Cocaine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rubberchikken wrote: »

My opinion but I think only weak easily led people do drugs.
I consider anyone who does to not be worth bothering about and I wouldn't give them the time if day never mind listen to or endure their feeble attempts to convince me that it's a fun, relaxing, whatever thing to do.

As I posted elsewhere, the lad killed was a waste if space and no loss to this world.

Anyone who thinks it's cool to take illegal drugs us sadder than sad .

My opinion and nothing will change it.

Everybody's weak. People who need alcohol are weak. People who need Netflix are weak. People who need Man UNited/Liverpool/Arsenal/Shamrock Rovers are weak. People who need to eat meat every day are weak.

Different people relax in different ways - who are you to judge?

Strumms wrote: »

You might make it a safer product and go a ways to obliterating the criminality associated with it but it will never be a SAFE product. By making it easily accessible you normalize it and will have more people using... more people using while driving, more people using it when they are working, more people addicted and ALLL the issues that brings, destruction of relationships, romantic and family, socially, health...it’s filth... the second most addictive drug out there after heroin...forget it, keep it illegal.

All the aforementioned problems too...who fûcking pays the bills, hospitals, treatment, Gardai etc... fûck em, keep it illegal, it’s a selfish twats drug.

Is anything 100% safe?

Who pays the bills for the Saturday night A&E / Gardai round-ups?

nthclare wrote: »

It'll be cool eventually to have the balls to be out for the night and be clean and sober.
Imagine that a new high, being strong and sane enough to be able to enjoy one's self without a high or come down after.

No need for drink or drugs, just being stable.

There's fun in that but it takes years of recovery and unknotting that spiral of intoxicating mind ****s and chemical imbalance ain't easy.

I have been there throughout the 90's up until 2003 and its been a long struggle but fck me it was worth the time it took to get well.

Im no angel, still have the addictive personality and surfing big waves and diving off cliffs is dangerous and can be stupid, but I prefer to do stupid things while not intoxicated...

It's not a "need". Getting down to the basics, what does a human being really "need"?

I hear you when you say you've been in bad places and power to you for recovering, but there are people who can use and enjoy and not abuse or need.

Deleted User wrote: »

Coke ain't the same as weed or drink and I hate seeing the false-equivalence being used. I've plenty of experience with most things but I was very wary of coke both through my own experience and seeing others.
There's no simple answer. Decriminalisation leading to handier profits for dealers isn't a good answer. Legalisation isn't a good answer. Locking people up for having a few dabs in their pocket isn't a good answer.

Why not?

I've gotten the ine of "it's not the same as drinking" two ro three times in this thread, but no one can actually explain the difference.

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone who needs coke to, er, relax has some issues.

Again, not a "need"; but who are you to judge what someone does to relax?

Doctor Nick

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Apologies for the ignorance - but I don't see how that backs up the argument? rc-bathsalts appears to sell items that are bathsalts or not advertised as bathsalts...?

Sorry. I'll tell you based on my memory. I'll try find pictures of products I used at the time. First time I noticed them in a head shop I asked what's this and was told its a synthetic cocaine. But it says bath salts I replied, what should I do with them. Put them up your nose is what he told me.

While not the most appropriate referencing point, it says it all here:
[URL] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_salts_(drug)[/URL]

They sold synthetic cannaboids as incense also.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why not?

I've gotten the ine of "it's not the same as drinking" two ro three times in this thread, but no one can actually explain the difference.

Well if they're the same wouldn't people just have a drink instead?

Again, not a "need"; but who are you to judge what someone does to relax?

I quoted someone talking about a need.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

pure.conya wrote: »

i read somewhere recently that there's already been back channel discussions going on with south American country's with a view to regulating production and exportation of cocaine in preparation for legalisation, it wasn't on vice or joe.ie or I wouldn't have even looked at it, but I can't find it now

https://www.thefix.com/latin-america-should-consider-legalizing-drugs-united-nations-official-saysyou state its immensely difficult to source or import cocaine, is it really? i think you'll find its the exact opposite abs this is why we're having the discussion about legalisation lol

First link is dead.

