Meth, Sudafed and Gun Laws (Part II)

Iowa legislator has set forth changes as to the purchase of types of pre cursor type drugs use in the manufacture of meth.

Since those changes have been implemented in this state - 80% drop in meth lab seizures in this state. [Except for three counties in SW Iowa that border Nebraska - their drop = 27%. I saw the reported on local TV - 3-20-06] In my county where i work; there have been no reports of anhydrous ammonia stolen for over 9 months. Before this it was a weekly occurrence.

It would seem to work in this state.

12-34hom.
 
Last edited:
"Add to that the factor that if meth (and other hard recreational drugs) were freely available, there'd be lots more "drug incidents" between those under the influence and other people. Spousal abuse and battering would increase as would child abuse and endangerment. Don't forget public intoxication either. This creates a higher burden on our courts to prosecute these co-related crimes and increases our inmate population.

Is it really fair to let people abuse themselves to the point where they physically hurt or endanger others? Is this proper? Does this advance society?

Now consider the fact that someone has to pay for the repairs. This comes in part in the form of increased taxes. Direct taxes to provide additional court and prison requirements. Indirect costs to provide addition resources to societal programs such as welfare, Aid for Families with dependent Children (AFDC), Food stamps, homeless shelters, and other programs that are designed to help the needy. The numbers of which will increase as the availability and use of hard drugs increases."

--- This is already in place and happening with alcohol, yet you offer no objection.

Meth's popularity is, in part, due to the fact that it can be easily made in tabletop labs. Make other harmless recreational drugs legal and you'll probably remove a lot of the demand for meth.








"All these are questions that need answered in some fashion. Saying that Merck will take up the slack is merely passing the buck and avoiding the issue. If the costs are there, SOMEONE will have to pay them in some form. If the pharm companies can't directly include the costs in the drug sales in order to compete with home lab prices, they'll have to raise the costs of other meds to compensate. Again, a hidden cost that no one has discussed or (apparently) considered."

--- I'll repeat what has been said elsewhere. Merck et.al can beat the pants off any tabletop lab on a dose-for-dose basis hands down. They have roomfuls of old tablet presses. They have idle tablet presses. All they have to add is a product manager, a Ph.D to oversee, and ten or so production workers, a QA manager, and a production manager. They ALREADY have all the overhead you speak of. Meth is so easy to make that they can do it for a penny a dose. When all's said and done, it'll enable them to reduce the prices of their other medicines. Ivax will make it for a half penny a dose.





"Then there's the argument that Merck and friends will take over the market is not justified by the data. Merck will merely take the place of the superlabs. If the superlabs can't handle the demand then Merck won't be able to either. This allows for the continued existence of tabletop labs and their unregulated dangers. The argument fails to encompass these facets of the problem."

Meth is such a simple process that if Merck doesn't have the capacity and Ivax doesn't have the capacity, it'll be produced as a commodity like aspirin by Dow. If Dow can provide all the aspirin (which it once did) for the nation, it can certainly provide all the meth.

Merck, Ivax, and Dow don't make their high-volume products in little glass flasks like you might envision. They make them in enormous (500-gallon) stainless steel reactors. Dow's main production facility, in Midland, Michigan, is constructed like a small town. It has about 20 streets and 20 avenues.

Each block contains a plant for producing a particular chemical, and is crammed with pipes and vessels, and runs 24/7.

There would be no inability to supply meth, believe me.








"Lastly, how about the proposition that people should be free to choose because otherwise it's a limitation on individual freedom. Well, are people currently free to do ANYTHING they want to do without restrictions? Commit murder?"

--- has a victim

"Steal?"

--- has a victim

"Rape?"

--- has a victim

"Pedophilia?"

--- has a victim

"Animal abuse?"

--- has a victim

"Of course not. Freedom comes with limitations because there are more people and issues involved that just a sole individual."

--- yes. victims.

"Thus, society must consider the welfare of ALL citizens when evalutating whether to allow a specific "freedom" or to regulate it. This isn't limiting or restricting freedom. Instead it's creating a guideline so that the majority of people have the greatest freedom possible. To believe otherwise is to take the narrow view at the expense of those whom we need to protect."

--- Just like with alcohol, we control the damage done to victims by laws restriction ACTIONS, with enhanced sentences sometimes for the involvement of the abused substance. That's fine by me.
 
