Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Mexican meth: 'I'm afraid what we did was create a monster'

It's official - well-intentioned efforts to restrict homemade meth labs have done nothing to reduce the supply of meth. The only difference: Feuding drug cartels have a new income source to buy even more powerful weapons with which to blow each other to hell.

Welcome to your de facto foreign policy on Texas' southern border, courtesy of the Texas Legislature and US drug control policy.

Rep. Peña points to this Dallas News article ("Narcotics seizures on rise along the border," Sept. 25) by David McLemore describing a situation about which Grits has been sounding the alarm for some time - the crackdown on bathtub-gin style homemade meth handed the lucrative market to Mexican smugglers. The stuff they produce turns out to be purer and even more addictive. Whoops!

Reports McLemore:

The illicit drug marking the biggest increase – and the most alarming, authorities said – is the smokable form of methamphetamine, known as "ice."

This fiscal year, customs inspectors at eight ports of entry between Brownsville and Del Rio have seized 683 pounds of meth as of July 5, the most recent month for which data are available. That compares with 627 pounds for all of fiscal 2005.

DPS agents seized 123 pounds of Mexican meth in the first quarter of fiscal 2006, compared with 28.8 in the same period in the previous. fiscal year.

In June, DEA administrator Karen Tandy told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that about 80 percent of the meth used in the U.S. is distributed by Mexican trafficking organizations and comes from large "super labs" built on the Mexican side of the border. Three are located at Monterrey, Ciudad Acuña and Piedras Negras.

The rise of Mexican ice – purer and more addictive than the meth produced in mom-and-pop clandestine labs in Texas – is due in part to the controlled sale of over-the-counter remedies containing pseudoephedrine, a chemical used in the manufacture of homegrown methamphetamine.

A state law passed in August 2005 limited individual sales of cold medicines to 6 grams, roughly two packages of cold pills, each month. Retailers were also required to move cold medicines behind the counter and record the names of purchasers.

This year, Congress passed a law similar to the Texas law, requiring all medicines containing pseudoephedrine be kept behind the counter and sold in limited amounts.

"I'm afraid what we did was create a monster," Dr. [Jane Carlisle] Maxwell said. "For it opened the doors for the Mexican drug organizations to get into meth manufacture in a big way.

"The Mexican meth is a very scary thing," said Dr. Maxwell. "That could mean people will get addicted much faster. And meth addicts tend to become paranoid and more violent. It's a threat to the entire community."

Finally, the media is beginning to pick up on what's really happened here - the pseudoephedrine restrictions in Oklahoma, Texas and now the rest of the country have had zero effect on supply, increased the purity of the drug, and, worst of all, shoved tens of millions of profits into the pockets of already exceedingly wealthy drug smuggling outfits.

That's not just a failed policy, it's a catastrophic one - another case of criminal justice policy achieving the opposite result from lawmakers' stated hopes. That's the result of using the criminal justice system to treat something that's really a public health problem: drug abuse.

Maybe next session the same lawmakers will focus on proven solutions to meth addiction and the very real problems affecting Texans' public safety.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tandy made that statement to hype the problem so that DEA gets more resources along the border.

Mexican meth has been around for about 10 years and these so called super labs have too.

To buy into DEA's theory about the problem, you must believe that a user who is so addicted waits for meth to be smuggled, transported, and delivered before they use.

Meth is going to change the landscape of the drug problem because it's a drug that can be produced domestically or smuggled and when you try to enforce one method the other will be used.

Start looking at some of the news article regarding domestically produced marijuana where traffickers are buying houses for people who agree to grow marijuana in the house. It's domesticaing the product so it doesn't have to be smuggled so before long we'll outlaw buying houses.

DEA has got 75% of the word idea in their name and not one of them has a clue.

Rusty said...

How long will it take us as a people and a country, to see the truth. The problem is this CASH COW AND POWER, "" MORE THAN ""IT IS ABOUT DRUGS, FACT!

