|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
and the Kennedy assassination... and Flouride in the water... and the moon landing was faked... and what else? Its hard to remember.
The government is always evil, lying and monstrous, and your neighbor's anecdotal evidence or the stuff you hear in bars is always pure spun silver handed down from the Moon Goddess on the winter solstice. I got it. Please, lets move on. |
What?
I posted a link to a google search return for "cocaine" in conjunction with "dewormer." There were plenty of links to choose from because it's a publicly acknowledged fact that a massive portion of all US cocaine has been contaminated with the same prescription dewormer. This dewormer doesn't get you high, it isn't cheap, and it makes people sick and dead, so how do you suppose it ended up in a ridiculous portion of the US cocaine supply?
I posted a link to the Mayo Clinic site. How much more mainstream do you need than the Mayo Clinic?
I linked to the revised DSM's official website. Do I need to send you a notarized letter from their office?
Were the links to Medscape or "medicalnewstoday.com" the problems? Do you seriously doubt the existence of long acting injectable Risperdal when the company openly advertises for it? Do you not believe in Frosted Flakes or Fender guitars either?
Or maybe it was the Tylenol bit. It can't possibly be the leading cause of liver failure, can it?
But yeah, everything I covered here is the same thing as the lunar hoax theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey man, you weren't the only poster in this thread, and you're also not the only guy to ever accuse the government of doing bad things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Hey man, you weren't the only poster in this thread, and you're also not the only guy to ever accuse the government of doing bad things. |
Which part of this thread don't you agree with then?
That's kind of the point actually. It'd be much better if you could pick a specific topic instead of vaguely dismissing everything as conspiracy theory nonsense.
EDIT:
| mises wrote: |
| Did you read Selling the DSM? |
Nah. I think I'm pretty up on the topic though. Even assuming the book is perfectly comprehensive, I don't think much in it would surprise me.
Regarding vitamin D, I don't think I saw multiple sclerosis in your list. The link between regions of less annual sunlight (temperate latitudes) with MS as well as the link between vitamin D deficiency and MS is pretty well established now. For a disease literally defined as the body's own inflammatory immune response scarring the brain, it's messed up to say the least that its prevention might be as simple as walking outside and getting direct sunlight exposure on a regular basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately that's exactly what I'm doing, vaguely dismissing everything as conspiracy theory nonsense. I am doing this because, in my experience, gross incompetence is a much more often the reason that bad things happen rather than purposeful malice. Hanlon's Razor says, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Based on all my life experience, this is correct: simple government stupidity and negligence is a much better explanation than purposeful evil. That's my take on conspiracy theories.
But now I guess I should go through and mention each of the theories in this thread individually, to contribute meaningful discussion. So let me do that.
About the vitamin D thing... good info but that ends up being a conspiracy theory as well because after all the evidence quoted that vitamin D can make you more healthy, Mises says "sickness is revenue." which implies the whole conspiracy set of thoughts. the Man is keeping us away from the vitamin D because it makes him money for Big Medicine, which is bad because its big, and full of evil... doctors? Despite the fact that you can go out and buy Vitamin D for, what, $2?
Man this thread goes all over the place.
Ok... next topic was, what, poisoned cocaine? Which is similar to poisoned alcohol during prohibition? Also presumably caused by the federal government, because that's the point of the poisoned alcohol post and a correlation was drawn between that and poisoned cocaine. First of all, isn't coaine already poisonous? Isn't that why its illegal? Its debatable whether the dewormer or the cocaine itself is more harmful to people. But despite that, it is supposed to once again have a tenuous connection to The Man, the Feds, the FBI maybe, or the CIA. Lets say CIA cuz they sound scarier. I want to dismiss this because it is far more likely that the dewormer is a white powder which was mixed into cocaine, another white powder, in order to try to cover for some low-level criminal's screwup. He lost (or snorted) a significant amount of some shipment and tried to make up for it. Because the entire production and distribution chain of cocaine is illegal, it is impossible to figure out how or why this happened. Perhaps the criminals making and producing this illegal cocaine can get some of the blame for its poisonous lack of quality control? Maybe? a little? Before blaming the Man for a conspiracy to kill off coke users faster than they would die otherwise?
