Meth, Sudafed and Gun Laws (Part II)

[Al Norris]

The previous thread was shut down due to the nastiness that was occurring.

In that thread, I had opined that 1) meth supply was not a problem related to clandestine home production but with superlabs and 2) that the prohibitive laws on lawful use pseudoephedrine (and drugs in general) were nothing more than the same prohibitive laws we know as gun control.

Rob P. called me on that. I intend to answer his challenges. But there will be some strictly enforced rules to this thread:

If you have nothing of substance to add to this discussion, as it relates solely to the 2 points I gave above, do not post. I will delete your post entirely, if in my opinion, or that of another moderator, it departs or detracts from this particular discussion. No recourse. My decision or that of another moderator are final.

* Subpoint to the above. Should anyone continue to post non-sequiturs to this thread, you will be banned from TFL.

If you do post and in my opinion, or that of another moderator, your post is one of flaming, be it name calling or innuendo, you will be banned from TFL.


From this post:

Originally Posted by Rob P.

I don't know where the justice Dept is coming from on this (and I haven't heard what you've cited but will assume it's true) that illegal meth labs aren't a big problem. From what I understand most of the meth in the U.S. is cooked at home labs. They don't smuggle it into the country.

From the CATO article by Radley Balko:

But even the government's own data suggests that these laws won’t work, and won't significantly curb the supply of meth or its use. In some ways, they'll likely only make the problem worse. They'll put recreational meth users into more frequent contact with smugglers and traffickers, likely sparking increases in black market violence.

According to the DEA's own website, most of this country's meth comes not from garage laboratories in the Midwest, but from clandestine "superlabs" in California and Mexico. These labs smuggle pseudoephedrine in bulk from Mexico and Canada and use it to manufacture street methempamphetamine, which they then distribute across the country. Cold and allergy medicine never enters the picture. It's almost certain that these superlabs would compensate for any small dip in the meth supply caused by limiting homemade "meth cooks'" access to pseudoephedrine.

DEA Data for all states reporting, from 1999 to 2004:
Meth Clandestine Laboratory Incidents
Including Labs, Dumpsites, Chem/Glass/Equipment












Is there a correlation between pseudoephedrine laws and a drop in Meth Lab incidents? Hard to tell, actually.

In the 5 year period above, Idaho went from 132 incidents to 42 incidents, with no such laws being passed. Find your own state and see... Incidents are going down, nationwide, without the resort to such laws.

The numbers of clandestine methamphetamine laboratory incidents reported to the National Clandestine Laboratory Database decreased from 1999 to 2004. During this same period, methamphetamine lab incidents increased in midwestern States (Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio), and in Pennsylvania. In 2004, more lab incidents were reported in Illinois (926) than in California (673). In 2003, methamphetamine lab incidents reached new highs in Georgia (250), Minnesota (309), and Texas (677). There were only seven methamphetamine lab incidents reported in Hawaii in 2004.

It appears that there is, as yet, no correlation between restrictive pseudoephedrine laws and meth labs themselves.

Methamphetamine abuse, long reported as the dominant drug problem in the San Diego, CA, area, has become a substantial drug problem in other sections of the West and Southwest, as well. There are indications that it is spreading to other areas of the country, including both rural and urban sections of the South and Midwest. Methamphetamine, traditionally associated with white, male, blue-collar workers, is being used by more diverse population groups that change over time and differ by geographic area.

According to the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, an estimated 8.8 million people (4.0 percent of the population) have tried methamphetamine at some time in their lives.

Data from the 2000 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), which collects information on drug-related episodes from hospital emergency departments in 21 metropolitan areas, reported that methamphetamine-related episodes increased from approximately 10,400 in 1999 to 13,500 in 2000, a 30 percent increase. However, there was a significant decrease in methamphetamine-related episodes reported between 1997 (17,200) and 1998 (11,500).

Yet, armed with this data, what does the DEA actually say about preventive measures?

Enforcement: Dismantle meth trafficking organizations and both the superlabs that are trafficking the drugs across state and national borders and the tabletop labs that produce local supplies. At the federal level, the DEA goes after the major traffickers. At the local level, the DEA trains local and state law enforcement agents in spotting and safely seizing smaller operations. The DEA also assists with clean-up costs of these labs.

