Recently, a new type of candy is being released in America which are sparking lots of controversy. These type of candy are shaped as Marijuana but have no effects of the actual drug. The "Pothead Ring Pots" and "Pothead Lollipops" are packaged candy that are found in retail stores across America, which can even be ordered online. Although the candy just tastes like sour apple and contains nothing illegal, the package is suggesting with the word "Legalize" and a joint-smoking, peace sign-waving user on it.The areas of knowledge related to this article is ethics, can the government be allowed to halt the sale of certain products to suppress a political message which they find offensive? Those who agree to selling the product argue that it is merely "just" candy, the wholesaler of the product stated that "We don't advocate for a political position. We just look at what the marketplace wants and respond to it," "It's just candy... It's sour apple flavor, it doesn't claim to be pot in disguise or anything like that." In the ever growing world people get bored easily and are attracted to new and creative ideas instead of those which are seen as plain and boring. The marijuana shaped candy is merely a trend that attracts youngsters, just so that can act "cool" to all their peers. There is no direct relationship between eating this product and eventually going to take drugs. A study was conducted to see if children who ate fake candy cigarattes ended up smoking in the future; only 22% of these children eventually went to become regular smokers. This proves that people aren't necessarily going to become drug users just because they went and bought Pothead Lollipops as children.
Many of those who are against selling the product believe that the kids are only buying this candy to "fit in" with their peers, the exact same reason that causes many drugs users to start using drugs. Kids will have the belief that (currently) illegal substances are acceptable in society and it is something which should be legalized. It is putting the children in a position where they can easily mistake marijuana as something beneficial and similar to candy, merely a substance one takes to "lighten" their day.
I personally believe that there is no right for government to ban these types of products as the real reason behind making children into drug addicts are due to the lack of parenting. When a kid asks for money from their parents to buy such candy they can easily say "No" and do not have to let their children buy such product. Some may argue that these children may buy it themselves but it should be the paren'ts responsibility to ensure that the children are sensible enough to go out on their own and decided what to spend their money on. The product is something shaped liked marijuana but will children really know what it is? For children who have no idea what it is will be likely to believe that the candy is merely in a shape of a leaf and even the children have an idea of what they are buying, marijuana are typically not found in that type of shape as they are usually rolled up similar to a cigarette. Other products such as alcohol, firearms, cigarettes are those which are potential bad influences to children as well and are easily viewed and advertised how come they are not banned? With the amount of potential "bad" influences around in our society, children aren't necessarily going to become alcoholic, violent smokers. The future of children is majorly dependent on the education that their parents give and just by banning items that seem to have a bad influence doesn't really solve the problem. Parents should learn how to educate their children into knowing the difference between right and wrong.
The issue in this article is sim
ilar to whether or not certain TV shows should be banned due to violence which can result in children to become people who are easily agitated and resort to violence to solve their conflicts. Also related to this is whether or not government are allowed to control the media and market and ban anything that opposes their ideals, such as the ban on time travel themed TV shows in China.
Another controversial example is toy guns. Toy guns are popular especially among little boys. If marijuana-shaped candy could be thought as encouraging drugs, does it mean that toy guns are encouraging violent behavior as well? Since guns are used to kill or threaten people, are toy guns used to teach the kids how to do the same act too? In my opinion, if there isn't a direct relationship between eating the marijuana-shaped candy and eventually taking drugs, there is probably no direct relationship between playing with toy guns and becoming killers in the future. As mentioned in the article, the parents could control what they buy for their kids. Parents should beware of what their kids play and interact with. If the parents personally don't categorize toy guns as violent toys, then I guess it's fine for the kids to play with them. Therefore, if parents are okay with the marijuana-shaped candy, then the government shouldn't ban it since there isn't a high likelihood that these kids who eat them become drug users.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the Marihuana shaped candies should not be banned, for if this product is banned, many more other products should be banned as well. Like Catherine mentioned in her comment, products such as toy guns, swords, and other weapon replica toys have been in the market on sale for years. However, there is no direct correlation between whether or not playing with toy weapons will lead to the tendency to become criminals, therefore marihuana shaped candies shouldn’t be thought to promote drug usage . I think packaging and commercial nowadays often use techniques as such to attract attention and cause a trend. Often these commercials involve false or negative messages but it is with these messages that the audience gets drawn to the product that the company is trying to promote. This draws attention to personal creativity vs. the society. If the society thinks that the design is offensive and unethical, should the designer's creativity be banned? This issue can be seen in a lot of artist's works. Some artists create art involving controversial subjects such as politics, religion, drugs, and sex, but should their creativity be banned if the society does not accept it?
