Going to college in London this term! I'm not actually going, which was a hard decision I had to make after a long discussion with my parents. Being reckless, I wanted to go despite there being a higher risk of catching COVID than if I stayed in Hong Kong. They didn't want me to go. (They were right.) Part of the reason we made this decision was because all learning materials – lectures, forums, written assignments – were going to be online. The only academic aspect I would be missing out on were the 1-2 hours of in-person teaching a week. It's not entirely worth it. Many extracurricular activities will continue to be online, like club updates and Zoom events. I just hope I'm not missing out on too much. (I was already a new sophomore back in high school, which was a little tough).

I love how this discussion is going so far, and I know that the idea of exclusion/inclusion of allies can be a tricky line to walk. An example of safe spaces I've been thinking about a lot are gay bars. Maybe its name in itself is exclusive – all members of the LGBTQ+ community are welcome there, as are allies – but the sentiment still remains. It can be weird to try and sort out strangers on the street to see if they're gay too, because you really can't tell if someone is gay or not based on how they look. You'd start to question the validity of your own sexuality, who's part of your community and who's not. Right now, society is slowly beginning to move away from heteronormativity, but until then, it's easy to feel alone. I imagine that at a gay bar, there doesn't need to be room for discrepancies or furtive, uncertain looks or anything like that. Another under-18 example I can think of was the Choate Spectrum Conference I attended a few years ago. I went with my friends, who identify as members of the LGBTQ+ community, and when we got there, their entire mentality had changed. They were more relaxed, happier, and were elated at the chance to discuss things about the gay community with other gay people. They returned to school the next week more assured and confident with their identity. From experience, a safe space is somewhere I can recuperate, reconnect with parts of my identity without being gaslighted or having to question myself, and find the confidence I need to exist unapologetically. I've often heard and thought that while allies are undoubtedly welcome in safe spaces, the space exists for the people of that identity to be together for validation and in solidarity.

Mir website, JUUL has claimed that they only aim to target adults over the age of 21. They also have a subsection on their website titled "Youth Prevention". They have claimed that they are attempting to curb their number of underage consumers with their dedication to the T21 (Tobacco 21) laws in each state, despite the fact that their webpage and their online shop have no actual security for those consumers under the age of 21. In addition to this, they have said, "JUUL LABS IS COMMITTED TO IMPROVING THE LIVES OF THE WORLD’S ONE BILLION ADULT SMOKERS BY ELIMINATING CIGARETTES. WE DON’T WANT ANYONE WHO DOESN’T SMOKE, OR ALREADY USE NICOTINE, TO USE JUUL PRODUCTS. WE CERTAINLY DON’T WANT YOUTH USING THE PRODUCT. IT IS BAD FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IT IS BAD FOR OUR MISSION" and that "We know that “social sourcing”—obtaining tobacco products from friends or siblings who are of legal age—is the main contributor to youth use". As much as JUUL is sending this message to their consumers, it's hard to say or to confirm that they're actually implementing concrete policies against underage consumption. They also haven't said anything against nicotine, other than the fact that their website says, "These alternatives contain nicotine, which has not been shown to cause cancer but can create dependency". JUUL might only be using nicotine to keep ex-smokers hooked on e-cigarettes to give them a different rush than how it might feel to smoke tobacco or a regular cigarette, so that, if anything, they don't get lung cancer from inhaling nicotine. (It's also interesting to note that, throughout JUUL's website, nicotine is the one ingredient that they warn users about, and not any other potentially harmful chemical.) To this extent, we can only say for sure that JUUL (but at this point in my rabbit hole deep-dive, not any other e-cigarette company) is specifically targeting smokers above the age of 21 who want to put their cigarettes down. However, we know that just sending the message of "we don't want young kids to be addicted to nicotine" isn't enough. More needs to be done, both on the corporate side and the social/individual side of the issue. https://www.juul.com/youth-prevention

Not sure if this is relevant, but reusable e-cigarettes can often be found in specific smoke shops or resellers (?), whereas cigarettes can be found in corner stores and gas stations – to this point, an argument can be made about accessibility or exclusivity. There's also a difference between the carcinogens in cigarettes and e-cigs. E-cigarettes contain formaldehyde, while cigarettes contain tobacco smoke. Both can cause lung cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/e-cigarettes.html https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/how-does-smoking-cause-cancer

