Arresting a granny for cold medicine???

[Alcon]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How is the Washington law? Is it "If you buy an amount over a certain limit you get arrested and we won't notify you if you're close to that limit or put up signs with sufficient warning?"

[Ebowed]

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

It could also be principled, but hey, what do I know.

I think Tweed's response sums this up better than I can, though.

[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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Meth would be a safer drug to use and we certainly wouldn't have to worry about the toxic waste dumps left by illegal meth labs if it were legal and regulated.  That said, there are other, albeit less effective, decongestants than pseudoepherine available.  Rather than the sorry state of semi-restriction that can cause people to innocently run afoul of the law, going ahead and making getting a prescription for it a requirement would be a better solution.

[Alcon]

How is the Washington law? Is it "If you buy an amount over a certain limit you get arrested and we won't notify you if you're close to that limit or put up signs with sufficient warning?"

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=246-889&full=true#246-889-070

[AkSaber]

You mean with all the genuinely evil criminals running around, this is who we have our police departments going after?

Nannystaters.....

[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.

[Ebowed]

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.

I don't recommend applying the exact same standards to each and every drug - I would just urge caution in making such a distinction between, say, cocaine and methamphetamine when they both produce similar effects.  At the end of the day, my main concern is preventing needless deaths.  Meth prohibition does not accomplish that, nor does it even come close to doing so.

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.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you didn't know someone who has tried methamphetamine without ever getting addicted to it.

[John Dibble]

So from the article it seems the nice old lady bought two boxes of cold medicine within a week and that's enough to go over the limit - that just tells me that the limit is too low or enforcement is too strict. It's easily conceivable that a family that has one person get sick will have other people get sick as well, since diseases are often contagious, so it's easily conceivable that someone would need to buy more medicine within a week's time.

The law could be fixed in a few ways. One would be to just raise the limit. This could just let meth producers buy more, so it's probably not the desired solution. A better idea would be to look at patterns of people going over the limit - if little old granny goes over the limit once or twice in a year, she's probably not out to produce meth and can effectively be ignored. On the other hand if someone is going over the limit on a more frequent basis, or even if they're purchasing under the limit but on a weekly basis, it might be worth investigation.