Smoking weed, steam or cigarettes? Follow the money straight to the deathtrap. (Bigger than Jesus meeting between Illuminati and big pharma)

“Here is my final point...About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography...What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, or take into my body as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet? And for those who are having a little moral dilemma in your head about how to answer that question, I'll answer it for you. NONE of your fucking business. Take that to the bank, cash it, and go fucking on a vacation out of my life.”   - Bill Hicks



Who benefits? Follow the money. If you haven't learned to ask this important question and the very important follow-up anywhere else, then you can learn it right now, as I take it straight from Commander Vimes' mouth, courtesy of Terry Pratchett. In this case we shall apply said question to our lovely smoking habits.

Today's trigger is the ongoing debate about electronic cigarettes/vaping/steaming. Whatever you want to call it, I will call them ECs. These wonderful gadgets allow smokers and nicotine addicts to inhale as much nicotine-filled, or indeed nicotine-free, steam as they wish, without all that tar, smoke, benzene and various poisonous fumes slowly killing them. Hooray, right? Shame on you, you are dead wrong. The powers that be are doing everything they can to stop this from happening. 

Why? Follow the money.

But first let's have a look at what this is. Without being an expert, it seems to me that liquid or crystalized nicotine is heated and then inhaled as steam. There are flavors that can be added, gadgets that can customize the EC experience in whatever way you wish. You can even inhale flavored steam totally without nicotine. All this without destroying you lungs or getting all sorts of cancer. Yes, sure this is relatively new thing, but everyone agree that it is much healthier than regular smoking. Yes, there has been a couple of studies done saying that the use of ECs is extremely bad. These have been thoroughly discredited and/or debunked. Some say that there are possible long-term effects that are yet to be observed. This is of course possible, the point is that the same people usually state that there is no question about ECs being less harmful than traditional cigarettes by miles.
And let's face it, if they could've proved that regular use of ECs would harm you significantly or just plain kill you any time soon, they would've been all over it a long time ago, the big money would've dropped the other shoe before you could exhale.

My personal experience with ECs is great. I'm a raging nicotine addict. Using ECs I'm down to two cigarettes a day when at work. And ok, some more when at parties and festivals, but I don't need the cigarettes any more. I know many people who have stopped smoking regular cigarettes all together with the help of ECs.

So why is this not recognized world wide and celebrated? Follow the money. Who has a lot of money to gain or lose?

First off, there is the tobacco industry. They have a lot of money to lose. They also have a lot of money to begin with, and have their own tobacco lobbyists to discredit ECs. I mean, come on, if correctly marketed and priced, ECs could take over the entire tobacco market in the western world, of course the tobacco people are worried. Tobacco industry wants ECs dead.

Then there is Big Pharma. They don't necessarily hate the idea of ECs, but they want them all for themselves. So to them the idea is that ECs should be regulated as medicine and only sold by pharmacies. Who could blame them for wanting the ECmoney, right? But that would kill off a lot of competition and make ECs a more expensive and exclusive product, not so great for the consumer.

So there is a tug-of-war between those two industries and their evil as hell lobby groups. The EC companies are new and small time compared to these industrial behemoths, so it seems like a rather one-sided battle. On top of that, there are the various health departments and organizations of various countries and the world in general*. One could think that they would embrace new products that are a healthier alternative to one of the most health-damaging products for years and years? One would be terribly wrong in thinking that. They drag their feet, ask for more tests, side with one lobby or the other and look for what taxation opportunities there are to be capitalized on. They are either ignorant and behind the times, buried in bureaucracy, fanatical health-freaks or grabbing money. Possibly all of the alternatives. Weep and despair, folks.

Now, let's have a look at the war on drugs. Possibly not the best tie-in ever, but I don't care, this has pissed me off for years, and both topics involve smoking and Potatobeak HateCat gave me the go-ahead.

First of all. If this is indeed a war, has anybody ever won it? Has any nation ever declared victory in the war on drugs and just celebrated victory and made peace? No. Or possibly some nations proclaim "We have no drugs nor problems with drugs." Those are the places you don't want to live. No, not because you can't get your drugs of choice, you damned hippie, but because those are places with a dictator or militaristic or possibly religious regime that will lock you up if you blink in a funny way, and they probably have drugs, they just won't admit it to the rest of the world and join in on our ongoing war of stupidity. Anyways, if this is a war, when do we count the casualties, the expenses and consequences? And if we do those things, where do we draw the line and say "Enough, it is time to pull out our troops and cut our losses."? Because there are casualties, both the obvious and the more subtle ones, but the numbers, if you add them up, are HUGHE!

