They’d rather see you die than give you accurate information

That is the ultimate subtext of the prohibitionist. It’s sadomoralism. They talk about being concerned about all the people harmed by drugs, but they have absolutely no qualms at all about harming more people in the name of prohibition.

B.C. police reluctant to release deadly ecstasy pill markings

Police in B.C. are reluctant to tell the public what unique markings are on ecstasy pills suspected to contain a lethal additive linked to five deaths in the province .

That’s because they don’t want users thinking they’re sanctioning the rest of the pills.

A number of people have died taking pills that they thought were ecstasy, but were, in fact, a rare drug called PMMA. The police know how those pills were marked and could save lives, but won’t share the information.


Car Magnet

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to They’d rather see you die than give you accurate information

  1. Hope says:

    It is unconscionable. It’s unbelievably idiotic and just what we’ve learned to expect from prohibitionists. I hope reporters go to the doctors or the families of those that died to see if they can reveal the information that might save a life.

    Of course, a prohibitionists doesn’t really care if someone dies from it, they seems to believe that anyone that might take one of the pills deserves whatever bad can happen to them.

    If someone else dies from the pills, the prohibitionists that made this ridiculously foolish decision should be charged complicit in any death from said pill.

    It makes me wonder if they aren’t sanctioning the poisoned pills… maybe even responsible for them. I wouldn’t be surprised.

    • Emma says:

      Anti-drug wackos putting out deadly ecstasy-like pills, that was the plot of a UK tv-movie from a few year ago. The title was something like “what if drugs were legal?”

  2. Steve says:

    “sanctioning the poisoned pills” – it’s possible. During alcohol prohibition, some prohibitionists thought that booze laced with methanol was a good thing, because it was a disincentive to drinking. In fact, the disincentive didn’t seem to influence anyone other than the guy who was dead.

  3. Kaiser Blade says:

    Brilliant! Prohibitionist as sadists. I love it when someone cuts right to the point.

  4. claygooding says:

    Not to be outdone,when the DEA made pharmaceutical companies put Tylenol in Hydrocodone,not to help with pain but to damage abusers livers,they joined right up with Saddam.

  5. Pingback: Anonymous

  6. stayan says:

    Prohibitionists will doing anything and everything in their power to ensure that the drugs they say are harmful cause as much harm as possible.

    Here’s another confused idiot:

    “Are we making the problem worse by making the drug safer? There should be a fear of drug taking.”

    It is essential that the architects of drug prohibition aren’t allowed to simply ‘get on with their lives’ as if nothing happened. They must be held accountable.

    The people who have endured and continue to endure the cruelty of their policies must not be forgotten.

  7. Paul says:

    “No one does more harm than those who feel bad about doing it.”
    –William S. Burroughs

  8. damaged justice says:

    They’d rather see you dead than effectively treat your pain.

    They’d rather see you dead than let you get high.

    They’d rather see you dead than tell the truth.

  9. JDV says:

    That puts the lie to the idea that the war on drugs is about protecting the public.

    • Francis says:

      The war on (some) drugs was supposed to be a means to making people safer by discouraging drug use. The drug warriors have elevated that means to an end in and of itself. It is truly sickening.

      Some states have controlled substance homicide statutes that punish the seller of illicit drugs when they result in an overdose death. I’ve always thought those laws were outrageous. After all, the seller did not intend to cause harm. In contrast, the B.C. police know that people will die because of their inaction. Does that make them murderers? Maybe not. But it does make them morally repugnant individuals.

      • Windy says:

        If anyone dies for the lack of this information, in my eyes that DOES make them murderers, premeditated, so 1st degree murder.

  10. Dante says:

    “A number of people have died taking pills that they thought were ecstasy, but were, in fact, a rare drug called PMMA. The police know how those pills were marked and could save lives, but won’t share the information.”

    Notice, in Ogden UT, that the death of a police officer brings screeching sanctimony about protecting life.

    Then this report hits the wire. Seems they don’t care about OUR life, just theirs.

    Like I’ve been saying all along:

    Protect & Serve (Themselves!)

  11. Tony Aroma says:

    The purpose of the drug war is to punish people for using certain drugs. What better way to punish them than to let them die? The police’s decision is therefore completely consistent with the prohibitionist position.

  12. Maria says:

    Back in my day I was involved with a Rave Safe spin off group in Western Canada. Most of what we did was pass out drug / health / std info and lots of condoms. Sometimes kids would come to our corner if not feeling well or if they were on a bad trip. Most of the time all they needed was a safe place to sit and rest and a sympathetic if stern ear. We didn’t lecture, but we talked and listened. We did call an ambulance a few times but never the cops.

    We got a lot of flack for our harm reduction first approach. Not all events wanted us there. So when our group started offering on site pill testing? Hit shit the fan.

