Let's talk about Meth.

[leroy]

Sensible behavior cannot be legislated. Such behavior must be modeled to children, along with a healthy dose of teaching.

The root of the drug problem is the drug culture. You are simply not believable when you are takin perscription drugs, smokin marajuna, or any of this other stuff, while telling your children that it aint ok to do it. Children have eyes, and see that you are a dammed phoney; and, as such, you are unworthy of respect or belief. After they see that you are saying one thing and doing another; they determine that you are a hippocrite and unworthy of listening to (...much less respect...); and they simply go about their way doing what they want to do. No amount of "checks and imposition of silly rules on society" will fix this problem. We have already proven that as a society.

We've been fightin the "war on drugs" for several years to no noticeable effect. There is too much money in it; and way too many "cottage inddustries" that feed on the problem. The cough and cold medicine recording stuff is (...in my opinion...) just another imposition on law abiding folks and a "feel good" trick for a gullible, deceived, and guilt ridden society that takes recreational drug use and alcohol abuse way too lightly. I would love to see just how many real drug cookers and "mister big" drug distributors have been jailed from the use of this info.

I come from a family of alcoholics; one of which was a prescription drug abuser and drunkard combined. I well understand this side of the problem. I grew up poor. I well understand the need to make a living (...think cookin meth here...). I also understand that life is full of choices; and that, contrary to popular opinion in some quarters; that ...."You are responsible for you."... .

Lots of folks dont like the "...you are responsible for you...." thing. There have been several generations that have been conditioned to believe that "....you are not responsible for you...". That "outside forces" and unnamed, faceless "mean people" cause your problem; and that you are simply a helpless waif, tossed about by these horrible outside forces. I say,...baloney...!! ".

You are, in fact, responsible for you, and no amount of aplologizing for bad behevior, shifting of blame to others, denial of reality, or any of these other excuses can suspend that immutable law. As our society drifts further and further down the putrid river toward the sewer of hedonism and anarchy put into its flower by doting parents who are, themselves, devoid of self discipline, self control, and ethics; the easier it gets to get what we have. No amount of "shared sacrifice" of society (....giving a pint of blood and being added to a list when ya buy pseudoephedrine cough and cold remedies...), diverson programs run by a specific sect of the "drug abuse cottage industry", rehabilitation programs run by that same "drug abuse cottage industry", law enforcement, or more dollars can fix this problem.

It is, at it's heart, a behavioral and belief problem. I'm sure that some opiners here will be horifified by this assessment and its brutally blunt conclusions; but that's ok. Be assured that it is written by a little old man who has seen the drug and alcohol problem first hand. The people involved either died (...several did...) or they were rehabilitated --- the stark "life or death" choice. It simply was not whipped by the people i am kin to and love by "programs". It was overcome by the stark realization that this sort of behavior endangers both the user and others. It is a road that has two forks; death for yourself and / or others, or rehabilitation and life (...sometimes a pretty pitiful one if you have a drug indcued stroke or have the sad occasion to carry the guilt of destroyed relationships or innocents killed or maimed by drug besotted behavior....).

I firmly believe that there will always be some fraction of people who will choose to cut their lives short with drugs; and, in the process; either burden or even kill the innocent thru their actions. It has always been so, and will not change.

For those who do not choose this path; correctly modelled behavior and teaching are the best way to combat this problem.

Correct behavior simply has to be modelled correctly and taught within the family unit. Our current system of "shared societial sacrifice" (....read that:...more money for "diversion", more money for "rehabilitation", more money for "enforcement", signing and givin a pint of blood for OTC peseudoephedring purchase, or anything else ya can think up....) hoisted on us by the political class, the "experts", and others will fix this problem. As long as people ignore the truth of the matter; that is, "...That you are responsible for you."...., and accept the twin mornic notions of "shared societal guilt", and that "increased spending" fixes everyting, this problem will continue to grow.

Thats how i see things thru my bespeckeled eyes this evenin.

leroy

[10-Ring]

Appology accepted sir! And thank you for the apology, that says a ton about your character. I think that we need to remember that everyone here (I hope) is on the same side in that we would all like to see meth eradicated. With that in mind lets try to work together. It's a long stretch for an internet forum to actually make a difference out in the world but it has happened before. Who knows? We may be able to collaborate a good idea in here.

Anyway. My rationale is that if the key ingredient is difficult to obtain then meth production will come to a halt. I've tried to do a good bit of research but I can not come up with a conclusive answer to how much pseudoephedrine is used in the making of meth and how much a particular amount of it will yield in finished product. If anyone has accurate information about this then please share at your discretion. The best that I could come up with was 1 box of Sudafed would contain enough pseudo to produce enough product for two people to get high. This information is not very conclusive and also did not state whether they were using standard Sudafed, 12, or 24 hour formulas. Depending on how large of a prescription doctors could administer it could be very difficult for junkies to obtain enough pseudo to make meth if they have to doctor shop, get an appointment, and see the doctor to get a scipt. Every methhead that I have ever run across is dead broke, they will not be able to afford a trip to the doctor everytime they need a fix. (I'm not an expert at working the system but somehow I'm sure that they would probably figure out how to visit the doctor at taxpayers expense.)