You can import the coca leaf, under strict conditions, as a poster mentioned earlier, Coca Cola still import coca leaf's into the US through a third-party. As far as I'm aware, one company in the US has the authorisation to import coca leafs. The need the authorisation from the DEA.

Any importation of coca leafs to Ireland is going to require the approval and consent of the US. I cannot see that happening. It is extremely difficult.

Cocaine is a psychoactive substance that is illegal in much of the world. Coca leafs are not cocaine. Medical cocaine is not the same as the psychoactive substance, though it has uses in hospitals and is made by pharmaceutical companies, it is said to be pharmacologically active, but it won't get you a buzz.

As far as I am aware there are no pharmaceutical producers of psychoactive cocaine.

B.A._Baracus

Taking Coke is mad.
There are documentaries over the years from BBC to even Gordon Ramsey which he sees the farmers make the paste in front of his eyes. They use kerosene to break down the coca leaf and then add Bleach and other chemicals. That's just to make the paste lol.

Then it gets turned into the powder.
Then it gets cut down by various people before you end up using the finished product. Wouldn't trust any drug dealer. Cut it down with babypowder or asprin if they had it.

pure.conya

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Sorry. I'll tell you based on my memory. I'll try find pictures of products I used at the time. First time I noticed them in a head shop I asked what's this and was told its a synthetic cocaine. But it says bath salts I replied, what should I do with them. Put them up your nose is what he told me.

While not the most appropriate referencing point, it says it all here:
[URL] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_salts_(drug)[/URL]

They sold synthetic cannaboids as incense also.

ya the packaging was branding them as bathsalts and incense so they could be imported, in Galway if somebody asked at the counter what to do with them they'd be sarcastically told run a bath or light an incense bowl, they couldn't tell anybody to swallow, snort or roll up anything or the shop would have been raided and closed down in an instant

tuxy

Steyr 556 wrote: »

First link is dead.

You can import the coca leaf, under strict conditions, as a poster mentioned earlier, Coca Cola still import coca leaf's into the US through a third-party. As far as I'm aware, one company in the US has the authorisation to import coca leafs. The need the authorisation from the DEA.

Did the CIA need approval from the DEA when they were importing cocaine in to the US to support the Contra war?

tuxy

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Taking Coke is mad.
There are documentaries over the years from BBC to even Gordon Ramsey which he sees the farmers make the paste in front of his eyes. They use kerosene to break down the coca leaf and then add Bleach and other chemicals. That's just to make the paste lol.

Powerful solvents are used in the manufacture of most drugs including the ones your doctor prescribes.
The chemicals used is not the issue, it's the lack of quality control.

B.A._Baracus

tuxy wrote: »

Powerful solvents are used in the manufacture of most drugs including the ones your doctor prescribes.
The chemicals used is not the issue, it's the lack of quality control.

I highly doubt kerosene is used is the paracetamol I use
It's also not made in a field in the arse end of no where.
It also doesn't get cut down various times and loading up with some other crap.

Am not saying oh look paracetamol is completely fine. But we're talking about two totally different ways of creating drugs

1o059k7ewrqj3n

tuxy wrote: »

Did the CIA need approval from the DEA when they were importing cocaine in to the US to support the Contra war?

Your post might get some likes, but it doesn't change the reality of how difficult it would be to legalise cocaine for use as a psychoactive agent, to import it or produce it in this country.

Legalisation of cocaine is not credible in Ireland.

tuxy

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I highly doubt kerosene is used is the paracetamol I use
It's also not made in a field in the arse end of no where.
It also doesn't get cut down various times and loading up with some other crap.

Am not saying oh look paracetamol is completely fine. But we're talking about two totally different ways of creating drugs

Yeah that's true and I've seen that video with Ramsey.
Removing excess solvent (kerosene) is fairly easy, it naturally evaporates.
It's more common for the crap that dealers cut it with to cause problems than impurities from the production.

pure.conya

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well if they're the same wouldn't people just have a drink instead?


