• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP IMPACT: New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws

Simon W. Moon said:
I really don't think this is true.
There are reasons why most people don't make their own aspirin, liquor, build their own houses or grow their own food.
Sure, some people do these things--but for the most of us is more efficient for us to w/e it is that we do and just pay someone else to do it better than we can.
I don't know the actual numbers, but I would be willing to bet a fair amount that the economies of scale would make it just much much cheaper per unit of production for a a Pfizer or Perrigo to make high quality, pure amphetamines than for MethJeff to make some half-assed crap in his back shed.
How many people do you know who make their own wine or beer? Have you asked them about the price per unit of their beverage?
Click to expand...

I just had a vision of some guy opening a boutique on Union Square to sell artisanal meth.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Source

Oops. I guess we need more band-aid solutions like a Federal ban on buying too many two-litre bottles of Dr. Pepper huh?

Or we could drop this pathetically impotent War on Drug Users for an actual War on Drugs. You know, one that correctly identifies drug addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one, and provides solutions that actually help to reduce the demand for drugs.

But no, throwing addicts in jail gives too many people a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Click to expand...
Why should we pay for drug addiction?
 
American said:
Why should we pay for drug addiction?
Click to expand...

Good point. Since we already are paying out of our asses for drug addiction in interdiction, enforcement, judicial costs, incarceration, medical costs, gang violence, destruction of human lives (many when they are still children), it is high time we stopped paying for it.

Legalize them, tax them, and if someone is unfortunate enough or stupid enough to become an addict, at least the addiction itself (and the usage of millions of casual non-addicts) can pay for their treatment.

Currently the fear of legal repercussions and the costs of treatment are deterring addicts from seeking the treatment they need. Remove both of these in one fell swoop and the likelihood of said addict seeking treatment and overcoming the problem rises dramatically. Legality an availability of treatment becomes a factor towards reducing usage rates.

Throw in the fact that relaxation of drug laws has shown that there no statistically significant correlation between usage rates and criminality (in fact usage of virtually every hard drug decreased after Portugal decriminalized them - Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies | Glenn Greenwald | Cato Institute: White Paper). Throw in a hefty dose of education and continue to show how horrible some substances can be (just look at cigarettes as an example here), and it is not hard to see how over time legalization can in fact over time lead to less addicts.

Why should we [continue to] pay for drug addiction?
 
Last edited:
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. I don't believe in legalizing across the board.
 
American said:
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. I don't believe in legalizing across the board.
Click to expand...

I had never imagined I would be thanking one of your posts :2razz:

Currently we are doing nothing to effectively combat exposure to children. There are no controls over who drug dealers sell to. If they were legally availability, and controlled, exposure and availability to children would be much less than it is currently.

I also agree on education (not bull**** propaganda that that can easily be dismissed as such). It is working for cigs, and it will work for other drugs as well.

Just think.. we would have more rehabbed drug addicts, and as such we have a larger pool of people to go give personal testimony at schools about the horrors of just trying it.. that 1 time.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

SouthernDemocrat said:
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".
Click to expand...
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?

SouthernDemocrat said:
You are telling me that legalizing and thus legitimizing Meth will reduce the number of people on it?
Click to expand...
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.

SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
In broader terms he is talking about an education and deglamorization program that should constitute the bulk of the War on Drugs.


SouthernDemocrat said:
When did I argue that we should lock people up simply for being an addict?
Click to expand...
When you said, "I can't see the benefit to society in decriminalizing Meth."


SouthernDemocrat said:
Anytime you legitimize the use of something then you will increase the number of people using it.
Click to expand...
Of course, that's why legalize does not mean legitimize.

SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

American said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
RightinNYC said:
Drug manufacturing and trafficking is a criminal problem.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dav said:
Cars sometimes save lives, and are extremely useful in everyday life. Meth... not so much.
Click to expand...
When do cars save lives? When you get into an accident that could have never ocurred had you not been driving in car?
 
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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Having strict regulations is necessary and proper, as long as the policies still put the black market dealers out of business.
 
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...
 
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.
 
JakeFromWI said:
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...
Click to expand...

You forgot War on Poverty. It ranks right up there with the other two
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Binary_Digit said:
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/greenwald_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.
Click to expand...

Ok, I have thought about it and have changed my mind. You have convinced me.
 
Zyphlin said:
You forgot War on Poverty. It ranks right up there with the other two
Click to expand...

Yeah we spend tons of money in the fight against poverty. For example if John Smith gets $100 in EBT stamps, that's equivilant to the cost to jail someone for a month. And the court costs. And the policing costs.

Thank you for your excellent point.
 
I think a common issue some people have is two different things get talked about and are routinely seen as similar.

Decriminalizing and Legalizing.

Now I'm not talking from a technical stand point of their differences, as I'm not quite sure of all the legal definitions. However in general how people view it.

When people hear "legalization" of drugs they're generally thinking of people advocating that all illegal drugs currently are made legal and are mass produced and sold in stores.

When people hear "decriminalizaton" I think it lends more to the thought that having it is not necessarily against the law, but is also no promoting that we start making it legal to sell it.

I think that that clash in thought on the "pro drug" crowd has to be fought first....is the movement going to push so that all drugs of every kind is legal to have, sell, manufacture, and use....or are we seeking to decrimialize the position and use of it but recognize that some drugs should not be approved for production and sell?

Once the movement comes to a general agreement on it its getting that message out.

I think you'll lose a lot of support if its the "everything and every facet legal" route, but I think the second option could legitimately work.

There are some things, like marijuana, that are barely (if that) worse than alcohol with others, like Ecstacy, that could be argued is no worse than your high proof liquors. Relatively minor common physical side effects from mild use, not EXTREMELY addictive. But there are others, like Meth, that simply are both damaging to the body and are highly addictive in short order that fall on the other end of the scale.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think a common issue some people have is two different things get talked about and are routinely seen as similar.

Decriminalizing and Legalizing.

Now I'm not talking from a technical stand point of their differences, as I'm not quite sure of all the legal definitions. However in general how people view it.

When people hear "legalization" of drugs they're generally thinking of people advocating that all illegal drugs currently are made legal and are mass produced and sold in stores.

When people hear "decriminalizaton" I think it lends more to the thought that having it is not necessarily against the law, but is also no promoting that we start making it legal to sell it.

I think that that clash in thought on the "pro drug" crowd has to be fought first....is the movement going to push so that all drugs of every kind is legal to have, sell, manufacture, and use....or are we seeking to decrimialize the position and use of it but recognize that some drugs should not be approved for production and sell?

Once the movement comes to a general agreement on it its getting that message out.

I think you'll lose a lot of support if its the "everything and every facet legal" route, but I think the second option could legitimately work.

There are some things, like marijuana, that are barely (if that) worse than alcohol with others, like Ecstacy, that could be argued is no worse than your high proof liquors. Relatively minor common physical side effects from mild use, not EXTREMELY addictive. But there are others, like Meth, that simply are both damaging to the body and are highly addictive in short order that fall on the other end of the scale.
Click to expand...

I think that you will find most are in favor of legalizing, with a difference of opinion on what should be legalized. Unfortunately legalization is a much harder pill for the populace as a whole to swallow, and would require revisiting/reniging on international treaties, or a constitutional amendment, so we are stuck taking baby steps.

Fortunately these baby steps have already been taken, both on a state level, and internationally, and decrim is being shown not be the harbinger of societal doom and destruction some thought was inevitable.

decrim does address one of the flaws in the system (treating the average user as a criminal); however the overarching and more significant problem is that control was, is, and will continue to be in the hands of a black market without actual full on legalization.

You will find many of those who would be satisfied with just decrim just want to satiate their own habits with limited repercussions, and are not beneficial to the cause at all.
 
Portugal decriminalized all drug use and possession in 2001. The Cato Institute did a study on it. Here is the report:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

Long story short, none of the doomsday scenarios proposed by opponents came true. Portugal has some of the lowest rates of drug-abuse in the EU, especially when compared to other countries with stringent drug laws. There is no evidence whatsoever that drug prohibition accomplishes anything of value.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
is the movement going to push so that all drugs of every kind is legal to have, sell, manufacture, and use....or are we seeking to decrimialize the position and use of it but recognize that some drugs should not be approved for production and sell?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for the entire "movement," but I personally think the goal should be to minimize the harmful impact drugs have on users and society. (AKA "harm reduction.") So I will argue for what I believe is best to achieve that goal (full legalization, focus on lowering demand through education and deglamorization), and be happy with any incremental changes like decriminalization if they contribute to achieving the goal.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think a common issue some people have is two different things get talked about and are routinely seen as similar.

Decriminalizing and Legalizing.

Now I'm not talking from a technical stand point of their differences, as I'm not quite sure of all the legal definitions. However in general how people view it.

When people hear "legalization" of drugs they're generally thinking of people advocating that all illegal drugs currently are made legal and are mass produced and sold in stores.

When people hear "decriminalizaton" I think it lends more to the thought that having it is not necessarily against the law, but is also no promoting that we start making it legal to sell it.

I think that that clash in thought on the "pro drug" crowd has to be fought first....is the movement going to push so that all drugs of every kind is legal to have, sell, manufacture, and use....or are we seeking to decrimialize the position and use of it but recognize that some drugs should not be approved for production and sell?

Once the movement comes to a general agreement on it its getting that message out.

I think you'll lose a lot of support if its the "everything and every facet legal" route, but I think the second option could legitimately work.

There are some things, like marijuana, that are barely (if that) worse than alcohol with others, like Ecstacy, that could be argued is no worse than your high proof liquors. Relatively minor common physical side effects from mild use, not EXTREMELY addictive. But there are others, like Meth, that simply are both damaging to the body and are highly addictive in short order that fall on the other end of the scale.
Click to expand...

I think that all drugs should be legal...but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should all be legal to use wherever, whenever you want. For some of the harder drugs (especially those that can cause violent or dangerous behavior), I think a good step would be to legalize the production and sale...but only in controlled environments like health clinics where health professionals and security can keep a close eye on "patients," and where clean needles (for intravenous drug users) are available.
 
TOJ said:
Bottom row looks like a typical mall in Arkansas.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that whenever people here insult other states or other parts of the country it's guaranteed that they don't reveal on their profile their own state of residence.

If you don't want people knowing where you live then don't insult their state. It's sorta cowardly, don't you think? And I wonder if you've ever been to Arkansas.
 
Kandahar said:
I think that all drugs should be legal...but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should all be legal to use wherever, whenever you want. For some of the harder drugs (especially those that can cause violent or dangerous behavior), I think a good step would be to legalize the production and sale...but only in controlled environments like health clinics where health professionals and security can keep a close eye on "patients," and where clean needles (for intravenous drug users) are available.
Click to expand...

I used to think that was the best solution but I don't think it would work well in practice. Just allow local governments to regulate the commercial aspect of it and a viable framework will emerge on its own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom