The "Drug" War

[Paradox]

I'm just curious, where do you stand on the so-called drug war? Things like "Plan Colombia" and the use of defoliants to destroy coca fields in the rain forest? After reading that these defoliants were being sprayed on peasant villagers and their food crops and water supplies, I grew very upset. And the $2 billion in aid that "went" to Colombia is obviously used to fight leftist rebels and not drug production. The majority of the money went to u.$. defense contractors for weapons, helicopters, etc., which were sent to Colombia. And, of course, the monsanto corporation, for the pesticides used to fumigate the rain forest. And, I just learned that bush requested $100 million in 2002, to train a Colombian military force to fight the leftist rebels and protect the drilling and piping operations of the u.$. occidental petroleum corporation in Colombia. Another war for oil, what do you expect? All this under the guise of a "war on drugs." Do the FARC and ELN use cocaine to fund their operations? I read they only "tax" traffickers in areas under their control. But, seeing that it is called the "drug war," do you feel that there should be a "war" to combat the production and use of drugs? Take marijuana, for example. Ralph Nader wants to legalize it for medical purposes. Is this seen as a problem by anyone? I've heard of all the negative effects they claim marijuana has, and I've heard a lot of positive information as well. So, who are we to believe? Should drugs be legalized, or are they as bad as they tell us? One thing's for sure, keeping them illegal doesn't seem to keep people from selling or using them.

[LSD]

Of course drugs should be legalized, I doubt that there are many on this board who would disagree!

As to Colombia, the situation is absolutely ridiculous. I remember I wrote a paper on this a few years ago for my "Foreign Defense" course, and when you actually read the declassified documents its pretty obvious that the "drug war" is secondary to "stabilizing" the country.


Personally, my favorite part was that when the American congress first supported funding for "anti-drug" measures in Colombia, there was a specifc "box" where the money could go, namely known areas where drugs were being produced. This was to assure that the money was only going to counternarcotics.

In 2000, the "box" was redifined to this: "the entire national territory of the Republic of Colombia, including its territorial waters recognized by the international law, and its airspace."

hmm....growing a lot of cocaine in the territorial waters??? :lol:

[KickMcCann]

a big part of the drug war inside the US is the government's attempt to transform normal police forces into paramilitary organizations, theoretically to easily put down any kind of uprising or revolution in the future. This is how it works:

During the anti-gov't social movements of the 60's and 70's gov't agencies began covertly introducing/selling hard drugs like LSD, Cocaine, Meth, and Heroin to create a drug problem in the base of movements like the Black Panthers. This drug problem would lead to the downfall of these movements and bring the about the situation of the 80's with Reagan.

By first outlawing all drugs, then making sure they are easily and widely available, the gov't actually created a huge surge of crime on paper and led to an enormous prison population. Because most police departments operate on a crime quote system, the more crimes there are, the more money the departments get. Since more things are illegal, there is of course more "crime".
In response to this growing crime rate, police departments all over the country, from small rural communities to big cities, are purchasing equipment like SWAT teams, machine guns, urban tanks, survelliance/attack helicopters, ambhibious hovercraft... this list goes on and on.

So if there is ever an uprising or revolution anywhere in America, whether it be New York City or Smallville Indiana, the government will have a small army nearby ready to put it down by force.

[h&s]

Of course drugs should be legalized, I doubt that there are many on this board who would disagree!

Do you mean all drugs? Do you mean drugs that can destroy lives? e.g. crack, or heroin?
I'm all for legalisation of weed (man I love that stuff! :redstar2000: ) or non-addictive hallucinogens, but all drugs? I must say a lot of people here won't agree with that.

[fuerzasocialista]

I'm not a fan of legalization of drugs. I've seen some good people end up six feet down below or in a brass jar. Couple that with my own experiences and that makes for an unfavorable position on the legalization of drugs. The war on drugs is a complete waste of time, money, and lives. The only way to win is to cut the demand. If noone wants to get high anymore, the products have no place to go. But thats not going to happen being that most people actually do want to get high...

[LSD]

macorix:

What would you suggest?

Arresting people who use drugs? Or those who grow them? Or just those who distribute them?

