Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
What they should do is legalize it and make it cheap so these low life junkies can do it tell they OD. Reduces crime and cleans up the gene pool.
Except they'll still break into your house/car and steal your crap to sell so they can buy more.
you missed the part about making it legal and cheap i guess. Reading comprehension FTW.
I comprehended it just fine, chum. While they're on their benders, they're not gonna be going to work, which means they'll lose their jobs. Some of them can't hold jobs in the first place. It's much easier to just steal your crap and sell it than go to work anyway.
Crimes are crimes. Not all meth addicts are criminals, and not all criminals are meth addicts. The tired old argument that the War on Drugs reduces crime is not only a fallacy, it's complete and utter bullsh!t.
You want a serious statistic? More than half of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol. Shall we bring back prohibition? Oh snap, we tried that and it didn't work.
Okay... what's your point? All I'm saying is that legalizing it won't change anything.
No, it will change everything. It will allow the issue to be treated as the health problem that it actually is instead of the criminal problem that it is not. Also, just like with other illegal drugs, a considerable amount of the dangers involved in the abuse and manufacture of meth are due to the fact that it is illegal and unregulated.
I don't really agree. I also believe the drug war is one of the worst domestic policy regimes around today, but I think meth needs a more complicated response than legalization.
By its nature meth is an extremely dangerous psychoactive. As a previous poster pointed out meth is more dangerous an addictive substance than crack or powder cocaine because smoked meth can keep one up for many hours (versus 1/2 or 1 hour with cocaine) and is cheap enough to keep one awake for over a week with a standard retail unit. The same amount of $ spent on cocaine will barely keep a coke head up for 12 hours. A week without sleep often leads to heavy duty psychological problems, and emergency room visits.
My personal theory concerning meth addiction is that it is a result of the scarcity of cocaine in many areas, which is why it is overwhelming the public health and criminal justice systems of rural areas that are not near traditional cocaine distribution channels. Living in florida, a state with plenty of access to cocaine, the only people I've known to get into meth are cocaine addicts who've run out of coke (or money for coke) and have turned to meth because it is cheap. A hard core stimulant abuser wants cocaine, not meth, but will do with meth in a pinch.
I do agree that we have to change the fundamentall focus of our drug policy, treating it as a public health issue first and a criminal justice problem second, but I can't really see any reason to supply a clean source of meth to addicts. I do, however, think we should supply cocaine to hard core stimulant addicts with a comcomitant requirement that they be enrolled in some type of treatment program. I think heavy doses of methamphetamine should remain proscribed.
And the meth epidemic isn't a myth so much as it is potentially a media scare that will probably lead to some really bad policy decisions by Congress. Meth counteraction $ will potentially go to states and municipalities as pork and not reach those areas most in need of support.