

New meth formula avoids anti-drug laws - muriithi
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090825/ap_on_re_us/us_meth_s_new_method

======
dtf
"You have to understand going in that drugs are an evolutionary process ...
The day after we pass a law, they are going to look for ways to circumvent
that."

The law of unintended consequences. I was recently reading about cocaine
production in South America. The DEA pressured Bolivia into putting
restricting the so-called "precursor chemicals" needed to convert cocaine
paste into cocaine powder. As a result, Bolivia stopped manufacturing and
exporting powder all by itself, and started exporting its paste to the many
factories which sprung up in neighbouring Uruguay and Argentina. This turned
out to be a much better arrangement - not only did these industrial countries
have access to high grade chemicals and lab equipment, they also had far
better shipping routes. As a "bonus", a thriving secondary market in the
production residues (an impure but highly addictive form of crack, locally
known as "Paco") sprang up around the labs, enslaving local populations as
badly as any meth town. Creativity loves constraints.

------
jrockway
This is probably the end of over-the-counter pseudoephedrine. Why let people
have a safe and effective nasal decongestant when a few people _could make
ILLEGAL drugs_ with it!?

(Incidentally, you can't buy pipe anymore, since you could use it to make a
pipe bomb. Oh wait, no. Doing that is still fine. Killing others is fine, but
using drugs is just wrong!)

Also, does anyone have any data on how making pseudoephedrine a pain to buy
has reduced meth usage? For some reason, I doubt it has.

------
voisine
Most of the article is about how dangerous the manufacture of the stuff is...
who's fault is that, dumbass? There are plenty of things that are dangerous to
manufacture that we manage to produce safely in massive quantities every day.
Stop using force against people engaged in voluntary exchanges and the problem
is solved. You don't hear about people's houses blowing up from bathtub gin
operations anymore do you?

~~~
tsally
Right, the government is responsible for the deaths of the people who die in
meth lab explosions. That's pretty twisted logic.

~~~
voisine
Not directly, but they are absolutely causing the situation, just as they were
at fault for the rise of the American mob during prohibition. Using violence
against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has evil
consequences.

~~~
tsally
The government isn't causing the situation, the dumbasses who choose to take a
chemically addictive substance are causing the problem. You don't have the
right to do whatever you want in this country if it's going to fuck up
everything around you.

 _Using violence against adults engaged in voluntary exchange is evil and has
evil consequences._

Not really. There are certain thing that should be allowed in society and
certain things that shouldn't. I personally believe that alcohol and non
addictive substances should be. Meth and other chemically addictive
substances, plastic explosives, and automatic weapons shouldn't be. The key
here is impact on others. If whatever you want to exchange is going to have a
significant negative impact on those around you, it shouldn't be allowed.
Smoking is public places? Nope. Can you smoke in your car by yourself? Sure.
Same concept applies to everything we do. It's the price you pay for living in
a civilized society. If you want to do meth and hunt deer with a 50 cal, you
can always move to an empty island or a large desert.

I personally think the benefits of staying a part of a society outweigh the
costs, and that's why I'm still here.

~~~
voisine
You can disallow all you like. Prohibition didn't work then and won't work
now. You're just going to ruin more people's lives, and in this case, make the
life of nearly every person in the country a little more miserable when they
get sick.

Using violence for any reason other than defense against violence is wrong. I
don't understand why so many people have so much trouble with such a simple
concept.

~~~
tsally
You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth
addiction itself? The data we have say differently. I suggest you read more on
meth and its effects and stop using the prohibition of booze as your only data
point.

You're essentially just ranting about prohibition and violence with no
concrete point in mind. There's no significant movement to legalize meth and
there never will be. Any violence employed counteracting meth operations is
certainly justified given the tactics used by organizations that deal with
meth. This whole freedom to the people, freedom from oppression, start a
revolution mentality is bullshit in this case. You can still be a free man
without having the right to run a meth lab in your basement.

If you're going to pick a battle about freedom, meth isn't it my friend. And
if it's not about freedom, well then it's about the high.

~~~
anamax
> You seem to be claiming that the laws against meth ruin more lives than meth
> addiction itself?

Actually, I'm claiming that the laws against meth do not reduce any of the
problems with meth addiction. In short, they provide no benefits. However,
they do have costs.

The value of a program is the difference between the realized benefits and the
incurred costs. The war on drugs doesn't have significant realized benefits.
(I don't place much value on the "we're saying that drugs are wrong" benefit.)

> The data we have say differently.

Oh really? What data shows that the laws against meth reduce the costs of meth
use? How about the amount of meth use? How about the availability of meth?
(Seizures don't necessarily cause scarcity. Jailing 100k meth suppliers
doesn't matter if we still have "enough" meth suppliers to satisfy demand.)

If something isn't doing anything about the problem, it isn't a solution, it's
merely another problem.

~~~
tsally
I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth
should be illegal. A more effective methodology for shutting down meth
production is fine by me.

~~~
anamax
> I never claimed that the current war on drugs is effective, only that meth
> should be illegal.

Why should meth be illegal if making it illegal isn't effective.

We're spending a lot of resources on the war on drugs. If the benefit that
we're getting isn'g greater than the costs that we're incurring, why are we
spending those costs?

> A more effective methodology for shutting down meth production is fine by
> me.

That's nice, but what do we do until then?

