If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Report a meth lab - Free reporting service to anonymously alert authorities to meth labs in your neighborhood. Fight this epidemic today   (reportamethlab.com) divider line 70
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

25992 clicks; posted to Cool on 12 Jun 2005 at 9:00 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-06-12 10:27:09 AM
...growing epidemic that is destroying our country
Meth? a minor regional problem.
george bush and his religion crap is destroying our country. get Your priorities strait, bud.
 
2005-06-12 11:54:14 AM
you gotta be shiatting me.

fark these assholes.

Do your part by NOT buying meth.
 
2005-06-12 12:47:40 PM
Cue morons who think meth should be legalized ...
 
2005-06-12 12:49:44 PM
alan holcome: a minor regional problem.

I wish you were right Alan but sadly I don't think you are. I live in the meth capital of the world (Missouri) and right now, 80% of the people in the county jail are there because of meth related charges (according to a newspaper article two weeks ago).

My brother has a cop friend out in California where meth is referred to as "417", the area code for this part of the state.

Meth itself is just horrible stuff. Users have a less than 7% chance of kicking the habit. Clean up costs are phenomenal because of the nature of the components used to make meth.

I haven't looked at the link for this thread but I assure you that meth is a significant problem and if it hasn't reared it's ugly head in your area you should be thankful and support severe legislation for related offenses so that it doesn't get a foothold where you live.

I also agree with your assessment of GW and religion.
 
2005-06-12 01:19:34 PM
I abhor the ravages of meth, but the fact is "law enforcement" heat is on meth and marijuana right now because those are the only 2 illicit drugs the feds don't control yet. Both can be produced by domestic cottage industries that are much harder for the feds to monitor. They've already got the worldwide heroin and cocaine trade locked up. Witness the fact that under the Taliban, the heroin pipeline from Afghanistan had completely dried up. Since the US invasion, aitch is once again flowing freely to its former markets. The feds' "War on Drugs" is an obscene joke.
 
2005-06-12 02:59:45 PM
george bush and his religion crap is destroying our country. get Your priorities strait, bud.

Maybe you idiots should have voted against him. I'm willing to bet most of you voted for him, just so you would have something to biatch about.
 
2005-06-12 03:06:13 PM
A Bush flameware already? Hooray!

Anyway, I don't see the point of this site when you can just call the police...
 
2005-06-12 03:18:26 PM
Thread over, Necrosis wins.
 
2005-06-12 03:20:31 PM
Can you use this site to find a friendly neighborhood meth lab?
 
2005-06-12 03:36:25 PM
Anyway, I don't see the point of this site when you can just call the police...

Because police have a habit of telling the people they arrest who the informant was. Then the meth heads get out of jail that night and get revenge.

// sad but true
 
2005-06-12 03:55:02 PM
Unixfreak - Ever hear of a payphone?
 
2005-06-12 04:50:52 PM
So, um, your method of fighting meth is to report it? What about getting to the source of the problem?
 
2005-06-12 05:12:12 PM
Unixfreak - Ever hear of a payphone?

Your average soccer mom is afraid to do even that.

What about getting to the source of the problem?

I am only one guy. I felt this is a small thing I could do. Hell, if one lab is busted, its worth the time in my opinion. Sure, they won't really be punished, but at least their lab will go down.

Often times when a lab does go down, there are problems caused between the meth heads that make them go seperate ways, or the people involved are taken in on oustanding warrants. Usually they are not able to easily rebuild the operation. Any break in the infrastructure is good in my book.
 
2005-06-12 05:26:07 PM
Unixfreak: Because police have a habit of telling the people they arrest who the informant was. Then the meth heads get out of jail that night and get revenge.

Any sources? As much as law enforcement loves to bathe in drug money, I can't imagine this being true.

I can imagine the middle-schoolers love this site, though.

"That biatch Becky stole my boyfriend. We'll show her -- let's all report her house a meth lab after school!"
"Yay! This'll be fun!"


Just legalize the crap, and the economics of scale will move production out of your neighborhood and into real factories.
 
2005-06-12 05:36:49 PM
Hey Sim Tree, here's your moron!

