<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Most Pro-Drugs Hour of Television Ever Aired</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/</link>
	<description>Overthinking It subjects the popular culture to a level of scrutiny it probably doesn&#039;t deserve.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:53:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Heather</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12994</link>
		<dc:creator>Heather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12994</guid>
		<description>After reading this article I took a Claritin-D, no joke, ask God. It DID make me feel better. However, I went to sleep and did not rock a mash-up competition.

Ingredients of Claritin-D:

240g psuedoephedrine sulfate (nasal decongestant)
10mg loratadine (antihistamine)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After reading this article I took a Claritin-D, no joke, ask God. It DID make me feel better. However, I went to sleep and did not rock a mash-up competition.</p>
<p>Ingredients of Claritin-D:</p>
<p>240g psuedoephedrine sulfate (nasal decongestant)<br />
10mg loratadine (antihistamine)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lewis</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12987</link>
		<dc:creator>Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 06:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12987</guid>
		<description>@Matthew Belinkie

They should have a special &quot;continuity nitpick of the week&quot; section, where we can tell them what was most wrong with the show they like so much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Matthew Belinkie</p>
<p>They should have a special &#8220;continuity nitpick of the week&#8221; section, where we can tell them what was most wrong with the show they like so much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stokes</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12985</link>
		<dc:creator>stokes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:28:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12985</guid>
		<description>But there is still a difference between vanilla claritin and claritin D. I don&#039;t know what it is, but I&#039;ve had both, and claritin D knocks me for a &lt;em&gt;loop&lt;/em&gt;.  And I&#039;m pretty sure that regular claritin is loratidine too.  Maybe the D version  is stronger? Or it&#039;s just cut with a bunch of caffeine to offset the drowsiness caused by loratidine?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But there is still a difference between vanilla claritin and claritin D. I don&#8217;t know what it is, but I&#8217;ve had both, and claritin D knocks me for a <em>loop</em>.  And I&#8217;m pretty sure that regular claritin is loratidine too.  Maybe the D version  is stronger? Or it&#8217;s just cut with a bunch of caffeine to offset the drowsiness caused by loratidine?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: M Chan</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12984</link>
		<dc:creator>M Chan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12984</guid>
		<description>Hey guys, I want to clear up some of the science here.  Claritin D is NOT pseudoephedrine.  Although it is also a decongestant, Claritin D is loratadine, which works by an entirely different physiological pathway (for those of you who are curious, pseudoephedrine alters the autonomic nervous pathways, which are responsible for body secretions; Claritin D blocks histamine receptors, which mediates allergic responses).  There is NO pseudoephedrine in Claritin.

Long ago, pseudoephedrine was the active ingredient in Sudafed, which is where the drug gets its brand name.  However, because of the possibility of pseudoephedrine to be converted into methamphetamines, the substance has been banned by the FDA.  Nowadays, what is now called Sudafed contains phenylephrine, NOT pseudoephedrine.

So again.  There is no pseudoephedrine in Claritin, nor is there any in Sudafed.  In fact, no legal over-the-counter drug certified by the FDA contains pseudoephedrine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey guys, I want to clear up some of the science here.  Claritin D is NOT pseudoephedrine.  Although it is also a decongestant, Claritin D is loratadine, which works by an entirely different physiological pathway (for those of you who are curious, pseudoephedrine alters the autonomic nervous pathways, which are responsible for body secretions; Claritin D blocks histamine receptors, which mediates allergic responses).  There is NO pseudoephedrine in Claritin.</p>
<p>Long ago, pseudoephedrine was the active ingredient in Sudafed, which is where the drug gets its brand name.  However, because of the possibility of pseudoephedrine to be converted into methamphetamines, the substance has been banned by the FDA.  Nowadays, what is now called Sudafed contains phenylephrine, NOT pseudoephedrine.</p>
<p>So again.  There is no pseudoephedrine in Claritin, nor is there any in Sudafed.  In fact, no legal over-the-counter drug certified by the FDA contains pseudoephedrine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Belinkie</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12983</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Belinkie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12983</guid>
		<description>@Lewis -
So you&#039;re saying he was cutting them a break just because he hates failing people, not because he is trying to protect the cheerleading squad? Maaaaybe. But in that case, it&#039;s probably stupid of him to point that out to the principal. &quot;I&#039;ve been giving them inflated grades for years!&quot; In any case, I&#039;ve asked the boys who do the special Glee podcast to tackle this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Lewis -<br />
So you&#8217;re saying he was cutting them a break just because he hates failing people, not because he is trying to protect the cheerleading squad? Maaaaybe. But in that case, it&#8217;s probably stupid of him to point that out to the principal. &#8220;I&#8217;ve been giving them inflated grades for years!&#8221; In any case, I&#8217;ve asked the boys who do the special Glee podcast to tackle this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lewis</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12982</link>
		<dc:creator>Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12982</guid>
		<description>@Matthew Belinkie

