Meth. Guns and Glory

greasemonkey:

I have said before that I favor a controlled legalization of drugs (not a complete free-for-all), so yes, I'm on the side of meth users. It's OK by me if the violent ones are left in prison. But the non-violent ones oughta be released. Same with gun owners. Only the violent ones should suffer any penalties.

What I'm really for is moving laws and their enforcement back to those laws that have victims when they are violated. Being a victim of your own law violation doesn't count. You can go buy a carp and slap yourself to death with it and that shouldn't end you up in jail.

Delrius_T:

That's pretty much it.

--

The opening post in this thread puts being against meth and for law enforcement in sort of a nutshell, implying you can't be for legalization of meth and for law enforcement at the same time. For the record, I don't have a problem with law enforcement, just the laws as they stand.
 
Invention 45. I am trying hard to understand your point of view. Are you in favor of the decriminalization of all drugs on the theory that you only hurt yourself? A victimless crime as it were?
Should pharmacy grade drugs be provided by a government program, regulated by them and users be registered? Or should these drugs continue to be supplied by street dealers and the consequences be ignored by law enforcement and society?
Our prisons are filled with two-bit pushers and users, but most have done other crimes as well to end up in there. Some of these crimes would not have occured if drugs were legal and available. But you know what? Some of them would have ocurred because of the drugs, even if they were legal or available. Just because some people remain functional addicts doe's not mean that it is a good thing. Ask the family of the man killed in Elk Grove by that meth addict if legalization would be a good thing. Go on, ask his kids too.
 
I just recieved my copy of Unintended Consequences today and a flyer was included......

interesting stuff.

""Have you checked out... the endless loss of individual rights in the name of the drug war? When reformers point to the flaws and problems of the drug war, the warriors' answer is to do more of it. More money. More guns. More authoritarian control. Isn't that the response of all addicts?"

"Our police departments suffer corruption as a direct result of drug prohibition. The most obvious problem is that police officers can make big money dealing drugs, protecting drug dealers, or simply looking the other way. But drug prohibition also creates problems that aren't so obvious."

""Conservatives who care about the right to bear arms should also care about repealing drug prohibition. Besides the fact that prohibition drives the violence that's behind the sentiment to ban guns, drug prohibition and gun prohibition are rooted in the exact same social philosophy. Instead of regulating violent behavior, prohibitionists want to regulate inanimate objects. Historically, gun control is intimately linked to drug prohibition, as when alcohol prohibition led to the gangster violence, which became a pretext for passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act, the first federal gun legislation to apply to the general population. Liberals who are sensitive to the injustices of drug prohibition should also be wary of gun restrictions."

http://www.libertybill.net/dwa.html


What do you think?

He has hit the nail on the head about more authoritarian control.
 
I agree that the war on drugs was and is feel good legislation, and virtually useless. However, to jump from there to saying no narcotics should be illegal is, in my mind not only ridiculous, but dangerous as well. Its funny I just had this debate with a coworker after we attended a clinic on meth lab ID. He's an old hippie from the days when you just smoked a joint, ate a sandwich and took a nap, and all was groovy. He made the same argument. Its all propaganda, they only use the most extreme examples,yadda yadda. I got to where I just figure the hell with it if you havent lived it you have zero clue as to the hell that is meth addiction. You think its all just a put on? By all means go ahead, but when it takes you down, or your kids and it WILL. Because you told them what the cops and others said was all BS. Well I hope you dont spend the rest of your life beating your head up against the wall because folks say AWW it aint that bad. That garbage is like the ring in Tolkiens books. It cannot be used for anything good or positive. I cannot speak on this anymore, it makes me sick ERIC
 
I live in Hawaii---we have the worst ice (crystal meth) epidemic in the nation. Yes, on my island, in "paradise," we have a problem.

Motorcycle theft is the highest in the nation, and auto theft is right up there.

Legalizing meth isn't going to make the problems go away. It's just going to encourage those who already kill and steal to do more of these activities to support their habit, as I doubt with all the drug screening in Hawaii, that they would be able to get or keep a legitimate job.

The problem lies with people, and how they deal with their problems. Some people go dancing. Others go to the gym and lift weights. Yet others go out with their significant others and enjoy their company. Then there are people who don't know how to deal with their problems-- so they deal with it through alcohol, meth, or materialism-- all temporary band-aids for a wound that can only be healed from the inside out, and not vice versa.

CCW is illegal in Hawaii, we're #1 for ice epidemic, and there was recently a police officer who was covertly working with drug dealers to peddle ice across the island.

So if I'm ever approached by an addict, I either give him my money or he kills me. Or, he may kill me anyway, just so that I don't run and call the cops. Aggressively educating the public about meth's effects (brain damage, teeth falling out--- many people I know don't know this!) and stomping the drug dealers out of existence would be great.

Too bad my state is doing neither.

Like someone said before, this thing is a "scourge" to humanity, one of those things that turns ordinary people into mindless creatures. This is a societal issue IMHO more than an economic or physiological one. People need to be trained to realize that there are other ways to deal with the American work week and 50% divorce rate.
 
