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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 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.

The most recent thing was the ricaurte mdma study that was the backbone of the rave act. They had used methampthetamine instead of mdma.
This explains it:
http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/302/oops.shtml
And here is the study:
http://mdma.net/toxicity/ricaurte.html

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Not anger, more a mixture of frustration and pity.

Oh, you're not angry, just frustrated. My bad.

quote:

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.

That's not true and the evidence for it is in the very article you posted a couple of lines below. It shows scientists made a research in which they found out marijuana wasn't very harmful. Now, the fact that the state didn't act in accordance to that research is a totally different thing. But the state did fund that research.

quote:

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.

It's not the government that convinced me, it's a load of scientific research on the matter that points in the same direction. Oh, no wait, that's all a government-funded conspiracy, how could I forget?

quote:

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

No, Einstein, all those huge companies that profit from promoting false research. I didn't say it was necessarily drug-related. The point of the post is that the state research is usually more trustworthy than private sponsored one. I've also not stated that the huge companies are the only donators of money for the independent researchers. They can be funded from all kinds of sources, including the drug producers.

quote:

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: ...article...

Actually this article shows you have no idea what you're talking about. It clearly states that the government founded research agency concluded that the effects of marijuana aren't very harmful. It just shows that the heads of state often act in accordance with their personal beliefs rather than in accordance with the realistic situation. You could also say that the heads of state are trying to influence people by somewhat demonizing the consequences of drug abuse. That, however, has no relation to the research at hand, as the article was not a bunch of propaganda taken from a government anti-drug program homepage, but a research brought by an independent news source.

Now, as far as ecstasy causing genetic mutations, I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It's not turning people into mutants. Loads of things cause genetic mutations. Every cancer is a genetic mutation. And just think of how many things cause cancer.

quote:

Btw, please quote me saying e is harmless.

Only if you'll quote me where I said you said that.

___________________
1+1=10

I find it so sad how people get SO damn defensive when propositioned with any negativity in reguards to E. I myself have delved into the world of E, loved it at first... and then found myself living out exactlty what my boyfriend had warned me about, I was in a dream world for 2 months, pushing friends,family and my boyfriend away testing all the limits of love that these people had for me.
I understand why people defend E ( or any other drug) I too was defensive when I was under its control. But now that (thank goodness)I have woken from the weird zombie-like state I look at it so differently. I AM NOT a prude, i have dropped again since, but this time it was different, the night wasnt about dropping, I was enjoying my friends and music...and with my old self back the night was completely different and more enjoyable.
I will never abuse E again, nor do I ever want to let something grab hold of me and control me. And as much as someone will indefinitely respond with " I dont let E control me, I have fun and use it resposibly, and it has only enlightened my life BLAH BLAH".... I am not putting any of you down, I just want everyone to take drugs for what they are. Don't ever underestimate them or their power. And don't act like researchers, or scientists, or know-it-alls because who are you to know exactly what E does? Why because u took it so many times?? Nobody is an expert, and remember that this drug is still fairly new without substantial research backing it up to tell you what exactly to be weary of. Be careful, & have fun

quote:

Originally posted by Summer21 I find it so sad how people get SO damn defensive when propositioned with any negativity in reguards to E. I myself have delved into the world of E, loved it at first... and then found myself living out exactlty what my boyfriend had warned me about, I was in a dream world for 2 months, pushing friends,family and my boyfriend away testing all the limits of love that these people had for me. I understand why people defend E ( or any other drug) I too was defensive when I was under its control. But now that (thank goodness)I have woken from the weird zombie-like state I look at it so differently. I AM NOT a prude, i have dropped again since, but this time it was different, the night wasnt about dropping, I was enjoying my friends and music...and with my old self back the night was completely different and more enjoyable. I will never abuse E again, nor do I ever want to let something grab hold of me and control me. And as much as someone will indefinitely respond with " I dont let E control me, I have fun and use it resposibly, and it has only enlightened my life BLAH BLAH".... I am not putting any of you down, I just want everyone to take drugs for what they are. Don't ever underestimate them or their power. And don't act like researchers, or scientists, or know-it-alls because who are you to know exactly what E does? Why because u took it so many times?? Nobody is an expert, and remember that this drug is still fairly new without substantial research backing it up to tell you what exactly to be weary of. Be careful, & have fun

I don't believe any of this! You're probably some government agent that has inflitrated our ranks! We won't be opressed like this, man! Free drugs and love for everyone, you fascist, it's the 21st century, man!

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I don't believe any of this! You're probably some government agent that has inflitrated our ranks! We won't be opressed like this, man! Free drugs and love for everyone, you fascist, it's the 21st century, man!

It's Cheney's wife/girlfriend. What do ya expect?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

A lot of funded "studies" are garbage. People get paid to find things, be it from he government or a private corporation. It is very simple: If the people that fund your research like your results, they will fund you again, otherwise they won't. So the researcher will conduct a study tailored to show certain results.

