Charlotte. A young, helpless girl who was thought to be a lost medical cause and a mother refusing to give up on her daughter’s life.

When it comes to uncomfortable situations, Americans seem to argue their opinions to the bone without pausing to notice the realities happening right outside their door. This becomes the issue with legalizing marijuana in this country. But how is that possible? According to Pew Research Center, 53 percent of Americans and 68 percent of millennials are in favor of the legalization of marijuana. To go even further, twenty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have laws legalizing marijuana. With such a high percentage and so many states already on board, how is it possible that it is not already written into legislation and being passed nationwide as we speak. But it dawned on me that it is possible, when people do not realize that there is so much more to this plant than just a sensation, but life saving agents hidden within as well.

Charlotte isn’t the figure we imagine when picturing the poster child for marijuana, but looks truly deceive as this little girl takes the legalizing world by storm. Her story has been not only an enlightenment, but a beacon of hope for many other families across the nation who have children suffering of untreatable illnesses. Charlotte’s illness is called Dravet Syndrome, a rare form of severe, intractable epilepsy. Intractable means the seizures are not controlled by medication and yet her mother Paige Figi refused to believe there was nothing they could do to help her daughter. She would not accept that her daughter was known, after years of medication, to be a lost cause. The Dravet Syndrome Foundation page didn’t even have any listed alternatives unless it be therapy or ketogenic diets (which Paige had already tried). But this would not be the end of her search for help.

Since Charlotte’s birth Paige was determined to find an answer. The first seizures with Charlotte came during her infancy. In the second year, only more seizures began to take hold, some seizures lasted more than 30 minutes, while others came in clusters, one after the other. No matter the treatment it seemed Charlotte would not be able to last going on like this. With over 300 seizures a week, Charlotte had become nearly catatonic.

With Charlotte’s condition only getting worse and options running slim to none in the medical world. Paige decided it would be time to search somewhere else, and that by some miracle, she would find a possible solution. With the help of her husband Matt, (and massive amounts of googling) they found the answer to their prayers. Paige was overjoyed the day they found information on what may be a miracle for their daughter “The day I gave up, I found this old data that the cannabis plant was a proven anti-convulsive.” Like many Americans before them Paige and Matt were not exactly for legalizing marijuana, but how that changed after Charlotte.

Like the Figi’s, the typical American does not think about the many positive effects that marijuana could bring about. Even today everyday people do not enjoy a discussion on the topic of marijuana because, like Trump and abortion, they are unspeakable and induce a heated fervor that many do not wish to deal with. This forms an enormous issue when speaking about marijuana because we lose focus on the pros and cons of the matter and begin to hone in more so on our own opinions brought on by sometimes untrustworthy sources.

Failing to look further than ones front door on the idea of marijuana is a mistake and allows those opposed to have a stronger voice than an agreeing majority. And once their arguments are framed, the outcome can be detrimental. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, both neurosurgeon and media reporter changed his own mind on the subject of legalizing marijuana. He interviewed the Figi family during his documentary “Weed” and came to realize the disheartening truth about marijuana in the media. “We’ve been systematically misled in this country for some time and I did part of that misleading. If you look at papers written in the U.S. on marijuana, the vast majority are on the harm. We fund studies on harm, we don’t fund studies on benefits.” This becomes such a terrible realization. Studies that could be done if the drug was made more available (legal) and save lives aren’t being done because certain entities do not want competition. When there is no funding, there can be no true progression and that should frighten us.

Once one delves a bit deeper, we can begin to see (that even though limited), the positive  medical studies on marijuana are there. Dr. Robert J. DeLorenzo, of the Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Medicine did a study on marijuana and how it could help epilepsy. By using the cannabinoid in marijuana plants, it can tackle frontal lobe epilepsy and bring regularity to the patient. To me this is an incredible breakthrough and yet it is overshadowed by studies that wish to combat its legislative success. How can we allow such wonderful news to be lost in the shadows? It is weak counterarguments and a plethora of funded government studies that mask these wonderful breakthroughs. But Paige didn’t have time  to wait for more studies to be taken and the info she found would have to be enough. At 5, Charlotte had reached bottom and something needed to be done.

