Meth. Guns and Glory

[Eghad]

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.

[Greg Bell]

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. [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]?

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

[Abndoc]

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.

[seth]

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.

[Benonymous]

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..

[AndrewD]

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.

[okiejack]

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.

[Redworm]

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.

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 [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color] 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.

[color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]??

[invention_45]

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?

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?

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.

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?

[invention_45]

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

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.

This sort of shoots the idea of protecting meth users from themselves, doesn't it?

[invention_45]

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.

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.

[Sindawe]

It's not refined, it's turned from one chemical thing into another, like turning lead into gold, only different.

Understatement of the day I think.

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

I've reviewed one researchers page that already classifys meth as a neurotoxin, in that it kills neurons in the brain of lab animals.

[invention_45]

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.

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.

[Abndoc]

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.

[invention_45]

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.

[Harley Quinn]

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

[carebear]

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.

[invention_45]

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.

[Harley Quinn]

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

[Redworm]

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?

[invention_45]

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).

[Eghad]

Harley,

So you are syaing that a guy like Sheriff Masters is ignorant or confused about the issue? That maybe he experiments with drugs?

[Tommy Vercetti]

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.

[Harley Quinn]

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

[Tommy Vercetti]

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.