baphomet

Good to hear man, glad you enjoyed it. This latest clip gave me a giggle too, strange times when fox admits that "the conspiracy theorists were right" definitely a victory for the sane/aware people out there.. But not a clean bill of mental health for those who think the world is run by aliens n shit.

FOX - "THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS WERE RIGHT"

Illicit Drugs: Past, Present & Future John Malouf Drugs, the Law and Medicine Summit 17th - 18th November 1989 Should illicit and controlled drugs, which were once legal, be legalised again? Should we turn back the clock? What, then, are the arguments for legalisation? Differing views are heard from the 'anti-prohibition and pro-legislation of illicit substances' lobby. There is a diverse range of such groups, each with its own brand of legalisation. These fit broadly into two categories: unfettered legalisation of all drugs or regulated legalisation based on the civil and/or criminal code. The latter ranges from regulated legalisation (from authorised suppliers) of all drugs for all purposes to only some drugs for some purposes. It is argued that the presently illegal drugs should be legalised for the following reasons: monetary costs; organised crime and corruption; price; civil liberties; failure of prohibition; responsible use; failure of the law; victimless crime; "all drugs are drugs and should be treated the same" (licit or illicit); loss of potential revenues and taxes; popular usage; no or little increase in use; myth and mystique; and AIDS. If I thought that these arguments were correct and that we were not accepting a soft option, then I would support them through official pharmacy in the struggle against drugs in our country. But I cannot. The limited time available will allow me to deal only briefly with a few of these arguments. In the pro-legalisation argument, it is frequently forgotten that the presently illicit drugs were once legal, and that they have been made illegal or have been controlled because they have been proven to be damaging to personal health. Are we about to ignore this basic fact? Some historians might say that one or two were restricted for the wrong reasons. Present knowledge has proven that these restrictions were, from a pharmacological and social position, in hindsight, correct. Are we seriously being told that a mistake was made in Australia and elsewhere throughout the world by making some drugs illegal? It has been said that societies which choose to ignore the lessons from the past are fated to re-live them. Drugs of abuse, once thought 'safe', and now either banned or rigidly controlled in Australia include: * thalidomide * methyl amphetamine * Durophet * dexamphetamine * phenmetrazine (Preludin) * methadone * MDMA ('Ecstasy')* * LSD * PCP ('Angel dust')* * bromides * Carbromal * Bromvaletone * chloral hydrate * percodan (oxycodone) * yohimbine * chlorodyne * pethidine * morphine * phenacetin * liquid strychnine hydrocholoride * liquid arsenic * dilute hydrocyanic acid * Palfium (dextromoramide) and * propoxyphene. * * Not released for medical use These drugs, once freely used in Australia and in other parts of the world, were, in many cases, available without prescription. Many were originally thought to be relatively harmless. Some are now completely banned, while others are in limited supply on the most restricted basis only. When freely available, they were promoted as being harmless. Heroin, cocaine, the amphetamines, morphine, Mandrax and phenmetrazine were all claimed to be non-addictive. It is not sufficient to compare each substance to alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco should not be the benchmarks by which all drugs are compared. To do so is misleading, given the known toxicity and physiological damage that these substances may cause. There is no successful role model for drug legalisers to follow, and, without such a model, theories and hypotheses are simply not good enough. What, then, are the current and historical lessons from other countries? Two theories commonly advanced are that: * if illicit drugs were legalised, then drug prices would fall * illegal drugs are too expensive and sometimes difficult to obtain. If only it were just that simple! The truth is that cheaper drugs have not helped the countries in which this has occurred. Indeed the very opposite has happened. Cheaper drugs have led to more widespread drug-taking. Current examples of cheap, readily available drugs include: 'crack', the 'poor man's cocaine', which has lead to wider use in the United States; affordable heroin on the streets of Bombay and Calcutta; widely-used cocoa paste in Lima and cheap hashish in Cairo, which even the poverty-stricken can afford. Historical examples include the Corn Laws in Britain, which resulted in Britain being deluged with cheap gin and with an epidemic of alcoholism which has not since been repeated. Easy access to cocaine in Germany in the 1920's caused many health and social problems. Legal cheap cocaine was freely available in the US in the 19th century. The cheap and ready access to amphetamines and heroin in Sweden in the 1960's lead to an epidemic. Cheap amphetamines saw drug epidemics in Japan in the 1950's and 1960's. Egypt suffered a cocaine and hashish epidemic in the 1920's. None of these countries controlled the situation by increasing availability and lowering the price. Why the Netherlands Model? Do we want to make an Amsterdam out of Sydney and Melbourne? Is the Dutch expert, Dr Karel Dunning, wrong when he condemns his own country's policies? Why not examine Sweden's successes and failures which are well documented in the 23 books written by the epidemiologist from the Carnegie Institute in Stockholm, Dr Nils Bejerot. If any role model should be followed, it is Sweden and not Holland. Why are we looking at Holland and not Sweden? Why not study the Singapore model? What of Japan, West Germany and Great Britain? Why this fixation with Holland? Is it because of freely available marijuana? Why not ask their immediate neighbours, the West German authorities, what they think of the Dutch policy? Crime The theory is that drug legalisation would destroy the financial base of organised crime and therefore minor crimes against property would be reduced. The claim is that the laws have failed. The facts are that drug use itself is actually the cause of much sociopathic and 'criminal' behaviour. Many users commit crimes completely unrelated to the cost of the drug. Eighty percent of violent crime in the United States is committed while under the influence of drugs. NSW Police submissions show that approximately half of all criminal addicts have been charged with previous criminal offences before their involvement with drugs. These figures also show that incest, sexual abuse and motor accidents are associated with drug use. According to the NSW Police Submission to the National Crime Authority, "there is likely to be a substantial increase in the rate of road deaths and accidents due to drug use" (if drugs were legalised), and "legalisation will not eliminate crime". To suggest that organised crime exists because of drugs is erroneous. Organised crime existed long before drugs became a problem. (eg the Chinese Triads and the Sicilian Mafia). The reality is that, if illegal drugs were legalised, organised crime would still exist. Most of the legalisation arguments collapse because, unless all countries are willing to make every drug available to any person in unlimited quantities and combinations, upon the demand of the user, then there will always be a place for a blackmarket and criminal exploiters. Organised crime can only be addressed by attacking corruption at all levels in our society. It is corruption that makes organised crime possible. In our state, 20% of car theft is controlled by organised crime. Yet nobody is suggesting that car theft should be legalised to eliminate organised crime. Nor is anybody suggesting that cars should be provided free for those who want them, merely to take the profit out of the car-theft industry. Laws cannot make a wrong into a right. To claim that the laws have failed, because a minority of people are not deterred by them, makes no sense. In drawing the line between what is and what is not permissible, criminal law is directed not only toward the lawbreakers but towards the law-abiders. AIDS The theory is that the legalisation of drugs would help to prevent the so-called "second wave" spread of AIDS through the sharing of intravenous syringes carrying the HIV virus. But this claim is only valid for intravenous drugs. It has no relevance for drugs which are smoked or used by other routes eg oral amphetamines, LSD, marijuana, MDMA, 'crack', 'ice' etc. Heroin and other drugs do not cause the spread of AIDS. It is spread by contaminated needles, just as infectious hepatitis spreads among IV drug users. Some of the main proponents for legalising heroin in order to control AIDS make no mention of legalising amphetamines, even though amphetamine use in the country is now more widespread than is heroin use. Does this mean that we must also legalise amphetamines and must any potential new designer-drugs of abuse be legalised simply because the preferred route is IV? The sheer logistics of supplying the number of estimated heroin addicts and occasional intravenous users, throughout Australia, from 4 to 6 times a day, would be a monumental task. It is universally understood that nearly all heroin addicts state that their need for heroin far outweighs their need to use a clean syringe. What are the practical implications of any attempt to legalise the use of drugs? These may be examined in terms of bureaucratic requirements, the setting of a 'dividing line', restrictions on sale and on users. A New Bureaucracy and Experimental Theories Any government that is willing to experiment with legalisation policies, without any proven model to follow, is irresponsible because it is placing a large portion of our naive community at risk, not to mention the children. Is our Government naive enough to take this enormous step? A new super-bureaucracy would have to be created to control distribution, prices, strengths, purity and quantity for dozens of illegal drugs, with potentially hundreds of future new variations to be introduced. If the illegal drugs were still governed by some restrictions, how would the bureaucracy regulate the different degrees of tolerance that the users would have? What penalties would be invoked for breaking these controls? The Dividing Line? It is inconceivable that all drugs would be legalised. There would have to be a dividing line somewhere across the spectrum, as some of these chemicals can never be released. Would the dividing line allow marijuana, cannabis resin and hashish oil? If so, what concentration of their psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol - 1%, 10%, 20% or 60%? Would it allow pethidine, morphine and heroin and, if so, in what strengths? Would cocaine be legalised along with its other forms - basuco paste and 'crack'? What percentage of cocaine would be legal - 100%? Would the dividing line allow the use of MDMA ('Ecstasy'). If so, how many tablets could be purchased at a time? What of the hallucinogenic drugs: LSD, mescaline, PCP ('Angel Dust') and peyote? What strengths and in what quantities? Would all amphetamines, including the latest form of methamphetamine, 'ice', be legal? What of the once-thought-safe phenmetrazine? What strengths and what forms and what quantity? Would Mandrax, once again, be available with little control? How many barbiturates would it be safe to supply? Would it be legal to smoke opium again? Would 'Burmese no. 3 grade heroin' be legal and, if so, would Mexican 'Black Tar' be controlled or not? What of 'China White'? The list is endless. Which of these drugs should be legalised? All or only some? According to what criteria would they be legalised? In what strength, concentrations, forms and quantities? What body or new government authority would determine the criteria? Or would there be no controls or limits? From whom and where would these products be distributed? Would they be available at all hours? Yet if they are not all legalised, then nearly all the arguments for legalisation amount to nothing. Where the dividing line is drawn between what is legal and what has to be restricted, the criminal millieux will deal in and promote the remaining restricted substances. Yet there is no way that all the presently controlled drugs could be made legal. Their effects on our society would be obvious. Treatment With legalised drugs available, who would decide that a user was dependent on a drug and should be referred for treatment? The user himself or herself? Certainly not the courts as they are now, because the user would not be brought before the courts. At least now there is a chance, if the user is brought before the court, that the magistrate or judge will refer the user for specialised treatment by enforcement of the law. If drugs are legal, then the chances of referral will be lessened without the court's ability to make it mandatory. Restrictions on Sales If illicit drugs were legalised, who would be allowed to buy them? What age limits would be set? Would sales be restricted to dependent people? Would cocaine or heroin be restricted to cocaine-dependent or heroin-dependent persons respectively? Could a heroin addict purchase PCP or cocaine? Would the combined use of cocaine and heroin (speedballing) be legal? Who and what body would determine if a user was dependent on amphetamines? If only dependent persons were allowed to purchase their drugs, where would the recreational and experimental users obtain their supplies? If it were possible to answer these questions satisfactorily, in what quantities and in what form would they be supplied? Having supplied these preparations in multi-dose forms, how would the flow of these drugs to the general population be prevented? Who would be the suppliers - pharmacies, government stores? What hours would they be open? Should the drugs be available on prescription and from all doctors? How would a refill be allowed? Or should they be available merely on demand? Restrictions on Users If drugs were legalised, what controls would be placed on users? Would those with psychoses be allowed to purchase drugs? What of incompatibilities with prescribed medication? How would a medical practitioner know what a patient was self-administering? Would workers in vital industries be allowed to use these drugs? What categories of workers would be allowed to use them and what categories would not? What consideration would be given to marijuana, with its long half-life compared to heroin and cocaine with very short half-lives? Most establishments allow staff to use alcohol and coffee. What would they do about the use of legalised drugs? As with tobacco now, would there be drug-using and drug-free zones? Other issues which need to be addressed include civil liberties, the countries which supply drugs, the myth & mystique of drugs, ignorance of the pharmacology of drugs, financial considerations, the 'victimless crime' argument, responsible usage, the problem with heroin, varying levels of dependence with different drugs, and de facto legalisation through common usage. Conclusion The questions posed are difficult and I cannot answer them. But that is not my problem. It is the drug legalisers who must provide satisfactory answers if their position is to be given credibility. They claim that the 'war' against drugs has been lost, and therefore that we should legalise drugs. Firstly, the so-called 'war' against drugs has never really started. Secondly, if one accepts the position that there is a war, then what sort of defeatist attitude are they promoting? From their point of view, one could argue that we are losing the war against crime, and therefore that we should legalise crime. In reply to statements that there may be no answer to the drug problem, the United Nations states: "The permissive and fatalistic attitudes of the past have allowed the drug problem to reach epidemic proportions which we face today. But there is reason to be hopeful, the nations of the world have recognised that drug abuse has grown at an alarming rate. Progress is being made in areas where intense and concerted pressure has been applied to all aspects of the problem: abuse, supply, production, trafficking and treatment. The drug problem cannot be solved in a day or a year, but with the active participation of peoples, organisations and nations, the problem can be ultimately be solved." Countries that will not countenance legalisation are Singapore, Taiwan, Germany, Great Britain, Sweden and Japan - not exactly backward countries. Many third-world countries, including China, Egypt, Turkey and Nepal, have introduced tough counter-measures to control the spread of drug abuse in their countries. Yes, there are other remedies, but not the soft option of quitting and submitting to the struggle by legalisation. Like the Westminster System of government, our present system is far from perfect, but consider the alternatives. There are only two realistic criteria to consider before releasing any chemical or drug onto the market: is the chemical relatively safe and is it of any benefit to mankind? As with controlled pharmaceuticals, the burden of proof that the benefits of legalisation of the currently illegal drugs outweigh their disadvantages, rests with those who seek to legalise the use of these substances. * Not released for medical use http://www.adf.com.au/archive.php?doc_id=18

The Experience of Foreign Countries and Drug Legalization Discussion I. Their Argument Proponents of legalization suggest that the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland prove the efficacy of legalizing or decriminalizing various types of illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. They maintain that because such drugs are legal, these countries have fewer addicts and less drug-related crime. II. Our Argument The statements of the legalizers here are empirically untrue. As we discuss each country in turn, it will be shown that legalization did not work in any of them. A. Great Britain With the report of a government commission known as the Brain Committee of 1964, England instituted a policy whereby doctors could prescribe heroin so long as they followed certain treatment criteria.47 Previously in England, doctors could prescribe heroin much like any other opiate (such as morphine). This allowed a few unscrupulous doctors to sell ungodly amounts of heroin to members of the black market.48 Consequently, it was believed that if heroin were offered at medical clinics according to stringent rules and regulations, addicts would come to these clinics to seek treatment and eventually would overcome their habit. As of 1983, however, England began to phase out these programs of clinically supplied heroin in favor of methadone treatment.49 Why? First, according to the reputable British physician journal Lancet, the number of addicts increased 100% between 1970 and 1980.50 A disproportionate number of these new addicts were between the ages of sixteen and seventeen.51 Second, only twenty percent of all of the addicts in England belonged to the clinical programs.52 At first blush, this fact seems strange - why would addicts choose not to participate in a program wherein they get free methadone? The answer probably lies in the fact that methadone does not produce the high that heroin does. Also, addicts probably did not care for the mandatory treatment and rehabilitation facets of the clinical programs. Whatever the reason, by 1985 England had 80,000 heroin addicts, the vast majority of whom wen not in treatment.53 A third reason why England began to abolish its clinical heroin program was the fact that not only were there few people, in them, but the programs themselves did not work. According to the British Medical Journal, more addicts left the program because of criminal convictions than because of treatment.54 Fourth, even with the clinical programs, heroin addicts had a death rate twenty-six times the average population. Finally, even when the programs were in operation, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics division 100% in order to cope with the increased crime rate.56 To summarize, the British experience with decriminalized heroin in the clinical context was a dismal failure. When experts from British Columbia were debating whether to create a similar program, they made the following conclusions that are so important as to deserve to be quoted at length: While some success is claimed in terms of reducing the incidence of young users, the following findings have also been noted: 1) The British approach has failed to attract a majority of addicts; 2) Many registered addicts continue to turn to illicit sources of drugs; 3) Many registered addicts do not decrease their dosage over time; 4) Many registered addicts continue to be involved in criminal activity; 5) Many registered addicts are chronically unemployed or do not earn enough to look after themselves; 6) The death rate of registered addicts is much higher than that of the general population and may be higher than that of North American addicts; 7) Since 1960, there has been a dramatic increase in the English addict population; 8) The black market for heroin continues to thrive; 9) Law enforcement appears to remain a necessary, costly and complex control measure. In view of the above, it is felt that the application of the British approach to British Columbia would present serious dangers.57 B. The Netherlands Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59 The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65 C. Switzerland Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70 D. Spain Since 1983 in Spain, it has been legal to use, but not sell, cocaine and heroin. Recently, however, Spanish officials have begun a crack-down on drug pushers due to a dramatic increase in the addiction rate.71 Unsurprisingly, Spain and Italy, which also legalized use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdose of all European countries.72 E. China Lest we forget the lessons of history, consider that in the late 1800's, opium was legal in China. By 1900, ninety million Chinese were addicted to the drug, and it took fifty years of repressive police measures and rehabilitation to correct the problem.73 Today, opium and other addictive drugs are illegal.74 F. Japan In the 1950's, Japan was faced with an epidemic of amphetamine use that created half a million addicts. Through socialization and policies aimed at both reducing supply and demand, the number of addicts was decreased to a few thousand within four years.75 A heroin epidemic involving thousands of addicts was dealt with successfully in the 1960's using the same measures. 76 G. Other countries Throughout recent history, numerous other countries have attempted legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, all meeting with the same harmful results. In Egypt in the 1920's, an unrestricted supply of cocaine and heroin created an epidemic that eventually resulted in the strict prosecution of all addicts.77 In Thailand and Iran, countries that traditionally have had cheap and unrestricted sources of narcotics, the addiction rates have been and continue to be high.78 Finally, the Republic of Singapore had to resort to strict law enforcement and mandatory rehabilitation in order to overcome a heroin epidemic.79 Given the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, China, Japan, Spain, Egypt, Iran, and Thailand, it is little wonder why countries that traditionally have had lenient drug laws are all moving in the direction of illegalization. Undoubtedly, the danger that drug legalization presents was foremost on the minds of the numerous countries - the United States included - that signed the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. And such danger also is why the International Narcotics Control Board for the United Nations concluded in 1992 that "legalization advocates have not yet presented a sufficiently comprehensive, coherent or viable alternative to the present system of international drug abuse control."80 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm

Addiction Rates And Drug Legalization DISCUSSION I. Their Argument Proponents of drug legalization argue that legalizing drugs would decrease addiction rates for two reasons. First, they maintain, people use drugs because they are illegal - that is, people get a thrill breaking a social taboo. Legalize drugs and the incentive to take them will go away. Second, proponents of legalization argue that if drugs were legalized, we could spend the money that we presently spend on the criminal justice system on treatment of addicts.2 II. Our Argument Before addressing the particular merits of the legalization debate, it is useful to describe just what is an addiction. Addictions are either physical or psychological. Physical addiction occurs when the body becomes dependent upon chemicals or drugs not normally found in the human body and requires such chemicals in order to sustain basic bodily functions. Take, for instance, cocaine addiction. Cocaine alters the means by which brain cells communicate with one another. Usually, nerve cells (neurons) send signals to one another through chemical neurotransmitters such as dopamine. Dopamine flows from one neuron to the other, delivers its message, and returns to the original neuron. Cocaine, however, blocks the dopamine from returning to the first cell, and the first cell just keeps firing away. This explains why cocaine produces such feelings of pleasure; for lack of a better description, cocaine locks all of the user's neurons into an "On" position. The problem occurs when all of the cocaine has been metabolized by the body. As Professor James Q. Wilson explains, "[w]hen the exaggerated high produced by cocaine-influenced dopamine finally ends, the brain cells may (in ways that are still a matter of dispute) suffer from an extreme lack of dopamine, thereby making the individual unable to experience any pleasure at all."3 This is a very simplified model, of course, and different drugs affect the body in different ways, but a simple fact remains - physical addiction is biochemical in nature and is independent of social, political, or psychological causes. There is another type of addiction, however, that being psychological addiction. Unlike physical addiction, which basically is a medical condition, psychological addiction occurs when the individual user feels or is of the opinion that drugs are necessary for his or her life. This is not to suggest that psychological addiction is easily dismissed; indeed it can have a profound influence on how addicts live their lives. Such especially is the case when addicts live in a culture that continually reinforces the desirability or necessity of drug use. Let us examine addiction specific to two drugs: cocaine and marijuana. Although rough, estimates suggest that there are between 650,000 and 2.4 million cocaine addicts in the United States.4 "Cocaine is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available the number of cocaine abusers would probably rise to...perhaps 20-25million."5 Mitchell Rosenthal, President of the Phoenix House drug-rehabilitation program states that cheap available drugs would increase addiction; only 10% of drinkers become hooked, while an estimated 75% of regular drug (crack) users could become addicts.6 Scientific studies agree, noting that when given unlimited access to cocaine, laboratory animals will consume increasingly greater amounts until they die.7 That cocaine is harmful to one's health likely will come as a surprise to no one. Dr. Frank H. Gawin, director of stimulant abuse, treatment and research at Yale University concludes that cocaine causes depression, paranoia, and "violent psychotic behavior."8 What is worse, there is presently no effective, permanent treatment for cocaine addiction.9 Almost everyone would agree that cocaine is a dangerous, addictive drug, but many would be surprised to find that the same is true of marijuana. Although it is very difficult to determine the precise number of marijuana users and addicts in the United States, one fact is clear: marijuana has become much more potent over the last twenty years. Cannabis delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as "THC," is the active ingredient in marijuana and other cannabis such as hashish. The THC content in marijuana during the days of Woodstock was something less than 1%. In 1974, the average THC content of illicit marijuana was 0. 36% and by 1984 had increased to 4.40%.10 In 1992 in Alaska, marijuana was discovered that had a THC content of 29.86%.11 Now stop and think about that for a minute. Today's marijuana may be between thirty to sixty times as potent as were the joints of the 1960's. This observation gives one pause when we realize that THC is both dangerous and habit-forming. Marinol, a prescription drug that is very occasionally used in the treatment of nausea associated with chemotherapy, is chemically synthesized THC. Most people are familiar with the information sheets that come with prescription drugs - the pieces of paper that detail the indications and usage of the drug in question, its potential side-effects, its chemical composition, etc. The information sheet that comes with Marinol states verbatim, "MARINOL is highly abusable and can produce both physical and psychological dependence .... Patients receiving MARINOL should be closely observed."12 The company that produces Marinol goes on to explain that its THC may cause "changes in mood ... decrements in cognitive performance and memory, a decreased ability to control drives and impulses [and] . . . a full-blown picture of psychosis (psychotic organic brain syndrome) may occur in patients receiving doses within the lower portion of the therapeutic range."13 Such warnings should not surprise the scientists who have for many years maintained that the THC contained in marijuana is dangerous. First, in the late 1960's Dr. Robert Heath, then chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Tulane Medical School, found that marijuana affects brain waves and destroys brain cells.14 Second, a study conducted by Dr. Ethel Sassenrath at the University of California at Davis between 1974 and 1978 found that THC increased the rate of fetal loss (in utero, fetal death) in monkeys by over 300%, while at the same time decreasing the birth weights in those babies born alive.15 Third, a study by Dr. Susan Dalterio, at the University of Texas found that marijuana decreased testosterone and impaired sexual development in male mice.16 Finally, a study by Dr. Albert Munson found that injections of THC suppressed the immune systems of mice and made them 96 times more susceptible to the herpes virus.17 Dr. Charles R. Schuster, former Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse said, "The fact that there are over 77,000 admissions a year to treatment programs for marijuana use and that annually almost 8,000 persons require emergency hospital care for marijuana use is sufficient evidence of the drugs dangerousness"18 Clearly, drugs such as cocaine and marijuana are, both addictive and dangerous. The legalizers likely would admit this, but counter by saying that if we legalized them we would have less of a problem. This is untrue. Recall from above that legalizers claim that people use and become addicted to drugs because of the excitement of breaking the law - it is the fact that drugs are illegal that causes people to try them. The data disagree. Robert E. Peterson, Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania notes, "70% of high school students in New Jersey and about 60% of the students in California said that fear of getting in trouble with the law constituted a major reason not to use drugs."19 The legalizers' argument that we should legalize drugs and spend the money we now spend on criminal prosecution on treatment and rehabilitation also fails. Both proponents and opponents of legalization are in agreement that legalization almost certainly would decrease the price of drugs as they became more available. However, basic economic theory states that as the price of a commodity declines, demand for the commodity will increase. But whereas the reverse usually also is true (increase price and demand decreases), it is not so with addictive substances. That is, drop the price of a gram of cocaine by 50%, and you will see an increase in use as demand for the product increases. Increase the price of cocaine by 50%, and you will not see an equal decrease in demand because addicts will pay the price to sustain their addictions. In technical economic terms, the demand for addictive drugs is elastic with respect to price declines, but inelastic with respect to price increases. Expert opinion supports this hypothesis. Dr. Herbert D. Kleber of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, suggests that legalization of cocaine would result in a five- to six-fold increase in cocaine use.20 Dr. Robert DuPont, former director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse agrees, stating that legalization would increase the number of users of cocaine and marijuana to between fifty and sixty million, and the number of heroin users to around ten million.21 Dr. DuPont concludes that when one takes into account the health effects of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, legalization could result in between 100,000 and 500,000 drug induced deaths each year.22 Further, you cannot legalize cocaine and control the crack epidemic, for users could easily turn the former into the latter. History also supports the fact that legalization would increase addiction rates. When opium was legal in the United States at the turn of the century, we had proportionately between two and three times the number of addicts than we do presently.23 Furthermore, Dr. Richard Schwartz, Professor of Pediatrics at Georgetown University School of Medicine, notes that Alaska and Oregon, the states that traditionally have had the most lenient drug laws, also have the highest marijuana addiction rates in the United States double the national average.24 Finally, foreign countries that have relaxed drug laws have seen an increase in addiction rates [see Chapter Three]. In short, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana are dangerous and highly addictive substances. Scholarly opinion, historical evidence, and common sense suggest that if these drugs are legalized, then the rates of addiction will skyrocket, leading to misery and death. http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Debate/myths/myths2.htm

