Mexican Gangs may be moving into Meth

[EttenBoom]

Users? Rehab...once. Second time? 5 years on a chain gang. Work'em from sunup 'til sundown so when they get back to their cells, they don't feel like causin' a ruckus. The ones that do cause trouble? 30 days in the dark on bread and water. For the hard-headed individuals, let'em serve the rest of their time on the island, scratchin' somethin' to eat out of the dirt.

1911Tuner,

I'd like to know if this.
If one of your family members were suffering from addiction would you feel the same way?

You have no idea of how addiction works, or how difficult it is to beat, trust me on this.
I know literally dozens of addicts in recovery, and NOT ONE was ever able to get it on the first try. The deterrent effect that your proposal would hope to achieve as harsh as it is, would no where be enough to stop most addicts from using drugs.

The death penalty, a joke, if you suffer from addicition long enough, you will lose your fear of death.

I've been there.

 

[Marshall]

Too many times, the lives they ruin are not only their own.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

thats why

Too many times, the lives they ruin are not only their own.


and minimizing the collateral damage is most important benifit to aknowledging the war on drugs as a flop

 

[cropcirclewalker]

My take is that the WOD will never stop until we can dream up another war to replace it.

Stop the war on drugs, and the dealers and bad guys have to find productive work or find another crime, like say, bootlegging.....no, wait, we legalized that, or gambling.........no, wait, that too..

I sense that many here who so adamantly refuse to recognize the futility of the wod is that they understand that when the dealer / bg has to find productive work, so will the other side of the war. The good guys and there are lots of us here employed in that fashion.

It will essentially shut down 80 percent of our prisons. It will essentially remove the need for the SWAT teams and eliminate all the fun these guys get to have playing with fancy weapons.

Unless, maybe they would like to go over to Iraq.

The justice system would have to lay off 80 percent of it's POs and the body armor factories could concentrate on supplying our troops in the foreign adventures.

No, as ridiculuous and foolish and non common sensicle as the wod is, we will never stop it. There are too many paychecks that depend on it.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'm afraid you may be right, CCW.

 

[Marshall]

Cdaddy,

So, legalize meth and it goes away? All the people that use it will stop using it? No new users of the drug? No collateral damage? No sellers turning to other crimes instead? None of our children finding it much easier because now it's legal and more readily available? Things become Rosy? Sounds like a dream world to me.

Or, are you saying revamp the war on drugs and how it's handled?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

So, legalize meth and it goes away? All the people that use it will stop using it? No new users of the drug? No collateral damage? No sellers turning to other crimes instead? None of our children finding it much easier because now it's legal and more readily available? Things become Rosy? Sounds like a dream world to me.

I read this post and am just incredulous.

Is this what they call a nonsequiter?

Substitute liquor for meth and read it again.....

No collateral damage? is the most ridiculuous. It is mainly just, if not plain wrong, disingenuous.

We almost all agree that the meth addict will do anything to get his next fix. So when we drive these sellers into another line of crime, what line is going to create such a bunch of addicts willing to do anything for their next ..........what? Bet? Trick? Pornography? Tax Free Cigarette? Video? Computer Program?

I rambled.

What is the line of crime that the meth dealer is going to turn to that does as much harm to the innocent public as drugs?

I patiently await a response.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

well

"So, legalize meth and it goes away? All the people that use it will stop using it? No new users of the drug? No collateral damage? No sellers turning to other crimes instead? None of our children finding it much easier because now it's legal and more readily available? Things become Rosy? Sounds like a dream world to me.

Or, are you saying revamp the war on drugs and how it's handled?"


No legalize it and most of the property crime and assaults go away
No more new users than we have now
Less collateral damage no need to steal snatch purses etc
the sellers turn to other crime? maybe but we can shut the money pipeline to the mob
Easier for the kids?i work with kids who are addicts and if i ws still getting high i'd cultivate contacts in school. thats the smorgasboard
Nothing about addiction is rosy. i quit because i wasn't dying fast enough
the dream world is the one painted by the war on drugs industry nd make no mistake its a buisness


And goodness yes i say we need to revamp our approach to addiction.

 

[Marshall]

No legalize it and most of the property crime and assaults go away

How do you know? They're still crazed, wired heads, the effects of the drug doesn't change.

