ATG
Banned
+5,233|6525|Global Command
Biofuels causing starvation in the world and jacking U.S. food prices. That was almost the title of this thread.
An essential point that political leaders and the media have missed about the world food crisis is that rising oil prices have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has!  It is quite different to just raise the price of something than to actually reduce its supply.  Higher oil prices naturally raise the cost of everything that takes energy to produce, but on top of that United States and European Union policies have actually shrunk the human food supply by artificially mandating a shift of agricultural resources to biofuel production.  President Bush's 2007 "Energy Independence and Security Act" turns our food into fuel, and is reminiscent of Chairman Mao Tse Tung's 1958 Five Year Plan, known as "The Great Leap Forward," in which China's agricultural based economy was forcefully shifted to greater industrial output.
The IMF is talking about stepping in. Because people are starving and wars are being fought over the illusion of oil being the end all. It is not that hard to imagine that these
fuckers   http://www.newamericancentury.org/   don't mind people starving in the third world. They don't mind open borders in the U.S. and a million people behind bars.

Here they talk about some two million people smoking pot in the U.S.

I think there are that many in Los Angeles.   Marijuana should be regulated and legalized, taxed like any other commodity. Instead of 100's of millions going to drug cartels we could be reaping that as tax dollars to fund education, roads and bridges.

Not ONLY is this common sense for America, now our politicians are destroying food prices by forcing corn production for biofuels. The starvation from these policies may cause deaths and economic ruin for millions in countries outside America.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … t.biofuels








shaky old video, but the points are valid. Obviously hemp should be being grown and harvested.
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|6755|San Antonio, Texas
I think that Marijuana should be legalised, regulated like alcohol, and taxed like tobacco.

And bio-fuel is just a lose/lose situation and we should stop making it.
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6702
Bio-fuels are not the way of the future.  They don't produce the energy necessary to justify the work required to make them, and it just doesn't make sense to use something edible for power when there are so many starving people in the world.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)
Yup, this is just one more reason to legalize.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Bio-fuels are not the way of the future.
IMO, BIO-fuels are part of 'the way of the future'.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

They don't produce the energy necessary to justify the work required to make them
They're pretty damned carbon nuetral and, I understand, their overall energy efficiency is getting better.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

and it just doesn't make sense to use something edible for power when there are so many starving people in the world.
That's why using hemp is such a good idea - hemp ain't great for eating - unless it's cannabis, but even then it ain't all that nutritious - but it does grow fast and the whole plant can be used for so many more things than just bio-fuel and spliffs.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-13 00:37:06)

BVC
Member
+325|6691
Thats why electric > biofuel.

And as for marijuana I fully agree.  Prohibition just doesn't work, and if you accept the gateway argument, taking weed out of drug dealers hands and into peoples back yards (thus reducing exposure to other stuff) could be the best move yet in the war on drugs/crime.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)

Pubic wrote:

Thats why electric > biofuel.

And as for marijuana I fully agree.  Prohibition just doesn't work, and if you accept the gateway argument, taking weed out of drug dealers hands and into peoples back yards (thus reducing exposure to other stuff) could be the best move yet in the war on drugs/crime.
I don't accept the 'gateway' argument, but I do accept the 'crime' argument - all black-market products, whether it's drugs, fakes, whatever, involves criminal gangs somewhere along the line, so legalizing personal cultivation is still win-win.
mikkel
Member
+383|6597

Pubic wrote:

Thats why electric > biofuel.

And as for marijuana I fully agree.  Prohibition just doesn't work, and if you accept the gateway argument, taking weed out of drug dealers hands and into peoples back yards (thus reducing exposure to other stuff) could be the best move yet in the war on drugs/crime.
Reducing exposure to other stuff? If people today have no issues with finding a dealer to buy marihuana from, I don't really see why they wouldn't have the same motivation to find dealers of harder drugs, should they want to. Drug dealers are always going to be around, and if you do marihuana, you're almost inevitably going to be exposed to harder drugs as part of the culture, just like drinking beer is inevitably going to get you exposed to harder liquours.

