home

The Myth of Meth

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 08:48:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The meth crisis, like every other drug crisis since Reefer Madness, is a myth. John Tierney argues that law enforcement agencies and the politicians who fund them need to get their priorities straight:

Like addicts desperate for a high, [law-enforcement officials and politicians who lead the war against drugs] declared meth the new crack, which was once called the new heroin (that title now belongs to OxyContin). With the help of the press, they're once again frightening the public with tales of a drug so seductive it instantly turns masses of upstanding citizens into addicts who ruin their health, their lives and their families.

The failed drug war policy, recycled for each new "drug du jour," leads to absurd results:

In Georgia they're prosecuting dozens of Indian convenience-store clerks and managers for selling cold medicine and other legal products. As Kate Zernike reported in The Times, some of them spoke little English and seemed to have no idea the medicine was being used to make meth.

The "war" mentality also leads to ridiculously harsh punishments of people who need help, not prison, and it distracts the police and politicians from directing resources toward the prevention and detection of more serious crime. Isn't it time to declare an end to the war?

< Hamdan Seeks Supreme Court Review | The High Road >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Myth of Meth | 103 comments (103 topical)
    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#1)
    by rilkefan on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Mark Kleiman on the myth that the meth crisis is a myth.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    I admit that meth addiction is a problem, but what ever happened to simply letting people walk their own paths? I believe that up until a person is 18, it's our job as adults to educate them thoroughly on everything, including drugs, but after that, you're on your own. Personally, I think we should let Darwin's law apply here. Some people will kill themselves with meth. Oh well. Some wilderbeast venture too close to the waterhole and are snapped up by crocks. Thats life. The smart ones learn from the other's mistakes and make changes in their own behavioral patterns, and the dumb ones die out. Personally, I think the dumb people, who ignore repeated warnings, and shun education should die out if that's the route they're going down. We can't save everyone, so lets concentrate on saving the people who are worthwhile. Lets legalize all drugs and let the chips fall where they may.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    As an extremely liberal criminal justice PH.D. Candidate in NYC (isn't that redundant?!?) I have to, on this very rare occasion, disagree with you. The war metaphor is terrible. Our decision to call everything a war leads to our inability to understand the cause of the problem or the treatment solutions. However, that is where i stop agreeing. Meth is a serious problem. The suburbs and rural areas are about to experience the massive increase in foster children, addicted children, etc. that the cities saw during the crack binge. Meth addicts get their children hooked, or they have them in or near the very dangerous production facilities...all of which lead to them being taken away. The repercussions of this are not fully predictable...but what happened in urban areas in the 80s and early 90s gives a hint. Much like crack, people can become very quickly dependent (both physically and psychologically) on meth. Unlike other drugs, the massive resources we have poured into border operations will have no effect, as this is a drug, that in most states can be made quiet easily. It won't necessarily lead to crack-like shootouts, but people do engage in self-destructive behavior...often putting large numbers of others at risk. As someone who has seen actual research charted of the growth of meth addiction, reported production, and meth-related crime across the country...it is not a myth. I say this not as someone generally opposed to drugs...but very opposed to this particular drug.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#3)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Rilkefan- From your article …
    “Moreover, lots of students take amphetamine or methamphetamine occasionally to study for exams or write papers, and most of them don't enjoy it much. That bulks up the denominator of the addict-to-total-user ratio with people who never use the amphetamines recreationally.”
    So true, myself included. But that’s not why I mention it. Rather, I mention it to serve Kleiman upon his well-deserved petard.
    “I have never heard anyone who knows anything about drug abuse assert that methamphetamine -- snorted, smoked, or injected not under medical supervision -- is anything but an insanely vicious drug of abuse.”
    Well then, Kleimen is either a nobody or a know nothing (or perhaps both). Anyway, one more point.
    “someone needs to tell the extreme libertarians that not all illicit drugs are equally safe. Some illegal drugs are actually quite nasty.”
    As I count myself in the group of ‘extreme’ libertarians that want meth legalized I’ll answer the point. Yes, I know a lot of folks can’t handle themselves with meth. It’s unfortunate but folks are free to make unfortunate choices. The argument isn’t that meth should be legalized since it is harmless, but rather that we should be a bit more critical about drug warrior spin. And I’ll go one further in saying that freedom includes the freedom to make choices that are ultimately self-destructive.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    According to recent studies... Methamphetamine production affects not just the cooks but their children, others in the vicinity, and even people moving into the cook areas well after the cook has moved on to another area.
    The cook and anyone assisting the cook will be exposed to phosphine, hydrogen chloride, iodine, anhydrous ammonia, and solvents at levels that are above those allowed by law in occupational settings and, in some cases, above those levels determined to be immediately dangerous to life and health. Third party bystanders, including children and infants, are likely to be exposed to levels of those same chemicals that may cause severe and long-lasting health concerns. This is especially true of children and infants who are rapidly growing and more susceptible to chemical exposures in the home environment. Law enforcement, fire, and emergency services personnel may be exposed to high levels of these chemicals as they investigate clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. This is especially true if they enter an area where a laboratory is in operation but also may be true if the laboratory is not in operation at the time. Residual chemicals deposited on surfaces of the house as well as boxes of chemicals stored in the house may result in significant exposures to investigating personnel. The area used to produce methamphetamine and surrounding areas will be contaminated with a number of chemicals including hydrogen chloride, iodine, solvents, and the methamphetamine itself. Levels of these compounds may remain in the area for an extended period of time (at least 6 months) and may result in exposures to individuals that were not associated with the cook and, in fact, never knew of the existence of the methamphetamine production.
    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#5)
    by unbill on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    The meth problem will definitely not be solved by criminalization, but it is important to realize that it is a problem. Patrick Moore writes in this year's Village Voice Queer Issue of a crystal meth epidemic:
    Some of our problems are self-inflicted but others are a direct result of America oppressing, demonizing, and isolating gay people. The very serious effects of oppression on gay people have been long apparent—those of us living on the West Coast know that crystal meth has been steadily killing gay men for years. Historically, gay people have had significantly higher addiction rates than those found in the straight world. In short, too many of us have been torching our lives for decades now with coke, Special K, GHB, poppers, and even good old alcohol. But the real story is not told in the media, because that would require straight people to take responsibility for the harm they have caused us. On the other hand, it would be far too easy to say that gay people have simply been victims of the dominant society. Like many other gay men, I have lived in a state of crisis for my entire adult life and have even found pleasure in the sense of purpose these crises instill. While the '80s and early '90s were a devastating time for me, I briefly shared a sense of purpose with other gay people during the marches, fundraisers, and funerals. But by 1994, I had lost my lover of 10 years and burned out on the intensity of activism. Alone again, I found solace in alcohol and drugs, including crystal meth. Had I looked deeper, I would have seen that I had always felt self-destructive and isolated, even from other gay people. I believe many young gay men still feel that way. I began working at the Van Ness Recovery House in Los Angeles to research a book on crystal meth. The book is now written, but I'm still working there because, for the first time since the days of ACT UP, I feel a sense of connection with other gay people. The overwhelming majority of the residents I deal with on a daily basis are gay men (there are also a few transgenders, lesbians, and even the occasional straight person) who have lost everything to drugs (most frequently crystal meth) and alcohol. Nearly all of them are HIV-positive as a direct result of their drug use, but many of them will die from addiction long before HIV can kill them.
    Dan Savage has also pointed out to the problem here.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#6)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    There has to be some middle ground between complete legalization and waging a "war" on these drugs. Individual abuse when one decides himself to use the drug the first time, I believe is his right and responsibility. The problem, however, is when lives other than the life of the user are put at risk. In the case of meth, production puts others at risk just from the fumes emitted when it is cooked. When children are around, it is harmful to their health and the producer should be held accountable for putting innocent people (meaning anyone within lungshot) in danger. Also, there have been studies out there that have concluded that the fumes created by meth production may linger in the insulation of homes and can cause damage after the homeowners have left and new owners have moved in. I personally dont want the risk of buying a home that will make my kids sick because it is contaminated with toxic meth fumes. So...perhaps legalization could help meth production become safer, but it could also make it worse. It's hard to say. But as long as we hold those accountable for irresponsibly producing this crap, I think we're doing about all we can do. The problem, it seems to me, is that we dont really seem to be doing a very good job of that. It should, however, be our main focus, since the "war" on drugs is not working and just wont work.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Meth is a public heath issue because of the danger in manufacturing it. For that reason alone, it needs to be highly regulated -- criminalized is another matter. No other drug will blow a house (or neighborhood) sky high when somebody f's up the recipe or the cooking, or poison people who unknowingly occupy a space formerly used to cook meth. While the drug war is largely a sham, meth labs, and their immediate danger to those living in the vicinity, make the drug much more of a danger to those who don't use than any other. Sure you may get robbed by a drug addict, but only crystal will get you killed or maimed just by being in the vicinity of someone making it. The "crisis" may be a myth to certain important degrees, but to say there's no difference between meth and other drugs, or that the "crisis" is exactly the same kind of hysteria used for pot or coke, or that the danger to the public is equal, is not being intellectually consistent. The drug war can be a joke and meth can be deadly scourge at the same time.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Agree with most of the other posters on this (except for legalization). Meth is bad stuff. As a criminal defense attorney I've seen it ruin a lot of clients. But the war model is usless. Most addicts have underlying mental health probelms that need treatment and which make them susceptible to this addiction. Treatment not prison is the answer. B

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    And, I should add, having lived next door to three tweakers for a few years, I'd much rather live next door to a few drunks or heroin addicts -- since I've done that too. Crystal is useless.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I'm with pw...one of the less fortunate side effects of true freedom is the freedom to destroy yourself. I don't like meth, coke, heroin, or oxycotin...but I am not so bold as to forbid others from using them. That would make me a tyrant, I have faith and believe in freedom. Freedom isn't free, it means putting up with a lot of morons and their bad habits, but I wouldn't have it any other way. The alternative is a tyrannical nanny state. I agree that the whole supposed "crisis" is overblown. As someone who buys illegal drugs on a regular basis, I've never seen or been offered meth in the black marketplace (granted I'm not in the midwest or a rural area). Smells like the DEA and the like justifying their obscene budgets with scare tactics.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Dangerous scourge? C'mon Dadler. That's what they said about crack, and that only took ten years or so to die down. It's fear monger nonsense. The most these so-called "scourges" can last is about ten years, by that time the next generation of youth see that smoking crack or meth turns you into a dirty junkie loser and the numbers go back down. Time and trial and error is all it takes for these "scourges" to pass. Stringent prohibition does not accelerate the shelf life of these "scourges". BTW...You say a "scourge", I say a "fad" that will pass as all other fads pass.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#12)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Related: The most recent issue of Esquire magazine includes four sets of before-and-after mug shots of people who were arrested before beginning a long-term meth habit and arrested again after. The difference in the photos is staggering. In one case, the time elapsed between photos is just a few months. If you have doubts about the destructiveness of meth, these photos will quickly dispel those doubts.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Hate to say it, but meth is a HUGE problem. As a defense attorney in a rural western state, I've seen it absolutely ruin many of my clients. That said, the "war" model doesn't work. People who have a taste for meth will start using as soon as they get released from prison. If I were in charge, I'd decriminalize pot (which should never have been criminalized), then put all the saved resources into meth, with an emphasis on long-term residential treatment. Of course, the current administration keeps spouting the nonsense that pot is the number one drug problem in this county. Idiots.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#14)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I don't think anyone is saying that meth is good for you. In fact, I think everyone agrees that there are very real dangers. However the issue is, and should be, what is to be done about it. What we don't need is media hysteria like the Newsweek article. the NY times article is a much-needed counter. The crack hysteria got us disparate racist sentencing laws that have exploded our black prison population. We also need to be aware of the inter-connectedness of drug use/abuse. Meth labs are a product of prohibition, just as dangerous moonshine stills were a product of prohibition. End prohibition (and replace it with a good regulatory system) and you'll end many of the worst problems of drugs. Tierney's article was a breath of fresh air, and I applaud him.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Remember people, just as guns don't kill people, drugs don't kill people. People do.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#16)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Right on Larry. The meth/crack/heroin drug "fight" for lack of a better term, should be waged through education on these drugs. Drug education in this country is a joke. When we have people telling us that pot is as bad as any other drug, our youth gets a distorted image to start out with. Then in the event that they ever do try pot, they realize that it's not that bad and either discredit their initial drug educators altogether or just try other drugs thinking it wont be all that bad. More people in this country should be less fearful of pot (for whatever reason people dont really care about pot being legal but dont want to bring up the idea of legalizing it) and just truthfully educate our youth about the affects (effects whatever) of each drug. That education should also start in the home and be reinforced by the educational system, media, and government policies regarding each drug. Instead we fill our youth full of BS about drugs and expect them to not go out and try them. Perhaps they would be less apt to try to find out for themselves if they were properly educated in the first place. I think this guy has the right idea.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#17)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Freedom isn't free, it means putting up with a lot of morons and their bad habits, but I wouldn't have it any other way. The alternative is a tyrannical nanny state.
    Neither is freedom absolute. It should be weighed against the desires and needs of society. Absolute freedom is anarchy and I don't think you support that. We just disagree on what the balance should be. I believe there is a letigimate social need to regulate this substance. Methamphetamine, being compared to amphetamine, both is this thread and in the linked to article is like comparing apples to oranges. IMO. Alcohol and tobacco are bad enough and cost society enough. If you want to alter yourself use of one of those legally, or accept the consequences of using something illegal if you get caught.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#18)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Why not make the s**t legal and then let people like me sue the s**t out of the manufacturers when the product, quite predictably and entirely foreseeably, makes gibbering toothless wrecks of its intended users?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#19)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    That was a dark and bitter joke, by the way. Seriously, though, some things just shouldn't be on the market, period. Methamphetamine's right up there on the list. Too seductive, too destructive. That being said, I totally agree that the "war" metaphor is useless and counterproductive. Epidemics of drug abuse should be treated as the public health issues they are.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    It most definitely should be regulated, by the FDA. Put warning labels and a skull and bones all over the package. Criminalizing accomplishes nothing, but we've been down this road and agree to disagree.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#21)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Nolo makes a good point. Legalizing the most harmful drugs could spark a lot more problems than it would prevent. But outright prohibition of all drugs just doesnt make any sense w/ the overcrowding of our prisons and bajillions of dollars wasted on the "war on drugs". The only answer seems to be in education and treatment.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#22)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    If I could, I'd send a complimentary set of Jarts to every one on this thread who's advocated legalizing methamphetamine sales. In fact, if I could, I'd create a regular "Jart" award for people who argue for the legalization (or extreme deregulation) of patently dangerous substances and products. I can see it now -- maybe we could even play a few rounds of Jarts as part of the award ceremony.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Found that meth users mugshot gallery online. Click here. (Warning: the site may ask for a zip code and birth year, but not a full registration)

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Thanks! I LOVE Jarts! Had a set when I was a kid. Great fun. And very safe as long as you're not some kind of moron. Back on topic. The problem with the prohibitionists when it comes to drugs is the enormous assumption that making it legal will cause more abuse. It's illegal and it's a problem. How do you know that a regulated legal system is going to be worse? So far, the problems are happening under prohibition. Why should we accept your view that it's the right model?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Jarts are illegal, seriously? Actually this presents a good illustration on which drugs should be legalized. Jarts and marijuana = relaxing fun afternoon. Jarts and meth = holes in everything within 100 yards and a few blind people. Also here's a Bill Maher that mentions Jarts. linked text B

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I could send all the prohibitionists pictures of my father on his deathbed with his grossly expanded stomach and liver, puking and defecating blood from severe alcoholism, but what interest does that serve? I don't think criminalizing his alcohol consumption would have stopped him, in fact I know it wouldn't have. He was a free man who made his own decision on how to live his life. You or I may not like it, it may turn our stomach and bring tears to our eyes, but it's not our life. Period. True freedom can be painful to watch, as well as messy, dangerous, and crime ridden...but I still say it beats the alternative. The prohibitionist solution is worse than the problem, because the problem still exists...the only difference is the prisons are full and gangsters get rich during prohibition. Educate the youth of the dangers, and keep your fingers crossed when they grow up, and have treatment readily avail. if you want to help addicts out. It's the best we can hope for.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#27)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Pete writes:
    Back on topic. The problem with the prohibitionists when it comes to drugs is the enormous assumption that making it legal will cause more abuse. It's illegal and it's a problem. How do you know that a regulated legal system is going to be worse? So far, the problems are happening under prohibition. Why should we accept your view that it's the right model?
    Because the present system is clearly not working. You said it yourself
    It's illegal and it's a problem.
    Having the drugs illegal complicates the problem further by increasing the prison populations and the amount of tax dollars we send to feed and house millions of prisoners locked up for some drug charge. I dont expect you to just jump on the wagon with me (no pun intended) and declare that drugs should be legal. But I do believe that you should be able to realize that the current "war" on drugs and outright prohibition does not work. Since it does not work, perhaps its time to try something new. A slow transition trial period of reducing sentences and changing from punishment to education and treatment gradually over a few years should show us whether legalization could work, or at least give us some sort of an idea of how to address the issue.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#28)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    “Neither is freedom absolute. It should be weighed against the desires and needs of society.”
    Freedom, i.e. the free exercise of innate rights, is unique to the individual. Society is a byproduct of the interaction of many individuals; it is an artifact. As such society has no desires, no needs, no rights. The regulation of individual rights by society is simply the prohibition of unpopular behaviors through force by a majority; simple thuggery.
    “Absolute freedom is anarchy and I don't think you support that.”
    Only a single individual may have absolute freedom as individual freedoms necessarily conflict. So, the role of the government should be to mediate these conflicts and provide a means of redress. My use of meth does not infringe on any of your innate rights. Certainly all the peripheral crimes do; contaminating neighborhoods, endangering children, and so forth, but not simply ingesting the drug.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#29)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Pete, I'm all for a regulated legal system. Under the regulated legal system I'd like to see, marijuana would be as easy to get as a six pack of beer. Methamphetamine, however, would still be illegal for all practical purposes -- just like it's illegal to buy and sell wood alcohol that hasn't been denatured unless you've got all the proper permits and crap from the BATF. Of course, to make pigwiggle happy, I suppose I should support his right to suck down meth, or sterno, or whatever brain-pureeing chemical he pleases. And I suppose I would, just so long as his conduct manages to have absolutely no effect on anybody else in the world. The problem is, unless you live in the neat little world of libertarianism, where we're all little independent units who interact purely by choice, one's use of highly addictive and poisonous drugs always has effects on other people in the world. And you can't make that go away simply by dismissing those effects as "peripheral crimes." The real world doesn't lend itself to that kind of rationalization.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Meth is truly dangerous. People who say it isn't are lying. The major danger of meth is that it is a cohort of adrenaline, which is the testosterone-linked 'drug' of choice in the young-and-stupid. Meth addiction is tied into manic-depression in a manner similar to the alcoholism points some have made here. But there isn't any distinction: most meth-heads drink, and use downers (or heroin), as well as shoot meth. It is the REAL gateway drug, because it amps up the ability to use the whole range of dangerous drugs. And, as an adrenaline-linked drug, meth is directly tied to VIOLENCE. The occasional amphetamine does not an addict make, but violent men seeking domination and cash commonly use meth, and it makes them even more predatory and dangerous to society. Legalize meth? Hilarious. Nothing like an epidemic of violent manic-depressives to make our streets safer.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#31)
    by SeeEmDee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Mr. Kleiman; it is a matter of degree. I have never known any habitual meth tweakers, but have known some people who've admitted to use before, and I have to wonder whether their hair-trigger tempers were an permanent aftereffect of that use or not. (I didn't meet them until well after their admitted use.) And as to being on the road with one? No thanks. Drunks are bad enough, but with someone high on that stuff, taking risks with both his and your life? No one could ever accuse me of being an uncritical swallower of drug prohibitionist propaganda, but this stuff is just plain bad ju-ju. IMHO, Heroin is suicide in slow motion; meth is suicide with the fast-forward button jammed. Nobody needs that crap around.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Kdog, Meant to put those two words in quotes, and you're right. But my point was almost solely related to the toxicity potential damage done in the manufacturing process. The larger truth remains, crack hasn't gone away (it's still out there under the public radar), nor has heroin (same), nor has coke (same), and nor will crystal. Of these, crystal is BY FAR the most heinously destructive beyond the usual personal damage. I used to think a bad drunk was the worst kind of person to be around. After a couple of choice run-ins with tweakers, I have changed my mind. I've smelled the sh*t cooking in my neighborhood too, bro. Next door to me practically. It ain't a nice feeling. Incendiary comes to mind. I'm for legalization, you know that, but does that relieve us, say, of the reasonable regulation of dangerous production practices? Does it not, does logic not, lead us to promote certain drugs (and strongly discourage others) in the name of public health if/when legalization occurs?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#33)
    by terry on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Meth is a prescription drug Desoxyn

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I hear ya Dadler, it is nasty stuff from what I've read, and I certainly wouldn't want to live next to a meth-head. Crack hasn't gone away totally, right again, but abuse is way down from the eighties, and my reasoning is the 8-14 yr. olds in the eighties saw that crack turned you into a toothless smelly bum and decided not to use it. That type of life experience is far more effective than the threat of arrest. It seems all the prohibitionists fall back on the belief that legalization with regulation will lead to more users. I don't believe that and can find no evidence of that.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#35)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    My use of meth does not infringe on any of your innate rights. Certainly all the peripheral crimes do; contaminating neighborhoods, endangering children, and so forth, but not simply ingesting the drug.
    This is true if we live in a vacuum. You cannot separate the consequences of the act from the act itself, if we could I'd be all for it. I think that's the point Nolo is making as well. A person with a meth addiction costs society money via treatment, incarceration and all the other peripherals you mentioned. Problem is you can't separate them and you can't take actions against the consequences.
    As such society has no desires, no needs, no rights. The regulation of individual rights by society is simply the prohibition of unpopular behaviors through force by a majority; simple thuggery.
    I disagree, most laws are prohibitionary by their very nature. Using that logic, laws criminalizing murder, rape, burgalry etc are thuggery? No, I don't believe that. Society has a value, and is therefore more than an artifact. It has needs that when met maintain that value. Like I said earlier, I think it's just a question of how to balance the needs of many against the freedoms of the one.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Also, by all means the use of meth, crack, coke, and all dangerous addictive drugs should be strongly discouraged, but not criminalized. Kind of like tobacco today, legal and regulated yet strongly discouraged through tv ads and education.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Meth is a prescription drug Desoxyn
    True, but not the whole story. Desoxyn is l-methamphetamine which is not psycho-active and found in some medications. It used to be the active ingredient in Vicks inhalers (And may still be I haven't checked the ingredients lately. d-methamphetamine is the commonly abused street drug.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#38)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Tierney is advocating the right thing for the wrong reasons. Meth is terrible for you, as are heroin and cocaine, but prohibition simply doesn't work no matter how far down conservatives stick their heads in the sand.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Mark Kleiman on the myth that the meth crisis is a myth.
    Nothing in that article, and nothing in the other comments here, provides any actual data to support the hyperbolic rhetoric about a "meth epidemic," about "massive increase in foster children" and so on. An individual may think, based on his or her personal experience, that
    meth is a HUGE problem
    but that doesn't mean that in fact meth is a huge problem on a nationwide basis, or that it's more of a problem now than it was a year ago, or that there's anything more to the latest drug hype than there was to the crack "epidemic," to "reefer madness," and to anti-alcohol hysteria that led to prohibition. Throwing lots of dramatic language around does not demonstrate a problem (even though that seems to be Newsweek's MO on this subject).

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#40)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    what PHDinNYC4dems said it best, thank you.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Alex, OK, agreed, anectdotal evidence is not always accurate. But what evidence will you accept? People of all stripes believe it is a problem, there's probably thousands of studies and statistical compilations that tend to indicate it's a significant issue. SARS was big to do in the not so distant past. I wasn't worried about it, and never caught it, but that did not mean it was not a serious health issue. West Nile Virus...Same thing. Only a relatively few people have actually died from it, but it is still considered a significant health concern. Tell me what you need to meet the definitions of the terms as you are using them, and I'll see if I can't find the statistics that bear it out. I believe I will be able to do that fairly easily.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#42)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Nolo-
    “The problem is, unless you live in the neat little world of libertarianism, where we're all little independent units who interact purely by choice, one's use of highly addictive and poisonous drugs always has effects on other people in the world. And you can't make that go away simply by dismissing those effects as "peripheral crimes."”
    I think most libertarians expect a much messier world given libertarian ideals. As far as it being small, I’ll assume your were being trite. In a libertarian world you wouldn’t have the luxury of using the violence of the federal government to sterilize ‘society’ of folks that make you uneasy with their bad choices. So yes, the poor choices of other folks will affect you, but the real issue is how.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#43)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I'm not sure if some of the posters here have the ability to read. People keep coming in and saying METH IS BAD!!!! It has to be illegal. It's horrible and how can you say it's great? OK. Now. Slow. Down. Just because meth is bad for you, doesn't mean that making it illegal is good, or actually is effective. (read that twice, please) Now answer these questions: 1. Are there problems with meth now? 2. Is it illegal now? If the answer to both of these questions is "Yes," then why should we believe you when you say that keeping it illegal is the answer? I know that this is a very hard thing to get your head wrapped around, but what we're trying to do here is actually have a conversation as to whether it's possible that legalization (careful, don't hyperventilate), combined with regulation and different approaches to different drugs, might actually work better than the current system in terms of the overall cost in human life and well-being. Yes, meth is bad. Yes, there are addicts who need help. Prohibition is like attempting to fix a broken window with a bulldozer.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Posted by krazycory: "i was addicted to meth for several years and i know ALOT of tweakers for 1 most tweakers don't drink and shoot heroin!!" The number of cases of multiple addictive drug and alcohol use are too many to let this illusion of purity pass unanswered. Google 'meth and alcohol' or similar, and see for yourself. The term 'clean and sober' refers also to meth (clean) and alcohol (sober). PLENTY of people abuse both. As for heroin and meth, hey, if you don't know, maybe you were just lucky.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#44)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Pete, by your logic nothing should be illegal, since I'm assuming you think that answering "yes" to both your questions constitutes proof that "prohibition" isn't working, and therefore there is no point to making methamphetamine illegal. But let me ask you these questions: 1. Are there problems with murder and violent assault now? 2. Are murder and violent assault illegal now? Based on your answers to the questions I have posed, would you be willing to argue that "prohibition" of violent crime isn't working, or that murder and violent assault shouldn't be illegal? If not, why not?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#45)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    p.s., Pete, if you read my post, you'll note that I have advocated regulation. After all, lots of dangerous stuff isn't banned, it's just highly regulated. But you'll notice that as the risk/utility ratio begins to rise, the level of corresponding regulation usually begins (perhaps asymptotically, but still) to become a ban on the substance or activity at issue. As I was pointing out, wood alcohol is a good example. You can buy or sell it, but usually only in its denatured (i.e., is treated to make you puke immediately) form. If you want it in a form that won't make you projectile vomit, you need BATF permits and you can only get it in limited quantities. Now, tell me why banning methamphetamine in its street form (but not in its pharmaceutical form) is any different.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    It's not the 'addicts who need help,' it's the ADDICTS WHO LOVE AND ARE COMMITTED TO VIOLENT MANIC FANTASIES that are the problem. And that problem is directly tied to violent crime, so 'criminalizing' meth is just an afterthought to existing law. Treatment of mental illness is of course preferable to incarceration with other violent criminals. But legalization of meth is a non-starter. It's just too dangerous. Forcing soldiers and pilots to use amphetamines, even if not tired, or in order to overwork them because of underdeployment strategies, is a crime against our soldiers and pilots. Many drug addicts will be coming home from Iraq (provided the people who put them there to die are removed from power) -- get ready for LOTS of compassion and additional taxation to handle their health care needs. Rs support the troops, right? So they won't just step over the vets sleeping on the street, on their way to the high-priced martinis of the too-smart-too-cowardly to fight club, right?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#47)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Pat-
    “This is true if we live in a vacuum. You cannot separate the consequences of the act from the act itself,”
    Lets suppose meth was manufactured by Merck and available over the counter, thereby removing the problems associated with neighborhood manufacture and the black market. If there were always consequences for ingestion, i.e. peripheral crimes, then it wouldn’t matter that ingesting meth was legal; there would be a de facto prohibition through the enforcement of the laws associated with the peripheral crime. We both know that there are folks that can and have used meth without breaking any law other than that prohibiting purchase and possession.
    “I disagree, most laws are prohibitionary by their very nature. Using that logic, laws criminalizing murder, rape, burgalry etc are thuggery?”
    Sorry; although it was clarified in the second paragraph I’ll rephrase. The regulation of individual rights [where they do not directly conflict with those of others] by society is simply the prohibition of unpopular behaviors through force by a majority; simple thuggery. Clearly murder, rape, and burglary directly infringe on the basic rights of the victim.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    I know that this is a very hard thing to get your head wrapped around, but what we're trying to do here is actually have a conversation as to whether it's possible that legalization (careful, don't hyperventilate), combined with regulation and different approaches to different drugs, might actually work better than the current system in terms of the overall cost in human life and well-being.
    It's not that hard at all. Alcohol prohibition despite its repeal was effective in reducing the social problems associated with alcohol consumption. Look at it this way, according to Dr. Dean Adel, illegal drug use is involved in approximately 3% of all accidental deaths. Alcohol is involved in nearly 20%. The numbers aren't exact, but IIRC they are close. Do you not believe that the legality and accessibility of alcohol is a signifcant factor in the difference? Alex, Here's a link I found interesting

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#49)
    by terry on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Patrick- Thanks for pointing out the difference between l-methamphetamine and d-methamphetamine. I was not aware of this. I see in this case that 'The difference between d- and l-methamphetamine was expressed in the Drug Equivalency Tables by a factor of 250 to 1 to reflect that l-methamphetamine is "grossly different" because it "produces little or no physiological effect when ingested." but 'As of November 1, 1995, the distinction between methamphetamine types has been eliminated and l-methamphetamine is treated the same as d-methamphetamine under the sentencing guidelines.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#50)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    PW, But meth is not available over the counter or by prescription and the illegal use of otherwise legal drugs is still prohibited, so what do we gain with legalization. I would argue that the user you desribe is far less likely to suffer any legal consequences of their use, until such a time as it (Their use) becomes problematic.
    We both know that there are folks that can and have used meth without breaking any law other than that prohibiting purchase and possession.
    Yes that is true, but we cannot simply remove the others, who's use impacts society negatively, from the equation. If we could, I'd be all for it.
    [where they do not directly conflict with those of others]
    Yeah, I got that point, and would agree if we could separate out the "good" users from the "bad." Since I don't believe that is possible, I equate meth use to offenses that directly conflict with the rights of others.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#51)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Terry,
    but 'As of November 1, 1995, the distinction between methamphetamine types has been eliminated and l-methamphetamine is treated the same as d-methamphetamine under the sentencing guidelines.
    Yes that is true, but it is only a legal technicality to dispell the issues raised in the case you cite. Pharmacologically (Sp?) speaking they are signifcantly different in their effect on the CNS.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Patrick, tell me al capone was not fueled by prohibition.... do it. Show me the prevolence of backyard stills during prohibition vs. today if you are worried about having labs everywhere.
    Do you not believe that the legality and accessibility of alcohol is a signifcant factor in the difference?
    The toxicity and incredible inebriation caused by alcohol is the cause... someone using almost any other drug can still walk. Drunks cannot even stand up. BTW: I am from Nevada, a sort of meth capital... meth has been around for a long time... 25 years already it has been real popular here. I hate tweekers, but our law enforcement busts labs all the time, and the supply still flows like water...

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#53)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Marty, So Al Capone is the reason you think meth should be legalized? If that's your argument, I'd say we already created the meth version of Al Capone, and if prohibition didn't do it, some other law would have caused it. There will always be people who look for profit and are not afraid to commit crimes to do it.
    Show me the prevolence of backyard stills during prohibition vs. today if you are worried about having labs everywhere.
    Legalization would certainly have an impact on the number of illegal cooks. Some people would still do it to avoid costs associated with the "legal" purchase. We can take any one symptom of the problem and develop a solution, but it's the whole of the problem that I believe prohibition deals with more effectively than any one dimentional solution I've heard to date.
    someone using almost any other drug can still walk. Drunks cannot even stand up.
    This is not even remotely true. I know drunks who can function normally at a .30 BAC, and heroin addicts who sleep all day and can't even talk after fixing.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Some people would still do it to avoid costs associated with the "legal" purchase.
    But an illegal purchase factors in prohibition, legal ones don't. Legal meth, cocaine, and heroin subs are MUCH cheaper (and safer) than the illegal version. The blackmarket is what raises the price and danger of each. Take the money saved and put it into treatment programs and the cost to society would plummet. Of course that would remove the economic incentive that the dea, private prisons and local PDs receive, amongst many others.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#56)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Pat-
    “But meth is not available over the counter or by prescription and the illegal use of otherwise legal drugs is still prohibited, so what do we gain with legalization.”
    A small bit of freedom. We would be fortunate to live a full life, which is sadly, still very short. So, I can’t imagine much more valuable than self-determination.
    “Yes that is true, but we cannot simply remove the others, who's use impacts society negatively, from the equation. If we could, I'd be all for it.”
    True, but that’s life, that’s how everything is. It seems to me we have two polar approaches. I’m for giving folks all the freedom in the world and severely punishing the folks that are irresponsible enough to trespass on the freedoms of other folks. You have what I’ll call the drill sergeant approach; punish everybody for the bad actions of others in the group.
    “I equate meth use to offenses that directly conflict with the rights of others.”
    It’s a fine point, but really the crux. You, by your own admission, equate meth use to the potential trespass of others’ rights.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Alcohol prohibition despite its repeal was effective in reducing the social problems associated with alcohol consumption.
    Uhhhh, the Mafia isn't a social problem!? The only way the Mafia became a national entity was thru money gained thru prohibition. The only way biker gangs, crips & bloods etc became powerful was thru prohibition of their substances. Cops corrupted, governments corrupted, nations corrupted (care to talk about columbia or afghanistan) prohibition DOESN'T work.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    "prohibition DOESN'T work." Well, prohibition certainly doesn't work 100% of the time in stopping the activity it prohibits, but does any law?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#59)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    I would agree with punishing only the irresponsible of the group and would submit that that is largely the case today. The user you describe, the recreational one who's use does not impact society, is rarely if ever caught, and if caught rarely if ever faces significant punishment as a first time offender. The majority of people caught up in the criminal process around drugs were caught because of a behavior inconsistant with private recreational use that came to the attention of law enforcement in the first place.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    The majority of people caught up in the criminal process around drugs were caught because of a behavior inconsistant with private recreational use that came to the attention of law enforcement in the first place.
    The majority of drug arrests and incarceration are for marijuana users, NOT dealers, growers. Not crack, not heroin, not meth. Please, please request links.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    I'm beginning to wonder if the real Tierney has been replaced with some kind of thoughtful doppleganger.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#64)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    pat, I call BS IRT l-methamphetamine . Please tell us the chemical/molecular differences between prescribed meth and 'illegal' meth? How do they differ in absorption qualities and methods? Effective doses? Addictive qualities? Psychoactive components? Can you answer any of those? I only ask because l-methamphetamine and L- and other metabolites are generated naturally in every human's body.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#65)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Desoxyn is l-methamphetamine which is not psycho-active and found in some medications.
    from the PDR
    Brand name: Desoxyn. Excessive doses of this medication can produce addiction. METHAMPHETAMINE HAS A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE. IT SHOULD THUS BE TRIED ONLY IN WEIGHT REDUCTION PROGRAMS FOR PATIENTS IN WHOM ALTERNATIVE THERAPY HAS BEEN INEFFECTIVE. ADMINISTRATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE FOR PROLONGED PERIODS OF TIME IN OBESITY MAY LEAD TO DRUG DEPENDENCE AND MUST BE AVOIDED. PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUBJECTS OBTAINING METHAMPHETAMINE FOR NON-THERAPEUTIC USE OR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHERS, AND THE DRUG SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED OR DISPENSED SPARINGLY.
    BTW, meth has been prescribed for children's ADD, but never tested on kids. Which drug dealer in this country kills more people? The corner guy or the bigPharm rep?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    The user you describe, the recreational one who's use does not impact society, is rarely if ever caught, and if caught rarely if ever faces significant punishment as a first time offender
    Rarely is still too often. A $1 fine or ten minutes in jail being processed is still too much punishment. The recreational user who does not harm anyone should not be faced with the threat of punishment. This is tyranny. PW said drill seargent metality, I say kindergarten justice..punishing the whole class because one kid shoots spitballs. Free men who harm no one shouldn't have to deal with such nonsense

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#67)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Meth mouth is a myth. Thousands arrested for the misbehavior of a small percentage. You wingers should be proud of your fearmongering.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#68)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Kdog, Call it what you will. It's where I believe the balance between the free will of an individual and the rights of others should be.
    The recreational user who does not harm anyone should not be faced with the threat of punishment.
    I believe that they do not face punishment, until they come to the attention of law enforcement, and by then they are harming someone, however slight that harm may be. Roger, Well I don't know for certain what causes it, but most of the meth addicts I know have pretty bad teeth. Coincidence? I doubt it. You've seen it too in your line of work. I don't think it's a myth.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    I believe that they do not face punishment, until they come to the attention of law enforcement
    Well, in my case of arrest for possesion of mj, I was tailgating at a concert enjoying a spliff with a few friends. As I approached the ticket gate, I was accosted by a cop. I was searched, cuffed and arrested for possesion of less than 1 gram of mj. Later during processing, the cop told me they had undercover officers patrolling the parking lot, and they had radioed to the gate that I was probably holding mj since they saw us smoking. So tell me, what criminal activity drew the attention of law enforcement, besides the simple act of enjoying a smoke? The only criminal activity they were concerned with was drug use, nothing more. Things may be more relaxed out west, but in NY I can attest that your statement is simply false. I feel my experience was a perfect example of govt. tyranny.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#70)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Alright kdog...but it doesnt stop there. What if you had a friend who had gone to the bathroom and you were holding his backpack that, without your knowledge, had enough pot to match the manditory sentence requirements. See you in no less than 2 years.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#71)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    It doesnt matter to our government if it oppresses its people. We're past that. They've been doing that sh*t for years. The more they arrest ordinary citizens for less than a gram of bud, the more they can hold us down. The longer they can keep us locked up, the more they can divide the ordinary citizens and keep us down. By holding us down, they get more power, more money, and can hire more people to do their jobs so that they can sit on their fat a** and not do anything. That's the nature of government and that's what our government is doing and has been doing for years.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#72)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    So tell me, what criminal activity drew the attention of law enforcement, besides the simple act of enjoying a smoke?
    The simple act is being obvious about committing a crime. Like it or not, should be or not, the fact is that in NY it's a crime and they watched you do it in public. Whether it's marijuana or heroin or meth or crack makes no difference. You called attention to yourself while doing it. Is it so bad to want you to be more descreet about your use?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Patrick You said..."I believe that they do not face punishment, until they come to the attention of law enforcement, and by then they are harming someone, however slight that harm may be." Who was I harming even in the slightest degree? I could have been more discreet, I could have hid in the bushes or in a bathroom stall. But I refuse to live that way. I am not ashamed of my choice in vice. While nearly every other concertgoer was getting buzzed on booze in plain sight as free men, I felt I too should have the right to get buzzed in plain sight at a rock concert, being a free man. I know that's not what the law says, but the law makes no sense, it is assinine. That's the whole point, why should I respect the law when the law doesn't respect me? I harm no one by using an illegal drug, not even in the slightest.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#74)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    You called attention to yourself while doing it. Is it so bad to want you to be more descreet about your use?
    It's not about being discreet. My cousin was smoking with some of his friends back in college inside his house. A cop came to the door to tell him to move a car that was illegally parked in the grass and busted him with .62 grams (a very very small amount of pot).

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Right peac, discretion has nothing to do with it. My suspicion is it's all about the revenue from fines and seizures. The fact that a segment of the population is denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seems to be of no concern.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    "The fact that a segment of the population is denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seems to be of no concern." kdog, "a segment?" Are not the laws regarding MJ applicable to all citizens?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#77)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    I wish there were some sort of way to find out how many of our politicians used to blaze it up in college. I would bet that at least 50% of them burned the occasional hooie back in the day.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Yes, the "segment" of the population I was referring to are mj users. We don't have the right to pursue our happiness. Those that prefer alcohol are free to pursue their happiness, but I am not. The laws are applicable to all citizens, but are somewhat selectively enforced as well.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Not very logical kdog. People who want to do something illegal are being denied their right to pursue happiness? Frankly, I suspect that if you truly wanted to pursue happiness, and not just use the words as a cause celebre, you'd choose to stop spending so much time dwelling on the "unfairness" of MJ laws. Less self-produced negative energy surely would make for more happiness...

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    People who find hapiness smoking mj are punished for it...that's logical? I say that's insane. I may dwell on the unfairness of these laws because these laws allowed the state to put me in chains. Should I be happy about it, ignore it? How would you feel if grilled cheese sandwiches made you happy and it was illegal to eat them? Many things make me happy....sex, bacon, sports, music, art, a good political debate, and mj to name a few. Only the mj is illegal, and no one has ever given me a good reason why.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#81)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    kdog writes:
    Only the mj is illegal, and no one has ever given me a good reason why.
    I challenge anyone who can read this to provide me with a logical, sensible, defendable, and convincing reason of why mary jane should be illegal. I dont think anyone can give me a good reason that cant easy be put to bed with facts and logical thought.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#82)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Perhaps I should clarify...I know it is illegal historically, but I would like to hear people's thoughts on why it should beillegal

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Well, kdog, is not every law stopping someone from doing something they feel will give them happiness? See, that's exactly it, if grilled cheese were illegal, I'd happily choose to eat PB&J and deliberately choose not to spend any time dwelling on grilled cheese. If you choose to dwell on a law that you perceive to be unfair or "has no good reason" for it, you will be less happy than if you choose not to dwell on it. Therefore, as I said, if you really want to pursue happiness, rather than just use the words as a cause celebre, you would choose to stop dwelling on it. No one is stopping you or your "segment" from choosing to pursue happiness except the choices you and your "segment" make.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#84)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    “See, that's exactly it, if grilled cheese were illegal, I'd happily choose to eat PB&J and deliberately choose not to spend any time dwelling on grilled cheese.”
    This is by far the most asinine thing I have read all week (and that is saying a lot)*. You are telling us that if your friends and neighbors were to pass such arbitrary and restrictive legislation you would simply put it out of your mind? Come on, where’s your constitution man; the human personification of a doormat. I call bull$hit. Me, I’d eat grilled cheese on the sly and goof with all of my friends about our square neighbors who fall in rank and file just cause they were told. Not to mention b!tch every opportunity I had and punch a straight pro-cheese ballot. *Perhaps a close second to the mouthpiece of the Canadian Healthcare Coalition calling the ability if Canadians to buy private health insurance a violation of human rights.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Hear Hear PW! I call bullshi** as well, if not I would have to ask how someone taught sheep to type. Speaking out against injustice also makes me happy, luckily I can still pursue that one.
    Well, kdog, is not every law stopping someone from doing something they feel will give them happiness?
    Ah yes, the old comparison of mj laws to laws against crimes with actual victims. If you can't see the difference between murder or robbery and using a drug, there is no sense debating.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Actually, not bullsh** at all. A corny example, perhaps. Here's a real life example. The speed limit is 65 on my way to work. A few months back, because I was late, I went 75. It made me "happy" to try to get to my appointment faster. And then I got popped by the police the for doing 75. There was no "victim" of my speeding, yet I still got a ticket. Now, I could choose to spend the rest of my life dwelling on how that speed limit is unfair and arbitrary and continue to speed and be vulnerable getting more tickets, or I could just choose to keep my foot off the gas pedal. You choose your priorities. The main point, if you can focus on it, is that MJ laws do not in any way deny you the right to pursue happiness. You can not use MJ and still be happy - if you choose to be. If you choose not to pursue happiness by, well, not pursuing it, that's your choice. Don't try to conflate MJ laws with your ability to pursue happiness. Because that, my two dear friends, is asinine bullsh**

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#87)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    I am fully behind legalization and regulated sale of all drugs with one exception - we should restrict and monitor access to those drugs for which the very consumption of them may harm other individuals, or society as a whole, regardless of any other behavior of the drug's user. This level of direct, not just proximate, harm does not arise from using any normal recreational drug. In the case of recreational drugs, no matter how addictive they are, any possible harm to others caused by the user/abuser is not causally related to the ingestion of the drug alone; the relation, if any, is represented statistically over society as a whole and does not predict with anything close to certainty whther a given individual will commit real crimes against others simply because they are using/abusing a drug. (here you must remember to put aside any possible crimes or harms resulting from the drugs' prohibition and the many, many laws relating to prohibition in general and simply consider hypothetically legal use). It is most definitely possible to recreationally use meth, coke, MDMA, alcohol, etc. without causing harm to others. Statistically, using just about any pleasurable drug repeatedly and recklessly may lead to addiction, but it is not a certainty. The relative addictiveness of the drugs is also only statistical - such data provides little insight into whether a particular drug will be more or less controllable for a specific user. Additionally, there is no causal relation between being a drug addict and committing crime against others, especially when you take prohibition out of the picture. Drug addiction is most definitely harmful to the user, but not necessarily to others. If an addict has reliable access to uncut, pharmacologically clean, accurately dosed, and reasonably priced drugs, they are much less likely to commit crimes to pay for their habit. (I wonder what would happen if we banned tobacco and all other nicotine-containing products?) I believe that statistical correlation and relative probability are not compelling enough justifications for prohibiting recreational use of any drug for all citizens. If you truly disagree with this then you must likewise argue for re-prohibiting alcohol due to the high likelyhood that drinking alcohol will result in drunk driving. While we're at it we might as well criminalize smoking and knowingly eating unhealthfully too....And, no, there is no drug that invariably makes a user a hopeless addict on the first try, in spite of claims to the contrary by our government's experts on several occations over years past (remember Reefer Madness?). Yes, addictive drugs are potentially dangeous and have ruined many lives, and everyone should respect them or stay away from them, but they are ultimately inanimate objects. When we decide we are incapable of separating any recreational drug use from statistically related but still hypothetical criminal behavior in a person, we have given up on free will, something we must never do. Legalization and education would also help remove some of the social stigma currently associated with addiction. Such stigmatization and marginalization, even long after an addiction has faded, shames and scares people into hiding their addictions, from themselves as well as others, for fear of familial, social, legal, financial, and professional rejection and judgement, a judgement that is often out of proportion to the "crime". Usually, addicts hold out alone until they are unable to hide theír addictions' effects or afford their costs. in desperation they see no other hope but to being arrested, confronted by friends and family, or some similar external or coercive force. Alleviating this shame and fear would likely result in addicts coming forward for help earlier in the development of the disorder than they usually do today, boosting the likelyhood of a full recovery. A good compromise between outright legalization and prohibition would be legalization only with a license/permit, like for driving, flying, or carrying a gun. Licensing requirements could establish and enforce prerequisite drug education and screening, regulated sales, and mandatory periodic exams for license renewals. The only class of drugs I can think of that really belong in my justifiably restricted category mentioned at the top are antibiotics. Medically unnecessary and unsupervised use of antibiotics by our planet's uneducated hypochondriacs, factory farmers, and risk-averse medical establishments directly results in the eventual but apprently inevitable evolution of drug-resistant strains of bacteria. This is, unfortunately, a problem today even in the U.S., with our prescription-only access to all systemic antibiotics. Prescriptions are not even needed in many foreign countries for most older generic antibiotics, and widespread prophylactic agricultural use worsens the problem. This is a true "drug problem" that we don't seem to talk about. In the long run, however, it is undoubtedly much more important than the recreational drugs we spend so much to "fight": once drug-resistance develops to an antibiotic, we likely permanently lose the use of that drug, resulting in peeople, possibly many people, dying from pneumonia, staph, TB, strep, etc that would have lived 25 years ago. Today we appear to be losing antibiotics to evolution faster than we can develop new antibiotics. This trend must stop.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    In response to Terry Nall, Patrick, and Sailor, you are wrong about d-meth (dextromethamphetamine) vs. l-meth (levmethamphetamine, often written levmetamphetamine for some reason). The most CNS-active isomer by far is d-meth, as it is with dextroamphetamine. Levmethamphetamine is profoundly weaker -- so much so that it is an OTC drug used as a decongestant (see Vicks vapor inhaler, for example). Desoxyn is indeed pure d-meth, hence its schedule II status. It is rarely prescribed today, mainly due to meth's bad reputation leading doctors to shy away from its use for fear of becoming associated with it and any possible liability or DEA prosecution. For more info check out the relevant Meth page at Erowid.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#89)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Alright sarcastic...when you got your ticket for speeding did you go to jail? Probably not. You probably paid a $200 fine or so or took defensive driving or went on deferred or something extremely minor. But, by going over the speed limit, you put yourself and others at a higher risk of a fatal crash. That's why there's a limit. If you smoke pot, you're not harming anyone or putting anyone in danger, except your own danger of being arrested. You dont get a ticket or a warning or a slap on the rist fine. You go to jail. Tickets vs. possession? Another bad example. As for your main point, you can be happy without pot. You can be happy without steak. You can be happy without coffee. You can be happy without a turkey on thanksgiving. You can be happy without nice clothes or shoes. So on and so forth...blah blah blah...My point is that though you can be happy without something, you should not be prohibited from it for no reason at all. For me it's less about the persuit of happiness and more about having someone tell me I cant and not having any reason. It's the just because they can mentality that makes me feel like someone else is trying to run my life and make my decisions for me. It's not about just pot. I'm a grown ass man. Time for the government to let me live like it.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#90)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    But, by going over the speed limit, you put yourself and others at a higher risk of a fatal crash. That's why there's a limit. If you smoke pot, you're not harming anyone or putting anyone in danger, except your own danger of being arrested.
    Ok, speeding is dangerous...Is second hand smoke dangerous? If someone is smoking in say, the public parking lot at a concert, can they control where the excess smoke goes? How many times have you smelled marijuana from someone else smoking it? Every time you smelled it, you've ingested it no? Perhaps the amounts are miniscule, but you have ingested it. As for marijuana not being dangerous, that's a new one on me. P.S. Last time I checked...This thread was about myths of methamphetamine not marijuana. To that end, I believe many publications accentuate the dangers of meth to sell more magazines. So what? That's a consumer beware type issue and if you're that interested in it, should do your own research.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#91)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Ok, speeding is dangerous...Is second hand smoke dangerous? If someone is smoking in say, the public parking lot at a concert, can they control where the excess smoke goes? How many times have you smelled marijuana from someone else smoking it? Every time you smelled it, you've ingested it no? Perhaps the amounts are miniscule, but you have ingested it.
    Really? Are you serious? Have you ever smelled a skunk? Were you ingesting skunk spray? Ok...let's say you DID smell pot from some guy right next to you and he blew smoke in your face when you turned around and you DID ingest it. This link should give you a good idea about how much it harms you. Refer especially to point number 4.
    P.S. Last time I checked...This thread was about myths of methamphetamine not marijuana. To that end, I believe many publications accentuate the dangers of meth to sell more magazines. So what? That's a consumer beware type issue and if you're that interested in it, should do your own research.
    Last time I checked, you seemed to be quite interested in the discussion of pot. Perhaps it was a good argument that left you with little to say that made you lose interest. And I'll touch on the meth issue. Meth is bad stuff. No question. That's why our people should be educated on it before they get involved with it and treated after they get hooked. Magazines making it sound worse than it actually is lose credibility which is definately not good if we want to deter people from using the drug. I'm tired of hearing all the bs that people tell me to try to get me to believe what they want me to believe instead of giving me facts or well supported opinions and allowing me to form my own opinion. That's the sentiment that I and most of the people in this country probably feel. People dont like to be lied to...so why lie to them?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#92)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Really? Are you serious? Have you ever smelled a skunk? Were you ingesting skunk spray?
    Yes. Don't you think you are? Perhaps only tiny molecules, but I think you are ingesting it.
    This link should give you a good idea about how much it harms you. Refer especially to point number 4.
    So the THC doesn't hurt me, doubtful, but fine, I'll even conceed that point for the sake of the argument. What about all the other chemicals in the smoke? Are they all safe too? The point I'm trying to make, is that someone smoking near me, does effect me and infringe on my rights. So it's a small infringement, OK. Who decides how significant the imposition on my rights has to be before I have the right to say something.
    Magazines making it sound worse than it actually is lose credibility which is definately not good if we want to deter people from using the drug.
    Agreed, but all they are doing is interpreting the facts and offering opinion.
    I'm tired of hearing all the bs that people tell me to try to get me to believe what they want me to believe instead of giving me facts or well supported opinions and allowing me to form my own opinion.
    Well, there are two sides to almost any issue, and certainly there is room for disagreement. A well supported opinion is (Regardless of whether you agree with it or not) someone's attempt to get you to view the facts their way. Nothing more nothing less. You have acess to all the facts you'll ever need to make an intelligent decision about methamphetamine, everyone does, yet not everyone makes intelligent decisions. I've said here in the past many times. If drug users would be as responsible as everyone here claims to be, then I would have no problem with legalization...Of any drug. The problem is, many people lose the ability to be responsible when they use drugs. I've discusses MJ in these threads many times, yes, and have yet to lose interest except in those cases where I'm beating my head against a wall. My P.S. was an attempt to not hijack the thread into a MJ discussion.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#93)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Well, there are two sides to almost any issue, and certainly there is room for disagreement. A well supported opinion is (Regardless of whether you agree with it or not) someone's attempt to get you to view the facts their way. Nothing more nothing less.
    I understand that. I like a conversation of opinion (some might call it an arguement) as long as it is fairly sophisticated and people can keep from getting mad or petty (aka act like grown ups). But in mass publication, such as magazines, newspapers, or any other medium that appears to be attempting to inform the public of something, opinions should be clearly stated as such. In articles about the effects or anything else that is intended to be informative there should be absolutely no hot air balony (liberal spelling as the meat doesnt seem like it should be spelled the same as the meaning here) or propaganda that is not supported to try to persuade.
    You have acess to all the facts you'll ever need to make an intelligent decision about methamphetamine, everyone does, yet not everyone makes intelligent decisions.
    True. However, the kinds of people that are going to try a drug like meth are not going to be the kind to do a great deal of research. So, perhaps the answer is to be more open about it and teach the truth. If they're not going to do the research and society wants to reduce/eliminate the problem then we should educate them about it. I'm not saying that meth should be legal in any way, because I'm not sure that I believe it should be just b/c of the external dangers that are associated with production and so on and so forth. But perhaps possession and use should not be that big of an offense, if any. When people are taken to jail for use of a drug like this, why not send them to rehab instead of jail? Unless another crime was committed I think rehab is a better answer. Or have a prison rehabilitation system operated exactly the same as rehab on the outside.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#94)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    When people are taken to jail for use of a drug like this, why not send them to rehab instead of jail?
    I do not necessarily disagree, however, I feel any commitment to rehab, ordered by the court, against the will of the drug abuser, is destined to failure a great percentage of the time. I'm all for giving persons who genuinely want to quit all the help and assistance we can. The difficult (Or really not so difficult) part about that is separating the people who want help from the people who want to appear to want help to lessen their sentence. Just so you have some perspective on my POV. California voters passed Prop 36 which means first time, non-violent, personal use, drug offenders avoid incarceration if they voluntarily attend rehab. In my experience, vary rarely does somone in this category go to jail for significant time. I know that it is different in other states, and have often come out in support of California's drug policies which I think balance enforcement with prevention and treatment as well or better than any other state. While I think Prop 36 has a less than stellar success rate, (based on my personal observations) I still think it's worth the time and effort( and I voted against it and still would because of other conditions). Some of my most memorable moments are when people come to me, thanking me for arresting them, or when I see a person who I had previously thought was hopeless has turned it around, got cleaned up, takes responsibility for their actions and is making a difference in their lives. Most of my experience does not come from contacting recreational users of drugs. It comes from seeing the absolute worst that use and addiction do to to people, familes and communities.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#95)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    I'm all for giving persons who genuinely want to quit all the help and assistance we can. The difficult (Or really not so difficult) part about that is separating the people who want help from the people who want to appear to want help to lessen their sentence.
    I definately see your point. Perhaps if we make them go to rehab for a longer period than usual, then the point of them having to sit through the meetings will be punishment to those who dont want to sit there and will be an appropriate punishment for the first time offenders. For the people that do want help, they have it. Then if they get busted again they go to the same type of rehabs while they're in jail. Maybe some of it will sink in.
    Most of my experience does not come from contacting recreational users of drugs. It comes from seeing the absolute worst that use and addiction do to to people, familes and communities.
    Please dont let that affect the way you treat the average citizen. I thnk to many cops start to assume that everyone is like that.
    Some of my most memorable moments are when people come to me, thanking me for arresting them, or when I see a person who I had previously thought was hopeless has turned it around, got cleaned up, takes responsibility for their actions and is making a difference in their lives.
    That's cool...but dont expect me to thank you for arresting me :)

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    peacrevol, Yes, another example that is not only bad, but is also distracting from the main issue. "For me it's less about the persuit of happiness and more about having someone tell me I cant and not having any reason." Fair enough, your point is taken. I'm not going to debate you on that. My only point is that kdog's contention was that MJ laws deny him his Constitutional right to pursue happiness is pure, unadulterated, bunk.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Um, strike the word "was" from the last sentance above...

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#98)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Please dont let that affect the way you treat the average citizen. I thnk to many cops start to assume that everyone is like that.
    I don't or at least try I try to be aware of it. But it does affect my views of the appropriateness of drug enforcement. I think recreational users who support legalization are the exact opposite. They color the issue as they see it. Their use is not a problem, ergo all use is not a problem, or it's such a minor problem that it doesn't deserve all the attention. Good discussion! Thanks. I would recommend you go to your local law enforcement agency and try to participate in a ride-a-long program or a local citizens' academy if they have one.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#99)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Oh yeah and back on the ingesting skunk molecules from a long time ago...(sounds even more off topic than it really is) Smoking sections just like for cigarettes, or no smoking in public except for bars, concerts, etc. where it's expected. Instead of getting a PI for being drunk in publiCK, people smoking pot in the no pot area get a PI for stoned in publiCK. Also Patrick, When you bust somebody who was producing meth, does anyone treat the house before it sells (other than the property owners who most likely are too irresponsible to even think about doing that if they were producing meth), or just leave it like it is or....?

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#100)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    By treat I mean try to cleanse or sanitize.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#101)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    I would recommend you go to your local law enforcement agency and try to participate in a ride-a-long program or a local citizens' academy if they have one.
    Naw man...not all those druggies out there runnin around. :)

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#102)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    LOL, I was not drunk in publiCK, I was drunk in a bar. They threw me into publiCK. We advise public health on all lab seizures. They handle that aspect, and to be honest, I don't know exatly what they do. Once a house hase been used to manufacture meth, it cannot be legally sold without disclosure of said manufacture. Of course, the seller isn't always aware. We have a house that was used for a huge P2P lab and the property was so contaminated that is say for nearly 10 years before the land value exceeded the cleanup costs.

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#103)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    that IT SAT not "is say" for 10 years...

    Re: The Myth of Meth (none / 0) (#104)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:11 PM EST
    LOL, I was not drunk in publiCK, I was drunk in a bar. They threw me into publiCK.
    HA! good work...I didnt really expect anyone to catch that.
    We have a house that was used for a huge P2P lab and the property was so contaminated that is say for nearly 10 years before the land value exceeded the cleanup costs.
    Man...I dont know what P2P is but that sounds like a mess. I suppose that would be one hell of an arguement against the legalization of drug production. I'd be pissed if that was one of my rent houses.

    The Myth of Meth | 103 comments (103 topical)