Have you ever been around meth abusers? Because they most certainly do not harmlessly keep their addiction to themselves. The production of meth is dangerous to others through fire damage and the abusers themselves are dangerous to others through violence.
I completely agree that many drugs are harmful only to the user, and that it should be the user’s decision to use or not.
Meth is not one of those drugs.
And how did making the stuff illegal work so far?
Would you be taking meth just because it was cheaper?
Why would anybody else other than those who already use it?
I bolded the part of your post that I orignally responded to.
Having lived in a small town with a big meth abuse problem, I do not believe at all that problems from meth (I argue against meth because my first-hand experience of the effects of really dangerous drugs is limited to meth) are limited only to the user. Thusly, I support the continued illegalization of meth specifically.
Generally, I believe that the government should reclassify drugs so that they can maximize their resources to limit the spread and abuse of drugs that are truly harmful to society, and stop wasting time and money trying to stop drugs that are relatively harmless.
[/quote]
You’re drawing arbitrary lines. It doesn’t make sense to apply the prohibitionist philosophy to some things and not to others. You either believe that the government should make your health decisions for you or you don’t.
In any case, the federal government needs to back off. Let states, counties, and cities determine which drugs they are willing to tolerate.
Price is a phony argument. Many people avoid meth because it is illegal. If it were legal more people would try it.
So is legality…I don’t give a shit if meth was legal and free, I’d avoid it like the plague because it’s a vial chemical. That doesn’t mean I give a damn if someone train wrecks their life over it. People do it anyway, nothing has stopped it, nothing.
What if you were all liquored up and you saw it in the Kwickee Mart while you were microwaving burritos? Would you make the same decision?[/quote]
I wouldn’t likely go to a Kwickee mart for burritos (to fattening) but I don’t think there is a level of hammered that would cause me a great enough lapse in judgment to toot a line of crank. I never accidentally fucked an ugly chick either.
I actually have never met a person who said “Boy I’d like to do some crank, but it’s illegal, damn.”
Zap that is why you don’t put it in a kwickee mart. The way to do it is same way our grandparents used to, use a prescription. That way there is some control over the situation.
Another possible way is to have a red light district for drugs. That way instead of having a city dotted with crack and meth neighborhoods there would be just one or two and they would have defined boudaries. They even could put up a wall around it, to cut it off from the rest of the city and contain any problems.
If they gave the drugs away inside the disrict they could take the business away from gangs which would be a serious even fatal blow to gang culture. Prostitution also would be affected, because addicts would not need to prostitute themselves for drugs. Addicts also would not need to rob people for drug money.
[quote]new2training wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
orion wrote:
OMG that would be like legalizing the DEMON ALCOHOL!!!
Alright, equating meth and alcohol is simply retarded. The addictive potential of meth versus alcohol differs in orders of magnitude. Chronic meth use does more damage in a year than a lifetime of alcohol abuse. They do not compare in the least.
Pot on the other hand would be a fair comparison.
As Zap said, each drug should be evaluated individually.
ElbowStrike
Well said.
Think about all of the complete morons that live in your hometown. Do you really want them to be able to wander down to the local convenience store with a side arm strapped to their waist and get cranked up on some meth.
Libertarian minded people always seem to think of themselves when they try to justify boundless personal freedoms.
From what I know of them, I wouldn’t mind if Varq or Mikey or Liftic had all the personal freedom in the world. I think they have the common sense and decency to live a life that would not impose or become a burden on others.
The problem is, these aren’t the only type of people who live in this country. We are surrounded by morally and mentally bankrupt people at every turn.
We have a population that cannot even be trusted to make healthy food choices for themselves and their families.
You want to let them have heroin and meth at their disposal?
It’s an absurd notion.
Edited to try to add clarity[/quote]
Your assumption that Libertarians believe in complete unadulterated personal freedom is false. The vast majority of Libertarians believe that “Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves in the exercise of free choice.” In other words you can do whatever the fuck you want so long as it does not threaten or infringe on another’s right to the same. There are laws in place to handle the “morally and mentally bankrupt people at every turn,” as you call them. The moment that government feels that need to legislate every aspect of a “free” individuals life, we have a serious fucking problem. We have passed that point.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Zap that is why you don’t put it in a kwickee mart. The way to do it is same way our grandparents used to, use a prescription. That way there is some control over the situation.
… [/quote]
I have no problem with making them all available by prescrition but that is effectively making them illegal because no doctor is going to prescribe meth.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have no problem with making them all available by prescrition but that is effectively making them illegal because no doctor is going to prescribe meth.[/quote]
Sure they would.
Desoxyn® CII is a brand of methamphetamine hydrochloride (also known as desoxyephedrine, hence the name “Desoxyn”), indicated for treatment of Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD), narcolepsy, and exogenous obesity. Desoxyn is a Schedule II medication under the U.S. DEA Schedule system.
Your assumption that Libertarians believe in complete unadulterated personal freedom is false. The vast majority of Libertarians believe that “Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves in the exercise of free choice.” In other words you can do whatever the fuck you want so long as it does not threaten or infringe on another’s right to the same. There are laws in place to handle the “morally and mentally bankrupt people at every turn,” as you call them. The moment that government feels that need to legislate every aspect of a “free” individuals life, we have a serious fucking problem. We have passed that point.[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Zap that is why you don’t put it in a kwickee mart. The way to do it is same way our grandparents used to, use a prescription. That way there is some control over the situation.
…
I have no problem with making them all available by prescrition but that is effectively making them illegal because no doctor is going to prescribe meth.[/quote]
No Dr. is going to prescribe drugs so people can get off (well, except for E.D. meds). I am not advocating a free for all, we definitely want to keep it out of the kids hands, but I don’t see where the government has any business telling adults what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
I know. I also know that I do not care how much someone else damages himself when it comes to making something illegal.
It is up to him to fuck up. It is up to him to fuck up royally.
The very degree someone is able to fuck up is a measure of how free he is.
Those determined to fuck up will do so anyway and those who don´t simply won´t buy that stuff no matter what.
The idea that more people would line up to destroy themselves if it was only cheaper is absurd as if more people would commit suicide if they only could afford it.
Have you ever been around meth abusers? Because they most certainly do not harmlessly keep their addiction to themselves. The production of meth is dangerous to others through fire damage and the abusers themselves are dangerous to others through violence.
I completely agree that many drugs are harmful only to the user, and that it should be the user’s decision to use or not.
Meth is not one of those drugs. [/quote]
Agreed. There is a world of difference between legalizing pot and legalizing meth (or heroin).
I agree Meth and Heroin are terrible drugs, but they have been illegal for many years and I could go out on the street and buy them any time I want. I do not know what it costs to keep them illegal, but I do not think our dollars are well spent.
I know a couple recovered Junkies that owe their recovery to someone that cared enough to help them and not to a legal system that would prosecute them.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
I know. I also know that I do not care how much someone else damages himself when it comes to making something illegal.
It is up to him to fuck up. It is up to him to fuck up royally.
The very degree someone is able to fuck up is a measure of how free he is.
Those determined to fuck up will do so anyway and those who don´t simply won´t buy that stuff no matter what.
The idea that more people would line up to destroy themselves if it was only cheaper is absurd as if more people would commit suicide if they only could afford it.
Have you ever been around meth abusers? Because they most certainly do not harmlessly keep their addiction to themselves. The production of meth is dangerous to others through fire damage and the abusers themselves are dangerous to others through violence.
I completely agree that many drugs are harmful only to the user, and that it should be the user’s decision to use or not.
Meth is not one of those drugs.
Agreed. There is a world of difference between legalizing pot and legalizing meth (or heroin).[/quote]
After giving this topic some more thought I believe that if recreational drugs were made legal its entirely possible that drugs like meth would probably become obsolete.
Big corporations (pharma)would of course throw millions of dollars into R&D to develop some pretty high grade stuff, patent it and mass produce it.
If you look at the alcohol prohibition as an example there was probably a tremendous amount of home brewed “gut rot” floating around. The alcohol equivalent to meth.
Once alcohol became legal again, distilleries and breweries became huge corporations and the quality available to the general public skyrocketed. No need to buy radiator brewed shine anymore to catch a buzz.
[quote]new2training wrote:
After giving this topic some more thought I believe that if recreational drugs were made legal its entirely possible that drugs like meth would probably become obsolete.
Big corporations (pharma)would of course throw millions of dollars into R&D to develop some pretty high grade stuff, patent it and mass produce it.
If you look at the alcohol prohibition as an example there was probably a tremendous amount of home brewed “gut rot” floating around. The alcohol equivalent to meth.
Once alcohol became legal again, distilleries and breweries became huge corporations and the quality available to the general public skyrocketed. No need to buy radiator brewed shine anymore to catch a buzz.
What do you think?
[/quote]
Two things:
Illegal drugs tend to become more potent. That is a solution to a logistics problem, smuggling drugs is expensive, potent drug take less room.
So we went from Coca Cola, which probably gave you a mild buzz to 80% pure cocaine.
Same as the prohibition turned a beer and wine society into hard liquor users.
When a drug is legal people learn how to deal with it.
When comparing Sweden, the mother of all nanny states with France it is obvious that the latter enjoy a class of wine to diner while the Swedes get on ferries to get out of Sweden and to escape the high taxes on alcohol and get incredibly drunk, because they simply could not develop a way of incorporating it into their culture.
I agree that pharma companies should be able to come up with drugs that are cheaper, safer and more fun, but that won´t work in a “recreational drugs are ebil!” society.
