Category Archives: Indoctrination

Forbes: Everything You’ve Heard About Crack And Meth Is Wrong

methhh

By Jacob Sullum

Growing familiarity with marijuana has been accompanied by growing support for legalization because people discovered through personal experience that the government was lying to them about the drug’s hazards. But it is easier to demonize less popular drugs such as crack cocaine and methamphetamine, which in the public mind are still linked, as marijuana once was, with addiction, madness, and violence. Any attempt to question the use of force in dealing with these drugs therefore must begin by separating reality from horror stories.

mettthhh

That is where Carl Hart comes in. Hart, a neuropsychopharmacologist at Columbia who grew up in one of Miami’s rougher neighborhoods, has done bold, path-breaking research that challenges widely accepted beliefs about crack and meth. In his inspiring and fascinating new memoir High Price, he describes both how he overcame his early disadvantages to secure a tenured position at an Ivy League university and how he came to question everything he thought he knew about drugs as he learned to think critically about the issue.

meth_oldman-600x276

Before he became a scientist, Hart believed that people who use crack generally get hooked on it and thereby lose control of their behavior. But when he looked at the data on patterns of drug use as an academic, he could plainly see that only a small minority of people who try crack become heavy users. “Even at the peak [of] widespread use,” he writes, “only 10–20 percent of crack cocaine users became addicted.” According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, just 3 percent of Americans who have tried this reputedly irresistible and inescapable drug have smoked it in the last month.

Contrary to what anti-drug ads claim, Hart observes, addiction “is not an equal-opportunity disorder.” He notes that even rats, whose voracious consumption of cocaine in certain contrived conditions supposedly shows how powerfully addictive that drug is, tend to use it in moderation when they have other options, such as food, sex, or an interesting environment to explore.

worst-antimeth-ad

Crack “gained the popularity that it did in the hood…because there weren’t that many other affordable sources of pleasure and purpose,” Hart writes. “And that was why, despite years of media-hyped predictions that crack’s expansion across classes was imminent, it never ‘ravaged’ the suburbs.”

Furthermore, Hart’s own research with heavy crack smokers found that, in contrast with the stereotypical addict who cannot help but immediately consume whatever crack is available, they frequently rejected the drug in favor of small cash payments or vouchers. He got similar results with meth snorters, even though he deliberately recruited frequent consumers who had no interest in stopping. These findings underline a crucial truth that Hart emphasizes: “The effects of drugs on human behavior and physiology are determined by a complex interaction between the individual drug user and her or his environment.”

metttthhhh

Hart debunks various other misconceptions about crack and meth. He notes that the vast majority of violence attributed to crack grew out of black-market disputes, as opposed to the drug’s pharmacological effects. His studies found that cocaine and methamphetamine do increase heart rate and blood pressure, but the effect of typical doses is not dangerous in otherwise healthy people. He argues that research linking meth to brain damage confuses correlation with causation and fails to show that meth users’ cognitive capabilities are outside the normal range. And in case you were wondering, “There is no empirical evidence to support the claim that methamphetamine causes one to become physically unattractive.”

Read more >>>here<<< ********* drug-abuse-is-bad-drug-war-is-worse

Well Shucks!
Do you really think that Bigotry, Paranoia, and Tyranny has been propagating lies about how bad drugs like Meth are to maintain public support for their persecution and grievous oppression of an unpopular minority of Citizens????

Well DRRRRR! OF COURSE THE NASTY BASTARDS HAVE BEEN!
That’s how evil powers justify violating such principles as our personal sovereignty and property rights over our own bodies and our right to peacefully pursue our own happiness… at our own expense.
I salute Carl Hart for his bravery in presenting his observations which challenge the popular prejudices and delusions of the Status quo, and Forbes for running this story.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing.
We need to expose the war on Drugs for the Brutal tyranny and injustice that it is and empty our prisons of innocent people, and remove such revenues streams from the vicious Drug Cartels and gangs… exactly as ending Alcohol prohibition achieved.

