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

[jewscout]

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

on the contrary i think i struck right to the heart of the issue.

meth is a dangerous drug to produce and to use. It incorporates chemicals that are poison that no sane person would ever put into their body otherwise.

they use the chemicals in the matchstriker on matchbooks to manufacture meth.

why any person would want to put this in their body is beyond my understanding.

that's why i say:
derrrrrrr:areyoucra

 

[gnomon]

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

So instead we can let the cops bust the drug users and watch them go celebrate by getting drunk.

OK, let's back up the truck, since some of you are actually being supportive of Druidus on this. In the OP Druidus is bemoaning a rediculously long sentence handed down by a judge to a person caught running a meth "cooking" operation.

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 a very good chance this sentence will not be reduced upon appeal. Singling out a person, who I already pointed out committed no violent act, did not harm another person physically and who at best posed a possible danger to the rest of society if they happened to be near the house is not sending any kind of positive message. Sending this guy to prison for 99 years sends no message at all to the people who are making a living off the manufacture and selling of illegal drugs. This concept was no good during the Prohibition years and it is still no good today.

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.

Actually innocent people have been killed by the task forces used to combat this sort of activity. There is a whole world of corruption around this sort of activity. People have been found guilty of less than what this guy did and received similar sentences.

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.

A meth operation is, regardless of your moral point of view, capitalism to the core. People who of their own free will wish to purchase and use the product are supplied by those who are willing to take the risk to supply the product. Whether or not they know what they are doing is irrelevant. The last I checked murder, rape and pedophilia did not include two willing parties.

There is simply no realistic reason for setting up a meth operation in ones home. I think the judge is making that abundantly clear. Perhaps if more judges gave the maximum penalty, the message would eventually trickle down to the unwashed masses who just "don't get it".

There is one, solid reason to make a meth lab. Homegrown capitalist venture. Incredible profits considering that meth is one illegal substance not supplied by Asia, the Middle East or South America. Cheap production, high return.

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

There is so much going on around the War on some Drugs against some Users that it would dominate this forum if a serious discussion were to actually break out. It is perhaps the one bastion of actual racism still apparent in this country. The National Household Surveys relied upon by the ONDCP and the DEA for information on drug abuse in this country consistently shows that the use of illicit drugs are the same across all ethnic groups yet blacks and hispanics continually predominate among those convicted and receiving federal prison terms.

There is a hypocrisy regarding other issues when they touch upon the drug war. Look at the Hollywood and media frenzy around Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Where are they now for Cory Maye. People are willing to stand up for an admitted gangster who helped to create a monster but a man who holds a very strong case for self-defense against a drug task force knocking down the wrong door gets nothing. Nothing other than the dozens of blogs out there still trying to keep his case relevant.

I still cannot believe that people are usually more offended if there religious view is not fully tolerated by another individual but the lies, murders and general walking over the basic rights of the citizenry in this half-assed drug war is ignored. All for the children!

D.A.R.E. has been shown to be nothing more than a waste of money as "our" children mock its poor attempts at telling the truth about drugs. Ugh.

Is it worth the complete violation of the rights of a few of our citizens, possibly even the death of innocents, so that your child or someone else's can be insulated from illegal drugs. Where's the outrage? How is it people can get so pissed off on this site when someone strolls in and says, "Mormons aren't christians". Oh the fur will fly. However, we see overzealous laws resulting in ridiculous sentencing guidelines in this drug war and people just ... eh... shrug.

 

[gnomon]

on the contrary i think i struck right to the heart of the issue.

meth is a dangerous drug to produce and to use. It incorporates chemicals that are poison that no sane person would ever put into their body otherwise.

they use the chemicals in the matchstriker on matchbooks to manufacture meth.

why any person would want to put this in their body is beyond my understanding.

that's why i say:
derrrrrrr:areyoucra

Yes, it is beyond your understanding. Go out and research. Talk to recovering meth addicts. Talk to people who are not in recovery. Read about the lives destroyed by meth.

Anything but a daytime news perspective.

 

[jewscout]

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.

but they can be a part of the final product.

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

and if we made every illegal activity legal there wouldn't be any crime at all.

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.

and you trust big pharma???? this is one reason i don't want pot legalized, because big tobacco will get their hands on it and put all kinds of random crap in there, just like cigarettes (which is the stuff that really kills you).

big pharma will tweek it, add addicting and life threatening new chemicals and charge you out the nose for it.
and black market will probably still exist. Hell, you can still by moonshine and how long has prohibition be over??

 

[jewscout]

Yes, it is beyond your understanding. Go out and research. Talk to recovering meth addicts. Talk to people who are not in recovery. Read about the lives destroyed by meth.

Anything but a daytime news perspective.

do not patronize me
am i wrong that these chemicals can not be found in meth that is too often taken on the streets today? Is red phosphorus not a component of meth, most commonly found on matchbooks as the striker you use to light the matches?

if i am wrong about these things, show me.

personally i don't understand why anyone would take a drug whose byproduct is considered toxic waste:sarcastic and then lecture to me about the negative effects of drinking a beer.

 

[Flappycat]

We need an NSA: a National Stoners' Association.

 

[gnomon]

do not patronize me
am i wrong that these chemicals can not be found in meth that is too often taken on the streets today? Is red phosphorus not a component of meth, most commonly found on matchbooks as the striker you use to light the matches?

if i am wrong about these things, show me.

personally i don't understand why anyone would take a drug whose byproduct is considered toxic waste:sarcastic and then lecture to me about the negative effects of drinking a beer.

You're right. I'm taking this whole thread about meth and turning it into a debate about the drug trade.

I have no problem with sending people to prison for constructing meth labs. But the 99 years reaches a point of absurdity. Actually beyond absurdity. And while I think the whole "drug war" has become one of our country's greatest failures I cannot on my own morals defend the construction of meth labs.

I guess I'll just have to leave it that I believe the sentencing in this case was the product of stupidity.

I'll just leave it that there is really no point for an athiest like me to even be involved in a religious forum.

 

[jewscout]

I have no problem with sending people to prison for constructing meth labs. But the 99 years reaches a point of absurdity. Actually beyond absurdity. And while I think the whole "drug war" has become one of our country's greatest failures I cannot on my own morals defend the construction of meth labs.

I guess I'll just have to leave it that I believe the sentencing in this case was the product of stupidity.

i agree that 99 years is, to say the least, a bit much for a sentencing, but i've never had much use for meth, even in my heavy pot-head days when i was high pretty much all the time.
I just could never get my head wrapped around why someone would put this garbage in them knowing what it was made from. (but then you can probably say that for alot of foods we eat today which is why i am trying to cut out foods that have ingredients w/ more the 2 syllabels or sound like they belong in a chemistry set)

I'll just leave it that there is really no point for an athiest like me to even be involved in a religious forum

i don't see why not. we have plenty of atheists on RF
just cause we disagree doesn't mean ya gotta leave. I disagree w/ a bunch of people, that's just cause they are all wrong (j/k)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Dru, meth really can mess you up. Since ephedrine is used to make it, and in Indiana, all ephedrine sales must be logged, and suspiscous activities are to be reported. One tip you are told to spot meth users/potential makers is rotting teeth. It is not a DARE lie, but rather reality, meth will make you look like s***. I'm not saying don't use it at all, but excessive usage does have very negative effects on your apperance.

I'm still wondering why people are saying drug use is stupid, as if no one of a respectable status has ever used them.

 

[joeboonda]

Some drugs like meth need to have stiff penalties, but not that stiff. Rehab needs to used more than prison time for addicts anyway. The dealers on the other hand need to be locked up. This is for dangerous hard drugs like meth. I think marijuana should be decriminalized, and maybe some other softer drugs, but meth is bad news, man. I don't have all the answers, prohibition is not the answer, but what do you do?

