Former conspiracy believer here

[PixyMisa]

Single dose blockades withdrawal symptoms and provides drug abstinence for an average of a month or so. No other known substance can compare. Nothing in the same league.

Okay, so it causes a long-term change to body chemistry. Does that raise no questions for you? What else might it be doing?

You're going to have to learn about the mechanics of getting a drug to market before being able to legitimately make sweeping statements like that. There are a handful of private clinics offering ibogaine treatment, and a number of individuals treating in lay settings. There is an immense difference between doing this and getting a drug onto the market where it's needed.

I don't need to do anything at all, Nick. You're the one making the unsupported claims.

 

[PixyMisa]

Q. Many, many previously quite economically and culturally separate countries have, over the last 50 years thanks to the activities of the WB and IMF, now become increasingly homogenised and brought into the world consumer market place.
Is this likely due to:

a) random activity
b) spontaneous self-organisation
c) the following of a formulated plan
d) green pixies

(Please note...if you answer (c) you will be ridiculed for clearly being a complete idiot)

It's called "trade", Nick. The mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. We've been doing it for at least 5,000 years, and almost certainly much longer. Lately, technology has helped erase the arbitrary differences caused by mere accidents of geography and bring our entire species together.

Is this, somehow, bad?

 

[8den]

Try here otherwise google ketamine anaesthesia.

Waving me in the direction of google again I see Nick. Not good enough for me.

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.

Again you're saying "media" as if different media outlets automatically respond with one voice and one opinion. The Sun's take on a story will differ radically to the Guardian's often.

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.

Sorry, governments criminalise drugs and drug users, attempt to control the flow of drugs, attempt to stop the manufacture of drugs.

Whats their hidden agenda again?

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.

Has there been any other media porn drama since?

You could suggest that the media was "controlled". or you could argue that porn on our shelves is something that we don't really get upset about any more. The Mary Whitehouse brigade is spent.

But I have to ask, if the government or this sinister society controlled the media to stop them reporting on this "flood of Europorn" the obvious question is for what possible benefit?

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.

Yet you cannot explain why or how it is happening.

And the UN's plan to virtually eradicate heroin and cocaine production? That didn't get reported.

How did you hear about it.

Can you provide a link. And don't wave me in the direction of google, you're making a claim the onus is on you to support it.

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!

The two governments currently fighting a war aganist the taliban who are being funded by heroin?

Nick staying with your "CIA funds black ops with heroin" which you are "dead certain" is occuring. You've not produced a shred of evidence to support this. I don't think you have any, but this is a firmly held belief of yours, than you have as an article of faith rather than a supportable fact. This is your problem, you have preconceived notions, based on half truths, misremembered headlines, and fiction, which you cannot be wavered by any evidence.

 

[Nick227]

Q. Many, many previously quite economically and culturally separate countries have, over the last 50 years thanks to the activities of the WB and IMF, now become increasingly homogenised and brought into the world consumer market place.
Is this likely due to:

a) random activity
b) spontaneous self-organisation
c) the following of a formulated plan
d) green pixies

Since the question contains the answer, you're essentially making a circular argument here.

Dave

Well, I submit that it's clear that it is the case that the WB and IMF have been the principle architects of economic and cultural homogenisation for the relatively poorer countries that they have involved themselves with. The question being debated is as to whether it was their prior intention to do this, or whether the globalising effect that has occured was due to some other force.

Nick

 

[8den]

Well, I submit that it's clear that it is the case that the WB and IMF have been the principle architects of economic and cultural homogenisation for the relatively poorer countries that they have involved themselves with. The question being debated is as to whether it was their prior intention to do this, or whether the globalising effect that has occured was due to some other force.

Nick

Big first world countries exploiting the developing world for their own benefit. Gosh, thats a completely new phenomena never before seen in human history. Except for the Industrial revolution. And the Colonistation of Africa and India in the 19th century. Oh and the Spanish conquest of central America. Oh and the western expansion of the United States. And the entire British Empire. In fact any empire. Right back to the Romans.

Nick what you are describing is what has happened since trade began. Or indeed man wondered what was in the next valley.

 

[Nick227]

It's called "trade", Nick. The mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. We've been doing it for at least 5,000 years, and almost certainly much longer. Lately, technology has helped erase the arbitrary differences caused by mere accidents of geography and bring our entire species together.

Is this, somehow, bad?

Many commentators have pointed out that the majority of the countries becoming involved in this "mutally beneficial" (haha) flow of goods and services were entirely conned into doing so at considerable human cost.

Theoretically, the IMF and WB were meant to be loaning money responsibly to help poorer countries survive and grow, not compel their citizens to up sticks and work slave labour in sweat shops for some emergent global superstate.

To be honest, I would happily accept that the long term outcome may well eventually be good for many countries. I'm not by any means anti-globalisation. But the short term cost was devastating for many. And if there was in fact a globalist agenda all along, then it does beg the question - can we trust where it's going?

Nick

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Big first world countries exploiting the developing world for their own benefit. Gosh, thats a completely new phenomena never before seen in human history. Except for the Industrial revolution. And the Colonistation of Africa and India in the 19th century. Oh and the Spanish conquest of central America. Oh and the western expansion of the United States. And the entire British Empire. In fact any empire. Right back to the Romans.

Nick what you are describing is what has happened since trade began. Or indeed man wondered what was in the next valley.

Hmm... Maybe he's one of those isolationist communists. (A rare breed indeed... Anti-trade, and anti-big country A dealing with little country Z)

 

[Nick227]

Big first world countries exploiting the developing world for their own benefit. Gosh, thats a completely new phenomena never before seen in human history. Except for the Industrial revolution. And the Colonistation of Africa and India in the 19th century. Oh and the Spanish conquest of central America. Oh and the western expansion of the United States. And the entire British Empire. In fact any empire. Right back to the Romans.

Hi 8den,

Yes, I agree. There was a hidden agenda behind the WB and IMFs so-called altruism. Though, of course, it's now not countries doing it, but relatively autonomous global orgs.

Nick

ps - might be a moment to look also at this thread here. The reverse side of the great seal and what it symbolically portrays.

 

[Nick227]

Waving me in the direction of google again I see Nick. Not good enough for me.

Fair enough.

Here's one, here's another, and another.

Of course the media prefer to portray ketamine as an "cattle tranquiliser," (which it also is), to presumably give the impression that it's some immensely powerful and dangerous substance. I suppose saying that "young people are taking one of the safest anaesthetics ever discovered" doesn't help sell many papers, or convince many people it's dangerous.

Nick

 

[8den]

Hi 8den,

Yes, I agree. There was a hidden agenda behind the WB and IMFs so-called altruism.

Stop I'm not agreeing with you in the slightest.

Though, of course, it's now not countries doing it, but relatively autonomous global orgs.

Nick

No Nick it's not that simple. The IMF and World Bank's policies are a mixture of botched economics, and western countries that dominate these organisations looking out for their vested interests.

ps - might be a moment to look also at this thread here. The reverse side of the great seal and what it symbolically portrays.

I'm not touching that infantile sub Dan Brown nonsense with a bloody barge pole.

 

[Disbelief]

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.

Nick
Just curious. If pharm companies won't develop oneshot medications, why do we have vaccines? Aren't they one-shot? Didn't they just develop the chicken pox vaccine ove rthe past ten years?

Also a rotavirus vaccine, a human papillomavirus vaccine, a smallpox vaccine, a herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine, and several others have been licensed in recent years.

Just pointing out that you may have missed this. Just looking for clarification.

 

[PhantomWolf]

have you tried ketamine? i have

Have you tried ecstasy? i have

ketamine is a horrible drug with horrible effects especially if the dosage is incorrect and does not mix well with alchohol, it is used by vets as well i believe as a tranquilizer. I cannot believe you think think is a harmless drug, my worst ever experience with drugs was on this stuff. It was introduced to replace PCP, should we still be using PCP if it is "just" an anasthetic?

Ecstasy has many side effects including mental issues as well as being a known killer. Its actual effects when taken are wonderful but it has a lot of baggage and no govt in their right mind would decriminalise it

As for describing Heroin as a analgesic and not the devils work, you are sadly mistaken, i have seen first hand the damage this does to people.

What about GHB, you have not even mentioned this one and it is one of the most recent "social" drugs to be vilified?

I think you are disconnected from the reality of misuse of drugs in an ever so slightly scarey way?

Foeget those ones, we're about to illegalise BZP. Though who in their right mind would want to take a cattle wormer for fun I don't know.

 

[Nick227]

might be a moment to look also at this thread here. The reverse side of the great seal and what it symbolically portrays.

I'm not touching that infantile sub Dan Brown nonsense with a bloody barge pole.

For sure, nevertheless it's interesting how that which is symbolically portrayed on the reverse side of the Great Seal is pretty much precisely manifesting before our eyes.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Just pointing out that you may have missed this. Just looking for clarification.

Sure. If you can give me some developmental background, R&D financing, and we can take a look. I would be interested

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

For sure, nevertheless it's interesting how that which is symbolically portrayed on the reverse side of the Great Seal is pretty much precisely manifesting before our eyes.

Pretty much precisely?

 

[Disbelief]

Sure. If you can give me some developmental background, R&D financing, and we can take a look. I would be interested

Nick

No, you said that pharms won't develop them, yet it was shown where they have done so numerous times. Nothing to talk about, except the fact that you were mistaken.

 

[TjW]

No, you said that pharms won't develop them, yet it was shown where they have done so numerous times. Nothing to talk about, except the fact that you were mistaken.

No, no, no. He wasn't mistaken. That was merely a ploy in his clever plan to pursue his hidden agenda.

 

[JimBenArm]

Pretty much precisely?

If you close one eye, squint real hard, look at it through cheesecloth in a dimly lit room, then yes, it's almost spot on!

 

[8den]

For sure, nevertheless it's interesting how that which is symbolically portrayed on the reverse side of the Great Seal is pretty much precisely manifesting before our eyes.

Nick

Or alternatively the desperation of people who want to see symbols everywhere.

Anyway Nick, any evidence that the CIA use heroin to fund black ops?

 

[8den]

Fair enough.

Here's one, here's another, and another.

Of course the media prefer to portray ketamine as an "cattle tranquiliser," (which it also is), to presumably give the impression that it's some immensely powerful and dangerous substance. I suppose saying that "young people are taking one of the safest anaesthetics ever discovered" doesn't help sell many papers, or convince many people it's dangerous.

Nick

But it is a cattle tranquiliser and I don't think the "recreational" doses people take, compare favorably to the quantities give to infants do they Nick? In fact they'd be closer to the doses given to animals, correct? So it's a bit rich claiming the media demonise special K, by calling it a cattle tranquiliser when you're trying to make it sound innocent when calling it a infant anthenestic.

I once had a guy on K try and climb out my car window, did I mention we were doing about 40mph at the time? (I should add I was sober) don't tell me it's a harmless drug.