Agassi used crystal meth

[EricF]

Not all drugs are equal. You will find little support for advocating the rights of tweakers. Crystal Meth is destructive and bad. Not only should it be illegal and strictly enforced, but there should be lots of money spend educating people about how bad it really is. A significant portion of our society is eroding because of this drug. I see it everyday in my neighborhood where I teach. Mothers prostituting in front of my students for their next hit on the quag. I watched a roommate and college buddy destroy his life and wind up homeless because of Meth. Sure, some people have tried it and walked away. Good for them, but this hardly warrants some kind of campaign advocating its benefits and 'harmless' nature.

Meth is far from harlmess, and I certainly haven't seen anywhere it's advocated for any reason. It most definitely is illegal already, but when has the law ever been much of a deterrent for this kind of thing?

beer and meth or the samee level i think not. Dumbasses smoke meth.

While I agree with you, there are a lot more ways to take meth than just smoking it.

Sure it can, but thats not always the case. Sometimes it just makes people really awake and alert and paranoid and talkative and horny. It would be like watching two super soldiers face off against each other, but in tennis form.

My own experiences with it many, many years ago tended to be more along this line. However, I also remember how it was starting to take over parts of my life. I was lucky and got out without damage. I've known others who weren't so lucky.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Very destructive and bad, although in reality not especially worse than cocaine and heroin.



Education, yes. Prohibition, no.

Prohibition creates many more problems than it solves, and has shown almost zero effectiveness at reducing usage.

Education is really the only thing that works with respect to any substance - and you'd better tell kids the truth, or you defeat your purpose. See: DARE graduates being more likely to use drugs than non-DARE graduates for a perfect example.

Normally, I would agree with you here. Meth is very destructive and bad and as far as which is more destructive between cocaine, heroin and meth, I think we're splitting hairs. The current model for enforcement does not work. I concur. However, it's my opinion that some drugs are too destructive to officially legalize with any kind of sense of responsibility not to mention liability. Imagine the lawsuits that might come from some kind of addiction 'education' program sponsored by our federal or state government, that supports the distribution of 'clean' speed? Tweakers, crack heads, and junkies, by their nature are not a stable and controllable group. Yes, education, and rehabilitation saves many lives, I'm a big supporter of that piece, but I can't support the legalization of ALL drugs. It's just irresponsible.

Sure declassify and legalize some drugs on a case by case basis, such as marijuana, but I think we can both agree potheads are a lot more bearable than tweakers. The big difference is that more often than not a person on speed in not committing victimless crimes. There was a guy I knew, (who funny enough is a psychologist now ) who was pinning this girl down and tearing her clothes off because he thought she was calling him 'gay'. I suspect he was going to rape her to prove her wrong. Myself and a couple of other people pulled him off her while he was assaulting her. The dude was making no sense. The chick hadn't said anything to him. They hadn't even had a conversation. Later I read about 'amphetamine induced paranoia' and it totally described his behavior. We were all at a big party. Everyone was doing everything, but this guy had been up for about four days straight on a speed binge. Would you want that legalized (or decriminalized and roaming around your kids? (I'm not sure if you're a father or not yet, but your opinion changes a lot when that happens. Not judging. Just saying).

I used to have a kind of 'live and let live' approach to all this until I encountered meth. Then I realized that not all drugs are the same, and the users associated with different drugs often exhibit dangerous behaviors. When my roommate got hooked on it, suddenly people were associating me with him and with meth. Friends stopped calling or coming around and it wasn't until I got the hell out of there did I realize why. Don't legalize it. Educate and rehabilitate, but at the same time, let's not facilitate these guys with a blanket legalize it all philosophy.

I don't know where you got your statistics there with the DARE stuff, but I do agree that honesty is better than propaganda.

 

[Indiana Mike]

The majority of people I have known that used meth on a regular basis have lost their ...

Teeth
health
jobs
wives
husbands
other family doesn't trust them or doesn't want them around
girlfriends
boyfriends
kids
freedom (jail or prison)
money
sanity


Meth is EVIL

Legalize pot ? sure

Meth? NEVER

This area has been hit hard by it.
Normal working class people are forever ruined by this drug.
If your ever in the area and find an abandoned cooler you can bet it is an abandoned mobile meth lab . leave it alone!

