Meth. Guns and Glory

Still not much reliable information

Opinion is just that.

I have a feeling, a few of you who think it is OK are tweekers and users. Fine for you but don't make it worse for the rest of the ignorant and confused, growing up and experimenting with legal stuff let alone the illegal stuff.

Pretty irresponsible is my input.

HQ
 
Last edited:
Can't find the cite but here's some solid info.

Actions against local meth labs, controlling sales of ephedrine products, and the like are having an effect. Success right?

Wrong. Better quality meth, mass-produced south of the border, is picking up the supply side slack. Which is now enriching the large gangs which control production, importation and distribution respectively.

Thus turning what was a horrific local problem into a bigger, harder to stop or deal with, horrific organized national problem.

Way to go Prohibition. :rolleyes:
 
Harley, that comes pretty close to being libelous.


How {expletive deleted - Anti} DARE you!

Try to make your arguments on facts and logic like the rest of us.
 
Close but no cigar.

I dare and stick by it, if the shoe fits wear it, if it dosn't discard it.

Just like JKD, use what is useful and discard the other.

If you are not one, then it should not offend.

Many have copped to using on this thread and they are the ones I am talking to.

Sorry the truth hurts.

Invention_45, your opinions are facts and logic? You are not one of our representitives that will be voted in and out every few years. You are a person behind a name that is not yours just like I am.
I have not checked your profile but mine is honest. So is my signature.

HQ
 
Last edited:
Many have copped to using on this thread and they are the ones I am talking to.
Are they bums and sociopaths that have ruined their lives and commited crimes against others? Is it so hard to believe that people are capable of enjoying drugs without becoming addicted or throwing their lives away?
 
I dare and stick by it, if the shoe fits wear it, if it dosn't discard it.
Just like JKD, use what is useful and discard the other.
If you are not one, then it should not offend.
Many have copped to using on this thread and they are the ones I am talking to.
Sorry the truth hurts.

This, folks, is an example of what happens when a person is incapable of making a reasoned argument. He/she resorts to personal attacks and innuendo.

You'll hear this sort of "argument" again. You'll hear it from the gun-grabbers when they call you "gun nuts", even if you don't own or have never owned a gun but agree with the right to do so.

Invention_45, your opinions are facts and logic?

If what I say is not factual or is not logical, show me, rather than imply I'm a drug user for the opinions I hold.

George Will has advocated drug legalization. Does he strike you as a drug user?

You are not one of our representitives that will be voted in and out every few years.

And I wouldn't have such a job it it were handed to me on a silver platter.

You are a person behind a name that is not yours just like I am.

I don't get your point. Most people here are the same in that respect.

I have not checked your profile but mine is honest. So is my signature.

I'm not sure what that means, but OK.

What you've seen here is called "stereotyping". One of its effects is that it assumes you can't think a certain way unless you belong to a particular class of people. It's a great way to halt the exchange of information. It is used to discount what others have to say about a subject because of their presumed status.

I haven't seen anybody admit to being a drug user here. The closest was the poster (forgot his name) who admitted to being a FORMER user. His status as a FORMER user doesn't make his words less sound. In fact, he's actually BEEN there and, as long as he isn't plainly irrational, should have his words considered with more weight than most.

Some of us (like me) have KNOWN several heavy drug (and meth) users in the past. We know better than to think that even the bulk of meth users end up like the cherry-picked "faces of meth" (fact. see where I quoted the guy who picked the "faces" above admitting so). Some who might be seeing these posts are cops and I'm sure they've run into meth users who are mostly ordinary people and maintain ordinary lives, just like they run into meth users with ruined (by my standards) lives, and just like they run into alcohol users with ruined lives (fact. they even have a website).
 
Harley,

So you are syaing that a guy like Sheriff Masters is ignorant or confused about the issue? That maybe he experiments with drugs?
 
written by Doctor Benson B. Roe

The widespread propaganda that illegal drugs are "deadly poisons" is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana, cocaine or heroin. If these substances - most of them have been consumed in large quantities for centuries - were responsible for any chronic, progressive or disabling diseases, they certainly would have shown up in clinical practice and/or on the autopsy table. But they simply have not!

