Meth Myths

The "crack baby" scare of the late 1980s and early '90s, debunked by research showing that the effects of prenatal cocaine exposure had been grossly exaggerated, is now being recycled as a "meth baby" scare. It features the same sort of careful reporting that made crack babies such a media hit, including third-hand rumors, nonsensical descriptions of "addicted" babies, and medical pronouncements by cops. Last year a Fox station warned that the "meth baby" "could make the crack baby look like a walk in the nursery." In November the Minneapolis Star Tribune cited a nurse who "heard of a meth baby born with an arm growing out of the neck and another who was missing a femur." (Now you've heard about them too.)

This week, the Drug War Chronicle reports, nearly 100 physicians and drug treatment specialists released an open letter to the news media that tries to correct this ill-informed hyperventilating before it becomes a full-fledged panic, triggering draconian penalties for meth-using mothers and stigmatizing their kids as damaged for life:

Despite the lack of a medical or scientific basis for the use of such terms as "ice" and "meth" babies, these pejorative and stigmatizing labels are increasingly being used in the popular media, in a wide variety of contexts across the country. Even when articles themselves acknowledge that the effects of prenatal exposure to methamphetamine are still unknown, headlines across the country are using alarmist and unjustified labels such as "meth babies."...

Although research on the medical and developmental effects of prenatal methamphetamine exposure is still in its early stages, our experience with almost 20 years of research on the chemically related drug, cocaine, has not identified a recognizable condition, syndrome or disorder that should be termed "crack baby" nor found the degree of harm reported in the media and then used to justify numerous punitive legislative proposals.

The term "meth addicted baby" is no [more] defensible. Addiction is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot be "addicted" to methamphetamines or anything else.

As I argue in my book Saying Yes, pregnant women may rightly be criticized for recklessly exposing their unborn children to harm. But the evidence that heavy drinking during pregnancy causes serious harm to children is far more substantial than the evidence that using cocaine or methamphetamine does. The hysteria surrounding so-called crack and meth babies has to do with the illicit status of these drugs, not the injuries suffered by innocent children.

Comments

smacky | July 29, 2005, 1:57pm | #

Holy Triple-post, Batman!

Matt Moore | July 29, 2005, 1:59pm | #

In a way, don't all of our arms grow out of our necks?

Cgee | July 29, 2005, 2:04pm | #

ice, ice baby ... that sounds familiar...

Born Again Iconoclast | July 29, 2005, 2:17pm | #

Sadly, the intelligent quote cited above from Dr. Lewis' web page will have a tough time against the reactionary and scientifically clueless hyperventilators of the mass media.

It reminds me of the reaction that ensued when a state legislator in my area tried to introduce the concept of "drug courts" years ago after reading tons of scientific and legal data of their effectiveness in dealing with addicts, as opposed to just "locking 'em up and throwing away the key". The reaction was "He's coddling the dope pushers!!"

Anything that involves substance abuse in the mass media is almost always going to be shrill and devoid of clear thought.

I can almost see Bill O'Reilly now, screaming about "the irresponsible medical establishment that refuses to do anything about the meth baby epidemic."

Mr. Nice Guy | July 29, 2005, 2:25pm | #

The following comic tackles the crack baby issue and goes a long way towards opening up a mature and progressive dialogue:

http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/stories/comix/crack-babies/c-babies.html

Vache Folle | July 29, 2005, 2:28pm | #

It is only a matter of time before state child welfare agencies remove newborns from mothers who test positive for crank. Hospitals will be required to test and report blood work that comes back with meth. It was pretty common in crack cases back in the 90s.

Thus, the societal costs of anti-crank hysteria will increase as these children languish in foster care, and this will in turn be cited as a societal cost of crank itself.

Radley Balko | July 29, 2005, 2:28pm | #

Newsweek did a story several months ago about the "scourge" of "Oxybabies." At the end of the article, the reporter acknowledged that no one really knows if the condition actually exists, if the children born to Oxy-addicted mothers are really all that affected, or if Oxy-using pregnang women is really all that common.

Despite all of this, Newsweek still saw the need to run the story.

Born Again Iconoclast | July 29, 2005, 2:30pm | #

Now is it just my thinking, or is popular culture more accepting of drug use? I remember how the Bush administration tried to tie drug use to unwittingly funding terrorism a few years ago, and it seems those PSAs were almost immediately laughed off the air.

Also, just the mention of the word "CRACK" conjures up in my memory a gazillion anti-drug pop songs from Public Enemy's "Night of the Living Baseheads" to Shinehead's dopey Nancy Reaganesque reggae "Gimme No Crack" to "We Don't Have to Cut Our Lower Arm Circulation Off to Have a Good Time" (just kidding)

Can't think of one (Bush Sr. Voice) "Meth is BAD, BAD, BADDDD for you" song. As a matter of fact, the only best-selling meth message song I can think of is "Crystal Blue Persuasion", which is almost forty years old!

Mr. Nice Guy | July 29, 2005, 2:34pm | #

I wonder when they'll take on the burning issue of "grass-babies". Y'know, the ones who are born crying "Waaaa-waaaa, man!"

And they stare at the sparkly mobile over their cribs for HOURS..

Ruthless | July 29, 2005, 2:37pm | #

Here's another issue which would be instantly de-hystericalized if we all were "familialists."
(Not to mention atheistic anarchists.)

Born Again Iconoclast | July 29, 2005, 2:39pm | #

"Waaaa-waaaa, man!"

My favorite grass-baby song from All Things Must Pass ...

John | July 29, 2005, 3:05pm | #

If you all think meth is so great, why don't you go get hooked on it? Admittedly, the media had probably gotten the science wrong as they ussually get most everything wrong. That said, if you have ever known anyone who is a meth addict, you would know that there are fewer more pathetic souls on earth than a meth head. I am not a pediatrician, so I can't say one way or another what it does to babies, but even the most cursory experience with the drug will tell you it is some very nasty stuff that is doing tremendous damage to the people who use it. In addition, the knuckleheads that make it have a bad habbit of blowing themselves up and turning the property on which their labs are located into hazardous waste dumps and sticking the tax payer with the bill for cleaning it up.

Adriaan | July 29, 2005, 3:14pm | #

Somehow, I don't think running dangerous operations that might explode, and leave a toxic mess is unique to the meth. world. We have lots of legislation to deal with those issues that most legal companies follow to the letter. If meth. where not an illegal substance it would be much easier to control the legal and profit seeking companies producing it than it ever will be to control the black market.

And no, I don't use meth, and likely never will. I also don't wan't to marry a man, but that does not stop me from wanting to protect the rights of other individuals to do things I might find repugnant.

(sorry, everyone else, for stating the obvious)

John | July 29, 2005, 3:24pm | #

Adrianne,

It goes to the question of whether there is anything anyone can do to themselves, which should be the legitmate concern of the government. I suppose back in my salad days of my youth, before I had the experience of being a prosecutor and seeing how this stuff really does destroy people I would have agreed with you. I will admit that our drug laws are totally over the top and misguided. Most people on meth need to be in rehab more than they need to be in jail. That said, it seems incredibly nieve to think that something as destructive and addictive as Meth and just sell at Wallgreens the way you do asprin. There can be a middle ground in the debate about drugs. Its too bad that the debate is dominated by fanatics on both sides.

John | July 29, 2005, 3:26pm | #

Adriaan,

Thanks so much for stating the obvious because afterall your positions are just so self evident and rightous that there is no way any rational person could ever think differently or any way reasonable people could ever come to reasonable disagrement on something.

Highway | July 29, 2005, 3:36pm | #

John, you talk about finding a middle ground, and yet you had just finished lambasting a person who proposed a middle ground solution, bringing it out into the open, not forcing people who use to stay hidden away where they must deny the realities of their use or face punishment by the state. What more middle ground position can you have than 'legal and regulated'? Or is your middle ground 'still totally illegal, we just will only put them away for 1 year, instead of 5'?

John | July 29, 2005, 3:43pm | #

I view a middle ground as legalizing some less dangerous and possiblly valuable drugs, such as marijuana and drasticlly lowering the penalties for use of other more dangerous drugs like meth and cocaine. The answer is to give people a real opportunity to kick these drugs through rehabilitation. If they refuse and just aboslutely will not kick drugs, then set up some kind of a legalized proscrption for them and let them kill themselves. But that should only be after all other options have been exhausted and you still make it illegal to sell and throw the people in jail who make it and sell it to people getting new people hooked. I think you are a fanatic if you believe that every drug no matter how dangerous and destructive ought to be legal. That is not a middle ground of anything.

bill | July 29, 2005, 3:46pm | #

Born again Iconoclast - how about Paul Westerberg's "Hillbill Junk"?

Hillbilly Junk
Gonna get higher
On that hillbilly junk
Gonna get higher
That hillybilly junk
Gonna get tired
That hillbilly junk
Hillbilly punk
On and on and on.

One, two, three
Take another pill, baby
Three, five, six,
Oh, there's whores up in them sticks

Gonna get higher
On that hillbilly junk
Gonna get higher
On that hillybilly junk

Beverly Hills ( ?????? )
Oh, baby, ( ?????? )
Oh, yeah!

Hillbilly junk

Take it all for yourself
Give a little back
Let people know
Where you stood
Where you stand

Gonna get higher
On that hillbilly junk
We'll get a little lighter
On that hillybilly junk
We'll get a little tired
On that hillbilly junk.
We'll get a little higher
Hillbilly junk
Higher
Hillbilly junk
Get a little higher
Hillbilly junk

bill | July 29, 2005, 3:47pm | #

Born again Iconoclast - not exactly a PSA, but how about Paul Westerberg's "Hillbill Junk"?

Hillbilly Junk
Gonna get higher
On that hillbilly junk
Gonna get higher
That hillybilly junk
Gonna get tired
That hillbilly junk
Hillbilly punk
On and on and on.

One, two, three
Take another pill, baby
Three, five, six,
Oh, there's whores up in them sticks

Gonna get higher
On that hillbilly junk
Gonna get higher
On that hillybilly junk

Beverly Hills ( ?????? )
Oh, baby, ( ?????? )
Oh, yeah!

Hillbilly junk

Take it all for yourself
Give a little back
Let people know
Where you stood
Where you stand

Gonna get higher
On that hillbilly junk
We'll get a little lighter
On that hillybilly junk
We'll get a little tired
On that hillbilly junk.
We'll get a little higher
Hillbilly junk
Higher
Hillbilly junk
Get a little higher
Hillbilly junk

Pete Guither | July 29, 2005, 3:47pm | #

John,
You don't sell Meth at Walgreens. However, you open the market in some way for comparatively safe, chemically controlled amphetamines. Now when faced with a choice of getting some clean speed and getting poisoned meth from a hotel room in danger of exploding, you're much less likely to get meth buyers. Meth is, to a large degree, a byproduct of other prohibition efforts.

bill | July 29, 2005, 3:48pm | #

apologies for the double

Captain Awesome | July 29, 2005, 3:56pm | #

John,
apparently your not seeing a very random sample of meth users (part of only seeing the ones in trouble with the law). I've had friends who used and were ok and others who weren't, others who kicked the habit when it got too serious and others who tried it once and decided it wasn't their thing. Illegal markets lead to impurity that hamper an individuals ability to make a better judgement of what they should be doing. If you want to outlaw the most dangerous drugs, look to alchahol as the culprit (as well as the greatness outlawing that did). Take time to separate the downsides of a drug from the downsides of the arbitrary legal ramifications, and remember that in countries with no trial executions of drug trafficers still can't get rid of the stuff, then decide where the middle ground is.

John | July 29, 2005, 3:57pm | #

Pete,

I would think that would be true, but if it were, there would not be any moonshiners anymore and of course there are. Don't ever underestimate the ability of people to be stupid. I would agree with loosing the prescription drug laws and cutting the baby down the middle by legalizing a less addictive and destructive form of speed in hopes of stamping out meth. That said, I doubt it would work. No high is ever good enough for some people.

John | July 29, 2005, 4:03pm | #

Captain Awesome,

Perhaps I only see the worse, but I haven't seen any casual meth users in my life and I have seen a lot of them. My experience has been that they are the most nasty, disgusting, dangerous people on earth. I would rather deal with 15 herion junkies than one meth addict and the cops I know agree with me.

isildur | July 29, 2005, 4:03pm | #

Christ, why do I even bother? Oh, because I'm a sucker for punishment, right. I forgot.

"... more dangerous drugs like meth..."

Let me say it again: AMPHETAMINES ARE NOT DANGEROUS. You've bought the drug war line uncritically.

Meth, as sold on the streets, is dangerous. It is dangerous because it's made in bathtubs in trailer parks. It's dangerous because it's cut with other chemicals. It's dangerous because outside of a controlled lab environment, the reactions involved in making it can result in flammable byproducts.

Amphetamine Sulfate? Not dangerous.

We give children amphetamines, for christ's sake. We just call them Methylphenidate.

You know what else is dangerous when made in a bathtub? Alcohol. You know what else is bad to consume when pregnant? Alcohol. You know what else is flammable? Alcohol. You know what else is scary when it's impure? Alcohol. You know what else can kill you outright via overdose? Alcohol.

But alcohol has the added fun factor of seriously impairing your motor skills. And a long history of inciting violence, causing crippling brutal addiction, and has a great track record of illnesses and deaths related to its consumption. Including well-known serious long-term health consequences.

Please do everyone a favor: if you don't actually know a damn thing about speed, don't offer opinions about its effects and dangers as though they were incontrivertable facts.

Take it from someone who has used all three of crystal meth, ephedra, and methylphenidate (Ritalin): the meth 'problem' is pure drug-war hysteria.

John | July 29, 2005, 4:07pm | #

Yeah,

Isilidur, its all hysteria. What drug induced hazed planet do you live on? I can respect the people who say that the cost of stopping drugs or failure to thereof has gotten so high that we should give up and move on to other things. But to argue that speed is not harmful is so stupid as to be beyond belief. Go to any county jail in rural America and talk to the no doubt numorous meth heads that are in there and here their stories and then tell me how its no big deal.

John | July 29, 2005, 4:14pm | #

One Isildur, if its so great, shoot the stuff up. Give to your kids. Your pregent wife, everyone. See how long your heart and overall health holds out. Show me one person who has used speed regularly for years who lived to tell about it? If its all hysteria, why are all these people risking jail and selling their souls to get the stuff? If it really was just like ephidra, why would anyone use it when you can buy ephadra legally? More importantly, if it wasn't addictive, why would anyone ever risk jail to buy it when you get drunk legally?

isildur | July 29, 2005, 4:16pm | #

John: Have you ever used amphetamines? Do you have any practical or personal experience with amphetamines? That is to say, are you a pharmacologist, a doctor, a chemist? Do you use Ritalin or have relatives who use Ritalin? If your answer to these questions is all 'no', you're talking about anectdotes that you've heard second-hand. Which is really high-quality evidence on which to base public policy, I'm sure.

Did you miss the part where I talked about the difference between meth and speed?

How about instead of going to a county jail filled with society's fuckups, who would have been fuckups in any case, I use my own personal experience as a guide: Amphetamines are less addictive than cigarettes, less harmful than alcohol, and have more positive benefits than either.

And hey, guess what: like almost any consumed substance, they are abusable. Fancy that. If we made being fat a crime, you could invite me to go down to the county jail and look at the fat fucks and hear their stories. That wouldn't make Ding-Dongs any more dangerous than they are now.

John | July 29, 2005, 4:18pm | #

Pete,

I point to Isilur as exhibit 1. I don't care if you do make some kind of speed legal, dude still going to be buying meth out of the back of the doublewide.

dhex | July 29, 2005, 4:19pm | #

what about "damn blue collar tweakers" by primus?

Now the union boys are there
To protect us from all the corporate type
While curious George's drug patrol
Is out here hunting snipe
Now they try to tell me different
But you know I ain't no clown
'Cause those damned blue-collar tweekers
Are the backbone of this town

john: don't ever underestimate the human desire to tell people who weild power over them to go fuck themselves.

Jim Anderson | July 29, 2005, 4:21pm | #

Just to point out, methylphenidate, the amphetamine derivative known as Ritalin, has a completely different effect on the brain; unlike meth, which damages brain cells by interfering with VMAT2, a crucial protein involved in dopamine storage, Ritalin increases VMAT2 levels and has protected against meth damage in laboratory settings. Check out New Scientist's balanced look at the subject in last week's issue (subscription required).

Jim Walsh | July 29, 2005, 4:24pm | #

The appeal of meth is (largely) that it's a cheap, homemade high. The meth "problem" is itself a symtom of the war on drugs; i.e. people tweak because they canj't get the other stuff..

Well, there I go being rational again. I'm sure my pals in the political squawk radio community will have none of it...

John | July 29, 2005, 4:25pm | #

Dhex,

Yeah, stick it to the man, kill yourself on speed.

John | July 29, 2005, 4:28pm | #

Jim,

That is a good point. It is a cheap high. Even if you legalized it, there is no way you could make the stuff safely and sell it as cheap as the dealers sell it. Then you are left with the same problem you have now, because people will go to the dealers because its so much cheaper and probably stronger than what the legal stuff would be. Same thing happens to lesser degree with alchohol. Some people are so poor and stupid they would rather risk their lives buying moonshine then pay $20 for a fifth of Jim Beam.

isildur | July 29, 2005, 4:30pm | #

Ephedra is speed. Amphetamines are the result of an attempt to create synthetic ephedra, because ma huang was difficult to grow domestically.

I have used ephedra on and off for years. So I guess I'm showing you myself.

I've used meth in the past. I found it to be identical to ephedra, only more expensive, more powerful, and less pleasant.

I've used Ritalin and found it to have an identical effect to ephedra, except that the energy-level peak is shallower, so it doesn't have the 'spike and crash' feeling of either of ephedra or meth.

Meth is dangerous because meth is illegal. People want it because there are few good alternatives. It's funny you mention ephedra as being 'legal' -- you do know that it wasn't for quite some time, and even now its legal status is somewhat ambiguous, leading herbal supplement manufacturers to discontinue it out of fear of being re-regulated? You are also aware that it was the legal alternative to meth used by long-distance truckers across the nation, and was sold in truck stops for that very purpose?

Yes, there are people whose lives were destroyed by meth. And for every one of those, I assure you I can find 100 people whose lives were destroyed by alcohol. It's not the substance, it's the person.

isildur | July 29, 2005, 4:34pm | #

Moonshine? Are you kidding me? I don't know where the hell you live, but bums in Los Angeles drink cheap vodka and malt liquor. Nobody drinks moonshine. Where would they get it?

Meth is cheaper in bathtubs? WTF? Have you ever bought meth? It's cheap compared to, say, heroin. It's stupidly expensive compared to weed, and far, far more expensive than cigarettes.

And it's a hell of a lot more expensive than generic Ritalin, which is manufactured at a for-profit price.

Do you seriously think bathtub manufacturers can make meth more cheaply than Pfizer?

John | July 29, 2005, 4:34pm | #

Ilsidur, you can find lots of people whose lives were destroyed by alchohol. Its a nasty drug, truth be known a lot worse than pot, which is illegal. But just because other drugs are dangerous doesn't mean meth is not also dangerous. That being said, even if you did legalize, I don't see how legal meth could ever compete pricewise with the illegal stuff. The users would still go to the illegal dangerous stuff because it would be cheaper and stronger and we are left with the same problems we have today.

John | July 29, 2005, 4:35pm | #

Moonshine is all over the hills in the South. Its insane. I would have never believed it had I not seen it.

isildur | July 29, 2005, 4:41pm | #

John, you've made an argument from no evidence that is applicable to every single substance we ingest. Let me demonstrate:

"I don't see how marijuana cigarettes could ever compete pricewise with the illegal stuff. The users would still go to the illegal dangerous stuff because it would be cheaper and stronger."

"I don't see how tobacco cigarettes could ever compete pricewise with the illegal stuff. The users would still go to the illegal dangerous stuff because it would be cheaper and stronger."

"I don't see how legal alcohol could ever compete pricewise with the illegal stuff. The users would still go to the illegal dangerous stuff because it would be cheaper and stronger."

None of these arguments make any sense. One, because of economies of scale: mass produced, productized goods are cheaper than handcrafted goods. Two, because consumers don't tend to prefer illegal substances over identical legal substances. Three, because consumers prefer trusted substances over untrusted ones. Four, because consumers prefer to control their own portion size; if they didn't, beer would be a less popular drink than Everclear.

ChicagoTom | July 29, 2005, 4:53pm | #

John,

I suspect in many cases people go to illegal sources because they can't get a prescription for the legal alternative either because they dont qualify for a prescription. I don't think too many legal alternatives are available at the users whim.

eric | July 29, 2005, 4:57pm | #

I am a regular meth user, an upstanding citizen, and, I believe, a very moral guy. As such, I must say that it is encouraging to read a bit of text that takes the witch hunters to task for their hysteria.

Let me be clear, I am aghast at the notion of a pregnant woman using meth. I think that it sounds like a very poor choice indeed. But that's not really the issue at hand. The real interest of the anti-drug zealots is to demonize every person who chooses to use drugs that have not been legitimized by the government. They start with easy targets because, well, they're easy.

Nobody wants to defend a woman whose drug abuse has adversely affected her newborn infant. And I am quite willing to believe that late term meth use by a pregnant woman will indeed harm a baby.

But government hype is a precursor to government action. And whenever government interferes in the lives of the people, bad things happen. I don't doubt that state legislative bodies will begin writing law regarding this issue soon enough. The feds are sure to follow. And what will that accomplish? More power for the state.

If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that no matter how noble the intention, no matter how careful the wording, any time a legal tool is given to law enforcement, law enforcement will manage to twist that tool towards wicked ends. Injustice is the outcome of every law that empowers some people to exert their will over others.

The text of a law is static, while the cunning of the state powers set to interpret those laws is endlessly fluid.

And ultimately, the state ends up wreaking horrible injustice upon people like me. Regular, decent folk who choose to exercise their god given right to decide for themselves what they want to consume. It's my body. I don't need the state telling me what I should or shouldn't put in it. And I definitely don't want the state committing outrageous, horrible misdeeds against me when I defy it. (Years of forced confinement. That's the depth to which those thugs are willing to sink.)

I choose to defy the will of state anyway. Because I want to do drugs. And I will not allow my understandable fear of those bullies to dictate my course. I will do as I will. I will respect the rights of others to do as they will. And I will keep fighting the good fight.

Do you doubt the veracity of the first sentence way at the top of this comment? Poke around: my site

Kip | July 29, 2005, 5:07pm | #

John, did you say you were a prosecutor?

Flyboy | July 29, 2005, 5:20pm | #

John, I would not argue that speed is never harmful. I would point out that it's unwise to generalize about all use of speed by noting its effects only on addicts or people in trouble with the law.

Fact: MOST people who use drugs DON'T get addicted or arrested. To come to conclusions based on studying the minority of meth users who have trouble with it is misleading.

It's educational to review the testimony of military doctors who testified during an investigation of an accident in Afganistan in 2002. US pilots mistook Canadian soldiers for Al Queda and bombed them. The pilots had been using speed to stay alert. Military doctors found that the drugs used by the pilots (Major Schmidt and Major Umbach) were simply 'not a factor' in the deaths of the Canadian soldiers. In fact, the military doctors were enthusiastic about the use of "go pills," which has been commonplace in the US military for decades.

Amphetamines can be used responsibly to boost performance, maintain alertness, energize mood and enhance libido. In fact, that's the way they're USUALLY used. Starving, freaked-out tweekers going to jail are the exception, not the rule.

Eion | July 29, 2005, 5:28pm | #

Isildur hit the nail on the head, repeatedly, as did Flyboy.

John: what about all of the people who have prescriptions for methamphetamine? I know it's a horribly poisonous drug that will kill you on sight with no legitimate medical... oh, wait... That was sarcasm, by the way. I know it's meant to be the lowest form of wit, but I've used amphetamines so I obviously don't know any better.

Legally-produced amphetamines are *cheap*. Go into Walgreens (or Costco, actually - much cheaper) and about twenty-five bucks will buy you a gram (a hundred 10mg pills) of generic USP dextroamphetamine.

Trailer Annie | July 29, 2005, 5:29pm | #

I am not a prosecutor. My experience with drugs come from a not-so-fortunate childhood. Speed Kills. We've known that since granny was using.

Everyone knew it. Crank dealers don't let their girlfriends use - that's a clue.

Now that I'm all grown up and consort with doctors and public health professionals, I know that the long-term effects of stimulant use are well understood to be much worse than other legal and illegal drugs.

The effects of drug abuse include health problems - most of which are caused by the lifestyle, not by the drug of choice - but I'm not aware of another drug, legal or illegal, that has such a low bar for doing damage.

Joel B. | July 29, 2005, 6:01pm | #

The Anti-Drug War Proseltyzing by Libertarians is one of their most unappealing traits, especially when they take it to Meth.

Meth is horribly destructive. Some of the delta areas have a heavy amount of Meth use, and law enforcement and many readily complain that Meth users are the mostly horribly personally destroyed people.

Personal freedom is a great thing, the thing libertarians need to recognize and often fail to, is that the Meth addict has far less freedom (even if Meth were legal) than, the loss of freedom to not to Meth (making it illegal).

| July 29, 2005, 6:20pm | #

If you need evidence that meth makes people crazy just listen to cops, politicians and prosecutors talk about it.

JD | July 29, 2005, 6:54pm | #

A couple minor comments -

Isildur: Alcohol is not dangerous because you "make it in your bathtub" or whatever. It's actually harder to make dangerous alcohol (methyl, or even isopropyl) than it is to make "good" (ethyl) alcohol. The stuff you make in your bathtub may not taste very good, but it won't kill you. The bad alcohol you heard about in Prohibition was generally from failed attempts to re-distill denatured (ie, poisoned) alcohol. Also, it's a bad idea to do your distillation with metal equipment that may release lead or copper compounds into your hooch. Of course, what we've been saying for years is that no one would do these things, were it not for prohibition, as you know.

This thread seems to have attracted more than the usual number of Drug Warriors. I realize that it's a sensitive topic, but jeez. Joel B.: Here I thought that our stance on the Drug War was one of our best points - I guess it just goes to show you can't please everybody. I agree that the addict (to anything) is a slave to his addiction, but I don't believe that pre-restraining people is the answer to that. "We have to tell you what you can and cannot do because otherwise you might be even less free"? That sounds like a dangerous stance to me. And you'll pardon us if we're a little suspicious of the "Worst. Drug. Ever." stance that a lot of people are taking, because somehow every new drug associated with socially undesirable types seems to get tarred with the same brush. Look up "absinthism", not to mention some of the early complaints about coffee, of all things.

mudfoot | July 29, 2005, 6:57pm | #

Joel -- it sounds like you believe that individuals should not be allowed to make bad decisions for themselves. And you dislike libertarianism because it disagrees with that.