This is when Paige decided to buy her own bag of high concentrated CBD (cannabinoid) in Denver, Colorado. She then went home and gave the first dose to Charlotte through her feeding tube, since she was no longer able to swallow. For an entire week with CBD, Charlotte had no seizures. 300 episodes had been averted. Charlotte was then able to begin her life. She began to speak, walk and learn. Charlotte was able to become the child she was meant to be because of a drug that had been so furiously refuted. Charlotte was able to live because of a drug that was supposed to help kill. Paige knew she couldn’t stop there and wanted to find a perfect strain that she could keep giving her daughter.

Once the breakthrough of CBD was found for Charlotte in that first week, Paige searched to see who would be able to produce a plant even higher in CBD and low enough in THC to deliver continuous effects. This is when she found the Stanley Brothers. They are marijuana growers in Colorado that bred hybrid plants to higher the CBD. At first they were called crazy and mocked for growing an ‘undesirable’ plant, but they had much larger plans for their business. Jesse Stanley spoke in an interview on how he and his brothers got started, “Before we met charlotte, before we met anybody, we had done our own reading and research on CBD that had shown that it stopped the metastasis of cancer, specifically breast and ovarian cancer.”

They hadn’t even met Charlotte and were already working towards strains that could help her cause. Paige reached out to the Stanley Brothers and they began to work on this strain for her daughter. The better Charlotte became the more they perfected the drug and they named it Charlotte’s Web, after its founding patient. After hearing about the amazing effects that Charlotte was having to the drug others wanted to see if this treatment could help their own children. In that year alone, 41 children in Colorado were treated with  Charlotte’s Web and all came back with great news. They had all undergone positive effects from the drug. Paige could see the amazing feats that the drug had now allowed for not only her own child, but others suffering.

Paige realized what a blessing it had been that she had run into the old data that led her to meet the Stanley Brothers. But what if Paige had never encountered this old data and it had stayed buried underneath all the negative studies that were meant to be seen? What would she have done then?

It’s difficult to look back and say what if, but sometimes it is necessary for progress. Charlotte would have never been able to grow and learn the same way she did without marijuana, and yet so many fight for it to remain illegal. What needs to be done is more studies and focus on what this incredible drug can do for others. With so much wonderful breakthroughs to be reached there should be nothing holding us back.

Charlotte’s story is a clear example of people going beyond the comforts they had once believed to find a cure they didn’t even know was possible. The Stanley Brothers ignored the mockery of those from the outside and were able to create something wonderful that could better the lives of so many. It had become so much more than just marijuana, it was a way to change lives, and for Charlotte and her family, it had changed everything. Paige would continue fighting for legalization of marijuana everywhere so others suffering could obtain the drug they so desperately need. She had experienced the miracle and wouldn’t settle until others were able to make the choice to use marijuana as a treatment as she had. Paige stated “a mistake was made during prohibition and I think we can fix it.”

