Should meth be legal?

[Snake Alchemist]

I usually come down on the side of drug legalization. With something like MJ it is a no brainer, but the things people do while on meth are really troubling. Take this story for instance:

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/accused-baby-killer-in-u-s-illegally

The fact that meth is connected to his actions just floors me. I'm not sure what the right action is. I don't think the war on drugs is a good thing, but then I think about meth and I think that some drugs still should be illegal.

[Scuba]

1. If pot were legal, fewer would choose meth. n/t

[Snake Alchemist]

7. Is that really an A or B equation? nt

[Scuba]

15. Please see my post #14.

[FarLeftFist]

8. No way. 2 completely different substances.

[Scuba]

16. Please see my post #14.

[RebelOne]

105. I agree. In the past, I have done both. Totally different substances.

Meth produces a high and pot is more like a tranquilizer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I'm all for decriminalizing pot but I can't quite make that connection

I don't see how taking a life-destroying substance that is illegal is facilitated by the illegallity of marijuana. If it's a "in for a penny, in for a pound" with regards to simply breaking the law I would caution on the optics of that as it could easily reinforce the "gateway drug" mythology of those who would maintain the prohibitions against pot.

If I may be permitted a moment to digress on a strictly semantic point -- and this is in no way a complaint or indictment of you, Scuba; just me being nit-picky: I prefer to say "decriminalized" over "legalized." It seems to me, on a strictly philosophical point, that all things are free and open unless proven unduly harmful. Call it a naturally occurring benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven otherwise. Pot, like unpasteurized milk or riding a bicycle is a natural thing. It is not criminal in its natural state. It was made criminal by an act of humans.

As to the OP -- I think the surety of addiction and the depth of its bad effects speak to keeping meth illegal. To take meth even once or twice is to all but guarantee addiction and that addiction is life-destroying. A man or woman could come home from work and have a drink or two and be functional adults and parents. The same cannot be said for people coming home to do meth, crack, heroin etc.

[Scuba]

14. I think it falls under the heading of "what's available". In some cases, the user ....

... simply wants "to get high" and uses what they can find.


My premise is if pot were available, they wouldn't be looking for anything else.


I know a few potheads who never drink alcohol - unless they have no pot.


I understand it's pure conjecture, but I suspect that if all drugs were legalized, demand for pot would increase and demand for everything else would decrease.

[FarLeftFist]

22. OK I understand this. I am one of those people. MJ is my anti-drug.

[Uncle Joe]

69. I agree with your hypothesis, Scuba.

I do believe some of the more dangerous drugs came into modern use and existence because more benign ones were off limits and this inherent, primordial human instinct to alter consciousness was too repressively denied and/or restricted, so people looked for other means.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. The thing is though, 'decriminalized' and 'legalized' mean different things.

Decriminalized usually means still illegal, just less so. CA decriminalized marijuana. It is still not legal. So the semantic argument I do understand, it is just that the words mean actual specific things, and the end result of each is different, legally different.

[Scuba]

48. That's why I used "legal".

[Occulus]

50. I think we need to frame it differently, then

because the terms have been so muddied over the years regarding drugs that people commonly use the two interchangably, regardless of how the law or the courts apply them.

[Scuba]

85. My premise assumed availability, which means "legal". You're correct about ....

... confusion of the terms. Thanks for pointing it out.

[2pooped2pop]

35. I have been told by meth users

that they never would have tried meth if they could afford pot. Said pot was all they wanted, but could not afford it.

But no, it should not be legal. It is a killer. People caught with it should be forced into treatment, not into prison. Same with all hard drugs.

Pot should be legal at least at your own home.

[Occulus]

47. "It is a killer," but tapwater can be just as deadly.

So can table salt.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that, because a thing can be deadly, it must be regulated, or even prohibited. That way lies insanity.

[ceile]

65. what?!

have you ever met anyone who's been a meth addict? they'd beg to differ.

[2pooped2pop]

97. I guess you could say

I'm pro legalize pot but after seeing people on meth, I don't think it should be legal.

[RZM]

108. I support legalizing everything. But I think you're obfuscating here

I don't know much about how meth effects the body, the likelihood of overdose, or whatever.

I do know that it's a terrible drug that can destroy your life and cause great harm to your family and friends. That's how it's deadly, IMO. Many other drugs are the same way.

People need to be realistic when it comes to the legalization argument. It's not a panacea for our social ills. I don't think legalizing anything will actually significantly impact our criminal justice system, for instance. Even if heroin were legal, it would still ruin your life, take everything you own, and force you onto the streets to rob, steal and/or turn tricks to get your fix. Those people will still end up in prison.

I would still do it anyway, but I think it's important not to try to promise the world here either. Not saying you are doing that, but it's what came to mind.

[randome]

58. And you believe someone who's on meth?

[Occulus]

63. That's the *other* thing we need to fix.

The idea that a drug user's opinion of how any particular drug affects them is always wrong, yet the opinion of a non-user is always right seems almost exactly backward to me.

Not that you yourself put it as an "always" condition, but that seems to be the default position for many, particularly when they consistently take the contrary POV vs. the user.

[randome]

64. I understand where you're coming from.

But I wouldn't trust the opinion of an addict before anyone else's. And if we're talking about meth, then we're talking about addiction.

[Occulus]

73. And that's the THIRD thing we need to address.

The idea that use = abuse by default. Even in the case of methamphetamine, that isn't always the case (see: Desoxyn).

[2pooped2pop]

98. I guess I should have said ex meth users

and yes I believe my son.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Meth is already legal. Schedule II drug (like most amphetamines).

It is produced under the brand name Desoxyn.

[Occulus]

26. Shocked the crap out of me when I found that out.

SO-

We have, on the one hand, a Schedule II amphetamine, considered a felony to possess the street version of in most areas, being prescribed in low doses with FDA approval to children (and adults) with ADHD, exogenous obesity or, occasionally, narcolepsy (to go by the drug's Wiki), a drug known for its very real potential for abuse, a drug that cannot be produced without modern equipment, chemicals, and procedures, a drug known to be fatal in overdose,

AND YET

Our DEA, Department of (in)Justice, Congress, and President treat with scorn and derision the possibility that a mildly euphoric, non-toxic herb used for the treatment of multiple ailments and infirmities for thousands of years, an herb which is not "addictive" in the popular, commonly-accepted uses of the word, an herb which requires minimal effort to produce, an herb which will grow under nearly any conditions, and on which it is nearly impossible for a human to overdose, may actually have medical benefits.

Am I the only one who detects a strong odor of rotten, rank hypocrisy?

[Snake Alchemist]

56. Dosage is everything. nt

[russspeakeasy]

83. Dosage and who gets the profits..

[Aerows]

3. Meth scares me

The things it is made of just makes me cringe. I can't understand why anyone would start using it. I can understand addiction after the fact, but with all of the things that have been made public about it, not to mention the process of making it, I just don't know how anyone could take it the first time.

[Occulus]

49. I think it may actually have a lot to do with cannabis prohibition, to be honest.

When you lie to people about one common street drug, they start wondering just how much they're been lied to about others. That's a perfectly legitimate response, borne out in almost all areas of human behavior- lie and get caught and you're less trustworthy regarding other, similar truths.

I certainly do not trust the ONDCP, DEA, DOJ, Congress, the courts, or any other governmental authority to speak truthfully and candidly to the effects of the drugs they themselves ban and punish people for having in their possession. Given their default biases, that would be extremely silly.

[randome]

59. I'm sure most users give intense philosophical consideration to their drug of choice.

People smoke pot to get high. People take meth to get high.

It's as simple as that.

[Occulus]

66. I thought we were talking about *new* users of 'hard' drugs,

and why they would try them to begin with.

Many people, particularly young people, who try a 'new' drug think in exactly those terms. I think if you add the fact they were (and are being) lied to about cannabis to the mix of curiosity about this or that drug, some, and not a few, of them may indeed reason that since a lot of what they were told about Drug A was lies, a lot of what they're told about Drug B may be lies.

Of course they don't sit there and consciously reason it out the way I am on this thread; it's more along the lines of losing trust in a parent (or spouse, for that matter) who lies about having an affair, or a true, dyed-in-the-wool friend of many years lying about stealing something from you. It's a loss of trust and an increase of suspicion, and those are bells you can't unring.

What all this boils down to is that exaggerating or outright lying about cannabis prohibition and its reasons for prohibition (increased cancer risk regardless of use method, "prolonged memory loss", possibly dangerous persistence in body tissues, "addictive" properties) can do damage to the purpose of having a generally undrugged population via "you lied and continue to lie, and I don't believe you". It's a perfectly natural and sane response, and official drug policy regarding cannabis only perpetuates it.

[randome]

68. I'm no statistical expert.

But I think the most common reason people try hard drugs of any sort has more to do with depression and lack of self-confidence than anything else. And sometimes a subconscious desire for suicide.

Young people can read. They can learn about the dangers of pot versus the dangers of meth or heroin or cocaine. And they do read. And they do learn.

[Occulus]

76. That last only underscores what I'm saying.

"Young people can read. They can learn about the dangers of pot versus the dangers of meth or heroin or cocaine. And they do read. And they do learn."

And they read lies about cannabis, from government or other "approved" sources, and they know those statements for the lies they are, and they wonder how much more they're being lied to. And yes, I have been told exactly that by more than one twenty-something, in as many words. That's why I'm bringing it up as a response to the existing government policies and statements.

[Withywindle]

101. I think thrill-seeking plays a much bigger role than you acknowledge here.

Not all people who try hard drugs are necessarily depressed or lacking confidence. Some have entirely too much confidence, where their own invulnerability is concerned.

Many people are just looking for the best possible buzz.

[jmowreader]

127. The pot high and the meth high are totally different highs

People ALSO take meth so they can drive all night, finish their term papers or other things that require intense stimulation.

[Aerows]

78. Personally

I believe it is availability. They can ride around in a car and make it. It's horrifically dangerous, but people get caught doing it all of the time. They have had two people get caught making it right in Walmart as they get the ingredients.

There could be some element of mistrust of government sources that say it is harmful, but they have to get it from someone. You would think seeing what it does to a hardcore user/dealer would convince them that meth isn't even in the same zip code as marijuana.

[bigwillq]

4. Yes, but only if the meth were premade in a sealed off factory

and sold at a "drug" store.