No more new users than we have now

How do you know? It will be more prevalent.

Less collateral damage no need to steal snatch purses etc

How do you know? They still have to buy it.

It's my humble opinion that if we legalized meth, the number of addicts in this country would sky rocket and it would be a worse problem than it is presently. I don't want that many meth heads running around, the number we have now is too many.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

can't claim

to know for sure. But i do know that out current policy is a flop. and that in some other contries a different approach generates better results.

ever done any crank? its the need for more that drive an addict out to wreak havoc. and when the price drops to pennies on the current dollar price the amount of stealing needed goes down

its already the drug of choice since we've suceeded in making pot too expensive. now theres a pyryhic victory

you familair with the brits appoach to smack?

 

[pax]

Marshall ~

If it were legal, would you personally use the stuff?

pax

 

[Art Eatman]

Marshall, nobody here is condoning the use of meth. What's being talked about is the psychology of any "hooked" drug user: If he doesn't have to turn to crime to acquire the money for his habit, he won't--or, certainly not to the extent as when his drug is high-priced.

Nobody is necessarily suggesting that cheap or free drugs would not lead to some sort of upwards spike in usage, at least for some short term. However, once the lure of the unknown, the thrill of the illicit is gone, the non-user is far less likely to begin.

Fewer beginners, over time, means fewer users, total.

If the users don't have to mug, burglarize, rob or go into prostitution, isn't that an improvement? Fewer insurance claims at hospitals, or for stolen property? Fewer killed in the shootouts over "turf"? Fewer killed in the overall transportation system from, say, Colombia or Mexico into the U.S.? Fewer law enforcement people or judicial people subject to bribery?

And we'd have tons of tax money to spend on anti-drug teaching in a real-world manner--not to mention drug-treatment hospitals and halfway houses that we need right now but can't fund. Or won't fund.

We've had an official "War on Drugs" since Nixon so named it. What, 1973? Does anybody think we're winning? In 1973, a new pickemup truck sold for under $3,000. A gram of cocaine sold for around $100. Today's same pickemup is around $15,000, but cocaine is still somewhere around $100. That's winning? Duh? It's five times as cheap, now, as it was 33 years ago.

Me, dumb as I am, I think we lost the war. Generally, a loser oughta try something different.

Art

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

thank you Art

for articulating my position better than i did. Maybe if cops weren't garbage collecting all these useless laws they could devote more time to other crimes and god forbid get back to the old days where they were about more than bagging and tagging folks as fast as they can just to keep up

 

[Old Dog]

Art, normally you are the rare voice of reason present ... However, I respectfully disagree with this statement:

However, once the lure of the unknown, the thrill of the illicit is gone, the non-user is far less likely to begin.

Sure hasn't worked with liquor, and there continues to be an epidemic of young folks abusing common, perfectly legal commercial substances -- "huffing." Simply because a substance becomes legal, commonplace or less expensive does not mean that substance will eventually become less abused. In the case of the most addictive drug out there today -- meth -- one cannot speculate that legalization would lead to fewer addicts.

I certainly agree that the methods heretofore used to combat drug abuse in our society have not worked out well, and clearly, more funds for education and treatment vice more funds to law enforcement activities would probably serve the country far better.

 

[R-Tex12]

I have just begun reading about the opium wars of the 1800's. Don't really remember much about them from my college history classes as that was more than 40 years ago and I had other interests (ahem) at the time.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

My reading to this point has been quite limited, but from what little I have been able to glean so far, legalization doesn't seem to be a viable solution. I wasn't aware that the drug (opium) problem in the 1800's was so severe. It certainly seems that what we're doing now (WOD) isn't going to be to be the answer.

A quote from the above site:

"By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficking, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens."

The next step is to check other sources for info re the opium wars.

Rick

 

[cropcirclewalker]

More defective logic.

there continues to be an epidemic of young folks abusing common, perfectly legal commercial substances -- "huffing."

I don't think I even know what is "Huffing" so It must not be a real big problem around here.

Is that where one shoots WD-40 up his nose or Oven Cleaner or Simple Green or airplane glue?

Trying to find a cheap high somewhere else because an arguably safe, God given, substance like Marijuana is not available or prohibitively high priced?

