There's nothing good about meth, period. I'm all about letting people do what they want in private, but meth is scary shit. Legalizing it would be like letting people own rocket launchers.
Except, rocket launchers are for shooting at other people.
Meth is mostly about self destruction. Granted, tweakers tend to be dicks, but still, your analogy is just a little bit hyperbolic. We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit.
Also, wtf? You're telling me I can't have a rocket launcher now!?
We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit.
I definitely agree with you on this point, however exclusive self destruction is not possible in the vast majority of cases. Anyone that is financially or emotionally dependent on an addict experiences some destruction when they destroy themselves. If there is anyone that has no connections to family, friends, companies, or country, I agree, they should be allowed to do meth. I don't think there is anyone like this though. ;-)
Adults should be able to emotionally hurt whomever they want. If someone's parents are religious fundamentalists, by your logic, it should be illegal for the kid to become an atheist. Sorry, that is none of the State's business. That is a personal issue between three people.
Similarly, using meth is a personal issue for the meth user.
(The only reason people make it at home and blow up their buildings is because it's illegal to manufacture it safely. If you could go to Walgreens and buy your meth, you can bet that there would not be many exploding meth labs. This "problem" is caused by its "solution".)
I don't buy it. Adult's are not allowed to emotionally hurt their kids. Various child abuse laws cover this and our laws do indeed say that it is the State's business. You can't show me hard evidence that meth users usually act in emotionally (and financially) responsible ways; adults with dependents using meth is clearly wrong.
As for kids, well, kids simply don't have a developed enough brain to make proper decisions about a substance as addictive as meth. The argument here is purely biological and doesn't really need a defense. I'll preempt the usual counter argument by saying that if we could quantify decision making ability, I'd be all for using that instead of age. But age is the best we've got right now.
As I said before, if it doesn't affect anyone else I don't really care what you do. Parents can do whatever they want (drugs or otherwise) if it doesn't affect their kids or other dependents. In addition, anyone with a job needs to consider their responsibility to their company. But hey, if there's someone where none of these connections apply, s/he can do whatever they want. I certainly wont judge.
I never claimed that the punishment was right, only that it should be illegal. I'm in favor of whatever punishment helps the addict and society at large the most.
Interesting question. Alcohol shouldn't be illegal because it's a major part of our social fabric in America. Business deals, hacker meetups, weddings, reunions, all have alcohol at them. Hell, the writers of the constitution consumed a ton of alcohol to celebrate when they finished. All of these examples lead me to believe that in moderate amounts, alcohol serves a useful social function. I mean, when was the last time you were at a hacker meetup that didn't have booze at it?
Another reason why alcohol shouldn't be illegal is that almost all users are functioning, contributing members of society. Meth isn't even close in that regard. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of regular meth users have a positive net effect. It's just too addictive and potent.
That being said, I think the penalties for consuming too much alcohol should be on par with drug related offenses. Further, any crime committed while under heavy influence of alcohol (assault and rape come to mind) should have it's minimum sentence doubled. And as for parents who beat their spouses and children while drunk? I'd be fine with throwing them in jail for 20 to life depending on the damage done.
A less extreme measure is to revoke a persons right to purchase alcohol after X number of alcohol induced crimes. People do make mistakes, and we don't need to throw the book at first time offenders. However, a repeated pattern of alcohol abuse is not something that should be tolerated any more than the use of meth.
You're going to need to explain why you feel that Prohibition has any relevance to the points I made in my previous comment, because I'm not sure what you are getting at. Yes, religious movements caused alcohol to be banned for a period of time, but it was recognized as a mistake and repealed. Plus, it's not like Prohibition was a unanimous thing. There were 14 states that voted against it.
Only slightly hyperbolic. As someone who's spent more time than he'd care to admit in East Texas (a major manufacturing and distribution center for illegal meth), people that make this stuff do it in their homes, and eventually tweak out and blow up the neighborhood. It happens a lot more than you'd think...
... not to mention, habitual usage doesn't exactly lead to safe behavior, which is inflicted on others.
I'm not a drug regulation advocate, but it's important not to paint Meth as a victimless drug. The first target may be yourself when you use it, but the collateral damage is not insubstantial.
A better analogy than a rocket launcher might be hand grenades, if we're sticking to small armaments as the analogy.
Most of the article is about how dangerous the manufacture of the stuff is... who's fault is that, dumbass? There are plenty of things that are dangerous to manufacture that we manage to produce safely in massive quantities every day. Stop using force against people engaged in voluntary exchanges and the problem is solved. You don't hear about people's houses blowing up from bathtub gin operations anymore do you?
Not directly, but they are absolutely causing the situation, just as they were at fault for the rise of the American mob during prohibition. Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences.
