Restricting Cold Medicine Won't Curb Meth Use (from cato.org)

[BerettaCougar]

Think about this... People take medications designed for livestock because they either can't GET or can't AFFORD medicines made for humans. Do you really believe that people will be any different when it comes to recreational drugs? Hell, people brew their own BEER and distill their own booze because it's cheaper than buying it. Drugs will be no different.

Rob, with all due respect...

When the government banned booze back in the day, the gangs/mafias went crazy, building empires with "wet money"...

How many LEO's died trying to enforce this? And also how many innocent bystanders?

Do you hear of this type of thing happening now? Mafias smuggling booze, making moonshine, and getting into gunfights with cops over beer? NO you don't, for the simple fact that the government called off it's illegal war on beer.

But you do infact hear of this stuff happening with drug pushers...

 

[Redworm]

This is a fantasy. If meth were legal do you really think that the big drug labs would be making something that people can make for THEMSELVES? For almost NOTHING? Out of "cold medicine"?

No, that is a fantasy. Making meth is not cheap nor is it safe. People who cook the stuff know that they could blow up at any moment and unless made in large quantities and sold it's very expensive to produce. That's why it's made in such large quantities in the first place. It's the same reason few people grow their own tobacco. Yeah, it's cheap stuff but if you tried to make it yourself you'd spend more on a single cigarette than most pack-a-dayers spend in a week.

Hell, people brew their own BEER and distill their own booze because it's cheaper than buying it. Drugs will be no different.

Again, no. Have you ever brewed your own beer? Do you know how much equipment and time is required for a single batch? Do you realize that the large pint bottles themselves are more expensive than buying a six pack of Miller Lite?

Please. People don't brew their own beer because it's cheap, they do it because they can enjoy their own custom brew and for the satisfaction of making something on their own as oppossed to buying it.

And you know that some enterprising pimp will knock together a methlab in his garage because he can make the stuff and sell it cheaper than Merck/Phizer/et al.

And he'll have a hard time selling it when Mr Meth Addict can simply get a script from his doc and then place an order online for stuff that he knows has been tested safe in the dosage he was prescribed plus he won't have to worry about getting thrown in jail for buying a chemical that will harm only himself.

 

[invention_45]

Yes, both are Schecule II. But Prohibition II has made physicians extremely fearful of prescribing them.

What I would like to see is that, to start with, and maybe forever, they remain scheduled, but with some changes in the scheduling of certain drugs. But laws regarding physician reporting and accountability or tracing of how much of a given drug are prescribed should be changed so as to simply enable a record keeping system. They should not be used to intimidate doctors who prescribe too much. That issue should be resolved amongst the doctor, his patient, and their lawyers.

Then when you just feel like some meth, you can go to your doctor and say so. If, like Rush, you prefer Oxycontin, well, get that. If the doctor sees that you're going overboard, he cuts you off. This process is not unknown in today's world. They do it in bars all the time.

I prefer this process to be handled by some more plentiful type of person, like a pharmacist (with a degree, not just the clerk) so that it would not be so expensive. That person could issue warnings just like they do now, and record that they've issued them.

Since you are doing this for fun, prohibit insurance from covering it. And add it to your MIB record so that if you get an illness later on that you have been warned about that's related to drugs you have consumed, you have a respectable (but not back-breaking) out of pocket cost for your care.

Your employer can decide whether your drug use is interfering with productivity the same way he now does so about alcohol.

For anyone who says this would be a bureaucratic nightmare, it's done all the time with prescription drugs.

An added benefit would be that patients in severe pain would not be undermedicated just to keep the DEA happy.

New scheduling, among other things, would make pot schedule V or OTC. MDMA would become III, the way government studies have recommended it should be. Things currently in Schedule I would be categorized as to why they are there. If they are just too deadly, or they are like Rohypnol (sp?) and can be easily used to drug somebody for ill purposes, well, maybe they should remain illegal. If they just whack you out too badly (like LSD) they should be available only through trained attendants with the requirement that you remain with the attendant until you are back to normal. You would, of course, pay for the attendant.

The schedules would be used, rather than for determining punishments, for determining the degree of control.

Schedule IA: Research use only. Rohypnol, GHB ("date rape" drugs)
Schedule IB: Attended use only. LSD and related things.
Schedule II: Need doctor's prescription. Meth, cocaine, morphine, fentanyl
Schedule III: Sign pharmacist logbook that he reviews. Midrange narcotic painkillers. Nicotine (now let's hear the howling from smokers who don't want THEIR drug regulated but don't mind the public paying for their cancer treatments). Pharmacist has power to deny service based on the review and your apparent health. Pharmacies are computer linked (like Walgreens) so this is harder to thwart.
Schedule IV: Behind the counter or special stores only (ID check for minors). Valium, alcohol, pot.