Imprisoning people for voluntarily consuming a substance goes against everything communism stands for. If you trust the people to govern themselves you have to trust them to govern themselves. If you don't believe they can control their own bodies how can you believe they can control their society?

[fernando]

The US wants those drugs because they are worth lots of money, they also want control in that part of the world. A socialist government should take power in Colombia, and nationalise the coca production, the Indians have used coca for centuries. If the US wants cocain so bad, they can buy it, but the Colombian government decides how much it will cost. Same should go for other natural resources, the Third World gets fucked over, eventhough they have the largest amounts of gold, silver, oil, metals, wood and other valuable natural resources.

[cathatonix]

has anybody listened to Mike Rupperts discussion about drugs, oil, CIA and 9/11? Really interesting.
I think legalizing heavy drugs is a bad idea, but drugs is mostly a social problem. I have a real life, why should I try heroin a risking ending up under a bridge with a newspaper as my blanket? People with no jobs, no money, no future is the consumer group for heavy drugs. Everybody knows the danger but they don't care. They got nothing to lose anyway.
But, of course, tobacco and alcohol kills a LOT more people than heroin and coke. A LOT. How about stopping US from exporting tobacco? Why can the mass murderer Marlboro kill without getting a place in the electric chair? And even getting a lot of money killing.

[Paradox]

But, of course, tobacco and alcohol kills a LOT more people than heroin and coke. A LOT. How about stopping US from exporting tobacco? Why can the mass murderer Marlboro kill without getting a place in the electric chair? And even getting a lot of money killing.

Quite true. Cigarettes are addictive, as is alcohol. And they have hazardous effects on people's health. Yet, there they are, sitting behind the register at the gas station, or in the fridge. Marijuana, though I only used it once, doesn't seem anywhere near as "dangerous" as they make it seem. And from the articles I've read, it has medical benefits. So I don't see any problem with marijuana used for medicinal purposes. But cocaine, heroine, cigarettes, etc., etc., those are a problem. But what to do? Prohibition failed. The "drug" war is a joke. They looked the other way while the people they trained to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan sold opium. They used crack to fund the Contra in Nicaragua. From what I hear, the CIA extorts drug money and conducts the drug trade. I don't know if that's true, but I wouldn't doubt it. Looking at all of this, what possible choices do we have in respect to stopping the production and use of "dangerous" drugs? Is there any solution to this, short of total legalization? What about rehab programs, do they actually work? I know there would have to be a lot more to it than just rehab programs, but if they're effective, they could be part of the solution. But at the moment, I don't see ANY real solution. If you legalize the "dangerous" drugs because the use of them is a personal choice, what happens when the people using them become a threat to the rest of the population? And if you don't legalize them, you keep filling up the prisons with drug offenders. This is a tricky one.

[Major. Rudiger]

Oh man i love this topic i was just waiting for it.


has anybody listened to Mike Rupperts discussion about drugs, oil, CIA and 9/11? Really interesting

i saw the whole 1-2 hour preanstion what the guy gave and that stuff is hard core. I mean this guy was offerd a job by the CIA to be part of it and he denise it and tells everyone. Most likely 3/4 of the country wont belivf him because his a "mad man" or a "carzy man". But this guy gives alot of good answers and good questions that make you think. BUt truely the war on drugs isn't working. Dont the habours chackevery single crat that comes in and they look at every package that comes in by air and by land. Wont the american govermnet catch all of the things that are coming in. I dont think its that fucking hard to catch some drug transport things.

But i against the hard drugs. Like cocain, herion, tabacco ( i say tobacco becasue how addictive it is) meth and many more. But i think thous can FUCK up you life for good. But LSD, XTC, weed, srooms, and etc. should be legal. But if the Canadian goverment ever legalise it then your going to have a massive up rissing of profit from weed (if the goveremnt taxs it and that would be cool with me :) ). But then after some years then the weed would go down and be somehting taht people wont talk about.

[Beccie]

Good posts Lysergic Acid Diethylamide.