Which leads us to the OP topic, poisoned alcohol during the Prohibition. That I can't dismiss, because its very well documented and was a significant issue back in the day. Its got press releases, editorials, news follow-up stories, toxicology reports, and all the good things that you need to establish fact in this far-flung society. Its an interesting tale of a government gone too far, which was discovered and made a huge deal of. Notice how it can serve as a model for truth in comparison to the final topic in this weird, crazy thread, the Paraquat pot linked to by Street Magic.
Yes, it looks like the program to spray paraquat on marijuana in Mexico was a program sponsored by the US government. But did it poison anyone? From the wikipedia article,
| wikipedia wrote: |
| However, independent bodies have studied paraquat in this use. Jenny Pronczuk de Garbino,[9] stated: "no lung or other injury in marijuana users has ever been attributed to paraquat contamination". Also a United States Environmental Protection Agency manual states: "... toxic effects caused by this mechanism have been either very rare or nonexistent. Most paraquat that contaminates marijuana is pyrolyzed during smoking to dipyridyl, which is a product of combustion of the leaf material itself (including marijuana) and presents little toxic hazard." |
So i'm going to dismiss this also as a government conspiracy to kill people. Unless you want to count marijuana plants as people, in which case I will be forced to concede that the US government did in fact commit genocide against marijuana plants.
See, its this whole feeling of the mysterious, evil Government always acting against its citizens that I despise. Or the mysterious, evil Corporations. Or mysterious evil anywhere really. I don't think this world includes mysterious, purposeful evil. Stuff like that just comes from a bunch of lazy-a$$, incompetent fools. Purposeful evil is easy to spot, its not mysterious. It is the guy ordering genocide in some piss-pot country somewhere. It is gas chambers and bombings. Its 1 in 3 women in Uganda (or wherever) being incontinent because they've all been raped repeatedly. THAT is evil. All else is simple retardation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Unfortunately that's exactly what I'm doing, vaguely dismissing everything as conspiracy theory nonsense. I am doing this because, in my experience, gross incompetence is a much more often the reason that bad things happen rather than purposeful malice. Hanlon's Razor says, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Based on all my life experience, this is correct: simple government stupidity and negligence is a much better explanation than purposeful evil. That's my take on conspiracy theories. |
Except that there is a mountain of proof/evidence to show that government deliberately plans and implements false flag events. There is abundant evidence that the government was involved in 9/11 and the cover up. I'm pretty sure that your view of the government (esp. Bush) being just negligent and stupid, is something you're parroting from the mainstream (liberal) media. Basically it ignores the many instances of our government deliberately killing people (like the topic of this thread, for example). The fact is the people who run the show didn't get where they are by being stupid. They are by and large very intelligent, very ruthless, and very capable, results-oriented people.
| Quote: |
| About the vitamin D thing... good info but that ends up being a conspiracy theory as well because after all the evidence quoted that vitamin D can make you more healthy, Mises says "sickness is revenue." which implies the whole conspiracy set of thoughts. the Man is keeping us away from the vitamin D because it makes him money for Big Medicine, which is bad because its big, and full of evil... doctors? Despite the fact that you can go out and buy Vitamin D for, what, $2? |
You might want to do some research on the Codex Alimentarius.