Then add fines (not jail time) for being caught with drugs other than Schedule IV prescribed to other people to encourage use of the system.

Then I would support draconian laws against manufacturing or attempted manufacturing in an area not zoned for such activities. They would probably not be needed, though.

Once we find (and we will) that this doesn't result in the streets overflowing with drugged out druggies (sort of sounds like Florida's streets running red with blood, doesn't it?) we can consider further relaxation of drug laws.


Now, whoever said that this sort of thought is what will keep the Libertarian Party at its present small size, implying it's keeping Good Republicans away, should also consider that the LP's gun stand might be having the same effect by keeping Good Democrats away.

Perhaps if people desiring their freedoms in a particular area recognized the desire for freedom in other areas, the LP would become significant and we'd have a constitution again.

 

[invention_45]

No, y'see. Merck/Pfizer will sell meth (they already sell morphine) until they can't cut costs anymore or until any patents run out (I doubt there are any to protect most drugs that are currently abused). Then their business will be taken over by Ivax or Goldline.

Can you say G E N E R I C ?

Where do you think generic drugs come from? There are companies that specialize in making them. There are companies that buy Abbott's and Schering's overruns and resell them. I don't just think this. I know this. They are not made in garages or basements.

While Merck may or may not be able to run a garage operation out of business, Ivax most certainly can.

If a garage (mom & pop) operation can always beat out a huge corporation with all its overhead, tell me where I can buy clothing that's not through a huge chain. Where can I buy hardware that's not through Ace Hardware or Home Depot or Lowe's? Next time I need a cold chisel I'll ask my buddy back here, who has a machine shop in his garage to make it for me. And if I'm not ready to pony up $1000 he'll tell me to go elsewhere.

Sorry, but it's patently ridiculous to think anybody would run a clandestine lab to make something available from a corporate manufacturer.

And making beer at home is a hobby.

 

[Rob P.]

People who cook the stuff know that they could blow up at any moment

My point EXACTLY in post #42. Yet some would advocate that we let people just do what they want "because it's their body".

Tell me again; how exactly does one avoid this situation? Move? To where? Meth is in EVERY neighborhood.

Making meth is not cheap...

Really? Then how does some teen junkie get the bucks to set up a meth lab in a hotel room, make the stuff, and sell it on the street for "pennies a bag" (I don't know the actual cost anymore) and make a profit? They make a huge profit because meth is CHEAP to make.

And most labs make lots of the stuff in each batch. It's not a minimal output operation. Making quantity is easy and simple. If it were a process where one had to monitor the batch, or constantly add/ tweak /whatever then the cost would be higher and the profits less. Same if the process only produced minimal qtys.

It's a MEGA bucks operation for the sellers and you can't do that if you only make an ounce per week/batch. If there wasn't the possibility of a large reward, then few would risk the dangers. Simple risk/reward analysis.

If a garage (mom & pop) operation can always beat out a huge corporation with all its overhead, tell me where I can buy clothing that's not through a huge chain. Where can I buy hardware that's not through Ace Hardware or Home Depot or Lowe's?

I dunno about hardware and the like. I DO KNOW that lots of small businesses can beat the price and quality of the chain stores. I know this FOR A FACT because I run a small cabinet shop at home and my prices are less than the cabs at the chain stores. By about 30%. Better quality, better prices - BECAUSE I have a lower overhead and fewer mouths to feed from the profit margin.

So, tell me again how a business with low to no overhead can somehow not compete in price with a major player in the business? Especially when you consider that the home biz may not play by the rules regarding licenses, haz mat, safety, fire, payroll, taxes, FDA approval, drug regulations, and all the rest while the big boyz have to do all that or get fined.

Clothes? Did you know that prior to the early/mid 1900's people MADE their own clothes? Betcha you could find a homemaker who makes clothes for a hobby and who would be cheaper than the national stores. Ask at the fabric shop.

While Merck may or may not be able to run a garage operation out of business, Ivax most certainly can.

Is this an admission that "The Stop-The-War-On-Drugs Plan" won't work to stop the production of meth in home labs?

And I can guarantee you that NO COMPANY can stop a home based business which makes a profit. No company can cut their prices so low that they lose money on each unit and stay in business. The garage business can cut their price so that they make half a cent per unit and still stay in business. A company can't do that. Especially one which is publically owned/traded on the stock exchange.

And making beer at home is a hobby.

