Former conspiracy believer here

[Nick227]

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.

Hi 8den,

No, I would agree. However, originally, I wasn't so much discussing the politics of illicit drugs, but rather the pattern of media activity in this case. Of course the political aspects are relevant. I do still feel that the government, or whoever, does take quite a covert approach to dealing with drug issues. There is often the feel of a lot of manipulation going on as opposed to the public being allowed to make up their own mind and decide.

I do know plenty about the world bank and IMF, and don't perceive it to be a intentionally malicious force just misguided.

Could you expand upon what you mean by misguided here. I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

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.

Well, there will always be paranoid people. And there will always be people who are psychologically drawn to conspiracy theories. At the same time I do believe relatively normal citizens can validly become concerned about these things. I mean, globalisation does appear to be taking place. Is this an entirely spontaneous or self-creating process, or is it being guided and managed by some agency? This is, I submit, a valid question, and one not really being answered.

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.

Thanks. I will check it out.

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.

Well, you ask me questions. I'm just trying to answer. I've been around addiction quite a lot, and worked with addicts in a therapeutic community. I'm familiar with a lot of the usual issues. I doubt you'll find many who work with heroin addicts who would dispute that "issues with authority" aren't very commonly seen.

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.

Well, I wouldn't propose I try and indict them. But they have had a lot of flak thrown at them over the years. I think it comes back again to the globalisation issue. Is it being managed?

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?

Well, I did mention the drug a little earlier in the thread. It is, I submit, good circumstantial evidence that the US government is actively blocking effective treatments for addiction.

Ibogaine blockades the symptoms of drug withdrawal, and its metabolites sit in body fat for up to a couple of months and eliminate or strongly reduce drug-craving. This makes it potentially a breakthrough treatment for addiction to heroin, cocaine, and alcohol addiction. Phase 1 FDA trials, animal studies, were commenced in the early 90s in the States, to try and bring this drug to the masses. The US National Institude of Drug Abuse, NIDA, pulled the plug on the drug prior to continuning, citing as reason the fact that the drug was only demonstrated to keep addicts clean for 3 months, then you'd need to be re-dosed. I submit that this is pretty crazy reasoning. NIDA has subsequently refused to re-instigate testing. This is a drug that would revolutionise the treatment of addiction worldwide. There are some clinical issues but they're minor. There's nothing close to a justification imo for the position taken by the USG.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

This is fundamentally wrong.

No-one needs to believe in these things at all. Scientists don't need to believe in their own hypotheses. They just need to make sure the hypothesis is well-formed, formulate a test, and carry out the experiment. If the hypothesis holds up when tested, then you can start believing it.

Your NWO is, as I noted earlier, incompetent in all things except for maintaining its own secrecy. This means that it is indistinguishable from no NWO. So your hypothesis is not well-formed, and should be discarded.

Then disgard it and stop arguing. Would you continue arguing with someone who was, say, asserting that the world was being run by green pixies who lived in his left ear?

Nick

 

[8den]

Hi 8den,

No, I would agree. However, originally, I wasn't so much discussing the politics of illicit drugs, but rather the pattern of media activity in this case.

Young girl dies taking supposedly "harmless" drug, family are keen to publicize this, and give the media access.

You're once again attributing malice and nefarious control, where typical press pack mentality can explain the media attention.

Of course the political aspects are relevant. I do still feel that the government, or whoever, does take quite a covert approach to dealing with drug issues.

Covert? How.

There is often the feel of a lot of manipulation going on as opposed to the public being allowed to make up their own mind and decide.

What all drugs should be legalized and people should pick and choose what they ingest. Leaving aside the moral implications of such a bizarre policy, it would be political suicide for the party who suggested it.

I'm sorry Nick you're not in the majority in your opinion about illegal drug use, middle England would ride that party out of office before the ink was dry on the first Daily Mail editorial.

Could you expand upon what you mean by misguided here. I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

You see a sinister motivation to the IMF and World Bank, I would be more inclined to view their mistakes as botched or unworkable economic theory.

Well, there will always be paranoid people. And there will always be people who are psychologically drawn to conspiracy theories. At the same time I do believe relatively normal citizens can validly become concerned about these things. I mean, globalisation does appear to be taking place. Is this an entirely spontaneous or self-creating process, or is it being guided and managed by some agency? This is, I submit, a valid question, and one not really being answered.

Yes, by the IMF and the World Bank. Globalisation is occurring, we exist in a global market, this market needs to be stabilized and managed. To suggest there is something malicious or suspicious about this process without any evidence is a paranoia.

Well, you ask me questions. I'm just trying to answer. I've been around addiction quite a lot, and worked with addicts in a therapeutic community. I'm familiar with a lot of the usual issues. I doubt you'll find many who work with heroin addicts who would dispute that "issues with authority" aren't very commonly seen.

Okay Nick this is far off your original point. You claimed governments liked Heroin as it suppresses political dissenters, you have set to provide any evidence to support this.



Well, I wouldn't propose I try and indict them. But they have had a lot of flak thrown at them over the years. I think it comes back again to the globalisation issue. Is it being managed?

Well, I did mention the drug a little earlier in the thread. It is, I submit, good circumstantial evidence that the US government is actively blocking effective treatments for addiction.

Ibogaine blockades the symptoms of drug withdrawal, and its metabolites sit in body fat for up to a couple of months and eliminate or strongly reduce drug-craving. This makes it potentially a breakthrough treatment for addiction to heroin, cocaine, and alcohol addiction. Phase 1 FDA trials, animal studies, were commenced in the early 90s in the States, to try and bring this drug to the masses. The US National Institude of Drug Abuse, NIDA, pulled the plug on the drug prior to continuning, citing as reason the fact that the drug was only demonstrated to keep addicts clean for 3 months, then you'd need to be re-dosed. I submit that this is pretty crazy reasoning. NIDA has subsequently refused to re-instigate testing. This is a drug that would revolutionise the treatment of addiction worldwide. There are some clinical issues but they're minor. There's nothing close to a justification imo for the position taken by the USG.

Nick

Nick we generally ask people to supply links to support assertions such as this.

Furthermore you've dropped your claim about the CIA using heroin to fund Black Ops, do you still believe this?

 

[Stout]

Nick...I was wondering what you were on about with this whole ibogane thing so i did a little research.

As it turns out, we're using this stuff locally.

I do have a hard time attributing the US Gov't not wanting to condone the theraputic value of ibogane as being part of any larger conspiracy. Let's face it the US gov't could never be accused of anything that even remotely resembles a progressive attitude toward any drug that has any recreational benefits whatsoever.

There is hope though....there is the rest of the world.

 

[Malamule]

Here's another flawed system you might want to look into:

In 2001 there were 42,196 road deaths in the U.S.

That's over a 9/11 worth of casualties every month of the year, with two extra 9/11s thrown in. (And a disproportionately much larger number of debilitating injuries.)

Most of these deaths could be prevented by reasonable and eminently technically feasible measures, such as reducing the maximum allowable speed limit to 30 mph on all U.S. roads and highways, enforced with mandatory speed limiting devices installed in all vehicles, with inspections and on-the-road spot checks to verify them. Since a large loaded semi trailer can do a lot of damage even at 30mph, it would also be prudent to reduce commercial vehicle weight limits to 20% of the current limits.

...snip...

It's much easier to fix than all that. My plan is perfect and it will get everyone to respect everyone else on the roadway.

I propose all vehicles have a 12 inch spike installed on the center of every steering wheel, pointed at the driver. It's just that simple.

-Mal

 

[PhantomWolf]

I mean, globalisation does appear to be taking place. Is this an entirely spontaneous or self-creating process, or is it being guided and managed by some agency?

It's both. Globalisation is a result of capitalism, as those in charge of companies want more money and their wage bill increases, while at the same time the consumer demands cheaper goods, industry has to go to places that are cheaper for them to operate. Air travel and cheap as chip frieghting has added to this with it being cheaper to make goods in China and ship them back to the markets in the West, and with the economies of Asia now booming with the move of industry to places like Japan, Korean, Mylaisa, China, and India, producing items in these countries also means that the bulk of the production is right in these huge new markets.

What is happening beyond that are that groups such as the IMF, WB and WTF (you know someone should have pointed out that their intials have a second meaning) are guiding the process in an effort to present a level playing field to all the participants rather than letting it be a chaotic free for all.

 

[Nick227]

Young girl dies taking supposedly "harmless" drug, family are keen to publicize this, and give the media access.

You're once again attributing malice and nefarious control, where typical press pack mentality can explain the media attention.

It can explain it. There are other interpretations.

Covert? How.