1. The title “Why we need to revisit legalizing” pulls in the reader. They wonder what exactly needs to be legalized and why is it being revisited. It also shows that the article will have a spin and new info into why the process should be revisited. I also thought my subtitle ”Why raising awareness about the pros of marijuana use may just change the minds of skeptics everywhere” was great in supporting the main topic of my paper, which was looking to see all the positives that were being overshadowed on the subject of marijuana. The lede unlike my title focuses on my main example in the article, Charlotte. I think for those not so much interested in legalizing may be interested once they see how much is invested and that it has to do with so much more than ‘morals.’
2. I enjoy my opening paragraph because it gives the reader a little bit of everything. I included statistics that brought exigency and relevance, while also putting a professional, yet sarcastic flare to the article. It addresses my point on legalizing and eludes to Charlotte and her predicament. It gives background on how the controversy has been addressed and argues how it should be handled going forward.
3. I feel I did a sufficient job in bringing on evidence to support my argument. Unlike many other papers I constructed this article around Charlotte and I feel her story alongside important data is extremely important and effective. One truly feels for this family and their hardships, which wouldn’t always be captured by any article. The significance is seen through the real life effects taking place in the Figi’s lives.
4. I think I had a clear conception of how to execute my paper. I created a space that both gave hard facts and delivered a heart felt story. I think it was a unique approach because unlike articles that usually tackle one subject or another, I incorporated and meshed two styles to fit my cause. This combined topics from the past but then brought forth new information, creating my article style.
5. I avoided any vague or cliche points because readers of the NYT are usually proved to be more informed and educated on controversial/important topics. I had to make sure I didn’t just go the ‘we should legalize’ route, but rather the ‘we should look more in depth to what may be holding legalization back.’ This I felt made a great argument in this article and avoided issues. This also allowed for more specific detail on what needed to be written. I had to meld both topics of my paper (info and story) into one, creating a steady and organized flow.
6. I thoroughly researched the topic. It was by doing this that I was able to find so much supporting evidence that I found not only scholarly journals, but also documentaries and interviews. This not only made it more current and proved exigency but also proved the importance of the topic. I was able to delve deeply into research on why people did not want it legalized and many sources revealed that it was false evidence that swayed people to obtain this decision. By demonstrating not only the pros, but also showing real effects through photos, I was able to prove just how important this subject really is.
7. I took research and integrated it as the life of my paper. Without it I would not have the tools I needed to build my argument. Charlotte is my MAIN source. I feel the research on her fits both primary and secondary. The documentary I used to build data was important, but further research on CNN and “Weed” a documentary that comments on marijuana and about her situation are secondary. They compile together to form a great mix of sources. Then on top of this I added other important research that supported my argument and found reliable and genuine sources.
8. I think this is what my reflection was leading up to. This is essentially what my paper was. I integrated the story and the analytical and formed my argument. With both I was able not only to form an opinion to refute, but to support it with sufficient evidence to make it plausible and relevant. I then make it easy for the reader to bring about questions on the information by raising some in my paper and then answering them later on with data.
9. The coherence of my evidence with Charlotte’s story I feel truly has a way of persuading the audience. After learning about her story I wanted to go and scream legalize from the rooftops. It needed to be told so more people could understand and it sure persuades one to think twice. By including outside research and unbiased research such as Pew, i was able to tackle logos. When I brought Charlotte’s story I was able to hit the pathos of each reader. Then I brought it home by hyperlinking all the professionals in my paper so it would touch ethos and all my info would be helping one of these ideas.
10. The photos I chose were interesting and relevant because they hone in on the key points of my paper. I made sure to include them in areas in which related to each. I only chose 3 photos in my article because I felt that was all that was needed. One was a photo of Charlotte near catatonic in a chair, her as a healthy child, and the plant that saved her. This was all I feel was needed to get my point across. These photos are so powerful that there was no need for excess; they spoke for themselves.
11. At first I was going to go straight into Charlotte’s story. After a few edits, I realized by introducing my topic I would have more credibility or ethos if I brought them in with a lede, explained, and then jumped back. I wouldn’t have made this correction without a few read overs. Also being able to articulate both story and data was difficult and those edits became necessary when writing became less draft and more final cut. Also finding the main point to argue was a great step that we settled in class.
12. I think they are effective because they are only used when necessary. For instance, my hyperlinks are only connected to professionals in my paper or research facilities. I found this important just in case the reader wanted to learn more about the topic. Another hyperlink I made was Dravet syndrome. It is not a very common illness and I felt it was helpful to add something like that to aid the reader.
13. I edited this paper multiple times during the drafting process. I feel this allowed me to make sufficient grammatical and usage corrections. By doing so I was able to articulate my argument with ease and be able to work out kinks in the article. I made sure all of my transitions from data to story were smooth and didn’t leave the reader questioning or confused of what was going on. So in this sense I feel I did a good job in establishing not only my credibility, but producing a strong and hearty argument for the reader.

Do you know where your children are…because I doubt it’s the fruit section of the supermarket. But does that even matter anymore when the entire system has formed its own agenda?

The idea of food safety is so common in our day to day lives but it is still not taken seriously enough when both major companies and the government thrive on the fact that they can cover up these safety issues in spite of their ‘publicized efforts’ to help. The food industry has not been helping anyone but themselves, and this has become apparent in the last few years.

Many investigative journalists and brave writers have gone out in search of the truth about the food industry and what they found was definitely a wake up call. It is one thing to hear about an outbreak or two on T.V and brush it aside; it is another to completely disregard countless warnings about food safety that could endanger your well-being or even life. This is why when it comes to seeing who is really being protected we must look into the big food corporations and how the government is allowing them to get away with so much.

Food safety has become something completely different than what the average American comes to think of. It used to be the idea that both the corporations and government were on the people’s side, fighting for our health and vitality; it is no longer so.