Read my blog post >>> The New Jews… Meth Users.

and >>> New Prohibitions. How our Police and Government work for Criminal Gangs.

And >>> Historic battles. The Libertarian struggle against Drug Prohibition. Why BZP should have been kept Legal.

and >>> Drug users fill New Zealand jails

And >>> What you should know about Drug Prohibition.

And >>> The Child Casualties of the Jihad on Drugs.

And >>> Prohibition is a Bad trip!

And >>> A Transitional Drug Policy

Update: 13-10-14 …
Meth hitler

METH HEAD ALERT: Report statest that Hitler used crystal meth

Babes and Ball Crushers.

1003146_608278955869727_820295380_n
Nice! A Beautiful woman taking full advantage of her Femininity.

The following is an exert From a ‘New Statesman’ article…

‘Of course all men don’t hate women. But all men must know they benefit from sexism.’

“This is going to hurt. In the past few months, it has been almost impossible to open a newspaper or turn on a television without encountering a story about another under-age girl being raped, another female politician harassed, another trans woman murdered. But as women, girls and a growing number of male allies start speaking out against sexism and injustice, a curious thing is happening: some people are complaining that speaking about prejudice is itself a form of prejudice.

These days, before we talk about misogyny, women are increasingly being asked to modify our language so we don’t hurt men’s feelings. Don’t say, “Men oppress women” – that’s sexism, as bad as any sexism women ever have to handle, possibly worse. Instead, say, “Some men oppress women.” Whatever you do, don’t generalise. That’s something men do. Not all men – just some men.

This type of semantic squabbling is a very effective way of getting women to shut up. After all, most of us grew up learning that being a good girl was all about putting other people’s feelings ahead of our own. We aren’t supposed to say what we think if there’s a chance it might upset somebody else or, worse, make them angry. So we stifle our speech with apologies, caveats and soothing sounds. We reassure our friends and loved ones that “you’re not one of those men who hate women”.

What we don’t say is: of course not all men hate women. But culture hates women, so men who grow up in a sexist culture have a tendency to do and say sexist things, often without meaning to. We aren’t judging you for who you are but that doesn’t mean we’re not asking you to change your behaviour. What you feel about women in your heart is of less immediate importance than how you treat them on a daily basis.

You can be the gentlest, sweetest man in the world yet still benefit from sexism. That’s how oppression works. Thousands of otherwise decent people are persuaded to go along with an unfair system because it’s less hassle that way. The appropriate response when somebody demands a change in that unfair system is to listen, rather than turning away or yelling, as a child might, that it’s not your fault. And it isn’t your fault. I’m sure you’re lovely. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a responsibility to do something about it.

Read more >>>here<<< if you must. ^^^^Whiny Pseudo-Feminist Bullshit Saith I! Esp in New Zealand and the West. We are not talking about the severe oppression of woman in Islamic nations. The feminists in those countries are *Real Activists for equality* fighting *Real Sexism*. We are talking about the Delusion of oppression in countries like New Zealand, Australia, Brittan, etc. Countries in which We actually have the reverse! Woman get special treatment. We have Laws which give Woman advantages and oppress men. Most of what the feminists in western nations bleat about is not about oppression but about Freedom! They are typically Butt ugly Lefty Hot-woman haters and Ball crushers... Notice how the article attempts to lay collective blame upon *all men* as complicit in this 'Sexual tyranny'. Notice how it attempts to nullify the truth... that it is only *a minority* of men who rape, etc. funny-feminist-meme-girl

Pseudo-Feminists seek to De-sex themselves and Men… yet they still want men to treat them like ladies and to be Manly…. It’s utter confusion!
Its a travesty!

boobs

Equality means Woman should be prepared to be hit on at work and have their breast comment on and to allow men to have titty calendars up in their workshops… and to hear sexist jokes because that’s freedom and equality.

