#364

Regretfully, a few posts ago I mentioned drugs and sounded like Nancy Reagan which is a good thing because I adore Nancy Reagan. Her husband too. So I don't intend to skirt the topic (of drugs) with M 'n' m; whether I know too much or too little, I'm not sure. There must be an updated climate or sensibility; I'll assume things aren't precisely the same as they were 25 years ago at my high school (where I saw pot, mushrooms, and heard mention of acid, but never saw pills, powders, or needles). I really don't know if I'm naive or not at all. What will M 'n' m encounter directly or indirectly (I mean in cool conversation or suggestion)? Prescription meds, designer drugs, new drugs, old drugs? Whatever the case, I'll fumble through a talk or two with earnestness, practicality, and only mild hypocrisy. And there's a specific point I'll raise. Whether or not I come across as authoritative, current, relevant, or right in any other way, I intend to make the point that certain drugs, without question, involve violence. Health, safety, legality, addiction – these points feel more obvious to me – but I want the part about violence to sink in also. Consider this, for example, from an article in Men's Journal magazine this month:

"Hundreds and hundreds of rounds were fired during the gunfight between Ramon's people and Guzman's assassins. That night eight of Ramon's bodyguards were killed, as were 10 of Guzman's men and something like a dozen innocent civilians. It was a bloody massacre that should have made headlines all over the world. Or at the very least in the United States, the biggest consumer of the drugs we moved. The fact that it didn't just indicates that American society is deluded in thinking that personal drug use is a victimless crime. Every ounce of pot or eight ball of cocaine or bindle of heroine that changes hands on the streets or in an executive suite or at an Oscar afterparty has blood on it. A lot of it is innocent blood."