Back in my late teens/early 20 I did some stupid things. Among them experimenting with a variety of illegal drugs including meth. For those who don't know I will briefly tell the effect of this drug.

1. Meth may be abused by either snorting up the nose or intravenously.

2. It is very acidic and corrosive. A razor blade used to prepare meth for snorting will rust at an accelerated pace after contact with it.

3. I never put anything IV into my body. When snorting this drug the burning sensation in the nasal passages is almost unbearable....almost. The acidic properties will cause frequent nose bleeding, loss of sense of smell, damage to tooth enamel, sore throat, anemia, I am sure others I am forgetting.

4. Effect of use is 12 to 15 hours of an overwhelming sense of euphoria, inability to sleep, ability to drink unbelievable amounts of alcohol without feeling its effects, loss of appetite, loss of concentration, perception of time is diminished, overwhelming desire for more.

Back in 1986 when I had my 6 month swaree with "crank", I lost a lot of weight and I wasn't overweight to begin with. The last month of my "addiction" I lost track of time completely. The supply dried up for a few days, long enough for me to "dry out". I realized a month had passed and I could not remember any of it. I never touched the stuff again. I am lucky, no long term damage from use (I am aware of). While I don't consider meth to be extremely physically addictive, it does require a desire to quit to get off of the stuff.

I offer this info because I have read both threads and haven't heard any first hand experience described.

I stated in the last thread Meth is an addictive and very physically harmful with potentially long term health effects.

Unlike cocaine, marijuana, conventional narcotics and amphetamines, alcohol, LSD, "magic mushrooms", opiates including heroin (I never tried this one), I feel long term use is far more physically damaging than any other drugs I am aware of.

BTW I have been totally drug free for nearly 20 years (except for the occasional neat single malt which I will never give up ;) ). My early experimentation has often given me an edge in the investigation of drug cases. I tend to ask the right questions while interviewing both law enforcement and pedestrian witnesses in drug cases.
 
pipoman:

which would have been worse for you and for those around you?

1 - what actually happened

2 - you being stopped from using by being arrested and put into prison.

??
 
Part II

As I write this, I would like you to keep two words in the back of your mind: Fear and Irresponsibility.

Consider the following 3 sets:

1a. There is no fundamental right to own firearms.
1b. There is no fundamental right to use recreational drugs.

2a. Gun control legislation reduces violent crime.
2b. Drug control legislation reduces violent crime.

3a. Gun control is racist by design.
3b. Drug control is racist by design.

Before I take to arguing these sets, let's look at what criminal offenses are actually about.

In Washington v. Anderson the Court said: "Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories -- malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum. offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community..." In contrast, malum prohibitum. is an offense that is an offense only by virtue of a statute or regulatory act and often "result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize." (State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905))... The so-called victimless crime.

With that in mind, let's proceed...

Set 1: Most of us here would agree that there is in fact a fundamental right to own firearms. It follows from self defense, to defense of community and defense of nation. It also follows from self defense to defense against tyranny. It is distilled down to the right to own property. In this case, the fundamental right to own oneself. This is in perfect harmony with the Lockean beliefs of the Founders, that all the natural rights of man stem from property ownership.

Whether or not you agree with this Natural Rights Theory of John Locke, you can not argue that the Founders did not believe it. They did. To the point of setting up a Federal Republic modeled after these Lockean beliefs.

Now one may argue that as a society, even Locke acknowledges that the society may impose restrictions upon RIGHTS for the sake of the society as a whole. But when one makes that argument, then one cannot escape the same as applied to firearms.

Therefore, recreational drug use is as much a natural right as that of firearms ownership, based upon the founding principles of ownership of self. The only restrictions that society may impose are restrictions that such use (firearms or drugs) does not directly interfere with or directly harm others. Malum in se.

Legislation that portends to protect the health of society, may be applied to not only drugs in general but also firearms. Restrictions or regulation of my property rights for the sole sake of some indirect health or safety of others is nothing more than a red herring for absolute control of my person. Malum prohibitum.

Set 2: There is no question here, that any gun control measures have ever reduced violent crime. It is a non-starter. In every instance of such control, crime has continued as before or even increased in violence. Taking firearms from citizens has done nothing more than to place citizens at the mercy of violent criminals or violent governments. Those areas that have the most restrictive gun laws also have the dubious honor of having the most violent crime.

As for drugs, the exact same argument may be made. Witness the 18th amendment and the advance of crime in alcohol traffic. No amount of regulation, prohibition or restriction has lowered the incidence of crime in this country. If anything, it has increased the amount of crime due to the fact that it has made criminals out of entire classes of people at the stroke of a pen. This was finally driven home by the 21st amendment and the repeal of prohibition.

This does not argue that a drug being manufactured may not be regulated in and of itself. A company may not produce a drug that is harmful by nature of being impure or another defect. Just as a firearms manufacturer may not produce a firearm that is defective in and of itself. While these are generally held to be actionable causes in civil court, they are also exact in the definition of malum in se: Wrong in itself.

Set 3: In 1993, Clayton Cramer published a paper on The Racist Roots of Gun Control. It has become pretty much the definitive work on this subject. This is another non-starter for those of us in the gun culture.

But what about racism as it is applied to Drugs? It is less easy to find the roots here than with guns. With guns, we have a plethera of court cases that either espoused racist ideals or tore them down. Then there is the entire 14th amendment and the congressional debates on what it was supposed to mean and do (despite how the Court has handled the 14th).

So where to find the roots of drug prohibition in America today?

1898: The Spanish American War erupts. During the war, the marijuana-smoking army of Panco Villa seizes 800,000 acres of prime Mexican timberland belonging to newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst.

The timber from this land was used to manufacture newsprint for Hearst's publishing empire. Hearst begins a 30-year propaganda campaign denouncing Spaniards, Mexican-Americans and Latinos, portraying Mexicans as lazy pot-smoking layabouts.

"REEFER makes DARKIES think they’re as good as white men." - Harry J. Anslinger, 1929

“There are 100,000 marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.” – Harry Anslinger, 1937

The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 was the beginning of prohibition for Opium, its derivatives and cocaine. This arose partly out of the Spanish-American war and the governing of the Phillipines afterword. There was also quite a vocal approval from California, which viewed the climbing Chinese population with increasing alarm. In fact, some of the first laws against opium were enacted in California ion the late 19th century. For a fairly complete and non-biased history, see this link from the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.

From the above, we can establish that Opiates, Cocaine and Marijuana prohibitions targeted the Chinese, Mexicans and Blacks. Clearly racist in origin.
---

Throughout all of my reading, two things come across. 1) Fear has been used and is still used to exert control by the government over the populace and 2)irresponsibility of the few has been used to curtail freedoms of the many.

Whether we are talking gun control or drug control, the methods used for this control, are one and the same.

This has been but a brief perusal of some of the similarities between the two forms of prohibition and is not in any way all-encompassing. To date, I have not found a major work that details both forms of prohibition, nor am I set up to produce such. Perhaps there is such a work out there, I have just not found it.
 
johnbt:

I didn't ask which he would have preferred in the DARE-envisioned bizarro world where even the remotest sniff of pot is instantly deadly.

I asked an admittedly experienced person for his educated opinion on whether he'd like to have been arrested or allowed to keep on with what he was doing, and which he thought would be better for society.
 
I'm not ignoring your commentary, Antipitas. I have read all that before, and to me it's like it should be common knowledge.

The result of it all is that we've been hoodwinked out of a lot of things, and in the process into some much more serious things.

A little cocaine in Coca-Cola provided a pick-me-up with no more risk of addiction than the caffeine that's replaced it today. That's been replaced with drive-by shootings and drug market turf wars.

A little heroin tincture in a patent medicine could be had at the drugstore to make you feel a little better when medicine could really not do much of anything else. That's been replaced with a thriving concentrated heroin market, out of the disapproving sight of the neighborhood pharmacist. And with things like Vioxx that literally kill you. Or acetaminophen (Tylenol) that destroys your liver if you add a little alcohol. Or the propionates (ibuprofen, etc.) that whack your kidneys after prolonged use.

Some paregoric for diarrhea, a cough preparation, available in minutes from down the street. Replaced by a $100 trip to a doctor, a drive across town while very ill, and an uncomfortable wait at a pharmacy. Oh, and Rush's favorite. A lucrative market in diverted Oxycontin.