I’m not suggesting Men ought to behave like that but that such behaviour does not represent ‘oppression.
Most of the time it’s just light humour of the same sort as Men poke at each other.
At worst it’s just bad manors and crass.

Men dont care if woman have Calenders of ‘half naked men in their office… or tell feminist jokes or get hit on by female co-workers….

Of course it is the right of employers to govern such things as Calenders, etc in the work place and to foster a culture where everyone feels comfortable .
What I am griping about is the new culture of Complaint when a feminist goes into a Man’s domain and then complains to Management about a Girlie calendar on a Guys work station.

sexism3

Feminists make up a large percentage of the Vocal support restore and to maintain the prohibition of prostitution, and to ban Pornography… which are Laws which remove woman’s rights over their own bodies.

fem4

*What feminists want is not equality and freedom* but Special advantages and to oppress men for being men.
It sux and it makes woman into ugly He-woman… a type of transvestite!

fem 3

I am not saying *All large plain Janes are like this. Many are not.
Many are not bitter and twisted Men haters.
Yet There is a good reason why Feminists are stereotyped as Big fat ugly women with bad attitudes.
Why these particular types Hate prostitutes and strippers.
Hate beautiful woman being ogled at.
It’s because they are driven by *Envy* and lack of self esteem.
They blame Men and Hot chicks for their own obesity!
Truly most Western feminists are uglier on the inside than on the out!

I’m not even suggesting woman ought to be prostitutes, strippers, or Porn stars.
I am saying that such things are within their legitimate rights and liberties.
I’m a Christian and as such I believe sex workers *devalue them selves*… yet because the world is the way it is… I can appreciate and respect why they do it.
I have far more respect and admiration for sex workers than for Dole bludgers.
To my way of thinking a dollar earned by sex work is an honest Dollar, as it allows them to take care of themselves and to provide for their kids, etc.
You see plenty of woman take full advantage of their beauty and femininity… as Models, Promo Girls, and in the entertainment industry.
Many get rich and famous because of it.
The reality in the West is that most of the so-called Feminism in the movement is not about getting equal rights for woman. Its a Bogus ‘charade Feminism’… a Front… for large numbers of Fat, ugly, Nasty woman to hate on Men and their more beautiful contemporaries who have taken the trouble to Keep them selves in shape and looking their best… and wield formidable Sexual power.
(Take care Babes… The love of Money… and power Corrupts!)

amy lee palmer
Kiwi Model Amy Lee Palmer

fem 2

There are no Laws in NZ which says Woman must accept lower pay than men.
There are no Laws in New Zealand against woman becoming Mechanics and Engineers, Truck drivers etc.
The fact is that for what ever reason woman choose not to engage in these types of occupation.
This disparity is Freedom at work.
The fact is that you ought not to require Political coercion to achieve a higher order of civilisation.
If some people think this is wrong then they ought to try and start a cultural revolution via preaching and sharing their values and vision, not to lobby for restrictions on Liberty.
If ultimately they are ignored because Society does not desire to change or embrace their opinion
that’s simply ‘Hard Cheese’ for them.
They have no legitimate rights to impose their opinions upon society via Anti-freedom legislations.

glasses

Like most men I Love woman!
In my dealings with them at work and in my private life I attempt to treat them with the utmost respect no matter whether I find them attractive or not.
I take care not to allow myself to be governed by my own sexual drives and opinions.
I respect competence, intelligence, ethics, and nouse.
IMO A woman’s attitude is what is the most important thing.
A sexy woman with a nasty, demanding, Cold or Narcissistic attitude is *Not sexy!*…. she’s a Monster as far as I’m concerned.
And a woman who may be considered plain or overweight is far more appealing when they are happy within themselves and not consumed with envy and jealousy… when they actually enjoy being treated as an equal… laughs and enjoys Boys being boys in her presence… takes no offence at Blonde jokes, and does not get nasty when Men take notice of beautiful woman.
That is an emancipated woman.

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Read more about this here >>>> The mother of Invention?

Feminism, Lisa Lewis, and the death of romance.

Meet a Real Feminist with a legitimate cause here >>>> “If I don’t speak, who will?” Malala Yousafzai, 14

I’m a Real Feminist myself! >>>> Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions

Et tu Brute? What is Scientism: William Lane Craig

Et_tu__Brute_by_Deino

Take care in whom/what you trust…

Read more… The Rusty cage of Scientism

Faith, Science, and Reason. The Pomposity of Atheism.

Science goes Ga Ga! The Spirit Temple-Material Interface. The Human Brain.

David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

Superstition

The wise man build’s his house upon the Rock of God’s infallible word!….

Read more>>>The Divine Rock of Revelation<<<

Richard Dawkins Produces Another Theist: Proslogion

laura_keynes

Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, “I’m a Direct Descendant of Darwin…and a Catholic.” Now the title didn’t surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1

You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.

However, as I read the article, I couldn’t help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:

I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldn’t dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, I’d tried and didn’t get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.

I don’t think that’s the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:

I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.

Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people don’t do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are “coloring” the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the “coloring” and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.

When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.

Read more >>here<<

The Zombie God Of Atheist Evolution. Re: Math Magic and Ultimate Mythical Power…..Infinite Probability.

law if infinite probablility.

Still believe your own existence is the result of a series of fortuitous accidents????
I have one word to describe your position….. *Foolishness*.

Read more…

Multiplying Absurdities Equals Certainty… The Math Magic of Modern Atheist Astrologers!

The False Deity Called Evolution.

Update:
No sooner did I post this Blog to an anti-Christian Forum I was met with comments…. “Stop Spamming! you’re just using this page for self promotion”…. ‘This post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Evolution….

My Reply to Atheists:
“Ha! That’s not an argument. just more hot air.
Definitively Ad Hominem …. Instead of addressing the argument you say I am engaged in ‘Self promotion’… Nor is there any need to expand on what I have presented.
It is a simple demonstration of reality.
What makes you cringe is that you know that you are now supposed to argue that what that you believe that what the photo shows…. is possible.
That no matter how this goes against common sense that Math says it is possible….. though improbable….. And yet we all know that this will never happen…. Blind forces of Nature don’t fold washing…. don’t Generate life…. dont turn Germs into people…. You are utterly undone.

Heretic! Defying the Establishment…Secular Excommunication for Free Thinking and Un-orthodox Scientific Research: PHD Welfareism

burning-heretic

Try denying Big Bang Dogma…and see what happens to your career in science..
Try suggesting that Naturalistic Materialism is a blind faith….
Try suggesting Science has not dis-proven the Soul…or Freewill.

Personal Enlightenment… That Glorious moment when the Scales fall from the Eyes of a Sheep blinded by Propaganda…and they See the truth! Cannabis is a Medicine.

sorry

When Realisations like this happen it’s called a personal Enlightenment.
I Salute any person who realises they were wrong about supporting an oppressive Law, and comes clean about it…. and says sorry…esp if they then actively work for the cause they once oppressed…
They Redeem themselves thereby.

Read more here>>>> Dr. Sanjay Gupta comes out in favor of medical marijuana

There is every reason to believe that Western society is at this moment waking up to the follies and delusions which underpin The prohibition of Cannabis and restring it’s reverenced Status as a blessing to Humanity which it previously enjoyed since the dawn of time..

can

Read more…

American Christians using medical cannabis to save their Children’s Lives. Epilepsy .Self help (4)

Medical Cannabis Halts life-Threatening Fit’s and Seizures in Children! Self Help (3).

