Marijuana.com

TheNewGuy

Why? Have you met and interviewed the majority of meth users?

Umm...you can't just go out and buy regular medicinal meth for recreational use. If people can't get the legal version, they'll make thier own version.

Also, Troublemaker said that because hes seen people use meth and ruin thier lives (the meth did it, not the person, remember that) he doesn't support its legalization. A few years back a friend of a friend that I used to hang with died from heroin, I'm still for the legalization of heroin though. Not going to go into all the details of off topic substances, but the reason I'm still for the legalization of all drugs including meth is this: People, for all eternity, will always find ways to get drugs, and will always use them to alter thier conciousness, no matter what you do. Look throughout history. People have always, as far back as we can see, done drugs of some kind, not always for spiritual or religious purposes either. You will never, ever, for as long as humans exist, get rid of any drug. It'll never happen. Actually, I'd have to be omnicient to say that, let me rephrase: There is a 99.9999999999% chance that it will never happen.

There are countries that deal the death penalty or life in prison to people who sell drugs, that have not seen a decline in drug use since those penalties were put into effect. The only thing making a drug against the law does is make the dealing, manufacturing, and sale of that drug more dangerous than if it was legal. Harsher sentance for sale=higher price, higher price=higher stakes, higher stakes=more people shooting eachother so they can sell the drug.

Let me also point this out: If [insert highly addictive drug with adverse health effects here] were legalized tommarro, would you start doing it just because it was legal? If meth was legalized tommarro, would you run out and buy up all the meth you saw? Yeah, exactly. If someone is already adamant about not doing hardcore drugs, why would making it legal make everyone start doing drugs? Its so frustrating talking to people and getting the same response. "Do you want a world where everyone is OD'ing and scratching their skin off because they think they have bugs crawling on them? THINK OF THE CHIIIIIIILLLDREN!!!!1one" Stupid.

Okay, look at the number of illegal drug users in the US right now, which is estimated to be 19.5 million (although I'm sure the number is higher when you count all casual marijuana users). If those drugs were as dangerous as the government propaganda (and the mass media) would have you believe, the US would collapse on itself. 19.5 million people all doing something that sopposedly makes you "ruin your life" and scrath your skin off or [insert any other rediculous adverse effect here]? Yeah, thats believable. Oh, btw, I forgot to mention that the total number of deaths per year from drugs is around 17,000. The amount of people who died from poor diet and physical activity was 365,000. About 21 times the amount of people that die from lack of exersise die from illegal drugs, but people pay more attention to drugs than thier own fat asses. Alcohol which is legal kills 45,000 people a year, and people are afraid of Meth? Its all sensationalism, the people were told there was a drug problem so they said "What, there is? Well then, what should we do, The Government"? Then the government said "Well, just let us take care of things, don't worry your little heads about things you don't understand". And now all drugs are illegal, and if you talk about legalizing them they state what they were told on NBC news at night. Hooray ignorance!

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke

 

oneluv4boognish

I'd support the legalization of the prescription methamphetamine...but no way would i support legalizing crystal. No one would need drano based drugs if there were quality drugs available....

__________________
"Swirling with visions on man's confusion All of the work, done just to appease him The Argus cries, though love has its place in the sun It's only man's fear that carries him on..." Ween

TheNewGuy

No meth in the world is "drano-based", sometimes people use household products that contain certain chemicals to make thier own meth though. Its not like they just throw Drano and a couple other things in a bucket and stir it. Meth is meth no matter what, "crystal" meth isn't special in any way, its just not as pure as meth produced in a lab. The stuff on the street just isn't produced to the exacting standards as prescription meth. Its not like meth on the street is actually a bunch of completely random chemicals thrown together to get you high (like huffing household stuff for a buzz), its still meth, but the chemicals used to synthesize it were taken from products that also contain other chemicals, which end up in the final product.