I missed your earlier point about failing the cheerleaders.  My assumption is that he was probably passing them when they didn&#039;t deserve it rather than failing them unjustly.  There&#039;s something less ethically icky (in a gut reaction sense) about cutting them a break on their spanish grades all along, than the reverse, even if neither is acceptable by the standards of how teachers really should grade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Matthew Belinkie</p>
<p>I missed your earlier point about failing the cheerleaders.  My assumption is that he was probably passing them when they didn&#8217;t deserve it rather than failing them unjustly.  There&#8217;s something less ethically icky (in a gut reaction sense) about cutting them a break on their spanish grades all along, than the reverse, even if neither is acceptable by the standards of how teachers really should grade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gab</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12979</link>
		<dc:creator>Gab</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12979</guid>
		<description>I actually found the lack of a meltdown rather refreshing in this instance of a drug abuse teen drama.  It&#039;s a new take, a new spin on the anti-drug message.  Maybe I&#039;m older than my years, but I feel like the whole &quot;exemplary freak-out&quot; thing is getting kind of old and stereotypical.  I remember being as young as a fifth grader in D.A.R.E. and not taking some of the scare tactics of anti-drug campaigns seriously because, for whatever reason, scare tactics have never really worked on me.  Granted, I&#039;d never do drugs because I get that they&#039;re bad for you, blah blah, but I appreciated how the portrayal in _Glee_ let the students decide for themselves because they already knew drugs are a bad idea because I was like that in high school and college: I already knew it was a stupid thing to do, so why bother?

This reminds me of those &quot;your brain on drugs&quot; ads.  I remember the egg, and thought it was alright.  But a few years ago, there was a &quot;sequel&quot; ad, I guess you could call it, where Rachel Leigh Cook totally pulverizes a kitchen with a skillet, every blow representing something else that gets destroyed when you do drugs.  I thought that was overkill.  Like, excessive overkill.  To the point where teens or young people without enough common sense to not take the risk would think, &quot;Dude, that looks kind of awesome just to try,&quot; or perhaps think that if something so &quot;small&quot; could have that much power over you, it&#039;s worth trying at least once, just to see what it feels like, etc.  

Another example: those gross anti-smoking ads done in claymation where kids lick dead animals and fish and stuff.  I mean, yuck.  I&#039;d never smoke, but that choice has absolutely nothing to do with those ads and was made well before they came about, so I find them rather tiresome and annoying.  And with the information available nowadays, IMO, if a person is going to smoke, those ads aren&#039;t going to change their mind and make them not.  They already know it&#039;s dangerous and most likely going to result in cancer or something, so they know what they&#039;re getting into when they begin the addiction in the first place.  This relates to my theory on why I never took the TV episodes seriously: Jessie&#039;s meltdown came after what, a few days of using the caffeine pills?  I wasn&#039;t around drugs when I was little, but I had enough common sense to recognize addiction relates to mental illness and that the scenarios represented like that were highly unlikely because those processes are usually much more gradual.  Portrayals like the ones in that old HBO series &quot;Lifestories: Families In Crisis&quot; were more realistic because they showed how the person slowly slipped into the pool as opposed to cannonball-ing in like a Jessie.  

