Imagine yourself sitting on the couch watching the first “Jaws” movie on the television; or tuning in to Discovery Channel for “Shark Week;” or even viewing a recent news’s story on a random shark attack at a far-away beach. What feelings arise within you when you view these? Feelings could range from fear of “Jaws” to intrigue of the sharks to sadness for the shark attack victim. I am sure there are only few who feel sympathy, or even love, for the sharks that are the true victims. The media has held a track record for using news lines that portray sharks as being nothing more than vicious and dangerous fish. The media utilizes our misunderstanding and our fear to sell stories and newspapers, leaving these sharks to a reputation of mindless killers that are harmful to humans.

This false reputation of the sharks was understood very well by Peter Benchley, the acclaimed author of “Jaws.” Benchley was horrified by what resulted from his creation; after writing “Jaws” purely from his imagination, Benchley soon became an advocate for the sharks as people everywhere lashed out in fear of the sharks. “Jaws” not only provides a prime example of inhumane treatment of sharks but also represents the massive power that the media harnesses over us all. Understanding is the key to future efforts in lessening the damaging impact that media, like “Jaws,” elicits. Before we can save the sharks from the brink of extinction, people need to understand what is harming the sharks and then learn ways of how to apply this knowledge in constructing conservation efforts.

So why should we care about the sharks? Sharks are brainless beasts—or so pop culture states. Nearly forty years ago, the media gave rise to the false and horrific portrayals of killer sharks in Steven Spielberg’s film adaptation of Benchley’s book, “Jaws.” This franchise became America’s first blockbuster movie as it fed off of the centuries-old human misunderstanding of sharks. “Jaws” enshrouded the shark species in even more mystery and myth, a leading reason as to why the sharks are in so much danger today.

“Jaws” not only fostered fear in humans but also human ignorance of important issues that harm the sharks. Many do not realize that these creatures have served as a tremendous part of the marine infrastructure.  This is due to the fact that realities of the sharks have not been correctly portrayed in our highly-public media outlets. The less than one hundred attacks out of 7 billion people are due to poor eyesight of the sharks and their inability to distinguish between the four-limbed seal and the four-limbed human. Yet most people do not know this simply because of the lack of knowledge on this diverse species. What people also fail to realize is that they set themselves up by committing to dangerous activities—surfing and night swimming are just a couple—and then blame the sharks for mistaking them for their prey. People do not see that they are entering the shark’s home, its territory, when they swim the ocean. We are also poisoning their home and killing them in cold blood. Let us not forget that if we were talking about dogs or cats or any other animal on the news, we would lash out in anger, sign petitions, blog angrily about it on social sights. But because the killing of these fish does not affect us, we do not care.

This lack of human support and consideration has given rise to an even more horrific occurrence: the cruelty inflicted by human practices and human ignorance now threatens the survival of one of the most diverse creatures in the ocean. Practices, such as industrial fishing and industrial shark finning, have grown from the survival practices of the past to the mass-production machines of the future. To feed an ever-growing and demanding human population, fishing practices were revolutionized to give a constant supply of fish—at the cost of the survival of the fish populations themselves. It is time for people besides the researchers, professors, and marine law advocates to recognize these issues—and find solutions—before it is genuinely too late to save the sharks. It is time to break away from the dated and detrimental portrayals of sharks, and learn not to only coincide with the sharks, but also to help them.

The industry no longer rules the music people are exposed to. Because it only controls the radio and not the Internet, people have more access to the music of bands who are poor or do not have a contract. The consumer isn’t forced to take what the industry gives them. Thanks to the Internet, music sharing evolved and exploded in this generation. It revolutionized how we get music and what music we listen to. For the Millennials, music causes a shift in how we think, how we view the world. Technology has always altered music; radio did one thing, but the Internet does billions. Spotify and others work within the legal framework; these companies try to provide music to younger generations in the way they want. The way they offer the experience is what sets them apart. Companies are successful because they relate to how you actually listen to music.