I really think that doctors can be blamed for the pill abuse epidemic in this country. The situation is not unlike that if pseudoephedrine were prescription only (Yes, I just contradicted myself.) Case in point two years ago I broke a bone, I was given a Percocet prescription in the ER on a Monday. I saw my orthopedic surgeon on Friday and he prescribed me 60 10mg hydrocodones. The next Monday (3 days later) I had surgery and he sent me home with a script for another 60. A week later I go in for a check up and he asks if I need any refills. Throughout the whole thing I only took maybe 10 of the pills, while he had prescribed me 120 and asked if I needed a refill within 10 days time. That was just irresponsible IMO. If there are no limits set on how much of a drug that a doctor can prescribe then no law or restriction will be totally effective.

My conclusion is that there is no easy answer. The harder it is for the cooks to get pseudoephedrine the less of the product that they will be able to produce and the harder it will be for the methheads to afford their drug (keep your stuff tied down if you have them around!)

[gregintenn]

I see where you are coming from. My point of view is this. Tennesse is hell on earth for those of us who suffer from seasonal allergies. So is a doctor's office for those of us who work for a living. If I could find another medication that would alleviate allergy symtoms as well as Sudafed, I'd use it and not care if there was an outright ban on Pseudoephedrine. Until then, I want my sinus medicine just as bad as an addict wants meth. I'm sure most of you are in the same situation as I am in that it is nearly impossible on my schedule to sit for hours in a doctor's waiting room for something so trivial.

[10-Ring]

I see where you are coming from for sure. Not sure how bad the meth epidemic is down your way. I used to run around some down that way a long time ago before I had ever heard of meth. Meth in East Tennessee seems to stay kind of secluded. I was reading in the paper this morning where a town about 15 miles from me is having a hard time with meth problems, while I have not seen any evidence of meth where I live. A couple of times in the past year I have had to spend several hours in the UT Medical Center ER waiting room. It seems that every time I'm there the waiting room is steady until about dark 30 then the waiting room is cram packed with 20 somethings that look like the only thing wrong with them is the fact that they lack a job. I've been told by friends that work in the hospital that these are pill addicts and they show up every single evening with some fake ailment searching for pills.

I know that it is easy to say let them do what they want and die. But if you have ever known anyone that is a drug addict before they were a drug addict and seen them go through it I would say that it is about the most horrible thing that you could ever sit back and watch. I wish I had a simple answer to fix it all.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

10-ring, by the way thanks for the earlier explanation on d-meth vs l-meth. Your explanation jogged a brain cell and I vaguely recalled the inhalers.

I see no harm discussing in civil fashion though talk is unlikely to change anything. Most agree that we would be better off without people ripped on meth. Small time cooking causes toxic environmental damage and I believe the story that cookers waste public money when they blow themselves up. Not to mention damage to families.

Perhaps too pessimistic but its doubtful the problem is fixable via prohibition or ever-tighter control. If we could somehow completely shut down small-time domestic production-- There is a demonstrated market to which supposedly the mexicans already cater. Dunno what a drug-lord would think but here is a wild guess-- If he can make the same profit smuggling either a semi load of pot or a suitcase full of meth, then which product promises the most profit with the least hassle? Heck, just throw a few suitcases of crank onto each truck load of pot and double the profit?

Shutting down all small-time domestic production would alleviate environmental damage and possibly make the meth heads slightly healthier, assuming the mexicans make any effort at manufacturing quality. Impure product might be symptomatic of inefficient production and wasted materials. Perhaps love of money would be a drug-lord's biggest motivation to make pure product?

Maybe speedfreaks are entirely different nowadays but in the past, after a year or three a speedfreak would stop being a speed freak. The vast majority in the past would take it casually then get bored and quit no-problemo. Otherwise virtually all college students of my generation would be long-dead of amphetamine addiction. The all-nighter final exam drug. Supposedly it is the same nowadays though I don't know any students and haven't a clue. I'm not saying it is harmless. Just pointing out that every person who takes a dose of speed doesn't immediately become hopelessly addicted. Though the best way to avoid any chance of addiction is to never take it that first time.

Of the ones who got hooked-- About one third would eventually quit and clean up after enduring as much misery as they could tolerate. The other two thirds of the hard-core hooked would switch drugs and become addicted to downers or alcohol. Among the hard core hooked, a third get better, a third stay the same, and a third get worse.

So unless the nature of users has changed-- If the users live long enough then most eventually quit speed though not all will quit drugs/alcohol. We could just shoot speed freaks in the street whenever caught, but otherwise the longer they stay healthy then the higher odds that the largest number will quit in a beneficial fashion. Cleaning up while remaining somewhat healthy with at least a few intact brain cells.

As an alternative to draconian shutting down domestic production at the cost of maintaining illegal profit motive and handing all that new biz to drug-lords-- Maybe in the long run it would be least costly to just sell speed freaks pharmaceutical speed? It is really nasty stuff but they are taking it anyway, and in the process stealing and polluting the environment? Shut down domestic cooking and help the environment, but then they will steal even more to buy the mexican stuff?

A box of 20, 120 mg sudafed costs a few bucks. I'm real ignorant but if the sudafed is so easy for a toothless redneck to turn into meth (plus assorted poisons), then maybe a factory can make meth about as cheap as sudafed? Sell desoxyn to the meth addicts at triple the cost of sudafed and you shut down domestic cooking and also remove all profit from mexican crank? Fewer problems, less stealing, no toxic pollution, and we would have about the same number of brain-dead idiots ripped on crank either way. Better deal for society to legalize it? Even with something as nasty as meth?

