Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

  1. #31
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Drugs like marijuana pose no demonstrable ill effects to society other than possibly promoting obesity. So then the question is why are we pissing away billions trying to combat it, when that money and resources would be better spent combating drugs like Meth and Crack / Cocaine.

    The problem with decriminalizing Meth is that you cannot safely manufacture it outside of an industrial facility. You can safely grow pot in your backyard, but you can't make meth safely in your garage. At minimum, the result is a mini toxic waste dump.

    So you could not just stop with decriminalizing it, you would have to fully legalize the sale and production of it.
    Yes, I totally agree with that. Decriminalization is a first step, but it's a half-assed solution that doesn't address the black market problems created by prohibition.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Thus you would have to have a heavily regulated industry out there that produces Meth, which would of course be more expensive than what a Meth lab in someone's garage could make it for, and thus Meth addicts would still buy it on the black market. In the end, it accomplishes nothing but to make an extremely dangerous substance even more accessible than it is today.
    This is circular reasoning. You're saying that legalization is not feasible because so many restrictions would have to be in place that people would continue to solicit black market dealers. That's not legalization, it's prohibition in disguise.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Because a nation of strung out meth addicts and crack whores raising the next generation does not exactly bode well for the future of the nation. If you are raising kids and smoking a little pot on the weekends, it very well could not negatively impact your parenting. Sure, there are pot heads out there just like there are drunks out there, but most people that drink don't end up alcoholics and most people that smoke pot don't end up as pot heads. The same cannot be said for meth, no one just occassionally uses it. Mess with it much, and your going to get hooked to it, and before long you are strung out all the time on it. So why make that easier? How does that serve society?

    Moreover, if you think health care costs are high now, double the meth addicts and start treating it purely as a "medical problem".
    Can you explain how prohibition does anything at all to address these problems? Can you explain why you assume that meth addiction would increase if legalized?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    You are telling me that legalizing and thus legitimizing Meth will reduce the number of people on it?
    No, he's saying that drug prohibition has no known effect on the rate of drug use. It's a fallacy to assume that prohibition is keeping drug use to a minimum, and it's a fallacy to assume that legalization would increase or decrease drug use.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    You must have not known too many meth addicts, its mostly scumbags that are on it. No one pressured them into do into doing it. Most of them started doing it to be able to spend more time partying.
    His point is both legitimate and supported. The number of people seeking treatment in Portugal increased dramatically when the criminal label and fear of incarceration were removed:

    "The number of people in substitution treatment leapt from 6,040 in 1999 to 14,877 in 2003, an increase of 147%. The number of places in detoxification, therapeutic communities and half-way houses has also increased. . . . The national strategy has led directly to in-creases in the scale of treatment and pre-vention activities in Portugal."

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/gr...whitepaper.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Right, because seeing a typical meth addict evidently was not enough to keep other future addicts from trying it, they need to have a couple of sentences on the side of the package for it warning them about the effects.
    In broader terms he is talking about an education and deglamorization program that should constitute the bulk of the War on Drugs.


    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    When did I argue that we should lock people up simply for being an addict?
    When you said, "I can't see the benefit to society in decriminalizing Meth."


    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Anytime you legitimize the use of something then you will increase the number of people using it.
    Of course, that's why legalize does not mean legitimize.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Prohibition failed because even Jesus drank thus large portions of the population saw nothing wrong with it. Right now, the fact that Meth is a hard drug associated with white trash, a lot of people won't touch it. Make it legal, and thats going to change.
    Would you go out and try meth if it were legalized? No? Hmm...

    Perhaps you could support the notion that removing penalties would lead to an increase in use? Because I can show you a lot of examples where that assumption falls flat on its face.

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    As long as tax dollars aren't diverted. However, we need to be sure to consider the exposure of these drugs to children, who are not able to make an educated choice.
    Absolutely true! Consider the fact that high school kids consistently say it's easier to get weed than beer, because thugs on the street don't check their IDs, and you'll see that continued prohibition is counterproductive to the concerns you have about children.

  2. #32
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Drug manufacturing and trafficking is a criminal problem.
    Only because we have arbitrarily defined it that way.

    Drug users are victims of their own actions, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. Sale to minors, misrepresenting the product, and having poor quality standards should be crimes, but nobody is going around shoving narcotics down anyone's throat against their will. It's a mutual exchange between consenting adults. The manufacture, trafficking, and sale of drugs should not be considered a crime.

    What should be considered a crime is the government dictating to us what we can and cannot knowingly and willingly put into our own bodies.

  3. #33
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Cars sometimes save lives, and are extremely useful in everyday life. Meth... not so much.
    When do cars save lives? When you get into an accident that could have never ocurred had you not been driving in car?
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    I'm in favor of decriminalizing the possession of just about all drugs.

    I'm in favor of having the government regulate and allow the sell of some drugs where the side effects and addictive nature of said drugs are at a reasonable level (IE, not too much harsher COMMON side effects or addictive in nature than cigerettes or hard alcohol).

    In the case of Meth, I'd be perfectly fine with the government not legalizing the sale of it, and not legalizing the production of it without meeting certain safety standards and other such regulations, but not arresting anyone based on having it. I know this seems counter productive and some may say is "defacto" prohibition but I disagree that it would be somehow "the same" as what we have now.

    Most arrests for drug related things now is not necessarily for production or distribution but for use, which this would eliminate. However, I think Meth is a dangerous enough of a product to not be certified by the government as safe for human consumption and I believe the manufacturing of it in "meth labs" or in the back of cars and other such things poses a risk to innocents around, not to mention possible disposal of the ingredients and waste, causing the creation of it to directly impact the rights of other individuals.

  5. #35
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I know this seems counter productive and some may say is "defacto" prohibition but I disagree that it would be somehow "the same" as what we have now.
    Having strict regulations is necessary and proper, as long as the policies still put the black market dealers out of business.

  6. #36
    Student JakeFromWI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Stevens Point, WI
    Last Seen
    10-13-10 @ 05:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    282

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Talk about wasted money. The war on drugs reminds me of the war on terror. Same principle too. If we get all the drugs off the street it won't be a problem. If we kill all terrorists, they wont be a problem. 25 years later and we see posts like "new meth formula avoids anti-drug laws."

    I say we keep pumping money into the criminalization of drugs. Shovels and shovels of money toward putting people in jail because that will deter them from being addicted to readily available drugs. It's such a hell of a good philosophy, we will be doing it decades from now. Oh wait...
    and so it goes...

  7. #37
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    As a note, you're never going to get rid of all black market sellers.

    For example...

    I grew up in Roanoke Virginia, about 30 minutes outside Franklin County...lovingly called "The Moonshine Capital of the World" dating back to prohibition...and White Lightening isn't too hard to find all over that area in a variety of very smooth tastey choices. In college two of my idiot roommates one year decided that it would be fun/profitable to make home made absinth.

    If you make the sell of the more henious of drugs illegal and make the production of it illegal it'll definitly still be there, there will be a black market. However the resources spent fighting that black market and the amount of actual arrests made (as it removes users out of the equation) should reduce. Plus, with some potential legalized and thus cheaper and safer to obtain alternatives out there hopefully many "new" potential users will find that going down the other route just isn't worth it.

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,982

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Quote Originally Posted by JakeFromWI View Post
    Talk about wasted money. The war on drugs reminds me of the war on terror. Same principle too. If we get all the drugs off the street it won't be a problem. If we kill all terrorists, they wont be a problem. 25 years later and we see posts like "new meth formula avoids anti-drug laws."

    I say we keep pumping money into the criminalization of drugs. Shovels and shovels of money toward putting people in jail because that will deter them from being addicted to readily available drugs. It's such a hell of a good philosophy, we will be doing it decades from now. Oh wait...
    You forgot War on Poverty. It ranks right up there with the other two

  9. #39
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    As a note, you're never going to get rid of all black market sellers.

    For example...

    I grew up in Roanoke Virginia, about 30 minutes outside Franklin County...lovingly called "The Moonshine Capital of the World" dating back to prohibition...and White Lightening isn't too hard to find all over that area in a variety of very smooth tastey choices. In college two of my idiot roommates one year decided that it would be fun/profitable to make home made absinth.

    If you make the sell of the more henious of drugs illegal and make the production of it illegal it'll definitly still be there, there will be a black market. However the resources spent fighting that black market and the amount of actual arrests made (as it removes users out of the equation) should reduce. Plus, with some potential legalized and thus cheaper and safer to obtain alternatives out there hopefully many "new" potential users will find that going down the other route just isn't worth it.
    Did someone change the functionality of the quote feature? It seems to want to quote the entire track record of the discussion now.


    Yes, there will still be a black market, there is no way to force that out of existence; however as you touched on, it is a matter of scale.

    Ideally a scale that we can effective deal with that does not manufacture massive societal ramifications, such as the current status quo.

    Yeah there is still a black market for alcohol; however it is no longer a significant drain on our society, and is a much smaller scale battle.

  10. #40
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,410

    Re: AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Yes, I totally agree with that. Decriminalization is a first step, but it's a half-assed solution that doesn't address the black market problems created by prohibition.


    This is circular reasoning. You're saying that legalization is not feasible because so many restrictions would have to be in place that people would continue to solicit black market dealers. That's not legalization, it's prohibition in disguise.


    Can you explain how prohibition does anything at all to address these problems? Can you explain why you assume that meth addiction would increase if legalized?


    No, he's saying that drug prohibition has no known effect on the rate of drug use. It's a fallacy to assume that prohibition is keeping drug use to a minimum, and it's a fallacy to assume that legalization would increase or decrease drug use.


    His point is both legitimate and supported. The number of people seeking treatment in Portugal increased dramatically when the criminal label and fear of incarceration were removed:

    "The number of people in substitution treatment leapt from 6,040 in 1999 to 14,877 in 2003, an increase of 147%. The number of places in detoxification, therapeutic communities and half-way houses has also increased. . . . The national strategy has led directly to in-creases in the scale of treatment and pre-vention activities in Portugal."

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/gr...whitepaper.pdf


    In broader terms he is talking about an education and deglamorization program that should constitute the bulk of the War on Drugs.



    When you said, "I can't see the benefit to society in decriminalizing Meth."



    Of course, that's why legalize does not mean legitimize.


    Would you go out and try meth if it were legalized? No? Hmm...

    Perhaps you could support the notion that removing penalties would lead to an increase in use? Because I can show you a lot of examples where that assumption falls flat on its face.
    Ok, I have thought about it and have changed my mind. You have convinced me.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •