Mexican Gangs may be moving into Meth

Status
Not open for further replies.
``Mischaracterizing the impact of methamphetamine by exaggerating its prevalence and consequences while downplaying its receptivity to treatment succeeds neither as a tool of prevention nor a vehicle of education,'' he wrote.

Yup, but it keeps money coming to the legion of cops and DA's who butter their bread with "war on drugs" funding. The system demands we face a new scary threat every few years. By keeping the taxpayers afraid, it keeps them from asking too many questions. At the same time, the system must appear to be making progress. So the threat must be from a new direction. Meth is just the latest in a long, long line of bugaboos that were about to turn the nation into crazy druggies.

Cosmoline, go snort this for about a week and come back and report. Actually don't, I would rather you stay clueless on this, it's much better for your health, and ours too.

This argument reminds me of attemped comebacks from the antis. They always try to make it personal, claiming that I won't understand until my kid blows his head off with a handgun. It's an old falacy. Misleading vividness I believe. Followed by the parade of horribles. And here's the first float in the parade:

Rural America will resemble Afghanistan in another ten years. If NarcAmerica is what we want, that is what we'll get.
 
I read an article about a studay done on addiction and it stated only about 10% of the population has the genetic makeup to become full blown addicts.
I tend to agree with that theory it seems like some people can try addictive drugs and walk away & others become hooked immediately.
Some people are weaker then others...
Good reason to have stand your ground laws...
 
Most addicts *DON'T* in fact rob 7-11's. If they do, it's not the fault of the drug but themselves. I don't buy into this business of blaming substances for problems, even though it's en vogue to do so.

And truth is, most addicts who get their hands on a gun would rather hock it than commit robberies with it. Selling it is a much easier and faster way to get money.

I tend to agree with that theory it seems like some people can try addictive drugs and walk away & others become hooked immediately.

I've seen this first hand, many times and believe the theory. However...

Some people are weaker then others...

It has nothing to do with strength, or willpower. Addicts are some of the most strong willed people you'll ever meet. Science hasn't figured out what causes addiction, why some are predisposed to it, and how it can be cured.
Too much money goes into the enforcement of useless drug laws, and not enough into figuring out how to reduce the demand.
 
The point I was trying to make (notwithstanding how addictive or who/what is to blame here) is that the simple act of prohibition is creating far more dangerous products than the earlier ones. I really surprised that folks here don't see that since we're alway discussing the unintended consequences of well-meaning regulation. The danger we now face is that if we can somehow restrict or enforce the new prohibitions, what newer, stronger, more-addictive, dangerous, cheaper, longer-lasting, undetectable, easily-made drug is around the corner. We seem to keep going down this road and always seem surprised at what is at the end of it. :banghead:
 
That is a tragic story, and I hope things work out for her and her kids. It makes you wonder how anyone in their right mind can advocate legalizing this stuff, or propose just leaving it alone.
So what part of our current war on drugs is effective?

Its a shame people use meth, I'm sure its really bad stuff. Much like how we say though that criminals will get guns if they want them and gun control only effects the law abiding, we can say the same thing about the war on drugs. We aren't making progress, people that want drugs still make, use, and sell drugs. Meanwhile a ton of my tax money goes to a war on drugs and I have to buy sudafed during certain hours and show ID to have it recorded now.

Other than a warm and fuzzy feeling, what does the war on drugs actually accomplish? Honestly for that warm and fuzzy feeling I'd rather legalize it, eliminate the black market, and wind up with a lot less violence around drugs. It'll still be a shame there are addicts but at least they can get their fix without stealing my car.
 
I've lived with a meth addict, and I watched it totally destroy his life. now it was his own fault for trying the stuff in the first place, but after he got into it, it changed him.

This stuff is a mind altering substance, were there no long term effects I'd be all for legalizing it, as I am for legalizing cocaine and weed, and heck just about every other drug out there.

The problem is that once the person makes the mistake of taking some of the stuff once, they are no longer the person you knew. you can't trust them again, you can't turn your back on them again.

we need to make cheep alternatives that are non addictive/less addictive available to the public.

For me it comes down to responsible use, I don't have a problem with the responsible use of any inanimate object.

you want a machinegun? own a machinegun.

you want a car that can do 208 mph, fine get one

the problem is that there are things in this world, that cannot be used in a responsible manner.