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

I used to have a kind of 'live and let live' approach to all this until I encountered meth.

Me too.

 

[spade2you]

I hate to sound too cynical, but I kind of laugh to myself when I hear that people know plenty of people make comments that they know someone who has done meth just once or people that have quit. I work in the health care field and don't know anyone who has tried it once. I know people who have quit, but none that have quit permanently. I know someone who has been in clean for about a year and a half now, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't relapse before completion of the 2nd year.

 

[EricF]

I hate to sound too cynical, but I kind of laugh to myself when I hear that people know plenty of people make comments that they know someone who has done meth just once or people that have quit. I work in the health care field and don't know anyone who has tried it once. I know people who have quit, but none that have quit permanently. I know someone who has been in clean for about a year and a half now, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't relapse before completion of the 2nd year.

I have done it and quit. So has my wife. So have some other people I know. I do know someone who did it just once and never touched it again. Then again, this was nearly 15+ years ago, and as I understand it from other sources (TB'er jady being one), meth today is very different - much, much more dangerous - than it used to be. I also know many lives (wives, husbands, families, friends, etc.) that have been ruined by the evil that is meth. As I said before, I was lucky and realized what was happening before it was too late. Nothing about meth is worth gambling your life over.

 

[aborgman]

Normally, I would agree with you here. Meth is very destructive and bad and as far as which is more destructive between cocaine, heroin and meth, I think we're splitting hairs. The current model for enforcement does not work. I concur. However, it's my opinion that some drugs are too destructive to officially legalize with any kind of sense of responsibility not to mention liability.

Other countries seem to be doing just fine with decriminalization.

Every one said that when the Swiss, English, Dutch, etc. started allowing heroin addicts to get their drugs (in small controlled amounts) through the public health system the world would end.

It hasn't.

Imagine the lawsuits that might come from some kind of addiction 'education' program sponsored by our federal or state government, that supports the distribution of 'clean' speed?

Ummm... we already (in some ways) have that. Meth is commercially sold as Desoxyn. A doctor can already prescribe it to you.

...and how about methadone? The government allows addicts to receive it also in treating various opiod addictions - yet it, itself, is generally more addictive than what is being treated.

The reality is that about 450,000 people a year die from tobacco, about 90,000 people a year die from alcohol, about 30,000 die from correctly used prescription drugs - and only about 17,000 people die per year from illicit drug use.

...and that is ALL illicit drug use - cocaine, heroin, meth, and the biggest segment? Illegal use of over the counter pain killers.

Tweakers, crack heads, and junkies, by their nature are not a stable and controllable group. Yes, education, and rehabilitation saves many lives, I'm a big supporter of that piece, but I can't support the legalization of ALL drugs. It's just irresponsible.

It seems to be working just fine in the countries which have done it - in fact most of them have significantly LOWER usage rates than here where it is illegal.

Would you want that legalized (or decriminalized and roaming around your kids? (I'm not sure if you're a father or not yet, but your opinion changes a lot when that happens. Not judging. Just saying).

Yes, and yes - and I have two kids.

Because there is MORE violence, MORE crime, and MORE deaths due to the drug than there would be otherwise.

The black market for the drugs is significantly MORE harmful than the effects of the drug.

I used to have a kind of 'live and let live' approach to all this until I encountered meth. Then I realized that not all drugs are the same, and the users associated with different drugs often exhibit dangerous behaviors.

Sure - like alcohol. You know - the drug involved in more domestic violence, rape, robbery, murder, child abuse, and every other imaginable crime than any other drug.

When my roommate got hooked on it, suddenly people were associating me with him and with meth. Friends stopped calling or coming around and it wasn't until I got the hell out of there did I realize why. Don't legalize it. Educate and rehabilitate, but at the same time, let's not facilitate these guys with a blanket legalize it all philosophy.

Illegality does nothing to reduce the harm. That is the pragmatic problem.