Community Engagement and Prevention: Prevention drug use is the first step to avoiding drug abuse. Schools, churches, businesses and, most importantly, families need to be aware of the danger that meth poses. Parents should not take it for granted that their children understand the risks associated with a drug like methamphetamine because too many kids don’t. Businesses can also get involved through drug-testing programs. Retail outlets can also help by controlling the volume of precursor chemicals any one individual can buy over the counter. This will help block local dealers from setting up tabletop labs.

So, armed with the facts that in most areas of the US, tabletop labs are less of a problem, the DEA is insisting that restricting the precursor drugs must be a priority in combating the flow of meth. Sorry, but the facts say otherwise.

The facts say that tabletop labs are not the problem. Enforcement of current laws are in fact doing their jobs. It is the superlabs that are the problem. Superlabs do not get their supply of precursor drugs from the local stores and nothing in the DEA websites suggest that they do. From the same page as the last given citation:

"Tabletop" labs on the increase
One of the reasons meth is such a threat in rural America is because it is cheap and easy to make. Drugs that can be bought over the counter at local stores are mixed with other common ingredients to make meth. Small labs to cook the drug can be set up on tables in kitchens, countertops, garages or just about anywhere. Although superlabs, operated by sophisticated traffickers still supply the majority of meth, these smaller tabletop labs have increased exponentially in the last decade, setting an alarming trend.

The above is completely contradicted by the charts used at the top of this post (please note the bolded portion, above).

My next major post on this thread will attempt to draw the parallels between anti-drug laws and anti-gun laws.

[Trip20]

I find it interesting how the state of California went from 2,579 incidents in 1999, to 764 incidents in 2004. Comparing this to the state of Missouri who went from 439 incidents in 1999, to 2,788 incidents in 2005, and a peak year of 2,885 in 2003.

As California's incidents depleted, certain other state incident rates seemed to rise. Ultimately, in 2004 most states seem to be on a downward trend. Iowa is one example of an exception; the incident rate is rising.

Very interesting. Thanks for the research.

[Sulaco2]

Not sure except for the title what this has to do with guns as is demanded by the staff of TFL....Or is this a personal agenda of the staff that is ok? What is the point of this thread except I want drugs legal for me?

Ban me if you want for free speech but this type of thread in my .02 had little or nothing to do with the reason for TFL as stated in the protocols stated by staff.

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by Sulaco2

Not sure except for the title what this has to do with guns as is demanded by the staff of TFL....Or is this a personal agenda of the staff that is ok? What is the point of this thread except I want drugs legal for me?

Ban me if you want for free speech but this type of thread in my .02 had little or nothing to do with the reason for TFL as stated in the protocols stated by staff.

Let me help you out. Read the following carefully:

Originally Posted by Sulaco2

What is the point of this thread except I want drugs legal for me?

If you read Antipitas' entire post, and this is all got out of it... I suggest you read it again. The thread is about whether or not such laws work as promised, whether or not such laws are even necessary, and whether or not it's a waste of time and money to write and enforce such laws. The thread has everything to do with legal issues, which is just one purpose of this particular forum.

[Wildalaska]

Al, I personally am wresting with the whole Psudafed issue for this reason: My information from street cops is that at least up here, it is home cookers doing the damage. I see the need for the new regime, I just think its sort of stupid in terms of efficacy....

Let me ask this question though..if rather than putting Psudafed (and I can't take any of that stuff so the whole issue doesn't affect my health) on a"limited purchase sign the book type deal" the government made it a controlled substance requiring a prescription, would folks object?

WildletsnotevengetintothewholeprescriptiondrugthingingeneralAlaska

[invention_45]

Sualco2, you are making the common mistake of assuming that anybody who'd want drugs legalized wants to take illegal drugs.

I, personally, would like to see far less people using such things as methamphetamine or heroin.

Arguments made in the other thread and, to an extent, data provided by Antipitas here in this one, suggest that what's now being done does not achieve that goal.

All that happens is that the manufacturing locations and facility types are changed around.

Total supply is probably static or increasing. Maybe throttling the supply of Sudafed at drugstores is reducing the number of "tabletop" labs, but it's only a matter of time before another process replaces it. As I've said before, that process may be safer or more dangerous. No way to tell. But there WILL be another process. In organic chemistry, there's a lot of ways to skin a given cat.

So the only real effect is to make Sudafed first harder to buy, if only a little harder, and then, most likely, like ephedrine, impossible to buy.

Sudafed clears my sinuses with minimal mental impact. Sudafed PE clears them some, causes my chest to thump, and makes my head feel fuzzy. I have a real reason to want Sudafed to remain where I can grab it when I want it.

I can't do the same job with Sudafed PE as I can with Sudafed. Just like I won't be able to do the same job with pepper spray as I can with my .45 when the grabbers turn their attentions from drugs to guns.

[Eghad]

I do not see how these laws are going to eliminate home labs. Especially here in Texas where some enterprising criminal can go to Mexico and buy it in bulk and smuggle it across the border. In the long run the law will be useless. Plus we will have created a new criminal enterprise in smuggling bulk and selling it to home labs.

The only ones effected by this in the long run are law abiding citiziens. When I go to buy this product I dont buy a dozen packages I buy one package that is going to last me for the course of the illness and probably have some leftovers.

When it comes to the hard core criminal class, laws are not a deterrent they just serve to mete out punishment if caught. We outlawed alcohol during the depression, we all know the results of that experiment.

[invention_45]

I was going to write a whole big thing, but (lucky youall) my fingers got tired.

I just want to know what is going to happen when some chemist figures out a process that makes meth or some other drug using smokeless powder as the perfect catalyst, lead as an intermediate, and the nitrates in gun cleaning fluid as a starting material, giving the banners a perfect excuse to make ammunition a watched substance.

[seeker_two]

As someone whose health IS affected (via allergies) by these Sudafed games, I am worried that:

1. My name goes on a list of possible meth makers that, with a judge's OK, may one day be considered enough probable cause to warrant a search of my person & property and the scrutiny of a criminal investigation.

2. The next step is to make these drugs prescription-only--meaning that millions of allergy sufferers will have to spend the time and money to go to a doctor. And how will that extra expense affect insurance, Medicaid, etc?

3. We're spending millions of dollars and LEO man-hours on regulating law-abiding citizens while these drugs will come across our unguarded borders with everything else....

This is a waste of resources at best---and a frightening portent at worst...

[Al Norris]

Sulaco2, Trip20 answered your objections and pretty well stated the premise of this part of the thread.

Wild, I don't believe anyone but the poor would object too strongly to Sudafed going back to prescription status. It would be a financial burden on the poor, who simply don't have the $50+ to pay for the doctors visit to get a $5 prescription. Similar to a $200 tax on a $35 silencer....

invention_45, I have that same problem, Sudafed v. Sudafed PE.

seeker_two, I have the same problem with the "lists" the pharmacist is going to keep. Simplest case; anybody remember signing for bullets when you bought them? That did what, exactly? Worst case; abuse of the list by the PTB.

[Rob P.]

According to the DEA's own website, most of this country's meth comes not from garage laboratories in the Midwest, but from clandestine "superlabs" in California and Mexico

Part of my issue with this is the fact that as a Calif resident I see the damage done by the "superlabs" and the fact that what is being called a "superlab" is really common here so I'm more familiar with them. That means I automatically equate all labs as equal in scale to these. Something I need to be careful of when discussing this issue because they are different.

Also the quoted stmt makes a hidden limitation in that it compares the full output of the superlabs with only the labs in the midwest. According to the data, there are more places with tabletop labs than just the midwest.

This makes the data analysis a bit suspect because it uses these hidden modifiers to support the end conclusion even when the data speaks otherwise. The analysis even alludes to this fact, albeit for different reasons in a different summation.

This hidden modifier creates problems when considering the source(s) of the compounds used. Since there are 2 sources, one must attempt to control both in the effort to eliminate the problem. Failure to make a distinction between the 2 sources causes confusion in the final analysis.

So, take the superlabs and the bulk importation of compounds out of the equation. Where is the major source of psuedoephedrine for ALL the remaining tabletop labs going to come from? The drug store is your likely answer because these little labs don't have the resources to get the compound in bulk overseas and get it here.