Science in ESSENCE is not bad, not is it corrupt, but the problem is that the results of these studies, even if done perfectly scientifically, is taken out of context.

I bet a study, giving rats 200g of vitamin C/ day will also show severe negative effects.
I am not here to say "drugs are good", but people need to realize that a lot of studies are done by people, who earn their money this way. There is a good incentive for them to set up their studies so that the results agree with the satus quo (which is the person funding them).

___________________

get font

I see your 4 Crushs and raise you 3 As The Rush Comes. - Yan from PvD's first summerstage event in '03

quote:

Originally posted by drizzt81 A lot of funded "studies" are garbage. People get paid to find things, be it from he government or a private corporation. It is very simple: If the people that fund your research like your results, they will fund you again, otherwise they won't. So the researcher will conduct a study tailored to show certain results. Science in ESSENCE is not bad, not is it corrupt, but the problem is that the results of these studies, even if done perfectly scientifically, is taken out of context. I bet a study, giving rats 200g of vitamin C/ day will also show severe negative effects. I am not here to say "drugs are good", but people need to realize that a lot of studies are done by people, who earn their money this way. There is a good incentive for them to set up their studies so that the results agree with the satus quo (which is the person funding them).

its not the sciene that is "wrong" its the reporting.
that article doesn't say jack shit about the study. you can skew results anywhich way you want to make them look the way that people want them to be.
all the details of the study need to be given.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I don't believe any of this! You're probably some government agent that has inflitrated our ranks! We won't be opressed like this, man! Free drugs and love for everyone,

Free love and drugs???? I must put a stop to this immediately. We can call it the LOVE Act. Love Oppression through Violence against Everyone. Now to find a bill to tack it on ... preferablly something involving giving food to starving, orphaned, adorable children. Then perhaps a bill to allow corporate experimental testing on those children ... Exxxxccceelllent

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Oh, you're not angry, just frustrated. My bad.

Yep.

quote:

That's not true and the evidence for it is in the very article you posted a couple of lines below. It shows scientists made a research in which they found out marijuana wasn't very harmful. Now, the fact that the state didn't act in accordance to that research is a totally different thing. But the state did fund that research.

Tell u what. Answer my post again bearing in mind that what i posted was talking about BEFORE the law was made.

quote:

It's not the government that convinced me, it's a load of scientific research on the matter that points in the same direction. Oh, no wait, that's all a government-funded conspiracy, how could I forget?

Ok listen. From what ur saying, its clear that u dont really have much/any knowledge of the situation. Thats fine. This isnt a flame btw (id rather not start that, well get nowhere). I wasnt born knowing what i do now (and im NOT saying i know everything, far from it). That came from about 5 years of research, discussion and experience. Theres not much point in u arguing with me about this, because u wont win. U cant win. Thats because im right and ur wrong, simple as that. Ive been through this enough times with people and anything u can say, ive heard it before. I know all the angles, all the trickery etc that u prohibitionists usually come up with. U might as well go and do a bit of reading up on these researchers, and learn about who they are, who appointed them, where they came from etc. I suggest u start with the legendary gabriel nahas.

quote:

No, Einstein, all those huge companies that profit from promoting false research.

Examples?

quote:

I didn't say it was necessarily drug-related. The point of the post is that the state research is usually more trustworthy than private sponsored one.

Research involving (most) governments is definitely NOT reliable in the case of illegal drugs, especially america. If u werent talking about drug research then what ur saying is completely irrelevant.

quote:

I've also not stated that the huge companies are the only donators of money for the independent researchers. They can be funded from all kinds of sources, including the drug producers.

Sources/evidence please.

quote:

Actually this article shows you have no idea what you're talking about. It clearly states that the government founded research agency concluded that the effects of marijuana aren't very harmful.

As i said before: Answer my post again bearing in mind that what i posted was talking about BEFORE the law was made.

quote:

It just shows that the heads of state often act in accordance with their personal beliefs rather than in accordance with the realistic situation. You could also say that the heads of state are trying to influence people by somewhat demonizing the consequences of drug abuse. That, however, has no relation to the research at hand, as the article was not a bunch of propaganda taken from a government anti-drug program homepage, but a research brought by an independent news source.

So? News reporters dont do the research. The source matters, not the messenger.

quote:

Now, as far as ecstasy causing genetic mutations, I don't see why that's so hard to believe. It's not turning people into mutants. Loads of things cause genetic mutations. Every cancer is a genetic mutation. And just think of how many things cause cancer.

Well im not an expert on genetic mutations. I dont know if its true or not. But i doubt it is, and not just because of this specific claim, its because theres so much utter shite out there.

quote:

Only if you'll quote me where I said you said that.

Well u sorta implied it.