What all drugs should be legalized and people should pick and choose what they ingest. Leaving aside the moral implications of such a bizarre policy, it would be political suicide for the party who suggested it.

I'm not suggesting all drugs should be legalised, though as an aside legalisation and control represents to me the basis for a far more sensible approach to drug use issues. The political suicide issue the result simply of the way the media demonise drugs. Heroin is an analgesic, a painkiller. It is not the work of the devil. Ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic given to 6 week old babies because it is actually probably the safest anaesthetic known. Ecstasy is a relatively harmless empathy-creating drug with use in therapy. I'm not suggesting that these substances be handed out in newsagents but they are not the evil threats to our society that the mass media would have us think. And it is the media attitude that dictates the political position. In this as in many other issues, the media calls the shots. No politician can stand against the media here.

In contrast, when it's decided, seemingly in some back room somewhere, things change. As in the sudden, virtually unannounced change to UK porn laws in 1999. Now more in the EU, the UK decided to harmonise its Obscene Publications legislation with EU standards. The media barely reported the change, but overnight 18R certificate material was on the shelves of licensed sex shops. The media could have kicked up the biggest stink imaginable, had it wanted. It shut its eyes and all the Mary Whitehouses in the UK barely raised a murmur. It's another example of how the mass media call the shots and they now-and-again appear to behave in a manner consistent with a body under centralised control.

You see a sinister motivation to the IMF and World Bank, I would be more inclined to view their mistakes as botched or unworkable economic theory.

I say it's globalisation.

Yes, by the IMF and the World Bank. Globalisation is occurring, we exist in a global market, this market needs to be stabilized and managed. To suggest there is something malicious or suspicious about this process without any evidence is a paranoia.

But who is discussing globalisation in open debate? It's not paranoia, 8den, it's entirely normal for people to wonder where it's all going.

Okay Nick this is far off your original point. You claimed governments liked Heroin as it suppresses political dissenters, you have set to provide any evidence to support this.

I have pointed out several instances where a major effective stance in reducing drug availability or drug harm could easily have been taken by the USG. The development of ibogaine was blocked by NIDA. The UN plan to eliminate heroin and cocaine production was not funded and unreported in the media.

Nick we generally ask people to supply links to support assertions such as this.

If you google NIDA ibogaine you will find some background from a lot of different sources. There are different accounts of why NIDA dropped ibogaine. The one I quoted was from Howard Lotsof.

Furthermore you've dropped your claim about the CIA using heroin to fund Black Ops, do you still believe this?

If I had to put money on whether, in actuality, the CIA had been actively been involved in opiate-running, I would say without a doubt yes.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick...I was wondering what you were on about with this whole ibogane thing so i did a little research.

As it turns out, we're using this stuff locally.

I do have a hard time attributing the US Gov't not wanting to condone the theraputic value of ibogane as being part of any larger conspiracy. Let's face it the US gov't could never be accused of anything that even remotely resembles a progressive attitude toward any drug that has any recreational benefits whatsoever.

There is hope though....there is the rest of the world.

Ibogaine is just an example. BTW, I couldn't get your link to work. The drug has no abuse potential, it's hideous to take taste-wise and experience-wise.

You could construct a fairly solid case that its lack of availability has more to do with the Pharm companies than anything else, given that governments do not themselves develop medications, but the lack of concern or guts shown by orgs like NIDA and the media just demonstrate that at best they just kowtow to Pharma, or at worst they are actively complicit with them.

To be honest, Pharm companies will never develop a medication on the grounds that it is effective. The primary concern is the legally-protected right they have to fulfil which is to make profits for shareholders. This right is much better served by ineffective, short-term, maintenance medications and that is why there is such a propensity of this genre of drugs on the market. Again you could say that the market is totally controlling the scene and it's not a conspiracy, but the silence of media and government to me is suspect. They do nothing to alert the public to the reality of drug development and sit back whilst idiotic Pharm PA companies portray all sorts of idiotic nonsense.

Nick

 

[Stout]

Nick...curious,,the link doesn't work for me either I must have done something wrong. If you just google ibogatherapyhouse , it's the first page listed in the search results.

I hear you on the Pharm companies, but I wonder why they figure they couldn't make money off ibogain. I don't actually know anything about the treatment center that my link involves but from their website, it's clear that they're private, expensive, and apparently doing business.