| Quote: |
| But despite that, it is supposed to once again have a tenuous connection to The Man, the Feds, the FBI maybe, or the CIA. Lets say CIA cuz they sound scarier. I want to dismiss this because it is far more likely that the dewormer is a white powder which was mixed into cocaine, another white powder, in order to try to cover for some low-level criminal's screwup. He lost (or snorted) a significant amount of some shipment and tried to make up for it. Because the entire production and distribution chain of cocaine is illegal, it is impossible to figure out how or why this happened. Perhaps the criminals making and producing this illegal cocaine can get some of the blame for its poisonous lack of quality control? Maybe? a little? Before blaming the Man for a conspiracy to kill off coke users faster than they would die otherwise? |
Of course this is possible, but you see you're just making your own conspiracy theory now. In the case of cocaine, I'm not sure. But to say that the government never deliberately engages in criminal activity (and only "makes mistakes out of stupidity") is simply false. You should understand the difference between conspiracy "theory", and conspiracy "fact". There are many well documented conspiracies deliberately committed by the government that are factual and admitted. The CIA being one of the largest drug runners on earth is one example. It's a documented and verifiable fact, you can go check yourself (just google it).
| Quote: |
| See, its this whole feeling of the mysterious, evil Government always acting against its citizens that I despise. Or the mysterious, evil Corporations. Or mysterious evil anywhere really. I don't think this world includes mysterious, purposeful evil. Stuff like that just comes from a bunch of lazy-a$$, incompetent fools. Purposeful evil is easy to spot, its not mysterious. It is the guy ordering genocide in some piss-pot country somewhere. It is gas chambers and bombings. Its 1 in 3 women in Uganda (or wherever) being incontinent because they've all been raped repeatedly. THAT is evil. All else is simple retardation. |
What do you mean?? Are you not aware that the CIA regularly orchestrates coups and assassinations around the world? That the Federal Reserve is a privately owned banking cartel? That bankers run think tanks that dictate foreign and domestic policy (the CFR and Trilateral Commission for example, of which nearly all Dems and Reps are active members)? That the gov't lied to the American people to go to war in Iraq? That the government has planned false flag attacks against American citizens in the past? That FEMA has set up camps all over America and trains US troops to act as civilian police? That our government orders the torture and killing of people all over the world? All of this is documented. It's a conspiracy, yes, but not a theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Unfortunately that's exactly what I'm doing, vaguely dismissing everything as conspiracy theory nonsense. I am doing this because, in my experience, gross incompetence is a much more often the reason that bad things happen rather than purposeful malice. Hanlon's Razor says, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Based on all my life experience, this is correct: simple government stupidity and negligence is a much better explanation than purposeful evil. That's my take on conspiracy theories. |
I don't think it's that radical of an opposing view to accept that a lot of these horrible things have happened from ignorance and neglect rather than for conscious gain. I wouldn't completely rule out the latter the way you're suggesting though. There are pretty similar cases throughout history that are completely confirmed as just that.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| But now I guess I should go through and mention each of the theories in this thread individually, to contribute meaningful discussion. So let me do that. |
I appreciate it.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| About the vitamin D thing... good info but that ends up being a conspiracy theory as well because after all the evidence quoted that vitamin D can make you more healthy, Mises says "sickness is revenue." which implies the whole conspiracy set of thoughts. the Man is keeping us away from the vitamin D because it makes him money for Big Medicine, which is bad because its big, and full of evil... doctors? Despite the fact that you can go out and buy Vitamin D for, what, $2? |
It's cheaper than $2-- there's doubt over whether supplements can even come close to matching the benefits of direct sunlight exposure. Not that I'd claim the FDA tried to suppress sunlight itself in an effort to make people more dependent on pharmaceuticals, but it is kind of telling to point out how sunscreen studies are now showing an increased risk of all forms of cancer as the trade off for a decreased risk of the relatively less problematic skin cancer. I'd chalk that one off to ignorance rather than malice.
As for "Big Medicine," it's "bad" because most everything is treated by largely ineffective and surprisingly dangerous as Hell pharmaceuticals you're supposed to take indefinitely for many of the conditions they're prescribed for. One might also find it kind of suspicious that diet and basic lifestyle choices are rarely if ever closely examined in diagnosing and treating illnesses in the US.