The government isn't causing the situation, the dumbasses who choose to take a chemically addictive substance are causing the problem. You don't have the right to do whatever you want in this country if it's going to fuck up everything around you.
Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences.
Not really. There are certain thing that should be allowed in society and certain things that shouldn't. I personally believe that alcohol and non addictive substances should be. Meth and other chemically addictive substances, plastic explosives, and automatic weapons shouldn't be. The key here is impact on others. If whatever you want to exchange is going to have a significant negative impact on those around you, it shouldn't be allowed. Smoking is public places? Nope. Can you smoke in your car by yourself? Sure. Same concept applies to everything we do. It's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you want to do meth and hunt deer with a 50 cal, you can always move to an empty island or a large desert.
I personally think the benefits of staying a part of a society outweigh the costs, and that's why I'm still here.
You can disallow all you like. Prohibition didn't work then and won't work now. You're just going to ruin more people's lives, and in this case, make the life of nearly every person in the country a little more miserable when they get sick.
Using violence for any reason other than defense against violence is wrong. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with such a simple concept.
You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself? The data we have say differently. I suggest you read more on meth and its effects and stop using the prohibition of booze as your only data point.
You're essentially just ranting about prohibition and violence with no concrete point in mind. There's no significant movement to legalize meth and there never will be. Any violence employed counteracting meth operations is certainly justified given the tactics used by organizations that deal with meth. This whole freedom to the people, freedom from oppression, start a revolution mentality is bullshit in this case. You can still be a free man without having the right to run a meth lab in your basement.
If you're going to pick a battle about freedom, meth isn't it my friend. And if it's not about freedom, well then it's about the high.
> You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth addiction itself?
Actually, I'm claiming that the laws against meth do not reduce any of the problems with meth addiction. In short, they provide no benefits. However, they do have costs.
The value of a program is the difference between the realized benefits and the incurred costs. The war on drugs doesn't have significant realized benefits. (I don't place much value on the "we're saying that drugs are wrong" benefit.)
> The data we have say differently.
Oh really? What data shows that the laws against meth reduce the costs of meth use? How about the amount of meth use? How about the availability of meth? (Seizures don't necessarily cause scarcity. Jailing 100k meth suppliers doesn't matter if we still have "enough" meth suppliers to satisfy demand.)
If something isn't doing anything about the problem, it isn't a solution, it's merely another problem.
I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth should be illegal. A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by me.
> I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth should be illegal.
Why should meth be illegal if making it illegal isn't effective.
We're spending a lot of resources on the war on drugs. If the benefit that we're getting isn'g greater than the costs that we're incurring, why are we spending those costs?
> A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by me.
That's nice, but what do we do until then?
I'm all for trying experiments, but when something fails, it's important to take it down, if for no other reason than its continued existence/drain/waste demonstrates that the "we'll try this and if it doesn't work" argument is a lie.
As said previously, the government at BEST is not causing the problem, but certainly it isn`t helping and most certainly it is making it worse. By prohibiting something that creates income, the formation of a black market (in this case mostly violent) is almost inevitable. Also, needless to say, drug prohibition has been largely ineffective as a mean to reduce drug use. Other negative aspect is the superpopulation in prisons. Most people, acording to research, are imprisioned for drug-related crimes.
So, if something that costs absurd amounts of money is ineffective and has disastrous social consequences, why keep it? Well, this could be probably for a number of practical reasons:
1. Society doesn't care, at large.
2. Society has the illusion of a safer environment because of drug prohibition, when what happens in fact is the opposite
3. Illegal drug market is responsible for a lot of money flow, and i SUSPECT people in charge of drug enforcement make money from it.
4. It's a good excuse to raise taxes
5. It's a good excuse to control the population, saying it is for their own good.
6. Marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the world, and it is a plant, meaning that it cannot be patented and controlled, and a lot of people can grow it easily. Marijuana being illegal would make a lot more of money to politicians and criminals than it would make if it were legal
On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.)
You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous.
Meth has nothing to do with most of your points. It's not the same as Marijuana. Meth related arrests are not causing overcrowding in jails.
On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.)
As I've said before, if you can point to me a person that wont affect anyone else through meth use, I'd be ok with them doing meth. This however, it not possible because of the potency and addictive properties of the drug. There are very few (if any) jobs that a true meth addict can do competently. They suffer from paranoia, blurred vision, insomnia, etc. It's not just your problem, it's the problem of everyone that depends on you.
You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous.
As I said before, I never claimed that current methods were effective. All I have claimed is that meth should be illegal. And of course, we should always be researching new ways in which we can enforce our laws more effectively.
It doesn't seem twisted at all to me. These operations are forced to exist in non-safe locations because of prohibition. I think the current laws are just as responsible for these explosions as they are for the hashish you find cut with shoe polish - when was the last time you bought a bottle of beer that was cut with a toxic substance?
