[ibogaine] war on drugs
carrierollins at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 8 01:57:51 EDT 2002
Ok thanks for posting the bush conspiracy guide for
dummies Carla, that helped. But besides that my
original question is still exactly the same.
What does any of this have to do with ibogaine, yes
the libertarians wanting to play the stock market with
social security i can beleive, i think they want to
get rid of it totally or whatever.
But I do want to understand the simple thing of what's
the diff between the republicans, democrats, all these
people as far as ibogaine is concerned?
Did any of this get any better when Clinton was in the
white house? I wasnt there or anything but it doesnt
look like Bush has made any change at all. The
libertarians I dont know what they want, thank you
Vector :-) nothing with ibogaine in particular i dont
think, they want to repeal all drug laws and most
other laws from what I understand.
So my original question and i'm sorry I keep asking it
but nobody has answered it, is what difference does it
make for ibogaine? none of these people act like it's
a priority to them, not republican, not democrat, not
anybody. What's anybody besides the people on this
Nothing at all that I can see, the only marijuana
people promoting is you Dana, I don't see ibogaine
listed anywhere else.
I still will vote democrat because I'm not a rich
person who made a lot of money or inhereted it, but
dems, reps, same deal same shit same thing, I don't
see any difference as far as ibogaine or the war on
drugs is concerned.
--- Dana Beal <dana at cures-not-wars.org> wrote:
> >I clicked through some of the links under Mindvox
> >most of them I've seen before but this one I
> >then I noticed that drugwar also links it. What
> >exactly is the Cato institute?
> >What it's saying is the same thing all the
> >war people have been saying for a long time, but
> >doing it in a very unemotional way. I've been
> >the rest of the site and I guess it's a Libertarian
> >Party site, but what they look like they want to do
> >throw the entire government into the garbage. It's
> >just the war on drugs, they look like they disagree
> >with almost everything.
> >I think I'm a Democrat at least I've voted that way
> >before, but I'm not sure things got any better
> >Clinton, did they? The Republicans want to keep the
> >war on drugs going why? I'm not clear on that
> >The Libertarians just want to get rid of the entire
> >government period and every site of theirs has a
> >anti drug war section.
> >Who out of all this wants to keep the war on drugs
> >going??? And who is doing anything to support
> >ibogaine, it doesn't look like really anybody
> >the people on this list and what they do offlist.
> >Did I miss something obvious? I'm getting confused.
> >Oh yes, Cato is http://www.cato.org
> Why is David Boaz of Cato colluding with NORML and
> Ethan Nadelman to
> keep ibogaine out of the drug legalization
> David Boaz is on the Board of NORML. Understand:
> they "not against
> Ibogaine." It's "just a side-issue." But ask
> yourself--which is more
> responsible for "the drug problem?" Some people
> smoking pot, or the
> fact the government is withholding the cure for
> The prohibitionists charge that legalization will
> lead to "an
> explosion of addiction." The legalizers fail to
> point out that
> legalization would include ibogaine, so that it's
> impossible to
> predict what would happen to addiction rates without
> factoring in the
> And the legalizers keep losing the argument. So is
> Cato Institute
> really doing legalization a favor by keeping
> maintaining a consensus
> not to investigate or discuss Ibogaine in the DRA,
> Commonsense for
> Drug Policy?
> Cato Institute is also responsible for designing
> the Bush taxcut and
> the plan to use Social Security to play the
> stockmarket. They're
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
More information about the Ibogaine