Everything you've heard about crack and meth is wrong

[TMF]

Tell the parents of a good friend of mine that meth isnt a harmful drug especially when it caused him to commit suicide one night. Ive witnessed the effects of these "scary drugs" and anyone who thinks they are harmless is insane. Ive unfortunately lost more than one friend from suicide because of these drugs. before they were addicts they were great people that would do anything possible too help a friend and this was the end result.

So should we make gasoline and spray paint illegal too? For the children....

[dlmeadows]

So should we make gasoline and spray paint illegal too? For the children....

Illegal or not people are going too do it, and it will destroy lives period. It just seemed too me that for the most part people were actually thinking these drugs are harmless. and thats far from the facts.

[bersaguy]

There will never be an end to people getting highs and lows on anything they can find in the kitchen or garage. If there is a will to do it there will always be something to do it with. That is fact and we all know it. It is all up to each individual where they go in life. You are in charge of your life per say but that still does not make it right. It just makes it each persons own decision which way they want to go in life. I guess I am probably one of the only people that has never smoked Pot because all my friends have done it or still do it. Not that it was not available to me if I wanted it. Was just something I never care to try. I have never used any illegal drugs but again that was and is my decision. I have many friends that do them and they are still my friends. I have attended a few funerals of some friends that over indulged on them also. That is just as much a part of life as not....................jmho

[deerslayer]

I have worked with a guy who had previously done meth. He was pretty together. Also an old friend use to do ecstasy in his clubbing days. No apparent ill effects. I take any drug information provided by the authorities with a *big* pinch of salt what with all the BS about MJ that was put around. Always research for yourself. It's easier now than ever.

 

 

I believe that illegal drugs are much like legal drugs (alcohol, aspirin, Claritin, Ambien, etc) in that different people are affected in different ways.  Rum makes me sleepy, but makes the next guy ready to fight.  Just because meth didn't ruin someone doesn't mean it's harmless for the next guy. 

[TMF]

Illegal or not people are going too do it, and it will destroy lives period. It just seemed too me that for the most part people were actually thinking these drugs are harmless. and thats far from the facts.

No drug is harmless. Even small doses of Motrin can kill you. In my younger days I'm sure I pushed the limit on how much alcohol one could co some without dying. That is no less dangerous than if I snorted a bunch of coke and chased it with acid. I just chose to never take the hard stuff. I still don't judge those who did. Folks who are addicted to coke and meth to the point it screws up their life are no different in my book than someone who does the same with booze or gambling. Not my business for any of that to be illegal though. It ain't my business.

[Chucktshoes]

Illegal or not people are going too do it, and it will destroy lives period. It just seemed too me that for the most part people were actually thinking these drugs are harmless. and thats far from the facts.

I don't think anyone is saying that they are harmless. What I do think is being said is that they aren't as universally, horrendously destructive as they are made out to be. I remember growing up the ads, news stories and after schools specials that said crack would addict you with "just one hit". That's just not true. They say the same thing about meth now. Also not true. Hell, I tried it years ago and couldn't stand it. Way too twitchy, cocaine is much smoother and more pleasant of a high. Edited November 6, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[tnguy]

I believe that illegal drugs are much like legal drugs (alcohol, aspirin, Claritin, Ambien, etc) in that different people are affected in different ways.  Rum makes me sleepy, but makes the next guy ready to fight.  Just because meth didn't ruin someone doesn't mean it's harmless for the next guy.

True. But we are told awful, awful horror stories. When reality doesn't match the stories, it undermines a fact based approach to avoiding drug problems.

[TMF]

True. But we are told awful, awful horror stories. When reality doesn't match the stories, it undermines a fact based approach to avoiding drug problems.

Exactly, and it makes young people toss out everything they previously thought about a particular drug as they now feel everything they've been told is a lie. It's like the preacher's daughter that stays locked up and told that boys are the devil. Eventually they figure out what they were told was a lie, then they go over the deep end on penises. We should educate people on facts, not emotions and half truths.

[Patrick Henry]

Most psychologists will tell you regular substance abuse by an individual is a symptom of unresolved personal issues and/or a mental health symptom.

[RobertNashville]

Does any of this really matter?

