TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Something to consider... all you X users -
Pages (9): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What's this AIDs thing you're talking about??? Whaddya mean we can't make free love??? It's the 70's/80's man! Free love!!! Yea!!! The man's trying to put us down!!! Granted the two are almost polar opposites but one must wonder ... why do most drug users place greater credibility in scientific research that shows drugs may not have as much negative impact in certain areas as once thought than reports detailing potential risks that a drug may have? The entire basis of your formulation of the health hazards of a drug are based upon research, why LIMIT yourself to the research that says everything is all fine and dandy whilst you casually dismiss research saying otherwise?

The war on drugs makes you money as VP doesn't it occrider

Of course you are right....people always tend to use scientific evidence that leans toward their side than the other side.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel The war on drugs makes you money as VP doesn't it occrider

Everything evil makes me money

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What's this AIDs thing you're talking about??? Whaddya mean we can't make free love??? It's the 70's/80's man! Free love!!! Yea!!! The man's trying to put us down!!! Granted the two are almost polar opposites but one must wonder ... why do most drug users place greater credibility in scientific research that shows drugs may not have as much negative impact in certain areas as once thought than reports detailing potential risks that a drug may have? The entire basis of your formulation of the health hazards of a drug are based upon research, why LIMIT yourself to the research that says everything is all fine and dandy whilst you casually dismiss research saying otherwise?

It's a good question, and part of it is essentially denial. The other part of it has to do with factions, the government has consistently exaggerated the effects of drugs. FSCK they said pot would turn you into a psychotic criminal ("dope fiend") in the early twennies... THe situation has gotten progressively worse. Some study popping up out of the middle of nowhere stating cocaine and ecstasy cause genetic mutations, and through wording (though not explicitly stating) imply it is severe one begins to wonder if this is just some more fear, uncertainty doubt. It's analagous to the people who believe that Vitamin C, being an anti-oxidative will prevent cell damage due to the oxidation that is believed to occur post-MDMA-high (destroying serotonin axons). Being skeptical and saying that MDMA has no negative health effects are two completely different things.

Nobody here is (edit: im not) trying to say that MDMA doesn't have the ability to cause depression (which is pretty much well-documented and universally accepted), or that cocaine doesn't eventually inhibit dopamine production in the brain (or cause depression). This article is much more fringe and has about the credibility (in my mind) of a tabloid article at this point. So where are all the fucked up coke (okay, crack babies, but that is a quite different and also well documented phenomenon) and e babies or the people dying from cancer due to e and coke?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What's this AIDs thing you're talking about??? Whaddya mean we can't make free love??? It's the 70's/80's man! Free love!!! Yea!!! The man's trying to put us down!!!

quote:

Granted the two are almost polar opposites but one must wonder ... why do most drug users place greater credibility in scientific research that shows drugs may not have as much negative impact in certain areas as once thought than reports detailing potential risks that a drug may have?

Experience.

quote:

The entire basis of your formulation of the health hazards of a drug are based upon research, why LIMIT yourself to the research that says everything is all fine and dandy whilst you casually dismiss research saying otherwise?

Well, i dont. I have pointed out info showing negative effects of drugs before.
Over the years, biased researchers have come up with so much shit that its got to the point where people just dont believe studies showing negative effects any more, or at least look at them skeptically. Theyve tried everything from conveniently making a 'mistake' to blatant lies. They usually get found out sooner or later but at the time its great for them. The media will have it all over the place, forcing it down peoples throats and u wont stop hearing about it for a while. Then whenever its proven to be bs, nobody says anything. Most of the people who heard the original story dont hear that it wasnt true, or it was exaggerated etc.
So they just keep doing it.
If a study shows positive effects from a drug or disproves earlier studies showing negatives, u can bet it wasnt biased government researchers who did it. If they did a study showing that, nobody would hear about it. No doubt they would be told to scrap the study because its not producing the 'right' results, unless it was something minor like cannabis being a painkiller.
So basically, studies showing good effects are usually reliable, and studies showing bad effects usually arent.

quote:

