What makes no sense to me is the "one pill" and you're dead. If it's that strong why would you not cut it and turn it into 5 pills and quintuple your money? Why would you want your customers dead?
Who then does have incentive to scare people away from street drugs by killing a few users and making it headline news? During the late 1970s, a program sponsored by the US government sprayed paraquat on cannabis fields in Mexico. Then our government warned that paraquat on marijuana rendered the crop unsafe to smoke. It didn't actually since paraquat that contaminates cannabis is pyrolyzed during smoking to dipyridyl, which presents little toxic hazard. But the concept of poisoning a drug supply to scare users away does have precedent in the US. And we've all seen the John Ehrlichman comments about the "drug war" and how ruining a few lives is a price they are willing to pay to achieve their goals.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
= new reply since forum marked as read
