in 2004 study, it was shown that only 298,317 people reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, and not because they were necessarily “addicted”, but because they just enjoy it. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
There are so many people in jail today for possessing, using, and selling marijuana. This causes users of marijuana to be more susceptible to punishment by law. It is said that 27,900 inmates are imprisoned solely for marijuana crimes and that 64,000 have some drug conviction linked to marijuana which represents 4% of the US prisoner population (Austin 3).
That doesn’t seem like much but it would save billions of dollars in prison systems. Further, legalizing marijuana would actually stimulate the economy since it would be the number one cash crop. By placing a tax on the drug would create much revenue and more jobs. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California and that is responsible for $14 billion a year in sales. One economist even estimated the state would also save about $1 billion per year by not arresting and imprisoning those caught with small amounts of marijuana (Austin 7). There are many benefits to the economy that comes with the legalization of marijuana. It is something to really think about.
The way to compromise the two views would to be to set an age limit on the possession of marijuana, like there is on alcohol and tobacco. They are both considered drugs as well, so why wouldn’t it be the same rules? By setting a limit on the age of possessing marijuana, it will make people become more responsible and less likely to end up in jail. I also think that there should be a limit on how much you can have at one time. This would limit any problems by not having too much at one time.
Works Cited:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3487894?seq=5
http://www.druglibrary.org/medicalmj/positive_effects_of_marijuana_.htm
http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Rethinking_Decriminalizing_Marijuana.pdf
I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from. But the point is that marijuana is not considered an addictive drug, such as alcohol and tobacco which are legal. Also another benefit of legalizing marijuana is that it would keep less people out of jail. Furthermore the taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs.
If there is one thing that we can agree on it is the fact that tobacco and alcohol use cause many problems in our society today. But cannabis is not the same as alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not a lethal drug; it is much safer than those two addictive drugs. It is established scientific fact that “marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive such as alcohol or tobacco” (Ganeva, par. 4). Today 23 million people are addicted to alcohol, and a whooping 46 million people are addicted to tobacco (Ganeva, par. 7). But in 2004 study, it was shown that only 298,317 people reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, and not because they were necessarily “addicted”, but because they just enjoy it. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
There are so many people in jail today for possessing, using, and selling marijuana. This causes users of marijuana to be more susceptible to punishment by law. It is said that 27,900 inmates are imprisoned solely for marijuana crimes and that 64,000 have some drug conviction linked to marijuana which represents 4% of the US prisoner population (Austin 3).
That doesn’t seem like much but it would save billions of dollars in prison systems. Further, legalizing marijuana would actually stimulate the economy since it would be the number one cash crop. By placing a tax on the drug would create much revenue and more jobs. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California and that is responsible for $14 billion a year in sales. One economist even estimated the state would also save about $1 billion per year by not arresting and imprisoning those caught with small amounts of marijuana (Austin 7). There are many benefits to the economy that comes with the legalization of marijuana. It is something to really think about.
The way to compromise the two views would to be to set an age limit on the possession of marijuana, like there is on alcohol and tobacco. They are both considered drugs as well, so why wouldn’t it be the same rules? By setting a limit on the age of possessing marijuana, it will make people become more responsible and less likely to end up in jail. I also think that there should be a limit on how much you can have at one time. This would limit any problems by not having too much at one time.
Works Cited:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3487894?seq=5
http://www.druglibrary.org/medicalmj/positive_effects_of_marijuana_.htm
http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Rethinking_Decriminalizing_Marijuana.pdf
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Reflection 2.1
In the first draft of my Rogerian Argument paper, I found it very hard to write. I didn’t realize how difficult it is to argue “nicely”. I found myself having to go back and make my words sound more kind. My topic was on legalizing the use of marijuana, there is so much to write about on this topic. I narrowed it down a bit by talking about how it would keep less people out of jail, it’s not an addictive drug such as alcohol which is legal, and how taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs. All of these points support the legalization of marijuana. It was easy for me to do that, the hard part was trying to incorporate how it would be bad. My opinion is that it should be legalized so how am I supposed to talk about the other view too? It was difficult. So I still need to work on that part of my paper a lot. Making a compromise wasn’t as hard as I thought though. My compromise was to set an age limit on being able to purchase marijuana like alcohol. I also compromised by saying that there could be a limit on how much you have at one time like how they already made that legal in California. I still have a lot of work to do on my paper, but I believe that I have a good start.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Essay 2.1
Under the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, cannabis is classified as a schedule one substance. Schedule one substances are defined as currently having no accepted medical use in the USA and having a high potential for abuse (Ziegler, par.1). Cannabis is the name of the category to which the plant belongs. The preparation made from the stems, buds, and leaves of Cannabis is known as marijuana. The cannabis plant has been the topic of much debate throughout the history of this country. Since the time when marijuana first became illegal it has been grouped with other narcotics as an equivalent. The truth is cannabis has many benefits to society and other than the effects of smoke inhalation has very few negatives. Those opposed to the legalization of the cannabis plant claim that with legalization of cannabis will come further problems. Some think that legalization would lead to greater drug use, or that tobacco and alcohol cause enough problems and there is no reason to add a new product into the mix, or even the broad statement that drugs such as cannabis lead to poverty, crime, and violence. I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from. But the point is that legalizing marijuana would keep less people out of jail. Also marijuana is not considered an addictive drug, such as alcohol which is legal. Furthermore the taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs.
