AD Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 pet peeve: one pot plant is not equal to $1000 and yet the media continue to spread this myth. maybe you need a better marketing department!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau. Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I have one beef with this article....enough with the scare tactic of "it could be cut with anything even poison!"No it wouldn't be because these guys want to make money. They don't want you sick or dead, they want you high so you will come back an buy more.Dead people don't buy pills. Yes they do cut pills, but in my experience they only do that with agents that are fillers and benign. I'm not preaching or against anything here, I've done my fair share of substances thats for sure. And yes, the media loves to stretch the truth. But I find your comment very naive.There have been many proven cases of bad batches of E produced resulting in lethal doses. PMA for one, perhaps not a poison but mixed or cut with certian other chemicals in pressies may as well be poison to most who ingest it. I don't expect the media to report it any other way.To think the people who manufacture the pills actually care about the users is ridiculous at best, they care about the dollars. And there will always be another person they can and will get the money from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondtube Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) faoy, i quoted that at street prices. and i think it WOULD be fair if the author said there was enough pot being produced annually at the old molson plant to finance this type of operation. however, that wouldn't have had the same shock appeal, although would have been more accurate. Edited March 14, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 maybe MK could get you a job, 2ndtube! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcidNintendoOrgan Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 this is great news. i was told what 'group' ran this operation, and its a great hit to these unwelcome fuckers. Ecstasy is unwelcome! This shit(!) can fuck a life up quick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Thats the best part of the whole article. Any teenager that has discovered drugs most likely has no interest at all in a school dance. I know I didn't i dunno, i used to love going to dances all whacked out on all manner of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faoy Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 the molson operation yielded close to that ANNUALLY. (about 15mil annually.)seriously man, no amount of crops will do that....and the time it would take....a 21 million dollar crop would need to yield 14,000 pounds. were not going to get into how many plants are necessary to produce 14,000 pounds of pot per crop. Police said that the operation covered more than 60,000 square feet of space and had been set up to operated 24 hours a day. The site was outfitted with over 1,000 high-powered lights and was capable of producing as many as three or four crops annually.The "factory" that operated around the clock and was capable of producing $100-million worth of marijuana annually, likely destined for the international market, had been in operation for at least one year, said OPP Deputy Commissioner Vaughn Collins.Sources: Toronto Star. “Pot bust biggest ever. Marijuana grown in former brewery. Operation had dorm for workers.†January 12 2004 // Globe and Mail. “Pot bust worth $30-million, police say.†January 12 2004 // Toronto Star. “Police stunned by grow-op's sophistication. Say millions spent on brewery reno. 'Factory' pot worth $100M a year.†January 13 2004faoy, i quoted that at street prices. and i think it WOULD be fair if the author said there was enough pot being produced annually at the old molson plant to finance this type of operation. however, that wouldn't have had the same shock appeal, although would have been more accurate. Look I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass and I think we’re both happy about the bust but you’re the one who said it was the Molson people and then went on to suggest it was silly the media was spinning the pot stuff from the ecstasy bust. Just because the media didn’t suggest the connection, or maybe they did, doesn’t make it any less legit. I didn’t hear the CTV report but if your facts are true I have no problem with the media highlighting the connection between marijuana, organized crime, and ecstasy. If they earned $100 million from the Molson operation and were never arrested I don’t think it would take much to produce $21 million profit in ecstasy. I’m also guessing they probably have a few Molson size operations functioning in Ontario that will go unnoticed. And I read that the marijuana industry in Canada is a $10 billion market annually so I think there’s enough money to buy all the other drugs.So yeah I think there are enough grow-ops to fund $21 million profit in ecstasy ... easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Honestly, I don't need a fucking babysitter. I would like to have the option of legally buying ecstasty should I so choose to partake of it again. Allowing drugs like alcohol and pharmeceuticals to be legal and outlawing ecstasy and other substances does not follow a clear and discernable logical path. I am a self-directed being with morals and values of my own choosing. The government has no right to choose what I can and can not do with my body, as long as I harm no others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 but...you might need a babysitter/nurse after your brain and body's all melted into goo inside from the shit that's in those pills... just saying... i do think the right to choose is important, but teenagers (or adults too really, hehe) sometimes aren't smart enough to know what's enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Yep, one would need a nurse in that case. However, people also need nurses to wipe up after them after they've had a severe adverse reaction from prescribed medication. One substance that caused the necessity of a nurse is legal, the other is not. How does this make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 (edited) yes i expected this reply, of course.but go ahead and fry your brain, i really don't mind! ^^not meaning this personally of course Edited March 14, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 One substance that caused the necessity of a nurse is legal, the other is not. How does this make any sense?btw i'm sure if you really think about this question