Drugs and the people who use them are a societal problem that needs to be dealt with in a different way. The current laws discriminate against people with low socio-economic background, they do not effectively deal with the problem. It has become obvious that putting people into prisons is only exacerbating the problem. If all drugs were legalised firstly, drug users would become socially accepted rather then excluded and secondly, money/resources that were directed to prisons can be used for rehabilitation and safe injecting rooms. Therefore help will be available for people who need it and perhaps there would be a decrease of people using drugs.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Alcohol is the most widely used and abused drug in the United States. Alcoholism is one of the most preventable illnesses. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant that slows down body functions such as heart rate and respiration. Small quantities of alcohol may induce feelings of well-being and relaxation; but in larger amounts, alcohol can cause intoxication, sedation, unconsciousness, and even death. When consumed, alcohol goes to the stomach and passes through to the small intestine, where it is absorbed into the bloodstream. When the blood alcohol content (BAC) reaches .10, the legal limit in most states, the average drinker will experience blurred vision, slurred speech, poor muscle coordination, and a lack of rational judgment. A BAC of .40 to .50 will induce coma. Breathing is likely to stop with a BAC of .60.

Symptoms vary but include delirium tremors ("DTs"), cramps, vomiting, elevated blood pressure, sweating, dilated pupils, sleep problems, irritability, and convulsions.
Short-term memory loss and blackouts are common among heavy drinkers. A blackout, which is an amnesia-like period often confused with passing out or losing consciousness, results when the drinker appears normal and may function normally; however, the person has no memory of what has taken place.

Liver disease, heart disease, certain forms of cancer, and pancreatitis--often develop more gradually and may become evident only after long-term heavy drinking.
Drinking while pregnant may cause birth defects and complecations in women. Urinary problems including kidney, bladder problems, and shrunken testicles in men.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Marijuana is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis Sativa. The main mind-altering ingredient is THC but there are more than 400 other chemicals also in the plant. Hashish is a concentrated form of marijuana and contains 5 to 10 times as much THC.

Chronic use of marijuana acts as an escape from stress, allowing the user to block out pain, frustration, or confusion. However, as the user repeatedly uses marijuana to escape, he or she becomes less and less capable to cope with everyday challenges.

Some of the symptoms of marijuana use are loud talking and bursts of laughter in early stages of intoxication, drowsiness or stupor in later stages of intoxication, forgetfulness in conversation, chronic redness of the eyes, odor similar to burning rope on clothing or breath, decrease in school or work performance and truancy, neglect of personal hygiene, change of friends, paranoia, defensiveness, secretiveness, self-centeredness, depression, mood swings, amotivational syndrome, distorted sense of time, and use or possession of paraphernalia such as cigarette rolling papers, 'roach' clips (used to hold the cigarette, usually alligator clips that can be bought at any electronics store), and pipes or a "bong" ( a water pipe for cooling the smoke so the user can inhale more).

Long term affects of marijuana include impaired speech, difficulty in comprehending complex ideas, loss of memory, difficulty in concentrating or focusing on one subject, irregular sleep habits, insomnia, mood swings, lack of body coordination, decrease in muscle strength, and blurred vision and impaired visual perception. It can also cause infertility in both males and females.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Let's see, they both cause drowsiness, stupor, forgetfulness, odour, decrease in mental capacity, brain damage, mood swings, lack of coordination, blurred vision. They both cause car accidents when abused.

Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol causes almost identical symptoms. Really, the only stand out between the two is shrunken testicles.

If you want the same buzz from alcohol but without little nads, light up a joint, eh?

[apathy maybe]

I am in favour of legalising all drugs completely. It's your body, do as you will with it (but don't expect to have your health care paid for if there isn't enough money).