Tell that to Sam Adams and the micro brewery industry. Big bucks and all it takes is a couple cases of empties and a manual bottle capper to get started.

BUY the bottles? You gotta be kidding me. Bars toss more bottles in the trash than you can ever use in a home brewery. An autoclave is cheap and can sterilize the bottles after running them through the dishwasher to clean them.

And he'll have a hard time selling it when Mr Meth Addict can simply get a script from his doc and then place an order online for stuff that he knows has been tested safe in the dosage he was prescribed

Lets see... The pimpster has meth he cooked up last week for, say, $20 per baggie. No tax. Under this scenario, the druggie has to go to the doc ($85), get a prescription, drop the prescription off and the pharmacy, wait a half hour, and then pay for it (estimated $50 plus tax). Wait, let me do the math here - - - Pimpster costs $20 and the "legal way" costs $135 plus tax. DUH! You thing they'll pay SEVEN TIMES the street value? Get real.

And druggies don't care about quality. All they care about is getting their fix so they can stop hurting.

 

[Al Norris]

Two things that I find very interesting about this whole debate is that 1) the Justice Department itself acknowledges that clandestine laboratories, while dangerous, are not the real problem with the meth supply chain and getting rid of them will not solve the overall problem. It will in fact make little if any difference to the flow and use of the drug.

2) That the same exact arguments in favor of bans or prohibitions of drugs in general and meth in specific are the same arguments that are used to ban or prohibit our guns.

I alluded to that in my first post and only Alan deemed it worthy enough to comment upon. Rather ironic that people who would want to freedom to own just about any gun they can think of, because they are inherently law abiding people and they are not the problem, are the same people that would force their anti-drug views upon the rest of the public, regardless of whether or not a segment of the public, which is inherently law abiding, wants this moral judgment shoved down their throats or not.

Let me be as succinct as I can be. Not only is this irony at its best, but those who espouse the one view and not the other are hypocrites.

 

[Rob P.]

Anti, it is disturbing to me to read what you said.

I don't know where the justice dept is coming from on this (and I haven't heard what you've cited but will assume it's true) that illegal meth labs aren't a big problem. From what I understand most of the meth in the U.S. is cooked at home labs. They don't smuggle it into the country.

If they did, then why would we need to bottle up the supply of cold meds? There wouldn't be enough call by these "clandestine labs" to worry about the illicit use of sudafed and nyquil. That is, IF the major source of meth was from international smuggling.

To me it sounds like fact manipulation not coroborated by real life but I could be wrong.

Please list the specific arguments you feel are being used to support both gun bans and the war on drugs. Not being nasty or stupid, just want you to list them so we can discuss them. It's hard to do that without a specific listing - too vague. In a new thread perhaps so we don't continue to hijack this one?

 

[Redworm]

My point EXACTLY in post #42. Yet some would advocate that we let people just do what they want "because it's their body".

Tell me again; how exactly does one avoid this situation? Move? To where? Meth is in EVERY neighborhood.

Your logic in the first sentence is lacking. Production of the drug can lead to deadly explosions. Use of the drug can't.

How does one avoid this situation? By allowing pharmaceutical companies to produce and sell the stuff and by allowing physicians to prescribe it without fear of legal action which will move the majority of meth production from residental neighborhoods to commercial drug plants.

Meth is not in every neighborhood. How on earth did that idea get into your head?

Really? Then how does some teen junkie get the bucks to set up a meth lab in a hotel room, make the stuff, and sell it on the street for "pennies a bag" (I don't know the actual cost anymore) and make a profit? They make a huge profit because meth is CHEAP to make.

And most labs make lots of the stuff in each batch. It's not a minimal output operation. Making quantity is easy and simple. If it were a process where one had to monitor the batch, or constantly add/ tweak /whatever then the cost would be higher and the profits less. Same if the process only produced minimal qtys.

It's a MEGA bucks operation for the sellers and you can't do that if you only make an ounce per week/batch. If there wasn't the possibility of a large reward, then few would risk the dangers. Simple risk/reward analysis.

He doesn't. I already explained that to avoid the massive costs one must make large amounts and sell it the same way it would be if tobacco were illegal. Meth is not cheap to make.

Again, allowing pharmaceutical companies to supply the majority of that product will take the money out of the hands of those who would make batches of the stuff in an apartment building then cut it and sell it to school children. How do we know that would happen?

Because the exact same fracking thing happened with alcohol eight decades ago.

I dunno about hardware and the like. I DO KNOW that lots of small businesses can beat the price and quality of the chain stores. I know this FOR A FACT because I run a small cabinet shop at home and my prices are less than the cabs at the chain stores. By about 30%. Better quality, better prices - BECAUSE I have a lower overhead and fewer mouths to feed from the profit margin.