Originally posted by SuperFarStucker It's a good question, and part of it is essentially denial. The other part of it has to do with factions, the government has consistently exaggerated the effects of drugs. FSCK they said pot would turn you into a psychotic criminal ("dope fiend") in the early twennies... THe situation has gotten progressively worse. Some study popping up out of the middle of nowhere stating cocaine and ecstasy cause genetic mutations, and through wording (though not explicitly stating) imply it is severe one begins to wonder if this is just some more fear, uncertainty doubt. It's analagous to the people who believe that Vitamin C, being an anti-oxidative will prevent cell damage due to the oxidation that is believed to occur post-MDMA-high (destroying serotonin axons). Being skeptical and saying that MDMA has no negative health effects are two completely different things. Nobody here is (edit: im not) trying to say that MDMA doesn't have the ability to cause depression (which is pretty much well-documented and universally accepted), or that cocaine doesn't eventually inhibit dopamine production in the brain (or cause depression). This article is much more fringe and has about the credibility (in my mind) of a tabloid article at this point. So where are all the fucked up coke (okay, crack babies, but that is a quite different and also well documented phenomenon) and e babies or the people dying from cancer due to e and coke?

You're drawing your own conclusions man. Everybody here is, seeing "DNA damage", people who dont have much of a clue start thinking of X-Men, without realizing that on what scale this is happening.

Is there a risk of cancer? Maybe, maybe not. They're pointing out evidence of DNA damage, nothing more.

P.S. tabloid? Reuters is hardly a tabloid LOL, if you want to find the study do a search on MedLine you'll find it...

you know i think the persistant and prolonged use of cell phones by a very large percentage of the population puts those people at an even higher risk of devloping a brain tumor or cancer (DNA mutation).
not to say E or coke aren't increasing the risks of developing cancer.

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd You're drawing your own conclusions man. Everybody here is, seeing "DNA damage", people who dont have much of a clue start thinking of X-Men, without realizing that on what scale this is happening. Is there a risk of cancer? Maybe, maybe not. They're pointing out evidence of DNA damage, nothing more. P.S. tabloid? Reuters is hardly a tabloid LOL, if you want to find the study do a search on MedLine you'll find it...

Read the article, you tell me what they are implying.. and I suppose the tabloid tidbit was a bad analogy, i wasn't questioning the people reporting the news, but rather, the validity of the news itself. Just because a study exists, doesn't mean it is accurate or the findings are as terrible as implied (although I will put my foot in my mouth if somebody does indeed verify said study and findings). The choice of words by the quoted certainly implies that it is a 'significant' finding indeed....

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd chief scientist at the National Center for Research's (CNR) biotechnology department I think he may know a little more than you on the topic...

Nah, they're all a part of the big government conspiracy that wants to turn people into mindless slaves. Ecstasy has no harmful effects whatsoever, it just makes people happy and friendly. The only reason government wants to prohibit its use is because it brings hope to the people and helps them see the world for what it really is. You should listen to the people who really know what's going on. Like some ecstasy users on this board. Hell, they've been recreationally taking pills now for over a year and they still say they're perfrectly ok. That scientific research is a bunch of crap, like most of them are. Thank god there are still some respectable scientists who help us see the truth, like that creationist Einsten from the political discussion/debate forum...what was his name? Dr Nick? Or Schroeder? I forgot.

ok the day that my few times a year taking drugs (and no weed is not really a drug), causes my DNA to mutate and i grow some gills or a second cock or something, i will stop.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Dr Nick? Or Schroeder?

That's me

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Nah, they're all a part of the big government conspiracy that wants to turn people into mindless slaves. Ecstasy has no harmful effects whatsoever, it just makes people happy and friendly. The only reason government wants to prohibit its use is because it brings hope to the people and helps them see the world for what it really is. You should listen to the people who really know what's going on. Like some ecstasy users on this board. Hell, they've been recreationally taking pills now for over a year and they still say they're perfrectly ok. That scientific research is a bunch of crap, like most of them are. Thank god there are still some respectable scientists who help us see the truth, like that creationist Einsten from the political discussion/debate forum...what was his name? Dr Nick? Or Schroeder? I forgot.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq

One can only walk away when confronted with an argument as strong as yours.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 One can only walk away when confronted with an argument as strong as yours.

Thank u...
If ud read the whole thread u wouldve seen what i said about this already.

quote:

Well, i dont. I have pointed out info showing negative effects of drugs before. Over the years, biased researchers have come up with so much shit that its got to the point where people just dont believe studies showing negative effects any more, or at least look at them skeptically. Theyve tried everything from conveniently making a 'mistake' to blatant lies. They usually get found out sooner or later but at the time its great for them. The media will have it all over the place, forcing it down peoples throats and u wont stop hearing about it for a while. Then whenever its proven to be bs, nobody says anything. Most of the people who heard the original story dont hear that it wasnt true, or it was exaggerated etc. So they just keep doing it. If a study shows positive effects from a drug or disproves earlier studies showing negatives, u can bet it wasnt biased government researchers who did it. If they did a study showing that, nobody would hear about it. No doubt they would be told to scrap the study because its not producing the 'right' results, unless it was something minor like cannabis being a painkiller. So basically, studies showing good effects are usually reliable, and studies showing bad effects usually arent.

Now u can walk away.

Shit happens I guess

quote:

Originally posted by PHALPAX Shit happens I guess

PHALPAX's words of wisdom

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 One can only walk away when confronted with an argument as strong as yours.

OWNED!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Thank u... If ud read the whole thread u wouldve seen what i said about this already. Now u can walk away.

I gave up X along time ago.....didn'nt need it for Tijs nor Armin souldn't done it for PVD(fecking Joke set) but it is bad when you have responsibilities at work and can't stop stuttering!!!!

me 2 cents,
Mario O.

quote:

Well, i dont. I have pointed out info showing negative effects of drugs before. Over the years, biased researchers have come up with so much shit that its got to the point where people just dont believe studies showing negative effects any more, or at least look at them skeptically. Theyve tried everything from conveniently making a 'mistake' to blatant lies. They usually get found out sooner or later but at the time its great for them. The media will have it all over the place, forcing it down peoples throats and u wont stop hearing about it for a while. Then whenever its proven to be bs, nobody says anything. Most of the people who heard the original story dont hear that it wasnt true, or it was exaggerated etc. So they just keep doing it. If a study shows positive effects from a drug or disproves earlier studies showing negatives, u can bet it wasnt biased government researchers who did it. If they did a study showing that, nobody would hear about it. No doubt they would be told to scrap the study because its not producing the 'right' results, unless it was something minor like cannabis being a painkiller. So basically, studies showing good effects are usually reliable, and studies showing bad effects usually arent.

That hippy mentality won't get you far. The world is filled with bs and everybody's stupid opinions, science is one thing you can trust...

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd That hippy mentality won't get you far. The world is filled with bs and everybody's stupid opinions, science is one thing you can trust...

Oh shut the fuck up ffs. Im not a hippy. And if u think u can trust all scientists, especially 1s getting paid by governments, then ur a stupid ****.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Oh shut the fuck up ffs. Im not a hippy. And if u think u can trust all scientists, especially 1s getting paid by governments, then ur a stupid ****.

Ooh, now we're getting angry, eh? Temper, temper. Or, in better words, peace, man, have a smoke and don't let those fascist control you. I guess you fail to see the way science research works. The government doesn't pay the money to the scientists and then says: "you will make a research that shows this and this". No, my little friend, the government pays money to the researchers and says:"you will research this subject and inform us of the results". That's because the government is interested in obtaining real results and not just bogus theories. Come on, if ecstasy were harmless, why would the government go against it? It would boost the morale of the citizens dramatically, everybody would be happy and hyperactive. Something every government desires.

Now, on the other hand, researchers independant of government funds are not independant at all. They're funded either by big corporations or by wacko organizations. Their research is often biased because their funding depends on whether the company likes their results. They're also not very respectable, because it is obvious the government doesn't want to spend money on their theories.

quote:

Originally posted by montie genetic mutations could be good

in most cases (upwards of 90%) a genetic mutation is NOT good. From what I remember from biology class, most spontaneous mutation is bad. If it happens, when your organism is only a couple of cells big, it is usually lethal.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ooh, now we're getting angry, eh? Temper, temper. Or, in better words, peace, man, have a smoke and don't let those fascist control you.

Not anger, more a mixture of frustration and pity.

quote:

I guess you fail to see the way science research works. The government doesn't pay the money to the scientists and then says: "you will make a research that shows this and this". No, my little friend, the government pays money to the researchers and says:"you will research this subject and inform us of the results". That's because the government is interested in obtaining real results and not just bogus theories. Come on, if ecstasy were harmless, why would the government go against it? It would boost the morale of the citizens dramatically, everybody would be happy and hyperactive. Something every government desires.

This is just blind compliance. What ur saying is completely wrong, especially the government wanting real results part. U obviously dont know the researching law/rule in america. I dunno the exact thing is, but basically researchers are not allowed to find any positives about illegal drugs. Theyre not even allowed to TRY to.

Do i really have to explain all this? It takes a very long time (ive had this conversation with prohibitionists loads of times) as its such a complicated issue. But basically, governments dont have the balls to legalise illegal drugs. For years they have been bullshitting about harmful effects of them, for many reasons. Do u think its likely that theyre just gonna turn round and admit how wrong theyve been? No chance. With the way theyve convinced many people, like urself, it would be a disaster for them. The first government to admit it would be fucked. Theyd lose far more votes than theyd gain. They would lose support from other governments and organisations.

quote:

Now, on the other hand, researchers independant of government funds are not independant at all. They're funded either by big corporations or by wacko organizations.

Really? All those huge companies that profit from promoting illegal drugs, u mean? Name them.

quote:

Their research is often biased because their funding depends on whether the company likes their results. They're also not very respectable, because it is obvious the government doesn't want to spend money on their theories.

Uv got it the wrong way round. Replace the word company with government.
Heres an example of what im talking about. Its long but well worth the read:

"Thirty years ago the United States came to a critical juncture in the drug war. A Nixon-appointed presidential commission had recommended that marijuana use not be a criminal offense under state or federal law. But Nixon himself, based on his zealous personal preferences, overruled the commission's research and doomed marijuana to its current illegal status.

This newly revealed information comes from declassified tapes of Oval Office conversations from 1971 and 1972, which show Nixon's aggressive anti-drug stance putting him directly at odds against many of his close advisors. Transcripts of the tape, and a report based on them, are available at www.csdp.org.

Congress, when it passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, temporarily labeled marijuana a "Schedule I substance" -- a flatly illegal drug with no approved medical purposes. But Congress acknowledged that it did not know enough about marijuana to permanently relegate it to Schedule I, and so they created a presidential commission to review the research and recommend a long-term strategy. President Nixon got to appoint the bulk of the commissioners. Not surprisingly, he loaded it with drug warriors. Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer, former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania, as Chairman. As a former prosecutor, Shafer had a "law and order," drug warrior reputation. Nixon also appointed nine Commissioners, including the dean of a law school, the head of a mental health hospital, and a retired Chicago police captain. Along with the Nixon appointees, two senators and two congressmen from each party served on the Commission.

The Shafer Commission -- officially known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse -- took its job seriously. They launched fifty research projects, polled the public and members of the criminal justice community, and took thousands of pages of testimony. Their work is still the most comprehensive review of marijuana ever conducted by the federal government.

After reviewing all the evidence, these drug warriors were forced tocome to a different conclusion than they had at first expected. Rather than harshly condemning marijuana, they started talking about legalization. When Nixon heard such talk, he quickly denounced the Commission -- months before it issued its report.

As a result of Nixon's public rebuke, Shafer met with the President. The Commission was upset, and the purpose of the meeting was to reassure them. But Nixon didn't budge. Instead, he warned Shafer to get control of his commission and avoid looking like a "bunch of do-gooders" who are "soft on marijuana." He warned Shafer that the Commission would "look bad as hell" if it came out with recommendations different from the direction of Congress and the President.

During their meeting, Shafer reassured the President that he would not support "legalization," even though there were some on the Commission who did. He told Nixon they were looking for a unanimous recommendation. Nixon warned Shafer that he "had very strong feelings" on marijuana. Nixon and Shafer also discussed Shafer's potential appointment to a federal judgeship.