Live and let live.

Joel B. | July 29, 2005, 7:10pm | #

I beleive people ought to be free to make bad decisions. I do think however, there is a point where a neighbor does have a duty to stop the other from destroying themselves. Look, can people at least admit that Meth is a lot worse than weed? I don't care so much about weed, the point is, really personally destructive decisions should be highly discouraged, and we do that through drug laws.

I don't generally agree with pre-restraining people either, but, I think, we do have some duty to our neighbors to see to it, that their bad decisions at least stay within, we at least some degree of bad reason, but to me, Meth is outside of that.

pixie_angel | July 29, 2005, 7:20pm | #

I hate when it Happens
__________________________________________________
Things can happen i life like someone dies or
parents get divorsed or something happens that you don't want to happen. but it happens sometimes you think your the only one it happen to but it happens to almost everyone. Sometimes you feel so sad you feel so mad you want to hurt someone. i know i've had that feeling before when someone died in my family. but i said to myself it happened we can't go back in time to have prevented it. Remember when things happen it happens i'm so very sorry if this has happened to you but remember your not the only one.

b-psycho | July 29, 2005, 7:25pm | #

Waitaminute, I thought Ritalin was chemically related to cocaine? Did they change the formula recently?

Ritalin being meth-derived is news to me...

biologist | July 29, 2005, 7:28pm | #

would someone like to re-post the lyrics from We Care A Lot by Faith No More for Joel B's benefit

I'd also like to thank John for being yet another example of why we (Americans) can't have a calm, rational discussion about drug legalization. John, who evidently considers himself a moderate, responds to consideration of the dangers of meth with, "if you love meth so much, why don't you do some?"

try not to put words in the mouths of others when having discussions, or attribute to them motivations that don't follow from what they've written and you'll find people might be willing to take you more seriously

try not to let your personal observations and the potential bias inherent in personal observations be the only basis for all your opinions and worldview

Shi | July 29, 2005, 7:40pm | #

Drugs
drugs i find are things that people want or think they need just cause they're depressed or upset.But it really makes them feel worse they don't feel it but their body does. It makes them sick or can just make them feel they need more! but i think we should put an end to drugs and drug dealers and tobacco. Tobacco is another drug but people do't think it is.They think it just something you put in your mouth. But it really is a drug. tobacco is an adittive drug. well thats all for now but please don't get tricked into doing drugs. Ü

b-psycho | July 29, 2005, 7:42pm | #

I don't buy the "there are no crack babies" thing though. Whatever the mother uses the kid gets a hit too.

I oppose government intervention there not because I don't see a problem, but because the nature of it is such that it'd inherently require an expansion of force large enough to nullify any gain from it. The type of gov't that can step in when a pregnant woman uses meth or crack must eventually, in order to be consistent, step in when a pregnant woman smokes anything or so much as fails to maintain an optimal nutritional intake.

As it is between women being chased around for eating too many candy bars and the occasional rarity of a woman screwing up her kid, I have no choice but to pick the latter, as at least society still has a shot at alleviating the problem there, whereas in the first instance there is no civil society left over worth keeping. No government has ever successfully abolished suffering.

40ozr | July 29, 2005, 7:53pm | #

I am now and then a meth user. I used to use it more often, a couple of times a week for years. It helped me have fun, make friends, get a business degree, and meet my future wife. I wouldn't have called myself an addict, but the drug czar would have counted me as one.

I guess the harm it caused me is that I didn't reach my full potential. You see, I was going to be the next Bill Gates, but I just turned out to be a regular guy (see how easy it is to manufacture the harm).

I often work with people like John who believe that people in law enforcement are experts on meth or any other drug use because they see so many horror stories. They will say something like, "I can take you down to the county jail and show the harm drug use has done to so many lives." Well, that's kinda like a prision guard believing he's an expert on black and mexicans.

They never understand that the behavior they witness is NOT normal. Normal drug use is often hidden. You'll never see the ones like me, staying up all night to cram for an exam, snorting lines!

John, I bet you don't take your kids to police dept when they get sick for a presription. Why? Cause you know cops really don't know shit about drugs.

Anonymo the Anonymous | July 29, 2005, 8:00pm | #

Re: Shi, three posts up - I think we just found the worst Hit & Run comment ever. For a laugh, take your favorite drugs and check out the feds' Drug War propaganda for kids sites like freevibe.com. All crap like that, all the time.

Re: amphetamine songs - does "White Light White Heat" count? Or, for that matter, everything VU ever recorded?

sage | July 29, 2005, 8:01pm | #

John:

"I would rather deal with 15 herion junkies than one meth addict and the cops I know agree with me."

I do think John has left the building, but he seems to nees a lesson in logical argument construction:

http://www.pleasurepoint.com/logical.html

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:
"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."

"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"


"All the cops I know agree that meth heads are the real danger to us, oh yeah and the terriorists."

biologist | July 29, 2005, 8:13pm | #

Anonymo:

I think shi is also pixie_angel, 6 posts back (or so)

check the emails

someone's being sarcastic, I suspect. they probably just copied and pasted those from freevibe.com.

js | July 29, 2005, 8:58pm | #

John is critized for basing his perception on biased personal experience but the person who says the drugs are safe because they have used them is not. Um .... yea or something.

mediageek | July 29, 2005, 9:10pm | #

Personal freedom is a great thing, the thing libertarians need to recognize and often fail to, is that the Meth addict has far less freedom (even if Meth were legal) than, the loss of freedom to not to Meth (making it illegal).

Joel, I've never used meth, never seen it, and have zero desire to go anywhere near the stuff.

But you know what?

I think the shit ought to be legalized, and the entire War on Drugs ended, because I'm really quite irritated by the fact that my 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments to the Bill of Rights are being systematically destroyed by a government motivated out of idiotic puritanical drug policies.

To put it bluntly, I'm sick and tired of seeing my rights erode and my money extorted because the Mrs. Kravitz Goose-Step Brigade wants to save people from themselves. The quality of my life has been hampered far more by the zeal of the drug warriors than by the entire recreational drug culture.

dhex | July 29, 2005, 9:13pm | #

"Yeah, stick it to the man, kill yourself on speed."

yes, obviously.

you asked why people would break the law. i gave a possible answer.

Kwix | July 29, 2005, 10:16pm | #

meth = bad
pot = bad
beer = bad
sleeping too much = bad
skydiving = bad
swiming with sharks = bad
active sex = bad
too much work = bad

Dammit! Let me do the things I want to do and if I screw up, I screw up. That simple.