 In Mexico there is an actual war, with cartels and private armies fighting the regular army with thousands of deaths. This is not an unknown situation throughout the rest of Central and South America neither.
The more subtle casualties are the overdoses, the lives ruined because of drug-related crime and the very criminalization of people whose only crime is to do recreational drugs.

But drugs are bad, or so I've heard it said.  Well, so is alcohol and smoking, yet we don't declare war on beer and cigarettes. The casualties from alcohol and cigarettes are already humongous, imagine the death tolls of the infamous "Cigs and beer-war of '15"? Holy crap, what a bad idea.
But I digress.
Sure, some drugs are super-bad for you, they won't kill you slowly, they will kill you instantly or at least ruin your life. A question not often asked in public is - would they have ruined said life they were legal? I'm just saying.
Anyways, I'm not suggesting to legalize everything and shouting everything goes from the rooftops, nope, I'm flat out saying that legalizing all variations of marihuana would benefit the world in general greatly. I would also suggest that doctors should be able to prescribe heavy drugs like heroin to long time addicts. I see very few cons and oh so many pros.

Let's see now.

You would take the money away from criminal gangs and organizations, and the government would actually be able to tax now illegal drugs and make money. This would be an effective way to hamper organized crime as opposed to what we are doing now.
Look at the prohibition time in USA, talk about generating crime.
People who occasionally enjoy weed but otherwise are perfectly well behaved, wouldn't be criminals. This means that regular people who wouldn't hurt a fly, would not have to live in fear of the police. This only breeds unnecessary animosity between law enforcement and the populace.
Besides, if you know that you are a criminal in the eyes of the law, isn't it that much easier to go ahead and be a little more criminal?
One might even go so far as to say that it would shorten the increasing divide between the classes. Involving a lawyer in anything greatly reduces the amount of penalty, if any, one receives for minor crimes, meaning if you have money, you might pay a small fine or go Scott free, whereas poorer people seldom have a decent lawyer at hand. Paying the fine can potentially seriously harm their economy and not paying land them in jail, and so it could be argued that current policies on drugs are enforcing the divide between rich and poor in any nation. 
Drawing a clearer line between heavy drugs and lighter drugs, and officially making some legal and others illegal, would help to set dangerous drugs aside and make a more conscious and clear divide between these.
Various green stuff has shown its worth in medicine, and new uses are being discovered continuously. I'm not saying it is a wonder drug, but it is in many cases a beneficial drug.

So why should doctors give junkies heroin? Well, if you've tried rehab four times, have to be a criminal in order to raise the money you need for drugs and live on the street, I would argue that the best option for everyone involved would be to give this person heroin. Yes, it is, don't argue.
Said person's quality of life is just about zero. Said person would not be forced into prostitution or stealing, but would in fact might be able to produce something of value to society and actually manage to hold some sort of job or at least not be a criminal. No scratch that. The argument to do this is really about giving someone who has tried every other option a chance to have an actual life. All other gains are secondary.

So what is going on with this so called war on drugs? Some countries and American states have surrendered, at least in part, and arranged a tenuous peace. They seem to be still functional, no anarchy or Armageddon has broken out. Yet governments and various law-enforcement agencies across the globe seems to be fighting to keep the status quo, tooth and nail. Why?

It could be the money. Some places have laws that allow the police to seize any assets that are in any way linked to illegal drugs and trade of such. That is a huge bonus for any department. The thousands of yearly fines paid for petty possessions must be astronomical.  There is also employment to be considered. What will all those people who are employed in a useless war do, if the war is suddenly massively scaled down? Well, their general and employer could either make the troops crack down harder on the drugs that are still illegal, but I suspect many soldiers would have to look elsewhere for jobs. Jobs are currently, as always, a big deal everywhere. We might also consider this war in the way it tends to target the poor rather than the rich. This could potentially blow the mind of any fan of Illuminati-conspiracies**. It is undeniable that the war on drugs is a great tool for any government to wield against its population. If money = power, then we can still follow the money, in any form the cash might take.
But it is also a question of having the political balls to oppose the values of the conservative, religious, traditional, small-minded side that will butcher anyone who suggests such a move. You will potentially lose your career and power and gain nothing. It is a stupid old world, and it needs to change, yes, but not at my expense, you know?

Do I have point? NO! No great point to be made. Except that the war on drugs do more bad than good such as it is now, I mean if you want drugs you will get them, right? That points to the war being lost on a daily basis, and that isn't going to change, so why the blog bother? Oh yeah, and that smoking ECs is a hell of a lot better for you than regular cigarettes.

 Maybe I should make some sort of statement in the name of responsibility?

So, uhm.
Don't do bad drugs and don't drive while under the influence of drugs.






*No chance of them being corrupt or following the money at all, is there?
** You morons.