As much as law enforcement loves to bathe in drug money

I like your condescending tone. Do drugs? Of course you do. So you think they should be legalized. You are probably in your 20s-30s and still think your crap is cool, and are reveling in the fact you make your parents angry. I'm sure you still have an issue with authority, and you make a very meager income, if any at all, and blame someone else for it, rather than shed light on your lack of motivation.

Cue all the arguments now from pothead intellectuals and other fine citizens who smoke pounds of the crap and biatch about the governement.

Then on the 1st and 15th they run out to their mailbox to grab the green checks the government gives them because they are pathetic lazy saps on society.

I'm glad law enforcement bathes in drug money. Its better than using (more) of my tax money to fight drug users like yourself.
 
2005-06-12 06:13:26 PM
Sim Tree
Cue morons who think meth should be legalized ...

Are you serious? I've never heard or seen anyone argue for the legalization of crystal meth. But ya, morons is right.
 
2005-06-12 06:18:54 PM
red_beard_neo:

Just legalize the crap, and the economics of scale will move production out of your neighborhood and into real factories.

Man, I hope you don't really believe that. I would have no problem with legalizing pot (actually, I think that would be a good idea) but legalizing something as addictive and destructive as meth? That would be farking crazy...
 
2005-06-12 07:07:15 PM
And before someone comes along and says that Pot is the same as meth because both are drugs.

Wrong, pot is naturaly grown in the ground and takes no additional steps to make it "work".

Meth is manufactured from chemicals that are not meant to be consumed and they are a hazard to clean up.


If you are on Meth, you are not in control, do not fool yourself and get some help. I say this because there is bound to be a few farkers hooked on meth.
 
2005-06-12 09:39:16 PM
Legalize it, but only allow pure, un-stomped stuff out on the street. The day after it's legal, all that'll be left to do will be pushing the bodies of the morons who ran out and bought it into a furnace.

Same thing with crack. It's a Darwin test: "Are you smart enough not to ingest things that you were never intended to and that will kill you in very low dosages? Let's find out! Free meth for everybody!"
 
2005-06-12 09:46:57 PM
Man, I hope you don't really believe that. I would have no problem with legalizing pot (actually, I think that would be a good idea) but legalizing something as addictive and destructive as meth? That would be farking crazy...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the discussion here is getting meth labs out of the neighborhood. Legalization accomplishes that -- homebrew meth would never be cheaper than mass-produced, nor does it come with dosing recommendations. If you want to talk about how bad it is for you, well, it doesn't take drugs to ruin a life, just ask any gambling addict. Where do we draw the line when babysitting adults?
 
2005-06-12 09:50:36 PM
Hooray for the nanny state!
 
2005-06-12 10:34:10 PM
Can I pay $25 so i can piss off people in a thread as well?

listen up, Cletus. Weed ain't the problem. You're the problem.
 
2005-06-12 10:39:30 PM
Unixfreak - They shouldn't be. A payphone will not log your IP address like a webserver will.
 
2005-06-13 01:51:25 AM
how bout Meth legalization on meth island, an underground desert complex, a suburban city-thing where you get the solidarity of a prison atmostphere -- a 10'x10' padded cellroom. meth vending available in every room, delivered through a series of chutes. let the government pay the meth bill. meth manufacturing creates jobs and ends basement operations. reduction of meth price.

no drug related violence besides in meth island where for a loved one you can purchase a 20'x20' meth chamber of life room to live forever in druginess + 10 1 hour sessions with a friend/hooker/therapist/some dude to talk to (per month). kill or be killed atmosphere.

farking redundancy/mundane existence
rights of meth users
right to a destructive lifestyle
right to a shortened lifespan
right to ones choice
what might america be afraid of?
opposite:
land of the drug free

theoretically,

unixf, first, its the right of any citizen to do harm to himself as long as the user avoids harming others.
the question is by simply doing meth is a citizen crossing a boundary where he has become a danger to his surroundings? is it possible for one to use meth while at the same time not doing harm to others?
is there a point when the user's habit outweighs their ability to control their actions towards others? did i just ask the same question 3 times???
at such a point, is the society at risk of the user? at some point in the user's habit-life does their habit begin to supercede their ability to live without harming others?

it's not the users fault that you are paying for his habit. it's your fault. stop paying for the users habit and the user will no longer be sapping up your money.

what would be the effect of our parental/nanny society saying to mr. methhead: move out/buy your own f-ing stash.
i'd say, buy a gun and have the government protect againt the groups of marauding raiders. and if you get killed, so be it, what's the f-ing difference?

//half a 24oz corona
///no, i doesn't wanna work anymore on the above statements!! golly, i can be such a lazy mother-freh-farker!!

///if i woulda submitted this as stream of consciousness it might have been in the step with the rest of the converstation but alas, it's been at least 30 minutes...brain, you devieceth me!! ---sorry fot eh long post

////flamewar meh!
 
2005-06-13 03:45:39 AM
it's not the users fault that you are paying for his habit. it's your fault. stop paying for the users habit and the user will no longer be sapping up your money.

I wish it were that easy. However, at the end of the year I am forced to pay taxes, which end up back in a meth users' pocket.

The town I grew up in (and left) became overrun with meth in the mid to late 90s. One of the things I noticed right off the bat: they moved into section 8 apt complexes (thanks taxpayers) and the fad was to have the girlfriend collect welfare (no man living here! no way) and then have the man collect "disability" (very easy to get in oregon) and milk any other free government program you can find.

You guys would be sickened to see how many meth users you, the taxpayer are supporting 100%, just in this small city alone. Their entire sustenance is provided by the government, and some of them go years without working a day. Its pretty sad.

unixf, first, its the right of any citizen to do harm to himself as long as the user avoids harming others.
the question is by simply doing meth is a citizen crossing a boundary where he has become a danger to his surroundings? is it possible for one to use meth while at the same time not doing harm to others?
is there a point when the user's habit outweighs their ability to control their actions towards others? did i just ask the same question 3 times???
at such a point, is the society at risk of the user? at some point in the user's habit-life does their habit begin to supercede their ability to live without harming others?


I would love to address this if I truly understood what you are asking. But yes, meth affects others in a negative manner. It affects non users every day. Its not like pot where someone can do it for 40 years without harming anyone. Its entirely different.

As for pot. Thats an entirely different demon. Grouping pot with meth is like saying a yugo and lamborghini are the same thing, because they are both cars. I really wouldn't care if pot was legalized. I dont see the negative effects on society from that move.
 
2005-06-13 07:34:30 AM
Benny_Hill I appreciate Your side of it. Now that's the way to dissagree with someone's post. You gave a senseble opposing view. You didn't call Me a jerkoff cuz We have differing opinions. good man.
 
2005-06-13 10:11:56 AM
While we all may disagree on the merits of the site or the methods to curb meth us, we should all agree that this is a very serious problem facing our society. Here in TN (and Southwest VA), the meth problem is growing at a very alarming rate. Turn on the TV for local news and chances are you are going to hear about at least one meth lab raid or a meth lab explosion. The scary part is, it isn't just happening in the slums, its happening in the middle class neighborhoods as well. Jack and Jill down the road might be the greatest neighbors and love gardening, but they also have a meth lab cooking in their basement. They aren't users, they sell it to make a handsome profit. They aren't chemists, so who knows if they have any idea of what they are doing. This lab blows up, it can shut down your entire neighborhood for indeterminate amounts of time for clean up and jeopordize you and your families health and safety.

Any of you travel and stay in motels/hotels? Be concerned, because the guy in the next room could be cooking meth. This is happening a lot in this area of the country, so much so that the police departments are patrolling hotels looking out for any tell-tale signs of a meth lab (including using dogs to sniff for the stuff).

The costs of clean-up are astronomical (passed on to the taxpayer). This isn't the harmless substance like marijuana. This is a stone-cold killer and if you think it doesn't affect you, you could be dead wrong.
 
