Donating to the Zimmerman Defense Fund

[Rarity]

I don't understand how you can claim my argument is invalid when I am quoting the scientists who did the research while you are quoting random government websites that have hard to find links to the research.

You don't need to be a scientists to understand "Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function."

There is zero chance I am misinterpreting that.

Probably not, but what the unbiased experts do is keep reading instead of snipping out only the parts that support their agenda.  Someone who is arguing the opposite point from you might snip out instead:

our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered.

...which is why it is best to leave interpreting studies to the experts.

They also weigh all the available relevant studies instead of only considering the ones that support their views, and the overwhelming weight of the research shows that marijuana is dangerous and addictive which is why the government and drug treatment experts write what they do. 

[1715296795]

1715296795

[1715296795]

1715296795

[1715296795]

1715296795

[1715296795]

1715296795

[1715296795]

1715296795

[Red Emerald]

I don't understand how you can claim my argument is invalid when I am quoting the scientists who did the research while you are quoting random government websites that have hard to find links to the research.

You don't need to be a scientists to understand "Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function."

There is zero chance I am misinterpreting that.

Probably not, but what the unbiased experts do is keep reading instead of snipping out only the parts that support their agenda.  Someone who is arguing the opposite point from you might snip out instead:

our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered.

...which is why it is best to leave interpreting studies to the experts.

They also weigh all the available relevant studies instead of only considering the ones that support their views, and the overwhelming weight of the research shows that marijuana is dangerous and addictive which is why the government and drug treatment experts write what they do.  

Not probably not. There is ZERO chance that is being misinterpreted.  Maybe those scientist's data is wrong and so their conculsion is wrong.  But I am 100% guaranteed that I am not (even without being called an expert) misinterpreting their conclusion.

I literally just copy/pasted the conclusion as written by the original scientists.

Heavy use of ANYTHING is dangerous.  They use the terms CAUTION and MODERATION, not abstinence. You see that right?

EDIT: I wasted my "leet" post on this

[Rarity]

Not probably not. There is ZERO chance that is being misinterpreted.

If you take it to mean that marijuana use is safe, you are definitely misinterpreting it.  It was a lie of omission. 

The reason addiction is a problem is that it short circuits people's ability to moderate their use.  If you just smoked a few cigarettes you would be perfectly fine, but they are still rightfully regarded as a deadly product.  Marijuana can also lead to poor decision making and paranoia and aggressive tendencies that led to Martin attacking Zimmerman, even one use is dangerous and the only benefit is short term fun that you can find in healthy activities instead.

[Red Emerald]

Not probably not. There is ZERO chance that is being misinterpreted.

If you take it to mean that marijuana use is safe, you are definitely misinterpreting it.  It was a lie of omission.  

The reason addiction is a problem is that it short circuits people's ability to moderate their use.  If you just smoked a few cigarettes you would be perfectly fine, but they are still rightfully regarded as a deadly product.  Marijuana can also lead to poor decision making and paranoia and aggressive tendencies that led to Martin attacking Zimmerman, even one use is dangerous and the only benefit is short term fun that you can find in healthy activities instead.

Lie of omission? What?

I don't take this one study alone to mean marijuana use is safe.  I take it to mean that scientists are trying to figure it out and so far according to all but ONE of the studies linked here (that now both of us have at least read the abstract of), moderate use is not dangerous.  According to some of the secondary sources that you directly linked to that reference the actual science, marijuana is dangerous.  However those people making the claims ARE NOT THE EXPERTS.  The scientists who published the articles are the experts.

I still say that one man being potentially killed because of being high when AT LEAST 1/3 of the country has smoked pot is a fringe case at best and not worthy of prohibition.  Most of California and the 10 (I think) other states with medicinal marijuana would be full of kids being shot on their walk home from 7/11 otherwise.

Not only that, but it has not been proven at all by the courts. It looks to me that the pot is just as likely to have caused this tragedy as the skittles in his hand or the hoodie on his back.

You are alleging that Martin attacked Zimmerman.  I have yet to see proof of this. This is something that the courts have not said.

But Hey! Look at that! Back on topic (kinda)! We did it Rarity!