Myth: Legalization of Marijuana in Other Countries Has Been a Success Reality: Liberalization Often Results in Higher Use of Dangerous Drugs Over the past decade, drug policy in some foreign countries, particularly those in Europe, has gone through some dramatic changes toward greater liberalization with failed results. Consider the experience of the Netherlands, where the government reconsidered its legalization measures in light of that country's experience. After marijuana use became legal, consumption nearly tripled among 18- to 20-year-olds. As awareness of the harm of marijuana grew, the number of cannabis coffeehouses in the Netherlands decreased 36 percent in six years. Almost all Dutch towns have a cannabis policy, and 73 percent of them have a no-tolerance policy toward the coffeehouses. In 1987 Swiss officials permitted drug use and sales in a Zurich park, which was soon dubbed Needle Park, and Switzerland became a magnet for drug users the world over. Within five years, the number of regular drug users at the park had reportedly swelled from a few hundred to 20,000. The area around the park became crime-ridden to the point that the park had to be shut down and the experiment terminated. Smoking Rates Increased Among Teens Marijuana use by Canadian teenagers is at a 25-year peak in the wake of an aggressive decriminalization movement. At the very time a decriminalization bill was before the House of Commons, the Canadian government released a report showing that marijuana smoking among teens is "at levels that we haven't seen since the late '70s when rates reached their peak." After a large decline in the 1980s, marijuana use among teens increased during the 1990s, as young people apparently became "confused about the state of federal pot laws." http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_3.htm 09 October 2002 "Drug Legalization Doesn't Work," by DEA Director Asa Hutchinson, October 9, 2002 (Op-ed column from The Washington Post on 10/09/02) (This column by Asa Hutchinson, Director of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, first appeared in the Washington Post October 9, 2002 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.) (begin byliner) Drug Legalization Doesn't Work By Asa Hutchinson On a recent summer tour through south London, I saw the future of drug legalization. A young couple injected heroin inside the filthy ruins of an abandoned building. In this working-class neighborhood, residents weave in and out of crowded sidewalks, trying to avoid making eye contact with dealers who openly push heroin, marijuana and crack. Scotland Yard aggressively targets international drug traffickers, and I applaud its strong overall anti-drug policy. But last year, a local police commander initiated a pilot program in which people caught possessing marijuana are warned rather than arrested. Often, they're just ignored. In news reports and my interviews, residents criticize the program for bringing more drug dealers, more petty criminals and more drug use. The one-year Lambeth pilot ended Aug. 1, but Britain has announced it will relax the country's marijuana laws. That move has given fuel to those in the United States who believe we should follow suit. Some have called for the outright legalization of marijuana. People could buy dope over the counter, as they do in the red-light district of Amsterdam. What these legalization advocates do not talk about are the disturbing problems that people in Lambeth lived with every day. They ignore the sad misery of young people addicted to drugs. They ignore the serious problems that countries such as the Netherlands are experiencing -- problems that are leading them to reconsider their own liberal drug laws. The culture of drug use and acceptance in the Netherlands has played a role in that country's becoming the world's top producer of Ecstasy. It's interesting that, in a 2001 study, the British Home Office found that violent crime and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. No doubt effective drug enforcement had a part in declining crime in the United States. Maybe it's time Europeans looked to America's drug policy as their model. Our approach -- tough drug laws coupled with effective education programs and compassionate treatment -- is having success. It's a great myth that there's been no progress in our anti-drug effort. To the contrary, there's been remarkable success. Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That's 9.5 million fewer people using illegal drugs. We have reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70 percent in the past 15 years. This is not to say we have done enough. Drugs are still readily available, and a new National Household Survey on Drug Abuse shows that American kids are increasingly using drugs such as Ecstasy. As long as we have despair, poverty and frustration, as long as we have teenage rebellion, we're going to have problems with drugs. But we must keep in mind our success and also keep some perspective about U.S. drug use. Less than 5 percent of the population uses illegal drugs. That's 16 million regular users of all illegal drugs, compared with 66 million tobacco users and 109 million alcohol users. Emerging drug threats such as Ecstasy and methamphetamine are going to require even more resolve and innovation. We need a renewed dedication by all Americans to help our kids stay away from the misery and addiction of drugs. In fighting drugs, we do have new ideas: from drug courts to community coalitions; from more investment in education to more effective treatment; from drug testing in the workplace to drug counselors in schools. These are ideas that work. What doesn't work is legalization. It's a well-kept secret that we have tried it before in this country. In 1975, Alaska's Supreme Court held that under that state's constitution, an adult could possess marijuana for personal consumption at home. The court's ruling became a green light for marijuana use. A 1988 University of Alaska survey showed that the state's teenagers used marijuana at a rate more than twice the national average for their age group. The report also showed a frequency of marijuana use that suggested it wasn't experimental but was a well-incorporated practice for teens. Fed up with this dangerous experiment, Alaska's residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize the possession of marijuana. But 15 years of legalization left its mark -- increased drug use by a generation of our youth. Legalizing drugs is simply a surrender. It's giving up on the hope of a drug-free future for our next generation. It's writing off those still in the grip of addiction and despair. Isn't every life worth fighting for? (The writer is Director of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.) (end byliner) http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100907.htm Cannabis News Record Shows That Drug Legalization Is No Solution Posted by CN Staff on March 16, 2003 at 14:44:51 PT By Joe Dombroski, Commentary Columnist Source: Times-Dispatch justice The myth of the drug-legalization argument is that government distribution/regulation of drugs would remove the profit, and therefore the incentive, for illicit drug-dealing and drug-related crime. But the reality of drug legalization can be witnessed by any American tourist on the streets of a working-class neighborhood in southern Amsterdam. In that typical Netherlands neighborhood, residents weave on and off crowded sidewalks, trying to avoid making eye contact with dealers who openly push heroin, marijuana, and crack. In news reports and interviews, hard-working area residents blame the legalization of drugs for bringing more drug dealers, more petty criminals, and more drug use to their neighborhood. Twenty-five years ago police departments in the United States regarded drug use as a victimless crime affecting only the user. Vice enforcement treated drug crimes in the same manner as prostitution and gambling. Today law-enforcement officials understand that drug use and drug distribution are crimes with an untold number of victims. Society, as well as the drug user, suffers both physically and economically. The U.S. system of uniform crime reporting reveals that between 75 percent and 80 percent of all crime is drug-related or has a drug nexus. Drug-Related Crimes Legalization and government distribution/regulation do not stop the profits for illegal drug dealers. If we examine the basic economics of drug trafficking, we can understand what the people of Amsterdam are living with. In a typical drug-producing country a kilogram (1,000 grams) of heroin sells for about $1,000. That same kilogram is then sold to wholesale dealers in the United States for between $85,000 and $100,000. In Richmond a street dose (1/8 gram or an "egg") of heroin sells for $25. Thus a street dealer in Richmond can make $200,000 per kilogram. Once the dealer pays his cost of $85,000 to $100,000, he will realize a profit of 100 percent or more per kilogram.. The government of a country with legalized drugs has to sell heroin for no less than $20 per street dose, to cover the pharmaceutical manufacturer's production costs. The government has to deliver a consistently safe strength per dose, and therefore it cannot purchase drugs as an illegal drug trafficker can. Meanwhile, the drug dealer who purchases his drugs from illicit sources that operate with no quality controls or safety standards can cut his price to $15 per street dose, underselling the government and realizing a smaller profit. He still makes money and the addicts purchase cheaper, and, in many instances, more potent heroin from the street dealers. The attitude implicit in a culture of drug use and acceptance in the Netherlands has played an important role in its becoming the world's top supplier of Ecstasy. Legalization has produced a drug-addicted population that has crippled the economy. In the summer of 2002, the legislature of the Netherlands reversed two decades of legalized drugs by passing laws to recriminalize drug distribution and use in order to protect its citizenry. Current Approaches Work The current approach in our country of tough drug laws, coupled with effective education programs and compassionate treatment, is producing success. It is a myth that there has been no progress in our anti-drug efforts. Overall drug use in the U.S. has dropped by more than one-third since the late 1970s. That means 9.5 million fewer people are using illegal drugs. During the past 15 years cocaine use has plummeted by an astounding 70 percent. There is still more to do. Drugs remain readily available, and a recent household survey on drug abuse revealed that an increasing number of American children are experimenting with designer drugs such as Ecstasy. As long as we have despair, poverty, frustration, and teenage rebellion, we're going to have problems with drugs. We must remember that our methods are achieving success. Less than 5 percent of the population - or 16 million people - regularly uses illegal drugs. Emerging drug threats such as Ecstasy and methamphetamine will require even more resolve and innovation. We need a renewed dedication by all Americans to help our children stay away from the misery and addiction of drugs. Innovative approaches to address the problem include drug courts, community coalitions such as the Richmond Drug Free Alliance, more investment in education, more effective treatment, drug-testing in the workplace, and drug counselors in schools. These ideas work. What doesn't work is legalization. Alaska Tried Legalization It's a well-kept secret that legalization has been tried before in this country. In 1975, Alaska's Supreme Court held that under its state constitution an adult could possess marijuana for personal consumption in the home. However, in a 1988 study, the University of Alaska found that the state's teens used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. In 1990, Alaska's residents, fed up with the dangerous experiment of legalization, voted to recriminalize possession of marijuana. Legalization was not the answer for the Netherlands or for Alaska - nor is it for the rest of America. Legalizing drugs is simply surrendering. It's giving up on the hope that future generations will be drug-free and abandoning those people in the grip of addiction. Isn't every life worth fighting for? Joe Dombroski, a Richmond-area enforcement supervisor for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, is a 2003 Commentary Columnist. Complete Title: Tough Enforcement Succeeds: Record Shows That Drug Legalization Is No Solution http://cannabisnews.com/news/15/thread15736.shtml

