Should Meth be legalized?

[denem]

I ask this as a stalking horse for the more general question, should the possession of any drug be a criminal offense? It's also a trick question: Methamphetamine is approved by the FDA for the treatment of ADHD. It is prescribed, infrequently, under the brand name Desoxyn. Possession of Methamphetamine with a valid prescription is neither a felony nor misdemeanor.

I chose Methamphetamine for its notorious harmful effects, and the many lives wrecked or lost in its illicit production and use. It is a potent neurotoxin (as indeed is excessive alcohol). Oxidants, such as hydrogen peroxide, are produced as Dopamine degrades from the high levels induced by Meth.

Contrast this with MDMA (Ecstasy) where intensive research has yet to produce clear evidence of even moderate toxicty, although much of the pharmacology is similar.

Heroin: perhaps infamous drug of them all, while highly addictive, is virtually non toxic. An overdose leads to respiratory failure, and if untreated, death. Other than constipation and nausea, that's about it. As a Schedule i drug, possession is always an offense.

So my question: Is any drug

so dangerous or
so addictive

that possession should be a criminal offense?

NB:: Methamphetamine IS LEGAL with a valid prescription under the brand name Desoxyn. See above.

[Oregone]

1. Legalize *all* drugs now

Except maybe Christianity. The jury is still out on that one.

[Mimosa]

5. Oregone, did you have to...

Why did a good topic impel you to slam a whole religion? Can't we have some basic civility?

[Oregone]

6. Im not sure

I just get compelled at times

Come on. If Bill Maher said it in his opening bit, everyone would be in stitches.

[Mimosa]

14. You are funny

At least you said the verdict isn't in yet or something like that. When I was in NOLA, the most effective programs at getting people off drugs (like crack for instance) were run by churches. Especially black churches. ;)

[roguevalley]

94. no to the meth thing. that is such a soul destroying

killer that no. some things you don't legalize. meth is the drug equivalent to child porn. it destroys souls. people who make it don't even watch their babies.

[Oregone]

104. Do you have scientific evidence on its soul destruction abilities?

And what happens if you read the bible while you do meth? Does that mitigate the effects?

Do Christians have their souls protected by God while doing meth? If not, is God really that powerful? Is your soul really that important if he is, and he doesn't care?

[bahrbearian]

36. You've never heard of Christian Meth ?

[Oregone]

38. Article posted yesterday about some book written by Christian meth guy

[bahrbearian]

42. Christian Meth is more deadly then Crystal Meth.

[jgraz]

23. Oregone, did you have to...

demonize all drugs by comparing them to something as destructive as religion?

:P

[Oregone]

29. lol

[tavalon]

84. Best one liner I've heard in a while

Thanks for the smile.

[gateley]

2. No. I think it's lethal. I remember reading a story in Readers Digest around

1968 about drugs. What stuck with me was that when autopsies were performed on speed users, their brains would essentially disintegrate when touched. Junkies, other than other internal problems, fared much better.

I've seen people maintain on other drugs for their entire lives. Never meth. There was a reason for the 60's slogan Speed Kills.

[Oregone]

Cars are lethal

Ever examined the brain of someone in a fatal car accident?

[no limit]

10. Yup, because driving a car is the same as smoking meth. Great analogy brah

[Oregone]

12. Nothing is the same

But things have similarities. If your basis for banning a substances is lethality, wouldn't it follow that such criteria should have all lethal activities banned? If not, what further criteria are we discussing?

[no limit]

102. Except that 99% of people that drive cars will never be seriously hurt by driving.

Can you say the same about meth?

[montanto]

115. all lethal activities are banned.

I totally agreed with everything that you've said up to this point. I think the argument about drugs should stick to other drugs as similar case examples, however, and not jump to potentially hazardous activities like driving, like crossing the street, like taking a bath. When you push your argument so hard it runs into trouble. "If your basis for banning a substances is lethality, wouldn't it follow that such criteria should have all lethal activities banned?" Yes, but driving is not a lethal activity, and neither is taking meth. All lethal activities are already banned. Suicide is against the law. Taking poison, resulting in death, is against the law. Poisoning others is already against the law. I can't think of any lethal activities that are not already proscribed. Murder is already banned.

[LanternWaste]

24. However one must more often than...

However one must more often than not allow for both a critical macro- and a critical micro-cost/benefit analysis when looking at anything with inherent risk, yes?

Seeing as the automobile and methamphetamine lie at vastly different ends of that scale, it would appear as though your "comparison" invalidates itself.

[Oregone]

26. A comparison along a single criteria remains valid

The person failed to mention the utilitarian usage (or lack thereof) of the drug in question, and contrast that with the risk. The main objection was that it was simply lethal (as are knives and aspirin).

[LanternWaste]

35. Then one could compare any and everything

Then one could compare any and everything. Quite lacking in any usefulness of course.

e.g., "A star is to a piece of sand as a car is to methamphetamine" is wholly valid by your analysis, yet still quite meaningless. Or simply meaning less.

[Oregone]

37. Before flinging feces, please examine "No. I think it's lethal"

That is what I am replying to, and that is why I am questioning the criteria of lethality alone.