Those that make a living off this CASH COW on "" BOTH "" sides of the issue! Will do and say ANYTHING to keep their jobs, power, control and ever increasing budgets and profits!!! So their bigoted self serving agendas remain and keep going, PERIOD! No matter how many "" INNOCENT "" PEOPLE ON EITHER SIDE ARE KILLED AND DISENFRANCHIZED!!! As proven by our Government and the DEA, who REFUSE to accept the facts as well as THEIR HISTORY OF PROVEN FAILURE!!!!

The only way this IGNORANCE AND SELF SERVING BS WILL EVER STOP IS BY TAKING THE POWER AND MONEY AWAY FROM "" BOTH "" OF THEM, PERIOD!!! Until that time they will "" BOTH "" use this issue to justify their bigoted agendas!!!

The only answer is the same one our grandparents came to realize, AND HAD THE HEART AND WISDOM TO IMPLEMENT! The same as it is was with Alcohol Prohibition, END IT!!!

Through Legalization and Regulation we take the money and power away from BOTH SIDES! The bad guys fear this because their control and money are gone INSTANTLY! The good guys don't want it because their excuse for no accountability and justification for more power and budgets increases ARE GONE AS WELL!! How sick and pathetic is that "" BOTH "" sides care more about their own DESIRES AND SELF SERVING AGENDAS, than they do our people and the people of the WORLD!!!

I invite everybody to our site at www.leap.cc watch the 12 minute video on the home page. Then try and justify this failure know as the war on drugs!!!

Rusty White
Speaker www.leap.cc

800 pound gorilla said...

If it is even more addictive does that mean that the addiction rate will spike from 3% of users to 5%? Or does it just mean that those addicted will become more paranoid? I'm sure that those people who have to pay for doctor's visits in order to get their cold medication are going to feel really good about their sacrifice when they read this article. My mother in law and I rarely disagree but she insists that the restrictions are good and necessary. I guess that I need to practice restraint about telling her "I told you so"!

Fortunately, we've already bought our house - and yes, we have one of those houses in our town already. I'm waiting for the police to bust the owners - if they aren't in on the action themselves.

Anonymous said...

More addiction can mean that you are almost guaranteed to be arrested at least twice and convicted twice, if not three times.

If the meth problem is solved by arresting the problem and the meth is more addictive, the likelihood that the users will be arrested at least twice and convicted twice have went from great to almost a guarantee.

My prediction is that meth will be the drug that undoes enforcement.

Think about it because it will go something like this. We need more enforcement to control more addictive meth that traffickers are controlling on the Mexican border. As those resources arrive, the users of mexican meth will go back to making more with ingredients from Wal Mart then local sheriffs and police chiefs will begin their rant.

It will go back and forth. Finally more resources will be allocated to fight both at about the time some chemist comes up with a more powerful substitute for meth.

The reason I know is because I spent about 23 years fighting drugs and it's not hard to develop insightful enforcement strategies to effectively deal with drug traffickers. It's getting the enforcers to stop exaggerating that they are arresting traffickers when they are really arresting and convicting users, addicts, and re-offenders.

celtictexan said...

just execute all drug dealers in the us or mexico problem solved. But oh wait what about there civil rights stupid liberals stupid lawyers

celtictexan said...

Rusty your the biggest idiot I have ever seen. You seriously want to leagalize meth. And you think there will be no cash cow then. God every one knows budweiser and marlboro are broke now all because of the repeal of prohibition. Liberal fools like you are the reason the drug problem exists. I think execution for lawyers and liberals would be a good idea also.

Anonymous said...

To CelticTexan: You tell me? Which is a bigger national problem, legal beer or illegal drugs? How about on the border? Budweiser may be a cash cow, but as far as I know they haven't murdered anybody recently, at least not since Prohibition.

Your comments are flat out idiotic. Execute all the drug dealers? Perhaps in concentration camps, huh? But then, if you leave the drug users, all you get is a wide open market for more drug dealers. So you'd better execute them, too.