The pimp has to rip his t shirt off to get away from her, of course he is having trouble, I'm not sure why you can't understand that or think that he is having trouble walking, if you are suggesting that it was unfair and that he was an easy target cause he was drunk or something then I disagree, if anything I think he was either perfectly straight or on PCP or some shit. IMO he got what he deserved and I find it entertaining and satisfying to watch. In the first video we have some crackhead saying to someone else (quote) "I advise you don't want to beef with me, oh your mad cause I'm styling on you, plus the cal is on me (gun) so act up and you goin to have to fucking lay down" then WHACK Bahahahahaha .. beautiful... once again, poetic justice. The second vid is a little more brutal and a little less humorous, I found it when looking for the first and decided to throw it in for good measure, I have no idea how you can say that it's not certain that he's rapping and says only six words, are you kidding or what? He says (quote) "throw a beat on.. I't's obvious I'm hot, it's obvious you cold, (blah blah blah) my aim is the game and I got it in control when I flame" Whack.. "pussy" Maybe not funny to you but I at least see the irony in someone getting KO'd while arrogantly telling the world how great they are, it is a sickening punch and it's kind of hard to laugh though.

I think they are hilarious, if you don't see the irony/humor in someone rapping about how tough they are and trying to humiliate someone and getting knocked the fuck out in the process then I feel sorry for you. (Edit: they are related to Kenny's previous post of a retarded wannabee rapper, perhaps you missed it? It's on the previous page) The pimp seemed to be walking fine before that, I don't know what your talking about. (talk about poetic justice.. that was beautiful to watch)

Rappers getting knocked out http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=r...emb=0&aq=f# http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=r...rapper+gets+kn# Pimp gets knocked the fuck out, best knockout ever, watch this asshole try to get up and walk http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=p...pimp+gets+knoc#

Try looking at the first one but when you turn away look at the palm of your hand.. Like I said screen must be maximised though.

Thinking of going in a reptile suit and hounding him at question time.

HALLUCINATE WITHOUT THE USE OF DRUGS (Maximise the screen size & get close)

I don't know who you are and can't remember ever arguing with you, you have a lot of posts though so I'm guessing you've changed your username maybe?? *shrugs* Either way I wont be getting into any arguments, I'm trying to keep my posts to a minimum. You reckon I'm misquoting you? Ok.. Here's what you said "If you look at the history of drug prohibtion, you'll see that drugs are mostly illegal out of fear (often racist fear)" Can you please explain what you meant by that? Specifically where the "racism" comes into it?? Thanks. "Essentially your argument seems to boil down to "most people are stupid and can't look after themselves and the rest are evil and will take advantage of them". If that's the kind of world you live in, I'm really sorry for you bro. But I don't see it that way." I can see how I've misquoted you, it wasn't intentional, I am sorry but you are misrepresenting my views too, please don't. Edit: Creach? You have changed your name.. I just checked my PM's.. I wouldn't say we have ever argued about anything, I'm sorry you see it that way.