I quoted someone talking about a need.

some people don't like alcohol, some like alcohol too much so they smoke or take mdma when they're out socially, some don't like weed, others dont like coffee, some avoid sugar, others dont like cocaine but love mdma or vice versa, some speed, others ketamime, some cant take lsd but find great benefit from a dose of mushrooms that might last much longer, some might not be able for lsd or mushrooms anymore and instead prefer to take a hit of dmt to experience a whole trip in 10 - 15 mins and be able go to the shop for milk afterwards, horses for courses, set and setting and all that jazz

Deebles McBeebles

Strumms wrote: »

10000%... it’s a complete arrogance inducer. I’ve even know very nice, selfless, reasonable people turn into the biggest self absorbed, argumentative, paranoid, useless and aggressive fûckwits after taking cocaine... horrible to be around.....****èrs drug.

You need to hang around with better people. I have never seen this, never. Like I've said before on here, if you are a pre-existing asshole, coke and/or alcohol will bring it out.

Strumms wrote: »

All the aforementioned problems too...who fûcking pays the bills, hospitals, treatment, Gardai etc... fûck em, keep it illegal, it’s a selfish twats drug.

The taxpayer, like we do with alcohol/heroin/cigarettes and all the associated problems.

Steyr 556 wrote: »

As far as I am aware there are no pharmaceutical producers of psychoactive cocaine.

If there's money in it, they will flock to it like flies on sh*te.

2011

I find it confusing that so many people think that preceding “drug use” with the word “recreational” makes so much more palatable.....

tuxy

2011 wrote: »

I find it confusing that so many people think that preceding “drug use” with the word “recreational” makes so much more palatable.....

And putting "medical" before it would make it less palatable?

pure.conya

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Taking Coke is mad.
There are documentaries over the years from BBC to even Gordon Ramsey which he sees the farmers make the paste in front of his eyes. They use kerosene to break down the coca leaf and then add Bleach and other chemicals. That's just to make the paste lol.

Then it gets turned into the powder.
Then it gets cut down by various people before you end up using the finished product. Wouldn't trust any drug dealer. Cut it down with babypowder or asprin if they had it.

regarding the various chemicals you mention that are most definitely not fit for human consumption, one word takes care of all those nasty chemicals so they're not in the finished product and that magic word is chemistry, by the time labs have the finished cocaine powder there's little to no trace in the coke of the various chemicals used

Ash.J.Williams

2011 wrote: »

I find it confusing that so many people think that preceding “drug use” with the word “recreational” makes so much more palatable.....

that confuses you?

pure.conya

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I highly doubt kerosene is used is the paracetamol I use
It's also not made in a field in the arse end of no where.
It also doesn't get cut down various times and loading up with some other crap.

Am not saying oh look paracetamol is completely fine. But we're talking about two totally different ways of creating drugs

nice, i see your point, I also agree that we would all be beter off if cocaine and other recreational drugs were produced in professional lab conditions

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if they're the same wouldn't people just have a drink instead?

Because some people don't like alcohol. Or find it boring. Or just dont' drink. Wide variety of reasons.

It's a bit niave to think that everyone needs the same thing to relax.

I quoted someone talking about a need.

Fair enough. But just highlighting that there isn't automatically that need.

2011 wrote: »

I find it confusing that so many people think that preceding “drug use” with the word “recreational” makes so much more palatable.....

It's because people think use and abuse have the same menaning when preceeded by the word drug.

tuxy

pure.conya wrote: »

regarding the various chemicals you mention that are most definitely not fit for human consumption, one word takes care of all those nasty chemicals so they're not in the finished product and that magic word is chemistry, by the time labs have the finished cocaine powder there's little to no trace in the coke of the various chemicals used

Yes but acetone is used in the production of many medical drugs and acetone is certainly not fit for human consumption. Solvents are usually used to make a hydrochloric mix, the excess solvent is volatile and evaporates.
Of course production in clandestine labs adds risk but I still think the nasty stuff the dealers cut drugs with is a far greater danger.

xckjoo

Steyr 556 wrote: »

First link is dead.

You can import the coca leaf, under strict conditions, as a poster mentioned earlier, Coca Cola still import coca leaf's into the US through a third-party. As far as I'm aware, one company in the US has the authorisation to import coca leafs. The need the authorisation from the DEA.

Any importation of coca leafs to Ireland is going to require the approval and consent of the US. I cannot see that happening. It is extremely difficult.