I'm all for trying experiments, but when something fails, it's important to
take it down, if for no other reason than its continued existence/drain/waste
demonstrates that the "we'll try this and if it doesn't work" argument is a
lie.

------
tptacek
Fantastic. Now we can buy real cold medicine again, right? Presumably right
after we're allowed to carry water onto airplanes.

~~~
Devilboy
I stopped buying cold and flu mixtures when they decided to substitute pseudo-
ephedrine with whatever that useless placebo is that they use now.

~~~
jrockway
I still buy the real pseudoephedrine. It is a pain to do, involving secret
databases and showing your Papers, but still possible.

This is a perfect reason to have a fake ID, BTW. Buy as much as you want, it's
not _your_ problem.

~~~
tptacek
I've never had a cold bad enough to risk a day in jail over.

~~~
dantheman
You can still buy it; it's just behind the counter at the pharmacist and they
copy your drivers license number when you buy it.

~~~
tptacek
Oh, I know you can buy real sudafed --- I do, in the dinky little 8 tab
packages you get now. But with a fake ID?

------
cdibona
I wonder what would happen if they added mentos to the mix...

------
ars
This could be really bad: More people using them.

It could also be really good (well better in some ways anyway): No more
external issues of money, and crime, that are associated with this.

~~~
tsally
There's nothing good about meth, period. I'm all about letting people do what
they want in private, but meth is scary shit. Legalizing it would be like
letting people own rocket launchers.

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
Except, rocket launchers are for shooting at _other_ people.

Meth is mostly about _self_ destruction. Granted, tweakers tend to be dicks,
but still, your analogy is just a little bit hyperbolic. We should all have
the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit.

Also, wtf? You're telling me I can't have a rocket launcher now!?

~~~
tsally
_We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit._

I definitely agree with you on this point, however exclusive self destruction
is not possible in the vast majority of cases. Anyone that is financially or
emotionally dependent on an addict experiences some destruction when they
destroy themselves. If there is anyone that has no connections to family,
friends, companies, or country, I agree, they should be allowed to do meth. I
don't think there is anyone like this though. ;-)

~~~
jrockway
Adults should be able to emotionally hurt whomever they want. If someone's
parents are religious fundamentalists, by your logic, it should be illegal for
the kid to become an atheist. Sorry, that is none of the State's business.
That is a personal issue between three people.

Similarly, using meth is a personal issue for the meth user.

(The only reason people make it at home and blow up their buildings is because
it's illegal to manufacture it safely. If you could go to Walgreens and buy
your meth, you can bet that there would not be many exploding meth labs. This
"problem" is caused by its "solution".)

~~~
tsally
I don't buy it. Adult's are not allowed to emotionally hurt their kids.
Various child abuse laws cover this and our laws do indeed say that it is the
State's business. You can't show me hard evidence that meth users usually act
in emotionally (and financially) responsible ways; adults with dependents
using meth is clearly wrong.

As for kids, well, kids simply don't have a developed enough brain to make
proper decisions about a substance as addictive as meth. The argument here is
purely biological and doesn't really need a defense. I'll preempt the usual
counter argument by saying that if we could quantify decision making ability,
I'd be all for using that instead of age. But age is the best we've got right
now.

As I said before, if it doesn't affect anyone else I don't really care what
you do. Parents can do whatever they want (drugs or otherwise) if it doesn't
affect their kids or other dependents. In addition, anyone with a job needs to
consider their responsibility to their company. But hey, if there's someone
where none of these connections apply, s/he can do whatever they want. I
certainly wont judge.

~~~
Devilboy
Parents doing meth need help, not mandatory jail sentences.

~~~
tsally
I never claimed that the punishment was right, only that it should be illegal.
I'm in favor of whatever punishment helps the addict and society at large the
most.

~~~
Devilboy
Would you then agree that alcohol (which destroys many families - way more
than meth) should be illegal too?

~~~
tsally
Interesting question. Alcohol shouldn't be illegal because it's a major part
of our social fabric in America. Business deals, hacker meetups, weddings,
reunions, all have alcohol at them. Hell, the writers of the constitution
consumed a ton of alcohol to celebrate when they finished. All of these
examples lead me to believe that in moderate amounts, alcohol serves a useful
social function. I mean, when was the last time you were at a hacker meetup
that didn't have booze at it?

Another reason why alcohol shouldn't be illegal is that almost all users are
functioning, contributing members of society. Meth isn't even close in that
regard. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of regular meth users have a positive
net effect. It's just too addictive and potent.

That being said, I think the penalties for consuming too much alcohol should
be on par with drug related offenses. Further, any crime committed while under
heavy influence of alcohol (assault and rape come to mind) should have it's
minimum sentence doubled. And as for parents who beat their spouses and
children while drunk? I'd be fine with throwing them in jail for 20 to life
depending on the damage done.

A less extreme measure is to revoke a persons right to purchase alcohol after
X number of alcohol induced crimes. People do make mistakes, and we don't need
to throw the book at first time offenders. However, a repeated pattern of
alcohol abuse is not something that should be tolerated any more than the use
of meth.

~~~
Devilboy
Did you forget about the alcohol prohibition period?

~~~
tsally
You're going to need to explain why you feel that Prohibition has any
relevance to the points I made in my previous comment, because I'm not sure
what you are getting at. Yes, religious movements caused alcohol to be banned
for a period of time, but it was recognized as a mistake and repealed. Plus,
it's not like Prohibition was a unanimous thing. There were 14 states that
voted against it.