More than 20 years ago when I was removing destroyed heart valves from infected intravenous drug abusers I assumed that these seriously ill patients represented just the tip of the iceberg of narcotic abuse. In an effort to ascertain what proportion of serious or fatal drug-related disease this group represented, I sought information from the San Francisco Coroner. To my surprise he reported that infections from contaminated intravenous injections were the only cause of drug-related deaths he saw except for occasional deaths from overdoses. He confirmed the inference that clean, reasonable dosages of heroin, cocaine and marijuana are pathologically harmless. He asserted he had never seen a heroin user over the age of 50. My obvious conclusion was that they had died from their. habit but he was confident that they had simply tired of the drug and just quit. When asked if the same were basically true of marijuana and cocaine, he responded affirmatively. That caused me to wonder why these substances had been made illegal.
 
Invention_45

You are the one who has twisted this and applied one small line to include yourself and the sheriff and all the other ways, to manipulate the story for your arguement.
Sorry it won't work with me.

Some it might, but I have just seen to much of the good the bad and the Ugly.
I checked your profile after making my last post, are you even interested in firearms. LOL.

Enough with you. Honesty is the best policy and the way you are corrupting this is a shame and a Sham.

It reminds me much of a person who has not posted much of late and his handle was Lead Council.
I am getting a familiar read in your posts. Sorry that is what I see and I have not attacked you, you are attacking me.

To argue for arguements sake is fine.

But you are not who you purport in my opinion. So like I say, enough of you.

HQ
 
Compared with the peak years of the late 1970s, government statistics show that drug use is down in the United States. Over the past several years, use of illicit drugs among adults has been stable, and over the past decade the use of illegal drugs by workers has declined by more than half. Teen drug use has held steady for the past four years after rising sharply in the early 1990s. Teen use of some drugs, such as LSD, methamphetamine and cocaine is down somewhat, but use of other drugs like ecstasy has increased, according to the University of Michigan's annual "Monitoring the Future" survey.
 
Guns and Gangs and Meth Continues

Sacramento gone wild.
Ok here you are sorry.
HQ:cool:

Three weeks, 10 gunshot slayings
As county's firearms violence and homicide rate rise, experts worry: Is this a blip, or the start of an ugly trend?
By Dorsey Griffith and Christina Jewett -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 am PDT Monday, April 3, 2006
Story appeared on Page A1 of The Bee
Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

Jai Anton Westbrook. Hector Manuel Barrera. Michael Daly. John Johnson. Ralph Joseph Reynoso. German Mendoza. Jack Maurice Lawrence. Carlos Gene Morales. Gamaliel Ortega Torres. Phuong Van Le.
All 10, six still teenagers, were shot and killed in Sacramento County within a three-week span last month.

The spate of gun violence might be a blip, or it could signal that last year's surge in gun violence marked the start of an ominous trend.

The number of gunshot victims taken to the UC Davis Trauma Center rose 20 percent in 2005, and the first three months of 2006 show a similar increase.



James Ramirez was the first shooting victim of the year, killed by an unknown assailant on the doorstep of his South Land Park home just before dawn on Jan. 3.

His death has turned his mother's life upside down, her grief and shock still fresh months later.

"To have something so violent and so senseless come into our home like that - you can't explain it," Barbara Ramirez said tearfully.

Since her son's death, Ramirez has been unable to work. Her daily life is an exercise in mourning: Her day begins with Mass at 8 a.m., and goes on to homicide support group meetings and grief counseling.

Ramirez wears two necklaces and a bracelet with her son's image and looks at his prom photo in her bedroom every day when she rises and when she goes to bed.

"It's about having a routine that makes you get through to the next day," she said.

So far this year, gun violence is rising in tandem with the county's homicide rate. The number of homicides in Sacramento County during the first three months of 2006 is up 20 percent over the same period last year, with 30 people slain in January, February and March, compared with 25 during the same period last year, according to data provided by the Sacramento County Coroner's Office.

In the city of Sacramento, the homicide numbers are slightly down this year, from 11 between January and March of 2005 to eight so far in 2006. Six of those slayings, however, were in March.

