[ibogaine] health care for all or military killing machines...hmmm

Joshua Tinnin jtinnin at pacbell.net
Sun Jul 28 13:09:03 EDT 2002


$200 is pathetic and insulting. It's, what, less than one day's worth of
drugs for many addicts? How can one trade a lifetime of sterility for $200?
That's a week's rent in a residential hotel in the bad part of town. It's
been proven that the CIA moves addictive drugs into this country, and even
profits by it. This CRACK program smacks of eugenics with a stick and carrot
dangled in front of the undesirables for incentive not to reproduce ever
again. It does *nothing* to address the real problem of addiction - it
doesn't even attempt to deal with the real problems. It's a cry, once again,
for "the children." The crack baby propaganda, btw, was just that -
propaganda. It was fabricated.

Yes, addicts, like everyone else, must be held responsible for their
decisions. So, in a sense, it can be said that it is the addict's decision
to get sterilized for the small amount of fast cash. But how wise is that
decision when made by an active crack addict, one which will affect that
person for the rest of their lives? How will that $200 be seen later by a
recovering addict who can no longer have children? Do you think there will
be regret? Can you envision the lawsuits to come years later?

Will this program be available for alcoholics or smokers? How many children
of alcoholics are affected adversely compared to those with parents addicted
to crack? How severe are birth defects caused by those substances?

More than 140,000 people die in the US every year due to alcohol. How many
die due to crack cocaine? Take a guess ...

Not to dwell too much on conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't be at all
surprised if, 30 years from now, this program is revealed to be an
intelligence operation in eugenics. If MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, Project
MOCKINGBIRD, etc., revealed anything, it's that the government has no moral
scruples whatsoever when dealing with covert operations.

However, to the program's credit, it does offer cash (though a smaller
amount) to women who provide proof that they are using birth control.
Norplant is offered as one method, with a $100 incentive.

This is harm reduction to the wrong extreme, if anything.