you will come up with the logical answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I haven't done much E since University (man did I like that line of credit for the three months it lasted!) but if I wanted to get some more I would like to be able to make that choice for myself. People fry their brains and bodies on all the commercially available Pfizer products by their own choice, I'll fry myself in my own way. If I'm going to harm myself then I'm going to have fun doing it, for fuck's sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) We're straddling a very fine line here ladies. Yes, there are a few drugs out there that could use legalization, if only for the sake of quality control, but now you're opening a whole other can of beans. In this particular argument, Pfizer, has been granted the power to fry brains via their product being a government certified entity, passed along to the consumer via the discretion of a professional doctor. Not to say that the whole pharmacuetical system itself isn't corrupt as hell, but for the argument at hand, at least there's some form of certainty when it comes to quality. Are we saying you're not smart enough, educated enough, etc, to make a decision on what you choose to get loose with? Not at all. But, for the sake of the majority of the population who is less educated in these matters and will treat drugs like ecstacy as they treat alcohol, I see no problem with regulations being in place. Edited March 15, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 am i a 'lady'? oh i agree with ya... that the pharmy industry is whacked but i am also in favour of regulation. prescription drugs are issued in order to HELP people cure disease. adverse effects are uncommon and very slight in comparison to the percentage of people that are helped by a drug. comparing a useful medication to a drug like ecstasy which is uncontrolled in its production and the long-term effects of which are not promising, is ridiculous, as is lauding the mass distribution of it to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I'll agree with you again here, but, one thing about Pfizer, when it comes to the production of anti-depressants and benzodiazapines and the like, it becomes another fine line as to whether or not they are pushermen themselves in terms of the "mass distribution of it to the public." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 How about those "tell your doctor" ads?If you tell your doctor, isn't he just a dealer at that point? Doctors get kickbacks from pharm companies for promoting their product. Therefore, the fact that medicine is no longer a service but an industry for profit negates its validity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phorbesie Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 i haven't seen such ads, i don't watch tv. i don't take medecine unless i feel it is necessary. (my doc knows this and acts accordingly.i'm also pretty happy i've had access to meds on dire occasions though!) maybe your doc can prescribe you an x substitute then if you ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 Totally, the list symptoms they drop in those adds is sure to hit home with someone and yeah, you have to go through your doctor, so yes, doctors, psychiatrists, lab technicians all the way up to the CEO of Pfizer could be considered one large constingency of organized crime if you wanted to take it that far. These drugs, however, are a means to a cure, for the most part, whereas ecstacy and other street drugs are a means to getting high. Most of us can keep our shit together when faced, but a lot of people can't and that's why they have to paint a thick line where a fine line exists. And yes, there are people driving around on Xanex and Valium that was prescibed by their doctors that shouldn't be behind the wheel. But, the effects tend to be more extreme and less controlled when it comes to street drugs. That's why it's good to get as close to the source as possible. Smart people don't buy drugs off strangers. I'll agree a lot of doctors can be drug dealers in a sense, in fact, I think that's what my last post summed up, I just think that comparing ecstacy to pharmies and street dealers to doctors can be a bit of a reach and a very long discussion indeed. Maybe one for another time and another thread. I think it's time for me to take my meds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 YATS, you're better than ecstasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/\/illy Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I have three things to say:1. Am I the only one here who wonders what the hell MMDA is?2. I would love bokonon to 'babysit' me. Giddy-up!3. I find this pot-is-great-but-ecstasy-is-evil thing absolutely fuckin' hilarious. Seriously; a complete fuckin' riot! Give your fuckin' heads a shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\/\/illy Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 These drugs, however, are a means to a cure, for the most part, whereas ecstacy and other street drugs are a means to getting high.You think "these drugs.. are a means to a cure?" Do you really think that? Come on now. "These drugs," have nothing to do with curing anything. This is strictly business. Let's not get confused here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bokonon Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I have three things to say:2. I would love bokonon to 'babysit' me. Giddy-up! Anytime, sugar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 These drugs' date=' however, are a means to a cure, for the most part, whereas ecstacy and other street drugs are a means to getting high.[/quote']You think "these drugs.. are a means to a cure?" Do you really think that? Come on now. "These drugs," have nothing to do with curing anything. This is strictly business. Let's not get confused here.What part of "for the most part" don't you understand? And yes, I do think these drugs, while there is a WHOLE lot of shadiness surrounding the pharmecuetical world, are a means, not the whole package, but a part, of curing a variety of ailments. So, all pretentiousness aside, you either have no idea what I'm talking about, or you're the most skeptical and cynical person I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YearsAlongTheSea Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 And let me ask you this: If you were diagnosed with a terminal illness, would you take your little conspiracy theories to the grave?I don't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now