dodgy pilltesters?

[melancholic]

i disagree that the testers "do have serious limitations". as big trancer stated, the testers give you a YES/NO answer, which is all you can ask of them.
you can then go on to look at the statistics stated by JB, that 84% of pills contained MDMA and no other active ingredient. while that stat may have been attained using a small range of media, you can add common sense and general knowledge to the equation. MDMA synthesis is expensive, time consuming, and very illegal. it is not beneficial for a manufacturer to put other chemicals into pills that already contain MDMA - while i know this is speculation and that there are definately exceptions, think about the numbers brought up by JB and use common sense. i think it highly unlikely that the selected pills used in the test dont give a reasonable indication of the other pills out there.
Then you can add up the number of people who have used the testers and complained about them versus the number of people who have successfully used them. My tester has never done me wrong and i know a great deal more people who have never been done wrong either.
those three issues are enough to indicate that a tester is by far the best indication of whether a pill contains MDxx, bar sending it off for lab testing. pretty good odds if you ask me.
[ 28 February 2003: Message edited by: melancholic ]

 

[randomblondeboy]

having to listen to jjj all day due to my current job, i must say i was happy that news report was pulled after it aired only once, and later in the day JB was on the news correcting even more shonky journalism...top work dude

 

[Rayda]

Whether you belong to 'the establishment' or you belong to the 'user group', the use of floored data to prop up arguements is manipulating statistics for your own ends.
Cate Quinn's findings as they have been presented to us by JB, showed 84% of pills seized contained MDMA only. This is an UNKNOWN AMOUNT of pills and of UNKNOWN ORIGIN and from Victoria only. You can't say at this stage, that it is representative of the pills that end up in punters pockets around the country.
JB himself, said in his talk, that Enlighten found that 60% of pills tested at Earthcore were MDMA (I think he meant MDXX!). This means that 4 out of ten pills were NOT 'E' at all. And who knows how many of the 60% were actually MDMA? If we can use Quinn's stats, why can't we look at these too. Chances are, they'd be more representative of the state of the pills that the average person is getting after they've been through the hands of dealers.
IMO, the market is flooded with adulterated pills and MDXX combo's which test up purple/black. I'll admit that I'm just speculating too as I have no figures to back this up. But my 12 years of experience with pills does tell me something. I'm also in contact with many first-time users who pills are testing up purple/black but they are not exactly getting a classic E-experience. And you can't put this down to loss of magic. Also, although I don't personally put a lot of worth in the findings of pillreports, you can note a lot of changes in the last 18 months or so.
In the history of street drugs, I don't think there's ever been one that hasn't ended up being adulterated in some way or other. Why should E be any different? And to suggest that most of the pills around today may be MDMA only, shows very little understanding of the illegal drug trade.
It will indeed be very interesting to see the results of lab testing in this country if we ever get it (unlikely under a liberal govt.) Being the skeptic I am, the bottom would have dropped out of the market by then.
Thanx for reading, if you made it this far

 

[johnboy]

*shrug* I'm "manipulating statistics" and you are "just speculating too as I have no figures to back this up". We're on the same side, tho, so what does it matter?
Pick any random number then, call it a percentage, and I'll state that I think more pills in Aus are MDxx, and you can say that I'm wrong and less are. One of us is trying to argue for the sake of it, and one of us is actually searching for answers. Talking to your mates about the old days, and denying that tolerance might actually be happening to you, isn't very constructive. I guess we just give up and say that's the way it will always be, huh?
What I'm trying to do is combine the scientific data which is just trickling thru to us, with this anecdotal evidence that you, I, and everyone else here has been collecting for years. Where's the problem? I could justsit around and wait for a government change, but I'm not. We're putting together the groundwork for change to happen, now, or later. I have no idea what you mean by "the bottom falling out of the market", but if you think MDxx is going away you obviously are looking in an interesting crystalball.
[ 03 March 2003: Message edited by: johnboy ]

 

[Rayda]

The tolerance arguement is an important one but it's not relevant to me right now. I don't have a tolerance.
Look JB, I'm not argueing for the sake of it. I commend you on the work you're doing with Enlighten, it's very worthwhile. But just because I'm not involved in your particular brand of activism doesn't mean I'm not searching for answers too.
But I'm not going to just leap at the first statistic that comes along without thinking about it. Who knows it might turn out to be very representative of what's out there but then again, it could be completely off the mark.
I guess the point of this was to see if you would keep an open mind about it and accept debate. But I've got my answer now. No surprises there I'm afraid.
I think the problem is that you're just too used to talking to people like the media for example, who know very little about drugs. And you then make assumptions that everyone knows nothing. And you also seem suprised that everyone pro-drug wont just automatically agree with you.
Shame about that because other than that I think you're doing good work.

 

[johnboy]

hang on. when did i stop being able to debate? isn't that what we are doing? it's just hard to do that if we are just talking about opinions. and without data that's all we can do.
either we take what data we can lay our hands on (and no i am not relying totally on that one statistic, it's you who seem to be fixating on it), or we can go back and forward about what we believe to be the truth.
i only mentioned that statistic because it was the first time we heard an honest appraisal of the situation from the the establishment, and it was a 180 degree turn from what they had previously said. no one is trying to say it is the whole truth, just that it is a good step towards the truth.