I call BS. We've sent hundreds of thousands of drug dealers to prison in the United States - as long as demand stays high, it hasn't made a bit of difference. At least I guess it's good you're reading: Yours is exactly the kind of dumb as dirt mentality Grits is obviously trying to counter.

celtictexan said...

The overwhelming cause of more mental health, health, crime and accidents, in the us is with out a doubt, alcohol and tobacco. This is undeniable pure fact. Easily proven. And the companies providing both are mega rich. Not to mention all the doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, and politicians on both sides that profit from it.

celtictexan said...

As far as murder maybe you better talk to mothers against drunk drivers or any number of other groups or individuals that have lost loved ones to drunks or tobacco. I call it murder myself.

And your wrong if we executed drug dealers and didn't take 20 years to do it, so that a bunch of lawyers could get rich, if we carried it out in public and made it painful, if we put 500 lb. bombs into the homes of mexican and growers dealers the drug problem would solve itself. It would practically cease to exist overnight. In the mean time you go ahead and push for leagalizing anouther poison for our kids to consume and for each child that dies that death will be on the hands of all idiots like you who support this kind of stupid, liberal, socialist, effiminate thinking.

Anonymous said...

CelticTexan: Are you actually arguing FOR renewing alcohol prohibition? That's dumb. And how would we identify whose homes to drop bombs on? Hard to believe you're calling others an "idiot" - and if you're going to use words like "effiminate," maybe you should learn to spell them.

celtictexan said...

I'm not pushing for prohibition but certainly am not looking to let some other monster loose on society either. I would definetly push for harder for harsher enforcment of drunk driving laws. I.E. if you kill some one driving drunk, then it should be a premeditated murder charge. Nor would I allow for drinking to be an excuse for any other type of crime.

Never fails, liberal get backed into a corner they always fall back on something really important like spelling.

Anonymous said...

OK CelticTexan, so you think alcohol and tobacco are WORSE than illegal drugs but we shouldn't prohibit them. Really consistent. Yeah, you've really backed me into a corner with your brilliant, illiterate arguments.

celtictexan said...

the enie is out of the bottle moron you'll neerget that back in I'm just saying don't let more out. And begin real punishment of those who sell or manufacture drugs.

celtictexan said...

genie

Roadsidebetty said...

Our current "war on drugs" manifests so many benefits here in the land of the free....employment opportunities in the corrections industry, police, social services, health care, etc., which feeds our capitalist public and private machine.

The toll of the manifest dysfunction on human beings who are caught up in this power struggle between dealers and police is unfortunate,however ,the consequences are deemed as acceptable in the pursuit of social order and stability. When we consider how drug addicts and then criminals are viewed in society, as flawed characters who probably wouldn't have much to contribute anyway, it is understandable that we don't worry to much about sacraficing them for the greater good. You could look at recidivism rates in the current arrangement and totally support that argument. Oh well back to the goal .... order and stability and the greater good.

Here in the land of the free as long as you can present a resonable facade of legitimacy then the end justifies the means. I think we should dispense with the notion that we are a country of good hearted humanitarians, god fearing decent people and just accept whats real about us. We are going to keep doing what we do anyway at the expense of whomevever until it affects us personally in large numbers. Change awaits personal interests agenda, that is us.

The only upside to this situation is that nothing stays the same and from an evolutionary perspective as the variables continue to pursue their individual purposes. The wide scale negative effect on the population will ingender an interest in change. From that view the move by US to control psuephodrine and the outcome snafu of stronger more addictive drugs, greater supply, etc actually is moving us in the direction of change at a faster rate.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

@ Celtic: The point of my recent border related posts was precisely that the "enie" is out of the bottle.

@ anonymous 1: 75% of the word "idea" and no clue - I like that!

@roadsidebetty: Thanks for the comments. I agree restricting pseudoephedrine has spauwned greater change at a greater rate - it's just that that change turned out to be a dramatic increase in violence! Whoops.

Best to all,

Rusty said...

celtictexan ,

if you want to have an honest and open debate about this issue, you might want to get off you self righteous and insulting pedestal!

The legalizing and " REGULATION " of drugs "" IS NOT """ let me repeat that for you " IS NOT " to solve our drug use problem! It is to solve our control and violence problem! GOT IT! Then we can use the wasted 69 " BILLION " dollars a year to help our sons and daughters INSTEAD OF HARMING THEM MORE, FACT!

Have " YOU " ever put your LIFE where your mouth is??? Many in leap put their whole entire adult life on the line EVERYDAY for this failed policy! Until you have been in the trenches fighting this madness ALL YOU ARE IS TALK!

Do you see people hiding in allies trying to sell you a beer, NO! Do you see Coors and Budweiser killing each other and innocent MEN, WOMEN AND BABIES OVER TERRITORY, NO!

Kill drug dealers, did you know those countries THAT DO, or used to. Had and have to kill more EVERY YEAR, FACT!!!

Bomb homes, REALLY??? Do you have ANY IDEA how many INNOCENT Americans are killed and terrorized simply because law enforcement can't even HIT THE RIGHT HOUSE???

Did you know the founder of MADD, quit the organization SHE STARTED?? Because it was hijacked in to a alcohol prohibition lobby, FACT!!!

Did you know tobacco will KILL over 400,000 this year, alcohol will
over 112,000 this year, legal drugs will kill over 32,000 this year! ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS " COMBINDED" will kill about 17,000 this year!!! Pot has NEVER KILLED ANYBODY ANY WHERE ON THIS PLANET FROM AN OVERDOSE, FACT!!! It is IMPOSSIBLE to take enough marijuana to kill yourself!!! Yet pot is the NUMBER ONE ARREST in this country, fact! last year over 750,000 Americans were arrested for pot, that is the same as the entire population of North Dakota!

Why don't you educate yourself with THE TRUTH, instead of spreading BS!!!!!!!!

If you have the heart for the truth visit our site at www.leap.cc and watch the 12 minute video. Then come back on here AND TELL EVERYONE WHAT WAS A LIE!!! Put up or shut up!

Rusty White
Speaker www.leap.cc

Hope said...

celtictexan is a monster. He wants to kill people and bomb homes over what people consume.

He is a monster and it's very alarming to know that there are more like him lurking out there.

His reasoning is polluted and bloody.

God help us!

celtictexan said...

Hope, you are an idiot also. I didn't say to bomb homes or kill people over what they consume. I said to kill meth dealers and bomb the estates of the mexican drug lords that make the stuff.

Stupid liberal always takes what a conservative says and twists it to be something totally different.

And like it or not you are the monster. Your attitude enables the people who manufacture and distribute these poisons to our children.

These innocent easily manipulated children's deaths and ruined lives are on your hand because you protect the dealers through your rediculous liberal philosophies.

celtictexan said...

I will get back to you later Rusty. You and especially roadside Betty make some good points but it will take some time to respond.

celtictexan said...

Rusty I just watched your video. It is so full of holes that I don't even think it can be argued in this format. (I don't type fast enough).

All I see for the most part is a fact followed by ignorant liberal philosophy.

I will try to use some of your own figures against you. But first let me make myself clear that I'm not talking about pot. Sure I will agree, pot is probably the most harmless innocuous drug of all, legal or not. I will argue that it is not totally harmless, but for this conversation lets stick to meth, crack, PCP, Ecstasy and heroin. The truly dangerous and devastating drugs. I don't know why you even brought up pot as the original post involved legalization of meth.

Lets start with you own facts which I will agree with. Forgive my lack of knowledge of HTML.

--Did you know tobacco will KILL over 400,000 this year, alcohol will
over 112,000 this year, legal drugs will kill over 32,000 this year! ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS " COMBINDED" will kill about 17,000 this year!!! --

By your own figures the fact, that most drugs are illegal, kept deaths to 17,000. While the total of legal drugs is 542000. And you think what, that it will improve if we legalize it. How can you be so naive? And lets take the statement by the guy on your film about how if we legalize drugs we can keep them from children. How stupid, that really works with alcohol and tobacco huh? The one guy makes a big deal about how many people quit smoking after "education" about the health effect. He conveniently excludes how many start each year.