2005-06-13 11:33:32 AM
Alseep in bed one night...."BOOM!" I look out the back window and see flames pouring out of the garage of the home behind me. I got dressed and ran over to see if they need help. They were still asleep, even though the explosion shook my home, they slept through it. They all got out ok, even the three children. Their boa constrictor died. I had already called the fire department but after seeing this cracker-redneck I knew what had happened. (Yup...I profiled him) So I called back for them to send a haz-mat truck. I was correct. A farking meth-lab in the home behind me. 2 months later and they had moved back in.....they were raided again a week after moving back in.
 
j z
2005-06-13 11:56:10 AM
PigCharmer:

Are you serious? I've never heard or seen anyone argue for the legalization of crystal meth. But ya, morons is right.

You must not be around for the weekly "weed should be legal" threads. There are numerous people who say that all drugs should be legal.
 
2005-06-13 10:49:53 PM
You must not be around for the weekly "weed should be legal" threads. There are numerous people who say that all drugs should be legal.

and these are the poeple who really scare me. They seem to hide among the pot legalization crowd like creationists hang around the "right to pray in schools" crowd.

They both take a semi-sensible, if vaugely extrement position and completely take off with it past the moon into somewhere in the Pegasus galaxy.

I'm guessing they are victims of one of two crowds: the "we'll ask for too much at the beginning, so we can comprimise where it's safe" crowd or the "We'll make our opponents look really stupid and out there, so no one will listen to them" crowd.

I call them liberanarchists, "No one can tell me what to do;" no understanding of social contract theory.

a 10'x10' padded cellroom. meth vending available in every room, delivered through a series of chutes. let the government pay the meth bill. meth manufacturing creates jobs and ends basement operations. reduction of meth price


Isn't that what we have now? You can go to prison and receive outpatient treatment for your addiction? How is this different? Other than you killing them instead of either treating them or leaving them in prison.
 
2005-06-13 10:51:09 PM
My italics asplode. Apologies. Previewed once.
 
2005-06-13 11:57:48 PM
Strangely, I live in South Florida and have never heard of a meth lab getting busted around here. Then again I don't watch the news here (the stations suck).

Some quick googling didn't even find anything. Weird.

But I have seen people farked up on meth and it's not a pretty sight.

/used to live stupid close to crack neighborhood....ugly shiat, crack is
 
2005-06-14 12:55:16 AM
They both take a semi-sensible, if vaugely extrement position and completely take off with it past the moon into somewhere in the Pegasus galaxy.

As far as I'm concerned, that puts me in good company. Some of the brightest minds in history were pariahs in their own time. I readily admit I'm on the fringe, and defy you to prove me wrong. Way you're talking, it shouldn't be too difficult.

I call them liberanarchists, "No one can tell me what to do;" no understanding of social contract theory.

Ad hominems aside, this isn't about rebelling against authority, it's about common sense. How well has the "war on drugs" really worked? How well did Prohibition work before that? As long as this stuff's illegal, there WILL be a black market for it and there WILL be basement labs blowing up in our neighborhoods. All you're getting is a false sense of security. It's a demand-driven enterprise, and busting labs does nothing to reduce or satisfy demand -- if anything, reducing the supply makes it more profitable.

Safe manufacture under federal regulations, or busting one neighborhood lab today to have two more spring up tomorrow. Which do you prefer?
 
2005-06-14 01:00:38 AM
Unixfreak:

Is the link in your profile supposed to go to a porn site? Cuz I'm sure not supposed to go to one.

Mark that shiat NSFW, m'kay?

-A
 
2005-06-14 01:36:49 AM
You know, porn can be addictive and mess up lives too.
 
2005-06-14 07:48:31 AM
red_beard_neo:

2005-06-14 01:36:49 AM red_beard_neo

You know, porn can be addictive and mess up lives too.


PWNED!
 
2005-06-14 10:15:10 AM
"george bush and his religion crap is destroying our country."

"his religion crap." I wonder what it feels like to be this simple-minded. A tip for you: relax, you paranoid, misinformed jackass.
 
2005-06-14 10:16:07 AM
red_beard_neo:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the discussion here is getting meth labs out of the neighborhood. Legalization accomplishes that -- homebrew meth would never be cheaper than mass-produced, nor does it come with dosing recommendations.

I felt like the discussion was more about getting meth out of neighborhoods.