Back in the yon days of yore, Iron men and wooden ships, I remember some of my fellow sailors getting so hard up for a drink that they drink a bottle of "Aqua Velva". Is that huffing?

Cheese, it wasn't too many years after that the British Navy quit handing out rations of rum. They had the right idea.

Like I said, Flawed Logic.

Put a druggie between a can of WD-40 and a can of pot. Which one will he choose. I can answer that one easily.

 

[Zoogster]

Selective enforcement works far better than a total ban. There will always be teenagers trying to rebel and try something not acceptable. There will always be a party crowd looking to change thier sense because partying quite frankly gets old quick and they have to do it from a different mindset to keep it entertaining. You cannot ban these people from existence. I think there is just as many if not more addicts of 'legal' prescriptions just as potent who go to whatever doctor will hand out precriptions like candy. We even have commercials now with people hopping through fields of daisy's and other ridiculous advertisement about take 'this pill and life will be perfect and altered'. The doctor with the education about what is best (even though they get incentives from certain companies, and as such are biased) has people simply come in and ask for something advertized to them, basicly making his education pointless.

My point is the problem will remain. When you demonize specific substances not much worse or similar to other drugs you simply give free advertisement to all those looking for the 'best' drug. So no legalizing it now wouldn't reduce the addicts anytime soon because we have already highlighted it as something to try. However it would stop the majority of both the production and the crimes commited to aquire it by addicts. It would also take out the organized criminal aspect.

Most organized crime exists purely because of banned substances. From our own 'mafia' created from prohibition, to cartels in Central and South America and parts of Asia, and to a lesser extent all over the world. The farmers that grow most of the cocaine or opium poppies (for heroine) only do it because it makes more than growing vegetables. If it didn't make a lot more I can assure you the growing and required processing of them would be less favorable than simply growing a more localy used crop that didn't require shipping internationaly.

The same goes for chemical drugs, if they are not highly profitable addicts wouldn't be making more than they used themselves, something we would like to stop but if someone is that determined all you can do is frown on thier behavior and have nothing to do with them.

Of course as someone mentioned I think a real motivator for the continued war on drugs is much more sinister. Do you know most American created CIA self funded rebellions are funded through illegal drug manufacter? From the 'Golden Triangle' Heroine production of the vietnam war era, to the Anti Soviet Islamic Jihadists and training camps we helped setup in Afghanistan that toppled the Soviet Union and now fight us. To many similar smaller scale setups throughout South America that are anti communist/pro American interests and funded through illegal drugs. If drugs were not highly illegal we would have to actualy spend money to fund these things, and have them easier to directly link our involvement. With drugs illegal they can be endlessly funded (under the radar) by the wealthiest nations that have the cash to purchase them.

Then you have something similar on a local scale, with militarized police and increased government oversight under the pretext of fighting crime and drugs, the majority being drug related. Without a war on drugs justification of using all those cool new toys and stripping people of rights would be hard to defend. No knock raids justified so they don't have time to hide tiny amounts of substances would vanish.The days of people knocking and politely serving warrants to all but the most dangerous wanted men would return. Oh how much harder it would then be to further the cause of a police state when agents representing the government no longer have such a widely available excuse to deny constitutional rights to just about anyone by 'suspecting them of drug activity'.

Sure I would like to see the damage drugs do dissappear, but we cannot make it dissappear only reduce its effect, and out current strategy is highly ineffective. Our successful war on cheap bulky pot has led to our young people trying similarly priced much worse substances that are far smaller and easier to smuggle, essentialy giving criminals more profit for the risk. Instead of large crops, they can have small discreet labs. So we have replaced the peaceful lazy hippies that existed at the start of the 'war on drugs' with violent dangerous meth addicts, such progress.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century.

Sometimes writers use poetic license.

A country literally filled with drug addicts. Is that like a cup literally filled with bacon grease? Visualize. It helps to visualize.

How come China still exists if back in 1836 it was quite literally filled with drug addicts. Isn't that harmful? How did they survive?

Poetic license?

Who invented the chinese finger handcuffs?