[Rarity]

According to some of the secondary sources that you directly linked to that reference the actual science, marijuana is dangerous.  However those people making the claims ARE NOT THE EXPERTS.  The scientists who published the articles are the experts.

The scientific consensus of the experts is that marijuana poses considerable health risks.  You are the one claiming it is safe, not them.  You can't cherry pick lines from studies and say that means the experts agree with you when they are clearly saying otherwise.  Every time I point to such experts, you claim they don't count, so I'm not sure why I should continue to do so, but here you go:

http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/marijuana-faq.html

What mental or physical problems can marijuana use cause?

According to the 2011 World Drug Report, cannabis products can produce temporary symptoms of psychosis, loss of ability to learn or remember recent events, reduced ability to carry out certain mental tasks, make certain decisions and pay attention. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that a person who starts using cannabis early and uses is heavily could run an increased risk of psychotic disorders. Physically, marijuana smokers have risks similar to those of smokers: bronchitis, emphysema, asthma. Extensive use can cause suppression of the immune system and can increase the risk of cancer to the head, neck and lungs.

A report in Spain stated that they had found a link between heavy marijuana use and psychosis that starts during adolescence. Researchers ruled out any connection to use of other drugs.

http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%203%20Issue%202/Review%20of%20the%20Research.pdf

In addition to the unknown extent of the potential for harm caused by existence and interaction of over 800 natural chemical
components of marijuana, including 70 cannabinoids, it can be concluded that marijuana does pose some
considerable confirmed risks to users. Some concern over marijuana is merited by findings regarding its
ability to create short-term impairment, specifically on driving ability. Academic performance and social
development appear to be negatively affected by marijuana use, but the causal role that the drug plays in
the lack of future success of young people remains unconfirmed. As expected, smoking the drug
contributes to considerable harm to the lungs and airways. Even though the use of vaporizers removes
the contaminants of combustion and reduces some major respiratory problems, THC exposure to the
lungs appears to be unhealthy. The immune system is also compromised by the use of marijuana,
specifically the ability of the lungs to defend against foreign pathogens. Although cancers, heart
problems, and threats to human reproduction are not common among marijuana users, most experts
contend that further investigation is required, and the potential for risk should not be dismissed. The
development of psychosis and later schizophrenia should also remain a concern for a small proportion of
those who use marijuana. Dependency and regular, long-term use of the drug are also factors that likely
exacerbate the potential for the majority of the harms previously identified in this review. Of course, these
harms are often compounded by the fact the marijuana users have an increased likelihood of continuing
on to other illicit drugs.

Looking at all the evidence leads to the conclusion that some of the users will have their lives severely disrupted by the drug.  Recreational use is not worth the cost of sacrificing the lives of some of the users and the harm it will do to their families.

You will note that what the experts conclude about potential damage to the heart is that more studied is needed because they are not confident it is safe.  What you do with a study is cherry pick out a line and say it means marijuana should be legal.  Nope, the experts have their concerns because they also look at the parts of the study that you want to ignore.

There are just too many potential dangers and no medical benefits to allowing recreational pot use.  

[Red Emerald]

According to some of the secondary sources that you directly linked to that reference the actual science, marijuana is dangerous.  However those people making the claims ARE NOT THE EXPERTS.  The scientists who published the articles are the experts.

The scientific consensus of the experts is that marijuana poses considerable health risks.  You are the one claiming it is safe, not them.  You can't cherry pick lines from studies and say that means the experts agree with you when they are clearly saying otherwise.  Every time I point to such experts, you claim they don't count, so I'm not sure why I should continue to do so, but here you go:

http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%203%20Issue%202/Review%20of%20the%20Research.pdf