Where do we draw the line when babysitting adults?

This is a very good question. My first instinct is to say, "as long as they aren't hurting anybody else, a person should be able to do whatever they like".

The problem with that is that individuals are not separate from society. A person who ends up losing their job (and their friends, family, etc) because of meth use and becomes dependant on society is a problem. Do you want to pay Joe Blow's bills while he tweaks for a few days and then sleeps for 27 hours, week after week? I know I don't.

Do I have an answer for your question? Nope. But let me ask you this, would society be better off if meth did not exist?

alan holcome: Now that's the way to dissagree with someone's post.

I'm an old fart, old enough to realize that time is the most precious commodity we have. I have no interest in trying to get someone pissed off by calling them names (or questioning their parentage). I'd much rather they think about what I have to say and I'd definitely prefer they give me a coherent discussion about why they disagree with me. I'm open-minded and willing to modify my views (on anything) given sufficient reason to do so.
 
2005-06-14 11:27:05 AM
I felt like the discussion was more about getting meth out of neighborhoods. ... Do I have an answer for your question? Nope. But let me ask you this, would society be better off if meth did not exist?

Of course! Society would also be better off if tobacco, alcohol, recreational drug use in general (including nonmedicinal marijuana), gambling, overeating, promiscuity, laziness, and a host of other substances and activities (or lack thereof) didn't exist. Realistically, though, they're never not going to exist, and neither will meth.

Just as you're not going to prevent overeating in your neighborhood by shutting down McDonald's, you're not going to prevent meth usage in your neighborhood by shutting down individual labs. Better to accept its existence and work to minimize its impact on society than to continue using a strategy that's been proven not to work.

The problem with that is that individuals are not separate from society. A person who ends up losing their job (and their friends, family, etc) because of meth use and becomes dependant on society is a problem. Do you want to pay Joe Blow's bills while he tweaks for a few days and then sleeps for 27 hours, week after week? I know I don't.

I've got a cousin perfectly able to work who's on the county dole, and she's not on drugs at all -- she's just too damn lazy to get a job. My grandmother never worked a day in her life, she gets SSI because she's morbidly obese -- and she's lost the weight before, it's not thyroid, she just doesn't care. Welfare abuse is not a problem you can lay at the feet of meth, or any drug, or sloth or gluttony -- the system is more profoundly broken than that.
 
2005-06-14 01:05:50 PM
ok, this should be fun.

i do agree in theory with some of red_beard_neo's comments. meth is not the only trouble facing american (and in a greater sense, western) society in general. and the war on drugs is simply stupid. we might as well declare a war on the smell of poop or the color blue, because all three will have the same effect, and that being nothing. should we _still_ be spending billions of dollars to stop the flow of illeagal drugs into the country and shut down the drug industries that exist? no. r_b_n is right, when there is a demand for a drug and it is illeagal, there will be a black market. and black markets lead to horrible crime. it can be argued that organized crime started in america due to prohibition, and that was just booze!

but, there has to be some sort of other solution. decriminilization won't work, in my opinion. in the netherlands where they have legalized heroin, they still have problems. and here in germany, where i am living now, they have shooting galleries for it. not everywhere, but i will tell you that i don't walk in that part of frankfurt after dark. it's dicey and everyone knows it.

what there should be is an investment in the root problems of drug abuse. we need to reevaluate the education system, and start putting money into the areas that are most affected by these plagues. that is mostly inner city minority areas and rural white ones. these are where drugs are the worst. kids are starting this kind of crap as young as ten. why not invest in teachers, textbooks, and facilities that will give these children skills that are in demand? why not provide work training to those who want it? putting non-violent drug offenders in prisons and jails solves nothing. give them treatment, remove the social stigma, and get them a valuable set of skills to make them employable.

oh, and while we're at it, i want a giant taco that poops ice cram.
 
2005-06-14 01:46:33 PM
red_beard_neo: ...work to minimize its impact on society...

We definitely agree on the desired end result but seem to disagree on how to get there.