THC (the active component in marijuana) and alcohol both have medicinal benefits if consumed in small quantities regularly.
Alcohol and nicotine are poisons and are both addictive.
THC is not a poison, nor physically addictive.
If smoked marijuana is worse for your lungs then tobacco (the smoke is hotter).
Decriminalisation of less harmful drugs (such as marijuana) has been shown to be a more effective drug control method then the present regime.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

If smoked marijuana is worse for your lungs then tobacco (the smoke is hotter).

that is what a bong is for

[Seraph]

Honestly, I don't really know where I stand on the issue of legalizing all drugs, but I know the so called war on drugs is complete and utter bullshit. Especially within the United States. I've seen it first hand. I was born and raised in North Philadelphia, one of America's most drug infested, crime ridden slums. The war on drugs is designed to subdue young poor minorities in this country and I'll tell you why (for those who don't already know). Five grams of crack (poor man's drug) is a felony and, and requires a FIVE YEAR jail sentence for FIRST OFFENDERS under the law. For the same amount of powder cocaine (rich man's drug) there is no jail time since it's only a misdemeanor. Crack offenders tend to be black and/or poor, while Cocaine offenders tend to be white and more affluent. Blacks, who comprise only 12% of the population and 13% of drug users, constitute some 35% of those arrested for drug possession, 55% of those convicted of possession, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for possession. This is a gross misrepresentation.

The war on drugs/poor has resulted in some astounding numbers. Only 13% of the U.S. population is black, yet more than 90% of all defendants prosecuted in federal court are black. Blacks and Hispanics combined now represent nearly 90% of all offenders sentenced to state prison for drug offenses. A 1992 study of federal court cases found that, where a mandatory minimum could apply, black offenders were 21% more likely and Hispanic offenders 28% more likely than whites to receive at least the mandatory minimum prison sentence.

On a personal note, I have a friend who was recently arrested for selling crack in North Philly. While I don't condone his acts, I understand. His mother works two jobs just to break even with bills and such. Father isn't around. The police raided his house and found 20 grams of crack. Under the law, that should be a state prosecuted offense. However, the feds picked up his case even though they're not suppose to do that unless it's over 50 grams. AND it's his first offense. Why is this significant? If he's convicted by the state of Pennsylvania, he'll get 5 years in prison. If he's convicted by the feds, it's a minimum TEN year sentence in a FEDERAL prison.

FUCK THE WAR ON DRUGS! All it is, is a war on my people. A war on my generation.

[cathatonix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 02:37 PM
Honestly, I don't really know where I stand on the issue of legalizing all drugs, but I know the so called war on drugs is complete and utter bullshit.
I agree, it's bullshit. US needs an enemy to scare people and to spread disinformation. Just like the war on terrorism. Demonizing blacks, hispanics, arabs, communists. Soviet is gone so they have to find new "borders". Kill the unwanted or put them in jail. And lie to the rest of the people. Media has a lot of responsibility to disclose what is happening but they shit all over us.
The weapon factories needs profits and the prisons needs "customers" to make the shareholders happy.

[Seraph]

you're right. All scare tactics. I can't believe the report last week saying some Chechnyan rebels crossed the border into the US from Mexico. Just total bullshit. Just keep scaring the people like Y2K so they go out, consume, and boost big business. What's next?

The war on drugs all boils down to typical American bullshit policy. Treating the symptom, and not the virus. We have this war on crime. Answer?? Lock up people. While they're away, don't teach them a craft or trade they can use once they get out to be "productive" citizens, just let them rot away in human warehouses and learn how to be better criminals. Drug problem?? Let's just lock up all the low level drug dealers in the ghettos, arrest drug users, and every once in a while throw in a mid level drug dealer. Yea, that'll fix the problem. Typical shit. Why? Because there is always more money in treating a disease, and not curing it.

[DaCuBaN]

Just keep scaring the people like Y2K

I hate to burst the bubble, but the Y2K crisis was real! HSBC bank were the only corporate tragedy, but there are plenty of boards out there that are dead as a result - it's the way the date was encoded (only two digits) that caused the problem

Hell, the problem still exists: The focus was simply shifted from being a double-digit range at 00-99 (signifying 1900-1999) to being the same at 70-69 (signifying 1970-2069). So come 2069, we'll have the same fiasco all over again. The point is though, noone expects the electronic components to last this long - most PCB's have a 10-25yr shelf life.

The whole thing was oversensationalised, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen

On the topic at hand, I'm all for the total legalisation of all substances: I can't see what else is 'right'.

[Seraph]

we all know it was real. The whole two digit to four digit thing. However, this country was going crazy. People stocking up on water and canned goods. Folks stocking up on guns and ammunition, gas masks, getting ready to go to war with neighbors basically. And as soon as the clock struck 12, nothing.

