Another outrageous prison sentence in the War on Drugs...

[Druidus]

It is hard to imagine a drug with a worse reputation than meth. Other drugs (beginning with alcohol, but including cocaine and heroin) take more lives in Minnesota. Through the first nine months of 2002, Hennepin County medical examiners linked methamphetamine to a total of eight deaths--one fewer than caused by the prescription painkiller OxyContin. And yet meth remains uniquely reviled. In part, this is because meth has stamped its imprint on rural, white America, which is not supposed to have "city" drug problems. And, of course, there are the properties of the drug itself, or at least the perceived properties. Meth, the conventional wisdom goes, makes people into violent monsters, causes them to chop the heads off their own children, or, at the very least, makes them into ********. In a 1965 interview, Allen Ginsberg (who wrote his classic poem "Kaddish" on a three-day speed bender) took pains to make distinctions between meth users and users of other drugs, saying: "All the nice gentle dope fiends are getting screwed up by the real horror monster Frankenstein speed freaks."
There is still some reason to temper broad claims--and they've come from some unlikely quarters. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice, which is the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, released a study that looked at the drug history of and criminal charges filed against 7,355 adults arrested in five western cities, including such meth hotbeds as San Diego and Portland. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the study found that just 16 percent of arrestees who had used meth were charged with a violent offense. Among non-meth-using arrestees, that figure was 28 percent. The explanation of the study's authors: "The popular press has sensationalized cases in which violent acts occurred when the suspect was under the influence of meth."

http://citypages.com/databank/24/1171/article11254.asp

 

[gnomon]

I find the lack of contempt for the sentence in this case rather disturbing.

This man was not charged with any crime that defined intent to do harm. Some may disagree but the intention of doing harm to another human being is hardly the philosophy of a drug dealer/manufacturer. This man was not even charged with a violent crime. At best, the meth lab posed a potential risk. If any children resided at the house then you can tack on child endangerment.

99 years for this crime is ludicrous. Especially in light of the history of drug laws which are an indirect cause to the proliferation of drugs like meth in the first place. Harsh sentences as examples in drug cases are worthless. Meth is an economic, homegrown powerhouse. Sending this guy away for 99 years will mean nothing to those people after the money.

 

[Druidus]

I strongly disagree Druidus. I believe that methamphetines are VERY dangerous substances and their use should not be encouraged in any way.

Belief does not equal fact. I don't encourage the use of methamphetamine at all, and would never use it personally. But I won't try to stop or penalize others who do.

One may as well drum up an argument for the recreational use of nuclear weapons. Used in small doses, they aren't THAT harmful. All you get is a little hole, a bit of glow and some pretty impressive fireworks.

False analogy, YmirGF. Most drugs are nowhere near as damaging as even small doses of radioactivity.

Druidus, just because you are using these chemicals "responsibly", doesn't mean a thing.

I think that it does.

If you tell others that they are perfectly ok to use, can you be sure that they will use them responsibly too?

I never tell other people to use them. In fact, I tell those who ask me to teach them about marijuana or DXM to learn to meditate well first, at least. I offer to teach them that. Then I give them only non-biased information, not in favour of drug use or drug abstinence. It's up to the individual to decide.

Are you perhaps purporting the safety of non-medical use of drugs to sustain your own justifications for using said chemicals?

Not at all. If you don't understand, that's fine. A lot of people don't. I examine my drug use from a rational viewpoint. I look for positives and negatives. To be honest, there have been several spiritual positives with my drug use. I got closer than ever before to merging with a tree while using DXM, almost as close as the first and only time I ever did. Contact is easier and merging seems to be too.

It is foolish and bigoted to discount the possibility that drugs aren't necessarily bad.

Any "responsible" person can take a drug and open their inner doors.

Not true. Without extensive preparations, I will never get a good DXM trip. I'll just end up puking. Psychoactives are helpers, they don't do the work for you.

I

can only ask, when will you decide to enter those doorways without the need of a chemical daypass.

People seem to suggest that I "need" drugs a lot. I don't. I enjoy them, and that's why I use them. They have helped me advance my understanding of the world and of myself, but I don't need them to further this understanding.

How long will you insist on duplicating the experience to get it through your head?

Duplicating what experience?

Chemical enlightenment is a crutch Dru and the sooner you toss them aside, the sooner you will learn to walk on your own inner feet.

Chemical enlightenment? I don't understand what you mean. I don't think that my drug use is a crutch, either.

Or will you become like Timothy Leary and become addicted to the experience the crutches bring?

I respect Timothy Learly very much.

You don't need chemicals Dru. I wonder how long it will take you to realize that.

