Drug thread: GHB: why the hell is it banned?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Berz:

Is booze only used to make people drunk so you can rape them?

Another reason I dont drink anymore!!

Too many folks would wanna take advantage of an "experienced" 44 year old balding, big belley (although sometimes smelley)



Grandpa Troll

I wouldnt even see them coming!!

[Az]

Zylka: I know about the dosage curve.

Imran: The vast majority of people who use the drug, do so knowingly. It's completely false to portray the situation as if it were the only use for that drug.

[Zylka]

You know Berz.. you've now gone from wild initial arguments to flaming the societal concept of tax, as some sort of hail mary reasoning for not wanting to keep it illegal. I don't know WHERE that came from, but at least you have the common sense to not argue against the many points I've brought up for finally understanding their validity

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Azazel

Imran: The vast majority of people who use the drug, do so knowingly. It's completely false to portray the situation as if it were the only use for that drug.

You're right on that, there is quite a misconception as per its standard use - but that's still way beyond the justified arguments for keeping it controlled. It's also completely false to dismiss the severe extent to which this substance is used to commit rape, and the extension of that reality if made commercially available at its recently starting reputation.

The problem with the former fallacy is that it's an overreaction, the problem with the latter is that G is currently an incredibly dangerous tool for rape. The situation isn't going to magically get better if you choose to ignore current severity and subsequent potential for accelerated disaster.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by rixxe

Oh look! A fancy graph! I'll be sure to take this unrelated hack into consideration on whether or not GHB is a dangerous substance. I'll also be sure to read all of your posts from now on. Promise!

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Zylka


Oh look! A fancy graph! I'll be sure to take this unrelated hack into consideration on whether or not GHB is a dangerous substance. I'll also be sure to read all of your posts from now on. Promise!

Yeah..because the Government NEVER EVER uses Propaghanda to promote or dispel myths/truths to suit them!

I dont think this drug should be available unless prescribed by a medical professional whom knows for sure the side effects.
Will we know the side effects of all drugs? Not for some time unfortunatly

I dont think any drugs should be used to coerce someone into having sex or in this case slipping someone a "mickey" to have your way with them...kinda like a cat eating a dead mouse..still a mouse but the cat didnt have the pleasure of toying with the mouse first!

I support testing and proper documentation to be made public on this and many other drugs.

Herein lies the problem:

It costs a lot of money to test drugs and scrutinize data, whom pays for this? The Big Drugs companies whom in turn wanna get their product tested and approved and on the market...I mean its not like the Lab rats doing the research would "profit" by placing a "favorable-curve" on a product that might not be suitable for the market!

Peace

Grandpa-"Sounding-Off" Troll

[Az]

The problem with the former fallacy is that it's an overreaction, the problem with the latter is that G is currently an incredibly dangerous tool for rape. The situation isn't going to magically get better if you choose to ignore current severity and subsequent potential for accelerated disaster.

There are ways around it. Like selling the liquid drug with a strong dye, for example.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Troll

Yeah..because the Government NEVER EVER uses Propaghanda to promote or dispel myths/truths to suit them!

Oh - am I with the government now? The DEA really doesn't teach us how to fit in with normal folk like they used to

[Zylka]

There are ways around it. Like selling the liquid drug with a strong dye, for example.

Dyes show nothing in dark bottles, taste additives can be quickly removed through freebasing practises that even a monkey can remeber after reading once on the internet (for example)

and when you're selling it in local liquor stores, coffee shops etc. - the increase of consumption sets such wildfire knowledge as available to any idiot through word of mouth: "oh, they do make it taste awful so it can't be slipped in a drink... but weirdos can get around that easily by ~~~, isn't that terrible?"

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Zylka


Oh - am I with the government now? The DEA really doesn't teach us how to fit in with normal folk like they used to

Never stated you were.

I was merely pointing out that because someone puts data down and puts in a nice graph form doesnt make it "legitimate" or the information contained within "founded".

My point was People whom provide data sometimes do so to lend credence to "their" argument or side, when in fact it is "UDDER BU!!$h!T"


Like the Drug War/Propaghanda War-On-Drugs, the Govt has this myth that we are winning or at least staying even. I dont think so, when money is the root, you can't keep pruning the bushes, by taking out a few heads of the Drug World, they be mere Trophies and isnt that pretty much the same thing as a shootout between two rival Drug gangs are doing?..simply removing the competition?

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Zylka]

There's no "winning" of the drug war expected in the higher ups that know how the system works. It's actually about containment pruning, and temporarily going beyond that now and again when funding and/or opportunity lends so.