 

Let's assume for the moment that all currently "illegal" drugs are made "legal" to buy. A legitimate market is created with legitimate suppliers, taxes, everything that is necessary to bring any legal product to market.  Since drugs are, for the most part, ingested in some way, the government (state and/or federal) is going to want to have some say so in who can manufacture these drugs, safety/quality standards, etc. which will, of necessity increase the price  I suspect that by the time all that is done the price of 10 grams of cocaine will still be substantial; maybe not as much as the "illegal" kind but I suspect that the price will not decline as much as some proponents of legalizing these drugs want us to believe (prices that many say fuel much of the crime).

 

While some will just "use" drugs and not abuse them, I suspect that many will abuse them and become a burden on society.  That will certainly not be true of everyone but it may well be true of at least a substantial number; enough to cause a problem for everyone else since those hocked on drugs will have all the problems that come along with the abuse (criminal behavior to feed their habit, DUI, etc.).

 

Frankly, I don't have strong feelings about whether these drugs should or shouldn't be legal...I see rational arguments for both positions, but at the end of the day, I suspect that "legalizing" drugs/drug use may solve some problems but won't solve nearly as many/much of the problems as some like to think.  Further, I don't see wholesale legalization ever happening anyway (at least not until the ever growing monster of the federal government decides that keeping the public "medicated" will starve off outright rebellion as society continues to break down).

[Dustbuster]

It is an interesting story but there's a simple equation:
User wants to get high + user has no money+ wants to get high + has someone to get high with+ out of money+ wants to get high+ disregards law because they want to get high= never ending battle
Simple never ending vortex.
Crack cocaine and methamphetamine use will make people do things that would make your skin crwl.there is no good in it. It incites violent crime and never ending drama. I won't elaborate on this as the truth is self explanatory.

Sad but true.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[JohnC]

Tell that to the krokodil druggies.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2735137795001/flesh-eating-krokodil-drug-turns-up-in-illinois/
 


Google images: https://www.google.com/search?q=krokodil+drug+effects&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=sAR6UqKlN4TesATqnIKADA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1183&bih=877#imgdii=_

Edited November 6, 2013 by JohnC

[Guest tdoccrossvilletn]

While some will just "use" drugs and not abuse them, I suspect that many will abuse them and become a burden on society. That will certainly not be true of everyone but it may well be true of at least a substantial number; enough to cause a problem for everyone else since those hooked on drugs will have all the problems that come along with the abuse (criminal behavior to feed their habit, DUI, etc.).

Everyone that I've known that had done meth or crack even once was hooked and and became an abuser. You can't just "use" these drugs and not get addicted. Same with heroin.
Sent from my mind using ninja telepathy.

[JohnC]

You want to see messed up, Google LiveLeak and "Effects of Krokodil drug on people"

I warn you, it isn't work or family safe. Kind of nasty with all the rotting body parts and all.

and..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460854/Krokodil-Two-sisters-claim-proof-Russian-flesh-eating-drug-used-U-S.html Edited November 6, 2013 by JohnC

[Lumber_Jack]

There is no argument on the planet that will convince me that Meth should be legal. None.

It's cheap already, you can cook it yourself, you don't have to buy it. Even if it were legal it wouldn't be free, so people would still rob and steal to get more.

I'm pretty libertarian on most things, not this. Weed, we can debate.

[TerryW]

I can remember dudes back in the late 70's that viewed the possible lifetime "flashback" affects of LSD as frequent flier miles.  The more LSD trips they did today, the more free flights they would get later in life.  :stunned:

[Guest Lester Weevils]

People take the "trash drugs" like krok or bath salts, because they can't get "what they really wanted".

Which is much the case with trash meth cooked by some toothless redneck as well.

Meth abused is very bad and might kill a person either via overdose or over use and the typical health problems. No question that over use is bad.

But pharmaceutical meth is not near as hazardous to the health as street meth cooked by some toothless redneck. If a loved one is gonna get hooked on meth, then on pharmaceutical meth he or she would not die so soon, giving them more time to "decide to quit". Additionally, the ones who do quit would be in overall better health and have more brain cells left.

That said, meth and crack abusers can get real crazy and violent, even if they would never be thataway sober.

Kinda like crazy mean drunks. I say we should spend a zillion dollars knocking down peoples doors in the dark of night, arresting people in possession of a pint of cherry vodka or a quart of mickeys malt liquor, so that there will no longer be a crazy mean drunk problem. What could go wrong? That would have to be worth every penny, right? If it will only save one child from demon rum, it would all have to be worth it! Edited November 6, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Some pills are hard to swallow. What do you do when society allows one type of behavior(crack or meth,or others) when it

learned a lesson from Prohibition, decades ago? How do you deal with it? It's obvious a lot of the things our society is doing

are not working. Some people say "take all the warning labels off and let Darwin intervene". That's only marginally successful.

Pass a law that incriminates the behavior and it ends up incriminating everyone in other ways. The politicians use one law

to fit with other behaviors to make more things illegal than was otherwise intended.

 

I don't know the answer, but I do know the ones who do these things made a choice to do it and they should be held accountable

for their actions when other people are harmed by their choices. They definitely shouldn't be allowed to be eligible for any kind

of aid and should be scorned by the rest of society, and that means pushing them out of it, in my mind. They will end up as a self-

fulfilling prophesy by losing everything they ever had and dying. Punish criminals. These people usually become criminals and

then they should be dealt with by the harshest means.

 

I don't have a better answer, but it doesn't look like slapping them on the wrist with short jail times for possession does anything

positive.

 

I'm still rather angry about the way Sudafed is handled. That is completely the wrong approach to stop something. It's almost

like the SAFE Act in New York state.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Does any of this really matter?

 

Let's assume for the moment that all currently "illegal" drugs are made "legal" to buy. A legitimate market is created with legitimate suppliers, taxes, everything that is necessary to bring any legal product to market.  Since drugs are, for the most part, ingested in some way, the government (state and/or federal) is going to want to have some say so in who can manufacture these drugs, safety/quality standards, etc. which will, of necessity increase the price  I suspect that by the time all that is done the price of 10 grams of cocaine will still be substantial; maybe not as much as the "illegal" kind but I suspect that the price will not decline as much as some proponents of legalizing these drugs want us to believe (prices that many say fuel much of the crime).

 

While some will just "use" drugs and not abuse them, I suspect that many will abuse them and become a burden on society.  That will certainly not be true of everyone but it may well be true of at least a substantial number; enough to cause a problem for everyone else since those hocked on drugs will have all the problems that come along with the abuse (criminal behavior to feed their habit, DUI, etc.).

 

Frankly, I don't have strong feelings about whether these drugs should or shouldn't be legal...I see rational arguments for both positions, but at the end of the day, I suspect that "legalizing" drugs/drug use may solve some problems but won't solve nearly as many/much of the problems as some like to think.  Further, I don't see wholesale legalization ever happening anyway (at least not until the ever growing monster of the federal government decides that keeping the public "medicated" will starve off outright rebellion as society continues to break down).

 

Vicks inhalers are manufactured according to FDA standards and contain enough methamphetamine to make a person very sick if ingested. Cost is $1.97 at walmart last time I checked. It is levo meth, which is not the dextro form preferred by speedfreaks. However, as best I recall from reading long ago, the most obvious industrial methods will output a mix of dextro and levo. Therefore, presumably it would be MORE EXPENSIVE to make relatively pure levo methamphetamine for a vicks inhaler, than a levo-dextro mix such as the formulation in the prescription ADD/narcolepsy drug Adderall. And it would most likely be cheaper to manufacture it in pills, rather than mixed with camphor and menthol, encased in a little plastic inhaler, which still makes it all the way thru the markup and tax and regulation chain to cost $1.97 in FDA-approved form at walmart.

 

I'm not claiming that the drug is any way desirable for society or useful except for relatively rare medical conditions. But the "hooked on the first use" is laughable. If people are "hooked on the first use" then the majority of college graduates would be vacant-eyed homeless tweakers, after that first time they took a pill to stay up and study for the mid-term exams. Some folks are highly addiction prone, and will get addicted to something or the other.

[RobertNashville]

Vicks inhalers are manufactured according to FDA standards and contain enough methamphetamine to make a person very sick if ingested. Cost is $1.97 at walmart last time I checked. It is levo meth, which is not the dextro form preferred by speedfreaks. However, as best I recall from reading long ago, the most obvious industrial methods will output a mix of dextro and levo. Therefore, presumably it would be MORE EXPENSIVE to make relatively pure levo methamphetamine for a vicks inhaler, than a levo-dextro mix such as the formulation in the prescription ADD/narcolepsy drug Adderall. And it would most likely be cheaper to manufacture it in pills, rather than mixed with camphor and menthol, encased in a little plastic inhaler, which still makes it all the way thru the markup and tax and regulation chain to cost $1.97 in FDA-approved form at walmart.

 

I'm not claiming that the drug is any way desirable for society or useful except for relatively rare medical conditions. But the "hooked on the first use" is laughable. If people are "hooked on the first use" then the majority of college graduates would be vacant-eyed homeless tweakers, after that first time they took a pill to stay up and study for the mid-term exams. Some folks are highly addiction prone, and will get addicted to something or the other.

That may all be true but I have to ask, what product or service has the government involved itself in (ans they would involve itself in any "legal" drug trade) has the product or service be produced/provided more efficiently or less expensively?  I can't think of one...maybe someone else can???

 

Besides, I'm not just talking about "Meth" so whether Meth would be less or more expensive is really not the point...if we are going to legalize any drug they should all be legal; otherwise there would be no point in doing anything.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

That may all be true but I have to ask, what product or service has the government involved itself in (ans they would involve itself in any "legal" drug trade) has the product or service be produced/provided more efficiently or less expensively?  I can't think of one...maybe someone else can???

 

Besides, I'm not just talking about "Meth" so whether Meth would be less or more expensive is really not the point...if we are going to legalize any drug they should all be legal; otherwise there would be no point in doing anything.

 

Excellent points, Robert. We have on one hand government regulatory price inflation, and on the other hand contraband/black-market inflation. The government regulatory price inflation is onerous. For instance, a prescription government-approved CPAP machine costing hundreds or thousands of dollars is not dramatically more high-tech than a sub-$100 hepa air filter or microwave oven. Many apnea sufferers don't get treatment because they can't afford the dang equipment, but they can afford a dang table-top microwave oven. Government subsidized payments to buy the expensive machines for po-folks just adds to the injury, when in principle the machines don't have to cost so dang much.

 

On the other hand, the black-market markup is really astounding. If CPAP machines had to be manufactured in secret and sold on street corners, the sellers risking going to jail for 20 years and being killed by competitors, then CPAP machines would be REALLY expensive, and seriously low quality-control as well.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[BigK]

And what do you suppose would be different if it was legalized?

 

Nothing, sadly. In fact, I would expect more of the creative types that normally wouldn't become pot heads to be removed from the work force. Maybe not a "loud sucking sound" of them dropping out, but enough to be noticed. The only way I see to prevent that would be more unwanted fed laws preventing employers from refusing to hire them, which is an even worse idea.

 

Legalization seems like a good idea, but like your question suggests, it solves nothing except to save the taxpayer money wasted on enforcement. Plus, there's the theoretical increase in revenues from taxation and the idea that buying legally cuts out the criminal element.

[TMF]

That may all be true but I have to ask, what product or service has the government involved itself in (ans they would involve itself in any "legal" drug trade) has the product or service be produced/provided more efficiently or less expensively?  I can't think of one...maybe someone else can???
 

So then why are people going to liquor stores to buy booze as opposed to hitting up their local moonshiner? No doubt about it, legalization will remove the more dangerous chemical compounds and the criminal enterprises which thrive on illegal vices, unless you believe there are still people being machinegunned on the streets of Chicago over the booze trade.

[TMF]

Nothing, sadly. In fact, I would expect more of the creative types that normally wouldn't become pot heads to be removed from the work force. Maybe not a "loud sucking sound" of them dropping out, but enough to be noticed. The only way I see to prevent that would be more unwanted fed laws preventing employers from refusing to hire them, which is an even worse idea.
.

That assumes people value the law more than their own livelihood. I don't believe that at all. I don't think pot is destructive, but the reason I don't smoke it has nothing to do with the law. In fact, possession of pot is hardly worse than a speeding ticket. If it was legalized tomorrow I'd still have to worry about drug testing at work, so I don't see how responsible folks would suddenly risk their career over getting high. People openly do it in California, Washington and Colorado. I doubt there are any productive members of society who have lost their careers to weed.

[tnguy]

Nothing, sadly. In fact, I would expect more of the creative types that normally wouldn't become pot heads to be removed from the work force. Maybe not a "loud sucking sound" of them dropping out, but enough to be noticed. The only way I see to prevent that would be more unwanted fed laws preventing employers from refusing to hire them, which is an even worse idea.

 

Legalization seems like a good idea, but like your question suggests, it solves nothing except to save the taxpayer money wasted on enforcement. Plus, there's the theoretical increase in revenues from taxation and the idea that buying legally cuts out the criminal element.

 

People who want to go that level of "Pot head" already can. However, there are plenty of working people out there who already partake (I am not one of them FWIW). All it will mean to them is that they won't lose their job (and future jobs) or get a jail term for performing a relatively trivial recreational activity.