In addition to the unknown extent of the potential for harm caused by existence and interaction of over 800 natural chemical
components of marijuana, including 70 cannabinoids, it can be concluded that marijuana does pose some
considerable confirmed risks to users. Some concern over marijuana is merited by findings regarding its
ability to create short-term impairment, specifically on driving ability. Academic performance and social
development appear to be negatively affected by marijuana use, but the causal role that the drug plays in
the lack of future success of young people remains unconfirmed. As expected, smoking the drug
contributes to considerable harm to the lungs and airways. Even though the use of vaporizers removes
the contaminants of combustion and reduces some major respiratory problems, THC exposure to the
lungs appears to be unhealthy. The immune system is also compromised by the use of marijuana,
specifically the ability of the lungs to defend against foreign pathogens. Although cancers, heart
problems, and threats to human reproduction are not common among marijuana users, most experts
contend that further investigation is required, and the potential for risk should not be dismissed. The
development of psychosis and later schizophrenia should also remain a concern for a small proportion of
those who use marijuana. Dependency and regular, long-term use of the drug are also factors that likely
exacerbate the potential for the majority of the harms previously identified in this review. Of course, these
harms are often compounded by the fact the marijuana users have an increased likelihood of continuing
on to other illicit drugs.

Looking at all the evidence leads to the conclusion that some of the users will have their lives severely disrupted by the drug.  Recreational use is not worth the cost of sacrificing the lives of some of the users and the harm it will do to their families.

You will note that what the experts conclude about potential damage to the heart is that more studied is needed because they are not confident it is safe.  What you do with a study is cherry pick out a line and say it means marijuana should be legal.  Nope, the experts have their concerns because they also look at the parts of the study that you want to ignore.

There are just too many potential dangers and no medical benefits to allowing recreational pot use.  

You haven't been pointing to the experts.  You've been pointing to people who are pointing to the experts.

You accuse me of cherry picking, and yet you glossed over the abstract.

Some consensus over the potential harms needs to be reached before any meaningful discussion can occur on this issue. This article reviews research published between 2000 and 2007 and suggests that there are many risks associated to marijuana use with regards to impairment, academic and social development, general and mental health, and continued drug use. Although some findings highlight very serious concerns for users, the numbers that become adversely affected by marijuana use do not represent the majority of users.

I'm not sure how you jump to the conclusion that your opinion is the scientific consensus when the article you are quoting says there is not one (at least as of 2007).  There is a lot of contradictory evidence on both sides.

I'm not saying that kids should smoke and then go to school.  I'm not saying that expecting mothers should smoke a blunt all day every day. I've never said pot has zero negative effects.  I'm saying prohibition is stupid.  Especially prohibition of something that is requiring a lot of studies to find negative effects that have yet to be conclusive and likely only apply to a small minority of the population.

I'd be willing to bet there are far more people with deadly food allergies than people that will violently assault someone when under the effects of marijuana or "marijuana withdrawal."

It's pretty clear that tobacco causes lung cancer and alcohol destroys livers, but the studies about pot mostly all say that more investigation is required.  It also seems like more of the studies are testing single chemicals on rats rather than looking at the affects of the whole drug on people.

Only one of the sourced abstracts mentions anything about aggressive behavior (which is what got us on this tangent in the first place).  It is titled "preliminary findings suggest a mechanism for cannabis-induced violence" and is a preliminary study with only five subjects and no control group.

[Gladamas]

Guys this is getting really off topic, the question is what is the best way to donate to Zimmerman's defense fund? (Not that I think he isn't guilty, which he is...)

[cgpgroup]

So the guy is caught on record committing perjury, stalked and murdered a child, and even if he was innocent of everything is too dumb to not make himself look guilty as fuck (he is), and you still want to give him money?


You sir, are a saint who will receive the highest reward in Aryan Heaven

That's a pretty massive misunderstanding of what happened.  Zimmerman was trying to get the police there to handle the situation, you don't call the police right before you "stalk and murder" someone.  Like it or not, the truth is Martin attacked him and Zimmerman defended himself from having his head slammed into the concrete.

The problem here is with the law, it should not be legal for private citizens to carry firearms like that.  A tazer or pepper spray is a perfectly reasonable form of self defense, they should leave the guns out of the equation and then this never would have happened.  Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.

Did you dry your piss and smoke it? WTF...

[RodeoX]

Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.

Here in parts of America everyone carries a gun. I would be very unwise for a cop to do their job unarmed. Of course since we are all armed we don't really need them much.

P.S. I would not donate to GZ as I think he was trying to get away with taking his paypal donations.

[hashman]

I know however that USA spends more than anyone on drug prohibition and jails more than any country (per capita and total)

Spending a lot isn't necessarily a sign of doing things right or not.  America spends more on healthcare than other countries, more than it would under a socialized system that would work better.

Exactly my point thanks.  Putting 3 million people in jail as political prisoners (thats what you call it when there is no victim) makes things worse as you say, and costs a lot.  The people who suffer are often the children and families as you point out.   

I can see people have ganged up on you here so I'll cut it short.  You said at one point you like to help your fellow man.  And yet you are also saying we should arrest people for consensual adult behavior, in which no victim has come forth to complain, and punish them harshly.  Don't you see the contradiction?  Do you see two satisfied people who have done business together with no complaints and this reminds you of child porn or murder?  I hope not. 

You seem to have the need to point out that drugs are dangerous.  That is -my- point.  Of course they are.  Too dangerous to leave in the hands of criminals.  Prohibition makes them still more dangerous and eliminates our ability to regulate, put age limits, quality limits, volume limits, etc. 

Do you really want to help your fellow man, or would you rather see your fellow man locked up, families broken up, and corrupt politicians and drug dealers running your prison? 

   

 

[RodeoX]

I started another topic on the drug war in an attempt to help this thread stay on track.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87810.0

Cheers.

[Vod]

Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.

Of course since we are all armed we don't really need them much.

Zimmerman didn't need a cop - he just judged and murdered that boy on his own.

[justusranvier]

It's very sad to see how many people will just believe everything Ryan Julison wants them to believe without doing any research or fact-checking on their own.

[Red Emerald]

I started another topic on the drug war in an attempt to help this thread stay on track.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87810.0

Cheers.

Thanks.  I didn't intend to go so far off topic.  I just can't stand when someone presents a truck load of evidence and then don't actually read it and a bunch of it ends up supporting the other sides argument.

Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.

Of course since we are all armed we don't really need them much.

Zimmerman didn't need a cop - he just judged and murdered that boy on his own.

Rarity, I thought you said you were in Florida? I guess that must have been someone else.

mlawrence, you don't know Zimmerman didn't need a cop! Both sides of this debate need to start using words like "allegedly"


Back on Topic:

Does anyone know if the money hidden by Zimmerman and/or his wife was the money donated to the defense fund?  Did anyone here donate to it? How do you feel about your money being hidden instead of being used to actually defend him in court (if that is in fact the case)?

[Rarity]

You haven't been pointing to the experts.  You've been pointing to people who are pointing to the experts.

You accuse me of cherry picking, and yet you glossed over the abstract.

The study, by experts, is looking at the evidence to find the consensus.  They conclude there are considerable risks, like all the other experts do.  As I said, any time I point to the experts views on the studies you go "NUH UH THEY AREN'T EXPERTS!" so this is entirely pointless.  You think you know better than the scientists, you are making a faith based argument it is impossible to debate.

I'm not saying that kids should smoke and then go to school.  I'm not saying that expecting mothers should smoke a blunt all day every day. I've never said pot has zero negative effects.  I'm saying prohibition is stupid.  Especially prohibition of something that is requiring a lot of studies to find negative effects that have yet to be conclusive and likely only apply to a small minority of the population.

The scientists disagree with you, and state there are considerable risks to using this drug.  Your opinion is not a substitute for scientific fact.

I'd be willing to bet there are far more people with deadly food allergies than people that will violently assault someone when under the effects of marijuana or "marijuana withdrawal."

Food is necessary to sustain life.  People who are allergic to a food product simply avoid it, as milk and eggs are not addictive drugs like Marijuana.  This is what separates the two products.  As for your "bet", I think we should stick with what the scientists say, that there are considerable risks to using the drug, instead of your opinions.

It's pretty clear that tobacco causes lung cancer and alcohol destroys livers, but the studies about pot mostly all say that more investigation is required.  It also seems like more of the studies are testing single chemicals on rats rather than looking at the affects of the whole drug on people.

And yet the experts say there are considerable risks. 

Only one of the sourced abstracts mentions anything about aggressive behavior (which is what got us on this tangent in the first place).  It is titled "preliminary findings suggest a mechanism for cannabis-induced violence" and is a preliminary study with only five subjects and no control group.

Pretty much any look at all the studies leads to the conclusion that pot can cause paranoia and panic attacks, which can easily make someone make aggressive bad decisions about someone who has no ill intent towards them.

Here in England the police don't even need to carry guns and they still manage to do their jobs.

Did you dry your piss and smoke it? WTF...

It's common knowledge dude, even outside England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections concerning armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in the United Kingdom is a perennial topic of debate.

Most officers are instead issued with other items for personal defence, such as Speedcuffs, Extendable "ASP" Baton, and incapacitant sprays such as PAVA or CS spray. While not a firearm, CS spray is subject to some of the same rules and regulations as a projectile firing firearm under Section 5 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968.[1]

Here in parts of America everyone carries a gun. I would be very unwise for a cop to do their job unarmed.

Right, which is why we need to get rid of those guns first. I'm okay with waiting on that to stop having the cops carry them.

Exactly my point thanks.  Putting 3 million people in jail as political prisoners (thats what you call it when there is no victim) makes things worse as you say, and costs a lot.

Exactly, it's better to put users in mandatory inpatient treatment programs.  You can save some money over imprisonment and have a better chance of not having to arrest them again.  The distributors though, should definitely be in jail.  They are knowingly harming the addicts for profit and it can't be tolerated.  Even places like the Netherlands don't tolerate the trafficking.

You said at one point you like to help your fellow man.  And yet you are also saying we should arrest people for consensual adult behavior, in which no victim has come forth to complain, and punish them harshly.

I don't believe helping someone to solve their drug problem is punishing them, addiction is not a consensual behavior.  It's a compulsion brought on by a poison, and it harms the children and other family members of the addicts as well as the addicts themselves.

Do you see two satisfied people who have done business together with no complaints and this reminds you of child porn or murder?  I hope not. 

I see one person who has exploited another person by selling them an addictive product that will compel them to by more even if they want to stop.  Addicts routinely end up selling their bodies to get more drugs, the connection between sexual exploitation and drug abuse is real and scary.

http://baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2012/5/25/pinellas_sheriff_tee.html

The Pinellas County Sheriff released a lot more information about a Palm Harbor man accused of procuring teenage runaway prostitutes and giving them meth.

“These 16-year-olds engaged in these prostitution activities at least 10 times,” said Sheriff Bob Gualtieri.

You seem to have the need to point out that drugs are dangerous.  That is -my- point.  Of course they are.  Too dangerous to leave in the hands of criminals.  Prohibition makes them still more dangerous and eliminates our ability to regulate, put age limits, quality limits, volume limits, etc. 

Legalization has still left us with 75,000 deaths a year from Alcohol and 443,000 yearly from cigarettes so I'm not exactly impressed with your claims that legalization is going to solve anything. 

Selling to the underage is rampant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_by_youth_in_the_United_States

Young females attempted to buy beer without an ID at liquor, grocery or convenience stores:

    In 47–52% of the attempts, beer was sold. (1, 2)
    Nearly 80% of all the stores sold beer to the buyers at least once in three attempts; nearly 25% sold beer all three times.(1)

When young females attempted to buy beer without an ID at bars or restaurants, 50% of the attempts resulted in a sale to the buyer.(2)

When young males and females attempted to buy beer without an ID at community festivals, 50% of the attempts resulted in a sale to the buyer.(3)

Underage drinking is a major public health problem.

Rarity, I thought you said you were in Florida? I guess that must have been someone else.

I said I'm originally from Clearwater, my work took me to England.

I just can't stand when someone presents a truck load of evidence and then don't actually read it and a bunch of it ends up supporting the other sides argument.

Pure denialism, the scientists who have looked at the bulk of the evidence have identified considerable risk.  Cherry picking out lines from studies does not change that.

[sd]

Legalization has still left us with 75,000 deaths a year from Alcohol and 443,000 yearly from cigarettes so I'm not exactly impressed with your claims that legalization is going to solve anything. 

Those are amazing statistics. Not trolling but something should be done to reduce those deaths, I honestly don't know what and don't believe in banning things.

[Rarity]

Legalization has still left us with 75,000 deaths a year from Alcohol and 443,000 yearly from cigarettes so I'm not exactly impressed with your claims that legalization is going to solve anything.  

Those are amazing statistics. Not trolling but something should be done to reduce those deaths, I honestly don't know what and don't believe in banning things.

It gets even worse when you consider the addicts that are still living, but in misery while blowing a significant amount of money on their addiction and/or living with associated diseases.  Or think about all the alcoholics who have endangered everyone by drunk driving, or even killed people.  Or those who lost their job and relationships due to their addiction. 

Imagine if heroin addicts (and impressionable kids and teenagers) had to see professional ads for heroin, see it in the stores, see people using it openly.  It's not a recipe for getting people off it.

[Red Emerald]

Move your comments about drugs to other topic please!

Back on Topic:

Does anyone know if the money hidden by Zimmerman and/or his wife was the money donated to the defense fund?  Did anyone here donate to it? How do you feel about your money being hidden instead of being used to actually defend him in court (if that is in fact the case)?

[hashman]

Thanks for your replies.  It is helpful to hear the mindset from somebody who truly believes in prohibition as a potential help to society (I take that at face value).

So often the prohibitionists are the ones motivated by corruption, short term personal wealth, or fear, and represent the height of hyposcrisy, and so such a voice as you present is unusual so thanks again for your posts.

As you probably know from the history of drug prohibition, it is usually created as a policy for other political ends, e.g. prison investors who want more customers, cocaine dealers who want competition eliminated and profits increased, foreign invaders who wish to imprison certain segments of the population and control markets, as a mean to eliminate competing medicines or raw materials, etc. etc.  

Your point about previous prohibitions and decriminalizations is well taken: while anecdotal evidence may be overwhelming to suggest that lifting prohibition immediately decreases violence and benefits society immensely these are not controlled experiments, and harm from the prohibited substances was not eliminated.  One cannot point to this as "proof".

Consider instead a purchase you have made in the last few days.  Now imagine that I claim this contains "poison" and suggest that you be arrested, comparing your purchase to murder or child porn.  Ridiculous?  Yes.  Angry?  Yes.  Guess what.  It doesn't matter.  My argument that the plastic, the carbon released, the addictive nature of the behavior it spawns, might be right or wrong, but in the end it doesn't matter because when the police come to your house they don't care if the plastic was really bad, or even if you really made that purchase!  

You may think it is OK that they go after the nicotine users, rip apart their families, and steal their posessions, because you are not a nicotine user.  But in the end, when you or your children are facing uniformed young men with weapons, your cries that you are "not a user" will be treated the same way as cries of women in who said "we are not witches" or germans who said "we are not jews".  They will be ignored, and then you will join the again increasingly large segment of society who are victims of fascism.  And you will be able to do nothing, because you didn't stand up against it when you had the chance.  

Best of luck to you -    


  

[Rarity]

I think it's amazingly hyperbolic to compare police officers trying to save people from addiction to Nazis. It's also very historically off base, alcohol prohibition was a policy of progressives and advocates for women's rights, for example, not of fascists or similar right wing groups.  They famously met in German beer halls.  Concern for the well being of our fellow men is a hallmark of the left.

As you probably know from the history of drug prohibition, it is usually created as a policy for other political ends, e.g. prison investors who want more customers, cocaine dealers who want competition eliminated and profits increased, foreign invaders who wish to imprison certain segments of the population and control markets, as a mean to eliminate competing medicines or raw materials, etc. etc.  

I don't really agree with this at all.  I am not aware of any prohibitions that have been created by prison investors, as private prisons themselves are a relatively new concept.  Or by cocaine dealers or pharmaceutical/material companies fearing competition.  Foreign invaders have been more likely to promote addiction as a tool of oppression, see the opium wars as an example where the British used the opium trade to their advantage creating an outbreak of addiction for the Chinese to deal with.  Or consider the role of alcohol in the American triangle trade --  Molasses from the Caribbean to make rum in New England, rum to Africa to buy slaves, slaves to the Caribbean to grow sugar, sugar and molasses to make rum in New England...A cycle of oppression powered by alcohol.