Definitions that Samuel Johnson overlooked

I don’t encourage the use of illicit drugs (nor really licit drugs either).  This is relevant.

Commercial break:

The first thing that strikes me about this advertisement is that it is flagrantly a scam.  “Healthcare Information” and “Advertising” are, in this context, antithetical.  Advertising has one function: sales.  Which is fine.  I have no problem with people trying to sell their products in order to create financial security for themselves.  However, attempting to obfuscate the nature of the commercial by using “Healthcare Information” as a descriptor is ethically reproachable.  The spot is not intended to inform the viewer about anything other than a fictitious “medical condition” and the pharmaceutical that accompanies the condition, which is, shockingly, for sale at local stores.  Not to mention that the issue is easily solved with water, as the guy at one point says, but that doesn’t cure it.  You just end up sipping water again later.  You know, when you get thirsty or whatever.

The second thing that strikes me about this advertisement is the advertisement itself.  Dry mouth?  Really?  We already have eye drops to remove redness, now we have a spray to get rid of dry mouth?  What other side effects of pot smoking are we currently tackling in R&D labs?  Also, why is this not geared towards its intended audience?  I believe the correct term is “cotton mouth.”  Not to mention the old guy and his interesting accent (in the video’s comments, the spelling consensus is “dry moath“).  Though, to be fair, I suppose you’d have to be high to buy into this anyway.  I mean, the guy’s not even wearing a lab coat.  What does he know about medicine, or anything else?