I believe that meth is one of these things.

its like alcohol and firearms, there really isn't a way to responsibly combine both.

there really is no way to combine meth use with anything in a responsible manner
 
Crystal

Meth...Crystal...has been a growing problem since the 60s. I've lost a few friends to it, and have known several more who...after just a few years of
"Gettin' Tweaked"...frankly ain't worth the powder it would take to blow what's left of their brains out. Two of my own cousins...one dead because of it...have left a bad taste in my mouth that'll go with me to my grave. I watched it happen. Two brothers out of four in the family...utterly ruined.

I'll concur with Jeff. Go deal with somebody who'd been cranked up for just 72 hours, and I promise you that it'll change your whole perspective on the stuff.

Personally, I'd rather have a nest of rattlesnakes in my yard than a tweaker livin' block away. At least the rattlers let a body know what they've got on their minds.
 
And all this about LEO's protecting me from ravening meth wolves is a lot of hogwash. There virtually *IS* no law enforcement where I lived out in the north Susitna valley. Once you're off the highway, you're in the wild west. But the tweakers posed no greater threat than anyone else. At most they're an annoyance. The propaganda that anyone who does meth is an instant animal, out there with no self control trying to slaughter everyone is complete hogwash. And it's not even new hogwash. It's the same swill the state has been serving up for 75 years in its efforts to protect the monopoly of the big drug companies.

Cosmoline nailed it with this earlier post. I've dealt with tweakers. They are no more dangerous than any other criminal, IMO. Now, what we may be seeing is a regional disparity. IIRC, Jeff White is in Illinois, while Cosmoline is in Alaska. I formerly lived in CA. The behavior of tweakers, I've found, varies wildly depending on geographic location. In CA, the tweakers were agressive, overbearing jerks eager to ride over honest folks in search of their next fix. Here in Oregon, they're polite and courteous. I believe the difference is they know if they get out of line here, someone might decide to drop them. Lots of honest folk with guns here, and in Alaska. While this isn't that similar to alaska, we share (to a certain extent) more of the same mindset than Illinois or CA share with us.
My sister has been a tweaker, and hung out with tweakers, since 1990 or so. A lot of kids I grew up with are tweakers now. I've arrested tweakers while a loss prevention agent, and unarmed security. I've thrown more than a few out of bars over the course of 5 years as a bouncer. Your average tweaker is nothing compared to a half-drunk redheaded girl whose boyfriend is draped over a bleached blonde in a honky tonk bar.
The fault lies partly in the way society treats criminals. As with so many other things, CA deals by half measures, and it shows in the agressiveness of tweakers and panhandlers.
Not that Oregon is blameless. We're doing our part to bring in the Mexican gangs, too. It's illegal to buy or sell Nyquil and a dozen former OTC drugs here, unless you get a prescription from your doctor.
It's the same old Prohibition tale all over. You don't see Budweiser reps gunning down coors reps on street corners, do you? Marlbro(?) isn't trying to steal turf from the Virginia Slims people, right? And yet, drug dealers do these same things every day. The Oxycontin people aren't trying to take over the Ritalin gang by infiltration, are they?
The meth problem is, as someone else mentioned, just a scare tactic. Oh, it's a problem, yes. But it's being made worse by the War on Drugs, and overblown by the media and government.
 
Well when the word of this gets out to those who did the restriction, the reply will most likely be something along the lines of, it will make meth more expensive and therefore meth usage will go down. Well the first part is right, but not the second part. It will just increase larcenous crimes as metheads steal more to support their habit. In Portland Oregon the Mexicans do not lead the Meth trade(they do however lead the Marijauana Trade, and the chinese lead the heroin trade), most of the Meth trade is run by (from what I can tell so far) as 75% white and 15% black with the remaining 10% being others. Meth is a HUGE problem here. Restriction of all sorts of things, cold medicine, allergy medicine, the sale of matchbooks(yes as red phosphors is used in part of the manufacturing process and that is on the little strike strips ont he matchbooks) have done nothing. It's trivial to walk into a chem labs upply and buy red phosphors, and also it's trivial to get an aggricultural permit and go to the local aggricultural supply store and buy ephedrine chicken feed in bulk which is easier to break apart to gain pure ephedrine hydrochloride (also cheaper) then it is to do it from pills.

Replacing the fanbelt on your car every month isn't going to fix the problem. Find the cause and fix it, and then you won't be replacing fanbelts every month.

The problem isn't the guns, it's the criminals and moral devalue that has crept into society.

The problem isn't medication, it's the same as above.

Find the SOURCE of the problem.

If 99% of the marijuana trade comes from MExico and Columbia, take care of it there. If the mexican government laughs at you, bitch slap them. IF the problem lies within our own country, find the source and take care of it.

In addition bringing moral values back up in this country to what they used to be, would have a significant effect on things. Our culture has come down to what false euphoria can I get to day, what do I get out of it syndrome, and rich punks who have no idea what reality of everyday life is as they are so shielded from it.

Rev. Michael
 
Call me a fascist, and qoute me all the statistics about how the war on drugs is this or that until your blue in the face. All I will do is remember a very nice, but naive girl named Lisa that I dated for a minute a few years back. Lisa was a very pretty, very sexy redhead that was stupid enough to get into meth because a bunch of lowlifes that she knew said it was cool, like long-term Ecstasy. Last time anyone saw her, they said she looked like a zombie. Her hair was falling out, her teeth looked like she had been bathing them in sugar and snuff and her skin was out of control. Meth is a plague on this society, and on this issue, no one will get me to think any differently, ever.
 
Call me a fascist, and qoute me all the statistics about how the war on drugs is this or that until your blue in the face. All I will do is remember a very nice, but naive girl named Lisa that I dated for a minute a few years back. Lisa was a very pretty, very sexy redhead that was stupid enough to get into meth because a bunch of lowlifes that she knew said it was cool, like long-term Ecstasy. Last time anyone saw her, they said she looked like a zombie. Her hair was falling out, her teeth looked like she had been bathing them in sugar and snuff and her skin was out of control. Meth is a plague on this society, and on this issue, no one will get me to think any differently, ever.
I can't even imagine how hard that is to watch. Just don't forget the "don't bother me with the facts, I've had a bad personal experience" is something that so many use to support gun control as well.
 
Reason goes right out the window and the fight is on. No when it comes to meth, very few people have a clue to the ugliness of the battles that are fought every night to protect decent folks from the most insidious and destructive drug to ever hit the U.S.

In November I stopped to see what a guy was doing who looked out of place one night in a neighborhood. I asked to see some ID and in a flash the guy pulled an eight inch fixed blade knife from behind his back and tried to stab me in the face. Needless to say the fight was on. Anyways in the end he told a jailer that he thought I was going to take his meth pipe which he had just loaded up.

For all you guys who have just thought "hell, I would have just shot him", sometimes you are too close and things happen too quick to get a gun out, sometimes you have no choice but to go hands on, if only to create distance.

He was willing to kill me so as not to lose his fix for the night.

First off, IV Troop, that's a BUTTLOAD of crank! Good bust!

Second, (and no slam intended to any of the members of this board), if you have a laid back attitude about crank/meth/ice, you have not experienced the joys of dealing with a tweaker.

I am not the most athletic person in the world, but I am 6'2", and 315 lb. I wear a size 54 shirt and size 42 pants. I bench 230 for reps.

I had a tweaker shorter and skinnier than me toss me and four other guys around like ragdolls when it was time to put the cuffs on.

I also had the singularly most depressing experience of my life--when my then 18 year old daughter physically attacked me--TWICE--to get out of the house to get her crank. When someone you love comes into the house smelling like formaldehyde, skinnier than a stick, and sleeps for 18 hours straight coming off a meth binge, you feel despair like you have never felt before.

Weed? Dump it out and have a nice day.
Alcohol? You want to liquefy your brain, your business--as long as you're not driving.
Possession of meth? NO slack. You're going to jail.
A distributor? I'll take a personal interest in taking you down.

There is nothing safe or redeeming about that garbage.
 
How long does a person on meth take to go al the way down the spiral? I've had relatives that meth "helped" on their downward turn. If the market were flooded, however, how long would would it take for this problem to become self-limiting?
 
I dont care what the Liberterian philosophy says.. In reality, drugs like meth and crack destroy people.

And they dont just affect the people that they destroy.. they affect the community when the addicts start robbing others and selling their bodies to make more money to get the drug. It doesnt matter if these drugs are legal or not.. once the users get addicted, it's over... there goes the neighboorhood.
 
Powderman

I feel your pain. I sincerely do. However, jailing drug addicts seems to do little if any good. The girl I mentioned spent four months in jail. Sure, it got her off the drugs for a while. But, she only lasted about another four months before she went back to the drugs. That is not uncommon.

The problem is, that jail does nothing to treat the addiction. Instead of jail, I would like to see mandatory drug rehab, in a secure facility. It can't cost much more than sending them to jail, and I think it would reduce the chances that the state will have to deal with them again.
 
Unfortunately our war on drugs changed the drugs of choice by aspects of society. Cracking down on plants like marijauna which are easier to target because they are grown led to more chemical based drugs that are created.
Instead of those with addictive personalities latching onto pot etc and being lazy, you have them latching onto meth and being highly active stealing and plotting.
Yes society might want no drugs, but having less harmful drugs much cheaper and more widely available means they are more often the route of abuse instead of more damaging (to the individual and society) chemical/ refined drugs.
Even heroine addicts are preferable to meth addicts because they are not highly active criminals, but are instead zoned out addicts sleeping in some hole in the wall while using.

Meth is by far the worst drug in America. It is also far from harmless as by design it stops the uptake of certain chemicals used to think in the brain. This leads to the high and the increased clarity in short time as the chemical responsible for transmission remains constant instead of being broken down as natural. The bodies response to this is to adjust by making less of the chemical in the body. This leads to meth users actualy getting slower and dumber over time, quite contrary to the appearant effects to the user.
It also seems to seriously age people, as meth users of years tend to appear twice thier age. So even someone that recovers from the addiction is forever changed for the worse, being slower in thoughts, and physicaly aged.

Also once a demand gets above a certain point cutting local supply of course is going to lead to more dangerous organized crime taking over. With illegal alien neighborhoods all across America the Mexican Cartels find it much easier to blend in and operate in America.
The only feasible solution is to have less damaging drugs cheaper and more widely available as trying to get rid of them all is a losing battle. That way your left with at least more manageable addicts. Human societies have had addicts as far back as recorded history. The trick is to point them in the direction of least harm to society. The only way law enforcement can control the black market is by selective enforcement, not total enforcement on everything.
 
"Meth is by far the worst drug in America."

I don't think so. It's just relatively new, so we're shocked by the effects.
I live in a poor, rural area. Meth is pretty bad around here. The new law has closed down most of the labs, which is good, since our underfunded county was spending huge sums of money to clean them up.

However, alcohol is the biggie. Alcohol kills huge numbers every year, both directly, through organ breakdown, and indirectly, through car crashes and such. Our shelter for battered women, our hospital, and our jail are mostly full because of people abusing alcohol.

We're just used to the effects of alcohol. We've already tried to ban alcohol and we know it won't work. The system we currently have for regulating alcohol is treat it as unavoidable nuisance. That's not much of a moral stand, but apparently it's all that we are willing to do. I suspect in twenty more years we will have something similar for marijuana, cocaine, and maybe meth, too.
 
All I know is we talk an awful lot about Liberty for a people that is becoming, or already is, Addict Nation. That goes for the malignant turn our economy has taken with mass consumerism, as far as I'm concerned, and its bastard progeny, narcissistic hedonism. You have to wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think of today's America.
 
This nation as long loved its chemical joys. Indeed, we've been an "Addict Nation" from the get go. Remember it was a tax on tea (source of caffeine, a neurostimulant) that some colonials were up in arms about. A chief export of our early days was tobacco, source of nicotine, another addictive drug. Ale houses were common in our cities, where people would consume ethyl alcohol into the wee hours of the night.
You have to wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think of today's America.
I suspect he would be quite dismayed at how we've let our servant government become our master.
 
It sounds like people are blaming meth but the person who chooses to take it is to blame. They have a choice. I wouldn't never try it. It's that easy.
 
This nation as long loved its chemical joys. Indeed, we've been an "Addict Nation" from the get go. Remember it was a tax on tea (source of caffeine, a neurostimulant) that some colonials were up in arms about. A chief export of our early days was tobacco, source of nicotine, another addictive drug. Ale houses were common in our cities, where people would consume ethyl alcohol into the wee hours of the night.

Your point is well taken, Sindawe, and I was not arguing for prohibition or chemical "purity." One is either master of oneself in matters essential, though, or one is not. The stimulants have changed, and so have the people. It could be argued that humankind is inseparable from some sort of "high," true enough, but we still come back to whether you are, in the end, in control of your fate.
 
It could be argued that humankind is inseparable from some sort of "high," true enough, but we still come back to whether you are, in the end, in control of your fate.
Indeed longeyes. And sadly some people just can't control their own fate. It may be drugs, it may be politics, it may be religion that is their poison of choice. But I am reminded of a joke pithy saying I first heard in the 1980s.

"Reality is for people who can't handle drugs." :D
 
Okay, so they want to make it a hassle to get Sudafed and whatnot. Why not have give and take here? They can take the sudafed away, but they've got to give me amoxil over the counter... any reason why antibiotics are regulated?

Don't expect the politicos to be passing laws because it will do anything to curb the problem. They do it to be seen as 'righteous' in the eyes of the people. "Look, we're fighting to end drugs in America! We've made it tough to get Sudafed! Remember me come election day!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top