Should Methamphetamine be Legalized?

[rbell]

KenH,

There is absolutely no possible way to equate the pharmacological damage caused by crystal methamphetamine with that of alcohol. We are just beginning to understand the frontal lobe and hippocampus damage that occurs with just one meth trip. The "gatekeeper" of input filtering, emotional, and behavioral control is destroyed more with this toxic filth than with any other drug previously encountered.

Perhaps you could go with me with one of my former students to pick up his mother off the streets--a former working "soccer mom" who now has left her family and prostitutes for the drug.

You insult people like that kid by calling for the drug's legalization.

Argue prohibition and twinkie management all you want, but you are demonstrating an ignorance about the basic facts of how this drug works. And I'm probably more libertarian than most of this board!

From your post:

From the article:

"We know certain things for sure. If meth was no longer illegal:

1. All dangerous clandestine meth labs in residential neighborhoods would close;

2. All dangerous street gangs would be out of the meth business;

3. Every dime currently spent on meth prohibition could be spent on real crime;

4. Meth addicts would have no legal disincentive to seek help;

5. The manufacture of meth would be safe and produce a consistent product; and

6. Toxic waste from meth production would be safely disposed."

1. No, labs wouldn't close. This stuff is so addictive that there would always be a market. It ain't like twinkies or even alcohol.

2. Gangs aren't there because of meth...they're just using it as income. Gangs would find another source. This is an oversimplification.

3. How dare you insult victims of those controlled by their desire for meth. I'll introduce you to "Cindy," from a former church of mine. She was raped by a meth addict who robbed her. Because of meth, a "real crime" occurred.

4. This is perhaps the only viable argument. But since the relapse rate of meth is higher than any other drug (crack cocaine is the only thing close), it doesn't seem like "disincentive" is the problem. If good private organizations can't help many meth addicts, why do you think the government--notoriously inefficient and wasteful--can?

5. Once again...an insulting statement. Meth cannot be safe, and anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of it's pharmacology would know that. Do people put toxic filler in meth? Yes...and they should be punished ever so severely! But remember...meth is SO addictive, that victims will take that risk...with a regulated or unregulated "product." But even "pure" meth turns people into amoral automatons. Only God's power, through prayer, recovery programs, inpatient and outpatient support, and accountability, has consistently freed people from this scourge.

6. Let me see...last year, there were thousands of landfill violations nationally regarding toxic waste disposal. So...how's that again?

KenH, I know you despise this drug...any Christian would. But your course of action would be catastrophic.

RBell

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I say we legalize meth, and give it to the baby seals.

 

[Johnv]

Should Methamphetamine be Legalized?

I can't think of a single reason it should be.

 

[James Flagg]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I say we legalize meth, and give it to the baby seals.

Or we could give the meth to the guys with the sticks and they could beat twice as many baby seals to death!

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yup. Since it's really no danger, why not ? I love an efficient workplace.

 

[fromtheright]

BC,

Thanks. We all needed that. Well, maybe except Ken, who apparently thinks it is cruel to baby seals but OK to let that filth be distributed to humans.


Ken,

I'll compromise with you on selling that crap to adults. Not capital punishment, just life without parole. But it should be up to the states. I'll vote to re-elect the state legislator who votes to execute those who sell such garbage to anyone. Again, you're decrying a "war" on drugs that hasn't been a war. The problem with the position of such doctrinaire libertarianism is that it forgets, as others have very clearly pointed out here, the human cost of these drugs. You seem to think that having them legal, and therefore cheap, is a good thing. Or maybe just "morally neutral", which is even more sickening.

 

[Scott J]

Drugs should be legalized BUT only if the users and producers are responsible... and liberals don't run in demanding funds to "cure" the addicts.

Cruel as it may seem, the surest way to end the drug problem is to let potential addicts see the stone cold reality of ruined lives. Further, the government and its treatment programs do nothing but facilitate continuing addictions. When private citizens are motivated to act, they'll deal with the person's soul, lifestyle, and medical needs.

Government, operating under the official state religion of humanism, will treat addiction as a scientific problem with a "fix it" formula. Drug abuse is primarily a moral problem... something that humanism discounts as a product of evolution.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by rbell:
There is absolutely no possible way to equate the pharmacological damage caused by crystal methamphetamine with that of alcohol.

I am not arguing that. The debate is whether it is the government's responsibility to stop people from consuming drugs - to attempt to "save one from himself". My answer is no, it is not the government's responsibility to save one from himself. In fact, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do attempt to do so. And I imagine that it is that way with most, if not all, state constitutions, as well.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I say we legalize meth, and give it to the baby seals.

But that would be cruel to the baby seals.

 

[Scott J]

Oh, and another thing...

It is perfectly legitimate for a property owner to use whatever methods he deems necessary to protect his property/enterprise from damage or loss caused by people whose exercise of freedom has negative consequences. Ie. an employer should not only be able to test for drugs and alcohol... but smoking and poor eating/exercise habits as well.

It is perfectly legitimate to expect an employee under a working agreement to not engage in behaviors that cost the property owner money in increased insurance premiums, lost time, training, poor quality/production, absenteeism, damaged equipment, etc.

 

[poncho]

Making drugs legal might put half the government out of work. Can't have that now that conservatives have finally learned to love big government.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Not true. It would merely create more government beauracracies to help treat the addicted and dying and those whom they have hurt...if you think that drugs are a victimless crime, you are sadly mistaken.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Not true. It would merely create more government beauracracies to help treat the addicted and dying and those whom they have hurt...if you think that drugs are a victimless crime, you are sadly mistaken.

Joseph Botwinick

That was my point. Drugs should be legal BUT the government should do nothing whatsoever to rescue addicts. Freedom carries responsibility. You can't have responsibility without freedom nor freedom without responsibility. Conservatives recognize that people are responsible and still want laws to prevent them from doing things. Liberals want freedom without responsibility. The libertarian approach is the one that works whenever tried... but unfortunately not very likely now. People should have both freedom AND responsibility.

If users are victims... they are victims of themselves more than anyone else.

If they harm someone then drug use can and perhaps should be considered an aggravating factor.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by poncho:
Making drugs legal might put half the government out of work.

You might be stretching a bit... well, quite a bit.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Scott,

That is my point. Generally, the user is not the only victim.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[saturneptune]

Originally posted by Scott J:
That was my point. Drugs should be legal BUT the government should do nothing whatsoever to rescue addicts. Freedom carries responsibility

Well, this is to be said, your war on drugs is par with your war on terror ideas.

 

[fromtheright]

poncho,

Making drugs legal might put half the government out of work. Can't have that now that conservatives have finally learned to love big government.

You're right in the way the "war" has been run. Getting serious about it means less drug dealers and more pine boxes for them, and a few more jail cells. Call that big government? I'm all for it.

 

[poncho]

I've seen first hand how drugs can effect people Joseph I don't think any crime is victimless, and I don't think every criminal is a victim. There are predators in the world and they prey on the weak that's nothing new. That's life.

I'd rather see a government that is willing to help people get over an addiction than a government that would treat everyone like a criminal because a few may break the law as we are begining to see today.

 

[LadyEagle]

The government war on drugs is about like the war on terror. Pretty much hyperbole.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/waronterror/a/afghanpoppy.htm

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
poncho,

Making drugs legal might put half the government out of work. Can't have that now that conservatives have finally learned to love big government.

You're right in the way the "war" has been run. Getting serious about it means less drug dealers and more pine boxes for them, and a few more jail cells. Call that big government? I'm all for it.

The government isn't serious about winning the "war" on drugs FTR, that's my whole point. It depends on those illegal drugs to keep revenues flowing into their own pockets the same as the drug lords, whom we very rarely seem to be able to catch (and those we do we give amnesty if they rat out their competition or buddies) depend on them to keep revenues flowing into theirs. They depend on one another, the government inflates the prices by making them illegal and reducing the supply, that enriches the drug lords even more making it easier for them to expand into bigger markets, the government in turn has to expand to compensate and we get to pay for a bigger drug problem and another huge failure on the part of our governmet.

I used to work in a bad section of the city up here there is a bar that the small time dealers hang out and sell their wares, everyone knows it's the place to "score some rock", the police go through there a couple times a week and clean it out, next day there is just as many dealers to replace the ones carted off. You could kill drug dealers till you ran out of ammo and they would be replaced the next day.

The undertakers would be glad to get the extra business but it isn't going to help cure the problem. These guys kill themselves off all the time and still there is no shortage of them willing to go out and sell drugs.