A small dose of pseudoephedrine you could grab at Publix for under $5 a box when you feel a sinus headache coming on, possibly heading off a full-fledged bout of sinusitis. Replaced by exploding apartments and storage units and soon to be replaced by an ineffective drug.

Won't be long before guns are replaced with stun guns and pepper spray if we keep in this direction.
 
invention_45 and johnbt

Well IMO what happened gave me a "life's experience" which has been valuable to me and helpful to others since.

Arrest and conviction would have precluded me from my current profession.

As a user, arrest and conviction would not equal prison or even a county jail stay sufficient to detox.

I quit on my own before death with never a regret, relapse, or need for more.

I was not in a state of depression nor did I hate myself or have a bad life. I had people who loved me, I had not been disowned, graduated from college, and was never abused. This began as recreational use. If depression, or other personality or mental disorders accompany use of this or any other addictive substance it can be a recipe for disaster.

So to answer your question, I am here because of my experiences. I have a loving wife, great in-laws, a strong family, a good career, etc., etc. Not to mention 2 teenage boys who will not easily pull the wool over this dads eyes (again because of my experiences).

I was not trying to hijack this thread, just add some honest first hand experience with the topic of the thread. We can speak of the constitutionality of limitation of various freedoms, we should also have the ability to weigh the consequences of no regulation.
 
Antipitas, I agree with you on this topic. I do believe while the same arguments could be made to grab guns as to regulate "dangerous" substances, it would be a difficult Constitutional sell. Guns are specifically enumerated in the Constitution in their own amendment. Pharmaceuticals are not.

I realize that any powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are left to the States. This is a problem with interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Maybe a change in philosophy in the SC would result in some rulings reining in the abusive power recently (last 30-40 years) granted the Commerce Clause.
 
Antipitas wrote: "I had opined that 1) meth supply was not a problem related to clandestine home production but with superlabs and 2) that the prohibitive laws on lawful use pseudoephedrine (and drugs in general) were nothing more than the same prohibitive laws we know as gun control."

"Opined" is the operative word here: and since opinions are like armpits, . . . everyone has a couple and they all stink, . . . I'll add my .02.

There has never, . . . ever, . . . been any research showing any useful, good, moral, helpful result of the abuse of meth.

On the other hand, . . . there is a plethora of evidence to show the down side of its use, . . . its production, . . . its addictive qualities, . . . the effect on the morals and sensibilities of its addicts, . . . etc.

Therefore I "opine" that anyone caught making the stuff, . . . smuggling it into the US, . . . distributing it, . . . transporting it, . . . should be stuffed into the nearest jail, . . . and kept there until proven to be rehabilitated. Period, . . . finito.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Exactly what does this all boil down too.......

Somehow people have gotten the idea if we pass a new law we can solve the problem. This give the politicians a chance to get on the milk crate and say hey!, I am tough on crime vote for me. We have all these statitics he says on the talk show that show this will put the nail in the coffin on the meth problem, and by the way vote for me the tough on crime guy. Then you go down to get you runny nose stuff but you cant get it because the pharmacy closes at eight. Then you go back the next morning and have your DL and sign for it and then grumble about it. a year later people are still doing meth.

Thats where we get into trouble is settling for a law that makes us feel safe, instead of diggin a little deeper and coming up with a workable solution based on the laws we already have.

If you go to the Brady site...thats just what they engage in, selling the feeling that if we do this we will be safer to people, in spite of the fact that some of know it will do squat to solve the problem.
 
Last edited:
Dwight55 -- I couldn't help but re-read your last post while substituting it's subject (meth) with "firearms". If your post was about firearms, it could be posted on the Brady Campaign's website. Not sure what this means... but I think it drives home Antipitas' point.

Dwight55 said:
There has never, . . . ever, . . . been any research showing any useful, good, moral, helpful result of the abuse of meth.
Click to expand...

This may be true, Dwight, based on your and my opinion of one who abuses meth or any other drug. But how does this matter when considering the fundamental right to own one's self? If I want to be useless, bad, immoral, and helpless as a result of my abuse of meth, why shouldn't I have that right?

I have known people who used drugs recreationally, and still lead professional productive lives. I have a hard time justifying their apparent criminality, because my choices to abstain from drug use conflict with their choices to use.

