 |
|
Zylka
|
|
You know Berz.. you've now gone from wild initial arguments to flaming the societal concept of tax, as some sort of hail mary reasoning for not wanting to keep it illegal. I don't know WHERE that came from, but at least you have the common sense to not argue against the many points I've brought up for finally understanding their validity 
Last edited by Zylka on 27-11-2003 at 18:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Imran: The vast majority of people who use the drug, do so knowingly. It's completely false to portray the situation as if it were the only use for that drug. |
You're right on that, there is quite a misconception as per its standard use - but that's still way beyond the justified arguments for keeping it controlled. It's also completely false to dismiss the severe extent to which this substance is used to commit rape, and the extension of that reality if made commercially available at its recently starting reputation.
The problem with the former fallacy is that it's an overreaction, the problem with the latter is that G is currently an incredibly dangerous tool for rape. The situation isn't going to magically get better if you choose to ignore current severity and subsequent potential for accelerated disaster.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Troll
Yeah..because the Government NEVER EVER uses Propaghanda to promote or dispel myths/truths to suit them! |
Oh - am I with the government now? The DEA really doesn't teach us how to fit in with normal folk like they used to
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
There are ways around it. Like selling the liquid drug with a strong dye, for example. |
Dyes show nothing in dark bottles, taste additives can be quickly removed through freebasing practises that even a monkey can remeber after reading once on the internet (for example)
and when you're selling it in local liquor stores, coffee shops etc. - the increase of consumption sets such wildfire knowledge as available to any idiot through word of mouth: "oh, they do make it taste awful so it can't be slipped in a drink... but weirdos can get around that easily by ~~~, isn't that terrible?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
There's no "winning" of the drug war expected in the higher ups that know how the system works. It's actually about containment pruning, and temporarily going beyond that now and again when funding and/or opportunity lends so.
The win/lose situation is proposed notion of what they expect and what they can/are accomplishing for the simple minds that need and so choose to accept such a myth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Zylka - quote:
You know Berz.. you've now gone from wild initial arguments to flaming the societal concept of tax, as some sort of hail mary reasoning for not wanting to keep it illegal. |
Just reminding your excellence of what is involved to enforce this ban. Robbery (yeah, it's "legal") on a massive scale, incarcerating tens of thousands of innocent people, increased crime rates induced by prohibition, and all this in the hope of making it a little more difficult for a 100 or so rapists to commit their crimes. Here's an idea, either execute convicted rapists or make sure they serve a very long time of hard labor. That'll reduce rape, not all these "preventative" measures that criminalise the behavior of the innocent...
quote:
I don't know WHERE that came from, but at least you have the common sense to not argue against the many points I've brought up for finally understanding their validity |
I've addressed your many points so it's bizarre to suggest I'm not arguing against them...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
I've addressed your many points so it's bizarre to suggest I'm not arguing against them... |
Actually, from about 2 pages of extensive writing - I recieved a quick diversionary response on how the government is stealing money from you. Don't know, maybe I'm getting used to the style where you take every point apart and address it with a relevant counter idea - not a single, completely abstract Man vs. State complaint that's supposed to somehow solve all the arguments.
quote:
A graph showing how murder rates reached their highest points during drug wars is unrelated to a debate about the efficacy of banning drugs? Hmm... |
How utterly complex, again.
Drug war does not simply equal GHB
GHB does not equal other drugs
Substance, situation, scale, severity. There are a few fancy keywords that will help remind the reader that talking about one drug in one era is completely different from talking about alcohol in the 1920's - or the plague of heroin and crack whenever.
quote:
Btw, you haven't provided any evidence GHB is dangerous... Nor have you offered any evidence rape rates are higher because of GHB... |
Well if you're choosing not to read all of my posts, you might find reasoining for that a few ago. Here's an extension of it that people will be happy to selectively criticize without reading the initial:
I simply know more about you than drugs. I unfortunately know more than anyone around here about drug culture. I'm constantly reading scientifically objective, as well as government, as well as user/victim situational updates on such - and learning to balance the three. Not at all trying to dlcksize, as this is a near useless and particularly shameful area in which to be knowledgeable. Yet what I say is simply a reflection of what's going on out there in this illegal industry; of what is accepted by those who lead on both sides of the market (no - I have nothing to do with the leadership, myself).
If you want DEA scare tactics, or irrelevant graphs from Hi Times so ingeniously highlighted with red, you're demanding from the wrong source. Happy researching.
Last edited by Zylka on 28-11-2003 at 08:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
Doesn't anyone find it telling that the one person with medical training in this thread called the person asserting GHB was non-toxic a moron? |
Haven't come across too much on definite neurotoxicity myself, but it's insane to suggest it's simply "not dangerous"
Watch me having a grande waking ol time on a cap of G. Take twice that amount yourself, and tell us it's not dangerous when you're in a bag having **** yourself and choked to death on vomit whilst in a coma.
Legalize it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Troll - quote:
But I would offer this to an Intellectual such as yourself:
ANYTHING that would contribute to a predator such as this drug mentioned, shouldnt it be banned? |
No, that would include guns, knives, and fill in the blank... Punish the guilty, not the innocent. Now, if I pose a legitimate threat such as pointing a gun at others even if I have no intent to shoot, then others have reason to punish me and I'd agree that posing a legitimate threat should be outlawed.
quote:
I know the arguement that we would have to start banning a long list, but this is used by many and afterall its not Tylenol helping with a headache? |
GHB is used by many with a select "few" using it to facilitate rape.
quote:
I would feel badly if my daughter,sister or wife was a victim by some Jackoff who used this by putting in a cup of coffee or drink. |
Me too, and I'd want that guy punished, not the people who didn't commit rape. Think about that. We want the rapist punished, but some want the innocent punished too. How are they any different than the rapist who brings pain and suffering to others? Well, Joe Schmo raped my daughter. Okay, we'll punish him, but we'll put other people who never raped anyone in the same cell with Joe! Does that make sense?
I don't accept the notion that a drunk driver killing someone justifies punishing people who use alcohol. When we go down the road of intentionally punishing the innocent as morally acceptable colateral damage in a war on criminals, we become hypocrites admiring fool's gold for the security it cannot provide...
quote:
I am for banning this and would hope any level-headed person would see the downside. |
The downside is not eliminated by banning it, and I haven't seen any evidence the downside is even diminished. But the downsides to banning it are numerous and tangible from the thousands of innocent people put in jail to the crime induced by the black market. While the people who want to ban other drugs don't often cite rape as their reason (blacks on cocaine raping white women was the last time I believe), they use essentially the same argument, so once everyone gets to ban their particular evil, we are neither free or secure. So what's the point of giving up freedom for this non-existent security?
quote:
Is there any reason we should have this readily available? |
The alternative is not the magical disappearance of the drug, the alternative is a number of pathologies that just make us less safe and less free ostensibly in exchange for fewer rapes (although no one on the banning side has bothered showing fewer rapes occured before the drug or after it was banned).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-11-2003 17:34
Attachment: 
)
|