If there is one thing that we can agree on it is the fact that tobacco and alcohol use cause many problems in our society today. But cannabis is not the same as alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not a lethal drug; it is much safer than those two addictive drugs. It is established scientific fact that “marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive such as alcohol or tobacco” (Ganeva, par. 4). Today 23 million people are addicted to alcohol, and a whooping 46 million people are addicted to tobacco (Ganeva, par. 7). But in 2004 study, it was shown that only 298,317 people reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, and not because they were necessarily “addicted”, but because they just enjoy it. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
There are so many people in jail today for possessing, using, and selling marijuana. This causes users of marijuana to be more susceptible to punishment by law. It is said that 27,900 inmates are imprisoned solely for marijuana crimes and that 64,000 have some drug conviction linked to marijuana which represents 4% of the US prisoner population (Austin 3). That doesn’t seem like much but it would save billions of dollars in prison systems. Further, legalizing marijuana would actually stimulate the economy since it would be the number one cash crop. By placing a tax on the drug would create much revenue and more jobs. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California and that is responsible for $14 billion a year in sales. One economist even estimated the state would also save about $1 billion per year by not arresting and imprisoning those caught with small amounts of marijuana (Austin 7). There are many benefits to the economy that comes with the legalization of marijuana. It is something to really think about.
The way to compromise the two views would to be to set an age limit on the possession of marijuana, like there is on alcohol and tobacco. They are both considered drugs as well, so why wouldn’t it be the same rules? By setting a limit on the age of possessing marijuana, it will make people become more responsible and less likely to end up in jail. I also think that there should be a limit on how much you can have at one time. This would limit any problems by not having too much at one time.
Works Cited:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3487894?seq=5
http://www.druglibrary.org/medicalmj/positive_effects_of_marijuana_.htm
http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Rethinking_Decriminalizing_Marijuana.pdf
If there is one thing that we can agree on it is the fact that tobacco and alcohol use cause many problems in our society today. But cannabis is not the same as alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is not a lethal drug; it is much safer than those two addictive drugs. It is established scientific fact that “marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive such as alcohol or tobacco” (Ganeva, par. 4). Today 23 million people are addicted to alcohol, and a whooping 46 million people are addicted to tobacco (Ganeva, par. 7). But in 2004 study, it was shown that only 298,317 people reported marijuana as their primary drug of abuse, and not because they were necessarily “addicted”, but because they just enjoy it. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.
There are so many people in jail today for possessing, using, and selling marijuana. This causes users of marijuana to be more susceptible to punishment by law. It is said that 27,900 inmates are imprisoned solely for marijuana crimes and that 64,000 have some drug conviction linked to marijuana which represents 4% of the US prisoner population (Austin 3). That doesn’t seem like much but it would save billions of dollars in prison systems. Further, legalizing marijuana would actually stimulate the economy since it would be the number one cash crop. By placing a tax on the drug would create much revenue and more jobs. Medicinal marijuana is legal in California and that is responsible for $14 billion a year in sales. One economist even estimated the state would also save about $1 billion per year by not arresting and imprisoning those caught with small amounts of marijuana (Austin 7). There are many benefits to the economy that comes with the legalization of marijuana. It is something to really think about.
The way to compromise the two views would to be to set an age limit on the possession of marijuana, like there is on alcohol and tobacco. They are both considered drugs as well, so why wouldn’t it be the same rules? By setting a limit on the age of possessing marijuana, it will make people become more responsible and less likely to end up in jail. I also think that there should be a limit on how much you can have at one time. This would limit any problems by not having too much at one time.