[DaCuBaN]

People stocking up on water and canned goods. Folks stocking up on guns and ammunition, gas masks, getting ready to go to war with neighbors basically. And as soon as the clock struck 12, nothing.

That's just being a stereotypical American... ;)

[apathy maybe]

The next big scare is not in '69, but rather in the thirties. That's when all the Unix systems fall over.
http://www.iee.org/Policy/Areas/it/practic...dates/index.cfm (http://www.iee.org/Policy/Areas/it/practice/problemdates/index.cfm)

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 08:32 PM
I'm just curious, where do you stand on the so-called drug war? Things like "Plan Colombia" and the use of defoliants to destroy coca fields in the rain forest? After reading that these defoliants were being sprayed on peasant villagers and their food crops and water supplies, I grew very upset. And the $2 billion in aid that "went" to Colombia is obviously used to fight leftist rebels and not drug production. The majority of the money went to u.$. defense contractors for weapons, helicopters, etc., which were sent to Colombia. And, of course, the monsanto corporation, for the pesticides used to fumigate the rain forest. And, I just learned that bush requested $100 million in 2002, to train a Colombian military force to fight the leftist rebels and protect the drilling and piping operations of the u.$. occidental petroleum corporation in Colombia. Another war for oil, what do you expect? All this under the guise of a "war on drugs." Do the FARC and ELN use cocaine to fund their operations? I read they only "tax" traffickers in areas under their control. But, seeing that it is called the "drug war," do you feel that there should be a "war" to combat the production and use of drugs? Take marijuana, for example. Ralph Nader wants to legalize it for medical purposes. Is this seen as a problem by anyone? I've heard of all the negative effects they claim marijuana has, and I've heard a lot of positive information as well. So, who are we to believe? Should drugs be legalized, or are they as bad as they tell us? One thing's for sure, keeping them illegal doesn't seem to keep people from selling or using them.
In a National Geographic I once read ( I don't believe everything I read btw. Picked up a Readers Digest lately? Jesus Christ, republican fucks :angry: ) I learned that the rebels provide the Columbian farmers a living ( coca growing ) by legalising growing it but not using it, so they can make a living. Now I mean what are these farmers going to do for living after coca? Colomnians need coke, but the rest of the world could certainly do without it. Even though it is un-ecomical the crackdowns need to start with the drugs coming into the country, because the dealers are filthy rich anyway. Any thoughts on my plan?

[Xvall]

Where do you think I stand? I'll respond to everyone's points in a second.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Weather people agree or no prohibition does and not and can not work. I would never advocate the legalization of the hardest drugs out there. Coke,crack,meth,heroin,PCP and GHB. for obvious reasons those drugs are illegal. But I think that every other drug should be legal except the ones listed above. As halluciogens and drugs like MDMA are a very important substance and can be used to do things other then fuck you up.

A war on drugs is impossible its not like the dime bag of weed shoots people (im not being serious here) but its gotten out of line. In florida recently 2 kids might face felony charges for having a nickel bag on each of them. Thing is though these kids are in the 3rd grade and it confuses me how they got it.

[Xvall]

KickMcCann:

During the anti-gov't social movements of the 60's and 70's gov't agencies began covertly introducing/selling hard drugs like LSD, Cocaine, Meth, and Heroin to create a drug problem in the base of movements like the Black Panthers.

You may have a point with Cocaine, Methamphetamines, and Heroin, but I would like to point out that Lysergic Acid was never among the list of things that the CIA attempted to spread among urban areas. As soons as the CIA studied and tested the effects of Lysergic Acid, they deemed it dangerous and did everything in their ability to prevent people from obtaining it. The American Government does like it's subjects to be sedated [Alcohol, Heroin, Crack], but is frightened to death at the prospect of its citizens experiencing altered states of consciousness.

Macorix:

I'm not a fan of legalization of drugs. I've seen some good people end up six feet down below or in a brass jar.

True. However, I have seen people end up six feet under from unhealthy diets, cardiovascular complications, and high cholestorol. Is that an argument for criminalizing foods that can make you obese? More people die from alcohol than from all of the illegal drugs combined, yet alcohol remains perfectly legal. People die all the time from vehicular accidents - perhaps vehicles need to be taken off of the streets to keep everyone safe?