"There's no basis for (the countywide jump)," Sacramento police spokesman Sgt. Terrell Marshall said. "I don't think you could find a sociologist, criminologist or psychologist who could say why this occurred - (last) month just happened to be a violent month."

Numbers gathered at the UC Davis trauma center over the past five years offer a longer view.

While the center treated between 250 and 260 gunshot victims each year between 2000 and 2004, that number surged to 307 in 2005, representing a 20 percent increase, said Dr. Felix Battistella, trauma surgery chief at UC Davis Medical Center.

A similar pattern emerges from data from the first three months of each of the past five years. While the numbers fluctuated between 57 and 68 in the period between Jan. 1 and March 31 in each of the years 2000-05, the trauma center has seen 81 shooting victims so far this year, an increase of more than 19 percent.

"It seems like Sacramento just went bad," said Meadowview resident Joanneisa Hill, 36, whose son, 19-year-old Carlos Morales, was killed in a gun accident March 6. "I've never seen so much death and destruction. This is crazy."

Dr. Garen Wintemute, a UC Davis emergency room physician and a national gun violence expert, said it's impossible to say whether Sacramento County's recent experience is part of a general national upswing in gun violence.

He said it's not far-fetched, however, to suggest that changes in federal gun policies have made an increase more likely.

Wintemute cited as examples the federal government's failure to extend the assault weapons ban and new restrictions on law enforcement access to data on weapons used in crimes.

Gun violence peaked in the early 1990s, then plummeted to the lowest levels seen since the 1960s. Rates of gun violence bottomed in 2000 and have remained steady since, he said.

"An increase in gun violence may be upon us just as we are putting in place policies that will make that rise in violence harder to deal with," he said. "It's too soon to say for sure."

Either way, he said, the impact of gun violence ripples through society.

"Whether real or not, a perceived rise in violence affects the community," he said. "In some cases, people become less willing to participate in community life. Levels of fear rise, and the sense of quality of life decreases."

Shootings also affect the ranks of responders whose lives intersect with violence, whether they are paramedics, surgeons, police officers or sheriff's deputies.

In the space of three hours on March 25, Sacramento County sheriff's deputies and investigators dealt with two of the most violent incidents they've seen.

The first call came at 7:45 p.m. A gunman on Elk Grove's Laguna Boulevard was shooting people at random. When it was over, one man was dead, another fatally wounded and one miraculously alive despite being shot 14 times.

The suspect was stopped only when deputies fired their own weapons, critically wounding him.

Even as detectives were making sense of that rampage, a gang shootout began seven miles north in the Fruitridge area. One man was killed, and two were hospitalized.

The hail of bullets pierced surrounding homes and parked cars.

For responders, the toll goes beyond strained resources. Chad Augustin, a Sacramento fire captain and paramedic, has been at the center of chaotic crime scenes, surrounded by wailing family members, trying to save a life while taking care to preserve a crime scene.

But the quiet moments and words exchanged with victims amid the chaos stand out most.

"I've had a husband ask me to 'Tell my wife I love her,' " before he died, Augustin said. "It's heart-wrenching."

When shooting victims do survive the trip to the hospital, it's a race against time to keep them alive, doctors said.

"About 10 people leave whatever they are doing and wait for the person to arrive," emergency doctor Wintemute said. "Everything gets done at once in hopes that if there is massive bleeding going on, we can catch it in the first five minutes."

The team hovering over a gunshot victim works at full speed, looking for injuries: Is the victim breathing? Is the airway free? Is the blood circulating? Can the victim move? Follow commands?

Depending on what doctors find in those first few seconds, the ER team inserts tubes that go into the victim's chest to re-expand lungs, into the bladder to drain urine, into the throat to get oxygen to the lungs.

"If there is a penetrating injury to the chest and the patient has a heartbeat and no pulse, they might open the chest and pump the heart by hand," Wintemute said.

Surgeons don't know what to expect when they open up a victim: Bullets don't know how to navigate around key blood vessels or vital organs; some are designed specifically to splay open once they penetrate the body.

"No gunshot wound is alike," Battistella said. "The path of the bullet is very different from patient to patient. Each presents its own unique challenge."

Witnessing the agony presents its own challenges - for the trauma team, doctors said.

"It doesn't get any easier from the standpoint of seeing someone suffer," Battistella said.

Even the most experienced, hard-boiled emergency responders have a gut response to senseless violence.

Said Wintemute: "You get used to not getting used to it."


About the writer:
The Bee's Dorsey Griffith can be reached at (916) 321-1089 or dgriffith@sacbee.com.
 
Last edited:
Ok I updated the original

This is including the killings in the Elk Grove area that started this whole thread.

Guess what, it is ugly out there.

HQ
 
Wintermute=Maroon :mad:

he claims that most gunbuyers buy a fiream to commit suicide but after a month or so the urge subsides....what a crock.
 
You are the one who has twisted this and applied one small line to include yourself and the sheriff and all the other ways, to manipulate the story for your arguement.
Sorry it won't work with me.

Some it might, but I have just seen to much of the good the bad and the Ugly.
I checked your profile after making my last post, are you even interested in firearms. LOL.

I've learned the hard way to keep my personal details off the net. If something's missing from my profile, it's because it's none of your business.


Enough with you. Honesty is the best policy and the way you are corrupting this is a shame and a Sham.

Show me the dishonesty (like cut/paste it) and I'll defend it or I'll eat it.


It reminds me much of a person who has not posted much of late and his handle was Lead Council.

Haha. He's probably in therapy.


I am getting a familiar read in your posts. Sorry that is what I see and I have not attacked you, you are attacking me.


No, I'm not attacking you unless it's a RESPONSE to YOU attacking ME. My original comments might SEEM to be attacking you, but that's because I see you as regurgitating the propaganda of DARE rather than thinking.


But you are not who you purport in my opinion.

Works for me. It's up to others to form their own opinions.

---

he claims that most gunbuyers buy a fiream to commit suicide but after a month or so the urge subsides....what a crock.

Wait...isn't that why you bought YOURS??:D

---

Harley. Taken together with your repeated allegations that I'm not who I purport to be, and your suggestion that I might not even own a firearm, it looks to me like you are trying to suggest I am here ONLY to argue drug laws and have no interest in guns whatsoever, and perhaps I'm only here because I think gun owners are fearful of erosion of constitutional rights and that I might recruit their help to repeal drug laws by showing them their self-interest in doing so.

If that is what you think, why not just say so rather than beat around the bush?

But I think you can look around on other parts of this board and see otherwise. I have made many posts in tactics, mostly to put my 2 cents worth in and sometimes to get more information about the thread in which I post.

I didn't start any thread about meth, Sudafed, or drugs in general. I am merely contributing to them like everybody else.
 
Actually I have decided to go along with you

If you will come to my side about the fight of good and evil, Duality.

I have posted a few other places so you will just have to go search.

LOL

HQ:D :D
 
Another Horrific story because of Meth

This is well worth reading, no guns involved.


Xer Vang




Man convicted in fatal attack on two relatives
By Ramon Coronado -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 7, 2006
Story appeared in Metro section, Page B3
Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

A man who was heralded as a poster boy for the need for new mental health programs was convicted Thursday of first-degree murder for using a sledgehammer to kill two of his relatives, including a 1-year-old niece.
Xer Vang, 35, had been on a three-day methamphetamine binge when he attacked four relatives, accusing them of harming his three children after his wife and kids had left him.

Vang was also found guilty by the Sacramento Superior Court jury of the special circumstances of multiple murders, which means he will spend the rest of life in prison with no parole.


"It was like driving a pile nail into a railroad track," a witness said in testimony describing how Vang used both hands in a full overhead swing to plunge the 5-pound sledgehammer into the forehead of his niece, 1-year-old Cynthia Yang.
Vang's nephew, George Vang, 19, died two weeks after he was bludgeoned. Vang's niece's husband, Yia Moua, 19, and Vang's sister-in-law, Mee Yang, 41, who was holding the child in her arms at the time of the attack, survived the bloody rampage on Sept. 27, 2004.

Vang was convicted of two murders, two attempted murders and evading police after the attacks in the 3600 block of Pinell Street in Del Paso Heights. Sentencing is scheduled May 5 before Judge Laurie M. Earl.

During the six-day trial, jurors heard testimony that showed that Vang, who was also known as Mario, believed his relatives had killed his children, ages 8, 9 and 10, and either stuffed them in the walls or buried them.

The night before the slayings he called 911 dispatchers to report that someone was in the attic dying. Police responded to that call and others, but said they couldn't arrest Vang because he appeared calm and not under the influence of drugs.

For months after the slayings, law enforcement authorities and county officials referred to Vang as a poster boy for the need for funding new mental health teams to respond to police calls involving the mentally ill.

Although Vang was initially housed in a jail psychiatric ward because he reported that he was hearing voices, three mental health experts who evaluated Vang reported that he was not suffering from a mental impairment.

Assistant Public Defender Eluid M. Romero told jurors during closing arguments that his client was guilty of second-degree murder because drug-induced delusions kept him from rationally making decisions involving a specific intent to kill, which is required in first-degree murder.

"He believes his delusions. There was no motive. No planning. He snapped. He was suffering from a drug-induced psychosis," Romero said.

Deputy District Attorney Dawn Bladet told jurors that Vang's problems started a year before the slayings when he beat his mother and seven months later when he was arrested for possessing drugs.

He could have sought help, but didn't, she said.

"This is a man who chose to smoke crystal methamphetamine," Bladet said.

"Do we let the town drunk set these standards?" the prosecutor said of the mental defense.

Like approaching a street intersection on a yellow light, Vang evaluated his predicament, made a decision to kill and carried out his decision, Bladet told jurors.

Vang was unemployed and a "freeloader," who was shunned by his family, who was scared of him, prosecution evidence showed.

The night before the killings he was asking for guns, family members testified. Earlier, he showed up at his ex-wife's home at 4:30 a.m. where his children were staying and a man turned him away, evidence showed.

"I just did it because I felt I had nothing to lose," Vang is quoted as saying in a police interview, which was heard by jurors.

Vang began the day of the slayings in his brother's house, where he killed his nephew. He followed his sister-in-law and her baby to a nearby van and smashed the van window, killed the child and then fled, Bladet said.

"He made many, many choices that day," the prosecutor said.


About the writer:
The Bee's Ramon Coronado can be reached at (916) 321-1191 or rcoronado@sacbee.com.


HQ
 
A man who was heralded as a poster boy for the need for new mental health programs was convicted Thursday of first-degree murder for using a sledgehammer to kill two of his relatives, including a 1-year-old niece.

I know something about this kind of thing, and it does point out the need for better mental health programs.


Xer Vang, 35, had been on a three-day methamphetamine binge when he attacked four relatives, accusing them of harming his three children after his wife and kids had left him.

Let's be careful about cause and effect.

Vang was unemployed and a "freeloader," who was shunned by his family, who was scared of him, prosecution evidence showed.

The night before the killings he was asking for guns, family members testified. Earlier, he showed up at his ex-wife's home at 4:30 a.m. where his children were staying and a man turned him away, evidence showed.

"I just did it because I felt I had nothing to lose," Vang is quoted as saying in a police interview, which was heard by jurors.

Was he unemployed and a freeloader because of meth? Or was it the other way around? Did he have nothing to lose because of meth? Or was it the other way around?

----

I have a stalker. He's mentally unstable. He uses cocaine and meth, and who knows what else. He isn't mentally unstable because of the drugs. He uses the drugs (and does other antisocial things) because he's mentally unstable. This person should be put in a mental institution.

But if he commits a crime (which he is doing now, against me) he should be put in jail. As unbalanced as he is, he does know right from wrong.

Legalized drugs (the way I proposed it) would put this sort of person in front of professionals in order to get their drugs. Those professionals would be able to evaluate them and perhaps get a few into treatment (not for their drug abuse, but for the underlying problem), enhancing safety for us all. Believe me. They're out there.
 
You are making sense, more and more

You have to wonder about the whole thing.
Another story that I did not post was about a Korean killing some of his children and then himself. Something about nothing to lose.

Apparantly he was unable to care for self or anyone else either.

Drugs or ???

HQ
 
So if the fellas in the above stories were not on meth but had used a pistol to commit the heinous murders, would you be supporting gun control?

I thought so.
 
Back
Top