I know I don't need chemicals. I wonder how long it will take others to realize that.

People who make methamphetamines are in the business of destroying the lives of others and should be dealt with firmly.

There is no evidence for this. They are not destroying the lives of anyone. Did you get your opinion solely through media bias?

Honestly, I'm quite discouraged by the number of otherwise intelligent people who discount the benefits of drugs without any rational analysis. Some even seem to get a certain sense of righteous morality out of it.

 

[Druidus]

"There is more to reality than you have confronted."


Really, what more can I say.

Are you questioning its validity? I know that almost every single person I say it to will apply.

Or, perhaps, are you implying something else?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What surprises me, alot of people on these forums mention how drugs destroy lives, and yet the thing is, there are alot of people that use drugs that tell no one, and you would never guess it. Lawyers, doctors, scientist, and many other "well respected" white collar profesions have people who use drugs, and there are drug users all the way down, and up, the social ladder. The problem with statistics on how many people actually use drugs is, you have self-righteous, holier-than-thou, goodie-two shoe people who might use drugs, but will never admit to it, andthier are some people who can't admit it because of thier profesion. I am willing to bet my next pay check that if people were honest, the number of people who have experimented with drugs, and the casual users, is much higher than any statistics ever released.
Sadly, some people have taken to the media lies so much, that I know some people who believe someone who is stoned is entirely unpredictable, and can become very violent in a second. I have followed that up with, "Unpredictable? Throw them a bag of cheetos and some gatorade and they'll be your friend."

 

[c0da]

I tell those who ask me to teach them about marijuana or DXM to learn to meditate well first,

Please explain how this makes drugs any less dangerous than they already are?

 

[Sunstone]

There is no evidence for this. They are not destroying the lives of anyone. Did you get your opinion solely through media bias?

Even if it turns out to be true that meth is less dangerous in at least some respects than alcohol, Druidus, and even if it turns out to be true that the media has exaggerated the dangers of meth, it still is not true that, "there is no evidence...[meth is]...destroying the lives of anyone". That claim is even contradicted by some of the very evidence you yourself have cited in comparing the dangers of meth and alcohol.

BTW, could you provide links to your evidence? This subject is too important not to go to the sources.

 

[mr.guy]

One may as well drum up an argument for the recreational use of nuclear weapons. Used in small doses, they aren't THAT harmful. All you get is a little hole, a bit of glow and some pretty impressive fireworks.

Dude, way to trivialize nuclear war. Real cute.

Druidus, just because you are using these chemicals "responsibly", doesn't mean a thing. If you tell others that they are perfectly ok to use, can you be sure that they will use them responsibly too? Are you perhaps purporting the safety of non-medical use of drugs to sustain your own justifications for using said chemicals?

He's done nothing of the sort. Why is he obligated to cease his drug use for fear of others potential abuse?

Any "responsible" person can take a drug and open their inner doors. I can only ask, when will you decide to enter those doorways without the need of a chemical daypass. You already understand there is much to learn, and much to see. How long will you insist on duplicating the experience to get it through your head?

How frustrating it must be for you to be inundated with the spiritualy immature. While it seems we're all thrilled to bits whilst being chided by your "matter-of-fact" mystic authority, when are YOU gonna let some of the other "off the beaten track" spiritualists have a little wiggle room?

 

[Maxist]

I am inclined to agree Druidus.

 

[mr.guy]

Strangely, I did not think I was trivializing nuclear war in any way, shape or form. I was drawing a perfectly legitimate comparrision, directly to the implication that using meth is perfectly safe.

The implication is wholly yours. I haven't found anyone else on this thread to have made this claim: "perfectly safe" other than youself.

Taking meth, for whatever reason, is about as reasonable as setting off a tiny nuclear explosion in your back yard on the Fourth of July.

Especially since we're canucks.

However, comparing "destructive behaviour" to wanton destruction makes light of previous nuclear carnage. I may as well say that LSD is exactly like hitler; perhaps it will summon the desired imagery i wish to evoke regarding dangerous psychoactive drugs, but fails to hit the nail on the head. It's unfair to other debaters, and ignores the true danger nuclear armament; how reasonable either is in direct contrast to the other is, in the end, just a critique of bad ideas altogether.

Heck, let's all chip in and buy Druidus a few ounces of Meth so he can really get down to some serious investigations.

Fine. Let's just suppose that's exactly what i was getting to. You've found me out.

You don't give many fools slack either, now, do you.

I'm unconcerned with "fools". Considering that i'm participating on a forum that is largely just holding a measuring stick out towards its members' imaginary friends, "foolery" is just fine in my books. I object to what on this occasion is unfairness; there were and are plenty of means to redress debaters without resorting to flamboyant, misleading or hysterical arguments (i should take my own advice here, as well.). Not to (yet) accuse you of the aformentioned tactics, i should still maintain that you're capable of more directly interacting with druidus's arguments; nearly everyone here is.

 

[Ardent Listener]

Dru, let's assume your claim that alcohol causes "FAR" more deaths than meth is accurate. Were the statistics you saw on that weighted for any difference between how many people consume alcohol versus how many people consume meth? If they weren't, then how do you know the larger number of deaths due to alcohol do not reflect the possibility that alcohol is consumed much more often and by more people than meth? And if the statistics were weighted, then how did the statistician arrive at a reasonable and factually based weight to give them? In short, I suspect the statistics you saw are relatively meaningless when it comes to comparing the dose to dose leathality of alcohol and meth.

I would guess that alcohol causes more deaths than meth. After all, alcohol is both addictive and legal. However, meth can leave a person in a living hell in which he or she will never be the same again. My brother left home, on vacation, a healthy "normal" teenager of age 15 with a friend's family and a bag of crystal met. He returned to us a metal illness and a life-long struggle and disability. Today I spoke to his nursing home and pleaded with them that they do everthing in their power to keep him there on medicade. I truly believe that he would not live long on the outside.

I know that no one here is saying that meth is a good thing.:clap I smoked pot and I also know that we are not talking about the same thing when we compare it to meth.
I would never smoke pot again, but I can see it legal someday. I pray that meth becomes history in our society.

 

[mr.guy]

I would never smoke pot again, but I can see it legal someday. I pray that meth becomes history in our society.

I worry if it's hopeless optimism that suggests to me that legal pot might kill or disuade the attraction to meth and crack. I think it is.

 

[Ardent Listener]

I worry if it's hopeless optimism that suggests to me that legal pot might kill or disuade the attraction to meth and crack. I think it is.

My brother started off smoking pot.........but so did I and that is where it stopped with me. If legal pot were to disuade the attraction to meth or crack, I would be for it. I'm not sure that it would though because they are two different kinds of "highs" with different neurological chemicals involved.

 

[ch'ang]

Strangely, I did not think I was trivializing nuclear war in any way, shape or form. I was drawing a perfectly legitimate comparrision

This makes me want to tear down the closest media stationa and tear it down with my bear hands.

It still amazes me that people want to make their personal choices law. Let people make their own choices, don't force them to make yours.

 

[mr.guy]

Ok, I am calling you out. Have you ever taken Methedrine? Have you ever taken LSD?

Calling me out? Two things:

1)While i would prefer to keep such details to myself, i could also very easily lie about what drugs i have or haven't done. I've done my best to not inject any personal views or allusion to preferencial drug use in this thread.

2)That you chose to argue your feelings/experience regarding drugs with wild metaphor (that you insist is literally equitable) is your issue; i would prefer comparison of "facts". So precisely what sort of "stand-off" are you fishing for?

You'll note i've taken no issue with your view on drugs (meth, in this instance) per se, and must ask: where are you going with this?

 

[jewscout]

meth's great!!!






if you don't mind putting paint thinner and acetone (used in nail polish remover and superglue remover) into your body.

derrrrrrrr:areyoucra

 

[Druidus]

Jewscout, those products can be used in the making of methamphetamine (a valid medicine which can be prescribed for ADHD). They are not in the final product, unless the product is shoddily made.

Ch'ang, I am under the mistaken impression that the possession of Meth is illegal across the globe. Is there someplace that Meth possession is legal? Has any country that has made their possession illegal, done a sudden backflip, and made them legal again?

Just because something is law doesn't make it just. I don't quite see what you are getting at here.

It is already a bit late to complain existing laws are unfair, as you are unlikely to get the laws changed. Very slim, to nil actually, and because of that REALITY, this whole discussion is moot.

I'm rather surprised that you would use this rationale. You are suggesting that we should not attempt to change unfair laws merely because we are unlikely to succeed? I'm glad that not all people subscribe to this philosophy.

My brother started off smoking pot.........but so did I and that is where it stopped with me. If legal pot were to disuade the attraction to meth or crack, I would be for it. I'm not sure that it would though because they are two different kinds of "highs" with different neurological chemicals involved.

In Amsterdam, hard drug use went down significantly with the legalization of marijuana. As well, this drop in hard drug usage (including alcohol) has stayed. It's not a temporary thing.

By the way, I sent Druidus a PM, late last night, regarding my feelings on the matter. I am still waiting for a reply.