Apathy Now:

If smoked marijuana is worse for your lungs then tobacco

Actually, marijuana smoke is not worse for you. Save for the psychoactive effects of marijuana, the smoke is exactly the same. More importantly, you must note that the amount of nicotine inhaled by the average cigarette smoker surpasses the amount of tetrahydrocannibanol inhaled my the average marijuana smoker. This isn't even bringing into the subject the excessive amount of volatile chemicals added to cigarettes.

[Source: Huber, G.L. et al, "The Effects of Marihuana on the Respiratory and Cardiovascular Systems," pp 3-18 in G. Chesher et al (eds), Marijuana: an International Research Report, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service (1988).]

These statements aside, I want to point out a few things.

1) Everyone here seems to be under the impression that ending the Drug War means legalizing every illegal substance out there. That isn't the case. Ending the Drug War will not make heroin, crack-cocaine, or methamphetamines legal. Ending the Drug War means that we are no longer spending billions of dollars each year to arrest marijuana smokers. Ending the Drug War means that the focus will be shifted from punishment to rehabilitation. One of the most common arguments that I am seeing here is that these drugs are bad for you. As true as this may be, these things need to be treated like problems, and efforts must be made to help cure the 'victim'. It is entirely illogical to imprison someone because they're doing something bad to themselves. It would be like proposing that people who attempt suicide should be shot.

2) Going on from that, things should not be criminalized on the basis that they are [i]bad[/b] for you. I have an uncle who is extremely obese. Should he try and make an effort to stop? Yes. Is what he is doing to himself harmful in the long run? Yes. Does he deserve to be imprisoned for life? No. The same aspect applies to drug users.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Drake Dracoli
Actually, marijuana smoke is not worse for you.
The reason it is worse for you it is that it is hotter.


Also while ending the drug war might not mean the legalisation of drugs, legalisation is what we should be fighting for in the end.
And for some reason a bunch of wacko Christians and other religious nuts (this is not to say that all Christians are wacko or all people with a religion are nuts) want to ban these substances 'cause it's a sin. What business it is of theirs I don't know.

[cathatonix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:34 PM
Hell, the problem still exists: The focus was simply shifted from being a double-digit range at 00-99 (signifying 1900-1999) to being the same at 70-69 (signifying 1970-2069). So come 2069, we'll have the same fiasco all over again. The point is though, noone expects the electronic components to last this long - most PCB's have a 10-25yr shelf life.
The world is so crazy that I'm looking forward to a real crash. What do I have to lose? Some money in the bank. Oh good, I'm trembling!!!

No, tear down the system!

Some politicians and journalist call this time "the end of history" because it's perfect. I say they're wrong and I really want the to see that soon.

[Xvall]

The reason it is worse for you it is that it is hotter.

Ah! Alright, that's a different story. I was refering to the chemical compounds in the drug, though there are some ways to try and avoid the heat as well.



Also while ending the drug war might not mean the legalisation of drugs, legalisation is what we should be fighting for in the end.

Agreed.

I just try to avoid starting out like that when arguing with anti-drug advocates; I try to put fourth a more gradual approach as well.

And them religious nuts bother me too. I don't even remember anything like that in the bible! Where's the part where it says: "Thou shalt not partake of the reefer"?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Drugs should be legalized, in a socialist society, that is. We should not have these things in the capitalist world, because more drugs would be a great way to lead poor people even farther away from the truth, and therefore revolution.

[cathatonix]

I don't think a world with legalized drugs would be a better place. Using drugs is just another way to escape the truth, that the majority are being assfucked by a small minority. We already have legalized stupid media, religion, alcohol, medicin. More drugs would be a great way to lead poor people even farther away from the truth.

[Anarchist Freedom]

^^^

You realize that not every poor person gets led away from the truth. The ones that do arent responsible.



The reason it is worse for you it is that it is hotter.


holy sweet god why has no one mentioned the bong!? or maybe a nice ice twister bong? that cools the smoke considerably before it comes into your mouth.