Works Cited:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3487894?seq=5
http://www.druglibrary.org/medicalmj/positive_effects_of_marijuana_.htm
http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Rethinking_Decriminalizing_Marijuana.pdf
Friday, March 5, 2010
Pre-writing Essay 2
I'm not sure what I want to write my Rogerian argument about yet. But I have several ideas. Making marijuana legal, rasing the driving age, abortion, legal drinking age lowered, or global warming. There is just so much that could be talked about with any of these subjects. I want to write something I take an interest in, but it also has to be something that I can see two opposing sides to. If it is something that I have a very strong opinion about and I am not going to be able to see the other point of view, then I should't be doing a Rogerian argument on it. It needs to be something that I can truthfully see both sides, because that will make my paper stronger.
Reflection 1.3
In my third draft I really tried to incorporate more sources and examples than my other drafts. I added a couple more solid examples and used my citations to back them up. I also tried to improve the flow of my paper. I added better transitions so that my paper wouldn't seem so structured. I also now have a longer works cited page. In my other drafts I was more concerned with the actual content and not so much sources, but I realized that is now an essential part of my paper. It makes it sound more reliable than just having my opinion being told. Having every ones feedback in the class was such a huge help. Many of the things that I changed in my paper was due to the feedback of my classmates. I am so glad I had the opportunity to have my paper talked about during class, because it made me see that some of my sentences were confusing and that i needed better citations. I am happy with my third draft and feel I improved a lot.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Essay 1.3- Behind the Make-up
Dear Anita Elberse,
Have you ever wanted something so badly, that you would do anything to have it in your possession? Has that something ever happened to be a product endorsed by a celebrity or athlete? As you pointed out in your 2009 article “Risks and rewards of celebrity endorsements”, today more and more companies are relying on famous people to sell their products. As an associate professor in the Marketing unit at Harvard Business School, you stated your opinion on how essential it is to have celebrity endorsements to be successful. You claim that endorsements are flourishing in three major ways. Celebrities help tap into the companies fan base, endorsements trigger sales by reassuring consumers of the quality of the endorsed brand, and that an alliance with an endorser can convey important information about an attribute that helps differentiate a brand from its competitors. Although endorsements, according to you, may seem like a positive incentive for most major companies, you fail to also note the risks involved. By endorsing celebrities, companies are potentially portraying a bad image causing a smaller fan base, false advertising on the quality of brand, and gaining a negative reputation.
First off you explain that celebrities help tap into the companies fan base. This can be seen in a negative light though. In 2005 Paris Hilton did a very risky commercial for Carl’s Jr., a fast food chain. She was wearing nothing but a bathing suit and heels, washing a car, eating their six dollar hamburger. How does this tap into Carl’s Jr.’s fan base? What does washing a car have to do with their new burger? This poses a problem for the younger Carl’s Jr. fan base. Although this commercial was intended to catch the attention of the male crowd, that doesn’t mean that children aren’t going to see it on television. Some kids idolize Paris Hilton, and seeing her scarfing down a greasy burger in her bathing suit gives them the impression that they should too. Parents seem to be picking up on this, though, and are not happy. The Parents Television Council even stated their opinion on this commercial, saying that it is “soft core porn” (Caldwell, par 3). You say that celebrities “open new markets”, but after that commercial, will those parents ever let their kids eat Carl’s Jr. (par. 10)? They could have potentially lost customers because of the dirty image advertised, instead of gaining new ones. This commercial has nothing to do with the product trying to be sold. Obviously, recruiting Hilton had a negative effect on their fan base, at least according to the angry parents, because the commercial was only on air for a limited amount of time. Commercials have become so farfetched that any celebrity can end up misrepresenting any brand.
Endorsements could also be seen as successful because they reassure customers that the quality of the brand is good, but just because a celebrity is endorsing a brand doesn’t mean they know anything about it. A great example of this is Maria Sharapova, a 23-year-old female tennis star, endorsing the camera brand Canon. Sharapova is a phenomenal athlete, but what does she know about the quality of cameras? This just seems to be false advertising. People who are looking for a camera probably aren’t going to buy one based on what the tennis star endorsing it says alone. Eli Portnoy, a branding strategist, states that; “The reality is people want a piece of something they can’t be” (Creswell, par. 11). But in reality using a product endorsed by celebrities isn’t going to make you become a celebrity. Furthermore, celebrities also use their endorsers as a way to promote themselves. Pop star Rihanna has been involved in about a dozen endorsement and licensing deals in the few years as a celebrity. Her commercial for CoverGirl lip gloss, begins with scenes from her latest music video, and then moves into a close-up of her wearing the lip gloss and ends with a shot of her album cover; this leaves viewers wondering if they just saw a commercial for lip gloss or for her newest album. Some celebrities, such as Rihanna, use endorsing as a way to promote their career, and could care less about the sales of the product being endorsed. “Her representatives say they vet every offer for two key criteria: how does it support the brand known as Rihanna, and will it help sell more albums?” (Creswell, par. 17). To me this just seems to be false advertising, masking the truth, because she is clearly more concerned with her album than the quality of CoverGirl lip gloss that she only has to wear for a day.