Sheriff Bill Masters reply in an interview:

Q: Do you not fear an explosion of drug use if drugs were more easily available?

Masters: I always ask people who say that "Are you going to start taking them?" People who want drugs in America can go out and get them right now. This existing situation is the worst possible, the whole thing is driven underground and it's completely out of any sort of government or social control. We have to bring it above ground, away from the criminal element, and have an organized system to distribute it to adults that we will hold responsible for actions. That's what we do with alcohol and you don't see guys in trench coats down at the schoolyard trying to sell alcohol. I think we would have some people who have no self- control and that would be a problem, but we have that problem today.
 
Frankly, if I choose to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, pot, heroin or huff gas it is nobody's business but mine. Our national obsession with minding everyone's business but our own has gotten out of hand. A perfect example of this is a recent case here in Georgia. A person was arrested for not neutering her adopted cat. I'm not kidding. Jailed for not neutering her cat. WTF?

Meth is no different than all the other drugs that everyone gets worked up about every few years. Is it poison? Yes. Does the drug "machine" try to work us into a frenzy to justify their existence and the constant chipping away at our freedom? Yes.

The situation has gotten so bad that I am losing interest in the system as a whole.

GHB
 
Believe me, I am all in favor of the government keeping their noses out of my business.
If you or anyone else wanted to do these kind of things in your own home, go for it. We're all grown-ups. However, this stuff has a way of leaving the home and affecting the community. Legal meth or not, it induces extreme paranoia. On the backside of the high, depression and hopelessness set in. Many users will do whatever it takes to get more and make this go away. This includes burglarizing your house, robbing you or assaulting you.
If someone has an answer besides criminal prosecution, please enlighten me. This is a very thorny problem and it's not going to go away by itself.
 
Solution: Change the chemical properties of meth's active ingredient, ephendrine, so that when it is refined into meth, it turns into a neurotoxin.

I'm serious.
 
Meth on the way out

Interesting thread. There is no doubt that prohibition funds organised crime. You only need to look back at the days of Al Capone to see that. i agree with many posters that legalising and thereby controlling the drug trade would bring more control than the "war" on drugs.

However I have an interesting idea that my cousin from NY put forward. He was visiting recently and being from Australia I says to him "do you feel safe in New York?" and he said "yep, no problem" He then proceeded to tell me that the crack epidemic was the worst time for crime in NY but his theory was that it had killed so many addicts that the problem had "fixed itself".

I wonder how long it will take for the effects of Meth to be fixed firmly in the minds of the general public. When critical mass is achieved, maybe the number of people buying meth will drop dramatically and the drug will be abandoned. You don't hear much about crack these days but that could be because its yesterdays news.

Sadly, if this postulation is accurate, there will be a hell of a lot of people dead and screwed up by the drug and it's social consequences before it goes out of fashion..
 
I beleive that Meth is different from other drugs. It is very cheap to make. Unlike Cocaine and Heroine, meth can be made from chemicals available in stores.

There also seems to be something worse about meth in how fast and drastically it can send someone down. I think someone can recover from coke and heroin addiction a lot better than they could from speed. I see a lot of speed freaks here in Sonoma County, CA, and they get physically damaged in a way that stays for a lifetime. You can pick out a speed freak even if he/she has been clean for years. Sunken eyes and cheeks, horrible dental damage, and nervous/obsessive beahavior like lip chewing and jaw grinding are obvious signs.

I'm not minimizing the horrors of other drugs, but there's just something extreme about methamphetamine. I'm also not a believer of Uncle Sam over-controlling our lives, but I just can't see legalizing hard drugs having a positive effect on the quality of life in our country.

My wife and I enjoy an adult beverage from time to time. I've known pot heads and they live decent and positive lives (usually). I could get behind the legalizing pot thing, but it's not that important to me personally. But I don't like the idea of the hard stuff being legal.
 
Availability vs. Responsibility

Are these the sides to this argument?

Some are saying that ridding our environment of meth will solve the problem.

Others are saying that the problem is not meth but rather the behavior of those individuals who choose to use it.

I vote for the self-responsibility concept myself.

The self-responsibility angle squares with the idea that fire arms don't murder people.
 
My wife and I enjoy an adult beverage from time to time. I've known pot heads and they live decent and positive lives (usually). I could get behind the legalizing pot thing, but it's not that important to me personally. But I don't like the idea of the hard stuff being legal.
Click to expand...
The mistake is in believing that it would be available at the local liquor store or in the checkout lane next to the Butterfinger and Wrigley's.

The idea behind legalization is to take money away from the black market producers. No one's allowed to make and sell Viagra in their home and the same would apply to meth and other hard drugs. These are already Schedule 2 and can be prescibed by a physician but instead of being able to pick up a safe dose from Walgreen's the meth addicts have to give money to the organized crime or gang members that procure it for him.

Solution: Change the chemical properties of meth's active ingredient, ephendrine, so that when it is refined into meth, it turns into a neurotoxin.

I'm serious.
Click to expand...
wtf??
 