And it's not much of a secret that pharmaceuticals are being prescribed for longer and longer in combination with more and more adjuncts. Just the fact that there are actually prescriptions made to treat the side effects of other prescription drugs is enough to establish a trend towards milking the notoriously lucrative pharma industry at the expense of actual health. This isn't controversial nor partisan. Everyone from the Daily Show/Colbert Report franchise to Fox News to CNN to NPR have shared this view.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
Man this thread goes all over the place.
Ok... next topic was, what, poisoned cocaine? Which is similar to poisoned alcohol during prohibition? Also presumably caused by the federal government, because that's the point of the poisoned alcohol post and a correlation was drawn between that and poisoned cocaine. |
No. I didn't rely on the alcohol post to draw that conclusion about the dewormer contaminant in the US cocaine supply. I used the facts that the dewormer in question is prohibitively expensive to be used for cutting the cocaine with, causes acute illness and death, and yet also has no psychoactive effects, ruling out its use in enhancing the high, coupled with the latest estimates of two thirds of the US cocaine supply having this dewormer as a contaminant. Take all that in and consider it in light of the completely over the table acknowledgments by the FDA that it combines harmful and deadly but clinically ineffective pharmaceuticals with otherwise safe but recreational use prone pharmaceuticals for the sole purpose of deterring "abuse" and it seems pretty obvious who the main suspect here is.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| First of all, isn't cocaine already poisonous? Isn't that why its illegal? |
Oh wow, man. You really, really need to learn your drug prohibition history. The question you're asking is exactly why so many people have a problem with drug policy as it is. Cocaine is not that dangerous and its legal status has absolutely nothing to do with its health risks. There are literally thousands of over the counter and prescription drugs which are perfectly legal and significantly more dangerous than cocaine. Here are some links for starters:
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/cocaine/cocalef1.htm
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cocaine/faq.htm
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/cocaine/cocaine.shtml
And perhaps more importantly, I'd check out the wealth of articles provided here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/HISTORY.HTM
We used that resource a lot back when I took my drug prohibition class. It's criminology professor approved. Judging by your attitude on these topics, you'll be amazed at what the history actually looks like and what the real motives were for the advent of drug prohibition laws in America.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Its debatable whether the dewormer or the cocaine itself is more harmful to people. |
No, it isn't. It totally isn't debatable at all. The dewormer wrecks immune systems and kills people even at low doses. Cocaine can be used and even abused safely over long periods of time and whatever psychological or physical health problems do come of its use are generally resolved once the user quits. It's really sad (not in an insulting to you way, but in an "I'm actually sad to read that" way) that you would think that's even a legitimate comparison to make, but it's just reflective of all the prohibition propaganda that's put out I guess.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| But despite that, it is supposed to once again have a tenuous connection to The Man, the Feds, the FBI maybe, or the CIA. |
Even if I was a full out nutjob and had no real evidence at all, I think I would at least be making an argument that's "supposed to.. have" an actual connection to the DEA rather than an argument that's supposed to have a tenuous one, but OK.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Lets say CIA cuz they sound scarier. I want to dismiss this because it is far more likely that the dewormer is a white powder which was mixed into cocaine, another white powder, in order to try to cover for some low-level criminal's screwup. He lost (or snorted) a significant amount of some shipment and tried to make up for it. |
You really don't understand cocaine. There are any number of cheap cutting substances that have already been used throughout cocaine's history. No one sells cocaine on the streets without cutting it first and that's after it's already been cut by their supplier.
Taken from the second cocaine link above:
| Quote: |
| Cocaine is most often cut with corn starch, vitamin c powder, sugar, talcum powder, Italian baby milk powder or local anesthetic (to simulate the numbing feeling). |
The obvious pattern there is that cocaine is cut with either something very cheap and inert or something active that works with cocaine to produce a superior high. This makes obvious sense. But there's more.
How is some "low-level" dealer going to contaminate two thirds of the US cocaine supply? Sure, it would be suspicious if some expensive cutting substitute was made for what could have been something much cheaper, but it doesn't get into government tampering evidence territory until you look at how much (again two thirds) of the supply is being cut with an expensive, extremely harmful, and totally not psychoactive contaminant.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Because the entire production and distribution chain of cocaine is illegal, it is impossible to figure out how or why this happened. Perhaps the criminals making and producing this illegal cocaine can get some of the blame for its poisonous lack of quality control? Maybe? a little? Before blaming the Man for a conspiracy to kill off coke users faster than they would die otherwise? |
Addressed above.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Which leads us to the OP topic, poisoned alcohol during the Prohibition. That I can't dismiss, because its very well documented and was a significant issue back in the day. Its got press releases, editorials, news follow-up stories, toxicology reports, and all the good things that you need to establish fact in this far-flung society. Its an interesting tale of a government gone too far, which was discovered and made a huge deal of. Notice how it can serve as a model for truth in comparison to the final topic in this weird, crazy thread, the Paraquat pot linked to by Street Magic. |
Not that I don't have evidence, but what if we were in the Prohibition era and someone suggested to you that there was evidence of alcohol poisoning to the end of deterrence? That someone would be completely right and you'd dismiss him or her as a conspiracy theorist seeing covert, planned, mastermind evil in a situation where accidental contamination would make much more sense to you.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
Yes, it looks like the program to spray paraquat on marijuana in Mexico was a program sponsored by the US government. But did it poison anyone? From the wikipedia article,
| wikipedia wrote: |
| However, independent bodies have studied paraquat in this use. Jenny Pronczuk de Garbino,[9] stated: "no lung or other injury in marijuana users has ever been attributed to paraquat contamination". Also a United States Environmental Protection Agency manual states: "... toxic effects caused by this mechanism have been either very rare or nonexistent. Most paraquat that contaminates marijuana is pyrolyzed during smoking to dipyridyl, which is a product of combustion of the leaf material itself (including marijuana) and presents little toxic hazard." |
|
The question is whether it was used as a potentially harmful deterrent. Those studies didn't come out before the fields were sprayed and a public announcement was made warning of the dangers of smoking the sprayed cannabis, did they? Knowing what they knew then, what do you think the intention was? Does it matter what happened in practice if the intention was to harm to the end of deterrence in the same way the alcohol poisoning agenda was intended to harm to the end of deterrence?
Even granting that it apparently hasn't harmed smokers all that much, how is that the same thing as saying it isn't a well documented attempt by the government to deter use? The reason we even know about this story today is because an announcement was made right after spraying the fields that cannabis was now contaminated with the paraquat and could pose a health risk if smoked. I really didn't think it was possible for someone to be skeptical about whether the government intended to deter cannabis use by announcing that they sprayed it with what was then known as an extremely toxic chemical regardless of the route of administration.
And it's not as though evidence around today suggests that the chemical is benign either, just that its impact on smokers seems to have been minimal. Taken from the same wikipedia link:
| Quote: |
Pure paraquat ingested is highly toxic to mammals and humans, potentially leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and there are no specific antidotes. However, fuller's earth or activated charcoal is an effective treatment, if taken in time. Death may occur up to 30 days after ingestion. Diluted paraquat used for spraying is less so, thus the greatest risk of accidental poisoning is during mixing and loading paraquat for use.[13]
Even a single swig, immediately spat out, can cause death from fibrous tissue developing in the lungs, leading to asphyxiation.[15]
According to the Center for Disease Control, ingesting paraquat causes symptoms such as liver, lung, heart, and kidney failure within several days to several weeks that can lead to death up to 30 days after ingestion. Those who suffer large exposures are unlikely to survive. Chronic exposure can lead to lung damage, kidney failure, heart failure, and oesophageal strictures.[16] Accidental deaths and suicides from paraquat ingestion are relatively common. For example, there have been 18 deaths in Australia from paraquat poisoning since 2000.[17]
Paraquat-induced toxicity in rats has also been linked to Parkinson's-like pathological degenerative mechanisms.[18] A study by the Buck Institute showed a connection between exposure to paraquat and iron in infancy and mid-life Parkinson's in laboratory mice.[19] |
| mateomiguel wrote: |
So i'm going to dismiss this also as a government conspiracy to kill people. Unless you want to count marijuana plants as people, in which case I will be forced to concede that the US government did in fact commit genocide against marijuana plants.
See, its this whole feeling of the mysterious, evil Government always acting against its citizens that I despise. Or the mysterious, evil Corporations. Or mysterious evil anywhere really. I don't think this world includes mysterious, purposeful evil. Stuff like that just comes from a bunch of lazy-a$$, incompetent fools. Purposeful evil is easy to spot, its not mysterious. It is the guy ordering genocide in some piss-pot country somewhere. It is gas chambers and bombings. Its 1 in 3 women in Uganda (or wherever) being incontinent because they've all been raped repeatedly. THAT is evil. All else is simple retardation. |
Yes, it's precisely all the stuff that's already well known to be problematic that we need to look into and spread the word about. Seriously? And what's with the "mysterious evil" angle when I've taken the time to link mainstream sources to all my assertions? These aren't particularly fringe issues that I'm bringing up in this thread. There are plenty of things as bad or worse than what I've gone over that various government agencies openly acknowledge taking part in (the Tylenol one's a pretty solid example of that).
What's especially baffling about your general argument here is that you've simultaneously tried to paint a picture of the issues in this thread as a bunch of intricate supervillain conspiracy schemes while rationalizing these same supposedly unbelievably evil schemes away as not that bad because cocaine has health risks on its own or because paraquat turned out not to be that dangerous as a contaminant for smoking. There are people who authorized these completely factual initiatives who've had the same exact rationalizations. They are evil acts, but the perpetrators and facilitators don't think of themselves as evil. They think they're actually helping, just like the drug control program coordinators think they're actually helping by depriving cancer patients of the only thing that'll get their appetites back. You're totally right that things aren't as simple as "government did it," but you're mostly arguing against yourself because I've been the first one on these topics to point out the misleading nuances in the details.
| visitorq wrote: |
| In the case of cocaine, I'm not sure. |
Two thirds of the US cocaine supply has been cut with an always harmful and sometimes deadly yet prohibitively expensive and not psychoactive contaminant. I really can't think of any other candidates for the job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| A good example of what can happen when you allow the morally righteous right to have power. |
Like those who accuse others of being "morally bankrupt"? |
Feel free to defend sexual abuse of children again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to add to this:
| Street Magic wrote: |
| It's cheaper than $2-- there's doubt over whether supplements can even come close to matching the benefits of direct sunlight exposure. Not that I'd claim the FDA tried to suppress sunlight itself in an effort to make people more dependent on pharmaceuticals, but it is kind of telling to point out how sunscreen studies are now showing an increased risk of all forms of cancer as the trade off for a decreased risk of the relatively less problematic skin cancer. I'd chalk that one off to ignorance rather than malice. |
From what I've read, a lot of the cheap big brand vitamins are made from inorganic ingredients and just pass through the system without getting absorbed. The best way to get vitamins is from eating foods that contain them, or in the case of vitamin D, from sunlight.
Supposedly, it's not even the sun that causes skin cancer, it's the sunscreen itself (which contains all sorts of chemicals, including the known carcinogen titanium dioxide).
