Let's demonstrate some absurdities and render these arguments false and foolish, shall we?
"informed RC fans"
well, give me your opinion on what is good and what isn't.
Because the only ones I have tried are the ones which are renowned as some of the most popular (6-APB, B2 and 4-MEO-PCP)
Yup, cause popularity makes it all okay. According to your posts in this thread, it's reckless to use RCs... unless they are renowned/popular. That's some top-shelf logic there, for sure.
Can't help but laugh at the irony of the word informed, being informed about something that has very low research and most of the time the only information you have about it is the feedback of others!
Except that many of the research chemicals I use are psychedelics, and very many of them have been comprehensively studied by the Shulgins. But that's irrelevant anyway because your argument is fundamentally flawed. Unless you abstain from all drugs, specifically drugs bought on the black market, you cannot speak ill of others' use of any given compound do to 'lack of research' or 'potential for contamination/toxicity', because those factors apply to street drugs just as much.
As for 'relying on the testimony of others', is that not what you're doing when you say RCs are bad, except for when they are renowned? if you use research chemicals at all you accept some risk, but that again applies to drugs bought on the street as well.
By relying on the testimony of scientifically trained individuals such as the Shulgins or Nichols, and supplementing that with the accounts provided by trusted, knowledgeable individuals I am friends with, I am being responsible by *managing* that risk, which is a *calculated* risk. You on the other hand are relying on popularity alone by choosing to excuse your use of 'renowned' RCs, and the 'wisdom' of the crowd does not exceed or even equal the wisdom of knowledgeable and scientifically trained individuals.
Maybe I used the incorrect term, none of the legal highs have been branded! I'm a big researcher. And have been curious to try a couple. These are all bought from reputable sources of vendors from people here on Bluelight.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. My earlier reference to *responsibly* using RCs meant buying only extremely pure compounds sold by their chemical names. Buying branded/brand-name RCs is dangerous, and anything sold explicitly as a 'legal high' should be completely avoided, doubly so if the active ingredients are not specified.
But when you've experienced the tried and tested, sitting in a pub having 6-7 pints (not a marijuana smoker) just for it to wear off and it still doesn't work, you know that the whole legal situation behind it is completely fucked up and it makes you incredible cynical
Still not understanding. Are you talking about drinking and/or waiting for a 'legal high' to wear off?
Seriously, just not for me. And I now look down on anyone who enjoys them because I can't understand why they would develop such an enjoyment from them.
That's fine if they're not for you, though I would wager you have bought a 'legal high' or 'party powder', etc., or some similarly unscrupulous, dangerous, and irresponsible (both as a vendor and as a user) product. Thus you might sing a different tune if you had the opportunity to use a properly-labelled, highly pure RC. All the same, no matter your opinion, talking trash about people that enjoy RCs is just plain wrong. It's rude, small-minded, egocentric, and hypocritical to boot since you've admitted to using 'renowned' RCs yourself.
Tell me, what the hell should it matter to you what I choose to put into my body? Why does my personal choice, which completely lacks any effect on you at all, make you mad/make you look down on me? I'm serious here, I'd like to hear your justification for such an immature and absurd stance.
At the end of the day, I think this all stems from the fact that in a world where protecting it's citizen's importance is a priority, you can order something through the post that can cause more damage than something which is illegal and you can be arrested for.
This is backward in every way I can imagine.
First, protecting my freedom to do as I please is incredibly critical to the continued success of our country. What possible good can come from *not* protecting individual liberty for a country's citizens? Further, in the US, I *don't* have the freedom to do what I want to my own body as long as it doesn't harm others. Examples being street drugs being illegal, gay marriage being illegal in many places (I'm not gay but I want people who *are* gay to have every freedom I have), the illegal nature of prostitution, etc.
Second, and more relevant that gay marriage or prostitution is the fact that RCs *are* illegal as soon as you think about putting them into your body! And indeed they are just as equally illegal as any street drug when I do consume an RC, even if it is legal to possess provided human or animal consumption is not the plan.
Third, how the hell are RCs any more dangerous or harmful than an illegal street drug? Please, enlighten me.
Finally, the integrity of our mail is critical! Would you be okay with the government just opening up your mail on a whim? Because the USPS is federal, they need a *federal* warrant to open your mail, which has a much higher barrier to successfully being requested than a state warrant. Really though, I imagine you would be just fine with the Feds or even just your mail carrier opening and perusing your mail at their leisure, right?
If RCs are banned, I would not care.
Now hold on a minute. You just said that RCs 'can cause more damage than something which is illegal'. So if that we're true, then you would object to them just as strenuously whether they are legal or not, because your objection to them is based in accordance with the level of danger that you perceive them to possess, am I right? Thus either the 'greater level of danger' is a falsehood and a straw-man, or else you are simply incapable of logically persuing an argument. Which is it gonna be then?
And seriously, do you prefer all drugs to be banned? Or all drugs to be legal? Because you can't have it both ways in some ill-conceived half-measure, because an argument for banning RCs or legalization of all drugs is logically built upon an ethical belief in the abstract: either it is wrong to get high, or else it is wrong to stop people from putting chemicals into their bodies when nobody else but the user has the potential to be harmed. So thus take your pick: either all drugs should be legal or they should all be illegal. Or the third option: you've shown yourself to be incapable of sound argument construction and logical deduction... for a second time!
To everybody elss: I don't mean to be an ass, nor am I trying to feed what may be an outright troll. I'm simply demonstrating just how many inconsistencies there are in this fellow's stated opinions. I don't even have to poke holes in his arguments, as the holes are already there, and in seriously large quantities at that!
. Why go to a supermarket and get some when you can find a poorly researched chemical on the Internet to relax in the bath with.
z bags at street value, so kick back and relax in the bath with these crystals… just don’t tell the narcos.