[Occulus]

28. The reason for that is that you can control for purity levels that way

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I've been told by people who have both given and received drug counseling that it isn't the drug itself that usually causes an overdose, but its purity level. For example, someone who snorts a line or two of coke each weekend may be used to a product that is actually relatively impure and cut with a percentage of baking soda besides. They're used to this purity level, from this dealer.

One night they score some powder from someone they're not used to dealing with. The price is a bit higher but oh well, coke is coke, right? Wrong- he just bought a bag of coke that's not cut with anything and has a higher level of purity. However, he takes the same amount he's used to taking, and instead of a "stronger" high, his heart explodes in his chest for his trouble.

If you could control for purity and adulterates you could eliminate a great many overdoses, because everyone using would know exactly how much they already use, and would know exactly how pure the dose was each time. That's why it's "safe" to take an aspirin or acetaminophen, even though taking too much at once can cause liver damage. The drug is manufactured such that a controlled dosage can be achieved each time.

We would do well to apply the same quality control to street drugs like meth, coke, heroin, etc.

[bigwillq]

67. Good post.

[patricia92243]

32. Yep

[hedgehog]

74. I'm with you. In fact, I might be willing to

give the stuff away. I'm not sure the war on drugs is keeping anyone away from drugs, but the collateral damage is there for sure! It might be already too late for Mexico as drug gangs are moving into extortion and kidnapping.

[FarLeftFist]

5. No.

[Occulus]

30. "Trick" question in the OP.

Methamphetamine is already legal as a Schedule II drug.

It becomes much more difficult to justify this administration's position regarding medical cannabis in light of that fact, doesn't it?

[2pooped2pop]

37. really it does make it difficult.

Medical pot should not even be a question. For garsh sakes they will give you codeine, morphine, demerol, but pot is illegal, even as medicine?

It can only be that major corporations are paying to keep it out, such as cigarette, alchohol, or drug manufacturers. Or that people within our government is getting rich bringing it in illegally. Or both. Probably both.

[Occulus]

52. Add the fact that some people have been getting cannabis FROM THE GOVERNMENT for many years running

and it becomes impossible to justify.

Why hasn't there been a lawsuit over that program vs. the otherwise general prohibition? The program is almost over, and I don't recall ever reading about a single court challenge in that direction.

Why were the participants considered exempt from Federal and State laws regarding cannabis possession? Why did it last for decades? Why were they, quite precisely, so damned special?

[Aerows]

80. Medical pot is a no brainer

If even fifteen people abuse the system to obtain medical marijuana, but it helps one person, it's worth it, imho. Sick people should not be denied treatments that help improve their quality of life. No one will ever convince me that the war against marijuana doesn't come down purely to economics. It's profitable to lock up marijuana users since they are rarely violent. It's profitable to seize assets from people for dealing in marijuana. It's profitable to maintain a black market.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of marijuana, and has everything to do with securing profit streams that are made from keeping it illegal.

[randome]

81. Forfeiture laws are relatively recent.

Marijuana has been illegal before they became 'in vogue'.

I think the public, in general, doesn't trust marijuana, and that's the central reason it remains illegal. Anyone can point out all the studies and the statistics they want but the general public opinion, I think, is that it should not be available for anything other than strictly regulated medicinal use.

It may not be logical or right but I think it's true.

[Aerows]

84. Actually

You can thank Dupont for marijuana being illegal. Hemp makes good rope, and was in fact used for that purpose for centuries. When they developed nylon and other fibers, they lobbied to have hemp made illegal so that they could sell nylon and their own chemically engineered fibers to a captive market.

It's ALWAYS been financially motivated. ALWAYS.

[randome]

89. They had a hand in making it illegal, yes.

But if public outcry were fearsome enough, you can bet that marijuana would be legalized. But except for a handful of threads every month on DU, I don't see that enough people really CARE about making it legal.

More people believe in making it available for medicinal use.

[Aerows]

94. I don't use marijuana

But it does affect me because we waste billions in tax dollars locking up people for what shouldn't even be illegal, in my opinion.

As for medical marijuana, I've yet to hear a good argument as to why it shouldn't be legal, and I suspect I never will.

[Withywindle]

103. Racism was a huge factor too.

Go back to the 20s and 30s--MJ was associated with Black and Latino people, and got morphed with that ancient KKK smear that Black men are vicious sexual beasts who all want to rape white women. That's what things like 'Reefer Madness' are REALLY all about; if you let 'those people' have their reefer, they'll corrupt WHITE youth with it! Throw in some old-school John Birch Society Red-baiting, and there you have the full extent of the government's propaganda case against pot from the 10s through the 60s at least.

Sometimes it was subtext, sometimes it was text, but it was ALWAYS there.

[Aerows]

106. That's an important point, too

I was specifically mentioning Dupont, but you are right that it was used as a tool to further inflame racism. You can't really discuss the history of marijuana without discussing racist overtones, and thank you for bringing that up.

[2pooped2pop]

102. any opinion formed about not trusting pot

has been formed with the help of the right wing noise machine. I think if people are given actual facts and heard from actual people, they would overwelmingly legalize pot.

Those same people who don't trust pot in your opinion most likely think drinking is hunkie dorie. Those of us who have done both know without a doubt that drinking is much much much worse than smoking pot.

[a simple pattern]

91. It happens to look a lot like hemp

and hemp is the real enemy of the oil, plastics, & lumber industries (medical patents on cannabinoids aside for the moment.)

