Drug question

[warrior1]

I'm listening to Randi and she's discussing Iran/Contra, Vietnam etc. Knowing what we know about how drugs from other countries got to our country because the illegal acts by Oliver North, CIA and republicans of the day, why would anyone, for one do drugs, and second support drug use, if at the on set of it's introduction was do to the conspiracy of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush administrations?

She mention that all of the sudden we have drugs say like cocaine coming in the 80's by the boat load, and how if not for the CIA, etc letting it get it. Now what's coming is Afghani heroin.

Doing drugs my support the republican system..

I'm just saying...

[ThomWV]

1. Crafty Question - But I Won't Get Caught In It

No one "supports drug use".

Its just like asking a person if they support abortion. No one supports abortion and no one supports drug use.

Rephrase your question.

[Ezlivin]

6. We ALL support drug use

The question is: Which ones are "bad" and which ones are "good"?

I think that the answer to that question can be answered only on an individual basis. One man's poison....

[Ezlivin]

2. 100% herbal answer

You are not supporting any political party by growing your own.

Cocaine will make its way to this country with/without help. The demand here is much too high.

The Drug War greatly enriches the conservative "base" because it relies heavily upon law enforcement to try to affect what should be a health problem, not a legal one.

[Lance_Boyle]

3. What's the moral of the story?

Drug use = morally ambiguous, to the extent it harms nobody but the free-choosing user.

CIA = bad.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Legalize homegrown pot! n/t

[warrior1]

5. Would

using drugs as a choice, have unseen forces of commerce to benefit the republican machine?

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Everything you're talking about is predicated on prohibition.

You have a system whereby the folks you mention not only get to profit off the drugs, they get to use drug hysteria to finance a prison-industrial complex and law enforcement apparatus while simultaneously using it as an excuse to dismantle the bill of rights.

Nations that have "harm reduction" approaches to hard drugs- like the netherlands- don't have any higher incidence of drug addiction than we do. So what's the point of spending $40 Billion a year- not even including the costs of our being the highest per capita incarcerator of non-violent offenders in the industrialized world- on the "drug war"?

Oh, and that drug war? The MAJORITY of that $40 Billion goes to fighting: Not heroin, not cocaine, but marijuana. Yep. That's $40 Billion of our tax dollars to try to make sure folks like Willie Nelson and the late Carl Sagan can't get high if they want to.

Personally, I've been clean and sober for years- and I can attest to the fact that one of the most dangerous drugs out there is fully legal and known as "alcohol". But philosophically, you ask "why would anyone support drug use"- it's not a question of "supporting" or "not supporting"- it's a question of saying, to my mind at least, that insofar as someone isn't committing other crimes, endangering others, driving under the influence, etc. the government doesn't have any business- NONE- telling a consenting adult what he or she may do with HIS OR HER OWN BODY.

Period.

And with decriminalization, you take the criminal element out that thrives on the illegal drug trade, just like Al Capone was a natural by-product of prohibition.

[warrior1]

9. re

I don't disagree with you answer, I just think that American's in general don't know the meaning of moderation. Using a drug to control pain is a personal issue which I do not oppose.

I don't believe there is a solution at least for Americans that could or would work. Government is to big and nosy, and some people (not all) are negligent with it's use, including booze.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Right. But the answer to that is treatment on demand.

$40 Billion a year could fund a lot of that, and a lot of fact-based education, too. Instead, we're classifying every one of the 60 million otherwise law-abiding criminals who smoke pot recreationally as "criminals". It's a waste.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Because it's fun.

Really, did you think there was another reason?

[Ariana Celeste]

10. When I think about doing drugs,

the last thing on my mind is Republicans and conspiracies. I'm thinking about getting high.

[conscious evolution]

13. And that is why they bring drugs into the country

That and the money.But they love it when people only care about getting that next hit.Thats why it is always some highly addictive drug like heroin or crack or meth that they bring in..When your whole life starts to revolve around feeding the monkey you tend to quit paying attention to anything else.
And when you get busted it gives them an excuse to disenfranchise you,rendering you politically impotent.

Hereis a tinfoil theory of mine.I have noticed that whenever hallucinatory drugs like LSD orPsylocibin start making resurgences some new,highly addictive drug pops up.Trippers tend to allow people to see through the bullshit and that is the last thing the fascists want.

[ms liberty]

12. The drugs that were brought in by the CIA etc. back in the 80's...

What you're talking about is cocaine and heroin. IIRC marijuana was never one of the drugs they messed with. It would take too much pot to make enough profit - there was a lot more profit for the weight in coke and smack. This is what happened during Prohibition. Before Prohibition, most people drank beer and wine, there wasn't much market for hard liquor. During Prohibition, beer and wine didn't bring enough profit per gallon, so to speak. So the black market popularized hard liquor by making it more easily available, and beer and wine became less available. Same story with today's Prohibition, which could more properly be called a War on Cannabis. It's easier to bust people for pot, and drug testing helps with that. When pot is less available, people who are interested in doing some drug/any drug, are more likely to move on to something else, especially if they can't get any pot. Crack was the big one that the CIA got into - it was cheaper, concentrated, and more addictive. It has been said that the CIA is totally responsible for the crack epidemic.

I think pot should be legally available for any adult. Anything else should be available only through a doctor - a specialist who can prescribe for maintenance dosages for addicts, for instance.

Pot is NOT supporting any republican system, and never has. If it did, it would be a lot easier to get, and the man wouldn't be so interested in busting people who do it. But the man understands that people who use pot are non-conformists who don't blindly follow anyone for any reason.

There are some excellent books out there on this subject. Try "Smoke and Mirrors" by Dan Baum, "Drug Crazy" by Mike Gray. For works connected to studies on marijuana check out "Marijuana Myth, Marijuana Facts" by Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. and John P. Morgan, M.D.

Informative websites you can visit are: the Marijuana Policy Project, NORML (Natl. Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws), the Drug Policy Alliance.

[sweetheart]

14. because of the bill of rights

The 9th amendment preserves the unenumerated rights of the time, which included,
(given that the constitution was printed on hemp), the right to grow, ingest or otherwise
consume any herb or concoction on this god's green earth.

I don't get my cannabis from terrorists, rather from regular people (farmers) who're
just trying to make a living.

I don't do coke or smack, that's not my scene... the CIA doesn't like LSD or mushrooms
as they're not addictive, its not all drugs, just the strong opiates. That you
don't know the difference is the problem in your post.

[BlackVelvet04]

15. It wasn't....................

"if at the on set of it's introduction was do to the conspiracy of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush administrations?"

You think the first cocaine was introduced by the Nixon administration?

[MadHound]

16. If you want to know what the real "drug war" has been for the past fifty years

I suggest that you check out Alfred McCoy's book "The Politics of Heroin". The shit that's been done in the fifties, sixties and seventies makes Ollie North and the boys look like pikers. Oh, year, the special updated version brings Osama into the picture too. We didn't go into Afhanistan simply to revenge the 911 attacks, and there is a very good reason why despite, or because of, our presence Afghans are continuing to pull in record poppy crops.