No one is forcing them to make meth. Maybe the people should run meth labs should consider graduating high school and getting a real job. I hear you don't have to worry about getting blown up if you have one of those.
This is probably the end of over-the-counter pseudoephedrine. Why let people have a safe and effective nasal decongestant when a few people could make ILLEGAL drugs with it!?
(Incidentally, you can't buy pipe anymore, since you could use it to make a pipe bomb. Oh wait, no. Doing that is still fine. Killing others is fine, but using drugs is just wrong!)
Also, does anyone have any data on how making pseudoephedrine a pain to buy has reduced meth usage? For some reason, I doubt it has.
"You have to understand going in that drugs are an evolutionary process ... The day after we pass a law, they are going to look for ways to circumvent that."
The law of unintended consequences. I was recently reading about cocaine production in South America. The DEA pressured Bolivia into putting restricting the so-called "precursor chemicals" needed to convert cocaine paste into cocaine powder. As a result, Bolivia stopped manufacturing and exporting powder all by itself, and started exporting its paste to the many factories which sprung up in neighbouring Uruguay and Argentina. This turned out to be a much better arrangement - not only did these industrial countries have access to high grade chemicals and lab equipment, they also had far better shipping routes. As a "bonus", a thriving secondary market in the production residues (an impure but highly addictive form of crack, locally known as "Paco") sprang up around the labs, enslaving local populations as badly as any meth town. Creativity loves constraints.
37 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 86.6 ms ] threadIt could also be really good (well better in some ways anyway): No more external issues of money, and crime, that are associated with this.
Meth is mostly about self destruction. Granted, tweakers tend to be dicks, but still, your analogy is just a little bit hyperbolic. We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit.
Also, wtf? You're telling me I can't have a rocket launcher now!?
I definitely agree with you on this point, however exclusive self destruction is not possible in the vast majority of cases. Anyone that is financially or emotionally dependent on an addict experiences some destruction when they destroy themselves. If there is anyone that has no connections to family, friends, companies, or country, I agree, they should be allowed to do meth. I don't think there is anyone like this though. ;-)
Similarly, using meth is a personal issue for the meth user.
(The only reason people make it at home and blow up their buildings is because it's illegal to manufacture it safely. If you could go to Walgreens and buy your meth, you can bet that there would not be many exploding meth labs. This "problem" is caused by its "solution".)
As for kids, well, kids simply don't have a developed enough brain to make proper decisions about a substance as addictive as meth. The argument here is purely biological and doesn't really need a defense. I'll preempt the usual counter argument by saying that if we could quantify decision making ability, I'd be all for using that instead of age. But age is the best we've got right now.
As I said before, if it doesn't affect anyone else I don't really care what you do. Parents can do whatever they want (drugs or otherwise) if it doesn't affect their kids or other dependents. In addition, anyone with a job needs to consider their responsibility to their company. But hey, if there's someone where none of these connections apply, s/he can do whatever they want. I certainly wont judge.
Definitely agree. Judgment should stand. Sentencing should adapt.
Another reason why alcohol shouldn't be illegal is that almost all users are functioning, contributing members of society. Meth isn't even close in that regard. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of regular meth users have a positive net effect. It's just too addictive and potent.
That being said, I think the penalties for consuming too much alcohol should be on par with drug related offenses. Further, any crime committed while under heavy influence of alcohol (assault and rape come to mind) should have it's minimum sentence doubled. And as for parents who beat their spouses and children while drunk? I'd be fine with throwing them in jail for 20 to life depending on the damage done.
A less extreme measure is to revoke a persons right to purchase alcohol after X number of alcohol induced crimes. People do make mistakes, and we don't need to throw the book at first time offenders. However, a repeated pattern of alcohol abuse is not something that should be tolerated any more than the use of meth.
... not to mention, habitual usage doesn't exactly lead to safe behavior, which is inflicted on others.
I'm not a drug regulation advocate, but it's important not to paint Meth as a victimless drug. The first target may be yourself when you use it, but the collateral damage is not insubstantial.
A better analogy than a rocket launcher might be hand grenades, if we're sticking to small armaments as the analogy.
This is a perfect reason to have a fake ID, BTW. Buy as much as you want, it's not your problem.
Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil consequences.
Not really. There are certain thing that should be allowed in society and certain things that shouldn't. I personally believe that alcohol and non addictive substances should be. Meth and other chemically addictive substances, plastic explosives, and automatic weapons shouldn't be. The key here is impact on others. If whatever you want to exchange is going to have a significant negative impact on those around you, it shouldn't be allowed. Smoking is public places? Nope. Can you smoke in your car by yourself? Sure. Same concept applies to everything we do. It's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. If you want to do meth and hunt deer with a 50 cal, you can always move to an empty island or a large desert.
