meth

[moot]

It's a possible parallel rather than an undeniable parallel because it's not quite the same thing.
How would meth be used in a healthy way, the way an FFL permits?  It's the inverse in Meth's case: guns themselves are no danger unless the user has psych issues.
Meth, on the other hand, will corrupt health itself, physicaly and psychologicaly.  How do you regulate that?  Could meth be made as innocuous as pot?

It's akin to legalizing micro nuclear bombs or 500mph road vehicles.  In a theoretical sense it would work, but people take a long time to acclimatize and wizen up to this sort of thing.
I think it would be too likely to have the effect booze had on native americans to be worth the risk.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Sorry, but I DO NOT see a parallel. A Ma Deuce or a mini gun will NOT take control of your life or your mind like a mood altering chemical substance introduced into your body will.

Meth, heroine, cocaine, and any number of other substances like them alter the state of mind, and create a dependency. There's just no way making those substances legal and regulated will make them safer, or even less damaging for human use.

And comparing those drugs to alcohol is reaching as well. Only in relatively rare cases does consumption of alcohol, even on a fairly regular basis, create an addiction like those drugs do. Where as those drugs almost always create a life threatening addiction in nearly everyone who introduces them into their body. Look into the percentage of people who drink alcohol on at least a semi regular or even daily basis who become true alcoholics, versus the percentage of people who take any of the aforementioned drugs more than a couple of times who become hopelessly addicted to them. Then, look into the effects of alcoholism versus drug addiction on the person afflicted and the persons around them. The difference, from my experience, is dramatic. And legalizing the drugs will not mitigate the effects of the drugs themselves on those who take them.

Finally, as anyone knows, government regulation is a train wreck unto itself. Government regulation of drugs and drug addicts is a train wreck of unimaginable proportions. No good can come of it.

[Gunthr]

Its insanity to think that anyone who wants drugs can't already get them, insanity to not realize that like it or not there's a black market that we'll never be able to eliminate, and insanity to ignore the lessons history teaches.

The alcohol model is exactly on point. Alcohol was a much worse problem in this country during our misguided experiment with its prohibition. Decriminalization and regulation have allowed us to exert control that we never had during the prohibition.

Unless you're aware of some secret breakthrough that will allow the "War On Drugs" to finally start making a dent in the drug trade? - culero

your points, one at a time:

"Its insanity to think that anyone who wants drugs can't already get them, insanity to not realize that like it or not there's a black market that we'll never be able to eliminate, and insanity to ignore the lessons history teaches."

These are straw arguments.  I don't think that anyone who wants drugs can't get them.  I realize that there is a persistant black market.  I do not ignore the lessons that history teaches - namely that use of these extremely addictive substances creates addicts at a rate so far beyond that of alcohol use that it should be obvious to you.

"Unless you're aware of some secret breakthrough that will allow the "War On Drugs" to finally start making a dent in the drug trade?"

another straw argument.  i never said i support the war on drugs, or said that i believe that it would make a dent in the drug trade. my view on legalization of meth, crack and heroin has nothing to do with "war on drugs."  

i'm saying that legalization of these drugs would create an epidemic of addiction that would be extremely damaging and costly to our country.  in all the drivel you are spouting, not once do you mention how you would pay for all this.  do you like socialism?  because that is the kind of society we would become - we would have to, to support your addicts' drug and  health needs and the rest of the societal damage done, not to mention lost productivity etc etc etc

[culero]

OK, folkses, I think I may have failed to explain myself clearly enough. Take a deep breath and consider this:

I absolutely agree meth is dangerous, and not something I'm happy to see people use as a recreational drug. Cocaine, heroin, and other drugs fall into that same category in my mind. I absolutely agree that free and unrestricted access to these drugs by anyone who wants them is a bad idea.

My personal problem here is that IMO, that's exactly where we are now, and our current strategy for dealing with the problem has little likelihood of doing anything about that.

I would like to see us look to the alcohol model NOT because I claim that alcohol and meth are in any way equivalent in their effect - I don't, for the record - but because we had rampant crime, violence, danger to citizens using bootleg alcohol because no regulation existed as to its purity and content, and roadblocks in the way of citizens with drinking problems getting help with same because they had to admit to criminal behavior as a part of coming forward for help.