Food safety has now become big corporations fighting to gain as much leeway from health regulations so they can stay within ‘code’ and adding other ingredients to counter balance the bacteria living within. Safety has become fighting against the bacteria that is already there, rather than fighting to never have it present at all. This then becomes a vicious cycle. The more the government allows this to go on, the more and more leeway the government gains and continues to abuse the system.

So when it comes to food safety, who is it really saving?

When looking at statistics on food-borne illnesses in the U.S. alone, we begin to see just how careless our government has been. “The most authoritative estimate of the yearly number of cases of food-borne disease in the United States defies belief: 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, 5,000 deaths” (Nestle, 27). Now what could be so safe about that? Nestle is a revered professor on food safety and wants to inform us all on what the dangers could be, because aren’t we all what we eat? She wants to bring forward facts from her own research and knowledge and give true information to those willing to listen. Because if all we ingest are toxins and runoff medication, what do we then become?

This doesn’t sound like food safety at all, this sounds like food politics. Covering up this immense number and making it sound as if these small outbreaks didn’t truly affect many people at all. “It was only a few people” (or so we saw on T.V.), “why should we stop our daily lives to worry about such an issue?” This excuse cannot be used so loosely anymore, especially when we begin to see how the government responds to these issues.

If you go on the internet to see how the government responds to food-borne illnesses, it seems to take it much more seriously on paper. The steps that need to be taken just aren’t being taken to the best of the governments ability and it is beginning to show. When searching the internet on how the government deals with food borne illnesses we are directed to a site named FoodSafety.gov. How convenient. The page that promotes safety has the url of GOV and yet the protocols they promise to enforce are not being taken seriously.

This all becomes relative to the American people until one sees just how close this could be to their own front door. This is why the government should be stepping in and helping rather than covering up. As both a large enough entity and ‘protector’ of the people, this is one of their largest tasks, and they are failing. And to an even further extent, they are guilty. We see this plainly in the documentary Food, Inc. 

In Food, Inc. we learn so much about the food industry and what this enormous job entails if we want to improve our food. We get to not only hear but actually see where our food is truly coming from, and it is not a pretty sight. Robert Kenner, the director of Food, Inc. felt it was time the people of the United States could finally see where their food was coming from and what was being put into it.

“80% of all antibiotics are used on factory farm animals. This statistic at first seemed unrealistic. How was it possible that all the people in the U.S. were only using 20% and then we essentially were eating what was left. What ends up happening is now Americans have a much larger intake of antibiotics than they thought. They are consuming all these products without realizing the consequences behind them.This then becomes an enormous problem that the government isn’t taking care of. This ‘overdose’ of medication is too much for the body and more than usual, they are left regretting that last burger at 2AM.

In Blake Hurst‘s article, he speaks about how although some produce is organic it doesn’t mean it is completely free of pesticides or additives. To grow organics they are allowed to use certain pesticides as long as they are natural ingredients. This is one of the large inconsistencies that Americans have. Even though something is organic, the fine print doesn’t mean the same thing that has been ingrained into our heads. This then goes back to the main issues in Food, Inc. and Nestle’s article, even though things may be understood to be a certain way that is not always the case, and even Hurst, who is on the ‘other side’ of food safety can see holes in the system in which he works.

Organic doesn’t always mean completely free of pesticides and that can be a common misconception. The food industries are thriving on these misconceptions so they can label certain items and charge more, even when the content isn’t completely true. Although Hurst is for conventional farming and it seems he is anti-organic, he is still fueling the fire and informing us on what he feels are issues with farming and pesticide quantity. And the government allows this to happen without a second glance. Once we look deeper into what the contents are, we learn just how misguided and malinformed we are.

This becomes extremely apparent once we read the Consumer Report, “You Are What They Eat.” This is a non-biased publication that brings different information to the table on food safety. It provides countless professionals as well as company players to give info and statistics on food safety subjects. One of their biggest points is if it is okay to eat meat that has been fed animal feed.

David Bossman, recent president and CEO of the American Feed Industry Association recounts its safety. “The food supply as it comes from the production source is very, very safe. We’ve seen that from all sources. And you can eat meat with confidence that not only is it safe, but it’s getting safer because of all the things that industry is doing” (Consumer Reports, 27). This man is a key player in the government as he has a job in the American Feed Industry Association. He has a much larger say in what would be fed to the animals we eat than the people, of course he would defend the actions of the food industry, for he is the man making money from it. Being president of the company only enforces his opinion to support it.