Cocaine is a psychoactive substance that is illegal in much of the world. Coca leafs are not cocaine. Medical cocaine is not the same as the psychoactive substance, though it has uses in hospitals and is made by pharmaceutical companies, it is said to be pharmacologically active, but it won't get you a buzz.

As far as I am aware there are no pharmaceutical producers of psychoactive cocaine.

Ya the US would likely be the biggest hurdle. If I remember right they've historically put massive pressure on poorer countries to enforce the "war on drugs" by doing stuff like with-holding aid (and probably more direct pressure). I doubt they'd stand by while a country like Ireland set up legal trade agreements.

It's more of an interesting thought experiment at the moment. I'm in favour of legalisation and regulation of all drugs, but I know it's not straightforward and there's definitely complexities in terms of social and political outcomes that are difficult to predict. The current approach doesn't work though. That's fairly obvious.

tuxy

xckjoo wrote: »

Ya the US would likely be the biggest hurdle. If I remember right they've historically put massive pressure on poorer countries to enforce the "war on drugs" by doing stuff like with-holding aid (and probably more direct pressure). I doubt they'd stand by while a country like Ireland set up legal trade agreements.

Why do the US do this? In what way does it benefit them?

sbsquarepants

2011 wrote: »

I find it confusing that so many people think that preceding “drug use” with the word “recreational” makes so much more palatable.....

A cup of coffee is recreational drug use ffs

I find it baffling how so many people can look at the arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal drugs and not see it for just that - a completely arbitrary distinction.

tuxy

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A cup of coffee is recreational drug use ffs

I find it baffling how so many people can look at the arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal drugs and not see it for just that - a completely arbitrary distinction.

Exactly, I don't understand how anyone can argue that alcohol is not a very dangerous drug. Just look at the death toll. However if you look at the prohibition period in the US you can see it is considerably safer when legal.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Because some people don't like alcohol. Or find it boring. Or just dont' drink. Wide variety of reasons.

So... they're not the same?

Doctor Nick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So... they're not the same?

Alcohol has caused more misery in this country than Coke ever has. I became chatty on Coke. I became a violent fecker on alcohol. So I stopped drinking. Took a long time to learn it didn't agree with me.

I can't do any drug now because I have an addictive personality. I'd say the majority of people don't have this problem and could do it in moderation.

pure.conya

tuxy wrote: »

Why do the US do this? In what way does it benefit them?

US "aid" money gives them access all areas pass in the cocaine producing countries and opportunity to work with the cartels, follow the drugs you get drugs dealers and drug addicts but follow the money and you don't know where that's going to take you

pure.conya

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A cup of coffee is recreational drug use ffs

I find it baffling how so many people can look at the arbitrary distinction between legal and illegal drugs and not see it for just that - a completely arbitrary distinction.

2 or 3 coffees had me as wired as pure base speed, granted i won't be up for 3 days after 2 or 3 coffees but I'm as wired temporarily. many have a tolerance built up so they don't feel 2 or 3 coffees at all but that doesn't make it any less of a strong drug

pure.conya

tuxy wrote: »

Exactly, I don't understand how anyone can argue that alcohol is not a very dangerous drug. Just look at the death toll. However if you look at the prohibition period in the US you can see it is considerably safer when legal.

and the fact alcohol features in a very high percentage of all physical and sexual assaults, accidents etc.

ah but sure, drink feic arse i suppose

Doctor Nick

Doctor Nick wrote: »

Alcohol has caused more misery in this country than Coke ever has. I became chatty on Coke. I became a violent fecker on alcohol. So I stopped drinking. Took a long time to learn it didn't agree with me.

I can't do any drug now because I have an addictive personality. I'd say the majority of people don't have this problem and could do it in moderation.

More people drink than do coke so obviously sheer weight of numbers will do that.

Good for you though. I don't touch anything myself either.

LaFuton

i heard it exacerbates pre-existing conditions such as assholiosis

chrissb8

Deleted User wrote: »

More people drink than do coke so obviously sheer weight of numbers will do that.

Good for you though. I don't touch anything myself either.