But I'd also like to address the final question in the prompt: are there any potential problems with basing an argument entirely upon scientific facts? Usually, I don't think there would be, but since we're expanding the scope of legalization past medical usage of marijuana and into the recreational usage of marijuana, this topic is already leaning towards a social issue. In politics, legalizing marijuana isn't as prevalent of a topic as immigration or foreign affairs, but it is a topic nonetheless. In homes, especially in the very state I'm getting my education in, the legal age for smoking marijuana is 21, and parents are encouraged to sit down with their kids and have "the talk". Following closely behind is the trend of what's cool and what's not: when I asked one of my friends what she did over spring break, she told me about how "people were just out smoking weed in one of the public parks; it was a little bizarre but pretty sick". Like all other controversial topics in this day and age, the usage of marijuana is becoming a political issue, a social issue, a cultural issue, a countercultural issue, and an issue that will definitely become more prevalent in our generation for years to come. The problem with basing an argument entirely on scientific facts is that this argument isn't just about marijuana anymore, but it's about people using marijuana. Inevitably, the legalization of marijuana will have an enormous impact on people's lives, and while understanding the science and the research of marijuana can go a long way in supporting a position, it wouldn't be the wisest thing to base an entire argument purely on scientific fact. (Thanks for posing this question, I had a lot of fun thinking about it!) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/science/review-stoned-a-doctors-case-for-medical-marijuana.html?searchResultPosition=7 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/health/politicians-prescriptions-for-marijuana-defy-doctors-and-data.html?module=inline https://www.mass.gov/info-details/health-effects-of-marijuana#mental-health-

When discussing the legalization of medical marijuana, it might not be the best decision to base an argument purely off of scientific fact, but also to consider circumstance. Not everybody lives in the same place, comes from the same background, or has to deal with the same medical issues as others do. In a New York Times article, one patient said that marijuana greatly helped her deal with symptoms of a chronic disease and insomnia, and while another patient also saw the same benefits in his usage of marijuana, he also experienced auditory hallucinations at his job (which is potentially harmful in any career path) and retarded reaction times while driving. With medical marijuana, regulation is more important than ever – clinics and pharmacies can't just be distributing cannabis left and right – but regulation can't be the only thing we're focused on. Researching marijuana has become more important than ever before, especially with the gradual legalization of marijuana, both medical and recreational, in the United States. We need to draw the line between regulations that set boundaries and regulations that hinder research.

On the topic of the "tortured artist" trope and the journey to perfection, you guys should check out Whiplash and Black Swan. Here's a video essay I found interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba-CB6wVuvQ There's a fine line in the performing arts between pushing the boundaries of conventional art and pushing the limits of the body and mind. Whiplash portrays this extremely well, but in a way that justifies how someone would push themselves deeper and deeper into anxiety and depression for their art. There's the general stereotype or idea that artists draw inspiration from this deep well of emotion and channel that into their artwork, which thus justifies how people "beautify" depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses that would affect an artist's emotion or style in expression. Using art as a way to treat mental illness isn't the issue and can in fact be extremely efficient - there are even a few occupations that go further into that: art therapy, music therapy, dance therapy, and more - but the fact that some artists depend on their mental illness for creativity and inspiration is wildly unsettling. The problem I see here isn't that depressed artists are channeling their depression, it's that they've relied on depression for their art to such a point where they don't want to get better, and recovery only takes that creative drive away from them. We need to realize that there's beauty in recovery, too.

I go to a school that puts an emphasis on community and caring for each other, but a lot of people don't always understand what that looks like. There's a fine line between respect and unwanted intervention. My friends and I are open about bad days, panic attacks, or "sad hours" when we need to go on a walk or spend some time alone, and I've never been diagnosed with clinical depression or anxiety or received any legitimate education in the study of psychology, but I know that being especially aware and respecting someone's boundaries is incredibly important.

It's also worth comparing the Geriatric Depression Scale to the Adolescent Depression Scale, both of which come from the same source: https://psychology-tools.com/test/kutcher-adolescent-depression-scale

The higher rates might also be linked to the fact that geriatric depression (or mental health, for that matter) is being increasingly investigated, but also that oppressed depression from earlier years might only be manifesting now in old age. If someone has untreated depression in their youth, chances are they won't feel better without the help of a professional. Additionally, if one develops depression in their teenage years and lives up to the age of sixty or seventy without seeking help, it means they've been going with undiagnosed depression for about fifty or sixty years of their life. The more people who have been oppressed or dissuaded to seek help for mental illnesses in previous decades, the more people we might see later who have or develop depression.