Self Help. Hands on…Fighting the Demon Cancer (No2). Cannabis cures Cancers

The Folly of Scientism. Austin L. Hughes

scientism-refuted

The Folly of Scientism
Austin L. Hughes

When I decided on a scientific career, one of the things that appealed to me about science was the modesty of its practitioners. The typical scientist seemed to be a person who knew one small corner of the natural world and knew it very well, better than most other human beings living and better even than most who had ever lived. But outside of their circumscribed areas of expertise, scientists would hesitate to express an authoritative opinion. This attitude was attractive precisely because it stood in sharp contrast to the arrogance of the philosophers of the positivist tradition, who claimed for science and its practitioners a broad authority with which many practicing scientists themselves were uncomfortable.

The temptation to overreach, however, seems increasingly indulged today in discussions about science. Both in the work of professional philosophers and in popular writings by natural scientists, it is frequently claimed that natural science does or soon will constitute the entire domain of truth. And this attitude is becoming more widespread among scientists themselves. All too many of my contemporaries in science have accepted without question the hype that suggests that an advanced degree in some area of natural science confers the ability to pontificate wisely on any and all subjects.

Of course, from the very beginning of the modern scientific enterprise, there have been scientists and philosophers who have been so impressed with the ability of the natural sciences to advance knowledge that they have asserted that these sciences are the only valid way of seeking knowledge in any field. A forthright expression of this viewpoint has been made by the chemist Peter Atkins, who in his 1995 essay “Science as Truth” asserts the “universal competence” of science. This position has been called scientism — a term that was originally intended to be pejorative but has been claimed as a badge of honor by some of its most vocal proponents. In their 2007 book Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, for example, philosophers James Ladyman, Don Ross, and David Spurrett go so far as to entitle a chapter “In Defense of Scientism.”

Modern science is often described as having emerged from philosophy; many of the early modern scientists were engaged in what they called “natural philosophy.” Later, philosophy came to be seen as an activity distinct from but integral to natural science, with each addressing separate but complementary questions — supporting, correcting, and supplying knowledge to one another. But the status of philosophy has fallen quite a bit in recent times. Central to scientism is the grabbing of nearly the entire territory of what were once considered questions that properly belong to philosophy. Scientism takes science to be not only better than philosophy at answering such questions, but the only means of answering them. For most of those who dabble in scientism, this shift is unacknowledged, and may not even be recognized. But for others, it is explicit. Atkins, for example, is scathing in his dismissal of the entire field: “I consider it to be a defensible proposition that no philosopher has helped to elucidate nature; philosophy is but the refinement of hindrance.”

Is scientism defensible? Is it really true that natural science provides a satisfying and reasonably complete account of everything we see, experience, and seek to understand — of every phenomenon in the universe? And is it true that science is more capable, even singularly capable, of answering the questions that once were addressed by philosophy? This subject is too large to tackle all at once. But by looking briefly at the modern understandings of science and philosophy on which scientism rests, and examining a few case studies of the attempt to supplant philosophy entirely with science, we might get a sense of how the reach of scientism exceeds its grasp.

Read more>>>> Here:

mad-scientist

Read my take on Scientism>>>>> The Rusty Cage: Scientism.

Science: The New Mythology.

Defunct / Archaic Western Dogma blindly insists : ‘Whatever does not fit the Naturalistic Materialist Paradigm is Illusory’. Entity Attacks

Superstition?

The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP?

Enslaved by your own Gullible Stupidity! Taxation and Tyranny.

tax

Think seriously about this people..
By what right does the government demand to you declare every cent you earn?
Think about how arrogant and oppressive such a demand is!
Tell me please that under such demands that you/we are not *being treated like Cattle…like slaves* of the State!
Are you are so stupid….so conditioned as to think you are free, and that the Status quo is as good as a society as is possible?!!!
You are Slaves indeed!
What a joke it is that you consider State control of Education to be beneficial to society!

Satan Laughing spreads his wings.

Read about an alternative… Tim Wikiriwhi’s Submission to the New Zealand Government’s Constitutional Review. 2013