Arresting a granny for cold medicine???

[Ban my account ffs!]

What's wrong with simply letting people buy cold medicine?

This is the price you pay, Drug Warriors, by continuing this failure of a Drug War.

There can be middle ground.  Here you have to fill in your name, ID, etc.  And you can only buy two packages.  I don't know about how spread out your purchases must be or anything... but they can figure it out if there is a trend of constant purchases.

The restricted sale of these drugs has made a huge impact on combating Meth.  I am no fan of the drug war and I think we need to scale it back.  But slightly restricting the sale of Sudafed to two packages in one visit is hardly something to complain about... especially with the positive effects it has had.

Still, what they did to the lady in Indiana is ridiculous.  I agree... they simply could have sent a letter reminding her of the law and that next time there would be consequences.

[Ban my account ffs!]

What's wrong with simply letting people buy cold medicine?

This is the price you pay, Drug Warriors, by continuing this failure of a Drug War.

There can be middle ground.  Here you have to fill in your name, ID, etc.  And you can only buy two packages.  I don't know about how spread out your purchases must be or anything... but they can figure it out if there is a trend of constant purchases.

The restricted sale of these drugs has made a huge impact on combating Meth.  I am no fan of the drug war and I think we need to scale it back.  But slightly restricting the sale of Sudafed to two packages in one visit is hardly something to complain about... especially with the positive effects it has had.

Still, what they did to the lady in Indiana is ridiculous.  I agree... they simply could have sent a letter reminding her of the law and that next time there would be consequences.

Restricting freedom is a positive effect?
Sorry for being an uber hack, but the whole War on Drugs sounds like pure nanny statism.

Well, I'd agree.. except Meth really is destroying communities... it is probably the most harmful drug out there.

The government has done nothing to restrict you from easing the symptoms of a cold.  The only reason you would ever buy more than the legal limit, at least here, is if you were stockpiling or cooking meth.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Alcon, Einzige is a "me first libertarian"... he only cares about HIS rights... not yours.  If he blows up his house and it kills you, that's your problem, not his.

It's actually quite immature... like "I'm not gonna share my toys with you because I'm 3 and I just found out I am an individual"...

[Ban my account ffs!]

What's wrong with simply letting people buy cold medicine?

This is the price you pay, Drug Warriors, by continuing this failure of a Drug War.

There can be middle ground.  Here you have to fill in your name, ID, etc.  And you can only buy two packages.  I don't know about how spread out your purchases must be or anything... but they can figure it out if there is a trend of constant purchases.

The restricted sale of these drugs has made a huge impact on combating Meth.  I am no fan of the drug war and I think we need to scale it back.  But slightly restricting the sale of Sudafed to two packages in one visit is hardly something to complain about... especially with the positive effects it has had.

Still, what they did to the lady in Indiana is ridiculous.  I agree... they simply could have sent a letter reminding her of the law and that next time there would be consequences.

Restricting freedom is a positive effect?
Sorry for being an uber hack, but the whole War on Drugs sounds like pure nanny statism.

Well, I'd agree.. except Meth really is destroying communities... it is probably the most harmful drug out there.

The government has done nothing to restrict you from easing the symptoms of a cold.  The only reason you would ever buy more than the legal limit, at least here, is if you were stockpiling or cooking meth.

Was this lady trying to produce meth?

These laws may look stupid on paper, but they do seem to cut local meth production impressively.

Same thing. Was this lady trying to produce meth?

No.  She wasn't.  And I never argued that the law in Indiana made sense or was really fair in any way.  If you read my first post, you'll see that.

My point is that we should limit the amount of sudafed you can purchase in order to combat meth production.  My argument is about semantics.  We can both fight meth production and provide cold relief rather easily.

[Ban my account ffs!]

These laws may look stupid on paper, but they do seem to cut local meth production impressively.

Doesn't matter. People ought to be allowed to produce and consume meth at their own discretion.

Including in ways that may blow up innocents, destroy property or risk the results of meth psychosis?

Yes.

I tend to value personal autonomy in the form of not being blown up, and support enacting that into law to some degree, so I'm going to have to not concur.  If you have any philosophical argument here, I'd be interested in hearing it.  If you're going to be all dumb and just stop ignoring someone once they challenge you on formal grounds, I'm going to have to ask that you be dumb in a way that doesn't involve quoting my posts.

make methamphetamine legal/cheap/regulated and the first half of your problem becomes a zero

Do you have any idea what meth does to people?  From that post, I'll assume no.  Both my brother and sister have been addicted to meth... and let me just say it will tear your family apart.  Luckily my sister nipped it in the bud and sought treatment early on.. but it caused my brother a lot of problems, including a horrific trip to Nebraska for my grandpa's funeral which was also the first time I ever drove a car at age 15... but it's a very long story.

We'll just say that while I support the legalization of some drugs with heavy regulation, meth is *NOT* one of them.  Meth is an extremely dangerous and extremely addictive drug that wreaks terrible havoc on your body and mind unlike almost any other drug.

To support legalization of it on principle is either shortsighted or idiotic.

There are plenty of other drugs that could be legalized and seen as better alternatives than Meth.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Oh, yeah, in response to everyone, what Snowguy said.  This is obviously ridiculous and I know she wasn't trying to make meth.  But laws in this spirit sound ridiculous on paper, but are pretty effective.  That's all I meant to editorialize about.  I come from the former meth capitol of the U.S. (as far as decently large counties go)...and the rule did wonders for my community.

As for making meth cheap and legal fixing all the safety problems involved...look, I'm sympathetic to this sort of treatment of drugs.  The end result should not be prohibiting stuff because it is "bad," it should be doing whatever reduces the societal damage with the minimal effect on those exercising informed consent for recreational purposes.  It becomes more subjective when we talk about people making mistakes and then getting in too deep.

Do I know the exact correct ratio, or the exact correct fix?  No.  But meth is scary sh**t, and it makes me more circumspect about the whole thing than just "stop wasting our money and let people go at it."

Edit: BRTD, have you actually read much about this type of law?  I'll grant that my information has been disseminated through law enforcement some, but by large there seems a lot of agreement in my community that the vastly reduced number of meth labs is due to the law.

The same thing has happened here.  We have a forensics lab here (only one of two in the state, the other being in St. Paul) and they have studied this stuff.  The number of meth labs was reduced by huge numbers after the restrictions went into effect.

This is because you need rather large amounts of sudafed or other such medicines to make meth.  So now they ahve to get meth from elsewhere... and while that has its own problems, it has driven the price up and has reduced the potential problems due to explosions, etc.

As somebody with people very close having dealt with meth, I cannot in good conscience support any type of legalization of this drug.  There are plenty of other drugs that are less harmful that could be legalized and regulated.  As I said before, Meth is *NOT* one of them.  The addictive nature of it combined with its psychological effects can have serious damage on others.

My problem with the drug war is not that we're fighting drugs period, but that we're targeting the wrong ones.  We need to target meth, crack, and other dangerous hard drugs... while leaving others alone.. like marijuana or even cocaine.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The addictive nature of it combined with its psychological effects can have serious damage on others.

Which is why, logically, anyone who uses methamphetamine should be dragged off to jail.  Makes sense!

My problem with the drug war is not that we're fighting drugs period, but that we're targeting the wrong ones.  We need to target meth, crack, and other dangerous hard drugs... while leaving others alone.. like marijuana or even cocaine.

Crack is a type of cocaine.  It's hardly surprising that you buy into racist drug stereotypes though.

Where did I say that all meth users should be dragged off to jail?  Please... humor me.

I have said, and I will say again... while I believe we should call off the drug war and legalize some drugs, Meth should not be one of them.  It is incredibly dangerous and rarely only affects the user.  People addicted to meth should go to treatment.

Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that you would let arrogance about your knowledge of drugs get in the way of the obvious here:  Not all drugs are created equal.  That is what is wrong with our war on drugs.  We treat them all equally bad.  That is not the case.

It is not a benevolent principle to say "I believe all drugs should be legal"... that's just reckless.  It shows that you lack a good understanding of the effects that certain drugs have on not only the user, but their friends and families.

If you know meth users and their use of meth has not harmed them or anybody around them and they can quit and restart again at their own discretion, then I guess I'll eat crow.  But I don't believe for a second that that's the case.