I sat across from an ex-Mayor at a campfire while I watched him smoke marijuana. He was also an engineer and a brilliant man in many ways.

Should the ex-Mayor be in jail as he chooses to partake in an illegal drug? Well sure, it’s illegal. But the point – or rather the question is should it be illegal? Again, I can't justify his apparent criminality because my choices are different.

It makes no difference that this man was an ex-Mayor… however I used this as an example so that the stereotypical “pot head” would be set aside.
 
pipoman, No, guns are not enumerated in the Constitution. the term "Arms" as used in the 2A is a term of art. It was used to mean each and every form of weapon used by an army. Then it was swords, knives, muskets, etc. Today it means (or it should mean) pistols, rifles, machine guns (select-fire rifles), etc. Tomorrow it may mean pulse-guns, phasers, rail-guns, what-have-you.

As for the abused and misinterpreted Commerce Clause... Well, that would be a whole new thread.

Dwight, perhaps all this talk of meth has you confused.

Point: I never said meth has any redeeming qualities as a drug. Recreational or otherwise.

Part of the thrust of this thread is that by passing laws, like hiding Sudafed behind a counter, will not in any manner stop illicit meth production or use. The other part is that these kind of laws are no different than gun control laws: They feel good but don't do a danged thing except burden the citizen with more regulations.

Read Eghad's post #34 has it exactly right:
Somehow people have gotten the idea if we pass a new law we can solve the problem.
Click to expand...

We have a drug problem. Of that there is no doubt. But it was and is a problem manufactured out of the whole cloth, when before all the laws, there was not a problem... At least not to the extent we see it now.
 
Antipitas, . . . in the short run, . . . your statement: "hiding Sudafed behind a counter, will not in any manner stop illicit meth production or use," is exactly true, . . . and I'll play the music while you sing that song.

BUT, . . . in the long run, . . . it will discourage some from attempting to make the stuff, by making it a bit harder for them. It is no different than putting a standard key in the knob lock on your front door that has a 2ft by 3ft window in the middle of it.

Either one only discourages, . . . and makes it one step harder for the bg to do his bad stuff. Is it a bad law, . . . are there many other bad laws, . . . absolutely, . . . but somewhere, somehow, someway, . . . something has to be done to put a curb on this meth menace.

Making it more difficult is only one step, . . . many others need to be taken. But they will not be taken as long as honest, law abiding citizens get all itchy and their panties in a wad because they don't like the law, . . . or it causes them some minor discomfort/dismay/delay.

In the long run, . . . standing against a reasonable law (and I believe this is one) puts those who do so on the side of the meth makers, the meth distributors, the meth users, . . . is that where they really want their efforts to play out???

Our nation is going down the proverbial tubes because everyone wants to see a shade of grey in every law, every judicial decision, every presidential decision. We need to get on board the black and white boat: it is either good and therefore good for the whole, . . . or bad and bad for the whole.

The "grey" area logic and thinking is what has gotten us into the political mess we have right now and won't be cleaned up until there are a few good men and women with enough backbone to say "Enough" and stand up against it.

One of the best examples I can think of today is the Iraq question: are we and the rest of the world better off today with Saddam in jail, his WMD in the Becca Valley in Syria (not being used I might add), and the possibility of a democratic/republic installing itself smack dab in the center of the Arab world? Yes or No, . . . get off the Well, . . . but, . . . if, . . . " bandwagonand answer the question. When you answer yes, . . . then support it and bring a hue and cry against the naysayers.

Do the same thing with drug abuse, . . . with alcohol abuse, . . . spousal abuse, . . . cheating on taxes, . . . among other things, . . . and this country may not disintegrate from within. Don't, . . . and it most assuredly will.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
for every person that isnt smart enough to get around the new meth lab laws, one will probably pop up that has the better idea and can. Then we pass a new law to plug that loophole creating a vicious circle that leads to more and more laws that do nothing but effect the law abiding citizens and could possibly make them criminals because of actions that are done in ignorance.

I could become a criminal simply by taking some of my prescribed medications out of the bottle with the label and putting them in a container for a trip. The original intent of the law was good and certainly did not mean to make me a criminal but thats what happens.

While Mr. Criminal who cares not one whit about the law keeps going like the Eveready Bunny.

Its time to stop making laws that put the burden on the law abiding citizen and use the law to put the burden back on the criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top