Repealing the alcohol prohibition allowed us to stamp out the bootleg trade by bringing the most basic element of our strategy for success as a society into play - the free market. If you allow people a choice between legal and illegal alternatives, they will mostly choose legal sources. I give you the argument that one positive effect of decriminalization would be the virtual elimination of the current black market drug trade, with all its inherent problems. Yes, we'd still have people using drugs, but at least the people selling them their drugs wouldn't use drive-by shootings etc as normal business practice, and would be subject to regulation of the actual content of their products.

Cost in a financial sense is also a factor in my reasoning. Currently, if you hate drugs and do not use them, you still must pay from your own pocket for whatever it is we do to control the drug problem. Here's a clue, folkses - this is a considerable sum we all pay now. Decriminalization would by its nature reverse that absurdity. Producers, distributors, their employees, and drug users would all begin paying taxes (think: black market = no tax revenue at all). We would be able to begin making those people who choose to be involved in the supply/demand cycle PAY FOR what we as a society do to curb the ill effect drugs have on us collectively.

In summary, arguing about this by decrying the evil effect of drugs is actually the "straw man" argument in this case. I stipulate drugs are bad. I propose decriminalization because I see that it would allow us to exert MORE control of drug usage than we currently do. I offer the alcohol model only in that sense, and point to the strides we've made in dealing with alcohol abuse since we repealed the prohibition as an historic example.

My challenge is for those who argue against decriminalization is simple: please explain how YOU propose to put the black market out of business, and relieve the tax burden I (OK, we ) have to pay because some idiots choose to abuse drugs. If you have a better idea, I am all ears.

[lazs2]

Mav...I have been an addict and dealer and have been around plenty of addicts.

   I would be glad to discuss why I have no problem with legalizing drugs.   I have never met an addict that got hooked on legal meth or had a hard time getting enough illegal crank to become an addict.

The only difference would be that crime would go down.. we would still have the same amount of addicts.  Maybe even a few less... it would be less glamorous.

I have no problem with lbs of crank being sold to adults for $5 at the local pharmacy... put the dealer out of work.

Those of us who have friends and relatives who are addicts would be better off... they won't be stealing from us and lying and such..  they will probly not even be talking to us since we will have nothing they want (money to buy drugs)

There will be room in our prisons for real criminals or..  for them when they reach the flip out point.

I would allow them all the drugs they wanted in prison too.

lazs

[john9001]

reefer madness

[Gunthr]

In summary, arguing about this by decrying the evil effect of drugs is actually the "straw man" argument in this case. I stipulate drugs are bad. I propose decriminalization because I see that it would allow us to exert MORE control of drug usage than we currently do. I offer the alcohol model only in that sense, and point to the strides we've made in dealing with alcohol abuse since we repealed the prohibition as an historic example.

My challenge is for those who argue against decriminalization is simple: please explain how YOU propose to put the black market out of business, and relieve the tax burden I (OK, we ) have to pay because some idiots choose to abuse drugs. If you have a better idea, I am all ears. - culero

I state simply that legalizing meth, crack and heroin will make it easier to obtain, and therefore make it easier to try, easier to use, and therefore create more addicts who will subsequently become, as addicts do, unemployable, mentally unstable, phyiscally disabled, socially pathological, unable to support themselves or their children/families, unproductive and ultimately dependant on society to pay for it all.  this is not a "straw man" argument.  it is my core argument. this is quite different than saying "drugs are bad."  The alcohol analogy is still a non sequiter.

My impression is that when you refer to a theoretical America with "decriminalized" crystal meth, crack and heroin, you envision clinics where these substances would be dispensed.  Is that correct?

(edited for grammar)

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Gunthr
that just isn't true.  the the country's experience with alchohol just doesn't translate to drugs like crystal meth, crack and heroin.  it is insanity to legalize these substances for non-medical use...  unless you want to create a tidal wave of addicts in this country.

Someone looking for an opiate / stimulant high gets around 20X the amount they need off the street... which obviously accelerates the on set of phycical addiction... from there they run on a treadmill "chasing the dragon". Not to mention the deadly impurities of what a home cooked brews can offer.