By exploring the unique ways in which the millennial generation consumes and acquires their music online, we can understand their views on music sharing, piracy, and the change in music and its styles due to the rise of the Internet. Music discovery has expanded from simply the radio and record stores; the Internet brings in ways to discover music from the well-known sources such as Spotify to the up and coming Rank ‘Em. These sites offer unique experiences in finding new music through other people. The power of what music “counts” has been taken from the hands of the music industry to the hands of consumers and the most interesting things are being done with the companies that find legal ways to connect to customers. Our accessibility to the Internet has exploded discovery. People no longer think piracy is the only way music sharing can happen. This new view intrigues many people from music critics and piracy experts to music columnists and the musicians themselves.

Gender-roles are prevalent in every layer of society and culture. They are enforced by children’s toys, clothing options, education, and career opportunities and even language itself. They are present in relationships, in families, and in social group. With your gender comes certain expectations and assumptions about your personal identity, which are exaggerated in popular media – when a character appears on screen they are usually instantly recognizable as belonging to one of the two apparently polar opposite genders. Because of the majority of television and films containing only these two representations, we believe that this is the way our culture is, even though we see the variety of human beings every day in real life. As generations grow up with these representations of the population, a kind of ‘creeping normalcy’ takes place: the picture of society we have in our heads is different from normalized reality.

While ‘transgender’ itself is an umbrella term for any person identifying outside of the gender binary – crossdresser, transsexual, drag king or queen, gender neutral, third gendered – to be considered transsexual by the medical profession, one must be diagnosed with ‘gender dysphoria’. A strong theme in media representation of transsexual people is that to solve the problem of gender dysphoria, one must become the heteronormative version of the opposite sex – an idea inherited from medical practices. In order to make a difference for this community – and all people who are  victims of gender roles and oppressive treatment due to gender identity – it is necessary to gain an understanding of what exactly is meant by ‘transgender’ and the ‘gender binary’, why they exist in our culture today, and their role in media and the transgender community. Delving into the ever-growing knowledge of biologists, psychologists, experts in the field of transgender studies will help achieve a well-informed and disillusioned view of the representation of transgender people in the media, and hopefully point out improvements to be made in our conscious portrayal of the transgender community. The media sets up the idea of passing as the opposite sex as obligatory for transgender people, but also exaggerates gender and gender roles so that to pass for the opposite sex characters must fit in with these feminine or masculine gender expressions, which is not necessarily the case in real life. The truth is that transgender people are as diverse as they are similar, and have a wealth of experience and texture to offer society.

If transgender people have powerful stories to tell and the strength and willingness to stand up and tell them, then the future of transgender representation in media is likely to be much more diverse and compelling than it is now. And with the power to media to spread knowledge and change perceptions of large groups of people with minimal effort, it is possible that the more transgender people speak up about themselves, the more they will be understood and given access to opportunities and better qualities of life. Instead of waiting to become a victim of misinterpretation, waiting to be ‘outed’ and exposed by people with limited compassion and no time to learn the truth…the act of someone telling their story willingly could go a long way. It may even help break down the dichotomy that is comfortably firm in society, and empower people to live outside of expectations and focus instead on their unique selves, without the constant pressure to present themselves as the ideal male or female.

Obesity is a notorious epidemic surrounding today’sAmerica, to the point where it is well known by our constituents that a large portion of Americans are overweight if not obese. 65% of adults are overweight. 20% of children are considered too heavy. Obesity has a tremendous effect on one’s personal health and growth. For children, being overweight means adulthood with full-blown obesity, while for adults, obesity leads to an innumerable amount of health problems such as strokes and heart attacks. These problems lead to medical bills, a lack of productivity, and lost jobs. These children’s weight problems unfortunately cause a rippling effect in their lives. Lack of physical activity causes obesity, which in turn has a negative impact on academic achievement through its effects on cognition, which in turn causes decreased chances for higher education and proficient life achievements such as solid careers. So, it is clear that the obesity epidemic in adults must be stopped, and it is also clear as to where it must be stopped: at the source.