I googled production and there are formulas little more complex, for making meth from un-regulated phenylephrine pills (which seem almost entirely ineffective for sinus trouble but are sold for that purpose anyway). If you really could dry up the sudafed supply then what's stopping small time cookers from switching over to phenylephrine? In fact I'm surprised that hasn't happened already.

[DaveTN]

I started this thread out of frustration.

I just get so frustrated in hearing that no matter what the problem is, somehow, I am the cause, or at least the solution is some sacrifice from me.

Greg, No one is blaming you. If you need Sudafed you may be inconvenienced, I don’t know. I don’t know how hard is for you to get.

Every Police Agency will handle it in their own way based on the resources they have available.

I doubt you will care much for my ideas because they involve targeting drug dealers and makers with extreme prejudice. I don’t think people should be arrested based on how many times their name is on that list; that list should be used to identify offenders. As I said earlier, once a drug dealer is identified (as with any crime) it just requires good Police work to catch them with the product in their possession so you can send them to prison. The vehicle code is the #1 tool in that fight. I took them down on traffic stops, legally searched their cars, and took them jail. Some departments don’t have the manpower to do that, some departments are so busy they go from one call to next and don’t have the opportunity to do that.

However, if you could make any drug disappear tomorrow, would the users quit? No, they would switch their drug of choice. If the new drug cots more what happens? Well, then they need to steal more of your stuff, burglarizes more homes or commit more robberies.

Some say make drugs legal. That’s fine, are you going to make them free also? They are committing the crimes to get money to buy the drugs. Unless you are making them free, the only thing legalizing drugs does is to create a new industry and adds to the tax base. What good has that done for the user? Now you have added in a bunch of middlemen and FDA rules and regulations. The user will be paying as much or more and he will still be going to jail when he gets caught with the stuff he stole from you to buy his now legal drugs. So who really wants drugs legalized? The guy that has a good job and wants to smoke a bowl every now and then without having to worry about being arrested or lose his good job. He’s hasn’t stop to think that he might not get arrested but he will still lose his job when he can’t pass a piss test.

Proactive Police work will help the problem, but the real culprit is still the economy.

[Oh Shoot]

Hard to believe that with a new miracle non-drowsy antihistamine appearing every few years, that y'all can't find something besides Sudafed that is effective.

I have quite severe ragweed allergy from Labor Day till first frost, and for quite a few years now generic Loratadine has done very nicely (Claritin). And there were a couple of previous ones that worked pretty well too. There are others too, most all have been around long enough for the generic equivalent to be out, too.

- OS

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think that we need to remember that everyone here (I hope) is on the same side in that we would all like to see meth eradicated. [snip] My rationale is that if the key ingredient is difficult to obtain then meth production will come to a halt. I've tried to do a good bit of research but I can not come up with a conclusive answer to how much pseudoephedrine is used in the making of meth and how much a particular amount of it will yield in finished product. If anyone has accurate information about this then please share at your discretion. The best that I could come up with was 1 box of Sudafed would contain enough pseudo to produce enough product for two people to get high. This information is not very conclusive and also did not state whether they were using standard Sudafed, 12, or 24 hour formulas. Depending on how large of a prescription doctors could administer it could be very difficult for junkies to obtain enough pseudo to make meth if they have to doctor shop, get an appointment, and see the doctor to get a scipt. Every methhead that I have ever run across is dead broke, they will not be able to afford a trip to the doctor everytime they need a fix. (I'm not an expert at working the system but somehow I'm sure that they would probably figure out how to visit the doctor at taxpayers expense.) [snip]

My conclusion is that there is no easy answer. The harder it is for the cooks to get pseudoephedrine the less of the product that they will be able to produce and the harder it will be for the methheads to afford their drug (keep your stuff tied down if you have them around!)

Hi 10-Ring. Agree completely with your sentiment but dunno if further restricting chemicals would help. Maybe or maybe not. Dunno much.

I read a webpage claiming 50 percent efficiency but haven't a clue whether that is correct. Assuming a 50 percent efficiency-- Wouldn't a box of twenty 120mg sudafed yield 1200 mg meth? If the concoction were pure rather than poison then perhaps equivalent to ten dozen of the 10 mg desoxyn pills? Maybe a three month supply for a legit ADD or narcolepsy patient?

Abusers consume big doses but dunno how big. Two people might run 6 days at 100mg per day per person, or three days at 200 mg? Many drugs have progressive tolerance. The dose must gradually increase in order to acheive a target level of intoxication. As tolerance advances, the user doses can eventually become fatal.

Alcohol has three doses of interest-- 1. The psychoactive dose. 2. The dose that puts you to sleep 3. The dose that kills you. The intoxicating dose will gradually rise until it equals the knockout dose. When the intoxicating dose matches the knockout dose, an alcoholic will never "feel intoxicated." He will drink and then pass out without feeling intoxication. Many burned-out street winos are like that.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've switched to Claritin, also, OS, but it is the idea of Sudafed, tried and true, being to the point of making you a criminal

just to buy a few for it's originally intended use. What's next?

[TMF]

Hard to believe that with a new miracle non-drowsy antihistamine appearing every few years, that y'all can't find something besides Sudafed that is effective.

I have quite severe ragweed allergy from Labor Day till first frost, and for quite a few years now generic Loratadine has done very nicely (Claritin). And there were a couple of previous ones that worked pretty well too. There are others too, most all have been around long enough for the generic equivalent to be out, too.