I don't like meth. I think it is one of the more dangerous drugs out there... but the actual reality is - there would be less tweakers robbing people, less tweakers dieing of overdoses, and a whole lot less pollution and crime.

I don't know where you got your statistics there with the DARE stuff, but I do agree that honesty is better than propaganda.

DARE has proven statistically to be even less successful at it's mission than "abstinence only" programs... but, it keeps going due to major funding from: tobacco companies, alcohol companies, and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Other countries seem to be doing just fine with decriminalization.

Every one said that when the Swiss, English, Dutch, etc. started allowing heroin addicts to get their drugs (in small controlled amounts) through the public health system the world would end.

It hasn't.



Ummm... we already (in some ways) have that. Meth is commercially sold as Desoxyn. A doctor can already prescribe it to you.

...and how about methadone? The government allows addicts to receive it also in treating various opiod addictions - yet it, itself, is generally more addictive than what is being treated.

The reality is that about 450,000 people a year die from tobacco, about 90,000 people a year die from alcohol, about 30,000 die from correctly used prescription drugs - and only about 17,000 people die per year from illicit drug use.

...and that is ALL illicit drug use - cocaine, heroin, meth, and the biggest segment? Illegal use of over the counter pain killers.



It seems to be working just fine in the countries which have done it - in fact most of them have significantly LOWER usage rates than here where it is illegal.



Yes, and yes - and I have two kids.

Because there is MORE violence, MORE crime, and MORE deaths due to the drug than there would be otherwise.

The black market for the drugs is significantly MORE harmful than the effects of the drug.



Sure - like alcohol. You know - the drug involved in more domestic violence, rape, robbery, murder, child abuse, and every other imaginable crime than any other drug.



Illegality does nothing to reduce the harm. That is the pragmatic problem.

I don't like meth. I think it is one of the more dangerous drugs out there... but the actual reality is - there would be less tweakers robbing people, less tweakers dieing of overdoses, and a whole lot less pollution and crime.



DARE has proven statistically to be even less successful at it's mission than "abstinence only" programs... but, it keeps going due to major funding from: tobacco companies, alcohol companies, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Meh. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think a blanket 'legalize them all' policy is the answer. I think it needs to be done on a drug by drug basis. Your typical heroin user when he is high is generally a lot more docile than a your typical person on meth for instance, therefore, I think the very nature of the drug needs to be taken into account when considering doing what you're talking about. I'm not opposed to legalizing, or decriminalizing specific drugs, just not all of them at once.

Additionally, you can't really compare alcohol and tobacco deaths to illicit drug deaths. Yes, I acknowledge that they are also drugs, as well as prescription drugs, but the fact that they are available either over the counter, or by prescription, means that they are more available than those that are illicit. There are obviously going to be more deaths related to alcohol and tobacco because of the mere fact that they are easier to acquire, AND they are legally distributed (not to mention socially accepted). Additionally, on the flip side, if we legalized the illicit drugs that you are comparing them to, isn't it safe to assume that the number of deaths associated with these drugs would also increase when they are more widely distributed and made more available?

Let's entertain your idea for a moment. How do you propose to make these drugs available to the addicts that need them? Would you allow private businesses the licenses to produce and distribute them in a social type of setting? (like a bar dedicated to meth - I can't even begin to imagine what that would look like - perhaps a lot of legos on the table ) Would you control their distribution like a prescription type of set up? (you already acknowledged that out of the illicit drug deaths this stat is the highest). Obviously, I'm providing examples to bolster up my side of the argument, but I want you to explain it from your perspective. Please explain how you envision it, so I can see it better.

 

[aborgman]

Meh. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think a blanket 'legalize them all' policy is the answer. I think it needs to be done on a drug by drug basis. Your typical heroin user when he is high is generally a lot more docile than a your typical person on meth for instance, therefore, I think the very nature of the drug needs to be taken into account when considering doing what you're talking about. I'm not opposed to legalizing, or decriminalizing specific drugs, just not all of them at once.

I think whether you do all at once, or do it piecemeal over time is irrelevant when it comes to the societal costs - what is relevant is having an educational system in place and a logical and pragmatic plan for dealing with addiction.