Maybe we're seeing de-criminalization differently. Here's how I see it:

We make meth legal and now available at your local Wal-Mart for a cheaper price than what can be found on the street (and honestly when you get government regulation involved I have trouble believing they could sell it cheaper than Joe Blow down the street but that's another argument).

We'll also assume that all existing meth labs and materials needed to make new labs suddenly disappear.

BlissKitchen's neighbors are addicted and probably will be for the rest of their lives (remember the 7% success rate in kicking the habit). While he doesn't have to worry about any nocturnal explosions any more he still needs to worry about one of his neighbors (or thier friends who visit) going nuts and possibly hurting someone.

He still has to worry about children in the neighborhood. What happens if the neighbors have children of their own? What do you think the odds are of the children of meth heads not developing a habit of their own?

I guess what I'm getting at is I feel the meth users are what we need to be worried about at least as much as the meth labs. I don't feel that legalization will result in fewer meth users.

atomicant: there has to be some sort of other solution

I've always wondered why we don't develop something in the lab that is non-addictive, doesn't turn people into homicidal maniacs and can be cheaply supplied/purchased.

Well, that's not completely true - I don't wonder. The reason is because there is no financial incentive to do so.

red_beard_neo: system is more profoundly broken than that

Aye, it definitely is.

atomicant:

why not invest in teachers, textbooks, and facilities that will give these children skills that are in demand? why not provide work training to those who want it? putting non-violent drug offenders in prisons and jails solves nothing. give them treatment, remove the social stigma, and get them a valuable set of skills to make them employable.

I don't about over there in Germany but here in the U.S. education is something often talked about but rarely enhanced. Teachers are paid poorly, schools in some places are almost like penal colonies. Textbooks are quite out-of-date.

I'd like to see our educational system get a huge infusion of money but I don't see that happening any time soon...

I believe that there are programs where individuals can receive job training but as red_beard_neo pointed out with his cousin as an example, some people are so damn lazy they don't want to do anything.

I'll pass on your giant taco that poops ice cream. I'm leaving in 15 minutes to have a kidney stone destroyed so I don't want anything near me that has calcium in it...
 
2005-06-14 02:38:58 PM
Benny_Hill: Maybe we're seeing de-criminalization differently. Here's how I see it:

We make meth legal and now available at your local Wal-Mart for a cheaper price than what can be found on the street (and honestly when you get government regulation involved I have trouble believing they could sell it cheaper than Joe Blow down the street but that's another argument).


First, any self-respecting meth-head would buy from Costco. =P Second, you're looking at both scale and packaging -- a large manufacturer could get the raw materials without the name brand and having to extract them from other products. Costs go down when your starting materials don't say "Sudafed."

BlissKitchen's neighbors are addicted and probably will be for the rest of their lives (remember the 7% success rate in kicking the habit). While he doesn't have to worry about any nocturnal explosions any more he still needs to worry about one of his neighbors (or thier friends who visit) going nuts and possibly hurting someone.

He still has to worry about children in the neighborhood. What happens if the neighbors have children of their own? What do you think the odds are of the children of meth heads not developing a habit of their own?

I guess what I'm getting at is I feel the meth users are what we need to be worried about at least as much as the meth labs. I don't feel that legalization will result in fewer meth users.


It won't, and to be honest I never meant to imply it would. To me, criminalizing meth because of what someone "might" do while on it is a step too far over the line into future-crime. Assault and child abuse/neglect certainly are problems, as is reckless driving/DUI (how'd you miss that one?), but they're already illegal and are neither unique to meth-users nor universal among meth-users. Again, society "would" be better off without meth, alcohol, and a bunch of other things -- I grew up listening to how my mom's step-father would get drunk and beat the piss out of her and grandma -- but that isn't realistic, and trying would punish those who have committed no crime (aside from the crime of drug possession itself, which only serves to beg the question).

Interesting to note that's the same logic used by those who would outlaw (or at least, seriously restrict) gun ownership. When meth is illegal, only outlaws will have meth.

I've always wondered why we don't develop something in the lab that is non-addictive, doesn't turn people into homicidal maniacs and can be cheaply supplied/purchased.

Well, that's not completely true - I don't wonder. The reason is because there is no financial incentive to do so.