Roadsidebetty says it well

--Our current "war on drugs" manifests so many benefits here in the land of the free....employment opportunities in the corrections industry, police, social services, health care, etc., which feeds our capitalist public and private machine.--

There is a huge profit for the government(consisting mostly of lawyers)to continue to have drugs available. The only way these trial lawyers and drug counselors, tobacco and alcohol producers and others of this ilk could make more money is to legalize drugs. What will the cost of human life and lives be when they can walk into any store and buy whatever. Millions? And you think it will then be unavailable to children?

And your films attempt to connect the war on drugs with bigotry really pisses me off. By your own films statements the fact is that minorities are the prime dealers of drugs. Remember the guys statement, he cleaned up one neighborhood and in comes the Jamaicans and Haitians. All black. Do you really want to help blacks become productive rather than destructive? Then you got to get drugs out of that community. But the bigger point is that I don't and no one else should care what the color of the dealer is. As in the old stephenwolf song they should lined up against the wall and shot. White black or in between.

I live in Canyon Tex. A small nearly all white town. My daughters when we moved here three years ago came home and told me they can get meth anytime they want. I scoffed at the idea. She came home and gave me some the next day. Supplied by a 14 yr old white kid. Meth is a huge problem in this area. You see the rotten teeth and parched skin in all the faces of the people in the building trades or any where mandatory drug testing isn't practiced. Amarillo has a huge number of homeless whites all with the meth look, a cousin of mine being one of them. Race is not the issue.

-- Have " YOU " ever put your LIFE where your mouth is??? Many in leap put their whole entire adult life on the line EVERYDAY for this failed policy! Until you have been in the trenches fighting this madness ALL YOU ARE IS TALK--

I did 23 years in the Navy 3 tours of Vietnam. The NVA use to sell pure heroin on the streets of Hong Kong, Singapore and other 3rd world countries (as a tactic to weaken the war effort) we would pull into for liberty.

There would be an average of 8 overdose deaths each time. One of which was a friend of mine who died puking and downing on his own vomit in front of me before I could get help for him. He had purchased on the streets of Hong Kong a 1/4 oz. of heroin for 50 dollars. Pure heroin. I'll confess to have been a "Hippy" and pot smoker in those days but never touched the hard stuff. Again the old Stephenwolf song was something, that for some reason stuck in my mind.

After his death I volunteered to become a drug counselor in the Navy. (this was before effective urine testing and part time for me)It didn't take me long to see that even in the military environment the punishment for conviction of use and sale was to lenient, basically a joke as it is in general society now.

I challenge you on this statement you made.

--Kill drug dealers, did you know those countries THAT DO, or used to. Had and have to kill more EVERY YEAR, FACT!!!--

This is a blatant lie. Tell me one country that kills dealers and ends up with a bigger problem of drug use among the citizenry. And supply me with a believable reference.

It is difficult to cover all I would like to say on this subject in this format but I will say one thing again. It was alluded to by you but then promptly glossed over with liberal crap and much better said by roadside betty but still to mild. The profit motive of drugs has got to be eliminated. Minorities including those south of the border are the prime suppliers, whites are the prime users, but above them all are the enablers. The enablers are the lawyers both trial and those that run our government. You show a few ex police types in your film but I'll bet money that the average member of your so called "Law enforcement against prohibition" is not the average cop on the street. I'll bet they are trial lawyers and others of that ilk.

If you really want to stop dangerous drugs and the deaths and ruined lives both black and white then you are going to have to get real about punishment. Anyone caught with drugs should be th rowed into solitary confinement until they give up the name of and testify against the small dealer. (oh but wait snitching is bad thing too) The same for him until he gives up the name of the big dealer. The big dealer should be executed as painfully as possible in public and in the neighborhood where he did the dealing. And it should be done quickly not twenty years later after the lawyers have bilked the taxpayer out of every cent possible and when no one even remembers who the dealer was.