Unfortunately, the healthy choice is not always the easy choice, and for this reason many Americans today are overweight. Psychologists, health journalists, and physiologists all must decide on what policies and social pressures should be put into place to promote fitness and good health. This is where things can get touchy, for how can citizens be forced to eat healthy or remain active? Incentives? Restrictions? Price control? Undoubtedly, there will be a portion of people who will be upset at any new policies. However, many believe that through such policies, the child obesity problem can effectively be controlled, largely reducing obesity in adulthood.

So what kinds of policies or procedures should be used to affect obesity? The influence of the media is extraordinary, and can and should be used to prevent today’s children from becoming overweight. Children are known to be easily influenced by what they see and hear from television and other media sources. So if a child sees an athlete do something spectacular on the field that he admires, then that child will most likely want to play sports and be like the athlete. And if this child is getting active, he will unknowingly influence his friends into getting more active. Therefore, if television and the internet promote exercise, athleticism, and healthy diet in a positive, desirable way, then children will be very likely to have a desire to exercise and eat well. And if children compose good eating and exercising habits during childhood, then it is very possible that these habits will extend into adulthood.

Kids who want to exercise will have a rippling effect throughout elementary schools. Other children who see their peers exercising will subconsciously want to get active themselves. Having children who want to get active was not such a problem not too long ago. But with the recent technological advances and newer video games and massive amounts of television channels, many children now enjoy many sedentary activities. Exercise has to compete with, and outdo, sedentary pursuits such as video games and television. However, through peer excitement and positive promotion of exercise on television, the source of many sedentary pursuits, obesity and childhood obesity can be fought.

A man jolts awake!  He reaches for his AK-47, ready to fight, but instead finds a pile of fur and a warm, comforting lick.  “Wait, why is there a dog here?” he thinks.  Slowly reality sets in and the man starts to calm down.  His breathing slows and his stomach slips out of his throat—all because of his canine companion who acts as his one constant connection to reality when his PTSD begins to take over.  Since the Middle East conflicts began in 2001, thousands of American soldiers have come home to their families with life changing war wounds.  Some have lost a leg or an arm, but often the biggest struggle faced cannot be seen.

Among the worst U.S. Military medical struggles is PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder).   PTSD is defined as “an anxiety disorder triggered by a traumatic event, such may occur when engaging in combat; witnessing serious injury, brutality, or unnatural death, particularly of another soldier; or suffering a severe vehicle accident, including those caused by improvised explosive devices” (“U.S. Congress” 1).  If a soldier returning from war exhibits an anxiety disorder because of a traumatic incident in combat, they are diagnosed with PTSD.  These war-torn soldiers eagerly fly home, but soon find themselves in the middle of another war, only this time the enemy isn’t so easily killed.  PTSD soldiers only begin to “kill” the new PTSD enemy with back up, this time in the form of a canine partner.  Many dog therapy researchers and psychologist have recognized the benefits in emotional and physical health soldiers experience as a result of service dogs.  Nevertheless, the Veterans Association(VA) and military doctors are slow to recommend PTSD dogs because no VA program for the training and placement of these animals has been developed, even though “test programs” have been tried since 2003.  This is a huge problem because PTSD patients make up 7% of all patients the VA treats (U.S. Congress 1).  These soldiers fight to overcome their disorder, but each patient is specific and the soldiers cannot break out of their cage of fear.

Soldiers struggle with the VA’s treatment recommendations because it is often more of the same treatments they have tried and that have failed.  Yet PTSD service dogs are rarely recommended or available.  But what if already established outside programs could fill the void?  Groups like Warrior Canine Connection, Paws4Vets and Paws With A Cause have started to fill the need with qualified PTSD dogs.  The VA officially supports PTSD dogs, but has shut down all pilot training programs before dogs became widely assessable to suffering soldiers.  Will the VA finally establish a program, or should it contract out?  Through analyzing magazine journalists, VA medical staff, and canine group researchers, it is clear that outside training programs should continue to provide expert dogs at a cost soldiers can afford.  The VA needs to allow outside programs that are accredited by certified service dog training programs, like Assistance Dogs International, so a high standard of quality is maintained. By outsourcing to these other programs the VA will have time to complete its own PTSD dogs program, which will validate PTSD dogs as legitimate service animals. Eventually these programs will be recognized under the American Disabilities Act, which will also open them up for federal assistance.

Outside programs have found ways to control the quality of PTSD service dogs and double the benefits of these animals in helping suffering soldiers, but the main challenge left is to convince the VA to confirm these dogs as legitimate service animals.  The first step is for the VA to contract out to these successful outside programs.  By partnering with these programs the VA can begin to place service dogs with PTSD patients immediately.  Once PTSD dogs trained by reputable programs are accepted under the American Disabilities Act, they will be given full service animal rights.  The next step would be to help the VA establish its own accredited program. The VA has begun to partner with PTSD service dog organizations, yet still struggles to provide dogs in a consistent and safe way, but recently researchers Yount and Olmert have collaborated with the National Intrepid Center of Excellence to establish guidelines for how service dogs can be used by the VA.  Ultimately the goal is for these programs to receive federal funding and backing from the Department of Defense, and the VA to establish a set program for the training and placement of these animals (“Veterans Rave”).  Since the research base is strong and collaborating with outside training programs reduces time and money, there is little doubt that the VA will eventually partner with these outside programs and PTSD dogs will one day be considered the best form of treatment.

**Maybe this dog needs a PTSD soldier?

In 1962, Marilyn Monroe overdosed and took her own life. In the following month, 197 suicides—mostly of young blonde women—occurred in a similar way as Monroe’s.

In 1994, Kurt Cobain of the band Nirvana shot himself. During the rest of that year, an alarming number of teenagers killed themselves while listening to his music.

Throughout the years, psychologists have noticed positive correlations in people viewing or learning about suicide and subsequently replicating the behavior. This issue has become widely recognized as “the Werther effect.” As the media becomes more and more predominant in our daily lives, social researchers have begun to take notice to how this effect works in regards to what people see in magazines, on the news, and in popular culture alike. While some who have analyzed examples of the Werther effect throughout history adamantly believe there is causation relating media portrayal and suicidal behavior, the majority of scientific studies conducted have shown that the correlation between the two is merely coincidence and it cannot be proven. Those who do not believe in this effect tend to be rooted in their beliefs that science is the only way to demonstrate there is an actual issue at hand. What they fail to acknowledge is whether or not there is a scientific study to verify this theory, there are entirely too many examples of it effecting people by leading victims towards suicidal thoughts and even the actual act of committing suicide throughout history to ignore the Werther effect. In exploring these instances and showing enough evidence, it may not be possible to prove causation, but it is possible to show that something needs to be done to change the way that the media handles suicide coverage. The irresponsibility of reporters when dealing with suicide coverage needs to come to an end as it triggers many victims of depression or other forms of mental instability to follow through with suicidal thoughts which previously may have only been ideas. This will not necessarily lessen the suicide rates or suicidal behaviors among victims, but it will bring to rest the controversy over media-influenced suicides and the malicious behaviors that happen as a result of it.

While the Werther effect is most predominant in modern times thanks to 21^st century developments in mass media and popular culture, it has always been prevalent all over the globe. The term “Werther effect,” which by definition means: “An increased suicide rate linked to media coverage of suicide(s), or which occurs in persons ‘inspired’ by reading about or having had a close relationship with a ‘successful’ suicide (McGraw-Hill),” was coined by David P. Phillips in his article “The Influence of Suggestion on Suicide: Substantive and Theoretical Implications of the Werther Effect” (1974) which was published in American Sociological Review. Since then, psychologists, suicidologists, sociologists, and many others have been debating the validity of this supposed “effect.”