It would take a good week or two of solid drinking to reach the same point with a legal opiate beverage that packs the "punch" of, eh 1 250mg vicodin ea.. a 6 pack would get someone about as 'high' as 3 500mg Vicodins... make it cost $10 a 6 pack, after a 100% tax for drug education & other programs, they'd pay for themselves.

If I go home and drink beer & smoke cigarettes, BOTH physically addictive , perhaps with a few corporate America happy pills (physically addictive prescription meds) what business is it of yours?... why  would you care if I did the same, but drank a 12 pack of "opiate brew"?  or "Coke with Coke"?

I'm just looking for a legal buzz, similar to the strength of alcohol, why do you care?

I'm an adult allowed to abuse myself and its none of the .govs, or anyone else's business unless I go out and "act a fool", in which case all the "public intoxication", DUI ad other laws still apply.

I too have spent many months working a Federally funded multi agency narco task force which included 2 agents from the Famous But Incompetent (FBI)... lots and lots of people went to prison, we recovered 1/2 dozen cars via asset seizure, served several no knock warrants, a dozens other warrants... and we didn't even put a dent in the areas drug trafficking. When the Fed funds ran out, we packed up and left accomplishing NOTHING.

Prison is criminal college to these guys, they come out wiser, smarter, and better connected...  if anything all the arrests we made just created better criminals for some other task force to deal with later. But hey, I made tons of Fed cheese OT almost doubling my yearly salary, it was exciting hunting / chasing the ghetto elk, fun, a great career padding experience...  its a good assignment and guys will always line up to do it knowing it wont make a dent.

Then I went to auto theft for a brief stint, and guess what? when we  hooked  & booked the car thieves...  auto thefts went down near 80% while they were in jail. Imagine if every cop working a drug task force were preventing / arresting car theft.. think insurance would go down? or looking for child molesters, rapists, credit card thieves... rather than turning a lot of non violent people into criminals just because they're looking for a buzz.

[Curval]

Apparently the meth cookers are "flavouring" the meth with Kool Aid etc.

If they legalise it I may give that a try.


































NOT!

[x0847Marine]

BTW you all realise that inside your brain / body are cannaboid receptors specifically for tetrahydrocannbinol (THC)? the best part is that its not physically addictive.

So nature gave us a weed that grows everywhere on the planet, even in the poorest soil, that our brains have special receptors for... you think theres a "hint" there? or is congress is smarter than nature?

Or does congress want you buying other drugs made by their campaign contributors? those who smoke weed know how harmless it is, and know that after a hard day, a few bowls can relieve stress / minor aches pains, helps people sleep, relieves nausea, stimulates appetite...  and its 100% natural. But corporate America has engineered chemical pills for stress, aches, pains, sleep.. they'd rather we buy $100 in drugs and take 5 different pills than be able to grow our own relief for pennies on the dollar.

Also look into the how the the old Chief of police from the San Jose police Dept was given a yearly budget for extras of $0.00 by the city manager... he was told to generate his own $$ by asset seizure... giving the police a direct motivation to make $$.

Local govts are taking the tax $$ you gave them to spend on the police services and spending it elsewhere... requiring depts to do more asset seizures. All asset seizure needs is a "preponderance of the evidence", you can be found NOT GUILTY of drug charges, but if the judge decides there's a 51% chance drug $$ was involved, they'll take everything they can; house, car, horse.. and sell it.

Its a freakn scam, but politicians love the free $$ and will lie, like they do on every subject, about the drug war too.

[midnight Target]

No one quits unless they are committed to quitting. I quit about the same time lazs did. I wonder if he was my dealer?

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Curval
Apparently the meth cookers are "flavouring" the meth with Kool Aid etc.

If they legalise it I may give that a try.


































NOT!

Meth is just a form of a stimulant. Its not about making every illegal drug legal, but offering the stimulant / opiate buzz in much weaker dosages in a legal form. Why would a doper buy $50 meth off a dealer when he could walk into 7-11 and get a stimulant beverage 6 pack for $10?

Just like cigerettes and beer, if you're not interested, you're free to walk by and say "NOT".