[randr]

6. Addiction needs to beseen as a medical issue and users should not be subject to prosecution

However, the manufacturing of a synthetic substance as harmful as meth along with the distribution of same should, imhp, be subject to penalty.

[Ian David]

9. Just imagine what the Meth Dungeon on DU would look like if Meth were legal. n/t

[orwell]

11. No...n/t

[girl gone mad]

12. People commit horrible crimes under the influence of alcohol, too..

so this is not the best argument for meth prohibition.

[Snake Alchemist]

19. I have not seen any crimes committed while using alcohol that compare to the article I cited.

Not saying they don't exist, but I have not seen them.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. The U.S. Department of Justice Report on Alcohol and Crime found

that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the U.S..
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/costs/a/aa980415.htm

[randome]

82. Neither is it an argument to bring more horrible crimes into the mix.

All the studies and statistics in the world won't sway public opinion that alcohol use is acceptable and drug use is not.

It's just the culture we have.

[girl gone mad]

93. Your comment ignores the history of prohibition.

Public opinion was swayed.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Yes, prohibition is an utter failure and a crutch for the security state.

[LynneSin]

17. MJ is natural, Meth is not

I have no problem living next door to stoners - usually they are nice people and very easy going. I have no desire of having meth heads living next door to me - when they start tweaking they get delusional and do fucked up shit.

[girl gone mad]

77. That's a better argument.

Humans have been exploiting plants for tens of thousands of years.

[negativenihil]

18. Not only no - but HELL NO

I am of the opinion that when it comes to drug legalization - if it comes form a seed bearing plant (or well spore!) and requires no refinement or other tweaking by man... then have at it!

The moment a substance is modified, refined, tweaked by man, all bets are off.

Meth is vile in every way. I personally can't understand how anyone who has even a hint of how it's made would willingly ingest it.

(And yes, I understand by my own policy Hashish would be illegal, but that's a small price to pay. You wanna chew coca leaves?! go for it! you wanna eat poppies? have a blast! but when you refine these items into cocaine or heroin, I've got an issue with it.)

[Snake Alchemist]

21. Seems like a sensible policy. nt

[Occulus]

36. It's only made in a "bathtub gin" way because of its prohibition.

As another poster pointed out (and I always bring this up in drug discussions because it usually radically changes the conversation), meth is already a Schedule II prescription drug, sold under the trade name Desoxyn. Yes, there are chemical reactions involved in its production, but people only use battery acid and other nasty crap because of the prohibition. As I pointed out above, the methods used because of the prohibition produce a product of dangerously variable quality.

Legalization (of any drug, not just meth) would provide a pathway to providing users with controlled, measured doses of a guaranteed purity, thus preventing overdose. That, in fact, is why the production methods, facilities, and quality control of legitimate pharmaceutical drugs (like Desoxyn!) are so strictly regulated by the FDA: to prevent overdose and adulteration.

It seems that what you're really against is ingesting any substance that requires chemical reaction to produce. The problem is that that's far too broad a prohibition to withstand serious scrutiny. By your definition, things like aspirin and the entire class of -cillin antibiotics (to name but two in a long, long list of examples) would have to be prohibited as well.

Further, purely chemical drugs aren't all "bad" in the least, if given in a controlled manner. Until about 1985 or so, MDMA was apparently regularly prescribed by clinical psychologists to couples receiving marriage counseling (and, apparently, it worked). When the rave crowd got hold of it, it was banned, because of course we simply can't have large groups of young people feeling an artificially-enhanced sense of empathy, acceptance, and openness, now, can we?

Recently, it has been found that the drug enhances personality traits associated with "openness"- a reduction of secretiveness, with oneself or with others, a greater awareness of people around the user as people (empathy), and so forth. Remarkably, the personality traits this drug enhances are all considered "positive" personality traits, and echoes of these effects have been seen to persist for up to a full year following one dose. Currently, MDMA is being used to treat PTSD in soldiers returning from war zones.

The more I learn about street drugs, drug policy, and how those policies and justifications for them relate to the legitimate pharmaceutical industry, the more I come to realize that we have been rather shamelessly lied to by our "betters" for several decades running, the angrier I get, and the more I want to see real, substantive change in relation to our national drug policy, in particular, prohibition in general.

We've been had, and it's become such pervasive "common wisdom" that many react defensively when the subject is brought up. The hypocrisy is right out there in plain sight, though, for all to see who are curious enough to dig past the bullshit and get to the actual facts.

[negativenihil]

54. .

"Legalization (of any drug, not just meth) would provide a pathway to providing users with controlled, measured doses of a guaranteed purity, thus preventing overdose. That, in fact, is why the production methods, facilities, and quality control of legitimate pharmaceutical drugs (like Desoxyn!) are so strictly regulated by the FDA: to prevent overdose and adulteration. "

What means are in place to prevent someone from taking several times the prescribed dose, thus preventing overdose?

"It seems that what you're really against is ingesting any substance that requires chemical reaction to produce. The problem is that that's far too broad a prohibition to withstand serious scrutiny. By your definition, things like aspirin and the entire class of -cillin antibiotics (to name but two in a long, long list of examples) would have to be prohibited as well."

Not exactly. As I understood the thread, this was about street drugs - drugs used to get high - not specifically for medical use. You assume a little too much base on what little i've said, but that's cool. My reply should be framed within the context of street drugs/drugs used for pleasure and not as an attack on things such as penicillin.

I am fully aware of MDMA's prior legal uses, and having used MDMA myself I understand how it can be useful. However, Meth from my perspective has zero actually valid uses, especially due to how addictive the substance is. I agree with you that our entire drug policy really needs to be re-evaluated, but at the same time I just can't find it within myself to simply say "all drugs should be legal".

LSD is a fine example of another drug I feel should not be legal (no matter how much i've enjoyed it). The simple fact is you really cannot predict how one will react to the substance with any degree of certainty.

In any case, please allow me to re-phrase my original statement:

"I am of the opinion that when it comes to legalization of non-medical street drugs used for pleasure: if it comes from a seed bearing plant (or well spore!) and requires no refinement or other tweaking by man... then have at it!"

edited to add this link and included warning: http://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm

"METHAMPHETAMINE HAS A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE. IT SHOULD THUS BE TRIED ONLY IN WEIGHT REDUCTION PROGRAMS FOR PATIENTS IN WHOM ALTERNATIVE THERAPY HAS BEEN INEFFECTIVE. ADMINISTRATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE FOR PROLONGED PERIODS OF TIME IN OBESITY MAY LEAD TO DRUG DEPENDENCE AND MUST BE AVOIDED. PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUBJECTS OBTAINING METHAMPHETAMINE FOR NON-THERAPEUTIC USE OR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHERS, AND THE DRUG SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED OR DISPENSED SPARINGLY. MISUSE OF METHAMPHETAMINE MAY CAUSE SUDDEN DEATH AND SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS."

If prescription Meth is so safe, why is such a warning needed?

[Occulus]

71. In reverse order:

"If prescription Meth is so safe, why is such a warning needed?"

Read the warning. That's why. But the real question is why is methamphetamine legal and occasionally prescribed to children, given it is so dangerous, yet medical cannabis is such an issue? "Should meth be legal" is already settled; it is legal, by prescription (which answers your first question as well).

"In any case, please allow me to re-phrase my original statement:

"I am of the opinion that when it comes to legalization of non-medical street drugs used for pleasure: if it comes from a seed bearing plant (or well spore!) and requires no refinement or other tweaking by man... then have at it!"

But why, exactly? Wherein lies the intrinsic moral or ethical difference between a naturally-occurring molecule and one that is synthetically produced? Is the application of heat, and anything beyond it, going too far? When, exactly, does the one become the other?

"LSD is a fine example of another drug I feel should not be legal (no matter how much i've enjoyed it). The simple fact is you really cannot predict how one will react to the substance with any degree of certainty. "

Actually, that is a one of those famous "known unknowns": LSD produces a different effect for each user. That's one of the most interesting things about the drug, actually. I haven't done it myself, but I've been told more than once that everyone should try it once.

"However, Meth from my perspective has zero actually valid uses"

I bring up Desoxyn as it relates to both cannabis and drug policy in general every time the topic comes up for this exact reason: the FDA, in fact, has already decided meth has valid medical uses (even in children), but cannot bring itself to say the same about cannabis. It's the absolutely breathtaking hypocrisy between the two that makes me question the entire concept of drug prohibition.

"Not exactly. As I understood the thread, this was about street drugs - drugs used to get high - not specifically for medical use. You assume a little too much base on what little i've said, but that's cool. My reply should be framed within the context of street drugs/drugs used for pleasure and not as an attack on things such as penicillin. "

The problem here is that the line between the two has become increasingly blurry over the years. Drug that were accepted as having medical value are suddenly prohibited, while others are being found to have more than one purpose, medical and non-medical, and becoming increasingly acceptable, both socially and in treatment scenarios, when they weren't before. Common prescription drugs are being abused more and more commonly, yet we won't even consider prohibiting outright a drug like Vicodin, despite its potential for abuse.

Our drug policy is a complete mess; we really ought to reconsider complete prohibition in general. I just don't see how complete prohibition helps the situation at all.

[negativenihil]

90. wait a second

Maybe you missed this one - but I was really looking forward to a reply to this question:

"What means are in place to prevent someone from taking several times the prescribed dose, thus preventing overdose? "

Moving along...

"But why, exactly? Wherein lies the intrinsic moral or ethical difference between a naturally-occurring molecule and one that is synthetically produced? Is the application of heat, and anything beyond it, going too far? When, exactly, does the one become the other?"

Why? Look at the difference in behavior between someone who chews coca leaves regularly compared to a habitual cocaine user. There is a WORLD of difference. When you refine the coca leaf into cocaine, it becomes a whole other animal.

In terms of drugs used for pleasure, I remain steadfast with my opinion that it's best to stick with things that aren't man made.

(I'm really starting think you're bent on having a totally different debate with me than the one I'm having with you.)

"I bring up Desoxyn as it relates to both cannabis and drug policy in general every time the topic comes up for this exact reason: the FDA, in fact, has already decided meth has valid medical uses (even in children), but cannot bring itself to say the same about cannabis. It's the absolutely breathtaking hypocrisy between the two that makes me question the entire concept of drug prohibition. "

And I disagree with the FDA just as I disagree with them in regards to Adderall, especially in regards to giving these substances to kids.

At least we both agree on the fact that our drug policy needs some major changes!

[Fumesucker]

119. Eh, plenty of alcohol is "tweaked" by man..

Even the Romans used to freeze wine at night in the deserts and throw out the ice, since the alcohol doesn't freeze then the overall alcohol content of the wine is increased beyond what can occur "naturally". Alcohol is a waste product of the yeast that makes it and will only increase up to a modest concentration where it starts to poison the yeast which then produces no more alcohol.

[Yo_Mama]

20. It's too destructive to legalize

Just because we criminalize a range of drugs, including some rather innocuous, doesn't mean that every drug should be legal.

Because getting high is just something that humans do, the test for making use of a particular substance illegal should be how harmful the substance is to the average user. I'm sure we would all be healthier if none of us drank, smoked, toked, used caffeine, etc, but on average, the moderate user wouldn't be much healthier.

Show me some 20-year moderate high-functioning street meth users and I might change my opinion, but a drug that has a range of effects like this on the brain
http://drugabuse.gov/researchreports/methamph/methamph3.html#short
is extremely dangerous.

We control lead and mercury in the environment because of the brain damage they cause; meth appears to be in a similar category.

[Occulus]

43. True, but how much of that truth is related to dosage quality and purity?

I'm sure the impurities in street drugs, including meth, have something to do with the damage caused.

As to your link, I have learned to never, ever trust drugabuse.gov as an unbiased source for the effects of drug use. An agency- in this case, our own government- that cannot accept legitimate medical uses for cannabis yet does admit them for meth (sold as Desoxyn) cannot be taken seriously as any kind of legitimate authority.

[Marrah_G]

23. Meth is a class all of it's own

I do not think Meth should be legal. I think we need to come up with some sort of alternative rehab for people caught with Meth. Prison isn't the answer, but neither is looking the other way.

[w8liftinglady]

24. Legal,no. Decriminalized,yes.

I live in the land of meth labs.meth addiction is one of the worst,and these folks need treatment,not imprisonment.The only advantage I could see to "Legalization" is that maybe it would decrease some of the by-products of meth labs(and the effect it has on the kids exposed)

[Johonny]

135. this is the course other countries have done

with some positive results. So I agree.

[sharp_stick]

25. Not a chance

meth is one of the most interesting drugs around from a neuroscience standpoint. It can and does "rewire" the brain in a way that can not be undone and it does it quickly.

Someone using meth will often get to the point where they will never be without withdrawal symptoms based on this rewiring. A person hooked on opioids, alcohol or even benzodiazepines will eventually get over physical withdrawal many who are addicted to meth will never get over them.

[roody]

27. All drugs should be decriminalized.

[madokie]

29. In a word, NO

[L. Coyote]

31. It already is, in Coca Cola bottles

The amount of caffeine sold to children everyday in sodas is astounding.

[tjwash]

33. Tweakers....

[snooper2]

42. That has to be the funniest fucking thing I've watched in YEARS ROFL

True or not, it's some damn funny shit

[RZM]

110. Wow

'When you look a monkey in the eyes, you gotta fight'

[MineralMan]

34. It's already legal. Any physician can write a prescription for it.

You just have to have a prescription. Think Adderall, which is a mixture of amphetamine salts. Not methamphetamine, but others.

It's a common medication for ADHD in adults, and is also used in some cases of bipolar disorder.

[Occulus]

39. I want more people to know this.

It radically alters the conversation when speaking of cannabis prohibition.

[MineralMan]

41. Yes. Well, not that many people are aware of that,

but people who take it are more than aware of the shortages that crop up from time to time.

[Occulus]

46. Undoubtably.

What makes the observation important, though, is the hypocrisy it reveals.

Desoxyn can be legitimately prescribed to children. Why we even tolerate a "discussion" of cannabis prohibition is a mystery to me; it seems obvious in light of that fact that cannabis should be as legal to purchase as aspirin.

[Snake Alchemist]

55. But not in the dosages that most people would want. nt

[backscatter712]

38. Perhaps under supervision, in an environment like a methadone clinic.

People who are addicted would be able to get pharmaceutical grade meth, in known, controlled doses, in an injection clinic with clean needles, under doctor & nurse supervision.

That way, they can have their addictions managed and be able to live normally, instead of trying to cook meth in their kitchens, stealing to get their next drug hit, that sort of thing.

[randome]

60. 'Manage their addictions'?

Is that what we're after? No one lives 'normally' if they are addicted.

[backscatter712]

70. Take a look at Europe - they do this, and it works!

They have injection clinics in Switzerland where cocaine addicts can inject, safely, under supervision, and with no fear of being busted by the police. They also got some gentle prodding to get actual treatment to beat their addictions for good.

Guess what. The recipients of this assistance ended up able to hold down jobs, have a place to live, function pretty normally in society. Instead of being homeless, shooting up questionable products with dirty needles and dying in a gutter. More of them go into treatment, and crime rates in the area drop.

I'd say that treating addiction as a medical issue, and providing ways to treat and mitigate the issue are far less brain-damaged than the U.S.'s sixty-billion dollar per year War on Drugs that incarcerates millions for non-violent offenses.

Here's some reading - I think you'll find this interesting.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vancouver-injection-clinics-enlightened-alternative-incarceration

[randome]

72. I agree getting them rehabbed is better than throwing addicts in jail.

I thought you meant simply helping them cope with their addictions, not kick them.

Yes, treating addiction as a medical/psychological issue is WAY better.

[backscatter712]

75. You can lead a horse to water...

Part of the point of injection clinics is to, yes, encourage people with addictions to enter treatment.

Or to switch, say from heroin to methadone, for example.

But it's also to get them to use clean needles, to enable them to live in a way where they don't have to worry about being arrested & jailed all the time.

[backscatter712]

112. Also, injection clinics allow addicts to be supervised when shooting up.

This ensures that they get prompt treatment in the event of accidental overdose (at least that's how they do it in Vancouver - the injection clinic requires patients to bring their own drugs to inject, gives them clean needles, and gives them a place where they can rest, knowing that if they OD, the staff will step in immediately and save their lives.)

I would argue that it would be better if the addicts traded in the black-tar heroin and the homemade meth cooked in battery acid, and get pharmaceutical grade drugs in exchange, in precise, measured doses, which would eliminate the problems with adulterants in the drugs, and also ensure that because the doses were well-known, overdoses could be prevented.

And I would argue that with some patients, it's virtually impossible to completely break an addiction, so yes, managing an addiction in a controlled way so the patient could live a more normal life would be in order. One example would be chronic-pain patients, who are forced into addiction to painkillers by their medical conditions, who pretty much have to have a medically managed addiction to deal with the pain.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. Right now, 'meth' is more legal than Marijuana, do you agree with that status?

Doctors hand out speed like mad, they are not allowed to treat with marijuana, at all. Speed is legal. Right now. Sold in stores like Rite Aid and Walgreen's.

[JVS]

51. Yes. Then the pharmaceutical grade would be circulating and people wouldn't be fucking up cooks

[one_voice]

53. No...

Agree about MJ--should be legal.

[WilliamPitt]

57. No.

It's a filthy, murderous drug.

[mike_c]

61. legal or not, prosecution has utterly failed as a means of controlling it's use and distribution....

Law enforcement has better things to do than pursue people for making poor choices about what they ingest.

[cthulu2016]

62. Was the crime cited in the OP committed someplace Meth is legal?

[Taverner]

88. Good point. Meth is still illegal, and its prohibition did nothing to stop him from killing.

[bemildred]

79. Yes. Making it criminal just makes it a profit center. nt

[Taverner]

86. Yes, it should be. Having it illegal did not stop him from killing.

So prohibition serves no purpose.

[FedUpWithIt All]

87. No. MJ should be legal and all other drugs should be decriminalized like Portugal has done.

There is a real obtuseness regarding this subject on DU. There is NO existing model to support a drug legalization concept in the form commonly praised here. Many DU'ers are praising, as a working model, something which is pure theory and where it has edged into a working model has been proven to be a disastrous failure.

Decriminalization, on the other hand, WORKS and has actually decreased new user rates, decreased drug crime (like the horrific story in the OP) and has helped improve the lives of existing addicts. The reason it is not accepted here is because it does not LEGALIZE drugs. A person caught with lower quantities and is not suspected of dealing is offered the option of treatment in place of jail time.

Edited again to add that i would even support the idea advanced by post 18 as to the substances which should be legalized but once there is any alteration the drug should be subject to decriminalization.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. Meth was legal for 25 years or so and there wasn't a huge problem.

Since it was put into the drug wars regime it has become a huge problem. Imagine that.

[slay]

95. Yes - I think all drugs should be legal

making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening - it just makes it more dangerous. i think it should be regulated, and heavily taxed with a good portion of that tax money going to rehab and drug safety education. do i think it's a good idea to EVER use meth? no. but legislating morality by making certain (not alcohol or tobacco which are 2 of the worst) drugs illegal does not work. it just doesn't. we figured that out with abortion back in 1973 and now we don't have women dying from coathanger abortions anymore. we need to legalize, tax, regulate, and educate when it comes to drugs and drug use.

[Johnny2X2X]

96. Disappointing

Meth is an awful drug, I have seen 1st hand its effects. That being said the hyperbole I hear about it is not constructive. Haven't we learned our lessons about demonizing of drugs with marijuana and crack?

Do not try meth, even one time, but the fact is that 1 or 2 uses does not virtually guarantee addiction as suggested multiple times in this thread. Is addiction possible after a couple uses? Yes, but not all that likely even after several uses. Continued us however does virtually guarantee addiction. The effects of meth long term are horrifying enough to persuade people to abstain, no need to make up factoids that simply aren't true, it undermines the warning.

[wildbilln864]

99. yes! nt

[ellisonz]

100. No.

[loyalsister]

104. I think it should be made un or less necessary

Many if not most addicts have a preference for their intoxication of choice. I once talked to a guy who smoked cigarettes and drank coffee constantly, liquor moderately, skipped pot and went straight to cocaine.

A medicalized (as opposed to moral) paradigm regarding drug use would at least make meth less necessary. If a person who seeks a stimulant "high" had legal access to the stimulants that achieve it, they wouldn't need to use the black market.
Likewise, if opiates like morphine were available, the heroin market is greatly reduced.
If availability were regulated with some medical safety measures and limits to prevent black market sales, could be helpful.

I don't think those markets would be instantly eliminated, but I think it's possible that the criminality associated with drug use could be reduced significantly.

When I saw Winter's Bone, I was struck by the similarity to bootlegging. Families trying to survive and winding up in a horrifying criminal network is what has happened in both cases.

Just as happened with the repeal of prohibition, I think we could probably improve things by reducing or eliminating the criminal element.

[arely staircase]

107. i used to be pro-legalization of everything

but after seeing the effects of meth on people i don't believe it should be legal. i don't think sending people to prison is the answer - i suppose some sort of mandatory treatment. it and mj shouldn't even be part of the same conversation.

[Orangepeel]

109. It should remain illegal to make meth

Addicts should get treatment.

[RZM]

111. Ultimately, yes

But for now, the focus should be on decriminalizing marijuana. Start there, carefully manage and assess the process, and then take further steps later depending on the outcome of the policy change.

[Tikki]

113. NO

[donheld]

114. Only for republicans.

[bhikkhu]

115. No. It tends to destroy people - quickly and permanently

...and one of its first victims is the will of the user.

I might hedge or waffle or see both sides on most other drugs, but I've seen too many people destroyed by meth - its way too much of a one-way ticket. I read a study of autopsies a few years ago when it was a fad in Portland which said looking at the brain-matter it was like a fire had gone through, what was left was almost porous like a sponge. You only get one brain...

[Ecumenist]

116. Fuck No!!!!!!! the things it does to the bodies of the users, the paranoia and

violence that users commit, the chemical contamination from ti production....FUCK NO!!! Nuff said.

[joshcryer]

117. Yes, with support systems, sitters and dispenseries. And it should be free.

As well as all drugs.

[arely staircase]

120. you are being sarcastic, right? nt

[joshcryer]

121. Nope.

[arely staircase]

122. You think all drugs should be "legalized" and just handed out?

Please explain your position, because I think mj should be wide open to any adult who wants to buy it (with their own money) and I oppose locking anybody up (in prison, as opposed to mandatory rehab) for other just about all other drugs. But if you advocate a government program by which meth is made and given to users - or even allowed to be manufactured in the private or public sector for recreational use - i oppose that.

[joshcryer]

123. The negative impacts of meth are largely attributed to well-being.

As opposed to the chemical itself.

Google "Erowid."

I do not think meth, the chemical, as a recreational drug, is any worse than anything else out there, if used responsibly.

The argument "meth cannot be used responsibly" could apply to any other of your favored drug.

[arely staircase]

124. agreed - that the impacts of anything, drug or not, are "largely attributed to well-being"

and personal experience with almost all drugs makes me disagree with the premise that meth "is (not) any worse than anything else out there, if used responsibly"

One problem with that statement is the implied argument that methamphetamine can be "used resposibly." I would dismiss that right away - again, this is all based on personal, yet extensive, anecdotal experience, and not scientific research into the addictive properties of anything.

[joshcryer]

125. Your ancedotal experience is in a society without any drug-aware safety net.

Without dispensaries and sit houses I would of course be opposed to legalizing it.

Along with a great many drugs.

My original point was in context of Ron Paul's nonsensical "legalize drugs" idea, where meth-heads would run free and could be killed with impunity, etc. With no sort of safety net for those who did do meth.

[arely staircase]

128. ok i think i got ya, i would certainly want some kind of "dispensar(y) and shit house" if we were to

construe a world in wich meth were available (about the same as it is now) but under some sort of controlled distribution.

i think my intitial reaction was that you were endorsing what you called "where meth-heads would run free and could be killed with impunity"

but i think we are in agreement (for the most part) on this. i wouldn't endorse (i'm guessing) making as many drugs available as you would, but we both agree that, as far as hard drugs go, any legaliziation should accompany an activist government policy that reduced harm - shit houses as you say?

[joshcryer]

130. As someone pointed out up thread, meth-like drugs are already available.

Pharma's sell the stuff, legally. It's just that it's much lower dose than what's available on the street, and you'd be giving people meth in much much lower doses, and without the nasty byproducts that are there when someone does their own cook.

Sit houses, as in, sitters. There's probably a better word for it, but if you're going to do most drugs you should have a sitter. Even marijuana, you'd want one the first time.

[Snake Alchemist]

132. Seems like you'd need dosage limits in such facilities. nt

[joshcryer]

133. *nod* I didn't say I wasn't for no regulations.

Let's open up the studies far and wide and see what's a good, reasonable, dose for every drug out there!

[arely staircase]

137. i'm for that. nt

[arely staircase]

134. pardon me, "sit" houses, got it.

i think such things might work with sedative/euphorice drugs like opiates, whereas meth use involves a lot of coming and going, all pistons hitting as fast as they can kinda of behavior - though i'm sure someone "sitting" another in the midst of a multi-day meth binge might have some good stories to tell.

[rollin74]

118. NO

meth should not be legal

[AngryOldDem]

126. Absolutely not.

When I worked at a homeless shelter, I saw the effects of this first hand.

Meth is an unspeakably terrible substance.

[cherokeeprogressive]

129. FUCK. NO. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never been exposed to hardcore Tweakers.

Seriously. Anyone who's ever witness or lived through meth psychosis would say the same.

[cherokeeprogressive]

131. Four out of five dentists say yes. nt

[Iggo]

136. Yup.