I can speak to the stigma against retirement homes in East Asia; one of the things I've heard growing up was to "get a good job so that [I] can take care of my parents when they get old", but if I'm the one who ends up taking care of my parents, who are my parents going to take care of? One of the most commonly discussed causes of geriatric depression is, simply put in adolescent terms, "fomo", or the feeling of missing out, except that in this case the elderly might feel a loss of purpose. It's generally understandable, because I know that if I spent more than a decade or two of my life raising an individual and teaching them to be a good person in society, I'd definitely feel confused or puzzled after the job is done. From my perspective, the East Asian view of family is that we take care of each other: the parents and the adults are the breadwinners, and the children take over that role when they get older, but the elderly, although highly revered and respected, don't have much of a role other than to impart their wisdom on the youth. Caring for the family is a hard job, and the reward at the end of it all is to, in turn, be taken care of by the family. It's especially visible at the dinner table: my parents serve food to their parents, and when I reach "that age", I will be the one serving food to my parents, like in a pattern or a cycle. But suddenly being thrown into a relatively inactive life can be, disorienting or confusing, and might even seem less important. In some cases, this leads to geriatric depression. At this point in my life, I'm speaking from the purely theoretical point of view, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.

A few months ago, I got a little bored and found an article on mental illness in Hong Kong, which consequently led me down a rabbit hole. It turns out that Hong Kong is taking some important steps towards recognizing mental illness as a legitimate medical disorder. There was a mental health conference in 2017, which I'm sorry to say I did not attend, but I do know that a relatively new organization called MindHK invited a bunch of professors, psychiatrists, founders of multiple mental health organizations, and a few religious leaders to come speak at the conference. While it might seem obvious that mental health is a legitimate disorder, it's taken me a while to learn that other people don't believe that. I agree with Lizzie's response - that the key to helping suffering teenagers and adults is to reduce the stigma surrounding mental health - and while there's still a long way to go, I'm glad to see that other countries are beginning to aid the effort to solve the problem of mental illness. MindHK: https://www.mind.org.hk/about-us/ The article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/29/health/mental-health-suicide-hong-kong-asia/index.html

I agree with all of the above, but I'd also like to add that if you're put in a position where you're about to take your own life, it can be scary hearing what someone else has to say. If you're put on the borderline, the last thing you need is someone telling you that your thoughts and feelings are stupid. I'm guessing that most of the resources that are most easily accessible to teenagers are through the internet by nature of the media and an increase in the use of tech. Social media is also a great place to find a good number of self-help websites, such as https://www.7cups.com/.

It's fair to assume that teen depression might be a result of puberty and raging hormones in an adolescent body, but it's also easily attributed to new environments and pressure from peers - the teenage years are often where one might be exposed to the career world, along with thinking about college, grades, relationships, adulthood, and prevalent issues in the world today (such as public health!) All that radical change isn't supposed to come in just the span of four or five years. I know this isn't really part of the question asked, but regardless of whether it's teen depression or not, we should still be willing to help people who struggle with self-worth, body image, etc. We can't brush off those issues just because there's a teenager being angsty, edgy, or expressing themselves through dark humor. Depression is depression, and it should be treated as such.

It also makes great use of artistic persuasion which I personally find super cool!

On the contrary, I feel like anti-vaxxers wouldn't be completely ignorant; the pervasive nature of the media and the internet ensures that we're all up to date with the latest about sicknesses and diseases. Parents might just be scared that vaccines might do something 'unnatural' to their children, and their anxiety is understandable, but not well-grounded in scientific fact. I guess there's a distinct lack of perspective here if parents don't understand how harmful diseases can be to an unvaccinated infant. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-families-are-not-alike/201808/why-i-was-anti-vaxxer

If you've ever been forced into a group project, you probably know how much you want to metaphorically strangle your teammates when it looks like they're off in the corner picking their own nose. It is both ethical and practical to pull your own load, and people absolutely need to do so. That being said, relying on herd immunity as a form of vaccination isn't the best, and certainly shouldn't be seen as the number one solution, but in a world that pushes socioeconomic groups farther and farther apart, we might have the face the fact that herd immunity is a major benefit for people who are unable to afford vaccinations. Socioeconomic mobility (the ability to move up 'ranks' in a society's hierarchy, e.x. moving from the middle-class to the upper-class) is an increasing problem in America and countries around the world, but along with that, the price of vaccination has sharply increased in the past two decades, the cost going up from single digits to triple digits. Yes, we could go into the moral argument of whether or not parents should vaccinate their children, and they most definitely should, but the reality is that not everyone has the means to do so. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/health/Vaccine-Costs-Soaring-Paying-Till-It-Hurts.html