How are drugs mostly illegal due to "racist fear"? "everyone who wants to use drugs does so already. Well managed legalisation will simply reduce the risks associated with doing so." This has already been discussed in other threads, I can easily disprove what you are saying right now.. The cocaine in Melbourne is shit, far too expensive and very hard to get, if cocaine became legal and freely available I would be a cocaine addict that very same day whilst I currently am not and I can think of a whole lot more people who would be too. Crack cocaine is virtually non existant in Australia! I doubt that there is even one lonely crackhead in this whole country, but if it became legal there would no doubt be crack heads all over the place. If heroin became legal and freely available I would probably start using again although I have been clean for nearly 6 years, heroin is vary rare in some states and by legalising it you would increase use! You can quote all the studies you like.. what you are saying is simply not true and you don't have to be a genius to work that out!! Making drugs "pharmaceutically pure" would make people more likely to use them too in some cases, if I knew I was going to get real coke instead of novacaine & baking soda for example I would be an avid consumer and IMO there is fuck all risk in the shit that gets passed off as coke anyway so harm minimisation is only an excuse to do more harm in this instance, "clean" freely available cocaine would not save any lives IMO, but would certainly ruin a few.. There are a lot of problems with what undergrounder said too but I CBF pointing them out, this issue has been thrashed out many times, not least of which in THIS thread, I find it hard to watch people write things that are wrong, stupid, etc without saying something but I'm just going to have to learn.. I'll let you guys get back to it now but I can see this boiling down to another one of those "alcohol is legal so crack & meth should be too" threads.

nicely put

Yea, sorry, I got a bit carried away.

It's nonsense and it's a rash generalisation because you said "THEY" have no problem spitting on homosexuals instead of saying "SOME (people who call themselves) CHRISTIANS", get it?? If I said Jews are greedy instead of some jews are greedy there would be hell to pay, people who dicussed this shit with me recently were waiting in vain for me to fuck up and make a generalisation like that about muslims or jews and one ended up lying about it and making shit up that I never even said, but if someone does it about christians there's no problem at all, they don't even notice... Never mind, if you don't get it by now you never will. I will just leave it off on this note. The next time anyone thinks they have an expanded state of consciousness, think about this and the reactions it stirs in you when someone puts down judaism for something that is perfectly rational like the fact that it is a racist, homomophobic, religion that glorifies the rape and murder of innocent children.. I mean really think about it, it may help to brainstorm the word jew and see what you come up with, maybe you will find the words "victim" "holocaust" Nazi's" "persecution", "antisemitism" etc will come up and and if you dwell on it long enough you may find an unconscious deeply ingrained feeling of guilt and hesitation in the pit of your stomach at the very thought of criticising them.. Even though this criticism may be well founded, now think about it.. Are you really so enlightened or are you just brainwashed like the rest of us? EDIT: " its all about interpretation of the text " No it's not about interpretation of the fucking text.. I'm so sick of hearing that. It's about taking it in it's entirety or picking and choosing the parts that you like, there's no way that you can interpret the above verse that I posted any other way than it was meant to be.. Literally! How the fuck else are you supposed to interpret this? (the other people here who have parroted that same statement are welcome to answer that question too if they dare) Even if you interpret in numerically there's no excusing it. "Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." I'm sick of hearing this usual line that "it was not meant to be taken literally".. Yes it fucking was!!! Are you telling me that you can put a positive spin on that verse? This I've got to hear.. (please understand that I am trying to make this my last post so I probably wont respond, but I wont be surprised if you (that means everyone who has ever said that to me, the dude, etc) avoid that last question all together)

No thanks, I wont be E-bashing anyone. (edit: oops, I couldn't help myself ) Muslims are only permitted to kill 'Infidels' in situations where 1) they need to defend themselves from a life threatening attack 2) the 'infidel' or neighboring pagan tribe ect... has broken a treatie agreement. I'm no scholar but that's the gist of it. - those reasons sound pretty reasonable to me. I wont be debating anything either but I would urge you to research these things a little further.. I have looked into it quite a bit so as I'm sure you will understand I have read similar things, probably the same articles that lead you to this conclusion. I have looked at the information presented from both muslim apologists and those on the other side of the coin and to be honest, there are a lot of lies and propaganda from both sides and it is easy to be mislead. For example the people behind the popular series on dispatches called 'UNDERCOVER MOSQUE' are a zionist think tank called 'Policy Exchange', jihad watch is run by jews, jew watch is run by white supremacists and so on.. Though there may be some hidden agenda on either side, that doesn't mean that all the information being presented is not true, it just means that you need to question the motivations of those who are giving you this information. The only thing I have found to be dishonest from the undercover mosque documentaries is that at least one of the quotes was probably taken out of context, but most of them can not be excused regardless of their context, as I'm sure you will agree there is no proper context for an imam saying things like "take the homosexual man and throw him off the cliff" (unless they were talking about helping him with handgliding or something ) There was also some controversy about the receipts from the purchase of certain hate material too in that film but I watched an interview with the film maker and I believe he cleared it up sufficiently. So in short.. there is some dishonesty on both sides and intent to mislead but the conclusion that I have come to is that it is mostly on the part of the apologists for islam who lie and deceive us into thinking that islam is a religion of peace. There are some peaceful & tolerant verses that can be quoted from the days of islams infancy which make it out to be a peaceful religion but one must take into account the latter verses and the hadith (life of mohammed) which are believed by most muslim scholars to over ride these previous peaceful verses, islam is a contradictory hypocritical creed so by cherry picking quotes it is easy to make it look peaceful but that is not the whole truth. For example: "he who wrongs a Jew or a Christian will have me as his accuser on the Day of Judgment" "Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." So as you can see if a muslim says that the koran forbids muslims to harm jews, they are not exactly lying but are they being deceitful and not telling you the whole truth? You decide.. You may find this hard to believe but my views on islam, judaism, etc were not predetermined by a will to find an excuse to hate someone, nor can anyone rightfully call me ignorant about these matters, I have made some anti islamic, anti judaic statements which I stand by but no one here can rightfully accuse me of going off half cocked about something I know nothing about. I think majority of the population (politically correct idiots who can't think for themselves) assume that "antisemites" and "islamophobes" must be ignorant people who know nothing about these faiths but I think I have proved (at least to myself) that this is not the case, it is usually those who stick up for these faiths who are ignorant ones. I disagree with your statement about what islam allows in regards to killing but will not get into a debate about it now, this will be my last post in this thread but I think it would be healthy for you to look at this from a different angle, try watching this for a start: http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=i...islam+what+the# EDIT: "I don't see either of those words used anywhere in the original post. The point as I saw it was that Theists are hypocrites full stop, Christians just happened to be the target group today." You obviously haven't been following the other threads about religion lately My point was that people are quite happy to criticise christians but are terrified of uttering the word "jew", they use the old testament to criticise christians while most of these dickheads don't even know that it is actually better known as the Torah and is the holy book of the jews, so all the shit slung at christians should also be directed towards jews and in many cases should not be directed towards christians at all because many of them condemn this book and don't believe it had anything to do with the teachings of jesus. Not only should jews be criticised over the torah but the talmud too.. It is now acceptable to criticise christianity but totally taboo to criticise judaism when in fact the truth of the matter is that christianity is a far better religion than judaism no matter which way you look at it and only a fuck head who knows nothing about either would say otherwise!! You say that christians just happened to be the target group today.. Well I have seen other days when they have also been the target group but when was the last time that anyone other than myself ever made jews or muslims "the target group" on this forum? And what was the reaction when I did that? A lot fkn different that's for sure.. Don't you get it? Don't you see the problem here?? You mention the apparent redundancy of the O.T which is all good and well. Just tell me, when are Christians going to realize that ? I mean, when it comes to a debate about the horrors of the O.T God they are happy to say " Oh... But Jesus came and now its all ok ! we are good people now " When will people realise that like I said many christians believe that the OT has nothing to do with the teachings of jesus at all (despite the attempts in the new testament to try to link jesus to the lineage of david to give him credibility as the moschiach), but it is impossible for a jew to distance themselves from the "old testament" even if they say they are not religious cause that which defines them as being "jewish" stems from this disgusting waste of paper known as the torah. Other than that, they are quite happy to spit at Homosexuals, force black people to sit at the back of the bus, deny women of equal employment opportunities. Also, my only comment in regards to Rape and Murder would be that the good majority of Murderers and Rapists confess before the courts to being ' Christian ' in western countries. Typically in the USA (sorry I don't actually have the source at hand for that tid bit) You can read into that how ever you want though. And yes... The sitting at the back of the bus thing and all that, it ended decades ago for the most part. Why though? It certainly was not an initiative of the Church of Jesus Christ! That's for sure! You are making a statement that is worse than any I have ever made about any religious group but most people will be too stupid to realise that, the last idiot I tried discussing this with had to lie to in order to make it look like I was making rash generalisations about religious groups but I don't have to lie about you doing it.. Take a good look at what you wrote, it is total fucking nonsense to begin with.. Not all christians spit at homosexuals and make black people sit at the back of the bus but if I wrote something like that about jews all the politically correct idiots would be all over me in no time.. think about it.. do you see the double standard here that I am trying to point out? Christian fundamentalists think that they are more enlightened than all the rest of us whilst we are all aware of the fact that they are totally fucking deluded and you guys are criticising them for that, but I think it's time you see it from my point of view and get a taste of your own medicine... Many of you (not all of you) think you are enlightened beings with a more "expanded state of consciousness" than the rest of society.. but are in fact just a bunch of drugged up, wacked out deluded weirdos which makes you no better and not much different to christian fundamentalists IMO.. And the irony of this is not lost on me that's for sure...

Top Ten Signs Your A Fucking Idiot 10 You have no problem with someone quoting violent verses from the old testament to criticise christianity, yet your vag starts bleeding uncontrollably when someone does the same thing to criticise judaism. 9 You are so fucking stupid that you don't even realise that the old testament is actually the "holy" book of the JEWS and is condemned by many christians. 8 You have no problem criticising christians for being intolerant of other religions yet you are unaware of the (far worse) religious intolerance found in the "holy" books of islam and judaism directed at christians. 7 You demonise those who try to point this out to you and label them as "islamophobes" & "antisemites". 6 You dont see the blatant hypocracy in this. 5 You have no problem criticising the teachings of a man who (if he existed) was probably on par with the buddha as two of the most peaceful men in history yet you demonise and label as "islamophobic" anyone who tries to point out that mohamed was a theiving, mass murdering, pedeophile warlord who cut off the heads of innocent women and children and urged his followers to commit similar heinous acts and is responsible for many of the problems that afflict the world to this day. 4 You are so incomprehensibly stupid that you see it as wrong to criticise a religion that calls for you to be killed. 3 Your flawed, generic sense of morality that you think makes you so superior to those who you label "antisemites" & "islamphobes" also condemns racism, homophobia, sexism, rape, murder, etc but you are so unbelievably fucking stupid that you don't see the paradoxical hypocracy in this which makes it impossible to be against religious intolerance and racism, homophobia, etc if the religion itself preaches these things. 2 You think your moral stance on these issues is infallable and that those who you label as "antisemites", "islamophobes" must be ignorant fools yet you are baphled when you find that you are unable to debate these issues with someone who fits the bill. 1 The previous 9 points describe you to a tee but you still think you have a superior sense of logic & reason to christian fundamentalists. Feel free to have a go at me and feel safe in the knowledge that I wont respond and highlight your stupidity because I refuse to be dragged into a shitfight with idiots ever again.

That video doesn't work for me.

Shhh.. your not supposed to do that...

I've never been a huge alex jones fan, in fact I often felt like jamming his megaphone up his ass. Even though he tends to sensationalise things a little, from what I have seen so far this is still largely factual and one of the most important films ever made as far as I'm concerned.. very timely and I hope it gets more exposure than that zeitgeist bullshit which sadly was the most watched film on the internet. I haven't seen all his films but I do agree that this is one of his better ones, although he did apologise and said it was rushed. I don't know exactly what was going on at that hotel with the firetruck.. I thought it dragged on a little there and I tuned out but the rest of it was quite good IMO. RE climate change... I think socrates put it best "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." I'm not sure what Alex Jones has had to say on the matter (I'm assuming it's along the lines of this: 'GLOBAL WARMING OR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE?') but I have seen strong evidence for both sides of this argument. I know that 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' is a fucking disgrace, intentionally deceptive garbage and IMO the syphlitic little rat who made it should be shot!! When it aired here there was a panel discussion on ABC (the network which aired it) and I looked up the names of the "scientists" on the pannel who were arguing that global warming was not real, it turned out that they were all petroleum geologists who at some stage in their life had worked for major oil companies (something they did not disclose to the audience). What is much harder to debunk is some of the conspiracy theories regarding "global warming" because though it may be hard for many to accept.. HAARP. is all too real! See 'HOLES IN HEAVEN' - narrated by Martin Sheen Sadly they have a point, whether it is man made (by pollution, HAARP, whatever) there are some (club of rome etc) who have decided to capitalise on it and use it as a means to further their agenda, just like they did with terrorism. It seems that the same people who fucked the environment (and own the fed) Rockafeller standard oil, etc are often the same people behind green groups and their land grabs and means of control are mascerading as conservation, etc BEHIND THE GREEN CURTAIN EDIT: I just saw the part you were talking about in reference to global warming.. damn, I spoke too soon, that fucked up the whole thing IMO, that guy spoke the truth up to that point but Alex Jones made a mistake allowing him to state his opinion as fact, there always has to be something to fuck it up doesn't there? Zeitgeist would have been fine if it wasn't for the first two parts, so would this if it wasn't for that shit about global warming, both film makers fucked up and put a lot of people off by diluting facts with bullshit and theory, how sad

To be fair, it's not just christianity that causes people to do this sort of thing, it's stupidity and superstition in general whether it takes the form of christianity or not, Papua New Guinea would be the best example of this, many people (often little kids) are regularly killed there after being accused of sorcery, every time someone gets sick someone has to die in some villages apparently cause they have to blame it on someone.