And this data also supports my positon that most of the country's meth is cooked in home labs. Yeah, the superlabs are making tons of it but there's so much demand for it that they can't handle the production load. Look at the graphs for confirmation of that.

If the superlabs in mexico and calif were able to be the sole producers of the product in demand, then why all the little labs in the other states? And do you think that the 7,269 tabletop labs (total of all labs in 1999) don't make at least an amt equal to the few "superlabs" in calif? Again, where did these little labs get their basic stuff?

Now look just at the data about lab incidents. Wow. All those little labs that went Boom! aren't just remote possibilities either. It's a real danger that destroys property, injures people, and costs the taxpayer lots of money to fix through higher taxes or higher insurance premiums and deductibles.

So, the crux of the issue, should we allow meth to be freely made and distributed? Consider the fact that it's dangerous to make, costs taxpayers money to repair the damages done, and the demand is super high and growing so you'll see lots more home labs cooking the stuff.

Add to that the factor that if meth (and other hard recreational drugs) were freely available, there'd be lots more "drug incidents" between those under the influence and other people. Spousal abuse and battering would increase as would child abuse and endangerment. Don't forget public intoxication either. This creates a higher burden on our courts to prosecute these co-related crimes and increases our inmate population.

Is it really fair to let people abuse themselves to the point where they physically hurt or endanger others? Is this proper? Does this advance society?

Now consider the fact that someone has to pay for the repairs. This comes in part in the form of increased taxes. Direct taxes to provide additional court and prison requirements. Indirect costs to provide addition resources to societal programs such as welfare, Aid for Families with dependent Children (AFDC), Food stamps, homeless shelters, and other programs that are designed to help the needy. The numbers of which will increase as the availability and use of hard drugs increases.

All these are questions that need answered in some fashion. Saying that Merck will take up the slack is merely passing the buck and avoiding the issue. If the costs are there, SOMEONE will have to pay them in some form. If the pharm companies can't directly include the costs in the drug sales in order to compete with home lab prices, they'll have to raise the costs of other meds to compensate. Again, a hidden cost that no one has discussed or (apparently) considered.

Then there's the argument that Merck and friends will take over the market is not justified by the data. Merck will merely take the place of the superlabs. If the superlabs can't handle the demand then Merck won't be able to either. This allows for the continued existence of tabletop labs and their unregulated dangers. The argument fails to encompass these facets of the problem.

Lastly, how about the proposition that people should be free to choose because otherwise it's a limitation on individual freedom. Well, are people currently free to do ANYTHING they want to do without restrictions? Commit murder? Steal? Rape? Pedophilia? Animal abuse? Of course not. Freedom comes with limitations because there are more people and issues involved that just a sole individual. Thus, society must consider the welfare of ALL citizens when evalutating whether to allow a specific "freedom" or to regulate it. This isn't limiting or restricting freedom. Instead it's creating a guideline so that the majority of people have the greatest freedom possible. To believe otherwise is to take the narrow view at the expense of those whom we need to protect.

Hows about a different thread for the discussion on drug laws being the same as gun laws. Otherwise it'll get complicated here.

[Fremmer]

meth supply was not a problem related to clandestine home production but with superlabs

At least here in Nebraska, this assertion is incorrect. People were making meth in small labs in a room of a house, part of a barn, a ditch in a field, or the trunk of a car. There may have been superlabs, but the numerous small labs were the ones making the news after an explosion, raid, etc.

The clandestine home production is a problem that is separate and distinct from the meth consumption problem. When you are out hunting and stumble accross a small meth lab, it is a really nasty surprise. I have a friend who inadvertantly found one while hunting, and it scared the heck out of him. That stuff is explosive, and if you accidently kick over a glass jug that is covered by grass, you can have a real problem. Another friend (who is a farmer) was having his ammonia stolen on a weekly basis. It was getting to the point that he was keeping a loaded rifle at the ready.

Since the restrictive law concerning Suda-type drugs was passed in Nebraska, there has been a significant decrease in the meth lab problem. Note that I said the meth lab problem, not the meth consumption problem. I doubt that the restrictive law will curb meth consumption. The meth will simply be imported from Mexico, like many other illegal drugs.