The win/lose situation is proposed notion of what they expect and what they can/are accomplishing for the simple minds that need and so choose to accept such a myth.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Zylka
There's no "winning" of the drug war expected in the higher ups that know how the system works. It's actually about containment pruning, and temporarily going beyond that now and again when funding and/or opportunity lends so.

The win/lose situation is proposed notion of what they expect and what they can/are accomplishing for the simple minds that need and so choose to accept such a myth.

I hear ya and agree!

Have a Happy Thanksgiving Day ifin you be celebrating such!

Peace

Grandpa "Not-the-only-Turkey-today"-Troll

[Az]

Originally posted by Zylka
Dyes show nothing in dark bottles, taste additives can be quickly removed through freebasing practises that even a monkey can remeber after reading once on the internet (for example)

Dyes show nothing in dark bottles, but glasses aren't exactly dark bottles?

Sell it diluted, with lots of dye. There you go. ( I am not sure about it's water solubility, though. )

and when you're selling it in local liquor stores, coffee shops etc. - the increase of consumption sets such wildfire knowledge as available to any idiot through word of mouth: "oh, they do make it taste awful so it can't be slipped in a drink... but weirdos can get around that easily by ~~~, isn't that terrible?"

Knowledge on how to synthesize it ( not very complicated either ) exist as public knowledge too. It's a very simple molecule.


EDIT: a small typo.

[Dauphin]

Your argumentation sux. It's like saying we should ban fast cars because some badass killed 2 grandmothers when he drived at 200km/h in a town. Stupid.

We ban fast driving. They're called speed limits. That sux, me speeding isn't hurting anyone and I should be allowed to go any speed I want shouldn't I? Oh but wait, speeding often ends up in people getting hurt. Its so unfair that we penalise the safe speeders in order to prevent a few road deaths from unsafe speeders.

[Berzerker]

Zylka -

You know Berz.. you've now gone from wild initial arguments to flaming the societal concept of tax, as some sort of hail mary reasoning for not wanting to keep it illegal.

Just reminding your excellence of what is involved to enforce this ban. Robbery (yeah, it's "legal") on a massive scale, incarcerating tens of thousands of innocent people, increased crime rates induced by prohibition, and all this in the hope of making it a little more difficult for a 100 or so rapists to commit their crimes. Here's an idea, either execute convicted rapists or make sure they serve a very long time of hard labor. That'll reduce rape, not all these "preventative" measures that criminalise the behavior of the innocent...

I don't know WHERE that came from, but at least you have the common sense to not argue against the many points I've brought up for finally understanding their validity

I've addressed your many points so it's bizarre to suggest I'm not arguing against them...

[Berzerker]

Oh look! A fancy graph! I'll be sure to take this unrelated hack into consideration on whether or not GHB is a dangerous substance. I'll also be sure to read all of your posts from now on. Promise!

A graph showing how murder rates reached their highest points during drug wars is unrelated to a debate about the efficacy of banning drugs? Hmm...Btw, you haven't provided any evidence GHB is dangerous... Nor have you offered any evidence rape rates are higher because of GHB...

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Berzerker


A graph showing how murder rates reached their highest points during drug wars is unrelated to a debate about the efficacy of banning drugs? Hmm...Btw, you haven't provided any evidence GHB is dangerous... Nor have you offered any evidence rape rates are higher because of GHB...

But I would offer this to an Intellectual such as yourself:

ANYTHING that would contribute to a predator such as this drug mentioned, shouldnt it be banned?

I know the arguement that we would have to start banning a long list, but this is used by many and afterall its not Tylenol helping with a headache?

I would feel badly if my daughter,sister or wife was a victim by some Jackoff who used this by putting in a cup of coffee or drink.

I am for banning this and would hope any level-headed person would see the downside.

Is there any reason we should have this readily available?


Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Azazel

Dyes show nothing in dark bottles, but glasses aren't exactly dark bottles?

At the bars they most often are. Ever drink beer from a colored bottle?

Sell it diluted, with lots of dye. There you go. ( I am not sure about it's water solubility, though. )

Evaporation + basic chemistry

Knowledge on how to synthesize it ( not very complicated either ) exist as public knowledge too. It's a very simple molecule.

Yeah, but the major precurssor chemical to it isn't simply acquired. Getting a hold of it even in a country as lax as Canada means scenarios such as sending money out to Vancouver for small amounts before being ripped off a large purchase; and having to chase down the suddenly dissapeared "chemist" who just used your $1200 for his meth additiction. Oh wait! I guess these kind of things wouldn't happen if everything was happy happy legalized and the government stopped STEALING our money in that chicanery they try to pass off as taxes!