- jt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett Calabrese" <bcalabrese at yahoo.com>
> Preston  "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>     God, I'm actually a bit pissed off at this post. I
> can't stand this attitude. Where does this come from?
> When did people become so dumbed down and willing to
> pay for death, but not life?"
>
> NO ONE was talking about killing anyone, not even an
> abortion. What is this, we are going to mourn for
> every sperm and egg that "got spilt" and never made a
> baby, better put those people who use condoms in jail.
> The issue was a rebate of sorts for those who wished
> to get steralized OR (and some keep ignoring this)
> long term birth control - you keep focusing on DEATH,
> lost opportunities, the what-ifs (baby) that never
> happened (not even a fertilized egg). It is (IMO) not
> like someone killed a child, geez, what "killing" are
> you talking about (NONE IMO). There is a difference
> between being fruitful and multiplying and growing
> like weeds.
>
> No one is talking about forcing anyone into anything
> or killing anything. Doesn't it come down to some
> religious belief that birth control is bad and this is
> birth control? So, (specifically talking about the
> CRACK $200 rebate for LT birth control/sterilization)
> what death is it you are talking about that is being
> offered - and yes, the Gov't has their military
> killing machines, the US imprisons more people than
> any other country per capita and a zillion other
> issues - those are OTHER ISSUES (IMO) and Yes there
> should be treatment that is far better than it is
> today, the DRUG wars are bad and there are a thousand
> evils out there - we are talking about one tiny issue
> and without solving all the other problems with drug
> abuse, this is CRACK's issue that they choose to deal
> with, just like you or anyone else has their causes.
>
> Brett
>
> --- preston peet <ptpeet at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >As somebody who works for a living and has had
> > their share of drug problems I don't have any
> > interest in paying for some crackwhore's kids being
> > taken care of when she keeps having them. I resent
> > that. If you want to have kids and ruin their lives
> > and don't have enough common sense to know your a
> > mess that's your business and I feel sorry for the
> > kids but it shouldn't be my tax dollars paying for
> > all that. <
> >
> > This is brilliant (stupidity), and as a former hard
> > core drug abuser and works very hard for a living,
> > I'm very glad you posted this opinion here.
> > Out of curiosity, do you like, (or not resent), your
> > tax dollars going to build nifty neato military
> > killing machines? How about bombs dropped on
> > innocent Afghans? Do support the outrageous military
> > spending by the US, and the outrageous amounts
> > already being spent to lock up the druggies in the
> > name of a War on Drugs? If you are, but aren't
> > willing to help pay for health costs of drug addicts
> > and other fellow Americans, I am stumped at this
> > attitude.
> >     Where does the attitude come from that "we don't
> > want to pay for druggies' health costs" when that is
> > already EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW by locking them
> > all up, THEN paying their health costs. Why add that
> > imprisonment cost to the total? Why is it better to
> > pay taxes for killing people and imprisoning them,
> > (and propping up foreign corrupt government growing
> > drugs), but not for helping American citizens, real
> > honest to goodness people, even druggies who "don't
> > have enough common sense to know" they're a mess to
> > use your phrase.
> >     This simply strikes me as blindly following
> > along behind prohibition hatered, ignorance, and
> > dogma. Those Dirty Druggies (of whom you were one
> > once apparently) don't deserve my help....but by god
> > we need a STRONG MILITARY so we can go in and prop
> > up some more drug producing tin-pot didctators
> > around the world so they can produce tons of drugs
> > so the DEA can ship them across our borders by the
> > TON in so-called "controlled" shippments they
> > themselves cannot account for tons of RIGHT NOW!
> >     Of course, I could be wrong and this might not
> > be your position at all, as you haven't actually
> > mentioned the military spending, or for that matter,
> > the incredibley shoddy accounting the government
> > actually does to keep track of your, and my, taxes.
> >     But I hear and read this king of thinking all
> > the time in the US, and it drives me CRAZY! Who are
> > these heartless people who are silent about the
> > trillions spent by our military for NOTHING but
> > killing, death, and propping up drug producing
> > cartels, (KLA, Northern Alliance, Vladamir
> > Montesinos to name but a few usual US-allies), but
> > can't find it in their hearts to pay taxes towards a
> > universal health care system, as that would be
> > SOCIALISM.
> >     BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >     God, I'm actually a bit pissed off at this post.
> > I can't stand this attitude. Where does this come
> > from? When did people become so dumbed down and
> > willing to pay for death, but not life?
> > Peace,
> > Preston
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: ascending at hushmail.com
> >   To: ibogaine at mindvox.com
> >   Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:16 AM
> >   Subject: Re: Re: [ibogaine] C.R.A.C.K Original
> > statement and more comments
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   I see no problem with this at all. It's not as if
> > these future moms are being herded into the
> > sterilization pens.
> >
> >   As somebody who works for a living and has had
> > their share of drug problems I don't have any
> > interest in paying for some crackwhore's kids being
> > taken care of when she keeps having them. I resent
> > that. If you want to have kids and ruin their lives
> > and don't have enough common sense to know your a
> > mess that's your business and I feel sorry for the
> > kids but it shouldn't be my tax dollars paying for
> > all that.
> >
> >   Sorry but that's reality. In case none of you read
> > anything except drug lists there is this over
> > population problem with the world, there is no
> > shortage of babies. None at all.
> >
> >   >> Who gets to decide who is worthy and who is
> > not?
> >   >
> >   >The person getting sterilized, seems very
> > reasonable
> >   >to me. And for the money that they are likely to
> > use
> >   >for drugs, well that goes for the welfare check,
> >   >pay-check or any other check they get their hands
> > on.
> >   >This is not forced sterilization, it is $200
> > (rebate)
> >   >should someone choose to get sterilized OR (and
> > you
> >   >seemed to focus on the sterilization part) long
> > term
> >   >birth control.
> >   >
> >   >> When does simple drug use become reason enough
> > to
> >   >> sterilize mothers?
> >   >
> >   >I don't see anyone being forced to do any such
> > thing,
> >   >no suggestion or hint of such - though really, I
> >   >personally think there are cases where a person
> > should
> >   >be forcibly sterilized, at any age (eg, sorry MS
> > 17
> >   >year old but you had a child at 12, another at
> > 14,
> >   >another at 15, another at 17, you are unmarried,
> > had
> >   >all 4 children taken away because of abuse and
> > your
> >   >drug addiction and you are pregnant again...).
> > But
> >   >that is my "opinion" but maybe I am looking at it
> > like
> >   >MOM made her decisions about her life and
> > shouldn't be
> >   >allowed (at some point) to have her children
> > suffer
> >   >for her disease. Sorry but I just don't see a
> > problem
> >   >with someone taking the choice to be sterilized
> > or use
> >   >specific birth control methods as some violation
> > of
> >   >morality.
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >Brett




More information about the Ibogaine mailing list