    From what I recall, after a rash of hospitalizations and a handful of deaths, the organizers wanted to work with the cops towards defined harm reduction goals. They wanted us to test pills on site for just the cost of the kit. We’d actually keep the pill, tell the consumer the results then hand the pill/results over to the police/EMTs after an event.

    The hope was that users would trust us as an anonymous proxy and would be safe from bad pills; the cops would learn what was out there and how much.

    In the end, after a lot of push and pull, all we ended up being able to do was sell the kits at cost (no testing by us was allowed). Then not even that.

    The argument from authority? Exactly the same fucking line “We don’t want it to look like we are sanctioning drug use.”

    It’s so nice to know that more than 10 years on and even more deaths NOTHING has changed in that region of Canada.

    Fuck each and every single one of the spineless, twisted, authority hacks who tow that line.

    • Avoidable Burbles says:

      Fortunately there is some crowdsourced data. PMMA pills have been turning up in Scotland and Spain. Maybe someone dumped them on the Canadian market after a local prohibition?

      The police should be ashamed of themselves.

  13. darkcycle says:

    Methanol to “de-nature” (poison) alcohol. Liver toxins in pain killers. Paraquat on Mexican fields.
    Lets not forget the subtle ways they poison us too….impure drugs of unknown potency allowed to circulate the streets, no safe injection sites (every community would have one if they weren’t BANNED). No standards or pre-consumer testing of any kind.
    If perventing drug deaths were the purpose, they could virtually eliminate the overnight, and they know this. That’s not what they intend, they intend to make it as unsafe and deadly as possible. Just because “Drugs are bad, m’kaaaay”? …..and to prove their point they’ll kill a few kids if the drugs won’t.
    This outrage is “just another brick in the wall”. A wall that’s comin’ down.

  14. Avoidable Burbles says:

    So they’re taking it, getting no buzz, taking more, still no buzz, until it’s too late…

    Ecstasy victims showed extreme symptoms

    Daniel Dahl, 18, who overdosed on the drug last month, is believed to have ingested up to seven tablets. In late November, Alex Kristof, 16, died after taking eight tablets at a house party in the northwest.

  15. richard says:

    Back when i was young here in Vancouver (THE SEVENTIES) you could take your drugs powders tabs etc. to a chemist and leave it with them and phone a few days later and they would tell you what your poision was I myself took advantage of this program by dropping off what i thought was “MDA” ALSO KNOWN AS TODAY’S “EXCTASY” ONLY TO FIND THAT THE DRUG I WAS INGESTING WAS ACTUALLY “PPC” guess who was offering this service The Vancouver Police Department

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Back in the late ’70s early ’80s when our beneficent Federal government was using paraquat to eradimcate merrywanna one could mail a sample to a lab in San Diego (IIRC) and find out if the peasants had rushed out into their fields and harvested their crop. I can’t recall the mechanism or the price but it was anonymous. The thing about that scare which made it very overblown is that it just isn’t that hard to spot immature pot. A substantial percentage of the crops lost to paraquat eradimacation were nothing but leaves.

  16. Servetus says:

    The Netherlands has always offered MDMA verification services. Health there gets the priority every time. When I was in Amsterdam, I saw pseudoephedrine cold tablets sold on a per-tablet basis from coin operated candy dispensers sitting on store counters. For cold sufferers, I presume. The confidence the Dutch government has in their own people regarding drug use is radically different in the U.S.

    The differences in attitudes about drugs aren’t just cultural. Hollanders benefit by stipulations in the Dutch constitution that make the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and other national constitutions and similar edicts look medieval and occult.

    The Dutch constitution makes it clear that part of the government’s duty is to help ensure the happiness and safety of Dutch citizens. By contrast, the American legal system, and now the Canadian system, act as if anything not demanded in the respective constitutions in terms of personal freedom and safety is insignificant or forbidden. Quite a difference.

    For example:

    Article 14 of the Dutch constitution prohibits government expropriation (confiscation, forfeiture) by the government.

    Article 20 of the Dutch constitution says: “It shall be the concern of the authorities to secure the means of subsistence of the population and to achieve the distribution of wealth.”

    Article 22 says “The authorities shall take steps to promote the health of the population.” Subarticle 3 of Article 22 guarantees the right of cultural self-realization and the right to recreational activities. In The Netherlands, it’s laws for people, not people for laws.

    Even though no provision exists in the U.S. Constitution to engage in eliminationism against American citizens, nor in the Canadian constitution for that matter, governments assume such a right when they deliberately put people in harm’s way merely to emphasize the dangers of drugs.

    It’s an insane policy, and whether one calls it eliminationism, sadomoralism, or just plain barbarism, the practice is an affront to everything for which democracy stands.

Comments are closed.