| Quote: |
| Cocaine is not that dangerous and its legal status has absolutely nothing to do with its health risks. There are literally thousands of over the counter and prescription drugs which are perfectly legal and significantly more dangerous than cocaine. |
This is certainly true. I'm not much of a drug user myself, but I've dabbled enough to know that the hype is way overblown. Cocaine (not including crack) is nothing really, you'd have to do it like every day for a long time to get seriously addicted (not unlike smoking cigarettes), and even then it's possible to quit. It's certainly not on the level of heroin. Most people who use cocaine occasionally as a recreational drug don't ever suffer serious health effects, die, or turn into crack heads.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| In the case of cocaine, I'm not sure. |
Two thirds of the US cocaine supply has been cut with an always harmful and sometimes deadly yet prohibitively expensive and not psychoactive contaminant. I really can't think of any other candidates for the job. |
It certainly wouldn't surprise me one bit if the DEA or other gov't agencies were involved, and I agree that what you say makes sense. However, I just haven't seen any documented proof yet (in fact the first time I had heard about it was in this thread). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| A good example of what can happen when you allow the morally righteous right to have power. |
Like those who accuse others of being "morally bankrupt"? |
Feel free to defend sexual abuse of children again. |
Ad hominem + strawman = par for the course for ya-ta boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| isn't cocaine already poisonous? |
Street Magic has already said it, but I feel like adding. Everything is poisonous (and fatal) in excessive doses but benign in moderation. Cocaine is no different. In many healthcare systems, cocaine is used to facilitate endoscopes (sprayed on the back of the throat, so you don�t choke) because it�s a local anaesthetic. It�s not dangerous enough to be illegal, unless you also want to ban fishing, horse-riding and peanuts.
Anyway, the article in the OP is a chilling example of one government folly being stacked upon another, rather than simply repealing the initial folly. Happens constantly. This mightn�t be genocide or torture, but it shows that those who would have us believe they are 'regulating' society are no more wise, no less selfish � but definitely more difficult to get rid of if we�re unsatisfied, unlike simply shopping somewhere else or buying a different brand or not buying it at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Better late than never. And a better link, too.
| mises wrote: |
| At some point all thinking people have to accept that we live in an age of Big Lies. No? Can an argument against this even be made anymore? |
Good to see you will be coming along on 9/11 soon, too.
Mainstream judge Robert Bonner, former head of the mainstream DEA, called the mainstream CIA the biggest drug runners in the mainstream country on the mainstream CBS program 60 Minutes on mainstream national TV. Now watch as someone calls me a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
and the Kennedy assassination... and Flouride in the water... and the moon landing was faked... and what else? Its hard to remember.
The government is always evil, lying and monstrous, and your neighbor's anecdotal evidence or the stuff you hear in bars is always pure spun silver handed down from the Moon Goddess on the winter solstice. I got it. Please, lets move on. |
I must really question the reality testing of those unable to distinguish the quality of evidence in the JFK assassination vs. that of the moon landing.
| Quote: |
| First of all, isn't coaine [sic]already poisonous? Isn't that why its illegal? |
No. In its pure state, cocaine hydrochloride (the snortable/injectable form) (like heroin) is not poisonous; in fact, it is even used medically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| A good example of what can happen when you allow the morally righteous right to have power. |
Like those who accuse others of being "morally bankrupt"? |
Feel free to defend sexual abuse of children again. |
So because you were unable to articulate your disagreement with me on the appropriate thread, you want to derail this one?
Sorry, I won't collude in your attempt to go off-topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
wow, now sunscreen causes cancer.
OK.
and inorganic chemicals can't be absorbed by the body, but organic chemicals can.
OK again.
Based on that, I'd have to say that they must be selling organic sunscreen hand-milked from sunscreen cows or something, because it if it was artificially created then obviously its just going to bounce around your system without being absorbed by the body, and then obviously can't cause cancer.
Let me explain in another way why I reject all of this stuff as nonsense. Its because there's a pattern to your arguments that never changes. You can change the subject, which makes you fill in the blanks with different terms, but the pattern remains the same.
The pattern goes like this: You, special person that you are, know the real truth. The accepted experts and/or authorities for the subject are wrong, because they are corrupt and/or evil. You, because you know the truth, are either in a tiny unknown minority or an actively persecuted minority, yet you fight on, telling as many people as you can the special, secret, real truth. You're a rebel, a a rugged individualist of intellect, and the accepted experts and/or authorities in the field, collectively known as The Man are never gonna get you without a fight!