[LanternWaste]

41. Were lethality alone the only merit of the OP, but as it isn't...

Were lethality alone the only merit of the OP and the arguments associated with it, but as it isn't... we are compelled to look at much broader aspects.



Flinging feces? That's clever. Sigh-- my mistake in thinking you were civil as well as rational.

[Oregone]

43. Correct. It also disintegrates brains

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8705867&mesg_id=8705897

:rofl:

Load up the feces trebuchet

[bighart]

49. Life is leathal.

Ends in death in 100% of cases.

[Oregone]

52. Ban life

Its the only solution. Think of all the children

[Mimosa]

8. Gately, an MD/prof I know said the same thing about the brains

Meth is worse than heroin.

[ThomThom]

98. and I remember seeing alcoholic's brains and they were as smooth

as a baby's, brains create curves and folds as we learn.
It is about moderation.
Don't we all have a right to our own bodies?

[mike_c]

3. legalize them all and educate people about their hazards AND their benefits....

Prohibition NEVER works. No argument about the terribleness of drugs or the consequences of legalizing them will ever change that, and if the prohibition cannot be successful, it's a waste of time, lives, and treasure to pursue it. LOOK FOR OTHER SOLUTIONS INSTEAD!

If something doesn't work, look for another solution, or acknowledge that there simply isn't one and live with it. Prohibition does not work. It will never work. It's an utterly failed policy.

[FiveGoodMen]

16. Agreed!

[gateley]

32. I agree in theory and philosophically. But meth scares me because it can take

someone down so FAST. And it's cheap and so easily accessible. And when you start, you think, "just this once"...

But ultimately I agree -- legalize them all and educate.

I used drugs for almost 30 years and their legality or non-legality never entered into my decision or choices. Prohibition is a joke.

[Warpy]

4. Meth is a bad drug that ages people at light speed

while making them violently psychotic but yes, it needs to be legalized and sales restricted to adults. Meth heads are the best advertisement I know of to steer clear of the stuff. However, I think few would be attracted to it if the less damaging psychoactive drugs were available.

In any case, undercutting the black market with reliably pure drugs at reliable dosages would have the immediate benefit of defunding most of the worst people across the globe, decreasing the street crime and organized violence that go along with maintaining a black market.

Trying to make sin illegal just makes it more popular. It's time to tell the nanny stater moralists to take a hike. We simply can't afford them.

[w8liftinglady]

13. meth is HUGE in my neck of the woods.People look 20 years older

and lose about 20 points off their IQ.Their kids are essentially on their own-or the grandparents take them in(Grandparents being some of my co-workers).Drugs are big in Texas.I have had patients with every drug known to man in their bloodstream,but meth seems the most devastating,in the long run.

[Warpy]

61. Back in the 60s, the whole candy store was out there

and people who were frequent meth users were very few and far between. The ones who had meth as their drug of choice inspired the "speed kills" campaign and it was successful as a grass roots campaign against a really bad drug.

Everything else was available back then, though, and most people I know who used the stuff more than once did so for marathon study sessions (not that they retained anything) or when the town was dry and nothing else was available at a reasonable price.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. Agreed! (yet again)

[Jackpine Radical]

18. A lot you know about it.

(I mean that literally, of course! :) )

You are absolutely right. I have met more than my share of meth heads (13 years as a field psychologist for Probation & Parole in a 16-county rural meth hotbed), and I never met one who wouldn't have been doing other drugs instead, had they been available. Meth use soared as the DEA got better at reducing the supply (& increasing the price) of cocaine.

And another thing: Among the meth heads I evaluated, every one of them had a horrendous history of abuse, neglect, shaming, and trauma. Their persistent drug use was largely driven by their intense need to anesthetize the snakes in their heads.

[The Northerner]

7. Yes

If people truly own their bodies then what they choose to ingest is no one's business unless the person decides to act criminally.

The same rules that apply to alcohol and every other intoxicant should apply to meth.

[no limit]

11. No, it is a horrible drug.

[Trillo]

63. Money is at least as horrible and addicting. n/t

It seems to affect individuals' brain, and their behavior; and also seems throughout history to have been the cause of many deaths. It is insidious as well, apparently undermining democracy in the service of oligopoly and elitism. It seems at least as addictive as any of the "drugs" mentioned. It also seems to have individual withdrawal effects, sometimes quite desperate.

[Maru Kitteh]

86. n/t means "no text" dear.

So... double fail.

[Trillo]

96. Why Thank You dear. You are correct about "n/t".

Some say the first step is admitting you have an addiction. http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&prmdo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22money+addiction%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai="> Books: money addiction. Must be LOTS of FAILS out there, judging from those search results!

[no limit]

103. What percentage of people with money break into homes and steal property because of their addiction?

How many children where mistreated or ignored because their parents main concern was getting their fix for money?

I know you guys are trying to be clever with your comparissions of meth to driving and money but have you ever actually met anyone on meth?

[Trillo]

135. Most of them (expl. below). Meth is hard on the user's physical body.

Are we responsible for what we put in our bodies? We are told we are. Yet, genetic engineering has reached past the cell wall into our DNA itself, breaking our Fourth Amendment rights, suggesting we don’t own our own bodies by explicitly stating we don't own our DNA. However, if we don’t own our DNA, thus we cannot own our bodies, so how can we humans reasonably be held financially or even physically responsible for what our bodies do? Yet, that is certainly one hypocrisy of our civilization's current evolution, that we are held responsible not only for what we do, but also what we haven't done, or what someone else's shadow projects we might do, while removing ownership rights from us the moment some powerful group smells money.

Anyway, on to your questions. "... have you ever actually met anyone on meth?"

One of my best high-school friends got severely addicted to it some few years later. None of us knew until after she went into treatment, so evidently the only people who knew of her addiction were her meth suppliers, though we had been noticing the typical skin splotches. She told me the meth allowed her to work 16-hour days and more without tiring.

She developed some more severe heath issues than the skin issues, and was apparently told by doctors that she had the body of an 80-year old, and she was only in her 20s at the time. She decided that she needed to get off meth, and went into some kind of treatment program. So, that should have answered your last question.


Now, to your other questions regarding money addiction: "What percentage of people with money break into homes and steal property because of their addiction?"

That appears as possibly a poorly phrased question, though it may be precisely phrased. Do you mean: What percentage of people with money withdrawal symptoms break into homes and steal property because of their money addiction?

If that's what you meant, then my guess is all of them who break and enter. That's part of what I called "individual withdrawal" symptoms.

However, if you meant it precisely as phrased, then: In a wider sense, some have claimed that warrantless wiretapping, first entering mass consciousness during the * years, was conducted against nearly all citizens. That was breaking and entering under the U.S. constitution as far as I’m concerned, (unless it occurred with a warrant). Nobody questions that warrantless wiretapping occurred, a more pertinent question is how widespread it was, and perhaps still is. This "breaking and entering" by sovereigns could be construed as moneyed folks, acting in concert with each other, to protect their money at the expense of their victims. The number would seem a very small percentage of the total number of folks, but their money and sovereign status gives them the power of millions, perhaps billions of non-sovereigns, particularly in a money-addicted world that considers money equivalent to speech. Additionally, as governments, their assertion is usually that they represent the people and thus act for all of us (thus explaining "most of them" in the title), but we seem to mostly see evidence that they act much more strongly for private corporations benefit. Was theft of property involved? Who knows? If intellectual property that hadn't yet been revealed publicly was compromised, theft of first opportunity could easily have occurred, and thus one possibility is deliberate espionage for existing industry's immediate benefit (undermining competition).

"How many children where mistreated or ignored their parents main concern was getting their fix for money?"

Some years ago, maybe the 80s or the 90s, there was a promotion (that didn't appear as advertising), for some longish time, perhaps several years, in the newspapers which was framed as Latch-Key Kids; it was a huge problem judging from what the many articles I read at the time asserted. According to wikipedia, the term was coined during WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid They were latch-key kids because after school the kids went home and both their parents were working, and needed a key to open the locked door.

Their parents were both absent because of their needed money fix.

When their parents did come home, they were likely tired, and my guess is cranky because they suffered under employers who took the best hours of their days. After the parents returned home, perhaps they all went to FastFoodInc and got dinner, or whipped up some 3-minute InstantInc flesh-flavored noodles for themselves and the kids, and planted themselves in front of the TV for the remaining hours of the evening, where their brains were almost instantaneously lulled to alpha-wave status, a welcome relief from the parents' earlier brain-wave state of stress, before later going to sleep. Gee, I wonder if anyone does this today.

Anyway, in answer to your question, how many children were 'mistreated or ignored' due to their parents money addiction, my answer is with respect particularly toward your latter term, most all of the U.S. kids; and in a global corporate world, probably other nation's kids as well.

There is certainly a question surrounding precisely whose addiction it is, what mechanism is the root cause of the masses' apparent money addiction. The answer today seems found in the realm of hierarchy and the sovereigns at the top, and which entities they have empowered to create money, which appears to be a small, elite few at best. Maybe there's only one behind it all. Thus fully auditing these "institutions" is not allowed. In any case, this system of the few use the power of their money, their system, to control the actions, even the goals, of the rest of us. Even in schools, the "best minds" have been employed to suppress the individual child's natural talents, even if that talent happens to be math or reading -- nevermind creative, dreamy pursuits -- and implant others' goals for the kids to possess as their own, without the kids even necessarily realizing these goals they've been given aren't their own, perhaps until many years later, if ever.

What is perhaps most revealing to me is that in the animal kingdom here on earth, we humans seem to be the only ones that use money for survival purposes. None of the other animals that I'm aware of, with the possible exception of humans' pets, seem to need it to survive, even thrive, in earth's healthy biosphere, an environment quickly passing into memory.

Several of those books look quite interesting, one is titled, http://books.google.com/books?id=F7LW1a6XpvAC&pg=PA12&dq=%22money+addiction%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22money%20addiction%22&f=false">How corporations hurt us all: saving our rights, democracy, institutions by Dan Butts.

[vanbean]

108. I agree 100%. I have seen it's abuse first hand on people I have known.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. In general, I consider the harm done by prohibition

(enforcement costs, jails & prisons & ruined lives, unjustified but legal property seizures, infringement of personal rights, creation of a drug-financed underworld, secondary crimes committed to support expensive addictions, etc.) to be far more costly to the fabric of our society than legalization would ever be.

[maxsolomon]

15. some drugs should be legal and regulated

like you REGISTER to purchase processed narcotics and amphetamines: heroin, meth, etc., the same way you do now for psuedoephedrine.

others should just be freed as you can grow them (if you have the skills) - cannibus, opium, peyote, psilocybin mushrooms.

[Oregone]

30. To add...

I personally feel that taking a short education and harm reduction course prior to being able to register would be a good idea

Some governments require the same for gun possession (and yes, Im not comparing the two)

[lapislzi]

19. That's a toughie.

And I'm glad you asked. I suppose one must weigh the addiction probabilities, morbidity, potential for harm (other than morbidity)...can the substance be used safely, if properly regulated? What is the cost to society if and when the substance is abused? What's the risk level?

Alcohol, for example, can be used safely, provided it's taken in small quantities and the user doesn't operate machinery or behave in irresponsible ways that could harm others.

Caffeine is a drug and its use isn't regulated at all, although it can and does contribute to health problems.

I don't think marijuana is inherently any more dangerous than alcohol, provided the same guidelines are followed. Meth...I don't know. We've all heard the horror stories. It's possible that it cannot be used safely, ever, as a recreational drug.

[Johonny]

20. depends how you came into possession of it

Even if "illegal" drugs were legalized, those drugs determined to be dangerous or addictive would still require prescriptions to acquire.
At the minimum it allows the user a buyer beware before use, although by no means is a guarantee of a lack of abuse.

[Dogtown]

21. Prohibition is unenforcible

and always develops a thriving market for the prohibited item.


The government knows this, of course.

[snooper2]

22. de-criminalized but not legalized

nt

[Oregone]

28. The drug cartels' favorite option

Remove all risk from customers but allows black market forces (and violence) to dictate the prices.

[snooper2]

47. meth isn't a real big drug cartel drug of choice

vast majority is locally manufactured, locally used.

Legalize opiates, shrooms and the mary jane...de-criminalize all others and provide free extended stay treatment centers. I've been around people who use drugs of all types my whole life.

Different drugs have a different affect on a person and society. Heroin has killed two friends of mine over the years. Meth is highly addictive - amazingly so. One night may years back we did some and it was on the same level as crack. You want more after about 15-20 minutes, and again, and again.


I've never seen anybody overdose on shrooms or have shrooms ruin their life, same with pot, same with opium and hash. Although you'll be hard pressed to find good opium these days :P

[Oregone]

48. But why let the black market control it at all?

If you are in the business of legalizing any drugs and/or not punishing addicts, why not take the profit motive out of drug trafficking and ensure these people get controlled, safe, pure doses? It just doesn't make sense

[snooper2]

55. good point to think about...

I just don't think the government should get into the business of manufacturing crack. Now, should we let private businesses do that and make it available? Then you have the issue of the availability...It becomes much more available and thus you will have a higher addiction rate. it's a double edged sword.

[Oregone]

58. These drugs are already available in sufficient amounts to meet demand

Whether the government does it, or outsources it, isn't the main issue really. But the government needs to be involved in regulating and distributing it, at prices below the black market (in order to shut the black market down).

While buying from a regulated dispensary as a registered user (who I prefer to have been educated) may make it more "available", it will also make it more safe. And in doing so, this removes the pushers from the streets that target children to produce new junkies. So on one hand, you may be making it easier to access (and cheaper), you are removing the active marketing of the drug and for-profit incentive to produce new users. I can't tell you what will make more or less addicts at the end of the day. But I can guess the regulated method will produce fewer drug-related deaths (from ODs or violence).

[Taverner]

25. Yes. And legalize everything else.

For those who disagree - what good is making it a criminal offense? What good comes out of that?

Absolutely nothing.

[Lochloosa]

27. Yes. Take the money that is spent on enforcement and use it for education and treatment.

From my own experience, it takes 6 hours to get booked into jail for possession but 6 months to get treatment. If you can afford it.

You should be able to walk into a treatment center at the moment you decide to get straight because that is the moment you might make it.

[izquierdista]

31. Non toxic

I would think that something that leads to respiratory failure and death would be considered "toxic". :shrug:

[Oregone]

34. Yeah, thats shit can kill you

[EOTE]

46. Is water toxic? Aspirin?

Take too much of either and you can die.

Recreational doses of heroin don't kill a person. In fact, a user can use all his or her life and suffer very little ill effects from the drug. Generally, overdoses are caused by a user who encounters heroin of a vastly different potency and isn't aware of it. Another common way that users OD is if they've been clean a while (willingly or not) and then come across the drug again. They may have become accustomed to taking a much larger dose as their body had become accustomed to that amount. So they don't account for the fact that their tolerance has gone way down and they go back to the dose they used before they got clean.

By legalizing heroin, we could ensure that users received heroin of a fixed potency. I'd imagine that overdoses would go way down.

[snooper2]

54. I've never met a "recreational" heroin user

Never ever ever..either you are on that horse or you are off that horse...

One of our friends who plays at our poker games once in a while has luckily been off the horse again for about 4 months now. He's been a regular user for about 15 years, quitting about two years ago for 18 months then fucked up again. The fact that he's on probabation seems to help his attitude as he doesn't want to go back to jail.

What made him quit this last time, the nasty ass abcess he got on his wrist that looks something like this-

[EOTE]

62. There are other ways of using heroin.

I wouldn't recommend shooting up anything unless it's for medical reasons and required. But yes, IV use provides a whole slew of other issues, and they're pretty much the same regardless of which drug you choose.

[denem]

56. Salt is toxic by that criterion.

Overdose it will kill you. Toxicity is by definition dose dependent.

[Oregone]

59. As is nicotine

In fact, very little natural substances are more toxic than nicotine

[nyc 4 Biden]

33. absolutely not.

as someone who's been very closely associated with users of all types of drugs, i don't understand this big push for legalization. maybe it's just me. i favor decriminalization and treatment based remedies but i am against the legalization of drugs, even pot.

[inna]

39. Decriminalized, not legalized. Good topic. nt

[FreeState]

44. +1

It's a nasty drug, the people who are hooked on it don't need jail they need medical help.

[Oregone]

45. So, remove risk from consumers but allow black market to remain in control?

Ok, so, thats great they aren't locking people up who are addicts, but you know, that doesn't solve the violence and monetary incentive behind producing junkies.

[clu]

40. yes, but it would be restricted like everything else should be

maybe you pick it up from a physician, or a cop.... the only drug that doesn't need to be legalized is PCP.

[Deep13]

50. You have two questions.

1. No, meth should not be legal to the point of being unregulated.

2. Yes, there are drugs that are so dangerous that they should not be legal.

Now, how we deal with this problem as a society is another matter.

[denem]

60. OK So which drugs are "so dangerous that they should not be legal"?

I presume you mean drugs which are subject to abuse.

[Deep13]

64. Yes. While I'd defer to the medical experts...

...my present understanding is that drugs that cause a lot of damage and are highly addictive physically are the ones that ought to be restricted or banned. If a person becomes addicted, he no longer has the ability to decide not to use it. So under this system, alcohol and tobacco become harder to get or to advertise while natural marijuana becomes a lot easier to get. (I say "natural" to distinguish it from selectively bred "skunk weed.") Also, some mild opiates should be available OTC like they are in the UK.

[Oregone]

66. "If a person becomes addicted, he no longer has the ability to decide not to use it"

Ban alcohol. And bestial porn just to be safe

There is something about camels....I...just...can't...resist.

[Deep13]

69. We tried to ban alcohol. nt

[Oregone]

72. Yep. Doesn't work (aside from letting criminals get rich)

And the current round of prohibition isn't working

[Deep13]

77. Well that's deep.

:eyes:

There has to be another way of handling this problem short of allowing poisons to be sold openly. As far as the "war" on drugs, drugs obviously won. How do countries without high rates of incarceration deal with this?

[Oregone]

80. There are many different ways being floated here already

Decriminalization and the status quo amount to "poisons to be sold openly" (that is the current reality today). They also create profit incentive to expand market share by killing people and getting children hooked. Yes, the government may say "don't traffic", but they are creating the very environment that makes it highly profitable for criminal elements to sell drugs.

My simple, preferred alternative is the mass production (cheaply and safely) of these substances to be sold to registered and educated users through controlled dispensiaries. This will slaughter the black market by undercutting their prices and remove the profit incentive to create new addicts (and thus, drug violence would be a thing of the past rather quickly). Instead of "warring" on drugs, use those funds for early intervention, prevention, and rehab.

Without drug marketing (ex, dealers pushing crack on a kid looking for a joint), there would be far fewer addicts.

With education, including harm-reduction, along with standardized doses, there would be far less ODs and diseases spread.

And without black market cartels looking to get richer through the drug trade, there would be not be drug violence.

But if your "moral sensibilities" don't allow you to see positive manifestations of a government condoning and regulating an "immoral act", just strap yourself in and accept the reality around you. At least your conscious will be clear--just not your back alleys.

[Deep13]

82. I'd like to find a regulatory scheme that actually works.

Meth isn't legal anywhere, yet not every country has our problems. It can be illegal without it resulting in stiff prison sentences with hardened criminals. My problem is not that it is somehow immoral in a religious sense. My problem is the damage and suffering it causes real people. Right now drugs are regulated for safety and effectiveness. I'm wondering how a suicidal drug like meth fits into that framework. I suppose by mass producing it, we will at least get rid of the explosion and toxic waste problems.

[Oregone]

83. Well, I will tell you one thing...

It is legal for the middle and upper class. It is pure too. Their doctor's prescribe it and they pick it up at the pharmacies

For the poor people, they get bathtub meth. They may even be doing other drugs, but they are priced out.

Maybe if poor people can get rich people meth, or rich people coke, they wouldn't be trashing their bodies up with bathtub meth.

Food for thought.

Oh yeah, BTW, though Im not a decriminalization fan, this may be worth looking at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

[denem]

78. Something about camels ... One hump or two?

And have you seen the size of some of those humps? But I digress ...

[SocialistLez]

51. Possessing it shouldn't be illegal but making it and distributing it should be.

I hope that makes sense.

I would like to see us focus more on treating addiction than criminalizing it.

[Oregone]

53. Thats called decriminalization really

It allows entrenched black market cartels to remain in control of the drug trade, while customers can purchase with impunity.

[SocialistLez]

67. Well I don't want black market cartels controlling it.

As I said earlier, I'd rather focus on treating addiction than punishing addicts.

I am more scared of the consequences of meth: physically, mentally, etc.

Marijuana...not so much.

[Oregone]

70. Then the only way to win that fight is to undercut their prices by producing & selling it

...from a regulated dispensary in safe, standardized doses.

Guns aren't going to do it.

[slackmaster]

57. Remove criminal penalties for simple possession and personal use, other than while driving, etc.

Keep penalties in place for unlawfully manufacturing and distributing it.

[moriah]

65. I thought MDMA had been demonstrated to cause damage to the serotonin system:

Check out the discussions of MDMA neurotoxicity on the Erowid archives:

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity.shtml

While it does not seem to be lethal except when hyperthermia is a factor (and several articles have demonstrated that damage to the serotonin regulatory system in the brain is much worse at higher core body temperatures -- http://neuro.cjb.net/cgi/content/full/18/13/5086 is an example of one such study), the consensus is that there is neurotoxicity associated with MDMA use.

Edit to add: I've seen anecdotal support for the assertion -- have several friends who used MDMA long-term at least once a week who have developed severe clinical depression.

[Oregone]

68. Ive had friends that used it often because they were already depressed and anxious in social setting

[moriah]

71. True, and I wasn't counting ....

... ones who I had known in high school to have depression. None of us started using MDMA until we were out of high school. (We were an odd sort of clique, pretty goody-goody until after we graduated).

Anecdotal support really doesn't say much except that it might lend support to the theory, not that it's concrete proof. I only used it twice, since raves weren't really my thing.

[Oregone]

74. And many people get depressed in early adulthood

Its tough to spot the chicken and the egg sometimes.


"Anecdotal support really doesn't say much "

True

[moriah]

79. Exactly.

If you go by that particular study about core body temperature, it seems like the best way to make MDMA use safer for the brain is a lot of what people already do to prevent hyperthermia-related deaths -- specifically, making sure all venues are heavily air-conditioned, encouraging people to drink water, and having "cool-down" areas for people who have raised their body temperature through strenuous dancing.

Attempts to shut down the rave scene by refusing to rent proper and safe venues to promoters kill more people than the drug itself. There have been hyperthermia-related deaths at "warehouse raves" in non-airconditioned venues where the victims had no drugs in their systems at all. It's a damn shame.

[krabigirl]

73. Legalized and easily available, no. Decriminalized, yes.

[Oregone]

76. Its already easily available

Its probably easier to find a meth than a hooker in your town...though if you find one, the other is likely around the corner

[Romulox]

75. "decriminalization" doesn't make sense as a policy. It's illegality that funds large criminal orgs.

A policy that says that we will not arrest users, but we will use the force of the state to maintain a black market (with its inherent price distortions) is illogical.

[TheKentuckian]

81. I don't subscribe to any prohibition. It's not within my worldview to see a case for making any drug

illegal.

Vice enforcement is an exercise in high minded insanity or some pretty wicked wealth transference scams or both.

[MrSlayer]

85. Sure. Legalized, taxed and regulated.

The only drug I would hesitate to legalize is PCP.

[Oregone]

88. Why hesitate? Major money maker

Sell it on one conditions...they must stay in a rubber bouncy room until it wears off. I can imagine a lot of people would pay to be on PCP in a bouncy castle.

[Zoeisright]

87. No. It's a terrble drug.

Let's use a little brain power here, people.

[Oregone]

89. Brain power says prohibition saves the children

Sure

[backscatter712]

90. Legalizing meth might help with the epidemic of toxic meth labs. Alternatively: Meth clinics?

So when Beavis and Butthead want some meth, instead of mixing lithium from watch batteries with pseudoephedrine, anhydrous ammonia and Coleman gas, they can just go to the friendly neighborhood drug store and buy some meth off the shelf.

No more meth labs - meth would be made in pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, with known doses, and purified so you're not getting doses of ammonia, Drano, kerosene when you take a hit.

It can also be distributed with safer paraphernalia like sterile needles, so that they're not spreading HIV or hepatitis.

OK, if having meth on the store shelves at your friendly neighborhood Walgreens offends your sensibilities, how about bringing back methadone clinics, or the meth equivalent. Have some clinics where addicts can go, where they can get a hit safely, using clean needles, clean meth, known dosages, for cheap. It's basic harm-reduction drug strategy, as opposed to our current insanely punitive zero-tolerance laws. Allow addicts to get a hit under medical supervision, cheaply, with no risk of arrest or prosecution, and you'd be amazed how many of them will be able to get jobs, work and pay taxes, and contribute to society. Perhaps the meth clinics could switch users to dextroamphetamine or some other form of amphetamine that's safer than meth?

[w8liftinglady]

101. actually,that's something to think about

Here,the little kids are exposed to meth because of the way it's cooked.It might help a lot to have a formal lab to buy it at.the only "drawback" might be that the adult would then have to pay for said drug,and the cost may be more than the country meth they are getting.Just a thought.

[backscatter712]

123. I'd definitely keep the meth available at the clinics low-cost or free.

The goal is to make the legal clinics attractive by making them safe, low-cost, and with zero risk of arrest or prosecution. As a bonus, if you're sick of meth addiction hell, they'd be able to help you.

So yeah, the injections (or smokings or whatever methods are used to deliver a hit) would either be free, or extremely cheap, so as to undercut the illegal sources and encourage addicted people to come to the clinics.

[Dank Nugs]

91. I"m currently prescribed it -- I have horrible ADHD and I cannot function normally w/o it.

Cops have tried to arrest me for it several times, but they can't touch me, neither can the Judge. Besides, the pill form is much better than smoking that nasty shit. Also, I was on dextroamphetamine for quite awhile but 80mg/day is a pretty high dose. Now, 20 mg of Desoxyn does the trick. Everything in moderation, and don't abuse / take more than you're prescribed. But I will tell you that these pills have a completely different effect on me than they would a normal person and actually calm me down, allow me to focus my train of thought onto one given subject/task at a time. Just sleep right, exercise properly, have a balanced diet. Drugs aren't inherently a bad thing, but you know most of the time, they are bad because they're abused to excess.

I can't say I don't empathize with them, it's just a coping mechanism that's used to escape the horrors of reality.

But my position on this particular subject is that individual liberty should trump government interest, unless harm is done to any other but yourself.

[Romulox]

92. Dude--your name is "Dank Nugs"!

Just thought I'd point that out. I don't disapprove or anything. :thumbsup:

[lonestarnot]

93. No

[ismnotwasm]

95. Well

Heroin in pure form is a pure drug. What it's cut with is not. I don't recommend shooting, smoking or snorting pure heroin. Drugs affect the neurotransmitters in the brain and various receptors in the brain and body. A long term heroin user may simply stop making adequate amounts, and need lifelong replacement therapy. Cocaine, same process, although with cocaine, there can be psychosis that may or may not be permanent, (along with severe depression as the body tries to recover or get well) but sure is costly and fucked up for the individual and whoever is around them. Methamphetamine, same thing. You ever see meth or cocaine psychosis? Ever spent a day or so in a bathroom shooting meth? Hard to get out of that bathroom man. And you don't care what's legal or not when you're in that space. Don't care where the kids are either.

Now I can see legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, I really can. What I can't see is minimizing any drugs harmful effects. Drugs do what they do. Then there are all the reasons, not that people start in the first place, but that they continue.

For a while there at raves it was popular with young men to take viagra with Ecstasy. One kid lost his dick--literally-- had to surgically removed. I know several other 'negative' MDMA stories. I won't sit here and blab on with anecdotal stories though.

So how about a compromise? Legalize all drugs but have very low legal tolerance for some of the fucked up behavior that comes along with intoxication, or, say, selling to minors, or giving any drug to someone who has not consented. Get as loaded as you want, but if you harm another, pay the price.

That should shake it all out one way or another. I don't see drugs as harmless, I see drugs as drugs. Sometimes they help, sometimes they don't. Some people get addicted, some don't. Some that are illegal, like pot, should be legal like, yesterday.

But the illegality of any drug has it's own problems as well all know. Drug use isn't going away anytime soon. Chronic drug use isn't exactly well adjusted behavior unless there's an underlying condition someone is 'self medicating' Then it's an act of desperation way before it becomes addiction

[Oregone]

106. "What I can't see is minimizing any drugs harmful effects."

Harm reduction practices have a track record of actually reducing harm (see Insite in Vancouver, for example). Not only has that center referred a slew of patients to treatment centers, its drastically reduced the spread of HIV/AIDs & other blood borne illnesses, as well as cut down on infections related to injections (and has not led to an increase in drug related violence). While that isn't specifically about the drugs actual effects, diseases and infections are a large part of the harm injectible drugs introduce.

With legalization, these types of centers can set up shop everywhere and really help addicts not destroy themselves. As far as the actual drugs...standardized doses without harmful impurities could go a long way towards preventing overdoses and harmful effects.

[fujiyama]

97. Depends on what a person does on meth

or whether they actually cook it.

If a person is running a meth lab they should be in deep shit. Cooking meth is an environmental and public health hazard. It makes environments uninhabitable for quite a period of time and can create a risk for those cleaning it up as well as people that may unwittingly live in that environment again.

Anyone neglecting their kids or putting them in danger by exposing them to meth should also face severe consequences.

But for a person getting high off of it on their own, I just don't see how the government can stop it by criminalizing the actual use of the drug. Those people do need serious help recovering though.

[JoeyT]

99. Yes. I believe a person owns their body and decides what to put in it.

No matter what the question is.
Educate, regulate, tax the hell out of, and use that tax to create treatment centers.

As far as I'm concerned, the only body I have any say over is mine. The same goes for anyone else.

[WinkyDink]

111. Makes sense, until the drug-user doesn't agree on those boundaries.

[JoeyT]

127. When they stop acknowledging those boundaries, they've committed a crime. n/t

[hobbit709]

100. I read a science fiction book a long time ago

where ALL drugs were legal. The premise was that natural selection worked. Those that could handle drugs lived and those that couldn't died. Just like there are people that can handle alcohol and those that can't.

[WinkyDink]

105. No. Neither should all poisons.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

107. Yes, legalize it

and marijuana, LSD, heroin, etc.

The "War on Drugs" is a lost cause. We imprison people without any effect on the trade.

Legalize them all, the prices and profits will stabilize according to the market, same as beer or vodka.

:hi:

[asdjrocky]

109. Yes.

All drugs need to be legal, even bad ones like meth, so we can actually start helping people who have a problem instead of persecuting them.

[killbotfactory]

110. Just say NO to prohibition.

Do we want a powerful and profitable black market we can't possibly control? Do we want our police to have more power? More people in jail? More communities destroyed because we want to stop people from doing something stupid with their own bodies?

If people want to do drugs, they will find a way to get them. We can either let them do this in a way which minimizes possible damage from their use, or we can continue our current idiotic approach.

[Clintonista2]

112. It's tricky. If it was decriminalized how would we deal with, say,

meth addicted parents who have young children? Clearly that wouldn't be a stable environment to grow up in. Yes I'm aware that it's going to happen whether its legal or not, but at least when its illegal there is a legal basis with which to remove the children from such an environment. I'm not forcefully *against* the idea of legalizing drugs, but I think all of the consequences of doing so ought to be looked at first.

[Oregone]

130. Child endangerment may just apply there

Here is the deal though...if you legalize it and require users to register, you have these people in the system. Social workers will know what parents do meth. These situations will be monitored, and treatment can be mandated (with the threat people losing children if they endanger them). Right now its a big wild-card and these people are not in any system as a norm, being monitored in any way.

[denem]

131. Sexual abuse is a far more common 'endearment' than any

drug use as far as I know

[Uncle Joe]

113. I honestly believe that historically speaking if non-violent drug use policy had been an

educational, medical and personal privacy issue instead of being a criminal one, disenfranchising millions of Americans from seeking help, gainful employment, and participation with society at large, black market Meth; use and creation would never have reached the crisis stage where it is today if it had been developed at all.

Thanks for the thread, denem.

[RedCappedBandit]

114. Possession should never be a criminal offense.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

116. i agree. i think there are drugs that could pose a public threat so distribution

maybe penalized, but not mere possession for personal use

[RedCappedBandit]

128. Then again, forcing drugs into the black market is a public threat.

Would be much saner to allow addicts to have a safe and reliable source for their garbage, imo.

[Stevenmarc]

117. Unless we have a universal health care system then this discussion is cart before horse

[mdmc]

118. All should be legal

use criminal law to enforce crimes that have a victim..

[uncommon]

126. Exactly! nt

[Ross K]

119. Hell No!

Pot, hash, yeah. But I know someone whose daughter died from meth.

[BreweryYardRat]

120. The meth you get with a prescription will come in MUCH smaller quantities.

Think milligrams, rather than grams for the black market stuff. It's one of those substances where a little goes a very long way.

[denem]

129. Wow: You actually read the OP.

Thanx.

[EstimatedProphet]

121. No, because it's not possible to use meth and function in the long-term

If you want a deciding factor, that's probably a good place to start. There are no meth-heads that aren't ruined by it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

122. Meth is garbage and I don't believe it should be legal

On the other hand, if better drugs were legalized, nobody would be using meth in the first place.

[DirkGently]

124. I think we need to make qualitative distinctions

when we're talking about "controlled substances." If we're going to control behavior, we have to look at the actual harm presented. Meth seems about as bad as gets. The knock on this drug is not hype. It's not cultural bias, or thinly veiled racism (unless one hates white Midwesterners and bikers). It's not a politicized, pseudo-scientific P.R. campaign with vague references to "possible psychological dependence" etc. By most accounts, this drug presents a high risk of near instant addiction, real physical and psychological destruction, and a fairly high likelihood of death.

I sympathize with Libertarian-esqe notions that harm to oneself should not be a crime, but I don't think you can argue that no one but the user is harmed when it comes to substances that are so profoundly destructive. A Meth 'R Us on every street corner would represent a serious, real health and general safety disaster in my opinion.

I don't see a problem with distinguishing between one drug and another as far what's "controlled" -- we do that already. I think the government has a legitimate role to play in keeping genuinely dangerous substances out of general circulation. And I think we are quite capable of making the right distinctions, if we're willing to look at things logically.

Prison sentences are another matter, though. We don't need to put anyone away to rot for decades for simply possessing a drug. It's a health issue, and ought to be addressed as such.

[uncommon]

125. The government should have absolutely no say

about what individual citizens choose to do to their own bodies.

[Socal31]

132. No. No. No.

If you have not seen how horrible this chemical is, please refrain from posting.

[Socal31]

133. For those who are for out-right legalization:

What country are we modeling off of? Do you honestly think a country that can't even elect an open atheist is going to legalize such potent chemicals as Meth?

We are blazing trails here in CA as far as medical MJ, and we are even attempting to "legalize" possession for those 21+ (legalize in quotes because it is federally illegal).


Please keep things like MJ out of the conversation, because you weaken the argument for access.

[RandomThoughts]

134. No!

[xrdan]

136. Legalize it- with one condition

Get sterilized and you can have all the meth you want- the government should supply it. Anyone who would try meth at this point needs to be out of the gene pool.

Dan

[earth mom]

137. No way in hell! nt