Critical Analysis on "Smoke Signals"

The article “Smoke Signals” by Alessandra Potenza explains the rising popularity of unregulated electronic cigarettes among young people. Although electronic cigarettes are free of cancer-causing tobacco, they are still a danger to health, according to U.S. officials, who worry that while they could help smokers quit smoking, electronic cigarettes could bring in a new era of nicotine addiction.

 Potenza includes an example of a 26-year-old student, that lets us see the point of view from a kid and how easily one can start a habit of smoking. “Tiffany Harvey…saw an electric cigarette on Instagram. Out of curiosity, she bought one and tried it… ‘I like to smoke something that’s flavored,’ she says.” Harvey is now an active e-cigarette user. The author also included how e-cigarette companies are attracting more youth to their product. She stated that e-cigarettes come in many youth friendly flavors like chocolate, vanilla, or bubble gum, which is a likely reason they are popular among kids.

Additionally, Potenza includes a comparison of how much e-cigarettes are being advertised today versus the old days when regular tobacco was smoked by more than a third of Americans and tobacco industries had no regulations. “The blu eCigs brand… spent $12.4 million on ads for the first quarter of 2013, up 1,150 percent from 2012.” The shocking increase of advertisement is so scary, it feels like “e-cigarette makers will undo 40 years of efforts to de-glamorize smoking.” The details about Tiffany Harvey and the multiple flavors of e-cigarettes contribute to the main idea of how smoking in youth is on the rise again because cigarette makers are targeting youth. The shocking numbers about the advertising efforts of e-cigarette companies also relate back to the main idea as a supporting detail of the rise in youth smoking.

Potenza is trying to get us to think about how e-cigarettes are going to eventually return America to its nightmare of smoking being a regular activity of almost half of the people. She uses point of view and a strong beginning and ending. First, she uses the words of young people to show the point of view of how easy it is to start a habit of e-electronic smoking. In the beginning of the article, she quotes Harvey, who has “been an e-cigarette smoker ever since” she tried a single e-cigarette and got hooked. Then at the very end of the article the author quotes 21-year-old Bryan Kano, who spoke of his smoking habits. “It’s become kind of a hobby to me,” said Bryan, “I don’t think I would quit anytime soon.”

In addition to showing the points of view, Harvey starts and ends the article with an example of an active smoker, which makes us think about the danger of e-cigarettes. The example of Tiffany Harvey sets the tone for the rest of the article that smoking habits are very easy to pick up. Later in the article, when the author mentions advertisements for e-cigarettes, we think about Harvey and how there are probably many others like her who simply see an e-cigarette and turn into a smoker. When she ends with another smoker who’s hooked on e-cigarettes, it leaves us thinking about how fast the new craze of electronic smoking could spread and make us feel like the “U.S. officials” who worry we will return to our heavy smoking days.

After reading the article, I realize that the author has scared me about a new wave of smoking, especially when I read about the kids and how greatly advertising campaigns have increased in the past couple of years. Because I’m living in this time, I took away a feeling of precaution going into the future, where e-cigarette smoking may be common in my school. I now realize how easy it is to start smoking because of the surprisingly unregulated e-cigarettes, and how hard it is to turn back once it becomes a habit. Before, I thought America was over its smoking problems and is focused on other issues like obesity, but I realize there is a chance smoking can easily become a national problem once again. The article lead me to this thought when it showed the similarities between the advertising campaigns for tobacco that hooked so many people in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s and the advertising campaigns of e-cigarettes now, and how they might have the same effect as the ones in the past.

Now that I’ve heard what e-cigarette smoking is, I think there should be regulations just like there is for tobacco. In some places, there are regulations in place but according to the article, the European Parliament rejected the regulations of e-cigarettes in 28 of its member countries. Although several states have laws, in many others, e-cigarettes are available to minors. I think if we use the same regulation tactics as we did with tobacco, which became much less of a health issue than it had been, e-cigarettes also can be contained and it doesn’t have to spread to more people.

Lastly, I am still curious about what goes into an e-cigarette and if it is really a healthier option and can be used safely to help people quit smoking. What is in an e-cigarette and are any of the ingredients harmful? Also, do e-cigarettes have a similar effect on human health as a regular tobacco cigarette? If not, what effect do they have? This information could help me reach a conclusion of how tight regulations should be, and whether or not the rise of e-cigarettes is as serious as Potenza writes.

Social Action Post 2

The article “The High Price of Cheap Fashion” by Patricia Smith reveals where cheap clothes sold in America come from. Most of isn’t made here at all, but in foreign countries like Bangladesh, China, and Vietnam. The author shows how those countries produce clothing with such cheap prices. The conditions in Bangladesh, for example, are terrible for workers. Wages are very low, there are few regulations in factories, and workers are required to work long, hard hours. Recently, a factory in Bangladesh collapsed because of illegally added floors and machinery, killing 1,127 workers. It is unjust that people in America can buy cheap and trendy clothing at the expense and even death of workers in other counties. The economy in America and the other counties that is based on low wages and mass production is an injustice, especially because they keep down public awareness of the way the clothing is made.

Workers in Bangladesh and other big clothing-producing countries are living in a world of injustice, because their working conditions are so inhumane. According to the article, “Bangladesh has seen some of the worst practices in global garment history.” The wages are as low as $37 a month, which is approximately $2 a day. Countries like Cambodia and Indonesia also have low wages, about 50 cents an hour. Employees are required to work many hours in the unsafe conditions of sweatshops. A building owner in Bangladesh “illegally added extra floors and allowed the factories inside to install heavy equipment that the building wasn’t strong enough to support.” As a result, on April 24, 2013, the building collapsed and killed 1,127 people. For workers to work so hard for so little in unsafe conditions is not fair.

The big clothing brands that make huge profits off mistreated workers and the many consumers who buy their products are the ones who create injustice. Companies know cheap labor leads to cheap prices on clothing and higher profits. In China, workers’ paychecks have been steadily rising and major retailers are taking notice. Companies including Gap, Benetton, and Sears have shifted their production to Thailand, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. This motivates governments of other countries to keep wages low and invest less care in their workers. Consumers also play a role in the injustice suffered by workers. Americans have been gradually buying more clothing per year since the early 1900s. “By 1991, Americans were buying about 34 pieces of clothing a year,” Smith writes. “Today Americans buy on average 68 garments and eight pairs of shoes a year.” Clothing has changed from a long-term investment to a quick fashion that is discarded quickly. Companies that need to keep up are demanding more from their suppliers and probably worsening conditions of labor.

To provide some justice to those laboring dangerously every day, public awareness should be spread. If more people knew what’s behind the low price tags on their sweaters, they would buy fewer of them. If many people bought less from the stores, the retailers will surely notice and try to change. Perhaps the clothes here should be more expensive and the wages in other countries higher. Many people are already aware, such as Grace Donnelly, a college sophomore who now buys more “fair-trade” clothes. “At least you know the clothes you’re buying were made sustainably and the people that made your clothes were paid fairly,” she said. Even if no major changes have been made, everyone should know what went into their clothes and how hard it has been for those who made them. Although nothing can bring back the lives of workers who perished in Bangladesh, spreading awareness would bring justice one step closer for the people just like them still working for low pay in an unsafe factories somewhere out there.

Of all the clothing Americans buy, only two percent is actually made here. The majority of our clothing comes from countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia where workers endure unjust treatment, low wages and unsafe conditions. But it is all the customers who go through so much clothing who are pushing retailers to make more than ever. This brings injustice to workers because now they are being forced to work longer and harder for little pay. As a community, we need to spread awareness of this issue to strive for the rights and justice or laborers living the tough life. “The era of the $4.99 dress is not going to last forever,” said Cline, an optimist for reform. “Things are going to change.”