- OS

Well I recall during my wife's pregnancies the only thing the doctor would authorize was the actual pseudoephedrine product, not the other stuff on the shelf. I almost always buy the other stuff because even before the law many places didn't have it on the shelf, so it was just easier to grab what was available. I don't notice the difference, but that's me.

I don't care for having to go through the BS. But then again, I don't think the drugs are the problem. People are the problem. The war on drugs has been going on for a long time and hasn't made a difference. There are better ways to invest our time and resources into to curb the rising tide of sh**baggery that is the lower rung of the US. Unfortunately the ways to address these problems at their root will never happen so we're left to strategies that just shovel back the tide. Nothing against LEOs, they are dealt the hand they get and have to do the best they can with what they got. The problem won't be solved by them or even curbed by them. The problem is cultural.

[sigmtnman]

The term War on Drugs is a misnomer. It is a War on People.

There will always be a black market and there will always be drugs. I recall all the news stories about kids eating angel trumpets out of yards when I was in High School.

Edited July 3, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I doubt you will care much for my ideas because they involve targeting drug dealers and makers with extreme prejudice. I don’t think people should be arrested based on how many times their name is on that list; that list should be used to identify offenders. As I said earlier, once a drug dealer is identified (as with any crime) it just requires good Police work to catch them with the product in their possession so you can send them to prison. The vehicle code is the #1 tool in that fight. I took them down on traffic stops, legally searched their cars, and took them jail. Some departments don’t have the manpower to do that, some departments are so busy they go from one call to next and don’t have the opportunity to do that.

Hi Dave

The "traditional master plan" which was put in place by "real smart people" I believe circa 1971, but perhaps a little earlier. Of course there had been similar strategies for decades but the drug-use explosion of the 1960's caused a "multi-pronged" policy to be clearly defined around the 1970 mark which seems nearly identical today. Policy on auto-pilot for 42 years-- Attack the problem with cooperation among alphabet-named fed, state and local agencies, with assistance from (and gov grants to) non-profit and business organizations--

1. Law enforcement to put smugglers, manufacturers, dealers out of biz and in jail. Attack and dry up the supply.

2a. Law enforcement against users to dry up demand and make it so much hassle and annoyance that users are motivated to quit. Dry up the demand.

2b. The problem was viewed with an epidemiological model-- That a "new user" in a community or school is like a "newly infected person" with a disease. If you do not intervene then that disease carrier will "infect" his friends. Then his friends will "infect" even more people. Like a disease or zombie outbreak (though the modern zombie myth hadn't yet been thunk up). So if a vigilant policeman, teacher, social worker or doctor notices a druggie you offer immediate counseling or other intervention. Lock em up if necessary to "quarantine" them and prevent the druggie from "infecting" his friends. Stop the spread of contagion.

2c. Cooperation with employers for early intervention and treatment (or firing) of "infected" employees, much as what should be done to the kids in school.

3a. Make certain drugs illegal for any use at all and tighten up prescribing standards for anything "with a possible medical purpose". Keep a close eye on doctors and pharmacists to make sure they don't do wrong.

3b. Make certain feedstock chemicals and lab equipment closely supervised and "hard to get" except for people who "have a reason to have the stuff".

3c. Keep a close eye on people who "have a reason to have the equipment and knowledge" to make sure they don't do anything you don't like.

4. Treatment for abusers. Repair defective citizens.

5. Education of kids and adults on the dangers of drugs/alcohol abuse. Immunize against infection.

6. War on Poverty programs to educate and train po folks, get em jobs, put em in better housing so po kids won't turn out quite as doofus as the parents. That was nixon era, but nixon was a liberal fella and as far as I could tell he spent as much or more money as Johnson on the war on poverty. They were going gangbusters spending money hand over fist to fix poverty and ignorance and unemployment forever more. Sanitize so the disease can't fester.

If a fella didn't know we are actually the land of the free and home of the brave, a fella would almost think the above would describe a big-gov nanny state.

What are we trying now that wasn't tried in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, or 2012? They hadn't yet invented swat teams and drug raids weren't quite so military. USA mafia was in charge of hard drugs and small-time hippies were distributing soft drugs almost as "a service to mankind." Ain't saying the hippies were correct but that is what many believed. Urban minority gangs hadn't yet taken over the hard drug biz from the mafia. I don't think the S. American, Mexican and Asian gangs had yet got a toehold in the USA criminal power structure. A small-time domestic drug manufacturer at that time might have been some nerdy chem major cooking a batch of mescaline, rather than toothless rednecks cooking poison crank.

Lots of things have changed, but we still seem to be hitting the same old nail with the same old hammer? How's that been working out? Maybe a grand plan to stop drug/alcohol abuse is about as realistic as a grand plan to stop waves in the ocean?

However, if you could make any drug disappear tomorrow, would the users quit? No, they would switch their drug of choice. If the new drug cots more what happens? Well, then they need to steal more of your stuff, burglarizes more homes or commit more robberies.

Some say make drugs legal. That’s fine, are you going to make them free also? They are committing the crimes to get money to buy the drugs. Unless you are making them free, the only thing legalizing drugs does is to create a new industry and adds to the tax base. What good has that done for the user? Now you have added in a bunch of middlemen and FDA rules and regulations. The user will be paying as much or more and he will still be going to jail when he gets caught with the stuff he stole from you to buy his now legal drugs. So who really wants drugs legalized? The guy that has a good job and wants to smoke a bowl every now and then without having to worry about being arrested or lose his good job. He’s hasn’t stop to think that he might not get arrested but he will still lose his job when he can’t pass a piss test.