Okay, totally rambled there.  I guess I&#039;m sort of dancing around the question of whether the sudden freak-out method is effective to normal people (because I do realize I&#039;m rather... unique...).  And I also wonder if maybe Glee is just thinking outside the box and trying to break stereotypes, this case being the generic Anti-Drug Episode for a series &quot;aimed at teens.&quot;  For let&#039;s not forget, this series is a &quot;teen&quot; drama, &quot;teen&quot; to be taken with an oversized grain of salt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually found the lack of a meltdown rather refreshing in this instance of a drug abuse teen drama.  It&#8217;s a new take, a new spin on the anti-drug message.  Maybe I&#8217;m older than my years, but I feel like the whole &#8220;exemplary freak-out&#8221; thing is getting kind of old and stereotypical.  I remember being as young as a fifth grader in D.A.R.E. and not taking some of the scare tactics of anti-drug campaigns seriously because, for whatever reason, scare tactics have never really worked on me.  Granted, I&#8217;d never do drugs because I get that they&#8217;re bad for you, blah blah, but I appreciated how the portrayal in _Glee_ let the students decide for themselves because they already knew drugs are a bad idea because I was like that in high school and college: I already knew it was a stupid thing to do, so why bother?</p>
<p>This reminds me of those &#8220;your brain on drugs&#8221; ads.  I remember the egg, and thought it was alright.  But a few years ago, there was a &#8220;sequel&#8221; ad, I guess you could call it, where Rachel Leigh Cook totally pulverizes a kitchen with a skillet, every blow representing something else that gets destroyed when you do drugs.  I thought that was overkill.  Like, excessive overkill.  To the point where teens or young people without enough common sense to not take the risk would think, &#8220;Dude, that looks kind of awesome just to try,&#8221; or perhaps think that if something so &#8220;small&#8221; could have that much power over you, it&#8217;s worth trying at least once, just to see what it feels like, etc.  </p>
<p>Another example: those gross anti-smoking ads done in claymation where kids lick dead animals and fish and stuff.  I mean, yuck.  I&#8217;d never smoke, but that choice has absolutely nothing to do with those ads and was made well before they came about, so I find them rather tiresome and annoying.  And with the information available nowadays, IMO, if a person is going to smoke, those ads aren&#8217;t going to change their mind and make them not.  They already know it&#8217;s dangerous and most likely going to result in cancer or something, so they know what they&#8217;re getting into when they begin the addiction in the first place.  This relates to my theory on why I never took the TV episodes seriously: Jessie&#8217;s meltdown came after what, a few days of using the caffeine pills?  I wasn&#8217;t around drugs when I was little, but I had enough common sense to recognize addiction relates to mental illness and that the scenarios represented like that were highly unlikely because those processes are usually much more gradual.  Portrayals like the ones in that old HBO series &#8220;Lifestories: Families In Crisis&#8221; were more realistic because they showed how the person slowly slipped into the pool as opposed to cannonball-ing in like a Jessie.  </p>
<p>Okay, totally rambled there.  I guess I&#8217;m sort of dancing around the question of whether the sudden freak-out method is effective to normal people (because I do realize I&#8217;m rather&#8230; unique&#8230;).  And I also wonder if maybe Glee is just thinking outside the box and trying to break stereotypes, this case being the generic Anti-Drug Episode for a series &#8220;aimed at teens.&#8221;  For let&#8217;s not forget, this series is a &#8220;teen&#8221; drama, &#8220;teen&#8221; to be taken with an oversized grain of salt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lewis</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12977</link>
		<dc:creator>Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12977</guid>
		<description>@stokes I&#039;ll grant you that there is something to be said in defense of the episode&#039;s take on drugs. Everyone in the show (except the villainous wife) takes the attitude that the drugs are bad, despite their positive effects on one&#039;s performance in glee, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@stokes I&#8217;ll grant you that there is something to be said in defense of the episode&#8217;s take on drugs. Everyone in the show (except the villainous wife) takes the attitude that the drugs are bad, despite their positive effects on one&#8217;s performance in glee, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lewis</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12964</link>
		<dc:creator>Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12964</guid>
		<description>One more thing: Glee really needs to stop having plotlines centered around the main characters quitting glee. They are becoming increasingly contrived, and it&#039;s just not good drama or comedy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One more thing: Glee really needs to stop having plotlines centered around the main characters quitting glee. They are becoming increasingly contrived, and it&#8217;s just not good drama or comedy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stokes</title>
		<link>http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/10/22/the-most-pro-drugs-hour-of-television-ever-aired/#comment-12961</link>
		<dc:creator>stokes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.overthinkingit.com/?p=10668#comment-12961</guid>
		<description>This is really interesting.  I don&#039;t want to kneejerk defend Glee.  But might Glee&#039;s anti-drug message be BETTER than Saved By The Bell&#039;s?
  Saved by the Bell suggests that caffeine pills are bad because they prevent you from being an awesome singer.  But what if pills *don&#039;t* prevent you from being an awesome singer?  Then the pills are no longer bad, right?  It&#039;s a small step from &quot;Pills are bad because they make you perform worse&quot; to &quot;Pills are bad if and only if they make you perform worse.&quot;  And while caffeine pill addiction is a serious problem, I&#039;ve got to imagine that the overall number of Jessie Spano level meltdowns is pretty low.