So, tell me again how a business with low to no overhead can somehow not compete in price with a major player in the business? Especially when you consider that the home biz may not play by the rules regarding licenses, haz mat, safety, fire, payroll, taxes, FDA approval, drug regulations, and all the rest while the big boyz have to do all that or get fined.

www.walmart.com
www.philipmorris.com

Tell that to Sam Adams and the micro brewery industry. Big bucks and all it takes is a couple cases of empties and a manual bottle capper to get started.

BUY the bottles? You gotta be kidding me. Bars toss more bottles in the trash than you can ever use in a home brewery. An autoclave is cheap and can sterilize the bottles after running them through the dishwasher to clean them.

Sam Adams is not a microbrew. Microbrews also make extremely large quantities compared to the average home brewer. Few people have their own damn mash tun. It takes a hell of a lot more than that to get started. You've never brewed your own beer.

Yes, you have to buy the bottles. Seriously, dude....digging through the trash for empties? Do you dig through the neighbor's trash for their pots and pans to cook with?

Lets see... The pimpster has meth he cooked up last week for, say, $20 per baggie. No tax. Under this scenario, the druggie has to go to the doc ($85), get a prescription, drop the prescription off and the pharmacy, wait a half hour, and then pay for it (estimated $50 plus tax). Wait, let me do the math here - - - Pimpster costs $20 and the "legal way" costs $135 plus tax. DUH! You thing they'll pay SEVEN TIMES the street value? Get real.

And druggies don't care about quality. All they care about is getting their fix so they can stop hurting.

I don't get the use of the word pimpster. Perhaps we're confused as to what a pimp is.

Where are you getting your prices from? Thin air or a place where the sun don't shine?

Druggies don't care about quality? I doubt you have any friends that are druggies (except for the habitual drinkers and smokers, of course) so how can you claim to know what druggies care about in their chemicals of choice? Stop hurting? You seem to think that all drugs cause painful withdrawl symptoms when the user doesn't get a fix.

www.erowid.org please read up a little on drugs. you're free to your opinions just like everyone else but an uninformed opinion is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine

 

[Rob P.]

Shoot I keep forgetting to respond to this:

Rob, with all due respect...

When the government banned booze back in the day, the gangs/mafias went crazy, building empires with "wet money"...

How many LEO's died trying to enforce this? And also how many innocent bystanders?

Do you hear of this type of thing happening now? Mafias smuggling booze, making moonshine, and getting into gunfights with cops over beer? NO you don't, for the simple fact that the government called off it's illegal war on beer.

But you do infact hear of this stuff happening with drug pushers...

You hear it as regards to booze too. Even today.

During Prohibition, ALL booze was outlawed. After the repeal, only "excessive consumption" of booze was outlawed. Drunk in public, drunk driving, underage drinking, etc. it's STILL drug regulation. And the enforcement is being entrusted to local LEO rather than BATFE.

There are empires being built and maintained on illegal booze and the criminal element is still involved. Yeah, the booze itself may not be illegal, but the turf wars, smuggling, tax stamp counterfeiting, moonshining, and all the other fun stuff that happens still goes on. So what has the repeal of Prohibition done to stop any of that? Nothing, that's what. All that "legalizing" booze did was to shift the burden of enforcement without eliminating the regulation.

And with that shift in enforcement we got a further erosion of our rights. Our 4th amendment rights began to disappear when they started "drunk driver" checkpoints. Now they stop everyone and question them and check ID and all the other stuff even though they have no suspicion of any wrongdoing. Reasonable? I don't think so but that's the price we pay for being able to drink alcohol whenever we want.

Do you think the gov't will just stand by and do nothing if we legalize hard drugs? Or is it more likely that they will use that as a pretext to take away even more of our freedoms. Everyone will pay just so that a few can get high.

How fair is that?

 

[Redworm]

There are empires being built and maintained on illegal booze and the criminal element is still involved. Yeah, the booze itself may not be illegal, but the turf wars, smuggling, tax stamp counterfeiting, moonshining, and all the other fun stuff that happens still goes on. So what has the repeal of Prohibition done to stop any of that? Nothing, that's what. All that "legalizing" booze did was to shift the burden of enforcement without eliminating the regulation.

Can you provide some...any examples?

 

[Rob P.]

Examples of what? The shift of enforcement?

 

[liliysdad]

Meth is not cheap to make

True, unless you steal everything you need, as is the norm.

 

[Rob P.]