 

[gnomon]

i agree that 99 years is, to say the least, a bit much for a sentencing, but i've never had much use for meth, even in my heavy pot-head days when i was high pretty much all the time.
I just could never get my head wrapped around why someone would put this garbage in them knowing what it was made from. (but then you can probably say that for alot of foods we eat today which is why i am trying to cut out foods that have ingredients w/ more the 2 syllabels or sound like they belong in a chemistry set)


i don't see why not. we have plenty of atheists on RF
just cause we disagree doesn't mean ya gotta leave. I disagree w/ a bunch of people, that's just cause they are all wrong (j/k)

Too true. This site is too good to take a break. Sometimes I just let this issue take over my obsessive side and I start raving.

 

[Flappycat]

I'll say it again: I know people who have tried every drug in the book and have only ever spoken ill of crystal meth. They don't like the high, they don't like the side-effects, and they don't like what it would eventually do to their bodies. This is coming from people who think that cocaine is a safe and beneficial drug, okay? Meth is no joke. It kills, and it's a crap drug in the first place. What would possess people to take the stuff is beyond me, but a possible reason is that it's easy to make and is addictive as hell.

 

[willything]

i dont like so called rec drugs of any sort. i have seen to many peoples lives go down the drain. so if a judge gives a hard penalty so what, dont do it and you wont get in trouble.

 

[Druidus]

i dont like so called rec drugs of any sort. i have seen to many peoples lives go down the drain. so if a judge gives a hard penalty so what, dont do it and you wont get in trouble.

Great logic! Let's apply this in other areas!

[stupidity]I don't like so called homosexuals. I have seen too many people's lives go down the drain [because of it]. So, if a judge gives a harsh penalty to homosexuals for engaging in acts of a homosexual nature, so what? Don't do it and you won't get in trouble.[/stupidity]

Such logic is both morally wrong and bereft of all reason.

 

[c0da]

Homosexuals arent dangerous, drugs are.

 

[Druidus]

Homosexuals arent dangerous, drugs are.

No. Drugs used responsibly are not dangerous at all. Homosexuals (and heterosexuals) are more dangerous than drugs used responsibly.

 

[Sunstone]

Most of the scientific research into the effects of drugs has been conducted on adults. Very little research has been done on the effects of drugs in young people whose brains are still forming. A drug that might be relatively harmless for an adult to use could have quite a different impact on the brain's development in a young person.

 

[c0da]

Drugs used responsibly are not dangerous at all.

That is a ridiculous OPINION, not fact, opinion.

Regular use of a drug, even if it is a little at a time can leave long lasting physical and psychological damage to people.

The fact that YOU aren't damaged by what you deem responsible use says nothing about whether or not others will be damaged by their own idea of responsible use is.

 

[gnomon]

It is somewhat difficult to make the claim that drugs are harmful or harmless in a general manner. A drug like marijuana is relatively harmless considering its widespread use and extraordinarily low rate of addiction among users. However, there is still a danger among the chronic (and I mean practically everyday use) of marijuana. But the occasional and recreational use of marijuana, when compared to the legal use of alcohol and tobacco, is relatively harmless.

But I agree with Sunstone. Most research which has been conducted involve adults. The long-term effects of the use of a pyschoactive substance by teenagers is still wide open for debate due to the lack of evidence. We need more study and unbiased study at that. What we do not need are overblown media reports about 'crack' babies.

Have people used drugs responsibly? Given the millions of people who use(d) marijuana alone I think a positive answer is valid. Methamphetamine? I find it hard to believe. Perhaps they used it responsibly the first few times but such drugs alter the human mind and exhibit such strong effects on the body it is hard to find a 'responsible' use of such a drug.

Does any of this justify the sentence in the case described in this thread? No.
Does any of this justify some of the tactics used by SWAT and local task forces in their efforts to stop the production of meth? No.

 

[mr.guy]

Let alone ramble on about its so-called "spiritual" effects.

See druidus? We now have it on authority that you're obviously "doing" spirituality wrong.

Regular use of a drug, even if it is a little at a time can leave long lasting physical and psychological damage to people.

As evidenced in the rising instances of diabetes and speculative causes of ADD.