Conster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >Meth is shockingly cheap. If anything having the general market take >over making Meth it would be no less legal, but it would definitely be >a whole lot more expensive.
I strongly doubt that. It would probably be about as cheap as aspirin. >An ordinary person wouldn't want to make or use >Meth. It's a killer to take, it would cost someone hundreds of >thousands of dollars in the long run, unless we are lucky and they >drop dead of an over dose, because the medical bills for their >crystallized lung tissue, their short term memory loss, their crank >bugs, their mental illnesses that can't be controlled by modern day >mental illness drugs and counseling, because it's not a brain that's >gone array due to a natural chemical mishap, but from a self inflicted >one. That doesn't seem to be a problem for the air forces of the world, who have routinely given their pilots d-amphetamine, which is almost the same as meth, to improve their flying. >And what of those little crank babies??? Should we make it illegal for >pregnant women to be able to use this drug or a vast majority of other >drugs that leave babies suffering through withdrawal, very prone to >severe learning disabilities. That's only rumor, never backed up by medical evidence. I mean, every time they've tried to get experts to distinguish so-called crack babies or those with so-called fetal alcohol syndrome from unexposed babies based on their behavior as infants or children, they couldn't tell. But I don't see why the above situation, if it does occur, should be any different for society than for other drugs with teratogenic potential. Thalidomide, for instance, is back on the market, its value for leprosy and other conditions having been recognized. It isn't supposed to be given to women who are or could become pregnant, but it's not illegal for pregnant women to take it. Similarly you see other warnings in drug advertising warning women in similar situations not to take such drugs, yet nobody has made criminals of women who do. >I just don't understand this vein of thinking. All I can assume that >very few people here have dealt with the type of people we are >speaking of. I'm not talking of the old pot-smoking hippies getting >down on some Led Zeppelin, I'm talking about people who are so bent on >getting more and more of their drugs (I'm talking cocaine and Meth at >this point.. ie crack and crank) there comes a point there isn't >enough to fill their needs, I don't care how cheap it is, because >these people can't hold a job and be a viable contribution to the >community chest. Then of course there is heroin, another lovely drug >that people take from the time they are young, because after all, I >would assume we would want an age time line on drugs and alcohol, but >at this point I suppose I can't assume anything. If heroin's so bad in the long run, why are there perfectly functional people on heroin maintenance? >And AIDS >would no longer be as big of a sexual disease as it would be a drug >induced disease, because sooner or later, smoking and snorting just >isn't enough and there will come a time when any user of these drugs, >who are using long term will stick a needle in their vein for that >very first time and never go back. Which is safe as long as they use sterile equipment -- which is available at drug stores in states where it's not illegal. And in many states where that used to be illegal, it's now legal because of that fact. >>3. We could largely empty a large percentage of overcrowded >>prisons, and maybe close many of them down instead of spending >>billions on constructing new prisons and incarceration >>facilities; >ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGH...... Unless we are talking about >someone who had a MASSIVE AMOUNT of drugs when busted, these bozo's >never make it past the local community jail. Well, however the amount of drugs necessary, the percentage of people in state (and even more so federal) prisons on drug charges alone is very high. Add those who were convicted of violent crimes necessary to their pursuit of illegal drug trade, and you could clean out a lot of the prison just by abolishing drug laws. That is, you don't see pharmacists in prison, do you? Or employees of Merck? That's not to say none of those who pursue the drug trade illegally wouldn't've taken up some other illegal pursuit were there no drug laws. However, the existence of a lucrative illegal drug trade has lured in some from the margin who would otherwise have pursued legal careers; we just don't know how many. >>4. The draconian vehicle and property confiscation process would >>end, and normal, law abiding, citizens would no longer lose their >>cars, boats, homes and other possessions in confiscations; >Who are we calling normal, law abiding, citizens? Do you mean the >druggies, because they are no longer getting busted for doing the >drugs and keeping them off the streets? So the regular Joe and Jane >Doe are driving their clunkers while the druggies are making more >money than the hard working citizens, How would they be doing that? By being stock boys at pharmacies? What makes you think the legal drug business would be so much more lucrative or easier work than other legal businesses? Truly I So Briney, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