Invention 45. I am trying hard to understand your point of view. Are you in favor of the decriminalization of all drugs on the theory that you only hurt yourself? A victimless crime as it were?
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. In and of itself, you are the only victim of your drug use.


Should pharmacy grade drugs be provided by a government program, regulated by them and users be registered? Or should these drugs continue to be supplied by street dealers and the consequences be ignored by law enforcement and society?
Click to expand...

I sketched a system I think would be workable in another thread. But, in as much a nutshell as I can make it, keep them on schedules, rearrange the schedules some, and use the schedules to delineate levels of supervision needed to use a drug.

Examples:

- Pot goes to Schedule IV, along with alcohol. Supervision level is you must be 21 to buy it.

- Hallucinogens stay on Schedule I. You have to use them only while supervised by a doctor or some trained person.

Penalties for non-compliance with the schedule system are fines, so that you might as well pay the doctor.


Our prisons are filled with two-bit pushers and users, but most have done other crimes as well to end up in there. Some of these crimes would not have occured if drugs were legal and available. But you know what? Some of them would have ocurred because of the drugs, even if they were legal or available. Just because some people remain functional addicts doe's not mean that it is a good thing. Ask the family of the man killed in Elk Grove by that meth addict if legalization would be a good thing. Go on, ask his kids too.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for alcohol during Prohibition I. Those who have done other crimes should remain in jail. Those who are there for drug use or sale only should be let out.

I don't really care whether it's a good thing or not. It isn't my business to wag my finger at somebody and tell them to do good.

Ask Sarah Brady if no gun restrictions are a good thing. Get the connection?
 
Solution: Change the chemical properties of meth's active ingredient, ephendrine, so that when it is refined into meth, it turns into a neurotoxin.
Click to expand...

Well, first, the active ingredient of meth is meth. Not ephedrine. It's not refined, it's turned from one chemical thing into another, like turning lead into gold, only different.

One problem with that nifty idea is that, as I've said before, the reason we have clandestine meth labs in the first place is because meth is illegal. So when ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are illegal, somebody will just figure out how to make (pseudo)ephedrine. They won't use the poisoned stuff. And I promise you it will be more dangerous to make both the ephedrine AND then use it to make meth than it is now to just make the meth from existing ephedrine.


I'm serious.
Click to expand...

This sort of shoots the idea of protecting meth users from themselves, doesn't it?
 
I could get behind the legalizing pot thing, but it's not that important to me personally. But I don't like the idea of the hard stuff being legal.
Click to expand...

Just a reminder. Pot is on Schedule I. It is a hallucinogen. Meth is on Schedule III. Medically, that just makes being a serious drug.

The secret to destroying your life using meth (or anything else) is in how you use it.
 
It's not refined, it's turned from one chemical thing into another, like turning lead into gold, only different.
Click to expand...
Understatement of the day I think. :D
Change the chemical properties of meth's active ingredient, ephendrine, so that when it is refined into meth, it turns into a neurotoxin.
Click to expand...
I've reviewed one researchers page that already classifys meth as a neurotoxin, in that it kills neurons in the brain of lab animals.
 
sindawe:

So, what you seem to be saying is that seth's solution has ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

Solution: Change the chemical properties of meth's active ingredient, ephendrine, so that when it is refined into meth, it turns into a neurotoxin.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that ephedrine isn't meth's active ingredient, the above is exactly what they do in a clandestine lab ! (they don't have a smiley face for laughing myself sick).

They change the chemical properties of ephedrine. True enough. When it's refined, which they do to some extent, it turns into a neurotoxin - namely, meth.

Trouble is, this solution didn't have the desired effect.
 
Invention 45

Thanks for answering my questions. I'm still skeptical and unconvinced whether legalization is the answer, but I can see some logic in your reasoning. If people in our society could be trusted to obey the laws and follow the rules as you have laid them out, then what you say could, maybe, work.
However, all people don't follow the rules. In a utopian society, everyone could be trusted with this and nobody would be hurt. In a utopian society, people wouldn't need drugs in the first place.
This problem is not going to go away any time soon, and we are not going to solve it here, so I'm off to another, happier thread for now. Thanks to all.
 
Any time.

All anybody has to do is look at what's in what schedule to see how twisted it is. Things are scheduled according to how likely someone is to want to use it, misnaming that as addictive potential. They are NOT scheduled according to how dangerous they are.

An example: MDMA (Ecstasy) is on Schedule I. A few years ago a medical committee issued a report recommending it be on Schedule III. The politicians decided that too many people use it and put it on Schedule I anyway.

At the time, and maybe now, MDMA was very widely used. Compared to most drugs and alcohol, there were VERY FEW deaths reported. Yet it's on Schedule I.

I'm not for a free-for-all, but there are other ways (like those used with alcohol and tobacco) than sending users to jail.

All these years, the propaganda tecnhiques, detection techniques, enforcement techniques, and legal techniques for denying mostly harmless substances to people have been honed and sharpened. These very same techniques are the ones that will be used to deny us our guns when those who dislike them get into power.

That's why I have said before, and say again, that those supporting Prohibition II but who support the 2nd amendment have shot themselves in the foot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top