To be fair about 8/10 of people who I know who drink have had some dodgy, skin of their luck get away with it stuff happen to them in the past. From fights, to falls, near misses or embarrassing or near ruining their life in one night.

The other 20% are people who barely drink and save it for an odd occassion.

The sheer numbers would probably have a few stories themselves to say as well.

Doctor Nick

LaFuton wrote: »

i heard it exacerbates pre-existing conditions such as assholiosis

Alcohol certainly does do that

xckjoo

tuxy wrote: »

Why do the US do this? In what way does it benefit them?

I could speculate but it's hard to without sounding like a conspiracy nut . Off the top of my head I'd put my money on a combination of 1) puritan sensibilities, 2) political objectives, 3) nefarious monetary reasons and 4) genuine desire to protect people from addiction

tuxy

xckjoo wrote: »

I could speculate but it's hard to without sounding like a conspiracy nut . Off the top of my head I'd put my money on a combination of 1) puritan sensibilities, 2) political objectives, 3) nefarious monetary reasons and 4) genuine desire to protect people from addiction

They must know that they are exacerbating the problem, they have the info to back that up.
Because of the way they run the private prison system in the US they do have to fill the cells somehow. Harsh drug laws is the easiest way to do that.
In some states people have received a life sentence under the three strike rule for position of cannabis.

seamus

pure.conya wrote: »

so somebody who went halfs on a bag for €50 so they could relax on a night out, deserves to be put under the strain of €500 worth of debt that could see them fall behind on bills, rent etc, savage craic

If €500 is going to break the bank, then they should probably think twice about putting €25 into the pockets of murderers. It's not rocket science.

If you're caught buying stuff that's not illegal from criminals, you can find yourself in hot water. Why shouldn't buying drugs off criminals be treated any differently?

Creating a legitimate market for these things is another discussion entirely, but the lack of one doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to those who are directly funding drugs gangs.

The cartels in South America wield more power than the governments, in some cases having their own private militias. Because they were allowed to operate and gather money unchecked for a long time. We can't allow the gangs here to continue making more and more money.

We know that targetting dealers doesn't work. We know that criminalising users doesn't work. But if we make it really easy to catch users and really expensive to get caught without criminalising them, maybe we can make a short-term impact.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

If €500 is going to break the bank, then they should probably think twice about putting €25 into the pockets of murderers. It's not rocket science.

If you're caught buying stuff that's not illegal from criminals, you can find yourself in hot water. Why shouldn't buying drugs off criminals be treated any differently?

Because you don't have the option to buy it legally.

Creating a legitimate market for these things is another discussion entirely, but the lack of one doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to those who are directly funding drugs gangs.

The cartels in South America wield more power than the governments, in some cases having their own private militias. Because they were allowed to operate and gather money unchecked for a long time. We can't allow the gangs here to continue making more and more money.

Very simple soloution....

We know that targetting dealers doesn't work. We know that criminalising users doesn't work. But if we make it really easy to catch users and really expensive to get caught without criminalising them, maybe we can make a short-term impact.

This depends: what exactly - in one sentence - is your ultimate goal here?
And why?

xckjoo

seamus wrote: »

If €500 is going to break the bank, then they should probably think twice about putting €25 into the pockets of murderers. It's not rocket science.

If you're caught buying stuff that's not illegal from criminals, you can find yourself in hot water. Why shouldn't buying drugs off criminals be treated any differently?

Creating a legitimate market for these things is another discussion entirely, but the lack of one doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye to those who are directly funding drugs gangs.

The cartels in South America wield more power than the governments, in some cases having their own private militias. Because they were allowed to operate and gather money unchecked for a long time. We can't allow the gangs here to continue making more and more money.

We know that targetting dealers doesn't work. We know that criminalising users doesn't work. But if we make it really easy to catch users and really expensive to get caught without criminalising them, maybe we can make a short-term impact.

That all sounds nice but human nature being what it is it's just not going to do much. We should all eat healthier, exercise more, etc., etc., but we're a flawed creature. Better to try and work within our contraints to improve the outcome than to wish things were different and try and force it.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This depends: what exactly - in one sentence - is your ultimate goal here?
And why?

I would think it's obvious.