I don't know if legalization would improve anything. Perhaps legalization would make things worse. No telling except by experiment.

Its a free country (or so they say). If Joe Blow wants to smoke pot but Acme Corp won't hire him, then that is between Joe and Acme. They are both free to choose.

Economics and crime-- Rough figures-- Supply more accurate figures if you have em--

1. Posit that a methhead shoplifter has to steal $1000 merchandise for $100 of dope money.

2. This page http://www.pbs.org/w...line/meth/faqs/ says that meth sells on the street for $100 per gram and a typical dose is 250mg. Dang thats a big dose. About 2.5mg meth is similar to a couple of cups coffee. Try drinking 200 cups of coffee! Yikes! Maybe the street meth isn't anywhere near pure, but lets go with that figure for sake of calculation.

3. Sudafed sells for less than $10 for 2.4 grams retail + tax end-user point of sale. If the factory didn't make a profit then the factory would either quit selling or raise the price. Am making a wild guess that the factory could make meth at nearly the same price, and make a profit at the same price. But lets triple the price to assure the factory makes gobs of profit and the gov gets exhorbitant sin tax. Posit that legal drug store meth sells at $30 for 2.4 grams, retail + tax end-user point of sale.

4. Assuming a mere mortal could only take one dose of 250mg per day and survive to tell the tale, then the shoplifter needs to boost $250 of merchandise per day to fence $25 for street crank.

5. If the shoplifter could buy at the drug store for $12.50 per gram (more than 3X the price of sudafed), then the shoplifter needs to boost $31.25 merchandise per day to fence $3.13 for legal crank.

Now even if the shoplifter continues stealing to support his habit, we cut shoplifting losses by 87.5 percent!

On the other hand, that shoplifter might be able to panhandle $3.13 per day. Numerous street winos and pitiful homeless schizophrenics can panhandle more than that. If that shoplifter can panhandle enough to buy his dope then shoplifting losses drop to zero.

Edit-- Well, another thought-- Though the fella would most likely be a complete mental wreck, it is remotely possible that the guy might be able to find some kind of menial job to score his $3.13 per day. Sometimes miracles do happen.

I realize the above solution "just ain't right" in many folks minds, but man it looks like a bargain to me? Much more elegant than turning the USA into a paranoid police state "just in case somebody does something wrong." I'm not talking pie-in-the-sky utopian solutions here. Sure the solution is not ideal. How is this solution less-ideal than the past 40 years' auto-pilot complicated, expensive, multi-pronged, big gov we-know-better-than-peons drug policy?

Edited July 3, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[DaveTN]

Thanks for your comments Lester,

If Law Enforcement didn’t do anything and wasn’t doing anything now, don’t you think the whole country would be like South Florida in the 80’s?

We don’t need to do an experiment; all we have to do is look at history.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks for your comments Lester,

If Law Enforcement didn’t do anything and wasn’t doing anything now, don’t you think the whole country would be like South Florida in the 80’s?

We don’t need to do an experiment; all we have to do is look at history.

Thanks Dave. Could you describe "bad symptoms" of most concern re drugs in 1980's South Florida? I am ignorant and poorly-traveled and could only guess at symptoms you most dislike. POSSIBLY the current policy is "as good as its gonna get". POSSIBLY the nation would have descended into anarchy except for.big brother policies. Human nature is pertinant to social engineering-- Where are we on a "continuum of addiction" spanning the following end-points?

1. There is no natural limit to indolence and addiction-- Addiction and indolence will naturally saturate to 100 percent unless we "force people to be good"-- Every human would morph into a pitiful addict except for big brother's ever-watchful eye. In that case, police state tactics can be thanked for having saved society from universal addiction. In that case we should double-down on big brother tactics in order to not only maintain but improve order and compliance. Then again, perhaps even 100 percent indolence and addiction would be preferable to a police state?

2. There is an addiction saturation point-- Natural limits to addiction-- Genetic personality demographics-- A MAJORITY of people have the self-interested ability to learn from mistakes and self-modify behavior, though some are slow learners. A MINORITY of people are hopelessly addiction-prone.

2a. The natural saturation point is much higher than the current level of addiction-- In that case, possibly a police state policy is needed as a "holding action" to prevent addiction getting even worse. Depends on how much worse it would get if left alone. Then again, perhaps even a doubling of indolence and addiction might be preferable to a police state?

2b. We are currently very near the addiction saturation point-- Which is my unprovable suspicion. If we are already near the saturation point then it would not get any worse after cancelling the police state. Stopping the police state would save lots of money, return freedom to the law-abiding and make the nation an overall better place.

[DaveTN]

I don’t think this is off topic, if it is a mod or the OP can let me know and I will delete it.

Let’s add this to the drug discussion. Guns are legal to carry for a small group of us, but your employer doesn’t have to allow them in the workplace. If drugs were made legal I’m sure employers would still drug test and still fire employees that can’t pads a drug test. So the guy that thinks he can smoke pot without any repercussions could only do that if his job didn’t have a drug testing policy and if he didn’t apply for any jobs that did drug testing as part of the application process.

So it would only be okay for those that didn’t plan on holding down a job, were retried or self-employed. So don’t you think it would be just another drain on society and our economy?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don’t think this is off topic, if it is a mod or the OP can let me know and I will delete it.