Throughout history, the influence of mass media on suicidal behavior has been a controversial topic and has been intensively researched by many. In a 1989 study conducted by sociologists at the University of Michigan, it was shown that US network television suicide news stories between 1973 and 1984 did not depict any reliable association between news coverage and suicide rates. Despite the seeming invalidation of the Werther effect, many have questioned whether or not this data is inclusive and applicable to all age groups and socio-economic classes and whether or not the same would prove true with today’s advanced and more prevalent media. Psychologists J. Eduardo Aguilar, Soledad Jorge, Ana Rubio, and G. Samuel Siris in the journal article “Effect of Mass Media on Suicidal Behavior in Patients with Psychotic Disorders” point out that a study conducted in 2002 at the Centre for Suicide Research at the University Department of Psychiatry of Warneford Hospital, Oxford showed that the youth are more susceptible to the influence of the media. There are also other various factors, such as whether the method of suicide is portrayed or not, whether the suicide is portrayed dramatically or not, and whether the death is that of a celebrity or not, that seem to influence the correlation between suicide portrayal in the media and a rise in suicide rates (Aguilar). The psychologists argue that some that may be more vulnerable than others, such as those with mental disorders who are especially susceptible. In these patients, there was a provable correlation between viewing suicidal behavior and carrying out suicidal acts, whereas in the case of less susceptible victims, the correlation was not strong enough to verify causation. According to Aguilar and his colleagues, information about suicide is on the internet in the form of suicide sites, which can easily provoke or facilitate suicidal behaviors. Aguilar, Jorge, Rubio, and Siris conclude the Werther effect is most likely valid in certain circumstances, but that scientific evidence is incapable of supporting this theory.

Moving forward, I propose that there be regulations regarding how media outlets are allowed to discuss the topic of suicide and other unusually violent happenings. For example, the rate of reports should be proportional to the rate of that action in the world so that it doesn’t make an issue seem more common than it is. Additionally, the vocabulary used when discussing topics like suicide should be restricted. There is no such thing as “successfully” committing suicide. Were these regulations along with others put into action, there would most definitely be a resulting decline in the relationship between suicide rates and the media’s portrayal of violent suicides, homicides, and deaths alike.

Buying is like voting with your wallet.Both James White and Lilac Gardenia supported a noteworthy organization. However, while Lilac was shopping with a purpose, James was an ethically unconcerned consumer, who unknowingly or knowingly supported a cause. Even though their motivations differed, both characters ended up supporting Fair Trade (FT) coffee, a socially conscious branded product that aims towards instigating change in global farming practices. When James walked down that coffee isle he didn’t have the notion of buying FT coffee in mind; he bought FT because it was available and it looked like quality coffee (after all it did cost him $8.99, it better be good!).

For coffee, there’s almost an infinite amount of choices for the consumer; everything from where the bean is grown to how the farm grows the product are subject to consumer preferences. While the majority of coffee consumers view taste and price as the only determining factors, the socially conscious take extensive interest in making sure they endorse products that reflect what they see as ethically and socially responsible company behavior. These morally consciousness shoppers seek products that guarantee ethical practices regarding labor conditions, salary, and the environmental impact; the Fair Trade label certification guarantees that such conditions were met.

With buyers straying away from the typical mode of consumerism to a new moral consumerism, many question the possible changes it could inflict upon the market. This transition could be viewed as consumer empowerment: buyers now have the ability to control business ethics. However, since it is ultimately up to the organizations to carry out the buyers’ demands, several incongruities have emerged. On one hand, many third-world farmers directly affected by such moral consumerism exalt FT as a way to escape the cycle of poverty. On the other hand, there are large-scale supermarkets and distributors that use FT products to make profits. While many economists who analyze FT praise the theoretical benefits of this new fad, they also point out its shortcomings as a viable means to help end poverty. The modern practices of FT do benefit the farmers. However, the organizational structure and the corporate decision making process need to be retooled. It is apparent that fair trade has expanded from a small niche market of the 70’s to a large multinational business. Yet it is prudent that this movement clearly defines itself and creates strict guidelines that enable it to grow, without compromising its foundational values.