Those fighting against feed had another opinion entirely. Carol Tucker-Foreman, director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America, said nearly the opposite. “Rules protecting the feed supply aren’t as strong as they should be, and the FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk” (Consumer Reports, 27). This woman has no ties to the large corporations or feed developers. She is just a woman who wishes to better the lives of countless Americans with the knowledge she has. This is the kind of information that the government isn’t giving us and in turn is betraying our trust in the government.

So before you decide to trust everything you hear on the news or something in a magazine, just think. Stop and think. Am i being told the truth about what I’m eating or should I take another look. It may end up saving your life.

Reflection:

1. My understanding of the writer’s project is to get deeper into the meaning of a text. Not to have one main thesis and base your entire paper on it but to have a more fluid project. Of course you need to have a certain main idea, but the rules are slightly changed. You don’t have to live in the parameters given by conventional writing but rather are given the freedom to choose words, phrases, and ideas that may otherwise have been left out from the argument. In my own article I feel I did this by making my main argument on food safety and drawing different opinions and quotes together to support how the government is failing to deliver on the subject. I also got to use more of an opinionated mindset in this paper which I usually do not get to do in the more conventional pf papers.

2. The sorting it out workshop I feel was most useful for its organizational skills. I personally do not enjoy the outlining process and this workshop forced me to sit down and truly think before I wrote a word of my blog. This was an odd experience for me, since I do all the outlines in my head. I found what was most useful was having to look for the passages ahead of time. I usually look for passages to fit my arguments once i reach that part of a paper. In this assignment I had to do the opposite. I shaped the argument around the different key passages I was taking from the articles. This became extremely helpful in this format since I am used to a different and much longer writing style, while these were choppy and to the point.

3. Synthesis was to somehow take different opinions and ideas and shape them into a singular argument. This was a challenge since some of the articles had completely opposing views from the others. For instance, when using Hurst in this article against food safety, I took how although he was for conventional farming, he was bringing other less reviewed safety issues to light. This was a way to use the source and still get valuable information.

4. During this unit I truly feel I have learned so much about food and where it comes from. I never found myself so involved at the grocery store. I usually just went for whatever it was that I usually bought, but I now take a second look. This would have gone on the same if not for this class. I also like the writer’s project. Having to veer from the thesis style writing was something I never thought I would do!

5. My main idea came with the title of this article “Food Safety, Who’s Safety.” I feel this is already honing in on what I wish to convey to my fellow readers. It is important for me to give them the info offhand since this is a blog post. Therefore, I made sure it was right in the audience’s face. The evolution then continued once I began to attack the main topic in the first few paragraphs, most specifically in the 5th when I go on to say exactly how I feel about big corporations and the governments lack of control. This is where my paper truly builds momentum.

6. When I wrote the first draft of this paper I just wanted to get all my ready information out there, so I did. I put all the passages I had ahead of time first. They were what I used to fuel my argument, but I obviously couldn’t start with them. So I worked around these main passages that I really wanted to be center arguments for my paper and went from there. In my later draft we can see that the passages are not right at the beginning but I have put my argument (and sass) at the beginning. This then allows for my point to be set and then the support afterwards.

7. One example of how I synthesized was near the middle of my paper. It shows two similar views and one alternative view, but they all come together for my argument. This then goes back to the main issues in Food, Inc. and Nestle’s article, even though things may be understood to be a certain way that is not always the case, and even Hurst, who is on the ‘other side’ of food safety can see holes in the system in which he works. This came together towards the end of my draft when all these passages were already down.

8. The lede that I had in my first draft was not very enticing, but rather more informative. “The idea of food safety is so common in our day to day lives but it is still not taken seriously enough when both major companies and the government thrive on the fact that they can cover up these safety issues in spite of their ‘publicized efforts’ to help.” That was my first lede, and although it was good for my paper later on, it was not my final lede. It was not until I was in class that I realized how much better it could get. This is when I came up with my new lede, “Do you know where your children are…because I doubt it’s the fruit section of the supermarket. But does that even matter anymore when the entire system has formed its own agenda?”

9. I would like to further work on the writer’s project since it was very difficult to stride from the thesis base paper that has been engraved in my mind. As an ETS major I adore using large vocabulary and make the piece fluid and nice to the ear. It is one of my favorite parts of my writing, but I cannot always get away with it. It isn’t the only writing I will need to do and I have to more easily veer from its coarse.