If the gateway theory applies, it would be the worst move yet in the war on drugs. Overturning legislation prohibiting the use of marihuana is the same as endorsing the use of it. I'll never understand how some people feel that the decriminalisation and passive endorsement of a substance would discourage the use of other substances associated with it.

The problem with harder drugs today is that people are willing to try them. Anyone doing hard drugs today has, and always will have had access to marihuana. They aren't going to stop the harder drugs because a softer one is freely available, and having a softer drug freely available will inevitably bring about an influx of people looking for an even bigger high. What do you do then? Legalise ecstasy to keep people off of heroin?

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 01:02:41)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)
The `gateway' argument holds that cannabis use opens the way to the use of `hard' drugs, notably heroin. Research suggests that most heroin users started their drug-taking habits with cannabis and cigarettes. Elaine Walters cites various studies from the United States in this context. For example, a study called `Stages in Adolescent Involvement in Drug Use' showed, among other things, that whereas 26% of cannabis users became involved with other prohibited psychotropic drugs, only 1% of non-drug users and 4% of alcohol and cigarette users did so. Walters concludes, `Although there is no pharmacological link between using marijuana and progressing to the use of other drugs, these surveys and other studies clearly indicate the "progression" of drug use'.
The `gateway' theory of drug use has been proven incorrect. It is true that many illicit drug users start to use cannabis before they use other harder drugs, but most users also smoke and drink alcohol and there is no evidence for a causal link between cannabis use and later harder drug use.
source
mikkel
Member
+383|6597

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

The `gateway' argument holds that cannabis use opens the way to the use of `hard' drugs, notably heroin. Research suggests that most heroin users started their drug-taking habits with cannabis and cigarettes. Elaine Walters cites various studies from the United States in this context. For example, a study called `Stages in Adolescent Involvement in Drug Use' showed, among other things, that whereas 26% of cannabis users became involved with other prohibited psychotropic drugs, only 1% of non-drug users and 4% of alcohol and cigarette users did so. Walters concludes, `Although there is no pharmacological link between using marijuana and progressing to the use of other drugs, these surveys and other studies clearly indicate the "progression" of drug use'.
The `gateway' theory of drug use has been proven incorrect. It is true that many illicit drug users start to use cannabis before they use other harder drugs, but most users also smoke and drink alcohol and there is no evidence for a causal link between cannabis use and later harder drug use.
source
Don't even go there. The gateway theory has been proven incorrect about as many times as it has been proven correct. Scientists may not agree on whether there's a physiological or pharmacological link between use of cannabis and use of harder drugs, but the presence of physiological or pharmacological links is by no means the deciding factor in whether or not cannabis use leads to use of harder drugs. What is relevant is whether people wake up one day and say "Hey, I ought to do some heroin", or if people turn to harder drugs to get bigger highs than cheaper, more readily available drugs have to offer. If you honestly think that there's no sociological link between the use of softer drugs and the use of harder drugs, then you're in denial. Plain and simple.

As for your last quotation there, if the fact that many users of "illicit drugs" start out using cannabis isn't a casual link between cannabis use and harder drugs, I don't know what would be.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 02:14:43)

JahManRed
wank
+646|6623|IRELAND

Think of all the money that goes out of your country to drug cartels who then use said moneys to terrorise and intimidate their next shipment in. Then think of all the money the government spends trying to catch them and prosecute them. For what, so someone can't smoke something usually in the comfort of their own homes which harms no one else but themselves. Drink culture is encouraged and is much more harmful, yet is accepted. That's because the men who rules us like a drink but don't smoke.

Reefer madness.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

The `gateway' argument holds that cannabis use opens the way to the use of `hard' drugs, notably heroin. Research suggests that most heroin users started their drug-taking habits with cannabis and cigarettes. Elaine Walters cites various studies from the United States in this context. For example, a study called `Stages in Adolescent Involvement in Drug Use' showed, among other things, that whereas 26% of cannabis users became involved with other prohibited psychotropic drugs, only 1% of non-drug users and 4% of alcohol and cigarette users did so. Walters concludes, `Although there is no pharmacological link between using marijuana and progressing to the use of other drugs, these surveys and other studies clearly indicate the "progression" of drug use'.
The `gateway' theory of drug use has been proven incorrect. It is true that many illicit drug users start to use cannabis before they use other harder drugs, but most users also smoke and drink alcohol and there is no evidence for a causal link between cannabis use and later harder drug use.
source
Don't even go there. The gateway theory has been proven incorrect about as many times as it has been proven correct. Scientists may not agree on whether there's a physiological or pharmacological link between use of cannabis and use of harder drugs, but a physiological link is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether people wake up one day and say "Hey, I ought to do some heroin", or if people turn to harder drugs to get bigger highs than cheaper, more readily available drugs have to offer. If you honestly think that there's no sociological link between the use of softer drugs and the use of harder drugs, then you're in denial. Plain and simple.