As more and More large corporations being to adopt FT coffee, such as the Walmart’s, the FT governing body will begin to lose its voice and its power at controlling the public’s viewpoint of it. It is therefore necessary for FT to fortify its core values and be firm with the ‘Walmart’s’ regarding their participation and use of FT label products. companies participation of FT cannot be motivated by “green-washing” its public image. While FT must understand that making a profit for companies is a nesesity  if they are going to sell FT, they have to find some method for privileging those companies with ethical motivations and a method for removing those who are abusing the system.

Actually, it could have. There are two types of sex education taught in the United States, abstinence-only and comprehensive, and Amy could have still wound up at the clinic if she had received abstinence-only education. Abstinence-only doesn’t cover how to have safe sex or the dangers of what unsafe sex could lead to; it teaches that abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. Those who are taught abstinence-only acquire substantially less information than those who are taught comprehensive sex education: in comprehensive, students are taught about pregnancies, STDs, contraceptives and birth control, and how to have safe sex. Most psychologists agree that comprehensive is the more efficient form of sex education, and our society would truly benefit from requiring comprehensive sex education to be taught in schools. Before discussing the reasons why comprehensive sex education is better, however, it is important to understand each sex education method and the issues revolving around them. The public opinion in our society is that students should receive some form of sex education, but the United States is divided on which method to teach. The trend seems to be that more conservative/religious states lean towards abstinence-only education and more liberal/less religious states lean towards comprehensive. There is a clear divide, but psychologists, news reporters, and health journalists have all discussed the topic of in order to determine the best method for teaching students, which is usually found to be comprehensive.

Comprehensive is the only method that truly affects teen pregnancy rates and STDs. If a state doesn’t choose comprehensive, such as Mississippi and Utah, it is typically because that state is heavily influenced by religion, specifically Christianity. They don’t choose abstinence-only because it is effective, they choose it because they believe it is morally right. However, this doesn’t separate the Church and State as it should be. But if the United States wants to sufficiently cut down the teen pregnancy rate, then action will need to be taken, like creating a law for the entire nation based on what actually works rather than allowing states to choose for themselves.

The magic of Disney can be traced to the core of each story—the messages that children can take away, the morals that each film emphasize. Pinocchio (1940) taught us not to lie and to listen to our conscience. Alice in Wonderland (1951) taught us that it’s okay to be a little curious. Peter Pan (1953) taught us to embrace our inner child. And Beauty and the Beast (1991) taught us that beauty comes from within. No matter your age, there is always a message to be taken from a Disney film, whether it be discovering a new dream or simply finding a little inspiration to try something new. Having such an influential impact on American culture, Disney’s moral lessons and underlying themes have been the subject of much debate. Most believe Disney’s animated films are a positive influence on its younger audience, teaching children the importance of morals such as determination, courage, and friendship. However, others question Disney’s inconsistent and often anti-feministic moral messages. While lifelong enthusiasts and Disney employees are inspired by the magic of Disney encompassed in these films, media specialists and film critics assess the underlying themes that they believe negatively influence the young audience.

While there may be a few unsuitable connotations, Disney’s animated films play a largely constructive role in the lives of American families, instilling good values in children at a young age. Through the in-depth analysis of the Disney film Aladdin (1992)—including the moral messages and character representations—it will be clear that Disney films are largely positive influences on younger audiences.

Disney’s depiction of the Middle Eastern city, Agrabah, with all its characters and customs, may not have been the best. The funny—but not so funny—lyrics in the opening were inappropriate. And an argument could be made that the lead characters are represented with more Western features than those of Arabic. Most children are neither mature nor focused enough to pick up on the lyrics in the opening song. They do, however, pick up on the story. They follow Aladdin’s journey from “street-rat” to prince. They understand Jasmine’s dreams to make her own decisions and admire her strong-willed personality. But to say that they pick up racial tendencies by associating the representation of a couple of the characters to an entire culture is absurd.