Saving lives.

seamus

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This depends: what exactly - in one sentence - is your ultimate goal here?
And why?

Ultimate goal? As the man above me says; save lives. Reduce the money flowing into criminal hands, reduce the market for cocaine, reduce the money to be made in it.

It's a short-term measure, but necessary because the real solutions are not quick. Whatever about following the US model to legalise cannabis, legalising cocaine is a very different matter entirely. It's not something the government can just click their fingers and do.

It's kind of funny that at least 2 people read my post and assumed my intent was to clean the streets of drugs. I support fining people for purchasing illegal drugs in the same way that I support fining people who buy stolen phones and tellies.

The fact that you can't buy drugs legally is a separate matter that can be dealt with in parallel.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

seamus wrote: »

Ultimate goal? As the man above me says; save lives. Reduce the money flowing into criminal hands, reduce the market for cocaine, reduce the money to be made in it.

It's a short-term measure, but necessary because the real solutions are not quick. Whatever about following the US model to legalise cannabis, legalising cocaine is a very different matter entirely. It's not something the government can just click their fingers and do.

It's kind of funny that at least 2 people read my post and assumed my intent was to clean the streets of drugs. I support fining people for purchasing illegal drugs in the same way that I support fining people who buy stolen phones and tellies.

The fact that you can't buy drugs legally is a separate matter that can be dealt with in parallel.

So if you want to save lives, why don't you consistently try to stop everything that threatens lives?

Strumms

pure.conya wrote: »

its illegal to drive while on alcohol, can't go to work on alcohol either unless you're a government minister that is but that's for another discussion

regarding its addictive aspects, its actually the 5th most addictive drug after #1 alcohol, #2 heroin, #3 crack, #4 meth, #5 cocaine

The NIDA disagree, as do other experts such as Rehab Spot and the National Addiction Center, to name just three...

MrMusician18

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So if you want to save lives, why don't you consistently try to stop everything that threatens lives?

Ah the we can't do everything, so we should do nothing argument. Well done.

ghost of ireland past

MDMA is basically safe and could be legalised instead of cocaine.

Prof David Nutt says mephedrone is safer than coke, maybe it could be made legal.

Lackey

Andrew00 wrote: »

I'm out on the beer all the time with the lads and never see any cocaine use

Its all blown out of proportion.

That’s cause your old
The young lad here can’t go and buy a drink , fags or even a lighter
But he could get you anything you wanted over Snapchat without leaving the house and this is small town Ireland here.
I can see a return of the drugs marches
Its a scourge.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Ah the we can't do everything, so we should do nothing argument. Well done.

... and in reutrn we hve the "I can't challenge the argumetn so I'm just going bemoan it insterad"

I'll put it more bluntly so: the posters have no interest in saving lives any more than they have interest in the slave trade in a foreign continent. Someone said "drugs bad, mmmkay?" and they don't have either the deisre or ablity to go and research it for themselves and use these as excuses to cover it up.

Big Gerry

If bath salts were still legal we would have a lot less Cocaine use.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

seamus wrote: »

The cartels in South America wield more power than the governments, in some cases having their own private militias. Because they were allowed to operate and gather money unchecked for a long time. We can't allow the gangs here to continue making more and more money.
.

That's not really true. At the greatest extent of their power in Colombia they were still much weaker than the state.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Would it not be more the country of origins fault for allowing the production to take place under their noses? Colombia has 392,897.5 acres of land for coca growing (according to a 2017 Business Insider article which I can't link as I'm on my work PC, and those kinds of searches may not look well if ever checked). That's a lot of land, should the Colombian government not be overall responsible?

The Colombian state has spent decades trying to erradicate cocaine. Thousands of police officers, soldiers and judges have died as a result. Funnily enough, it's hard to get rid of an insanely profitable product.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... and in reutrn we hve the "I can't challenge the argumetn so I'm just going bemoan it insterad"

I'll put it more bluntly so: the posters have no interest in saving lives any more than they have interest in the slave trade in a foreign continent. Someone said "drugs bad, mmmkay?" and they don't have either the deisre or ablity to go and research it for themselves and use these as excuses to cover it up.

What are you on about?