You also state that celebrity endorsers are successful because an alliance with an endorser can convey important information about an attribute which helps differentiate a brand from its competitors. Tiger Woods had a six year partnership with Accenture, which is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. While with Accenture Woods “emphasized the attributes such as strategic focus and discipline, the payoffs of its risk-taking behavior, and its ability to recover from setbacks” (Elberse, par. 11). These qualities described Woods, so it was an obvious choice for him to endorse them. But after his affairs with several women were publicized, “the firm decided to cut ties with him to limit a negative impact on its reputation” (Elberse, par.11). They believed that this public affair would put their brand in a negative light, and that he no longer obtained these qualities, so they decided to do away with Wood’s altogether. Reputation is everything to major companies, and if it is in jeopardy they will recover in any way they can. The same thing happened to basketball star, Magic Johnson, in 1991 when he announced that he contracted HIV. He lost nearly twelve million dollars worth of endorsement deals, and companies such as Pepsi and Converse wanted nothing to do with him (Smith, par.7). You are correct that companies use celebrities to try to differentiate from other companies similar to their own, but you fail to note that they have no problem dropping them as soon as their endorser makes a bad judgment just so their reputation isn’t tarnished. Although the endorser may have been loyal to the brand for several years, that means nothing compared to their reputation. When a company signs a celebrity endorser they are signing and image, and under any circumstance they will do anything to salvage it.
As you can now see, endorsements are not all they are cracked up to be. There are risks involved such as creating a smaller fan base by only appealing to a certain crowd, not gaining repeat customers because the quality of the brand isn’t up to par on how celebrities hyped it up to be, and attaining a negative reputation due to the mistake of an endorser. Celebrities are used to trick consumers into buying their endorser’s products, and “Years from now, our descendants will look at us and say, ‘God, these were the most gullible people who ever lived’ “(Creswell, par. 11).
Sincerely,
Railey Hiser
Works Cited
Caldwell, Melissa. "No Apologies for Sexy Paris Hilton Ad." CNNmoney.com. CNN, 1 June 2005. Web. 10 Feb. 2010.
Creswell, Julie. "Nothing Sells Like Celebrity." Media & Advertising. The New York Times, 22 June 2008. Web. 15 Feb. 2010.
Elberse, Anita. "Risks and Rewards of Celebrity Endorsements." CNN Opinion. CNN, 16 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.
Smith, Erin G. "10 Celebrity Endorsement Deals That Went Way Wrong." Law Review. Business Insider, 9 Dec. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2010.
Have you ever wanted something so badly, that you would do anything to have it in your possession? Has that something ever happened to be a product endorsed by a celebrity or athlete? As you pointed out in your 2009 article “Risks and rewards of celebrity endorsements”, today more and more companies are relying on famous people to sell their products. As an associate professor in the Marketing unit at Harvard Business School, you stated your opinion on how essential it is to have celebrity endorsements to be successful. You claim that endorsements are flourishing in three major ways. Celebrities help tap into the companies fan base, endorsements trigger sales by reassuring consumers of the quality of the endorsed brand, and that an alliance with an endorser can convey important information about an attribute that helps differentiate a brand from its competitors. Although endorsements, according to you, may seem like a positive incentive for most major companies, you fail to also note the risks involved. By endorsing celebrities, companies are potentially portraying a bad image causing a smaller fan base, false advertising on the quality of brand, and gaining a negative reputation.
First off you explain that celebrities help tap into the companies fan base. This can be seen in a negative light though. In 2005 Paris Hilton did a very risky commercial for Carl’s Jr., a fast food chain. She was wearing nothing but a bathing suit and heels, washing a car, eating their six dollar hamburger. How does this tap into Carl’s Jr.’s fan base? What does washing a car have to do with their new burger? This poses a problem for the younger Carl’s Jr. fan base. Although this commercial was intended to catch the attention of the male crowd, that doesn’t mean that children aren’t going to see it on television. Some kids idolize Paris Hilton, and seeing her scarfing down a greasy burger in her bathing suit gives them the impression that they should too. Parents seem to be picking up on this, though, and are not happy. The Parents Television Council even stated their opinion on this commercial, saying that it is “soft core porn” (Caldwell, par 3). You say that celebrities “open new markets”, but after that commercial, will those parents ever let their kids eat Carl’s Jr. (par. 10)? They could have potentially lost customers because of the dirty image advertised, instead of gaining new ones. This commercial has nothing to do with the product trying to be sold. Obviously, recruiting Hilton had a negative effect on their fan base, at least according to the angry parents, because the commercial was only on air for a limited amount of time. Commercials have become so farfetched that any celebrity can end up misrepresenting any brand.
Endorsements could also be seen as successful because they reassure customers that the quality of the brand is good, but just because a celebrity is endorsing a brand doesn’t mean they know anything about it. A great example of this is Maria Sharapova, a 23-year-old female tennis star, endorsing the camera brand Canon. Sharapova is a phenomenal athlete, but what does she know about the quality of cameras? This just seems to be false advertising. People who are looking for a camera probably aren’t going to buy one based on what the tennis star endorsing it says alone. Eli Portnoy, a branding strategist, states that; “The reality is people want a piece of something they can’t be” (Creswell, par. 11). But in reality using a product endorsed by celebrities isn’t going to make you become a celebrity. Furthermore, celebrities also use their endorsers as a way to promote themselves. Pop star Rihanna has been involved in about a dozen endorsement and licensing deals in the few years as a celebrity. Her commercial for CoverGirl lip gloss, begins with scenes from her latest music video, and then moves into a close-up of her wearing the lip gloss and ends with a shot of her album cover; this leaves viewers wondering if they just saw a commercial for lip gloss or for her newest album. Some celebrities, such as Rihanna, use endorsing as a way to promote their career, and could care less about the sales of the product being endorsed. “Her representatives say they vet every offer for two key criteria: how does it support the brand known as Rihanna, and will it help sell more albums?” (Creswell, par. 17). To me this just seems to be false advertising, masking the truth, because she is clearly more concerned with her album than the quality of CoverGirl lip gloss that she only has to wear for a day.
You also state that celebrity endorsers are successful because an alliance with an endorser can convey important information about an attribute which helps differentiate a brand from its competitors. Tiger Woods had a six year partnership with Accenture, which is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company. While with Accenture Woods “emphasized the attributes such as strategic focus and discipline, the payoffs of its risk-taking behavior, and its ability to recover from setbacks” (Elberse, par. 11). These qualities described Woods, so it was an obvious choice for him to endorse them. But after his affairs with several women were publicized, “the firm decided to cut ties with him to limit a negative impact on its reputation” (Elberse, par.11). They believed that this public affair would put their brand in a negative light, and that he no longer obtained these qualities, so they decided to do away with Wood’s altogether. Reputation is everything to major companies, and if it is in jeopardy they will recover in any way they can. The same thing happened to basketball star, Magic Johnson, in 1991 when he announced that he contracted HIV. He lost nearly twelve million dollars worth of endorsement deals, and companies such as Pepsi and Converse wanted nothing to do with him (Smith, par.7). You are correct that companies use celebrities to try to differentiate from other companies similar to their own, but you fail to note that they have no problem dropping them as soon as their endorser makes a bad judgment just so their reputation isn’t tarnished. Although the endorser may have been loyal to the brand for several years, that means nothing compared to their reputation. When a company signs a celebrity endorser they are signing and image, and under any circumstance they will do anything to salvage it.
As you can now see, endorsements are not all they are cracked up to be. There are risks involved such as creating a smaller fan base by only appealing to a certain crowd, not gaining repeat customers because the quality of the brand isn’t up to par on how celebrities hyped it up to be, and attaining a negative reputation due to the mistake of an endorser. Celebrities are used to trick consumers into buying their endorser’s products, and “Years from now, our descendants will look at us and say, ‘God, these were the most gullible people who ever lived’ “(Creswell, par. 11).
Sincerely,
Railey Hiser
Works Cited
Caldwell, Melissa. "No Apologies for Sexy Paris Hilton Ad." CNNmoney.com. CNN, 1 June 2005. Web. 10 Feb. 2010.
Creswell, Julie. "Nothing Sells Like Celebrity." Media & Advertising. The New York Times, 22 June 2008. Web. 15 Feb. 2010.
Elberse, Anita. "Risks and Rewards of Celebrity Endorsements." CNN Opinion. CNN, 16 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.
Smith, Erin G. "10 Celebrity Endorsement Deals That Went Way Wrong." Law Review. Business Insider, 9 Dec. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