[Curval]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
Meth is just a form of a stimulant. Its not about making every illegal drug legal, but offering the stimulant / opiate buzz in much weaker dosages in a legal form. Why would a doper buy $50 meth off a dealer when he could walk into 7-11 and get a stimulant beverage 6 pack for $10?

Just like cigerettes and beer, if you're not interested, you're free to walk by and say "NOT".

The point I was trying to make (badly I guess) is that just because a drug is legal (and may be flavoured with sugary drink mixes) doesn't mean I will suddenly want to try it.

I agree with you 100%.

[Maverick]

First off, again I am NOT making light of JB�s situation by this discussion. I do not want anyone to think I am or that I am not sympathetic to his situation. I have had alcoholics and an addict in my own (not immediate) family.

The reason I brought this up is pretty simple. I wanted a discussion, not name calling or a flame war, about this situation. I think a thread about an addict is really the place to discuss this as addiction is a very real part of using so called recreational drugs, legal or otherwise.  I don�t have the answers to all the questions; I just have more questions and am interested to see how those who are in favor of legalization would envision the world and these issues.

I follow the argument about losing the black market. I can even understand that position and why you would think that's a great idea. I don't necessarily believe it will work out, heck there is a black market in LEGAL substances like alcohol and tobacco right now. Making drugs legal but regulating them will not eliminate the black market but it will decrease the size of it pretty dramatically, assuming the legal price of those substances is very low.

As to the idea that you can keep violent criminals in prison permanently, bovine scatology there. That would require a rewrite of the criminal code and would also violate the cruel and unusual prohibition part of the Constitution. Put down the crack pipe on that one please. Violent criminals aren�t being shoved out of prison just because there is no room since all these nice non violent drug users are there. They are out because of the sentencing they were given for the offenses they were convicted. I doubt anyone wants to see someone convicted of assault serving a life sentence.

Would decriminalizing drugs reduce prison populations? Sure I think it would, temporarily but people will still be doing stupid things. Maybe even more of them if a larger part of the population gets to using due to the lack of self control as their inhibitions are relaxed in their brains due to the drugs they are ingesting. Even with alcohol, you have happy calm drunks and you have some very nasty belligerent drunks. Yes you might get the heroin addicts being mellow and not doing much, but what are you going to do with or about the PCP folks?

If you think legalizing drugs will eliminate all crime related to it, again you need to put down the pipe. Look to alcohol and even tobacco. There are still people breaking into stores and even stealing from others to get money to buy a LEGAL substance. Do you think that will not be the case when Joe addict runs out of money (assuming he even has some kind of job to earn any at all) and decides to go right to the source to get their fix?

What do you propose those same folks will do for work? What kind of job is a meth head, crack head, and heroin addict suited for? What are you going to do to employ a PCP user? Obviously if these folks are going to use LEGAL drugs they must do so after they procure money, or do you see the Government as being required to provide them for free? Who will support these folks even if they get free drugs? What are you going to do with those who decide to try meth, cocaine, crack, PCP and heroin (note they are ALL highly addictive) as they become less productive and less able to fend for themselves. Who will provide the shelter, food, clothes and medical assistance needed because of their addiction related problems?

Do I want a person �just out to get a buzz� operating a car? Nope, no more than I want a person with a buzz on from alcohol. We already have a significant problem with alcohol abuse now and driving. What do you propose to do to take care of the transportation needs of an addict? What about their family members should Mom or Dad be the one affected?

Lastly can someone please explain to me exactly what the benefit to society an addict is? If we are going to �open the doors� to these drugs, meth, heroin, cocaine in both forms, pcp what is the benefit to society other than ending the �war on drugs�? What do you think those substances are going to provide for the nation, I really want to know.

[FrodeMk3]

Hey JB 88, I didn't mean to say that things are hopeless (My post was kinda gloomy,) I just meant to say that you and everyone that want's to help your cousin are gonna have to feel out all of the individual little personality changes, and react to them accordingly. One thing that might help you...She might have some underlying reason that she started using, other than just wanting to. Maybe she was suffering from depression, etc.
That's where you might be the biggest help. Some people will see drugs as the cure, rather than a worse problem in itself. Again, GL JB