Not to drag religion into this, but there are two very good tenents that should govern all life.
1)Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2)An it harm none do what thou wilt.

thoreau | July 30, 2005, 2:10pm | #

I have begun my process of corrupting the government's own scientists. A lot of the people in my lab are addicted to caffeine, and they laugh when I joke about our addiction. I've mentioned to a few people that it's a good thing we're addicted to a stimulant that the government approves of, because if we were addicted to Colombia's other major export we'd be in prison. They laugh.

I can't say I've cultivated this sentiment, but I have uncovered it. I suspect that support for drug reform is more common than people realize, and a lot of people are afraid to speak up because they don't think anybody else feels the same way. I have no illusion that support for reform is even close to the 51% threshold, but it's probably common enough that if people just "came out of the closet" we could start a real national dialogue on the subject.

How to get people out of the closet? One important step would be to turn the government's own scientific elite against the policy. I know that the biophysics group at NIH isn't exactly in the inner circle of power, and dissenting experts can always be ignored by policy-makers. I also realize that the career federal employees have to tread lightly when talking publicly about controversial political matters. Still, no good cause has ever been harmed by the support of good scientists.

Kwix | July 30, 2005, 3:03pm | #

For anybody still checking this thread. Just found this forum posting at an anti-meth site (www.kci.org). Apparently the Today Show would like to do a spot on students who use meth. If anybody would like to try and get a counter-point of view on this, try contacting the researcher.

Forum link:
http://p073.ezboard.com/fmethamphetamineabusediscussionforumfrm2.showMessage?topicID=4452.topic

Kwix | July 30, 2005, 3:45pm | #

Now for some research. While it is still a valid link, I just decided to research the site (KCI.org).

KCI.org is the homesite of the former Koch Crime Institute. KCI was, until fundage shortages in 2002, a center of research "Based upon scientific methods of research and data gathering and extensive statistical analysis, the organization was best known for producing and distributing highly regarded and credible reports on criminal justice issues known for their thoroughness, objectivity, and accuracy"

In 2002 they reinvented themselves as "KCI - The Anti-Meth Site". KCI was founded and is still chaired by William Ingraham Koch, founder and President of the Oxbow group and brother of David Koch who currently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Reason Institute - publisher of this magazine and site.

While I am not one to say that brothers can't agree, I find it odd that while one proclaims that "Meth is the Devil's Drug" the other actually ran for President under the Liberitarian ticket.

worthywads | July 30, 2005, 5:51pm | #

How about Lou Reeds take on speed, his drug of choice.

White Light/White Heat

White light go on messing up my mind
Don't you know it's gonna make me go blind?
White heat, it tickles me down to my toes
Have Mercy, white light, have it goodness knows

White light, go on messing up my brain
White light, it's gonna drive me insane
White heat, it tickles me down to my toes
White light I said now, goodness knows, do it

I surely do love to watch that stuff shooting itself in
Watch that side, watch that side, don't you know, gonna be dead and bright
Yeah, foxy mama, watch her walking down the street
Come upside, your head's gonna make a dead end on your street

White light, move in me and drain my brain
White light, it's gonna make me go insane
White heat, it tickles me down to my toes
White light, I said now, goodness knows

White light is lighting up my eyes
Don't you know it fill me up with surprise?
White heat, tickle me down to my toes
White light, I tell you now, goodness knows

Oh, she surely do move, speed
Watch that speed freak, watch that speed freak,
Gonna shoot it up every night of the week
Sputter mutter, everybody's gonna kill their mother
Here' she comes, here she comes,everybody get it, gonna make me run, do it
HIGHER

mediageek | July 31, 2005, 12:29am | #

Neither John nore Joel seem to have posted a response.

As such, would it be tacky of me to observe that they got their asses handed to them by a bunch of recreational drug users and a couple of freedom-loving teetotalers?

David Nieporent | July 31, 2005, 5:46am | #

Some people are so poor and stupid they would rather risk their lives buying moonshine then pay $20 for a fifth of Jim Beam.

Yeah. And you know what would help those people? Self-righteous jackasses arresting them and throwing them in jail -- or maybe only sentencing them to "treatment." In either case, giving them criminal records, which will clearly improve their economic prospects down the road.

Joel B. | July 31, 2005, 10:09am | #

Lol, my abscence is a result of being quite busy.

Look arguing that the drug war isn't all bad, is always going to be a risky idea on a strongly libertarian board.

Drugs can really destroy lives. Of course, so can a lot of things, and true we don't make illegal, those other things. But especially Meth, and a number of the worst drugs my sense of "liberty vs. order/compassion" I fall on the order/compassion side.

If someone wants to mess up their life, they probably will, but to the extent that we make it easier or harder will probably have an affect. That's why there's a lot more alcoholics than Meth addicts.

That's not to say we should ban alcohol we shouldn't, but our society has made a policy choice, partly for historical reasons, that alcohol is something we can abide by. I think politically weed is more in the air now, but Meth is just too far. I don't find such policy decisions unwise or irrational just a response to the way normal people work. (There much more likely to try something if it's legal than illegal, and there are somethings it seems better not to try even a first time. You may not get a second chance with highly addictive drugs, this can be the case, and truly destructive personal decisions. Suicide e.g. which is not to say we should ban suicide, just that it's a really excessively bad decision.

thirstyj | July 31, 2005, 12:16pm | #

I think a fair compromise would be to legalize recreational drugs but perhaps enhance the penalties for any crime committed while intoxicated. That way, the average non-violent drug user is not harmed by draconian drug laws while those who misuse said drugs are punished for causing problems in society. Think of the tax revenue we could generate if just weed were legal! Don't you think that the revenue generated from such taxes would more than pay for the costs of dealing with idiotic, violent people who give all drug users a bad name?

40ozer | July 31, 2005, 1:04pm | #

"If someone wants to mess up their life, they probably will, but to the extent that we make it easier or harder will probably have an affect. That's why there's a lot more alcoholics than Meth addicts." - Joel B.

For alcohol, we attempt to follow this in a rational way. We put a lot of restrictions on who can buy, where you can buy it, where you can drink, and how you act after you drink.

But with other drugs we assume the only way is to make them illegal and put everyone in jail (or only give them criminal records if they are lucky).

What about people like me? I used meth (and other drugs) and had positive results in my life. Doesn't it bother you that the policy you support hurts good people like me? And why? It's an attempt (not even a very good one)to save addicts from themselves.

I sincerely don't understand why you would value saving an addict so much that you would purposely hurt innocent people (the vast majority drug users which are non-violent, non-destructive, and not addicted). Actually, it's not just innocent drug users you are harming, when you consider all problems associated with the black market (gangs, drive-bys).

Seriously, addicts just aren't worth it. Let them rot.

Joel B. | July 31, 2005, 2:10pm | #

40ozer,

I am glad that your life was not negatively impacted by the use of various...controlled substances.

My policy does hurt people who are in your situation, but the question I have to ask is that does the policy help more people than it hurts on balance does it more beneficial (say in deterrence effect on meth usage) than it is to the loss of freedom. I come out on that side.

Also, your use of meth, to some degree does hurt other people, in law school, meth usage is somewhat under the radar but people are pretty well aware of its relative prevalence. Some use it to help them cram and study and focus on exams. I think they're nuts, but more importantly, while they say it's their own personal decision, they're unfairly tilting the playing field. Now maybe your classes weren't curved so it's not so much of an issue, but still to the extent some uses meth to "get a leg up," that's really just a euphemism for cheating.

But Lastly, I guess a lot of this just comes down to your last statement Seriously, addicts just aren't worth it. Let them rot.
The addict isn't worthless, it may be a tragedy, but the addict is no less human than you or I, and we can not just judge them to be worthless.

Eion | July 31, 2005, 4:02pm | #

"that's really just a euphemism for cheating."

You don't have to bring outlines, notes and the like into exams either, but doing so will also give you a leg up. Assuming it's allowed (at my law school for most exams it is), then is that cheating too, or are the people who don't do it just putting themselves at a disadvantage?

Now let's move on to caffeine - are the people who use caffeine to stay awake during morning classes and to study late at night "unfairly tilting the playing field"?

And what about Mountain Dew Amp (my energy drink of choice)? Is that cheating?

Other than legality and strength, how can you differentiate use of legal stimulants with use of illegal stimulants? Of two products with similar effects, is one product "cheating" and one not just because of the legal status of the product?

Joel B. | July 31, 2005, 4:34pm | #

Of two products with similar effects, is one product "cheating" and one not just because of the legal status of the product?

That is correct. Doing something illegal to assist you in an exam would qualify as cheating to me, is it cheating to get a prescription for ritaling so you can take an exam and use it? Yes. Someone is going beyond the legal instruments to give themself an advantage.

You don't have to bring outlines, notes and the like into exams either, but doing so will also give you a leg up. Assuming it's allowed (at my law school for most exams it is), then is that cheating too, or are the people who don't do it just putting themselves at a disadvantage?

No, but if it's allowed, it's allowed, which means its not cheating. People choose not to bring outlines into an exam for a myriad of reasons. It is always possible that the individual feels that the outline will become a crutch and destract them from the exam.

Eion | July 31, 2005, 5:15pm | #

So in other words, using a substance to help you to cram, focus in exams etc. is perfectly acceptable as long as the government doesn't forbid recreational use of that substance? What about modafinil, which can legally be prescribed for non-indicated uses? What about a hypothetical stimulant that is just as strong and effective as amphetamine but isn't illegal yet?

"is it cheating to get a prescription for ritaling [sic] so you can take an exam and use it? Yes."
Even if you are prescribed ritalin for a legitimate medical condition, or should those of us with learning disabilities either live with our disabilities or not be in law school?

"Doing something illegal to assist you in an exam would qualify as cheating to me"
So photocopying a friend's commercial outline to use when studying for an exam would also be cheating?

Joel B. | July 31, 2005, 5:45pm | #

Using a medication for which you have a legitimate perscription is fine too. I don't know that it's really that hard to understand what I'm saying, using illegal drugs to get an edge on the competition is not fair. Part of the reason is that...they're illegal. So regardless of whether you're willing to "take the risk" soceity has placed them off limits.

If something is "not yet" illegal, it's still fine.

As to the outline, that's just not right, but the commercial outline would still be available to you, at a price, but legally available, so while that's not cheating, it's still stealing.

Eion | July 31, 2005, 5:57pm | #

"using illegal drugs to get an edge on the competition is not fair. Part of the reason is that...they're illegal."

So even if illegal drugs give you a much smaller edge than legal drugs do, using the illegal drugs is not fair because they are illegal... okay. I understand what you're saying. The classification of a substance by some federal agency instantly makes the use of that substance to help you to stay awake, focus, cram and the like either cheating or not cheating, regardless of the efficacy of the substance for that purpose.

Have I stated your position accurately?

"As to the outline, that's just not right, but the commercial outline would still be available to you, at a price, but legally available, so while that's not cheating, it's still stealing."
Okay, so say that I have a diagnosis of ADHD, but I buy some meth on the street because I haven't been to see a doctor in a while, don't have health insurance, whatever. By your logic, because methamphetamine would be legally available to me it's not cheating, despite the fact that I have broken the law to improve my exam performance?

Joel B. | July 31, 2005, 7:29pm | #

It seems you've stated my position accurately.

In the ADHD it's still wrong because the Meth is still illegal, if you can't or won't go to a doctor to get the legal prescription, your recourse is not to resort to illicit drugs.
Remember the Meth is still not legally available to you, unless you have the prescription, which is key.

If, Caffiene was just as effective, then why do people resort to Meth?

Eion | July 31, 2005, 7:50pm | #

"If, Caffiene [sic] was just as effective, then why do people resort to Meth?"
I never said that caffeine was just as effective - I was speaking hypothetically.

You said:
"In the ADHD it's still wrong because the Meth is still illegal, if you can't or won't go to a doctor to get the legal prescription, your recourse is not to resort to illicit drugs."
But earlier, you said:
"As to the outline, that's just not right, but the commercial outline would still be available to you, at a price, but legally available, so while that's not cheating, it's still stealing."
In both cases I would be using something that is legally available to me (if I go to the bookstore, or if I go to the doctor and then the pharmacy) but that I have broken the law to possess. There seem to be inconsistencies in your position.

"your recourse is not to resort to illicit drugs"
But how does doing so give me an unfair advantage over people who do not have the medical condition that I would be treating?

If the federal government that you have so much faith in (which is very touching, if utterly misplaced) suddenly turns around and decides to reschedule amphetamines as schedule 1 - which they could do - thus making it illegal to possess, would it still be cheating for me to use it to treat a medical condition that places me at a significant disadvantage?

How does that Kool-Aid taste?

SteveInClearwater | July 31, 2005, 10:25pm | #

Regarding the reference to moonshine alcohol operations still being in existence: That may be so, but regardless, in the South (or whatever region one wishes to cite) I can state with confidence that 99.9% of alcohol distribution is done by licensed, regulated dealers.

That is, for every one moonshine sale in a given state, there are at the same time 999 that are made from groceries, liquor stores, gas stations, restaurants and (in FL at least) pharmacies.

Therefore we can likewise state with confidence that ending Alcohol Prohibition resulted in 99.9% of the illegal trade being shut down.

That's a nice improvement over current drug war enforcement, which after 33 years of DEA-style enforcement, the illegal trade in 'illicit' drugs remains unchecked and in the case of illegal amphetamines - greatly increasing nationwide.