Granted right now, ibogane therapy may be out of reach of your average street addict, but don't you figure that if we had more of these high end exclusive treatment centers that at least it's a step in the right direction for eventually making this therapy more widely available ? As well, it's an indication that not all governments are involved in your controlling the masses through heroin addiction theory. There's Canada, and 14 other countries currently experimenting with ibogane and it's role in alleviating addiction.

Personally, I'm not a consumer of the Pharma industry ( beyond the odd shot of Otrivin ) so I'm not really up on what's going on with the industry, I have, however noticed several publications for sale that are very critical of the industry and were I to develop an interest in "looking into it" I don't feel that's it's anyones responsibility buy my own to seek out the information I desire.

Were I to find out that those publications I were seeking were actually banned by the government, then, yes, I might adopt a more conspiratorial mindset.

Offtopic...but is it just me. or does anybody else notice the quick reply window has a habit of occasionally rearranging their posts ?

 

[PixyMisa]

It can explain it. There are other interpretations.

Yes. Clearly the media are in the pocket of big E - legalisation would bring the price down, and they can't have that.

The political suicide issue the result simply of the way the media demonise drugs. Heroin is an analgesic, a painkiller. It is not the work of the devil.

It's a physiologically addictive opioid. And you say the government wants people to use it. Banning it seems counter-productive.

Nick, the American media (and both sides of the political fence) went after alcohol - to the extent that a Constitutional amendment was passed banning it! Canberra, the capital of Australia, for crying out loud, banned sales of alcohol from 1910 to 1928.

Does that tell you nothing?

Ecstasy is a relatively harmless empathy-creating drug with use in therapy. I'm not suggesting that these substances be handed out in newsagents but they are not the evil threats to our society that the mass media would have us think. And it is the media attitude that dictates the political position. In this as in many other issues, the media calls the shots. No politician can stand against the media here.

So it's the media ruling the world, not the NWO? (As if the media were some monolithic entity...)

In contrast, when it's decided, seemingly in some back room somewhere, things change.

Seemingly?

As in the sudden, virtually unannounced change to UK porn laws in 1999. Now more in the EU, the UK decided to harmonise its Obscene Publications legislation with EU standards. The media barely reported the change, but overnight 18R certificate material was on the shelves of licensed sex shops. The media could have kicked up the biggest stink imaginable, had it wanted. It shut its eyes and all the Mary Whitehouses in the UK barely raised a murmur.

Maybe, y'know, maybe no-one cared.

It's another example of how the mass media call the shots and they now-and-again appear to behave in a manner consistent with a body under centralised control.

Right.

So when something happens, it's evidence of the media controlling the government.

And when something doesn't happen, it's evidence of the media controlling the government.

Nick, this is absurd.

But who is discussing globalisation in open debate? It's not paranoia, 8den, it's entirely normal for people to wonder where it's all going.

Where it's all going?

Countries are trading with other countries. That's all "globalisation" is. Trade.

The development of ibogaine was blocked by NIDA.

NIDA chose not to fund it. One government agency, in one country. That does not constitute evidence of a covert global government.

The UN plan to eliminate heroin and cocaine production was not funded and unreported in the media.

The UN makes a lot of plans that don't go anywhere.

If I had to put money on whether, in actuality, the CIA had been actively been involved in opiate-running, I would say without a doubt yes.

And if I asked you to show evidence of this?

 

[PixyMisa]

Then disgard it and stop arguing. Would you continue arguing with someone who was, say, asserting that the world was being run by green pixies who lived in his left ear?

Nick, you have the situation inverted.

No-one needs to believe this nonsense, as you claimed, for it to be investigated and falsified. I'm merely doing what you claim to want done - pointing out that your personal conspiracy theory has more holes than a thing with lots of holes in it. (It's hard to investigate the facts because you haven't presented any.)

It makes no sense for me to discard the matter, because such theories are actively harmful.

And if you believed that the world was being run by green pixies who lived in your left ear, I would suggest you speak to your doctor. At the very least, antibiotic ear drops are indicated.

 

[PixyMisa]

You could construct a fairly solid case that its lack of availability has more to do with the Pharm companies than anything else, given that governments do not themselves develop medications, but the lack of concern or guts shown by orgs like NIDA and the media just demonstrate that at best they just kowtow to Pharma, or at worst they are actively complicit with them.

Ok.