As for your last quotation there, if the fact that many users of "illicit drugs" start out using cannabis isn't a casual link between cannabis use and harder drugs, I don't know what would be.
Well, imo, If you honestly think that there is a sociological link, then you're in denial.

This can be demonstrated by an extreme example - Coffee is the cheapest most widely available addictive drug out there, but no one in their right mind would ever state that "coffee use leads to hard drug use" (and legality is irrelevant, before you try that one).

And, as for the second quote, a causal link would be if cannabis use caused people to try harder drugs. This is just not the case.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-13 02:16:59)

mikkel
Member
+383|6597

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

source
Don't even go there. The gateway theory has been proven incorrect about as many times as it has been proven correct. Scientists may not agree on whether there's a physiological or pharmacological link between use of cannabis and use of harder drugs, but a physiological link is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether people wake up one day and say "Hey, I ought to do some heroin", or if people turn to harder drugs to get bigger highs than cheaper, more readily available drugs have to offer. If you honestly think that there's no sociological link between the use of softer drugs and the use of harder drugs, then you're in denial. Plain and simple.

As for your last quotation there, if the fact that many users of "illicit drugs" start out using cannabis isn't a casual link between cannabis use and harder drugs, I don't know what would be.
Well, imo, If you honestly think that there is a sociological link, then you're in denial.

This can be demonstrated by an extreme example - Coffee is the cheapest most widely available addictive drug out there, but no one in their right mind would ever state that "coffee use leads to hard drug use" (and legality is irrelevant, before you try that one).
Coffee? Are you even being serious here? You're comparing drinking coffee to smoking cannabis?

Honestly, I'd gladly have this discussion with you, but I'm really not going to begin to tell you how big the sociological differences between having a cup of coffee and smoking cannabis are. You're reaching here, and if you want to have a serious discussion, you have to get serious.



Scorpion0x17 wrote:

And, as for the second quote, a causal link would be if cannabis use caused people to try harder drugs. This is just not the case.
Because you say so? How would you explain the progressive nature of drug use if not through causality? It would be rather silly to attribute it to chance, that's for sure.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 03:20:14)

*=]AD[=*Pro_NL
Member
+77|6625|The Netherlands
they are legal in holland, and guess what, im from holland
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

This can be demonstrated by an extreme example - Coffee is the cheapest most widely available addictive drug out there, but no one in their right mind would ever state that "coffee use leads to hard drug use" (and legality is irrelevant, before you try that one).
Coffee? Are you even being serious here? You're comparing drinking coffee to smoking cannabis?
It is the exact same argument as you're making - "drug X leads to use of drug Y" - and it's just wrong.

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

And, as for the second quote, a causal link would be if cannabis use caused people to try harder drugs. This is just not the case.
Because you say so? How would you explain the progressive nature of drug use if not through causality?
Scientific study after scientific study after scientific study has shown their is no "progressive nature of drug use".

Take me for example, I smoked cannabis before I'd smoked nicotine. I did acid before I'd done shrooms. And the only drug I've ever snorted is ketamine.

I have never, even remotely, been tempted to try speed (amphetamine), cocaine or heroin, and never will.

People that want to try those things will, those that don't won't.

It's a simple as that.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-13 03:26:46)

mikkel
Member
+383|6597

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

And, as for the second quote, a causal link would be if cannabis use caused people to try harder drugs. This is just not the case.
Because you say so? How would you explain the progressive nature of drug use if not through causality?
Scientific study after scientific study after scientific study has shown their is no "progressive nature of drug use".