I have had to sign for Suda cold medication once, and it was irritating. I was really sick. I had to wait in line, produce my driver's license, sign for the Suda, and pay for it at the pharmacy counter.

[Al Norris]

One of the problems we are dealing with here, is that the data supplied, is supplied by the DEA and NIH.

The DEA certainly has an agenda, so perhaps their data is in fact tainted? But to what extent? I'm less certain about the NIH, but I suspect that they also have an agenda.

We either take the data at face value, or we discard it as being false. The various state legislatures are taking this data as being true. As is the Congress itself. No one, but a few of us, are protesting that the data is contradictory at the least. Instead, the state and congressional leaders are simply enacting law that will in fact do no good. But it is being perceived as doing something... Anything, to stem the flow of illicit drugs.

Add to this that a few years ago, the Feds passed a law that required all drugstores to report single purchases of 1 gram or more of certain precursor drugs to the DEA. The Manufacturers responded by taking those bottles of 90-100 tablets off the market (and increased their profit margins by doing so). This required a clandestine chemist to purchase multiple packs of the precursor, multiple times at multiple stores. It was easier to spot.

But many stores sell the precursor, not just drug stores. It was these non-drug stores that were difficult to get to report abuses. Cashiers were not adequately trained. Thus the clandestine operators went from shopping at the drug stores to shopping at the local supermarket.

This law, which was meant to stem the flow and identify the chemists failed utterly.

Many of the proposed laws will remove the precursor drugs from the shelves of all stores, except those that have valid pharmacies. Many of the proposed laws will require that the pharmacy keep and maintain a list of those who buy the drug(s).

Many states already have or will have laws prohibiting more than a minimum amount of the precursor drugs.

Remembering that the Federal law already provides for reporting of purchases above the 1 gram limit... Of what use will these lists serve that simply chart people that are buying well below the threshold limit?

I submit that such lists will do nothing but add costs to the retailer. Plus there is the added ability of abuse of the lists and the information contained by those that are mandating such lists. It is inevitable.

Are there alternatives?

[Eghad]

dangers of such lists......

you mean that companies might use the data for purposes other than record keeping Surely this cant happen in America where privacy is protected by our government...

[Harley Quinn]

I believe the Meth coming into CA and other states around the Mexican border is because it is "Hecho en Mexico".
Tunnels and all the ways they are bringing it in, would verify this thought.

A friend of mine moved to Arizona and he is fairly close to the border, say's it is unbelievable the amount of problems they are having. Lots of the information never reach's the papers.

HQ

[Fremmer]

We either take the data at face value, or we discard it as being false

I'll assume that the data is true. It clearly shows that hundreds of meth 'incidents' occur throughout the Country each year. As far as Nebraska (and many other states), the new law was only recently passed, so an insufficient amount of time has passed to demonstrate a correlation between the new law and a significant decrease in the number of incidents. Too bad that the data only goes to 2004.

[Al Norris]

Fremmer, on this page, you will find the number of labs siezed for Nebraska. Date ends at 2005.

Each states' meth lab seizure data can be found here.

You will find that this set of data is completely different from the "incident" found elswhere.

Example 1, Idaho (no law):

Year/Inc/Seized
1999 132 ---
2000 127 ---
2001 131 131
2002 119 122 **
2003 091 090
2004 042 027
2005 --- 021

Example 2, Oklahoma (law enacted):

Year/Inc/Seized
1999 404 ---
2000 399 ---
2001 806 809 **
2002 883 709
2003 1068 894
2004 659 404
2005 --- 220

** Major discrepancy between incidents reported and labs siezed!

It is data such as the above discrepancies which leads me to conclude the data is not trustworthy. If you take the time to browse and compare seizure data with incident data, among the various states, you will find more discrepancies than not.

[Harley Quinn]

Hi,
Sudafed has been a problem for many people for 25 years. I remember asking for a prescription from my doctor in the 80's and he said that he felt Tavist was better and wrote that one for me. I used it sparingly because that is my nature.

I believe the Meth of today is really messing up the nation. If the govt could shut them all down I would be a happy camper.

I am LEO and have seen the problems on the street, the terrible things that happen to the ones taking it and shooting the stuff is horrible.

Hells Angels and others have the major handle on the making and distributing of meth and it has been that way for years.

I don't believe that shutting meth labs and taking sudafed off the shelves correlate to firearms issues.

It is like saying a restriction on these diet drugs is correlated to firearms.
It is a safty issue for humans, simple.

I would like to see the Govt. take MSG off the shelves and out of the food chain. It is harmful to 25% of the population and they are allowing it to be in food. Ridiculous.

HQ

[publius42]

Originally Posted by Sulaco2

Not sure except for the title what this has to do with guns as is demanded by the staff of TFL.

While we are waiting for Antipitas' next major post on this thread, which will be on that subject, keep in mind that drug war precedents have been shown to spread to the gungrabbing war. For example, the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act set the legal stage for the later National Firearms Act. Later drug war precedents were set which allowed the transition from use of taxing authority to the use of commerce clause authority in the gungrabbing war. More recently, we've seen a proposal in New Jersey to apply the civil asset forfeiture abuse nurtured by the drug war to the gungrabbing war, seizing the homes of people who possess illegal guns. And, last but not least, last summer we saw a drug war case once again used to set the stage for a firearms case.

I'll stop relating the drug war to the gungrabbing war the day after politicians and judges stop it.

[Al Norris]

Publius, that one of the reason that I suspect got Thomas all riled in the recent Oregon v Gonzales case. A divided Court in Raich ruled for the government on Commerce Clause issues, which reversed the 99ths' ruling in Stewart... Yet later ruled for Oregon, and against Gonzales and the Commerce Clause. Had Oregon been first, the ruling in Stewart may have been upheld!

I don't have much hair left, so I really had to restrain myself when these rulings came down.

Now, as for my next (major) post, does anyone reading this not understand how the same criteria for drug prohibition is used for gun prohibition? I ask, because if there is an understanding, it will not be necessary for me to type another 750 word article.

[12-34hom]

Iowa legislator has set forth changes as to the purchase of types of pre cursor type drugs use in the manufacture of meth.

Since those changes have been implemented in this state - 80% drop in meth lab seizures in this state. [Except for three counties in SW Iowa that border Nebraska - their drop = 27%. I saw the reported on local TV - 3-20-06] In my county where i work; there have been no reports of anhydrous ammonia stolen for over 9 months. Before this it was a weekly occurrence.

It would seem to work in this state.

12-34hom.

[publius42]

Now, as for my next (major) post, does anyone reading this not understand how the same criteria for drug prohibition is used for gun prohibition?

No, I don't understand.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Publius42

No, I don't understand.

There's got to be one in every crowd, and you nominated yourself, yes? ... OK, I get the hint already!

[invention_45]

"Add to that the factor that if meth (and other hard recreational drugs) were freely available, there'd be lots more "drug incidents" between those under the influence and other people. Spousal abuse and battering would increase as would child abuse and endangerment. Don't forget public intoxication either. This creates a higher burden on our courts to prosecute these co-related crimes and increases our inmate population.

Is it really fair to let people abuse themselves to the point where they physically hurt or endanger others? Is this proper? Does this advance society?

Now consider the fact that someone has to pay for the repairs. This comes in part in the form of increased taxes. Direct taxes to provide additional court and prison requirements. Indirect costs to provide addition resources to societal programs such as welfare, Aid for Families with dependent Children (AFDC), Food stamps, homeless shelters, and other programs that are designed to help the needy. The numbers of which will increase as the availability and use of hard drugs increases."

--- This is already in place and happening with alcohol, yet you offer no objection.

Meth's popularity is, in part, due to the fact that it can be easily made in tabletop labs. Make other harmless recreational drugs legal and you'll probably remove a lot of the demand for meth.








"All these are questions that need answered in some fashion. Saying that Merck will take up the slack is merely passing the buck and avoiding the issue. If the costs are there, SOMEONE will have to pay them in some form. If the pharm companies can't directly include the costs in the drug sales in order to compete with home lab prices, they'll have to raise the costs of other meds to compensate. Again, a hidden cost that no one has discussed or (apparently) considered."

--- I'll repeat what has been said elsewhere. Merck et.al can beat the pants off any tabletop lab on a dose-for-dose basis hands down. They have roomfuls of old tablet presses. They have idle tablet presses. All they have to add is a product manager, a Ph.D to oversee, and ten or so production workers, a QA manager, and a production manager. They ALREADY have all the overhead you speak of. Meth is so easy to make that they can do it for a penny a dose. When all's said and done, it'll enable them to reduce the prices of their other medicines. Ivax will make it for a half penny a dose.





"Then there's the argument that Merck and friends will take over the market is not justified by the data. Merck will merely take the place of the superlabs. If the superlabs can't handle the demand then Merck won't be able to either. This allows for the continued existence of tabletop labs and their unregulated dangers. The argument fails to encompass these facets of the problem."

Meth is such a simple process that if Merck doesn't have the capacity and Ivax doesn't have the capacity, it'll be produced as a commodity like aspirin by Dow. If Dow can provide all the aspirin (which it once did) for the nation, it can certainly provide all the meth.

Merck, Ivax, and Dow don't make their high-volume products in little glass flasks like you might envision. They make them in enormous (500-gallon) stainless steel reactors. Dow's main production facility, in Midland, Michigan, is constructed like a small town. It has about 20 streets and 20 avenues.

Each block contains a plant for producing a particular chemical, and is crammed with pipes and vessels, and runs 24/7.

There would be no inability to supply meth, believe me.








"Lastly, how about the proposition that people should be free to choose because otherwise it's a limitation on individual freedom. Well, are people currently free to do ANYTHING they want to do without restrictions? Commit murder?"

--- has a victim

"Steal?"

--- has a victim

"Rape?"

--- has a victim

"Pedophilia?"

--- has a victim

"Animal abuse?"

--- has a victim

"Of course not. Freedom comes with limitations because there are more people and issues involved that just a sole individual."

--- yes. victims.

"Thus, society must consider the welfare of ALL citizens when evalutating whether to allow a specific "freedom" or to regulate it. This isn't limiting or restricting freedom. Instead it's creating a guideline so that the majority of people have the greatest freedom possible. To believe otherwise is to take the narrow view at the expense of those whom we need to protect."

--- Just like with alcohol, we control the damage done to victims by laws restriction ACTIONS, with enhanced sentences sometimes for the involvement of the abused substance. That's fine by me.

[pipoman]

Back in my late teens/early 20 I did some stupid things. Among them experimenting with a variety of illegal drugs including meth. For those who don't know I will briefly tell the effect of this drug.

1. Meth may be abused by either snorting up the nose or intravenously.

2. It is very acidic and corrosive. A razor blade used to prepare meth for snorting will rust at an accelerated pace after contact with it.

3. I never put anything IV into my body. When snorting this drug the burning sensation in the nasal passages is almost unbearable....almost. The acidic properties will cause frequent nose bleeding, loss of sense of smell, damage to tooth enamel, sore throat, anemia, I am sure others I am forgetting.

4. Effect of use is 12 to 15 hours of an overwhelming sense of euphoria, inability to sleep, ability to drink unbelievable amounts of alcohol without feeling its effects, loss of appetite, loss of concentration, perception of time is diminished, overwhelming desire for more.

Back in 1986 when I had my 6 month swaree with "crank", I lost a lot of weight and I wasn't overweight to begin with. The last month of my "addiction" I lost track of time completely. The supply dried up for a few days, long enough for me to "dry out". I realized a month had passed and I could not remember any of it. I never touched the stuff again. I am lucky, no long term damage from use (I am aware of). While I don't consider meth to be extremely physically addictive, it does require a desire to quit to get off of the stuff.

I offer this info because I have read both threads and haven't heard any first hand experience described.

I stated in the last thread Meth is an addictive and very physically harmful with potentially long term health effects.

Unlike cocaine, marijuana, conventional narcotics and amphetamines, alcohol, LSD, "magic mushrooms", opiates including heroin (I never tried this one), I feel long term use is far more physically damaging than any other drugs I am aware of.

BTW I have been totally drug free for nearly 20 years (except for the occasional neat single malt which I will never give up ). My early experimentation has often given me an edge in the investigation of drug cases. I tend to ask the right questions while interviewing both law enforcement and pedestrian witnesses in drug cases.