I'm just tired of it. I'm tired of all the scientific papers that I read being supposedly wrong. I'm tired of people who dedicate their lives to research and learning being called into question by Internet hillbillies. I'm tired of the underlying suspicion, the fear, the distrust. Please, take your theories with you into your Montana cabins and keep them safe, safe and far away from me. I've argued with too many of you to care anymore. I'm full up of secret truths. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
wow, now sunscreen causes cancer.
OK.
and inorganic chemicals can't be absorbed by the body, but organic chemicals can.
OK again.
Based on that, I'd have to say that they must be selling organic sunscreen hand-milked from sunscreen cows or something, because it if it was artificially created then obviously its just going to bounce around your system without being absorbed by the body, and then obviously can't cause cancer. |
What's with all the sarcasm? Do you think it actually counts for a rebuttal?
Seriously, mockery is just a lazy substitute for an argument. People in the liberal media do it all the time when confronted with facts they have no other way of refuting. It's predictable and only dim witted people fall for it.
Having said that, did you actually take the time to look up what titanium dioxide is? None of your sarcasm changes the fact that it is in nearly all sunscreen products, or the fact that is a suspected carcinogen (especially when exposed to sunlight - it generates free radicals, which cause cancer).
As for "organic" substances, it's case by case. Lots of labeling is just false. The point was that many so-called vitamins are produced by extracting them with extreme heat, pressure, and often with toxic solvents. Many synthetic vitamins actually come from the petroleum industry (that's right, they're derived from coal tar). They don't come with the co-factors and enzymes present in natural food that allow them to be absorbed by the body. Natural vitamins that have these are more expensive to extract, but just because a given brand claims their vitamins come from "natural" sources doesn't guarantee that's really the case.
Bottom line is that eating plenty of fruits and vegetables is more effective than popping vitamin pills, and if you take supplements they should be from a reliable brand that uses natural sources (the crap from Wall Mart just passes right through your system).
| Quote: |
Let me explain in another way why I reject all of this stuff as nonsense. Its because there's a pattern to your arguments that never changes. You can change the subject, which makes you fill in the blanks with different terms, but the pattern remains the same.
The pattern goes like this: You, special person that you are, know the real truth. The accepted experts and/or authorities for the subject are wrong, because they are corrupt and/or evil. You, because you know the truth, are either in a tiny unknown minority or an actively persecuted minority, yet you fight on, telling as many people as you can the special, secret, real truth. You're a rebel, a a rugged individualist of intellect, and the accepted experts and/or authorities in the field, collectively known as The Man are never gonna get you without a fight! |
What a predictable, lazy strawman argument. And just who are these "accepted experts and/or authorities" of yours? You mean people like Al Gore and Phil Jones who told us AGW was an indisputable fact? Or the government, who lies about basically everything? (WMD's anyone??)
Seriously a weak effort on your part.
| Quote: |
I'm just tired of it. I'm tired of all the scientific papers that I read being supposedly wrong. I'm tired of people who dedicate their lives to research and learning being called into question by Internet hillbillies. I'm tired of the underlying suspicion, the fear, the distrust. |
Yeah well, the rest of us are tired of all the lies. The truth hurts, but there it is.
| Quote: |
| Please, take your theories with you into your Montana cabins and keep them safe, safe and far away from me. I've argued with too many of you to care anymore. I'm full up of secret truths. |
Ok, so you think 'out of sight out of mind' is the best way forward. That's nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| At some point all thinking people have to accept that we live in an age of Big Lies. No? Can an argument against this even be made anymore? |
Good to see you will be coming along on 9/11 soon, too. |
Nah. I've watched all the videos and read all the stuff and remain solidly on team Official Story, allowing for cover ups realating to government incompetence (not actual guilt). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