Take me for example, I smoked cannabis before I'd smoked nicotine. I did acid before I'd done shrooms. And the only drug I've ever snorted is ketamine.

I have never, even remotely, been tempted to try speed (amphetamine), cocaine or heroin, and never will.

People that want to try those things will, those that don't won't.

It's a simple as that.
How does any of that conflict with a sociological link between cannabis use and use of harder drugs at all?

You're quite right. People who want to try those things will, and the people who don't, they won't. The thing is that cannabis most frequently serves as an introductory substance. With cannabis, you find out whether or not you like the intoxication, and -that- is what makes many people turn to harder drugs.

People who drink liquor to get drunk typically do so after experiencing the intoxication through milder substances such as beer and wine. People who use hard drugs to get high typically do so after experiencing the intoxication through milder substances like cannabis.

The first car you drive is rarely a Formula 1 car, the first run you take is rarely a marathon, the first book you read is rarely a thousand pages long, and the first drug you use is rarely heroin. Almost everything in life is progressive. Recreational drug use included.
kn0ckahh
Member
+98|6734|netherlands, sweet lake city
I live in the Netherlands where weed is legal, I (and most of my friends) have never felt the urge to try harder drugs. I think that because of the legalization weed is becoming more accepted as an alternative to alcohol and because its legal a lot of people will try it. In the Netherlands it was a good thing because the government has put some of the big guys out of business. The drugs most used here are marijuana and XTC. I think that is a good thing because XTC isn't as addicting as drugs like heroin and coke. (funny fact: XTC is said to be Hollands export product number one ).
So I think legalization means more pot smokers and less people using hard drugs.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Because you say so? How would you explain the progressive nature of drug use if not through causality?
Scientific study after scientific study after scientific study has shown their is no "progressive nature of drug use".

Take me for example, I smoked cannabis before I'd smoked nicotine. I did acid before I'd done shrooms. And the only drug I've ever snorted is ketamine.

I have never, even remotely, been tempted to try speed (amphetamine), cocaine or heroin, and never will.

People that want to try those things will, those that don't won't.

It's a simple as that.
How does any of that conflict with a sociological link between cannabis use and use of harder drugs at all?

You're quite right. People who want to try those things will, and the people who don't, they won't. The thing is that cannabis most frequently serves as an introductory substance. With cannabis, you find out whether or not you like the intoxication, and -that- is what makes many people turn to harder drugs.

People who drink liquor to get drunk typically do so after experiencing the intoxication through milder substances such as beer and wine. People who use hard drugs to get high typically do so after experiencing the intoxication through milder substances like cannabis.

The first car you drive is rarely a Formula 1 car, the first run you take is rarely a marathon, the first book you read is rarely a thousand pages long, and the first drug you use is rarely heroin. Almost everything in life is progressive. Recreational drug use included.
People that do all those things you mention typically do so after say, I dunno, riding a bike, or drinking milk, or coffee, or waking up the morning.

That doesn't make 'riding a bike' or 'drinking milk' or 'drinking coffee' or even 'waking up in the morning' the cause of any of them.

Even if it weren't for the numerous scientific studies proving it to be false, the logic behind the 'gateway' argument is fundamentally flawed because you can take ANY X and ANY Y, where X usually occurs chronologically before Y, and say "X leads to Y", but it is, more often than not, just plain wrong.

Also, in your example of beer/wine leading to liquor - in that case they're just moving from one weak source of alcohol to a stronger source of alcohol - the drug, and it's effects, remains the same.

But, in the case of cannabis->heroin, for example, the drugs are entirely different and effect entirely different parts of the brain and nervous system.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-13 04:14:24)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)

kn0ckahh wrote:

I live in the Netherlands where weed is legal, I (and most of my friends) have never felt the urge to try harder drugs. I think that because of the legalization weed is becoming more accepted as an alternative to alcohol and because its legal a lot of people will try it. In the Netherlands it was a good thing because the government has put some of the big guys out of business. The drugs most used here are marijuana and XTC. I think that is a good thing because XTC isn't as addicting as drugs like heroin and coke. (funny fact: XTC is said to be Hollands export product number one ).
So I think legalization means more pot smokers and less people using hard drugs.
I hear that in Holland heroin use has steadily dropped year on year since legalization, the average age of heroin addicts in Holland is rising (now over 30), whereas in the rest of the world it's dropping (now 14 in the UK) and that Holland will be heroin addict free within under 20years.
mikkel
Member
+383|6597

kn0ckahh wrote:

I live in the Netherlands where weed is legal, I (and most of my friends) have never felt the urge to try harder drugs. I think that because of the legalization weed is becoming more accepted as an alternative to alcohol and because its legal a lot of people will try it. In the Netherlands it was a good thing because the government has put some of the big guys out of business. The drugs most used here are marijuana and XTC. I think that is a good thing because XTC isn't as addicting as drugs like heroin and coke. (funny fact: XTC is said to be Hollands export product number one ).
So I think legalization means more pot smokers and less people using hard drugs.
Ecstasy can be a really dangerous drug, too, even if it isn't as addictive as other harder drugs. It's easy to overdose and kill yourself on.

It's a difference of culture, really. It takes deeply rooted social sentiments to separate mild recreational drug use from more serious recreational drug use. In a society where many view the distinction between softer and harder drugs as one of intensity, and nothing else, the situation is very likely to be completely different.

Another current example is coca chewing in southern American countries, which has had a noticably detrimental effect on society in many parts.

What it basically boils down to is that there's just no way of knowing for certain, and that the absolutely best case scenario for legalising cannabis in the United States is decriminalisation of currently illegal practices, and better and more peaceful control of trade. Things very rarely end up in a best case scenario on a scale as big as we're talking about here, and it would be contrary to the efforts of the ongoing war on drugs to promote recreational the use of certain drugs.

The worst case scenario is desensitisation towards potentially very dangerous drugs, something not at all unlikely, and that could ruin many more lives than hard drugs do as it is. Arriving at an outcome even half-way between best case and worst case is something I feel would be more detrimental than beneficial to the drug problem.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 04:19:39)

kn0ckahh
Member
+98|6734|netherlands, sweet lake city

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

kn0ckahh wrote:

I live in the Netherlands where weed is legal, I (and most of my friends) have never felt the urge to try harder drugs. I think that because of the legalization weed is becoming more accepted as an alternative to alcohol and because its legal a lot of people will try it. In the Netherlands it was a good thing because the government has put some of the big guys out of business. The drugs most used here are marijuana and XTC. I think that is a good thing because XTC isn't as addicting as drugs like heroin and coke. (funny fact: XTC is said to be Hollands export product number one ).
So I think legalization means more pot smokers and less people using hard drugs.
I hear that in Holland heroin use has steadily dropped year on year since legalization, the average age of heroin addicts in Holland is rising (now over 30), whereas in the rest of the world it's dropping (now 14 in the UK) and that Holland will be heroin addict free within under 20years.
Thats also because in Holland were very open about everything, on elementary school we already get to hear about what drugs are and what it does. In high school we get days to learn things about subjects like drugs, sex & relationships. On days like that ex-drug addicts come to to answer questions and to tell they're story's. That way everybody really sees what drugs can do to you and you'll be well informed the first time you get the chance to use one of them. So I don't think that legalization of weed is the only reason why the use of hard drugs is getting less.
TheDarkRaven
ATG's First Disciple
+263|6620|Birmingham, UK
And this is why I'm a pescetarian!
I'll eat fish - being careful to not eat overfished species - and vegetables, but not meat. Meat is such an inefficient way to produce food when you can feed dozens more people on the crops you feed the animals rather than the one person who can be fed on, say, a cow. If you stop eating meat, you're doing a lot of good, but people are extremely reluctant to give up the choice and I can sympathise. I love steaks and other meat - I won't say I used to because I still do, but they're just not viable (in my mind) to be eaten now - but I just can't bring myself to eat them still and I know how hard it may seem to you to give it up, but in my experienced it's actually very easy.
Bio-fuels are terrible because they will never be a viable source of fuel production given the vast amount of land needed to produce enough fuel - indeed, it's actually impossible to fuel the planet on solely bio-fuels - and so they might as well just not be used at all and that money and research spent on that being put into alternative and - more importantly - viable fuel sources for the future.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)

mikkel wrote:

kn0ckahh wrote:

I live in the Netherlands where weed is legal, I (and most of my friends) have never felt the urge to try harder drugs. I think that because of the legalization weed is becoming more accepted as an alternative to alcohol and because its legal a lot of people will try it. In the Netherlands it was a good thing because the government has put some of the big guys out of business. The drugs most used here are marijuana and XTC. I think that is a good thing because XTC isn't as addicting as drugs like heroin and coke. (funny fact: XTC is said to be Hollands export product number one ).
So I think legalization means more pot smokers and less people using hard drugs.
Ecstasy can be a really dangerous drug, too, even if it isn't as addictive as other harder drugs. It's easy to overdose and kill yourself on.
With those two sentences you make your ignorance about drugs all too blatantly clear.

Watch this:

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-13 04:42:06)

mikkel
Member
+383|6597

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

kn0ckahh wrote:

I live in the Netherlands where weed is legal, I (and most of my friends) have never felt the urge to try harder drugs. I think that because of the legalization weed is becoming more accepted as an alternative to alcohol and because its legal a lot of people will try it. In the Netherlands it was a good thing because the government has put some of the big guys out of business. The drugs most used here are marijuana and XTC. I think that is a good thing because XTC isn't as addicting as drugs like heroin and coke. (funny fact: XTC is said to be Hollands export product number one ).
So I think legalization means more pot smokers and less people using hard drugs.
Ecstasy can be a really dangerous drug, too, even if it isn't as addictive as other harder drugs. It's easy to overdose and kill yourself on.
With those two sentences you make your ignorance about drugs all too blatantly clear.

With a single youtube video, you make your own lack of criticism towards sources in your favour all too blatantly clear.

Ignorance? Please. If anything, your lack of replies to all of my previously covered points shows yours. If you're going to accuse me of ignorance, you better make sure that you aren't cherry picking the points you reply to after making such absurd claims as that drinking coffee and smoking marihuana are sociologically similar.

MDMA is easy to kill yourself on. It may not be the drug itself, but the unattended side-effects of consumption. Saying that MDMA doesn't kill is like saying that HIV doesn't kill. MDMA may not directly kill people frequently, but the likely consequences of ingestion, and more frequently the impurity of the substance as a finished product sure do.

This is like pasting a link to An Inconvenient Truth in a discussion on global warming. Be serious.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-13 04:51:14)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6647|USA
Scorpion0x17

You are part of the problem NOT the solution, people like you keep drug dealers in business, hell I bet you are one yourself if not very good friends with those that are.

Although I am for legalizing drugs, so people like you can hurry up and destroy your lives while the taxpayers get rich off of it, I do not dismiss its use as harmless. If you are using drugs for anything other than its intended use, then you are ABUSING them. To try and post an argument that drug use is great, fun and harmless is absurd.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6761|Cambridge (UK)

mikkel wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mikkel wrote:


Ecstasy can be a really dangerous drug, too, even if it isn't as addictive as other harder drugs. It's easy to overdose and kill yourself on.
With those two sentences you make your ignorance about drugs all too blatantly clear.

Ignorance? Please. If anything, your lack of replies to all of my previously covered points shows yours. With a single youtube video, you make your own lack of criticism towards sources in your favour all too blatantly clear.

MDMA is easy to kill yourself on. It may not be the drug itself, but the unattended side-effects of consumption. Saying that MDMA doesn't kill is like saying that HIV doesn't kill. MDMA may not directly kill people frequently, but the likely consequences of ingestion, and more frequently the impurity of the substance as a finished product sure do.

This is like pasting a link to An Inconvenient Truth in a discussion on global warming. Be serious.
Did you watch the video?

Do you know where it came from?

It's a segment of a Horizon documentary, based on a Lancet report into a study done by a number of scientists including members of the UK governments advisory commitee on drug classification.

You can not get much more authoritative than that.

Comparing it to 'An Inconvenient Truth' is like comparing an apple to the inside of my left nostril.

Oh, and HIV doesn't kill. AIDS kills.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard