Local Officials Want Feds Help Fighting Meth Epidemic

[tyme]

Yeah, but it also doesn't say that the states can't.

This is a separate problem. It all depends on how you define police powers. I doubt the founders would agree that police powers allow state governments to interfere with the growing of plants based on their intrinsic qualities, or with the synthesizing of chemicals as long as fumes aren't vented onto a neighbor's property.

Regardless of the comparative danger of synthesizing methamphetamine or LSD (I don't have any idea of the LSD synthesis process, but I would think there are some relatively unpleasant chemicals involved), there's certainly nothing unsafe about growing marijuana, coca, mushrooms, or poppies.

I don't see how the police power can legitimately touch the growing of selected plants.

Of course, these days "police powers" have no limit. People might think the law itself was stupid if a legislature (hypothetically) required shoes to remain tied whenever they're being worn, but would anyone think that the government did not have the power to pass that legislation to begin with? Not many would, these days.

 

[GunGoBoom]

The traditional "police power" which the 50 states have (in theory), and which the federal gov't does NOT have (in theory), is the power to regulate the "health, safety, welfare, and morality" of its citizens. That's right, the morality even. Taken as a whole, this is a very broad power - not just the health and safety. It's clear to me that if a state wants to ignore the fact the the WOSD is a dismal failure and continue to prosecute it, then by all means they should be allowed to continue it, and have the constitutional power to do so, even to the point of banning the possession of harmless plants. The federal government does NOT have this power under the Constit. That's why the democratic process is so important that it be left TO the states - because, since its so ripe for being overused, that the legislators closest to the people, who are the most responsive to the people, be responsible for its use. And why its so important that the fedgov have NO police power. But now they do, since the commerce clause now extends the police power to the fedgov, virtually unlimited, since Raich (not technically, but practically speaking it does). The ray of hope for states' rights reflected in US v. Lopez was squashed like a bug with Raich. Which is why we're in big trouble vis a vis the health of the Constitution. We can vote out the idgits in state gov'ts, as well as vote with our feet and tax dollars by moving to different states, but the federal gov't is an unstoppable behemoth of political idealogy (the Republicrat uniparty), regardless of who we send to Washington, and cannot be avoided or "voted out" with our feet and tax dollars by moving!

BTW, alcohol is by far the most serious drug problem in our country. Meth is 2nd. Both are extremely devastating; alcohol more so in total, because more people abuse it; meth far more so on a per-user basis - meth comes straight from the devil himself, in terms of (a) its addictiveness, (b) it's negative health consequences to its users, including permanent changes to the brain, and (c) the danger of fire/explosisions/toxic fumes by the makers of it. Neither of these problems in a million years can be whupped by the WOD. Both can be whupped (to a reasonable level) by EDUCATION and TREATMENT dollars, by both private and public budgets, at a fraction of the cost of the current budget of LEOA/Interdiction dollars, and a a fraction of the cost of lost civil liberties. Education to kids and adults alike, but esp. kids, of the negatives of the drug use, and treatment to help people on it break the addiction and once again become productive members of society.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Yeah, but it also doesn't say that the states can't [regulate what we consume].

Exactly! The Founders, and the Constitution, intended such things to be left up to the individual states.

 

[Mad Hatter]

Meth production cost?

Has anyone found any solid numbers on the cost of meth production in an illegal lab VS mass production by a (Legal) drug company? I've looked, and the only numbers I've come up with (http://www.kci.org/meth_info/faq_meth.htm) is $80-$100/gram.

No mention of the cost as a perscription drug, But it is apparently a Schedule II drug, with some legitimate uses. So somebody's making it. Legally, safely and at a profit. Is that price more, or less than the illegal price? If it's cheaper the demand for illegal labs would disappear, and the costs of the labs (Fire/health hazards, improper chemical disposal, theft of chemicals) would leave with them.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

If it's cheaper the demand for illegal labs would disappear.

The question is not - "is it cheaper now?" - but rather would it be cheaper if legalized and mass produced. As someone said, it would likely cost about the same as the cost of artificial adrenaline (epinephrine), which is pretty cheap.

 

[T. Bracker]

GunGoBoom,

You hit the nail on the head with one of the big problems with legalizing the harder drugs. Much more accelerated health risks and addictive potential. Many people can consume alcohol on a social basis, i.e. one or two drinks now and again, but pretty tough to do that with hard drugs, both from the addiction side and the degree of intoxication. One glass of wine with dinner is minimally impairing, while one injection of heroin is not really in the same class.

 

[carebear]

T.,

But to carry that forward, there are a heck of a lot more social drinkers than alcoholics and we get along quite well in balancing personal freedom with public safety by educating on the ill effects, establishing social mores against over-consumption and simply punishing the criminally unsafe actions while impaired on alcohol rather than the consumption itself.

Legalization is unlikely to increase (can't find the cite) the actual use of hard drugs from current numbers and there's no evidence to suggest that the same broad program of education, social disdain and punishment for actual actions using current laws would not work as well. In fact, that is the example of Europe.

We already have laws covering criminal behaviour, child mistreatment et al. Legalization will free up wasted LEO resources from their broad, apparently useless, definitely damaging to freedom, efforts at interdiction to actually attack the real crimes we care about and treat the users and any affected children.

I don't care if somebody wastes away in their home on booze, crack, meth or porn. I do care if they attack me on drugs or sober, it's the same crime and gets the same response. Ditto for child abuse, sober or addict, we can treat it the same.

Neither is an argument against legalization since there is no evidence either will INCREASE over now that such things are illegal.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with this whole thread, is the assumption that if you legalized drugs, people would make and use the same drugs they're making and using today. Whereas the truth of the matter, well known, is that the current mix of drugs made in drug labs is dictated NOT by the preferences of users, but instead by what is easy to make with ingredients that are still available over the counter, after decades of restricting the supply of everything needed to make what druggies REALLY wanted to take.

End the war on drugs, and the pharmaceutical industry would be competing to meet the demands of consumers, most of whom don't want to kill themselves in the course of getting high.

If drugs were legal, meth labs wouldn't be a big issue, because people wouldn't be using meth. They'd be using something else. Doubtless something much less harmful to their health. And whatever it was, would be manufactured in labs under the watchful eye of the EPA, not in somebody's basement, with the wastes dumped down a well.

 

[Marshall]

I have land in southern rural Oklahoma, some 900 acres that my grandfather bought at a tax sale in the 50's for a buck an acre. I don't live there but I did put house on it and use the land as a weekend get away as well as for various types of hunting and fishing.

A number of years ago I took four of my friends deer hunting down there. As I was out on the last day, I decided to go scout for a different "stand". It was a nice day and I was enjoying myself stalk hunting through the woods, canyons and streams so I went to the far back side of my land, an area I hardly ever go to.

Well, as I am walking along and scoping with my binoculars I notice a structure of some kind, something I had not built so I immediately was curious to what this was. I assumed some type of man made lean-to someone has made for hunting to use as a blind/stand. I see no one around as I am glassing the place so I walk on up to it only to notice a meth lab.

Well, I being scared to death someone was hiding around watching me, someone that I hadn't seen, I figured I was in danger by being there even though it's my land. I immediately left the area, went back to the house and called the local law. One of the two lawmen in town, very small town, came and made a report. I gave him a map on how to get back to the area where this lab was. He asked if I had seen anyone and I told him I hadn't. He told me he was going to contact the county Sheriff and get them involved. Anyway, before we left to come back to our real home, I asked that he make sure I get a written report and hopefully a phone call of what happens.

Long story short, they investigated, found nothing that they could link to anyone and told me that it was probably one that is not used any longer. I wasn't real happy with the lack of results but I was happy to hear that they thought it was abandoned and not used any longer.

Two weeks later my wife and I go down there just to lay around in the house all weekend and mainly have time alone. We drive up and down the dirt roads you have take to get to the gate, unlock the gate and drive to the house. We pull up only to find out the house had been burned down. It's a terrible feeling, trust me.

I file a report, same small town law man, he calls the same county man and he shows up to investigate. He spends a couple of hours walking around looking for some kind of clue, dusted a few things for prints and told me he would mail me a report but told me it was probably a lost cause and he figured he would be extremely lucky to catch whomever did it.

Of course, nothing ever turned up. I now have a hatred for meth users. They are truly scary and unpredictable low lifes.

 

[publius]

Conflitct and even violence between property owners and bootleggers is nothing new. It's not just meth makers, though that drug does make people act like jerks. Some people will also shoot you if you find their marijuana patch.

This picture of me appeared in the local paper some years back, along with an article about Prohibition-era moonshine stills in our county.



We found various old remains of a still in that area. The carving on the tree reads, "I know you now boys so watch out, and where you live too! Mr P"

Edit to add: we've owned this property over 30 years, and that carving was old when my brother found it way back then. We never figured out who Mr. P was, but we assume the carving is related to the old still somehow.

Might want to carve up one of your trees.

 

[Tom Servo]

I live in (semi) rural Georgia, and meth has taken over like wildfire out here the last few years. There's really no comparison to moonshiners (which we still have) or hippies growing pot. Those folks don't go on unpredictable, unprovoked violent rampages. They don't kill cops because they get nervous being pulled over. They don't pull botched home-invasions and kill innocents when they realized they got the wrong house. Meth people do. All these things have happened within the month in the 50,000 population town where I work.

LEOs can and do die from the fumes when investigating meth labs. The chemicals involved can poison the ground-water and air for miles around. It causes permanent neural and physical damage to the user. I've watched neighborhoods near my house turn from rustic to seedy in less than a year, and I've started hearing shots fired less than five miles from my house the last few months. And I live in what would be called a "nice" neighborhood.

I've known people who drink socially, and I've known a few who do pot or cocaine now and then and still lead productive lives. You won't find a meth user like that. They turn into twitchy, drooling psychopaths in a shockingly short time-frame.

Given the homebrew nature of the stuff (all the chemicals needed can be found at drug and hardware stores), it's easy to set up a mass-production kitchen lab in a short time, and it's getting almost impossible for the police to combat. Everybody's at a loss as to how to combat this. All I know is that I keep my eyes open and hands free at all times if I'm out after dark these days, something I moved here to get away from.

BUT, does getting the Feds involved help? Throwing more manpower (and 10th amendment bending) at the problem isn't the way to stop it. It may be well-intentioned, but the War on Drugs has been an outstanding failure since the 1980s, and its rules certainly don't apply to this.

 

[publius]

There's really no comparison to moonshiners (which we still have) or hippies growing pot.

There is one notable similarity. Government can't do much to stop any of the three groups. Arrest one, there are five waiting to take his place.

We got rid of most of the moonshiners by getting rid of alcohol prohibition, and we could do the same with the hippies growing pot or the meth labs. Of course, it would mean tolerating a legal, regulated market.

So making meth is cheap and easy? Making beer or booze is easy and cheap, but competing with the legal market is not.

You have to keep black market beer a secret, but Budweiser can advertise. Black market transportation and distribution carries high risks, while Budweiser just gets to hire trucks and retailers.

You hand a guy 6 bottles of black market beer in some secret location, and he wonders if you will rob him, wonders what is actually in your beer, wonders if you will be in business tomorrow, wonders what will be in your beer tomorrow, etc. Budweiser says right on the label that it's high quality beer, customers know the store will be there tomorrow, and the clerks generally don't rob you.

My brother used to make pretty good beer, and he would have been able to sell you a fine brew (heck of a lot better than a Bud) for about half the price of a Bud, and he could still make money on it. He didn't. Almost no one does. Why? Black markets suck.

 

[T. Bracker]

The downside is that some people are always looking for the latest, greatest intoxicant to "escape" reality, so no matter what you legalize, there will always be some black market activity. As such, you have to take a stand at some point. The idea of legalizing the more potent, addictive drugs crosses that line, in my opinion. It is true that there is much bad behavior generated by alcohol, at some point a society has to have some rules, as legalization of the harder drugs will lead to more addiction, with all of its associated complications.

 

[captain obvious]

The problem with this whole thread, is the assumption that if you legalized drugs, people would make and use the same drugs they're making and using today. Whereas the truth of the matter, well known, is that the current mix of drugs made in drug labs is dictated NOT by the preferences of users, but instead by what is easy to make with ingredients that are still available over the counter, after decades of restricting the supply of everything needed to make what druggies REALLY wanted to take.

Halleujah - Someone finally gets it!

Do you really think those that would be apt to use such hard drugs, if given a choice, would use something like current street heroin if something safer was available?

 

[T. Bracker]

Right, most of the drug users are certainly concerned with the "safer" alternatives?!? They will then stay away from the dangerous highs. Not in the real world.

 

[Sindawe]

Right, most of the drug users are certainly concerned with the "safer" alternatives?!? They will then stay away from the dangerous highs. Not in the real world.

Funny, I see it almost every day. Those people who drink alcohol, but do not smoke tobacco due to the health hazards associated with tobacco. Those who do smoke, but only on are occasions, such as myself, but do not consume cocaine, speed and the like. I have a couple of friends who smoke pot now and again, but will not touch meth, heroin and the like due to the risks involved.