ReplyDeleteI understand your argument with the 'apparent' correlation between children being exposed to marijuana shaped candy and the development of weed-smoking habits. However, your related study about eating cigarette candy does not state what kind of environment the children were living in. In psychology, studies have shown that environmental factors could play a role on the development of certain habits. How can any one measure how much the candy will affect a child's, later, development of marijuana smoking. There are so many extraneous variables involved, that the candy no longer seems like the prominent factor.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, studies don't prove whether or not something is correlated; it only tacks on more knowledge and evidence to previous studies.
Another example is media such as TV shows. While viewer discretion is advised, the US television still plays many TV shows scenes of violence, sex, drug use, etc that many kids have access to. Like the candy, these TV shows advocate a message that kids might grow to be familiar with. Although there are various differences between TV shows and the candy, the government stance to TV shows should be taken into consideration as a reference point. The government doesn't appear to control the TV shows that are being played albeit the messages that these shows might be sending, so from this regard, it would make sense if the government doesn't control the type of candy that is being sold. A difference between TV shows and candy though is that TV shows that I know of don't really explicitly send a political message whereas the candy here does that, so perhaps because of this difference the government's treatment to the selling of this candy would differ from the government's treatment to the playing of TV shows.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think that the government should be allowed to ban any product unless it does harmful stuff to people, such as heroine. However, I think that the government is allowed to stop the sale of items that might influence kids to bad deeds, such as what Catherine said, toy guns, especially gas pumped toy guns, which are capable of killing small animals. Toy guns deliver a message that guns are fun and it is okay to shoot it at each other, because it doesn't hurt, except gas pumped ones. This is bad because real guns kill people, therefore toy guns, even though not necessarily, might produce adults with a more relaxed view on guns, which can cause problems such as more relaxed laws on firearms, allowing everyone to own one. This can cause problems such as more cases of armed robbery and homicides due to more easy access to firearms. The difference between the marijuana candy and toy guns, is that the marijuana candy's only similarity with marijuana is that it resembles the symbol for marijuana. The similarity between toy guns and firearms are strikingly similar; it shoots, it looks exactly the same, and it hurts. Therefore the government should be paying more attention to toy guns than marijuana candy.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. I don't think these marijuana shaped candies should be banned if it does not have any effects of the actual drugs. However we should also look at this through the eyes of our parents. Would we want our kids to be exposed to this type of candy that could potentially advertise the use of marijuana? Children who do not know what marijuana is or what shape the plant is could potentially be exposed to knowing the drug through this candy. As a sister with a 7 year-old brother, I certainly would not want my brother to be exposed to this type of candy, especially because he's at the age when he's curious about everything. Yes, the children might just think the candy is shaped in a leaf but what's more disturbing is the fact that the packaging of this candy has "Legalize" on it, which could be promoting legalization of marijuana.
ReplyDeleteYes if we think about it, this candy does not need to be banned because it doesn't have any dangerous substances in it. But at the same time we have to think in a different perspective. I certainly would not want my younger brother or my future kids to be exposed to the "drug world" through this type of candy.
Even though the seller of this candy has the rights to sell this candy, I think the government is doing the right step of trying to ban this candy if it promotes the use of marijuana or other drugs.
I agree that the marijuana shaped candies should not be banned as if they are to be banned, there are many other much more dangerous products that should be banned instead. An example as Catherine stated would be toy guys where there is no correlation between kids using toy guns and them becoming killers in the future. An example of a product that might be more dangerous than these candies would be violent video games like GTA (Grand Theft Auto). Research has proven that these games not only increases aggression but also decreases pro-social behavior of the people who play them. This is much more dangerous than the marijuana shaped candies that do not seem to have any effect on the children. However, if the candy starts to affect the children and starts making them want to buy marijuana, then I think that it is ethically right for the government to intervene and ban these products that encourage children to do ethically wrong things.
ReplyDelete