Your effort is valiant, but it's apparent you're running into complications of this drug you had never thought about before starting this all off. Backpeddling into newly discovered thin reasoning with each mentioned problem is a lot more difficult than just realizing what has been presented against your case as incredibly serious and in the end not bypassable.

[DinoDoc]

Doesn't anyone find it telling that the one person with medical training in this thread called the person asserting GHB was non-toxic a moron?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I've addressed your many points so it's bizarre to suggest I'm not arguing against them...

Actually, from about 2 pages of extensive writing - I recieved a quick diversionary response on how the government is stealing money from you. Don't know, maybe I'm getting used to the style where you take every point apart and address it with a relevant counter idea - not a single, completely abstract Man vs. State complaint that's supposed to somehow solve all the arguments.

A graph showing how murder rates reached their highest points during drug wars is unrelated to a debate about the efficacy of banning drugs? Hmm...

How utterly complex, again.

Drug war does not simply equal GHB

GHB does not equal other drugs

Substance, situation, scale, severity. There are a few fancy keywords that will help remind the reader that talking about one drug in one era is completely different from talking about alcohol in the 1920's - or the plague of heroin and crack whenever.

Btw, you haven't provided any evidence GHB is dangerous... Nor have you offered any evidence rape rates are higher because of GHB...

Well if you're choosing not to read all of my posts, you might find reasoining for that a few ago. Here's an extension of it that people will be happy to selectively criticize without reading the initial:

I simply know more about you than drugs. I unfortunately know more than anyone around here about drug culture. I'm constantly reading scientifically objective, as well as government, as well as user/victim situational updates on such - and learning to balance the three. Not at all trying to dlcksize, as this is a near useless and particularly shameful area in which to be knowledgeable. Yet what I say is simply a reflection of what's going on out there in this illegal industry; of what is accepted by those who lead on both sides of the market (no - I have nothing to do with the leadership, myself).

If you want DEA scare tactics, or irrelevant graphs from Hi Times so ingeniously highlighted with red, you're demanding from the wrong source. Happy researching.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Doesn't anyone find it telling that the one person with medical training in this thread called the person asserting GHB was non-toxic a moron?

Haven't come across too much on definite neurotoxicity myself, but it's insane to suggest it's simply "not dangerous"

Watch me having a grande waking ol time on a cap of G. Take twice that amount yourself, and tell us it's not dangerous when you're in a bag having **** yourself and choked to death on vomit whilst in a coma.

Legalize it!

[Berzerker]

Troll -

But I would offer this to an Intellectual such as yourself:

ANYTHING that would contribute to a predator such as this drug mentioned, shouldnt it be banned?

No, that would include guns, knives, and fill in the blank... Punish the guilty, not the innocent. Now, if I pose a legitimate threat such as pointing a gun at others even if I have no intent to shoot, then others have reason to punish me and I'd agree that posing a legitimate threat should be outlawed.

I know the arguement that we would have to start banning a long list, but this is used by many and afterall its not Tylenol helping with a headache?

GHB is used by many with a select "few" using it to facilitate rape.

I would feel badly if my daughter,sister or wife was a victim by some Jackoff who used this by putting in a cup of coffee or drink.

Me too, and I'd want that guy punished, not the people who didn't commit rape. Think about that. We want the rapist punished, but some want the innocent punished too. How are they any different than the rapist who brings pain and suffering to others? Well, Joe Schmo raped my daughter. Okay, we'll punish him, but we'll put other people who never raped anyone in the same cell with Joe! Does that make sense?

I don't accept the notion that a drunk driver killing someone justifies punishing people who use alcohol. When we go down the road of intentionally punishing the innocent as morally acceptable colateral damage in a war on criminals, we become hypocrites admiring fool's gold for the security it cannot provide...

I am for banning this and would hope any level-headed person would see the downside.

The downside is not eliminated by banning it, and I haven't seen any evidence the downside is even diminished. But the downsides to banning it are numerous and tangible from the thousands of innocent people put in jail to the crime induced by the black market. While the people who want to ban other drugs don't often cite rape as their reason (blacks on cocaine raping white women was the last time I believe), they use essentially the same argument, so once everyone gets to ban their particular evil, we are neither free or secure. So what's the point of giving up freedom for this non-existent security?

Is there any reason we should have this readily available?

The alternative is not the magical disappearance of the drug, the alternative is a number of pathologies that just make us less safe and less free ostensibly in exchange for fewer rapes (although no one on the banning side has bothered showing fewer rapes occured before the drug or after it was banned).