Your film makes a big deal out of it taking two years to get a bust. Thats because of the staggering amount of evidence needed for conviction and the tippy toe fear of breaking some stupid liberal privacy,or profiling law.

Growers and manufactures in what ever county should be bombed. In fact the government of that country should be bombed for allowing it to get across the border. The profit motive has got to be removed not amplified by legalization. And the only way that will happen is if those considering that despicable trade are put in mortal fear for their and their families life. If you believe anything else and especially if you support anything else then you are the problem, and those deaths and ruined lives are your fault.

celtictexan said...

I forgot I wanted to answer these two statements also.

--Bomb homes, REALLY??? Do you have ANY IDEA how many INNOCENT Americans are killed and terrorized simply because law enforcement can't even HIT THE RIGHT HOUSE??--

Very very few. Greatly overexaggerated

--Did you know the founder of MADD, quit the organization SHE STARTED?? Because it was hijacked in to a alcohol prohibition lobby, FACT!!!--

Yes I did, and you are proposing the same hijacking by the same people for the same reason for drugs a fear of profit being harmed.

celtictexan said...

One more comment I would like to make on this subject concerning what I do or at least try to do in this so called war on drugs. Your in the trenches so to speak. So called as its not really a war but a grab for money and a furthering attemp to destroy the American way of life.

I write quite a bit at www. ivorydome.us A story I have there at http://www.ivorydome.us/2006/07/16/where-have-the-real-democrats-gone-part-2/ concerns part of what I was saying about meth dealers here in Canyon. And what I am trying to do in one small way. Perhaps you might want to read some of my other writings there also.

Rusty said...

celtictexan,

Still can't avoid the insults, name calling and labeling WHY? Does that give your position any more weight or creditability? Try showing a little class.

"""By your own figures the fact, that most drugs are illegal, kept deaths to 17,000. While the total of legal drugs is 542000. And you think what, that it will improve if we legalize it. How can you be so naive?"""

Your own government will give you written information that drugs are purer, cheaper and MORE READILY available to our kids, FACT! There are MILLIONS OF AMERICANS doing drugs, FACT! Those that want to are, FACT! The 17,000 is a far better ratio is it not???

"""And lets take the statement by the guy on your film about how if we legalize drugs we can keep them from children. How stupid, that really works with alcohol and tobacco huh?"""

Have you seen the FACTS not just the assumptions you are making? When school kids were surveyed they said it was far easier to get drugs than alcohol, BECAUSE OF THE LAWS AND CONTROLS ON IT, FACT! The truth is the drug dealers have total control of ALL ASPECTS of the drug world! They control the price, purity and AGE LIMIT, FACT!! Why would you want to leave these dangerous drugs in their control???

""" The one guy makes a big deal about how many people quit smoking after "education" about the health effect.""""

That is the best you can come up with???

""" He conveniently excludes how many start each year."""

Yep, he was trying to pull a fast one, NOT!!!

Try putting your fear and years of manipulated biases aside, and look at the facts and realities we are facing. Maybe you could learn something as well. A closed mind offers nothing to read, therefore I’ll have to pass on your offer to read anything by one who has self proclaimed his own special ness, sorry! When you can show a little common courtesy and manners and civility, maybe!

celtictexan said...

I'm confused 17000 is a better ratio than 540000. What are you trying to say?

--Have you seen the FACTS not just the assumptions you are making? When school kids were surveyed they said it was far easier to get drugs than alcohol, BECAUSE OF THE LAWS AND CONTROLS ON IT, FACT!--

I don't believe that, as both are very easy. If either got any easier then it would have to be an open air market with a flashing neon sign saying both are free to kids. Not to mention that I just told you how quickly my daughter came home with drugs she could just as easily came home with a beer. Any number of the homeless I mentioned will get these kids whatever booze they want for a bottle of wine or enough money for another bag of crank. And surveyed kids are not the best source of info.