So the oil companies control the pharmaceutical companies, who control the media companies, who control the government, and that's why both heroin (good) and ecstasy (bad) have been banned for decades.

Do I have that straight?

To be honest, Pharm companies will never develop a medication on the grounds that it is effective. The primary concern is the legally-protected right they have to fulfil which is to make profits for shareholders. This right is much better served by ineffective, short-term, maintenance medications and that is why there is such a propensity of this genre of drugs on the market.

Bzzzt! Wrong!

The pharmaceutical companies invest a great deal of money into research for new cures or better or cheaper treatments, because if they don't find them, someone else will. It might hurt a lot to go from $500 million a year in sales of a drug to $100 million from its replacement, but that's better than going to nothing and your competitor getting the $100 million.

Again you could say that the market is totally controlling the scene and it's not a conspiracy, but the silence of media and government to me is suspect. They do nothing to alert the public to the reality of drug development and sit back whilst idiotic Pharm PA companies portray all sorts of idiotic nonsense.

Except that your only evidence that there is a Big Pharma conspiracy is that the media isn't talking about it. They're not talking about the Martian Invasion either. Funny how that works.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, we've gone from 9/11 to drug licencing laws.

We ought to have some sort of goalpost-shifting award for stuff like this.

 

[CptColumbo]

The midpoint between two opinions isn't the truth, it's another opinion.

 

[8den]

It can explain it. There are other interpretations.

But you offer no credible evidence to support your assertion. You've also made basic factual errors about the events and aftermath of her death, suggesting that you aren't fully cognoscent of the facts. So instead of applying a ulterior motive to the media, you should education yourself before you pontificate about the matter.

I'm not suggesting all drugs should be legalised, though as an aside legalisation and control represents to me the basis for a far more sensible approach to drug use issues. The political suicide issue the result simply of the way the media demonise drugs. Heroin is an analgesic, a painkiller. It is not the work of the devil.

It is also a dangerously addictive drug that ruins lives.

Ketamine is a dissociative anaesthetic given to 6 week old babies because it is actually probably the safest anaesthetic known.

Don't suppose you have any medicial basis upon which you're making that assertion.

Ecstasy is a relatively harmless empathy-creating drug with use in therapy.

Relatively being the operative word

I'm not suggesting that these substances be handed out in newsagents but they are not the evil threats to our society that the mass media would have us think. And it is the media attitude that dictates the political position. In this as in many other issues, the media calls the shots. No politician can stand against the media here.

No sorry, thats simply just wrong. Media reflect public attitude they don't just dictate it. People buy papers that reflect their opinion beliefs and morality.

For example, this week statistics came out that since decriminalization cannabis use is going down among the young. Yet Gordon Brown is considering reclassifying it up as a offence again. Why? Because it's an easy vote winner. Middle England wants it, not because the media tells them to want it, but because they want it.

In contrast, when it's decided, seemingly in some back room somewhere, things change. As in the sudden, virtually unannounced change to UK porn laws in 1999. Now more in the EU, the UK decided to harmonise its Obscene Publications legislation with EU standards. The media barely reported the change, but overnight 18R certificate material was on the shelves of licensed sex shops. The media could have kicked up the biggest stink imaginable, had it wanted. It shut its eyes and all the Mary Whitehouses in the UK barely raised a murmur.

Funnily I'm working on a project to do with the Obscene Publications act and it's history. Porn has always been on the shelves of sex shops in Soho, and society turned a blind eye. You're applying a sinister motive, when equally plausible, societies morals simply changed and this was no longer the source of moral outcry.

It's another example of how the mass media call the shots and they now-and-again appear to behave in a manner consistent with a body under centralised control.

Bollocks. I work in the mainstream media, and I've seen no evidence of centralised control. In any case, what was the purpose of this "control" in this instance?

I say it's globalisation.

Yes Nick, you say it's globalisation, unfortunately you've offered actually zero evidence to support what you are saying.

But who is discussing globalisation in open debate? It's not paranoia, 8den, it's entirely normal for people to wonder where it's all going.

Nick this is patent nonsense. The World Social Forum exists. Naomi Klein's books are on the best seller list constantly, Chomsky, and Monibot, have columns in daily newspapers.

Suggesting that mainstream criticism of the IMF and World Bank doesnt exist is absurd.

I have pointed out several instances where a major effective stance in reducing drug availability or drug harm could easily have been taken by the USG. The development of ibogaine was blocked by NIDA. The UN plan to eliminate heroin and cocaine production was not funded and unreported in the media.