But in the end, the Shafer Commission issued a report that tried to correct the "extensive degree of misinformation," to "demythologize" and "desymbolize" marijuana. They reported finding that marijuana did not cause crime or aggression, lead to harder drug use or create significant biochemical, mental or physical abnormalities. They concluded: "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."

The most important recommendation of the Commission was the decriminalization of possession or non-profit transfer of marijuana. Decriminalization meant there would be no punishment -- criminal or civil -- under state or federal law.

Nixon reacted strongly to the report. In a recorded conversation on March 21, the day before the Commission released its report, Nixon said, "We need, and I use the word 'all out war,' on all fronts ... we have to attack on all fronts." Nixon and his advisors went on to plan a speech about why he opposed marijuana legalization, and proposed that he do "a drug thing every week" during the 1972 presidential election year. Nixon wanted a "Goddamn strong statement about marijuana ... that just tears the ass out of them."

Shafer was never appointed to the federal court.

Nixon's private comments about marijuana showed he was the epitome of misinformation and prejudice. He believed marijuana led to hard drugs, despite the evidence to the contrary. He saw marijuana as tied to "radical demonstrators." He believed that "the Jews," especially "Jewish psychiatrists" were behind advocacy for legalization, asking advisor Bob Haldeman, "What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob?" He made a bizarre distinction between marijuana and alcohol, saying people use marijuana "to get high" while "a person drinks to have fun."

He also saw marijuana as part of the culture war that was destroying the United States, and claimed that Communists were using it as a weapon. "Homosexuality, dope, immorality in general," Nixon fumed. "These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us." His approach drug education was just as simplistic: "Enforce the law. You've got to scare them."

Unfortunately, Nixon did more than just "scare them," whoever they were. His marijuana war rhetoric led to a dramatic increase in arrests. One year after his "all out war" comments, marijuana arrests jumped to 420,700 a year -- a full 128,000 more than the year before. Since then, nearly 15 million people have been arrested for marijuana offenses.

For thirty years, the United States has taken the path of Nixon's prejudice and ignored the experts. We now have the largest prison population in world history, and drug problems are no closer to solved. Indeed, plenty of evidence indicates that drug-related problems are worse than ever.

It did not have to be this way. At the same time that the Shafer Commission issued its report, the Bain Commission in Holland issued a report that made similar findings and recommendations. In Holland, they followed the advice of their experts. Thirty years later Holland has half the per-capita marijuana use as the U.S., far fewer drug-related problems and spends much less on drug enforcement. With statistics like that, it's no wonder that most of Europe is going Dutch. Just last week a British Commission issued a Shafer-like report, indicating that the U.K. is moving in the Dutch direction.

It is not too late for the U.S. to move to a more sensible path. We are approaching three quarters of a million marijuana arrests annually. Every year that the U.S. fails to adopt a policy based on research, science and facts we destroy millions of lives and tear apart millions of families.

Where will we be in another thirty years if we don't change course and make peace in the marijuana war? Now that we know the war's roots are rotten -- and after we've lived through the decades of damage and failure it has produced -- we should face the facts. The thirty-year- old recommendations of the Shafer Commission are a good place to start."

Btw, please quote me saying e is harmless.

you don't need scientific research to witness the effects of ecstacy, look at some of the posts in this threads

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Oh shut the fuck up ffs. Im not a hippy. And if u think u can trust all scientists, especially 1s getting paid by governments, then ur a stupid ****.

odds are the government saying the drug is bad is more true than the hippy saying the drug is good...

quote:

Originally posted by jdjd odds are the government saying the drug is bad is more true than the hippy saying the drug is good...

U dont know what ur talking about. If ur just gonna troll, piss off.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq U dont know what ur talking about. If ur just gonna troll, piss off.

No doubt, your article on Nixon revealed one thing to me - Nixon was a douche bag.

Are there any current models that support your assertion? Nixon was quite some time ago. I don't necessarily doubt your assertion, I'm just seeing if you have any links that parallel that situation 30 years ago.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.