You crazy? I'd buy it, and I'm sure I'm not alone. The addictive nature of drugs is the primary reason I've never tried any. Well, that and with street drugs, you never really know what you're getting...
 
2005-06-14 04:46:19 PM
It won't, and to be honest I never meant to imply it would. To me, criminalizing meth because of what someone "might" do while on it is a step too far over the line into future-crime.

If there's an actual probability, no. When there's a near-certainty, yes. Can you walk into a bank waving a gun? Leave children in a hot car? Drink and drive?

You don't have to wait until someone dies before arresting someone, if you have near-100% certainty that someone will die as the result of a given action. In such cases, you are saving a life. And a person can be charged with the resulting near-murder, since you can tell for sure that the person would die if you had not intervened.

Otherwise, would you feel comfortable with date-rape drug being available at the corner drugstore, too? Why or why not?
 
2005-06-14 06:20:58 PM
I've moved since the incident that I wrote about earlier. A follow-up to the story is that they had to level the home. Not becasue of fire-damage, but because the entire home was so contaminated from the chemicals they used. And yeah....with three kids in the home. I condone personal choice for most things in this world, even with most drug use. But in my experience meth takes the human element away from people and just leaves them as pitiful animals. Thing is...I don't pity them.
 
2005-06-14 10:24:24 PM
Wow, I completely missed a post somehow. This ought to be fun.

Unixfreak: Hey Sim Tree, here's your moron! ... I like your condescending tone.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Do drugs? Of course you do. So you think they should be legalized. You are probably in your 20s-30s and still think your crap is cool, and are reveling in the fact you make your parents angry. I'm sure you still have an issue with authority, and you make a very meager income, if any at all, and blame someone else for it, rather than shed light on your lack of motivation.

Cue all the arguments now from pothead intellectuals and other fine citizens who smoke pounds of the crap and biatch about the governement.

Then on the 1st and 15th they run out to their mailbox to grab the green checks the government gives them because they are pathetic lazy saps on society.


I only do drugs insofar as alcohol is a drug, and then I've never been drunk and never will. I never said drugs are a good choice, just that it shouldn't be the government's choice to make.

I'm glad law enforcement bathes in drug money. Its better than using (more) of my tax money to fight drug users like yourself.

Er...who's the stoner again? If drugs are legalized, none of your taxes will go toward fighting drug users. Think about it.

We now return to the thread already in progress.

Sim Tree: If there's an actual probability, no. When there's a near-certainty, yes.

"Near-certainty" is so subjective as to be useless. Not that anyone knows how many meth-users there are that don't get violent anyways, since it's usually the violent ones who get caught.

Can you walk into a bank waving a gun? Leave children in a hot car? Drink and drive?

Threatening violence with a gun. Leaving kids in a hot car. Driving under the influence. Swallowing a pill. One of these is not like the others, one of them does not belong...

You don't have to wait until someone dies before arresting someone, if you have near-100% certainty that someone will die as the result of a given action. In such cases, you are saving a life. And a person can be charged with the resulting near-murder, since you can tell for sure that the person would die if you had not intervened.

And you really think that almost 100% of meth users go out and kill someone?
 
2005-06-14 11:42:06 PM
Crack, cocaine, meth, and all the "hard" drugs have a single thing in common: They are all almost universally addictive. They are also "brain-altering" in that you cannot function while taking them.

Have you ever seen a crack addict? They will jump off a bridge, kill their parents, sell their children, if only for a chance to get a fix. They will do anything; ANYTHING. It is their only goal in life. Where do you think the phrase "crack whores" came from?

Such people need and must remain smashed 24/7/52 for the rest of their lives. Such smash costs money. Such smash can not hold down a job. Ergo, such smashed people must rob, steal, and, yes, kill for the money to buy smash, even if it costs $0.01. To them, they have no choice.

Denizens of large cities are familiar with this effect (more than a handful whom I've already seen on fark). Someone will walk into a store, parking lot, or other storage facility, point out something and say "steal that for me." The person will then proceed to do so. Usually they will fail and go to prison for trying to steal it. Sometimes they succeed and GET SMASH! YAY! Until tomorrow, when they get another "errand."

