No. I'm saying that the legal ban on Ecstasy that now exists was manipulated into being.
And where's your evidence, there's a campaign to reclassify cannabis going on at the moment, and thats a drug you can ingest vast quantities of without serious side effects.
Are you seriously suggesting that the UK would have allowed over the counter sales of E were it not for Leah Betts. How would you ensure people did not take too much? Ecstasy in high doses can be extremely life threatening. There's more danger in necking 20 pills then downing 20 pints, and who's to say such a practice wouldn't be commonplace if the drug was legalised.
Theres not a shred of evidence that a campaign to legalize Ecstasy was brewing and stopped by the Betts case.
Read about the World Bank and IMF. Follow the story in the myriad nonCT sites that exist.
I do know plenty about the world bank and IMF, and don't perceive it to be a intentionally malicious force just misguided. One of the annoying things about anti globalisation activists is their paranoia. The World Bank and IMF, do what they do
because they're evil man.
I'd recommend you do some further reading, Joseph E. Stiglitz is a noble prize winning economist and former chief economist of the World Bank, and now an outspoken critic of the IMF. I'd suggest you start with his "Globalisation and it's discontents" for an informed intelligent critique of the flaws of the world bank.
Junkies have authority trips. It's common as hell.
I'm sorry but what on earth are you gibbering on about?
Seriously, you start by claiming that the government uses heroin to keep the political classes from dissenting, and are now rambling on about "junkie authority trips", do you have, anything,
anything at all to support a single thing you've asserted.
I can't totally corroborate it, no.
So to be clear you've made a bold claim that the CIA uses profits from the drugs trade to fund "black ops" when challenged on this you have to admit that, no actually, you don't have a shred of evidence to support what you are saying.
Nick I sincerely hope you have never under the jurisdiction of a court of law, that has your standard of the concept of burden of proof.
There's circumstantial evidence. Check in particular ibogaine.
Look, waving me in the direction of google is just tiresome, as is referring to a third drug. Firstly what does ibogaine have to do with your assertion that governments hate ecstasy?
Secondly what does the fact that the government hasn't sanctioned a powerful hallugenic drug, with serious side effects including sinus arrhythmia, as a heroin treatment,
yet prove. Seriously what's your point?
I looked at the papers at the time. It was here we go to war, boys.
Sorry no you're wrong.
Hell the news of the world even gave out banners at the stop the war march.
While sure the Sun, and the Mirror were all gung ho, claiming that all media was pro war is just flat out wrong. You've already demonstrated that you've misremembered the reporting of the massive demos, perhaps you should go and look back at what else you've gotten wrong.
It's not just me, you know. A hell of a lot of people believe this CT version of history. It's not because there's hard evidence. As far as I know there isn't. It's because the patterns we're given to account for recent history no longer work for more and more people. They're ready for something else. Let's wait and see what happens.
Nick
Argument ad populom.
Nick alot more people believe the earth was made 6,000 years ago, by a god, who had to come down as his son, to sacrifice himself for the sin's he inflicted upon ourselves. He then rose from the dead, three days later.
Just because they believe it doesn't make it true. And just because alot of people believe the wild unproven, evidence less incoherent ramblings you've brought to this thread doesn't mean your conspiracy theories are any more valid, or any more worthy of my time.