I personally think the benefits of staying a part of a society outweigh the costs, and that's why I'm still here.
Using violence for any reason other than defense against violence is wrong. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with such a simple concept.
You're essentially just ranting about prohibition and violence with no concrete point in mind. There's no significant movement to legalize meth and there never will be. Any violence employed counteracting meth operations is certainly justified given the tactics used by organizations that deal with meth. This whole freedom to the people, freedom from oppression, start a revolution mentality is bullshit in this case. You can still be a free man without having the right to run a meth lab in your basement.
If you're going to pick a battle about freedom, meth isn't it my friend. And if it's not about freedom, well then it's about the high.
Actually, I'm claiming that the laws against meth do not reduce any of the problems with meth addiction. In short, they provide no benefits. However, they do have costs.
The value of a program is the difference between the realized benefits and the incurred costs. The war on drugs doesn't have significant realized benefits. (I don't place much value on the "we're saying that drugs are wrong" benefit.)
> The data we have say differently.
Oh really? What data shows that the laws against meth reduce the costs of meth use? How about the amount of meth use? How about the availability of meth? (Seizures don't necessarily cause scarcity. Jailing 100k meth suppliers doesn't matter if we still have "enough" meth suppliers to satisfy demand.)
If something isn't doing anything about the problem, it isn't a solution, it's merely another problem.
Why should meth be illegal if making it illegal isn't effective.
We're spending a lot of resources on the war on drugs. If the benefit that we're getting isn'g greater than the costs that we're incurring, why are we spending those costs?
> A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by me.
That's nice, but what do we do until then?
I'm all for trying experiments, but when something fails, it's important to take it down, if for no other reason than its continued existence/drain/waste demonstrates that the "we'll try this and if it doesn't work" argument is a lie.
As said previously, the government at BEST is not causing the problem, but certainly it isn`t helping and most certainly it is making it worse. By prohibiting something that creates income, the formation of a black market (in this case mostly violent) is almost inevitable. Also, needless to say, drug prohibition has been largely ineffective as a mean to reduce drug use. Other negative aspect is the superpopulation in prisons. Most people, acording to research, are imprisioned for drug-related crimes.
So, if something that costs absurd amounts of money is ineffective and has disastrous social consequences, why keep it? Well, this could be probably for a number of practical reasons:
1. Society doesn't care, at large. 2. Society has the illusion of a safer environment because of drug prohibition, when what happens in fact is the opposite 3. Illegal drug market is responsible for a lot of money flow, and i SUSPECT people in charge of drug enforcement make money from it. 4. It's a good excuse to raise taxes 5. It's a good excuse to control the population, saying it is for their own good. 6. Marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the world, and it is a plant, meaning that it cannot be patented and controlled, and a lot of people can grow it easily. Marijuana being illegal would make a lot more of money to politicians and criminals than it would make if it were legal
On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.)
You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous.
On philosophical grounds, I still believe that if you want to fuck up yourself in meth, it is YOUR problem (after all, it's YOUR body.)
As I've said before, if you can point to me a person that wont affect anyone else through meth use, I'd be ok with them doing meth. This however, it not possible because of the potency and addictive properties of the drug. There are very few (if any) jobs that a true meth addict can do competently. They suffer from paranoia, blurred vision, insomnia, etc. It's not just your problem, it's the problem of everyone that depends on you.
You (we) have to understand that almost every single society that grew on this planet used drugs somehow -- The prohibitionist approach to stop (some) drug use would look childish and hilarious - if it were not disastrous.
As I said before, I never claimed that current methods were effective. All I have claimed is that meth should be illegal. And of course, we should always be researching new ways in which we can enforce our laws more effectively.
(Incidentally, you can't buy pipe anymore, since you could use it to make a pipe bomb. Oh wait, no. Doing that is still fine. Killing others is fine, but using drugs is just wrong!)
Also, does anyone have any data on how making pseudoephedrine a pain to buy has reduced meth usage? For some reason, I doubt it has.
The law of unintended consequences. I was recently reading about cocaine production in South America. The DEA pressured Bolivia into putting restricting the so-called "precursor chemicals" needed to convert cocaine paste into cocaine powder. As a result, Bolivia stopped manufacturing and exporting powder all by itself, and started exporting its paste to the many factories which sprung up in neighbouring Uruguay and Argentina. This turned out to be a much better arrangement - not only did these industrial countries have access to high grade chemicals and lab equipment, they also had far better shipping routes. As a "bonus", a thriving secondary market in the production residues (an impure but highly addictive form of crack, locally known as "Paco") sprang up around the labs, enslaving local populations as badly as any meth town. Creativity loves constraints.