Let’s add this to the drug discussion. Guns are legal to carry for a small group of us, but your employer doesn’t have to allow them in the workplace. If drugs were made legal I’m sure employers would still drug test and still fire employees that can’t pads a drug test. So the guy that thinks he can smoke pot without any repercussions could only do that if his job didn’t have a drug testing policy and if he didn’t apply for any jobs that did drug testing as part of the application process.

So it would only be okay for those that didn’t plan on holding down a job, were retried or self-employed. So don’t you think it would be just another drain on society and our economy?

Thanks DaveTN. I don't advocate that people take drugs. Drug taking is stupid in so many ways. Merely reasoning that you can't stop it (short of summary execution), and in a "free society" heavy-handed enforcement might be ultimately more costly and damaging than the drugs.

I agree completely that non-optimal behaviors cause economic loss in the billions. Tell me again what is the DEA budget? Dang! DEA costs billions too!

http://www.justice.g...cy/staffing.htm

Does the DEA's $2 billion budget in 2012 "pay for itself" by making USA slackers $2 billion more productive in 2012?

Alcohol. Gambling. Sex Addiction. Risky and other assorted mal-adaptive behaviors. Compulsive spending. Bad health habits. Garden-variety indolence and doofusness. Couch potato TV addicts. Folks who call in sick to go fishing. Video games.

S. Korea has got heavy handed about indolent video gamers because there are a LOT OF VIDEO GAME ADDICTS and they stay up all night gaming then miss work, under-perform, don't pay attention to the job and are so tired they can cause accidents. It has become a national problem in S. Korea. If I wanted to get into the "therapy" biz today I would specialize in video game addiction counseling because it is the NEXT BIG THING that kills productivity lots worse than drugs. Drug addicts have to go outside every once in awhile to get more drugs. A video game addict will hole up in the basement and not come out until they turn off his power and internet. Time to form the VGEA (Video Game Enforcement Agency) and fund it with billions and nip this problem in the bud I say! It will be lots easier to solve than drug, alcohol or gambling addiction. Not.

I completely agree that alchol and drug abuse hurts the economy. Among many other things. Its a free country (or ought to be). An employer should be free to hire and fire as he pleases. I would fire an employee too stoned to work. Whats the problem? People can learn. A kid sticks a paper clip in the power socket, gets burned, and then he knows not to do that again. Folks who can't learn don't make out very well.

One place to look re the pot-- Places like california with so many people stoned on medical pot, and so many others stoned on the street pot. Am guessing that companies preferentially hire people who will come in straight and do a day's work. Am guessing that such employees get better pay because they are a "rarer commodity" than slackers. Am guessing that slackers will get hired if there is nobody else available that will come in and hit a lick.

Maybe if we raise the DEA budget to $20 billion then it will cure the slacker problem!

[DaveTN]

Thanks DaveTN. I don't advocate that people take drugs. Drug taking is stupid in so many ways. Merely reasoning that you can't stop it (short of summary execution), and in a "free society" heavy-handed enforcement might be ultimately more costly and damaging than the drugs.

I agree completely that non-optimal behaviors cause economic loss in the billions. Tell me again what is the DEA budget? Dang! DEA costs billions too!

http://www.justice.g...cy/staffing.htm

Does the DEA's $2 billion budget in 2012 "pay for itself" by making USA slackers $2 billion more productive in 2012?

Alcohol. Gambling. Sex Addiction. Risky and other assorted mal-adaptive behaviors. Compulsive spending. Bad health habits. Garden-variety indolence and doofusness. Couch potato TV addicts. Folks who call in sick to go fishing. Video games.

S. Korea has got heavy handed about indolent video gamers because there are a LOT OF VIDEO GAME ADDICTS and they stay up all night gaming then miss work, under-perform, don't pay attention to the job and are so tired they can cause accidents. It has become a national problem in S. Korea. If I wanted to get into the "therapy" biz today I would specialize in video game addiction counseling because it is the NEXT BIG THING that kills productivity lots worse than drugs. Drug addicts have to go outside every once in awhile to get more drugs. A video game addict will hole up in the basement and not come out until they turn off his power and internet. Time to form the VGEA (Video Game Enforcement Agency) and fund it with billions and nip this problem in the bud I say! It will be lots easier to solve than drug, alcohol or gambling addiction. Not.

I completely agree that alchol and drug abuse hurts the economy. Among many other things. Its a free country (or ought to be). An employer should be free to hire and fire as he pleases. I would fire an employee too stoned to work. Whats the problem? People can learn. A kid sticks a paper clip in the power socket, gets burned, and then he knows not to do that again. Folks who can't learn don't make out very well.

One place to look re the pot-- Places like california with so many people stoned on medical pot, and so many others stoned on the street pot. Am guessing that companies preferentially hire people who will come in straight and do a day's work. Am guessing that such employees get better pay because they are a "rarer commodity" than slackers. Am guessing that slackers will get hired if there is nobody else available that will come in and hit a lick.

Maybe if we raise the DEA budget to $20 billion then it will cure the slacker problem!

Lester, thanks for your comments.

People kill people to get drug money.

Innocent people are killed when they catch or stumble upon people burglarizing their homes.

Innocent people are killed when home invaders enter their homes.

Innocent people are killed and maimed in street robberies and car jacking’s.

All of these crimes will increase when you legalize drugs.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with?

Law enforcement keeps a lid on it. They are losing control in some big cities because they are simply overwhelmed. They see violent vicious crimes in some small cities because they don’t have the manpower to stay on top of the meth problem.

I have no problem with doing away with the DEA. Take that $20 billion and give it to local law enforcement where it can do some good. Either that or put someone in charge of the DEA that could stop the flow of drugs into this county; that would be a tremendous help at the local level. I’m not a fan of any agency or department that can’t do their job.

My point of view comes from having dealt with these animals. When I hear about giving up the drug fight I don’t picture my friend from work that wants to smoke a bowl while watching his tree hugger shows with his Green Peace friends. I picture the thugs that I have interviewed after arrest and I picture the 25 year old woman who was beaten and raped in front of her husband when they walked into their house after a shopping trip. The two brothers who raped her and beat both him and her needed money to buy drugs. The next day they killed a 90 year old woman in a home invasion. She wouldn’t shut up so they put a pillow over her face and suffocated her.

One of the only pro-active tools to stop these animals is the fact that cops can target them when they know who they are, and they can send them to prison when they stumble on them during traffic stops. Take those tools away and we are all in more trouble than we are now.

[sigmtnman]

Lester, thanks for your comments.

People kill people to get drug money.

Innocent people are killed when they catch or stumble upon people burglarizing their homes.

Innocent people are killed when home invaders enter their homes.

Innocent people are killed and maimed in street robberies and car jacking’s.

All of these crimes will increase when you legalize drugs.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with?

Law enforcement keeps a lid on it. They are losing control in some big cities because they are simply overwhelmed. They see violent vicious crimes in some small cities because they don’t have the manpower to stay on top of the meth problem.

I have no problem with doing away with the DEA. Take that $20 billion and give it to local law enforcement where it can do some good. Either that or put someone in charge of the DEA that could stop the flow of drugs into this county; that would be a tremendous help at the local level. I’m not a fan of any agency or department that can’t do their job.

My point of view comes from having dealt with these animals. When I hear about giving up the drug fight I don’t picture my friend from work that wants to smoke a bowl while watching his tree hugger shows with his Green Peace friends. I picture the thugs that I have interviewed after arrest and I picture the 25 year old woman who was beaten and raped in front of her husband when they walked into their house after a shopping trip. The two brothers who raped her and beat both him and her needed money to buy drugs. The next day they killed a 90 year old woman in a home invasion. She wouldn’t shut up so they put a pillow over her face and suffocated her.

One of the only pro-active tools to stop these animals is the fact that cops can target them when they know who they are, and they can send them to prison when they stumble on them during traffic stops. Take those tools away and we are all in more trouble than we are now.

To your arguments...

Are things usually more expensive or less expensive on the black market? Just like prohibition saw a rise in the same sort of crimes you describe, the repeal of prohibition saw a decrease.

All of the crimes you mentioned are against the law already. If money now spent on drug enforcement were more wisely spent to have more peace officers patrolling and going after crimes that involve actual victims, more bad guys would be off the streets.

Saying that drugs cause crime is like saying that guns cause crime.

[DaveTN]

Are things usually more expensive or less expensive on the black market? Just like prohibition saw a rise in the same sort of crimes you describe, the repeal of prohibition saw a decrease.

Prohibition saw a marked rise in home invasions and armed robberies of innocent citizens? I can’t address that I don’t have a detailed knowledge of the crimes rates and who were the victims during prohibition. I thought it was mostly gangsters and criminal club owners that were killing each other.

All of the crimes you mentioned are against the law already. If money now spent on drug enforcement were more wisely spent to have more peace officers patrolling and going after crimes that involve actual victims, more bad guys would be off the streets.

Well sure, I guess we could do that. There would certainly be an increase in violent crimes. So your answer is “That’s okay because there will be more cops to respond� By the time the victims can call the home invaders won’t be there and there may be dead victims at the scene. But yes, response times would be quicker.

The only crimes I mentioned were murder, rape, home invasion, burglary and robbery. Are those crimes that don’t have “actual victims�

Saying that drugs cause crime is like saying that guns cause crime.

You got me there. I’m not really sure how to respond to that statement because I’m not sure you are serious in making that comparison.

EDIT: Oh and I almost forgot…. It’s a discussion; not an argument. Let’s keep it friendly.

Edited July 5, 2012 by DaveTN

[sigmtnman]

...I’m not really sure how to respond to that statement because I’m not sure you are serious ...

That makes two of us that are not sure if the other is serious...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester, thanks for your comments.

People kill people to get drug money.

Innocent people are killed when they catch or stumble upon people burglarizing their homes.

Innocent people are killed when home invaders enter their homes.

Innocent people are killed and maimed in street robberies and car jacking’s.

All of these crimes will increase when you legalize drugs.

Which of the above statements do you disagree with?

Thanks Dave

The only statement with which I disagree-- "All of these crimes will increase when you legalize drugs."

Substance abuse itself causes legion primary problems and we have already discussed many. Economic, health, social and psychological problems. All kinds of social and psychological problems. Maybe I could sit down for a day or three and tabulate a reasonably comprehensive list of all the social and psychological and health problems caused by substance abuse. Some of the substances are legal but they still cost lots of money and misery. On the other hand we can find thousands of web pages and countless books tabulating the misery. Yet another list would "reinvent the wheel". Suffice it to say that substance abuse is bad.

There is considerable evidence that not all substance use is bad. I don't want to get off into the weeds but it deserves reiteration. For instance there is evidence that a couple of cups coffee per day is good for the health, makes people more productive, and has the "difficult to quantify" advantage of making people a little happier. That is an example of substance use. Am gonna guess that if a fella gets up past 1 or 2 pots of coffee per day, then he approaches the substance abuse vicinity and maybe that much coffee will make him temporarily happier but eventually he will get blowback from his abuse.

Dave, the drug laws were passed for at least two reasons--

1. Drug abuse causes numerous primary problems.

2. Puritannical people (both religious and atheist) don't want anybody to have any fun. I'm serious-- Even if science can prove that one cup of coffee per day is good, then there are religions and health-nut atheists who do not respect your basic dignity to be able to choose for yourself, and they would pass a law in a heartbeat if they could. We have no shortage of meddling busybodies.

Reason number 1 is an entirely sufficient "social engineering motivation" for passage of drug laws, but reason number 2 adds important political impetus to pass laws and prevent repeal.

Dave, the problems you list above are by-and-large not primary problems. The crime problems you list above are mostly secondary problems which are unintended consequences of the drug laws themselves. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Can't get something for nothing. We pass laws to address the primary problems. Those laws may or may not be effective addressing the primary problems, but the laws themselves cause the secondary problems.

Either you don't believe me or I'm not explaining it well, but modern industry can crank out most of the drugs of abuse dirt cheap. Cost advantage of mass manufacturing. When pepcid was a prescription drug it was expensive. When it became over-the-counter it got cheap. When they go off-patent they become cheaper still. All kinds of criminal behavior related to acquisition of drug money will PLUMMET if you legalize the drugs. The mexicans or columbians or toothless crank cookers can't price compete against factories and retail chains. Paradoxically, if the gov was smart enough to keep the sin tax relatively low, the secondary problems would clean up better than if the gov sets a high sin tax. For instance if the gov raises the tax on tobacco high enough then eventually we will have home invasions and gangland wars over tobacco. The phrase, "I'd kill for a cigarette" would become literal rather than euphemism.

The numerous and bad primary problems would still be with us but the secondary problems mostly go away along with the laws. That is what I was attempting to explain with the last couple of messages-- If the primary problems would get extremely more profound with legalized drugs, the perhaps the secondary problems of the laws are worth putting up with. However, if we are near the saturation point of addiction already, then we could repeal the laws, wipe out the secondary problems, and the primary problems would be no worse than we've already got.

I was serious about the video game addiction. When I was young I knew many people who took drugs and some of them were "over the line" into abuse. I don't get out much, but I don't know any drug abusers today. However, I know several adults who are barely lower middle class, only ambitious enough to earn for bare necessities plus gamer paraphenalia. They could be founding companies, educating themselves, working overtime and putting money in the bank, but every waking moment except a few hours at the menial job is consumed playing, talking about, thinking about video games. Video games are kicking their butts as bad or worse than drug or alcohol addiction.

HOWEVER-- There may be alcoholic or drug-addicted game addicts, but the ones I know, the video games are the primary vice. They don't smoke, drink or do drugs. They just waste away twiddling a joystick all day. Practically an electronic opium den.

That is why I believe we are already near the addiction saturation point. I think there is a certain percentage of people genetically predisposed to addiction. There are some multiple-bad-habit people, but I suspect if a person gets hooked on gambling then he probably won't get too far down into alcohol or drugs. If the same fella gets hooked on video games then he won't be too far into drugs or alcohol. For one thing, if the guy is hooked on video games, he can't play well stoned so he will either decide he likes drugs better and quit playing games, or he will decide he likes games better and quit doing drugs.

[Good_Steward]

People who want to 'do' meth (however it is that they 'do' it) should be left free to partake. It's a self-correcting problem.

We have a winner. Every single illegal drug should be legalized with a disclaimer. "At your own risk". If it's hard for the family of a dopehead, it would have been whether it was legal or not. I hate to say this, but I had an aunt, with two kids, who ended up strung out on meth. She went to prison, my cousins came to live with family. It was hard, but my aunt would have been strung out, regardless. She didn't give a damn who she hurt, and she paid the price. C'est La Vie

Edited July 6, 2012 by Good_Steward

[Good_Steward]

We have a winner. Every single illegal drug should be legalized with a disclaimer. "At your own risk". If it's hard for the family of a dopehead, it would have been whether it was legal or not. I hate to say this, but I had an aunt, with two kids, who ended up strung out on meth. She went to prison, my cousins came to live with family. It was hard, but my aunt would have been strung out, regardless. She didn't give a damn who she hurt, and she paid the price. C'est La Vie

Let me clarify - I am 100% for personal responsibility and limiting government intervention in even the smallest part of individual life. Period.

May be right, may be wrong, but it is certainly my my opinion.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I like the idea of allowing people to put whatever poison they want in their body. And if they harm someone else then charge them for that crime. Don't prevent someone who is responsible in their habits from enjoying those habits because of some person who isn't responsible.

Dolomite

[Guest adamparker86]

I go to a pain clinic for my back pain for almost a year now. I raced motocross from the time I was five till I was 20 and it took its toll on me. but I believe most other people that go there seem like junkies. its a shame that people abuse this type of dr. because some of us are in alotta pain. and the junkies searching for pills gived pain clinics a bad name. I have gotten quite a few bad looks while going there and getting my meds filled this maybe because of my young age, but like alotta other things a few bad people give the rest of us a bad name