I don't get the use of the word pimpster. Perhaps we're confused as to what a pimp is.

Where are you getting your prices from? Thin air or a place where the sun don't shine?

Druggies don't care about quality? I doubt you have any friends that are druggies (except for the habitual drinkers and smokers, of course) so how can you claim to know what druggies care about in their chemicals of choice? Stop hurting? You seem to think that all drugs cause painful withdrawl symptoms when the user doesn't get a fix.

www.erowid.org please read up a little on drugs. you're free to your opinions just like everyone else but an uninformed opinion is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine

I don't understand this crap. You "don't understand" my use of the word "pimpster" even when it's as self explanatory as toilet paper? Get real. This sort of bull**** is just twisting my opinion so you look cool while acting childish.

What on earth disports you to attack me because you disagree with my viewpoint? What the hell kind of ******* are you anyway? And what the hell kind of place is TFL that lets people do this sort of crap without any sort of moderation? This IS a moderated forum right?

I get so tired of this. And I don't care anymore if Rich or whomever "bans" me. The opinions bruted about on this forum are just as idiotic as the arguments you find in a kindergarten class. And just about as intelligently articulated. No facts but lots of ad hominem. No vision but lots of smoke and mirrors. No "can do" but lots of whining about how we're getting screwed by our representatives or the liberals or the conservatives.

Get real and get stuffed.

 

[Redworm]

Examples of what? The shift of enforcement?

Examples of "turf wars, smuggling, tax stamp counterfeiting, moonshining, and all the other fun stuff that happens still goes on." that are caused by alcohol. Any proof whatsoever that Prohibition in any way stemmed more crime than its' repeal.

True, unless you steal everything you need, as is the norm.

Pharmaceutical companies don't steal their manufacturing supplies. Were they in charge of production you'd find fewer labs in neighborhoods being built with stolen property.

I don't understand this crap. You "don't understand" my use of the word "pimpster" even when it's as self explanatory as toilet paper? Get real. This sort of bull**** is just twisting my opinion so you look cool while acting childish.

A pimp relates to prostitution, not drug trafficking.

What on earth disports you to attack me because you disagree with my viewpoint? What the hell kind of ******* are you anyway? And what the hell kind of place is TFL that lets people do this sort of crap without any sort of moderation? This IS a moderated forum right?

Claiming that those prices were pulled out of thin air is not a personal attack, it's an attack on your claims. I have not said that you're a liar, that you're stupid, or that you're some evil bastard out to hurt people. I don't hold that opinion of you. I merely stated that your opinions on this matter are uninformed - prompted by your statements on the production and price of meth as well as the act of homebrewing.

I get so tired of this. And I don't care anymore if Rich or whomever "bans" me. The opinions bruted about on this forum are just as idiotic as the arguments you find in a kindergarten class. And just about as intelligently articulated. No facts but lots of ad hominem. No vision but lots of smoke and mirrors. No "can do" but lots of whining about how we're getting screwed by our representatives or the liberals or the conservatives.

No one wants you banned (least I don't ). I don't see where you've provided more facts than anyone on the other side of the argument.

Either way, the war on drugs argument can be broken down into two simple points.

1. Prohibition does not work. It does not reduce crime nor does it get rid of the prohibited item. Doesn't work with guns, doesn't work with drugs. Puts money into the hands of gangs and organized crime. Prohibition 1 gave La Cosa Nostra its' original source of revenue in the US (later boosted by gambling which wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been illegal in all but a few areas).

People are going to get high. It's been happening for thousands of years. Throwing meth addicts in jail is not going to stop people from wanting to inebriate themselves.

2. The issue is about freedom. It's extremely hypocritical to claim that one should be able to protect themselves and their family with whatever weapon they please but then claim that everyone else should be told what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

If the Second Amendment is not excercised in the protection of life and liberty then it is USELESS.

Get real and get stuffed.

I'm as real as they come, dude. I plan on stuffing myself with tacos and beer tonight. Funny how I'm allowed to do that yet if I decided to smoke a pipe or take a bump to stay up late I'd suddenly be a criminal.

My use of pot or cocaine would not hurt anyone else any more than my ingestion of tacos and beer. I and tens of millions of people in the United States are able to control their substance use without and trouble and never let it turn into abuse. Why should I be punished because others can't do the same?

 

[Eghad]

Prohibition....that really was a big success wasnt it
The "War on Drugs".... hrmmmm

Once again the law abiding citizen gets to bear the brunt of feel good legislation. All this means is that folks will start running the stuff needed to make meth across the border which is going to create a money making business.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

This one's done. Couple of you have mail.
Rich