CONCLUSION - Make already legal amphetamines more accessible to the average citizen and you will instantly reduce the illegal market.

We can debate the pluses and minuses of amphetamine use and even 'excessive' amphetamine abuse on another Topic Day.

For now, the only pertinent question is, "Which system of distribution is preferable? A system that is completely illegal, unlicensed and unregulated or a system which is mostly legal, mostly licensed and mostly regulated?"

O2PAB

Joel B, | August 1, 2005, 12:28am | #

It's not Kool Aid, it's Crystal Light, might personal preference. ;-)

I think you're strecthing to make an inconsistensy. Not that inconsistencies are inherently bad. But remember methamphetamines are not available without a prescription so even in the ADHD case, it's still not legally available.

Don't think I have utter and complete faith in the federal government, I don't, but there is some things that need to be more regulated than others, and some that ought to be contraband, and if somebody has to enforce that, it might as well be the feds.

Eion | August 1, 2005, 1:50am | #

I only drink Kool-Aid for food colouring and sugar buzz, personally.

"But remember methamphetamines are not available without a prescription so even in the ADHD case, it's still not legally available."
Did you mean to say that they aren't even available even by prescription? From the second part of your sentence, that's what you seem to mean, but I'm not sure... anyway, there is a common misconception that methamphetamine is not available on prescription, but actually it is.

I admit to coming up with slightly weird hypotheticals to demonstrate the inconsistency, but they weren't that weird and the inconsistency is there.

"there is some things that need to be more regulated than others, and some that ought to be contraband"
I'm going to resist trotting out the standard libertarian drug policy stuff, but that's what I would have written here.

"and if somebody has to enforce that, it might as well be the feds."
"Might as well be" isn't good enough to trump states' rights in my opinion. And getting back to the original argument - just because the federal government has decided that they want to ban some substance, it doesn't follow that use of that substance to improve exam performance is therefore cheating as far as I can see.

Joel B. | August 1, 2005, 9:22am | #

"Might as well be" isn't good enough to trump states' rights in my opinion. And getting back to the original argument - just because the federal government has decided that they want to ban some substance, it doesn't follow that use of that substance to improve exam performance is therefore cheating as far as I can see.

Fair enough that's a reasonable point of view. I think we just disagree.

Did you mean to say that they aren't even available even by prescription? From the second part of your sentence, that's what you seem to mean, but I'm not sure... anyway, there is a common misconception that methamphetamine is not available on prescription, but actually it is.

No No, I meant what I said, without a prescription methamphetamines are not legally available. With a prescription they are, but in the case of your hypothetical he was without a prescription, so the methamphetamine was still not legally available to him.

Of course your next argument might be to assume he had a prescription. That does get more difficult. But I still have problems with it as he is going outside of the legitimate channel, of course I still have problems with stealing the outline. So maybe that is not cheating assuming the prescription is complied with and the prescriped substance and the used substance are identical.

Eion | August 1, 2005, 10:38am | #

"With a prescription they are, but in the case of your hypothetical he was without a prescription, so the methamphetamine was still not legally available to him."
But if you have an ADHD diagnosis you can get a prescription by merely going to a doctor - that was my point.

And I'm not even going to get into copyright infringement not being the same as stealing... :-P

Michael | August 6, 2005, 9:32pm | #

So much of this is plain silly. Drug users who claim to have no problems from their drug use declaring that said drug should be legalized. I used drugs for twenty years, including meethamphetamines and I never met a drug user who did not have problems, psycological as well as physical, resulting from addictive use. Addictive refers to both physical and psycological addiction. The majority of drug users have a need to get "high" that predates their drug use. This need and the perceived benefits of their drug use make drug users the least objective when it comes to determining whether these drugs should be legalized.

My wife and I are very familiar with the different types of so-called drug babies. Although the cocaine baby syndrome was exaggerated that does not mean that cocaine babies did not exist or that they did not have objectively verifiable limitations resulting from being born addicted to that drug. We have adopted four babies with inherent problems arising from their prenatal drug use and provided foster care for many others. The reality is that drug use by an embryo and fetus leads to birth defects of sometimes subtle and infrequently drastic proprtions.

We have a seven year old daughter who has severe diffculties with emotional control, physical tics and spasms as well as significant psychiatric problems who was born addicted to cocaine. Her withdrawal from the drug involved seizures that may have caused further brain damage than she was intitially born with. The fact remains that there is a relationship between her prenatal addiction and her current condtion. The cocaine baby syndrome was exaggerated for many, but not for this one or the many like her we have met.

We have a nine-year old son who not only was born with enough methamphetamne in his system to overdose a non-addicted user but who suffered such serious neglect after his birth while his parents were getting high that he has a combination of defects arising from both experiences. His learning disabilites come from the brain damaged cause din the womb by the massive amounts of meth his mother was shooting right up to and during her labor. The psycological problems arising from being left hanging on a wall inside a backpack for hours at a time while the people who were supposed to care for him found the enticement of drug use more compelling are as severe. Allowing him to be used as a sex toy by their dealer when he was less than a year old because they could not pay their debt didn't help him any either.

My other nine year old son was born testing positive for morphine, marijuana and alcohol. He is severely developmentally disabled as well as having numerous physical disabilities arising from the narcotics and alcohol soup in which he lived for nine months.

The realities are that drugs can have positive benefits when used for that purpose and they can be devastatingly wicked in result when used inappropriately. Street level experimentation is not a reasonable method of determinig suitable amounts for use without detrimental side affect. The fact that the effects of cocaine use were exagerrated does not mean there are no negative effects.

I support the legalization of medicinal marijuana for purely economic reasons. I use Marinol as a medical treatment and found that if I tried to pay for this drug without insurance coverage it would cost me about $60 per day. Each pill is valued at about $10. The cost of producing that pill is more along the lines of fifty cents. A lot of people who can benefit from the use of Marinol cannot afford it because they lack prescription drug coverage. For them, street drugs become a necessity in order to have some quality of life. I do not support marijuana legalization for recreational use.

Recreational drug use is a danger to everyone around you. The fact that some of you avoided mishap, or are just unaware of the mishaps, is not evidence of harmlessness. The fact that people die of unintended overdoses, auto accidents under the influence or innocent children die or suffer injury because the woman carrying them in her womb found her recreation more important than they were is evidence that these drugs can and are misused and do lead to injury and death because of that misuse.

Too many people I knew died from drug use for me to accept the silly canard that users state regarding their right to get high. You don't have the right to risk the lives of those around you because you get high and cannot control your actions or even understand the compexities of what you are doing. You are not exonerated from stupidity because you got high and don't remember everything that happened. If a soldior goes to war and does not die, it does not follow that bullets will not kill. If you use drigs and survive it is not evidence of drug safety.

There are many arguments that can be made for drug legality or illegality, but none of the logical ones are being used here.