All films can be critiqued, no matter how wholesome or inspiring the story. But it is hard—if not impossible—to argue that the negative messages in Disney films overpower the positive. Friendship, determination, courage, and love are messages found in almost all Disney films and those are the messages that resonate with the audience. Many of Disney’s stories introduce children to people of all types that they may not be lucky enough to meet on their otherwise. They teach children right from wrong. They teach the importance of friendship, and the meaning of adventure. But most importantly—they inspire children to dream.

Increasingly, young adults are turning to OTC medication over a visit to the doctor’s office, and, to match the demand, the numbers of non-prescription drugs are growing.  At the same time, many of the medications also have psychoactive properties, and thus are sometimes abused, making prescription and over-the-counter drugs, after marijuana (and alcohol), the most commonly abused substances by adolescents and young adults in America.  Certainly this is undesirable.  But perhaps it is a necessary side-effect of over-the-counter medications, just as are their medical side-effects.

Absolutely OTC drugs can be useful and effective, but does this outweigh the potential harm they can cause, and are they more of a danger to the millennial generation than they are given credit for? Opinions on this subject are wide and range from those of physicians urging caution and investigative journalists exercising a healthy curiosity, to producers oozing reassurance and the average consumer, gulping down all they are given – both in terms of information and medication.  The abuse of these drugs is still found in a small minority, however, and is something that can be controlled if the distribution of these medicines is monitored more carefully.  Further, it’s hardly realistic to consider a solution to the problems found with OTC and prescription drugs if it involves their elimination from the public market.

The majority of the up and coming generation of America relies on these drugs on a level superior to addiction; they are necessary to facilitate the smooth operation of everyday life.  The findings of a 2002 Slone survey of 2,590 adult Americans supports the important role OTC medicines have in America’s health care system, regardless of whether or not they are misused.  In this survey, 6 of the 10 most frequently used drugs, including the top 4, were drugs available OTC. Furthermore, among the remaining 30 drugs in the top 40 list were an additional 7 drugs available OTC (CHPA 2010), which is a clear indicator of the importance and prevalence of OTC drugs to Americans, and of their great benefit to our society, though sometimes they may be abused.

Oftentimes the abuse of non-prescription drugs is due to misperceptions about their safety, or lack of information.  Because these drugs are recommended by doctors, or advertised on such a large scale, people may assume their use in doses larger than advised is acceptable.  Of course, this is not true.  What we really need is not a ban on OTC medications, or anything so radical; even a reduction of OTC medicines available is unnecessary.  What this problem requires is publicity.  The public needs to be informed of the dangers of the products they are using before they are allowed to use them for their health and “safety”.

And, all things considered, it is clear that the benefits of OTC medications outweigh the dangers associated with their use and the greatest concern with drugs purchased OTC should be their correct and safe use.  So long as the necessary precautions are taken, there need be little worry by consumers or other professionals.  Even such authority as the FDA supports the safe and effective use of non-prescription medicine.  The FDA’s Web page on the Regulation of Nonprescription Products states: “Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs play an increasingly vital role in America’s health care system.  OTC drugs generally have these characteristics: Their benefits outweigh their risks; The potential for misuse and abuse is low; Consumer can use them for self-diagnosed conditions; They can be adequately labeled; Health practitioners are not needed for the safe and effective use of the product”.

Regardless of the source, the number one caution in relation to non-prescription drugs is to “use as directed,” and if this can be done, the drugs can be effective.  However the number of young adults and adolescents misusing and abusing these medicines, most likely due to their abundance and accessibility, remains worrisome, and the increased accessibility and number of drugs in the market and home can only raise these numbers, without sufficient preventative action. It is important to be wary, as a consumer, of the roles and consequences of drugs in everyday life so as not to become a dependent.  For today’s youth, if not used with care and in an appropriate manner, OTC non-prescription drugs are certainly an unnecessary and powerful danger to ones health, but this type of misuse will be found only in the abusing and assumedly uneducated minority, while for the rest of us, OTC medication will persist as the glorious products we know and love (and most importantly, rely on).