Nick do you bother to check whether the media has reported something before you announce it's gone unreported?

New York Sun, on UN anti narcotics agency work in Burma

Bloomberg on the Taliban's blocking the UN efforts to stop opium production

And that's after 10 seconds of googling.

Nick you've now by my count made three massive factual errors about the media, that you claim is under centralised control.

Perhaps you'll take this onboard that your opinion on the media is based on erroneous reports, and ignorance, and you should learn more about it, before you decry it.

If you google NIDA ibogaine you will find some background from a lot of different sources. There are different accounts of why NIDA dropped ibogaine. The one I quoted was from Howard Lotsof.

Waving me in the direction of google is just lazy, and I see no reason to believe you. You've gotten so much stuff wrong about everything else.

Onto Lotsof, you're basing your stance on the opinion of Lotsof. Lotsof who owns several patents relating to the use of Ibogaine and the treatment of chemical dependency, .

Lotsof has alot to gain if the US allowed ibogaine as a mainstream anti narcotic treatment. It would make him a very wealthy man. He has a vested interest. That makes him a biased source.

If I had to put money on whether, in actuality, the CIA had been actively been involved in opiate-running, I would say without a doubt yes.

Despite the fact that you've not presented a shred of evidence to support this assertion. And you've been shown evidence that contradicts your claim.
Yet you're claiming that "without a doubt" you believe it to be true. What are you basing this blind faith on?

 

[Mobyseven]

It's much easier to fix than all that. My plan is perfect and it will get everyone to respect everyone else on the roadway.

I propose all vehicles have a 12 inch spike installed on the center of every steering wheel, pointed at the driver. It's just that simple.

-Mal

Ed knows you better be joking...

 

[Nick227]

I hear you on the Pharm companies, but I wonder why they figure they couldn't make money off ibogain. I don't actually know anything about the treatment center that my link involves but from their website, it's clear that they're private, expensive, and apparently doing business.

It's naturally-occuring so they couldn't get rights to the molecule, only use patents. It's more a one-shot medication. Pharm companies won't develop medications like this. They would struggle to cover R&D costs, and they have a legally protected mandate to make profits for shareholders. If the government and media desired ibogaine legal, it could be done. There's orphan drug legislation and if the media, for one instant, wanted to do something positive for addicts they could push for legalisation. Neither of these entities have demonstrated any willingness. At the same time both make near-constant pronouncements on the problems of heroin addiction. The whole thing with Pharm, Gov, and Media is just a collosal farce at best, conspiracy or corruption at worst.

Personally, I'm not a consumer of the Pharma industry ( beyond the odd shot of Otrivin ) so I'm not really up on what's going on with the industry, I have, however noticed several publications for sale that are very critical of the industry and were I to develop an interest in "looking into it" I don't feel that's it's anyones responsibility buy my own to seek out the information I desire.

I think you're very wise not to be a consumer. And frankly if you were to investigate the business too much you would likely need anti-depressants before too long. It's Faustian stuff!

Like the rest of the stuff I'm talking about here, you can call it CT or you can call it corruption, capitalism, incompetence, fraud, randon activity or whatever. Personally, I just want change! If a CT will get the job done then I'll go with that.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Don't suppose you have any medicial basis upon which you're making that assertion.

Try here otherwise google ketamine anaesthesia.

No sorry, thats simply just wrong. Media reflect public attitude they don't just dictate it. People buy papers that reflect their opinion beliefs and morality.

You're saying that the media cannot or do not manufacture opinion? I guess you could say that it's a chicken and egg situation a bit, but to me it's very much a two way street.

For example, this week statistics came out that since decriminalization cannabis use is going down among the young. Yet Gordon Brown is considering reclassifying it up as a offence again. Why? Because it's an easy vote winner. Middle England wants it, not because the media tells them to want it, but because they want it.

I'm not arguing for legalisation of drugs. I'm saying the attitude and activities of Gov and Media are consistent with them having hidden agendas.

Funnily I'm working on a project to do with the Obscene Publications act and it's history. Porn has always been on the shelves of sex shops in Soho, and society turned a blind eye. You're applying a sinister motive, when equally plausible, societies morals simply changed and this was no longer the source of moral outcry.

I'm not applying a sinister motive. I'm saying that the shift was largely unreported. Had the media wished it they could have created a massive stir. They have created many a porn-based drama in the past. However, this time iit was that we were harmonising with the rest of Europe and, surprisingly, the horrors of being flooded with Euro-porn was a story that for once didn't run.

Yes Nick, you say it's globalisation, unfortunately you've offered actually zero evidence to support what you are saying.

If you cannot possibly conceive that the activities of the WB and IMF might be considered the following of a covert globalist agenda then that is your position. I consider it a definite possibility.

Nick do you bother to check whether the media has reported something before you announce it's gone unreported?

New York Sun, on UN anti narcotics agency work in Burma

Bloomberg on the Taliban's blocking the UN efforts to stop opium production

And the UN's plan to virtually eradicate heroin and cocaine production? That didn't get reported. Of course there's always a few busts here and there and the odd project, most of which mysteriously never seem to work long term. You won't eradicate heroin until you eradicate the US and British Govs!

Onto Lotsof, you're basing your stance on the opinion of Lotsof. Lotsof who owns several patents relating to the use of Ibogaine and the treatment of chemical dependency, .

Lotsof has alot to gain if the US allowed ibogaine as a mainstream anti narcotic treatment. It would make him a very wealthy man. He has a vested interest. That makes him a biased source.

Well, Frank Vocci, the head of NIDA also has statements recorded online. They were interested. They dropped out. The reasons given are imo weak to say the least.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

It's naturally-occuring so they couldn't get rights to the molecule, only use patents.

That ibogaine is naturally occurring does not mean that artificial derivatives wouldn't be safer or more effective. Lots of pharmaceuticals are patented derivatives of naturally occurring substances.

It's more a one-shot medication.

Don't you see the danger in that, if it's true? One dose, permanent change to your body chemistry?

Pharm companies won't develop medications like this.

They will if they can make money off it.

They would struggle to cover R&D costs

Aren't you suggesting that it is known to work, and known to be safe? What R&D?

and they ave a legally protected mandate to make profits for shareholders.

What does that even mean, Nick? Companies exist to make profits for their shareholders. All companies. That's what a company is. What's legally protected about the status of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to any other industry? What is this mandate you speak of?

If the government and media desired ibogaine legal, it could be done.

The government restricted it; the government can unrestrict it.

There's orphan drug legislation and if the media, for one instant, wanted to do something positive for addicts they could push for legalisation.

They could do that.

Neither of these entities have demonstrated any willingness.

Hmm.

According to Wikipedia, trials are happening in one form or another in Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, France, Slovenia, the Netherlands, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. The New World Order strikes out once again.

At the same time both make near-constant pronouncements on the problems of heroin addiction.

Do they? Where? Finland? Prince Edward Island? Argentina?

The whole thing with Pharm, Gov, and Media is just a collosal farce at best, conspiracy or corruption at worst.

Still waiting on that evidence thingy.

Like the rest of the stuff I'm talking about here, you can call it CT or you can call it corruption, capitalism, incompetence, fraud, randon activity or whatever. Personally, I just want change! If a CT will get the job done then I'll go with that.

So you don't actually care about the truth of the matter? False but accurate, Nick?

 

[Nick227]

Ok.

So the oil companies control the pharmaceutical companies, who control the media companies, who control the government, and that's why both heroin (good) and ecstasy (bad) have been banned for decades.

Do I have that straight?

I have no idea who controls who. I'm saying that synarchy is an explanation consistent with much circumstantial evidence. There are other valid explanations.

Opium was banned after many years insistence from the public. The British went to war with the Chinese because the emperor refused to take any more of their drugs. There's a ban on heroin but no meaningful action taken to stop it being available or to help people who take it. There are strategies but it's feeble compared to what could be done. If the gov and media didn't so consistently jaw on about how concerned they are it wouldn't look quite so farcical, but as it is it looks either farcical or conspiratorial, depending on your disposition.

The pharmaceutical companies invest a great deal of money into research for new cures or better or cheaper treatments, because if they don't find them, someone else will. It might hurt a lot to go from $500 million a year in sales of a drug to $100 million from its replacement, but that's better than going to nothing and your competitor getting the $100 million.

The pharmaceutical industries need to make money and protect their long term interests. A closed shop has been created by prior litigation and this has resulted in relatively few players with the cash to put up the immense R&D needed to bring new drugs to the market.

Nick