You challenge me on what I do in the trenches and when I offer it to you, you'll refuse, I figured that.

And just for your info I'll admit I'm not as tactful as some on this subject but my insults are at the ideas not necessarily the person.

Clint said...

Kinda like when you said I was a "coward" for not seving in the military while my wife has....

USA! USA! USA!

celtictexan said...

Clint you can always manage to say something disconnected.

Clint said...

You did say that, though.

Actually, it wasn't disconnected, but you know that.
Its an answer to your very last statement...
How does a statement like that attack my ideas rather than me or my wife?

Celtictexan said...

sorry clint that was all another subject I just can't see the connection to my last statment

SteveHeath said...

There's no need to "legalize methamphetamine". What there is a need for is to make pharacuetical grade amphetamines more accessible to the very small percentage of Americans who want such drugs. Such access would effectively put the street dealers out of business because an illegal market cannot compete with a legal, regulated market.

As a recovered abuser of cocaine and street amphetamines (clean 11+ years) I have learned that empowering criminal dealers increases the level of danger to users and to the community at large.

Increasing legal access to pharacuetical grade amphetamines will not increase use because anyone that wants such strong drugs already gets them. The difference would be that they would no longer be financially empowering street dealers, criminal gangs and cartels.

Legal drug dealers do not kill police and do not wage violence against civilians. Illegal dealers do both.

Legal drug dealers do not knowingly market to minors, nor do they employ minors in their operations. Illegal dealers do both.

Legal drug dealers pay taxes, are civilly liable for impure product and damage done to the consumer. Illegal dealers neither pay taxes nor are they accountable when consumers are harmed by their products.

Legal drug dealers operate out of zoned and licensed outlets. Illegal dealers operate from within residential neighborhood homes.

One can - as I do - work actively within the community to educate and promote abstinence from the abuse of any drug.

But that does not require adherence to support for the most destructive public policy in 21st century America - Prohibition.

Steve in Clearwater FL

http://www.dpffl.org/bios.htm#Heath

SteveHeath said...

Unless one is deluded enough to believe that drugs are going to disappear, endorsement for Prohibition is a defacto endorsement for all of the ancillary crime, violence, disease and death directly increased as a result of the policy.

We can create a discussion about the very real risks and benefits connected to the use of any drug(s).

But if we're going to discuss the best system for production and commercial distribution of drugs we are confronted with only two choices:

1) A system that is legal, licensed and regulated.

or

2) A system that is illegal and 100% unregulated.

The former system is NOT PERFECT.

It is NOT WITHOUT FLAWS.

However, it is without question a preferable policy to the latter choice.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback within this important discussion.

SteveHeath said...

Regarding the two possible systems for production and commercial distribution of drugs:

Currently in the USA, we have as a society agreed on #1 as the preferred system for production and distribution of over 99.9% of the current pharmacopia.

But for completely irrational reasons, our principal policymakers have decided that for a short list of about a dozen substances, #2 should be the system employed.

Thankfully in the past five years, more serious attention is being given to the two options and the heretofore kneejerk support for #2 is being not only challenged, but clearly refuted.

Anonymous said...

to celtictexan:

if all lawyers were killed; then bush wouldn't have been made president of these states of america; it took Enron jets and the evil stealing power of greed and selfishness compiled with illegal profites....

Anonymous said...

to SteveHealth

you're correct about prohibition, but what americans fail to see is the descruction and horror we have caused in Columbia. If that level of crime happened here, we would have 'legalized' cocaine or introduced the vacinne.

Yes we have a vacinne against cocaine, viable, safe, patented, and honestly, If we offered those in jail for cocaine a choice of prision vs. vacinnation than I'm certain a hefty number would chose rehabilitation... (the vacinne could be overloaded, if a person took 10x-15x normal doses, but the cost to the individual, especially with compounded increase in cost due to lessen demand would hopefully be prohibitive)...

-guest