Everything from electronics, to whole cars for chop shops, to hit men are created in this way.

Someone who is addicted to a smash drug must be removed from the streets immediately and at all costs, as every second they are out simply puts people in danger.

And think if the horror if they were legalized? Imagine three million zombies walking the streets! No money, still willing to do anything. Someone you don't like? Buy a gram at walmart and have a druggy kill them. Neighbor have too much stuff? Offer to buy it off a druggy for $5 if he steals it. They will happily do it.

Someone hopped up in this way represents as great a danger to society as the drunk driver, child abandoner, and bank gun toter. It is inevitable. They will commit a crime. Why wait for someone to die?

And I repeat my previous question: should GHB (date rape drug) be added to the list of legal drugs? People can get high off it themselves, so theoretically, under your system it should be in every walmart. The government can't tell me not to get high of GHB. But what do you think will happen to the number of rapes, if a drug is plentifully released that not only renders the victim unable to resist, but also wipes out her memory that a rape has even occurred?

Now, take that answer and ask, what will happen to the number of thefts and burglaries and murders, should other drugs be legalized the same way, with the same "crime bonus." And multiply that by how many addictive drugs are out there, dozens and dozens!

I apologize for being condescending before, but it had been my experience in the past that such people had never seen a drug addict before. True addicts are really capable of any act, no matter how heinous.
 
2005-06-15 08:28:39 AM
man, this is turning fun. and i am an american, just living in germany for a bit.

again, i think that r_b_n is missing some of the point. the reason we have government in any form is to protect the people from each other and themselves. anarchism just doesn't work. people will not police themselves. when you get more than 3 people in a room together, you need to have some basis or set of rules for a functioning interaction.

is alcohol a drug? yes. does it kill? hell yes. but can we criminalize it again? no. what we need to do is to inform the public about how alcohol can be used so that it makes the danger to the public minimal. that means, get as smashed as you want on alcohol, but don't drive or go out and kick the shiat out of your family. if you do, you get punished.

the same logic could be applied to other drugs, but i feel that with such 'hard' drugs as meth, crack, cocaine, heroin and what not it doesn't work. there can be no functioning user of these drugs. i know, i know, everyone knows someone who can take coke 'once in a while', or shoot up 'just on the weekends'. but for how long? all the people i have known who have attempted to use these types of drugs recreationally have stopped, or are in jail or dead. these drugs, as stated above, do rob you of your humanity. they take away the rational side of the mind and make you willing to do anything. alcohol does this as well, but to a much smaller amount. i am in no way condoning alcohol abuse or miminalizing alcoholism, i have experienced it first hand in both family and friends. but alcohol can be managed and controlled. the physical addiction is not in the same league as that of other drugs.

so, yes, certain drugs should be illeagal. this is to protect not only the public, but the individual. don't worry about making it difficult to get or stopping the flow. make getting treatment easy, and attack what makes people turn to drugs. these things should be first on our priority.

people who smoke should not get public health care. morbidly obese people should not get state assistance. people who drink and drive shouldn't be able to drive anymore. why? because all of these are, in essence, personal choices. people make decisions, and we should make it clear that you can make these decisions, but you have to live with the consequences. that is the essence of free choice. this would be the sort of system i would like to see.
 
2005-06-15 09:58:51 AM
a kid I went to elementary school with was recently busted for having a meth lab in the back of his car. West Virginia, by the by...
 
2005-06-15 12:38:43 PM
Do drugs and bad things happen.

If my nieghbor was cooking meth i would report them due to the toxicity. I could give a fuk what they do to thier brain, I just care about how it effects me.

-an actual professional in the field of chemical dependency
 
2005-06-15 01:48:23 PM
halobender:

I could give a fuk what they do to thier brain, I just care about how it effects me.

-an actual professional in the field of chemical dependency


Clearly a basic grasp of English is not required for this profession.

Look kids, it comes down to the question of free will. If a drug takes away your ability to choose to take it or not (i.e. it is addictive), it should be illegal. All you fake fark libertines should get that straight away. Meth is a scourge and should be stricken from the earth.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report