On 2002-02-28 21:51, Yun648 wrote:
Mahuang is an herbal stimulant, I presume of Chinese origin, used in dietary supplements. I've never had it cause I believe "herbs" are nothing more than legal drugs
While that is not the general case (historically, 'herb' meant a spice used for primarily its aroma, rather than it's taste), the word is indeed often used as a code for 'drug' (both in the medical and the legal senses). It certainly means that in this case.
Ma Huang is the Chinese name for ephedra, a traditional medicine used around the world for treating colds; it is also a powerful stimulant, and regular use is thought to cause heart problems. While ephedrine (the active ingredient) was still used in conventional medicine until the 1960s, it fell out of favor when a chemical analog, pseudoephedrine, was developed which didn't have the stimulant properties (in fact, it is a depressant, and many over-the-counter cold remedies which use it have aded caffeine to prevent the drowsiness so often associated with it). Ma Huang tea is still sold as an herbal remedy, especially in Asian markets, and it considered by some to be more effective than it's moddern counterpart, but that's a minority opinion.
Like most stimulants, it also encourages wieght loss, but it's wide use as a replacement for the even more dangerous fen-phen is controversial because of possibility of heart damage.
In the case of Brain Wash, it was a straightforward case of rereactional drug abuse - no one had any real doubt about the intentions, and Skeleteens were a lot more honest about it than, say, Coca-Cola, Phillip Morris, Nestle, Anheuser-Busch, or the importers of cocoa, coffee and tea usually are. They were a little too open about it, in fact, and they were forced (by stockholders or the FDA, I know not which) to remove that one particular ingredient
As for not putting 'drugs' in your mouth, everything you eat, drink and breathe is mind-altering to some degree; the only choice one has is whether they will control what they consume, or whether they will let it control them. If you abstain from all use of chemicals intend primarily for mood-alteration - even those which most people don't think of being so, such as chocolate and refined sugar - then I respect your dedication to good health; otherwise, leave you hypocrisy at the door. I am very sparing about my use of most ceremonial chemicals, avoiding some and using others with careful will (and massively abuse a few, such as coffee, sugar and chocolate, I will admit) but I won't deny that they have a part in my life and everyone elses', and won't turn my back on the responsibility that implies. I am willing to trust that others will do the same, and face the consequences if they fail to do so - because to do otherwise is to assume that I am wiser than they about themselves.
As for the drug laws, they serve, and are intended, not to protect the citizens but to infantilize them, denying not so much their 'right' to choose as much as their competence to. These laws, especially as currently 'enforced', are pernicious in how they both undermine protected freedoms, and encourage graft and corruption. The 'drug problem' comes mostly from the laws, not from the drugs themselves - any strongly habit-forming behavior could have been substituted for them, to the same effect.
The facts are plain: there was no serious problem with abuse of cocaine or heroin in the US until <i>after</i> the laws against them were passed (the drug addictiont hat did exist was primarily due to either use of unlabelled patent medicines containin ghtose substances, or morphine addiction following its use as a medical anaesthetic). Similarly, marijuana use in the US was almost entirely restricted to a small number of immigrant workers from Mexico, who were for the most part growing it themselves; extracts were also used as a prescription medicine under then name of cannabis, and it wasn't until the laws were passed that it was found that they were the same drug. When Leary argued against banning LSD, his argument was that making it illegal would <i>create</i> a black market trade for the drug, which is precisiely hat happened - after the law was passed. In each case, the moment that organized crime saw that they could make money smuggling these drugs, they went about creating the market for them, which up until then was nonexistent. I am not quite convinced that the Mob has intentionally manipulated the laws to make them illegal for this purpose - ordinary leislative short-sightedness is sufficient to explain the Marihuauna Tax Act and its brethren - but I don't doubt that they have been active in seeing that they <i>remain</i> illegal. It is certainly true that the so-called Drug Enforcement Agency, but the mid-1980s, were doing most of their 'enforcing' for the drug cartels; their public 'raids' were staged publicity, targetting those who refused to give the bosses their cut, while elsewhere the DEA blocked other agencies from interfering with drug operations which paid them off, on the pretense of 'jurisdiction'.
The most insidious part of this is, it is hard to argue against drug laws. Anyone can see that there are plenty of people out there who <i>can't</i> behave responsibly with them - whether by abstinence or willpower - and that those addicted to a drug can be a danger to themselves and to others. The temptation to try and wish them away - which is what legal prohibition of a habit-forming behavior amounts to - can be overwhelming, and it can be hard to see what the long term outcome of such prohibition will be without a firm sense of history.
_________________
Schol-R-LEA;2 ELF JAM LCF BiWM MGT GS
First Speaker, Last Eristic Church of Finagle and Holy Bisexuality
<B>The greatest strength of the Conspiracy is that it doesn't exist.
The greatest weakness of the Conspiracy is that it does.</B>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Schol-R-LEA on 2002-03-01 07:44 ]</font>