 

[Marshall]

If it were legal, would you personally use the stuff?

pax

No I wouldn't but, it's because I have tried it and know what the drug can do to a person. Luckily, I saw what was happening to me after about 10 days, I noticed the road to hell I was on and forced myself to stop, no more, no how. If I wouldn't have, either my heart would have physically stopped me or a bad scene was forthcoming. It was one of the hardest things I have done. I can't imagine being on it for months and months and trying to stop. I lost a good friend to this drug, a father of three, a husband to one and a professional in the Medical industry on top of that. It was two grown men on a fishing trip, men that had been married with kids for 15 years. We had the situation become available and figured ah, what the hell, lets do a "night in college" one more time for the hell of it. Well, 10 days later I stopped, he didn't, he lost it all. He lost his wife, his kids, his home, everything he owned, then he lost himself. His kids lost a dad, his wife lost a husband, I lost a friend and society lost a real good man.

My fear is, too many people don't stop. They keep needing it, then they need something to bring them down on top of that. Few meth users use only meth. I fear for the kids, our children and grandchildren. This isn't akin to going out and buying Budweiser. When meth dries up, they go to diet pills until another batch is ready, if they can't find that or coke, they either go completely nuts, become drunk, or become a lump of crap on a couch until it does. Dangerous or worthless, one of the two.

This is not a drug to turn our kids loose with. I am not arguing that the war on drugs is not working, that I agree with. I am suggesting to you that this drug will steal your kids or your grandkids from you, it will take your friends and your brothers and sisters hostage. It will take people that were not a threat to you and make them a threat. This is no stuff to mess around and experiment with, experiment using or experiment with legalizing.

We as adults have a responsibility to not say to our kids "meth is OK". Kids think they're invincible anyway, tell them it legal and that translates to "it's fine for you, not harmful". They'll relate it to a beer. Yes, I understand, we as parents have to instill in our kids understanding and parent them to not use drugs. I can tell you though, kids will be kids. We are not being good adults if we give them free and legal access to this drug.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

So, there we have it.

You did the drug and you didn't die or ruin your life or the lives of your loved ones.

So,

Why?

Are you just so incrediblly strong and have such wonderful character and strenth of will that you can do the impossible deed?

or...

Is meth not a guarenteed death sentence.

 

[Marshall]

There are no guarantee's in life, except change. Do this drug and I guarantee it will change you.

Yes, I was extremely strong and very, very lucky. I also watched a man that was as strong as I had ever been, go to hell.

It's not a drug to mess with.

 

[.38 Special]

Seems to me, Marshall, that your experience demonstrates that, despite the illegality of meth, anyone who wants to take it can. That speaks well for the argument that legalizing it wouldn't really make much of a difference in the number of users. Really, though, the only prior experience the country has in such matters was the ending of prohibition. The best statistics available indicate that alcohol use increased slightly and then leveled off. Meanwhile, crime took a nose dive, deaths from tainted "homemade" booze were practically eliminated, law enforcement at all levels was freed up to pursue more serious crimes, and tax revenues at all levels increased, some of which was/is used for the funding of treatment for alcohol addiction.

Of course, some people still drank too much, damaged their livers, drove their cars into things, and ruined their lives and their families. Their ain't no perfect solution. There's just better and worse -- and legalization is better.

 

[Marshall]

Seems to me, Marshall, that your experience demonstrates that, despite the illegality of meth, anyone who wants to take it can

How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. The only thing my experience demonstrates is my experience, and it tells nothing of how it came about.

I see positive and I see negative, but I'll never be convinced to tell kids meth's OK. Legalization would say that. It's my opinion ladies and gentlemen, agree or not, but it's mine.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

its yours

" see positive and I see negative, but I'll never be convinced to tell kids meth's OK. Legalization would say that. It's my opinion ladies and gentlemen, agree or not, but it's mine. "


deed it is, and you bought and paid for it so i will respectfully agree to disagree.


booze is legal but i do my best to show kids that here is a down side to that too. and have better sucess than you might expect.
sorry about your buddy addiction is an insidious thing. takes some you wouldn't expect. there seeems to be no ryhme or reason to it. in my case i was able to quit most things easily... but had a heck of a time giving up booze and pot. its weird.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I see positive and I see negative, but I'll never be convinced to tell kids meth's OK. Legalization would say that. It's my opinion ladies and gentlemen, agree or not, but it's mine.

I think that what you are saying is that you would be willing to tell children that tobacco is OK.

Yes?

It's legal.

Yes?