The point is, if meth was something you could legally purchase in a store, it wouldn't be impure. Instead of getting the chemicals needed for production from sudafed or Drano or batteries, they'd get it in bottles from secure labs. Therfore it would be safer alltogether if they just made it legal and regulated its production. As it is people just make it however they can, because they don't have the choice to buy quality product.

troublemaker_42

No, I haven't, but I doubt anyone making the claim has either. I'm still waiting for proof that most users of methamphetamine use in a controlled manner and are not a threat to themselves or to others, and are in reality the average everyday, wel-adjusted people you seem to believe they are. Having worked with methamphetamine addicts in a professional setting, as well as having extensive contact with them on a day to day basis in my personal life, it simply isn't what I have seen, and don't think the population I've come into contact with is any better or any worse than the average meth users. I've seen lots of hypothetical guesses as to what the "average" meth user is like, but have seen nothing to back it up. When I have a choice between what people think, and what I've personally experienced, I'll go with the personal experience. As buzzby stated, scientific studies would be better, but I've yet to see any that support the claims that most meth users successfully control their use, use in a safe manner, or are not a threat to themselves or society

Cassius

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

You know, most people that don't smoke marijuana personally, have the same feelings towards marijuana users that you just said about meth users. They feel that stoners are just a bunch of lazy, couch-potato, low-life, loser wannabes with no ambition in life other than to fulfill their munchies craving. The reality of marijuana use is far different, isn't it?

I get what you're saying about personal experience, but also keep in mind that this personal experience you have deals with meth users in a rehabilitation situation. There are meth users who can't handle what they do just like there are marijuana users who can't handle what they do. I'm not saying there is or isn't a safe, responsible way to use meth, because I don't use meth. But I am saying that you can't say there ISN'T a safe way, you can't say that the majority of meth users DON'T use it responsibly, based on your personal experiences in a rehabilitation environment. Of COURSE the meth users you met have depicted problems with their meth usage!

The fact of the matter is, marijuana arrests and rehab registration has gone up consistently for several years. But you and I don't think there is a "marijuana problem" that is getting worse, do we? Because we know that most of the info that goes around about marijuana is propaganda, but more important we know that for every one marijuana user that is arrested and put into rehab, there are ten or fifty or a hundred marijuana users that never get arrested and do just fine on their own. Why are you so quick to buy into literature that rehab sells to meth users, when you know how bad the info about marijuana is? At least, I assume that's what you mean by you working with them in a "professional environment".

I've used meth one time, and I smoked it, I didn't inject it (I hate needles). It was basically speed with a little extra head rush (most of the speed drugs seem a lot the same to me). I personally haven't let myself get any since that time, because I've had experiences with other speed drugs in the past and it is certainly my euphoria of choice -- I know that it is my weakness and I could so fall into a downward spiral with that kind of thing, because I love that feeling so much. So I'm wise enough to keep myself away from something that I have a weakness towards. So, I'll just say that like you, I don't know that meth users are able to use responsibly either.

But, I don't think it's right for you to assume they can't just because you have no evidence that they can, especially when you're basing your opinion on working with them in a professional environment -- a professional environment wherein they no doubt have come to precisely BECAUSE they have admitted (or someone else thinks) they have a problem.

To be fair, I have to admit that like a lot of other people on here, I really don't see much of a difference between most illegal drugs. They're just like marijuana in that, they can be dangerous for the wrong people, they have to be used responsibly, and their prohibition causes more problems than it solves. Marijuana is just the easy one to protest prohibition of, because it is so much more benign than other illicit drugs. Only a few people ever develop a problem with marijuana, and in most cases (barring allergic or chronic respiratory problems) it is simply a case of ambition, of self-discipline, of moderation, and not really the fault of the drug. In other words, the same user that has a problem with marijuana in most cases would also have a problem with any other drug, or with junk food, or with caffeine... because the problem is them, not the drug. So marijuana is easy because it is so benign... and yet it still must be used responsibly, and with care. You don't smoke "just whenever" and you don't smoke until you pass out (most of the time =p). I really don't see how other illicit drugs are any different, except as a matter of degree, but not as a matter of kind.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

 

troublemaker_42

I understand where you're coming from, but take a look at what I'm saying. I've basically been told personal expeience is no susbtitute for scientific study by Buzzby, and then the only thing he tells me is that he and his friends have used methamphetamine without problems. So have I.....I've used meth on a handful of occasions back when i was in my "try everything once or twice" phase. I didn't care for it. Staying away, for me, was an easy choice because, compared to many of the drugs out there, it held little appeal to me. Aside from my experience working in the prison system thogh, I've seen PLENTY of problem associated with methamphetamineuse/abuse. Add that to the fact that all I've seen from people here are also a combination of personal experience and hypothetical reasoning, and I remain unconvinced that meth would be less of a problem if it was legal.

Buzzby

Meth itself might not be less of a problem, but on a cost/benefit analysis the costs of prohibition always outweigh the benefits of prohibition.

Prohibition benefits:
1) some people might be deterred from using a potentially dangerous drug.

Prohibition costs:
1) cost of investigating drug users/suppliers.
2) cost of apprehending drug users/suppliers.
3) cost of trying drug users/supplliers.
4) cost of incarcerating drug users/suppliers.
5) death/injury to police, suspects, and bystanders while apprehending tweakers.
6) police/politicians corrupted by drug money.
7) lack of respect for law enforcement.
8) environmental damage from clandestine labs.
9) death and destruction from exploding clandestine labs.
10) theft/violent crime associated with acquiring money to buy drugs.
11) addicts avoid treatment to avoid police involvement.
12) misinformation fed to public by drug enforcement/control agencies, leading to bad choices by public.
13) honest drug education blocked by drug enforcement/control agencies.
14) due to #1 - #4, little funding available for honest drug education/treatment.

Every time a new "evil" drug comes along it's touted as the worst thing in the world, try it once and you're an addict for life, no one has control of their usage, the end of civilization as we know it, etc. Take a look at the propaganda produced before alcohol prohibition was instituted by the ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919. Take a look at the Reefer Madness campaigns in the 1930s. We found that living with alcohol was a lot better than the vain attempt to keep people from getting what they want.

__________________

troublemaker_42

We're going around in circles here. I can't and won't support legalization of meth. I've yet to see anything that convinces me that it'd be a good thing other than the "prohibition is bad" arguments that could be applied to any substance. The impact of meth affects not only the users, but everyone exposed to meth abusers as well. One of the basic principals of freedom is that we should be free to do basically whatever, until t starts encroaching on the rights of others. I feel thaqt meth users are not only a danger to themselves, but to the general population as well, therefore, my belief will likely remain that it should remain illegal, unless prescribed, as it is currently

Cassius

That's the only argument you really need. Look at the reasons you gave for the opposite argument:

Those reasons are caused by prohibition. Making it suddenly legal with no regulation OF COURSE wouldn't change anything, but making it legal and regulating it heavily would do wonders! All of a sudden people could get it in a safe environment where they knew what they were getting, they wouldn't be exposed to other drugs that they might not want (via the black market), they wouldn't be harming other people.... similar to heroin clinics used in the Netherlands.

I guess the point Buzzby and I are trying to make, is that in the absense of any evidence for OR against it, then nothing should prohibited until and unless there is a compelling reason to prohibit it. Fear of the unknown is not a compelling reason.

I understand all the harm that you've seen come from the drug, but I question whether most of that harm came from the drug, or whether it came from prohibition, or whether it came from the inability of its users to practice self-control and moderation (a problem marijuana shares, and a reason for prohibition that marijuana shares).

I also understand it's hard to imagine how anything useful could come out of legalizing it. I also understand it's hard to understand how in any circumstances anybody would choose to use it, barring addiction. But that's still not a reason to make the entire substance forbidden -- history has shown time and time again that forbidding something only makes it more enticing to the people who are forbidden from having it. This goes all the way back to kids in candy stores.

I guess it's a progressive kind of thing. The more society advances, then (hopefully) the more responsible individuals will become about their choices. It's hard to imagine a reason for meth being legal when we aren't even legally allowed to have marijuana. I can relate to that cognitive difficulty. But can you imagine how the founding fathers would react if you told them women should be able to vote, when african americans (slaves at that time) couldn't even vote or own property? Voting used to be the enfranchisement of a very select group -- white, male landowners. If you weren't white, you couldn't vote. If you weren't male, you couldn't vote. If you didn't own land, you couldn't vote. Giving people freedom on any one of those issues took time, trying to do all three simultaneously would have been virtually impossible!

So it is with drug legalization. It is my hope that the responsibility for effective decision-making gradually migrates from the society/government to the individual. More freedom is never a bad thing. Even if that freedom is the freedom to put potentially fatal, addictive substances into your body.

Buzzby

Correct. The argument applies to any substance that is prohibited and it's valid. You seem to be missing the main point: prohibition does not stop people from getting, using, and abusing whatever substance is under consideration. All prohibition does is create a whole array of new problems.


That argument could be applied even more to alcohol users. Should we reinstate the 18th Amendment? It worked so well the first time and things have gone completely to hell since it was repealed.