As soon as I can I will reply. Things are a bit hectic around here right now.

I worry if it's hopeless optimism that suggests to me that legal pot might kill or disuade the attraction to meth and crack. I think it is.

It is not, as is shown by the results of marijuana legalization in Amsterdam.

Taking meth, for whatever reason, is about as reasonable as setting off a tiny nuclear explosion in your back yard on the Fourth of July. Since I was a meth user for about a year (from 16-1/2 to 17-1/2) I figured I knew what I was talking about. Silly me. Thanks for the lesson on trivialization.

Hard as it might be to understand, you have to realize that your own personal anecdotal evidences do not equate global facts. Others may be able to use it fine, especially if they have the willpower to conform to rigid schedules of usage. Your experiences do not necessarily equal the experiences of everyone else on the planet. Others may find meth to be different than you do.

Again, silly me. What could I possibly know of the inherent dangers of using meth. Heck, let's all chip in and buy Druidus a few ounces of Meth so he can really get down to some serious investigations. How arrogant of me. *rolls eyes*

First of all, I'm not at all interested in trying methamphetamine. Secondly, again, you are one person, not all people. You may know the dangers to you and those like you, but not all people are the same.

Not that I dispute the dangers of methamphetamine. I just don't think they are as prevalent or extreme as many make them out to be. A not-so-close friend of mine has used meth for over five years, and he's fine. He just makes sure not to use it too often, and never to binge on it.

 

[gnomon]

meth's great!!!






if you don't mind putting paint thinner and acetone (used in nail polish remover and superglue remover) into your body.

derrrrrrrr:areyoucra

That's great. If this is the best you can add to the discussion I suggest you don't even bother.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have no problems with SEVERE penalties associated with the manufacture of these types of drugs. Often they are poisonous and the DANGERS that they put their neighbors in show a complete lack of judgement. Hopefully in a hudred years they will learn not to endanger others for their own benefit.

 

[Druidus]

Thank you for that Jewscout.
Might as well get out the liquid drain-o and use it as a tastey chaser.

Whatever your experiences with meth, you obviously don't have the pure research of methamphetamine necessary to understand it. Those products are not in the final product of pure methamphetamine.

I agree that 99 years is a bit excessive. However, the judge is simply imposing the maximum sentence to make a rather strong point. She was within her rights to do so, as the law has that provision, for her to impose that length of time. She could well have given then person a 2 year sentence and a hundred hours of community service. She wanted to send a loud and clear message, lest anyone miss her point. Undoubtedly she is fully aware that the sentence will be reduced upon appeal. Evidently, she feels that folks are not getting the picture and that someone had to do something spectacular to get that point across to these dullards.

There is no evidence whatsoever that increased sentencing or increased severity of sentencing will lead to lessened numbers of drug "crimes".

Like, it is not as if people engaged in this sort of activity, are doing so for altruistic reasons. I fail to grasp how anyone can even argue the point. Am I missing something? For the most part, people found guily of these crimes get much lighter sentences.

They are making meth to use it and/or sell it. I see nothing wrong with that. What must be curtailed is the unsafe production.

To compare murder, rapists and pedofiles to a meth producer is, imho, rediculous. A meth operation is a clear and conscious decision. You have to know exactly what you are doing. I have not heard anyone claim that they were compelled to startup meth production because they could not stop themselves. Nor have I heard of anyone creating a meth lab out of rage or passion. Ditto creating a meth operation as an act of domination or power over a victum. Sorry, different things altogether.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with creating methamphetamine. The "wrongness" comes from the unsafe production methods that can harm innocents.

There is simply no realistic reason for setting up a meth operation in ones home.

Except, perhaps, because you may want to use it and not have to pay blackmarket prices for it. If it was recreationally legal, these dangerous production methods would be history, because the pharmaceutical companies can produce it cheaper than home-producers and sell it for profit at lower prices than the black market.

Perhaps if more judges gave the maximum penalty, the message would eventually trickle down to the unwashed masses who just "don't get it".

In supporting this belief you are supporting the belief in something that has no concrete grounding in fact. There is no "trickle-down" because of extreme sentencing. It is a myth.

So, I ask, what is it, that I am missing here?

You are missing the fact that others have differing views on the intrinsic nature of psychoactives. Some of us, like me, feel that methamphetamine should be legal for those who wish to use it. We feel sympathy for those who make meth because we feel that they wouldn't be doing it if they could cheaply get it at a pharmacy. We still feel that unsafe production methods should be severely penalized, but we don't feel that just because the material being produced is a potentially dangerous psychoactive the penalty should be heightened.