Glee, on the other hand, suggests that the pills are bad because cheating is bad.  And what&#039;s more, they show the two young, hot, talented leads simply deciding - without being told what to do by an authority figure - that they aren&#039;t interested in drugs.  The message is twofold:
  
1) Performance enhancers are bad because cheating is bad.  And not even because it&#039;s WRONG - which you could wriggle out of by saying something like &quot;well, everyone else is doing it too, so I&#039;m just leveling the playing field&quot; - but just because it&#039;s not enjoyable.

2) Young, hot, talented people do not like using drugs.  Therefore, if you want to be young hot and talented, do not do drugs.  (For more on this front and how it applies to things like fairy tales, see Bruno Bettleheim&#039;s &lt;em&gt;The Uses of Enchantment&lt;/em&gt;.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really interesting.  I don&#8217;t want to kneejerk defend Glee.  But might Glee&#8217;s anti-drug message be BETTER than Saved By The Bell&#8217;s?<br />
  Saved by the Bell suggests that caffeine pills are bad because they prevent you from being an awesome singer.  But what if pills *don&#8217;t* prevent you from being an awesome singer?  Then the pills are no longer bad, right?  It&#8217;s a small step from &#8220;Pills are bad because they make you perform worse&#8221; to &#8220;Pills are bad if and only if they make you perform worse.&#8221;  And while caffeine pill addiction is a serious problem, I&#8217;ve got to imagine that the overall number of Jessie Spano level meltdowns is pretty low.</p>
<p>Glee, on the other hand, suggests that the pills are bad because cheating is bad.  And what&#8217;s more, they show the two young, hot, talented leads simply deciding &#8211; without being told what to do by an authority figure &#8211; that they aren&#8217;t interested in drugs.  The message is twofold:</p>
<p>1) Performance enhancers are bad because cheating is bad.  And not even because it&#8217;s WRONG &#8211; which you could wriggle out of by saying something like &#8220;well, everyone else is doing it too, so I&#8217;m just leveling the playing field&#8221; &#8211; but just because it&#8217;s not enjoyable.</p>
<p>2) Young, hot, talented people do not like using drugs.  Therefore, if you want to be young hot and talented, do not do drugs.  (For more on this front and how it applies to things like fairy tales, see Bruno Bettleheim&#8217;s <em>The Uses of Enchantment</em>.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.020 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 555/559 objects using memcached

Served from: www.overthinkingit.com @ 2012-02-14 01:25:14 -->