Additionally, you can't really compare alcohol and tobacco deaths to illicit drug deaths. Yes, I acknowledge that they are also drugs, as well as prescription drugs, but the fact that they are available either over the counter, or by prescription, means that they are more available than those that are illicit. There are obviously going to be more deaths related to alcohol and tobacco because of the mere fact that they are easier to acquire, AND they are legally distributed (not to mention socially accepted). Additionally, on the flip side, if we legalized the illicit drugs that you are comparing them to, isn't it safe to assume that the number of deaths associated with these drugs would also increase when they are more widely distributed and made more available?

It's very difficult to say. If we go by historical precedent in other countries though - that hasn't been the case.

The Netherlands - through decriminalizing weed (and several other soft drugs like mushrooms) and working hard to seperate hard drug users from soft (while at the same time lowering penalties etc. for hard drug users) has actually seen a reduction in use of both hard and soft drug use. They've also seen a significant increase in the average age of thei hard drug user population (the implication being that less and less young folks are getting addicted to "hard" drugs).

Let's entertain your idea for a moment. How do you propose to make these drugs available to the addicts that need them? Would you allow private businesses the licenses to produce and distribute them in a social type of setting? (like a bar dedicated to meth - I can't even begin to imagine what that would look like - perhaps a lot of legos on the table ) Would you control their distribution like a prescription type of set up? (you already acknowledged that out of the illicit drug deaths this stat is the highest).

Depends on the drug in question, and the amount in question.

For hard drugs I'd like something like the UK model of providing it basically by prescription and under a physicians monitoring (monitoring of general health and addiction, not monitoring each time they use).

For drugs which hold significantly lower health risks (mj, most hallucinogens, etc.) - the Netherlands coffee shop model works for me.

Obviously, I'm providing examples to bolster up my side of the argument, but I want you to explain it from your perspective. Please explain how you envision it, so I can see it better.

I don't think there is any, single, correct answer - there are many ways you could go about it, but not many ways would be as counterproductive, expensive, and ineffectual as what we currently do.

We've proven - repeatedly in this country - that prohibition doesn't work. Alcohol prohibition didn't in any appreciable way lower the number of people drinking alcohol but did increase the number of people dying from binge drinking and tainted alcohol, and made organized crime (and the Kennedys) what they are today.

 

[Balog]

I'm against prohibition personally, for both moral and practical reasons. I support laws against behaviours, including those that are merely reckless and endanger others ie drunken driving.

That being said, the use of some drugs is prima facia evidence of being reckless imo. That "paranoia" someone has mentioned as a result of meth use seems to qualify. When the drug (used "properly") causes a mental state that replicates a mental disorder that might cause a person to be adjudicated as dangerous to others, then we should proscribe it's use.

 

[MatticusMania]

I hate to sound too cynical, but I kind of laugh to myself when I hear that people know plenty of people make comments that they know someone who has done meth just once or people that have quit. I work in the health care field and don't know anyone who has tried it once. I know people who have quit, but none that have quit permanently. I know someone who has been in clean for about a year and a half now, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't relapse before completion of the 2nd year.

I have a friend who was a regular meth user for years. He's now 7 years sober. I dabbled in it a little bit after I turned 18 and started hanging with a bad crowd. I havent used it in over 3 years with no plans of ever doing it again.

 

[aborgman]

I have a friend who was a regular meth user for years. He's now 7 years sober. I dabbled in it a little bit after I turned 18 and started hanging with a bad crowd. I havent used it in over 3 years with no plans of ever doing it again.

I did it once - about 16 years ago. Have never touched it again.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

I think whether you do all at once, or do it piecemeal over time is irrelevant when it comes to the societal costs - what is relevant is having an educational system in place and a logical and pragmatic plan for dealing with addiction.

We're not that far off. I agree with you here. Education and rehabilitation need to the philosophy spearheading all this.

It's very difficult to say. If we go by historical precedent in other countries though - that hasn't been the case.

The Netherlands - through decriminalizing weed (and several other soft drugs like mushrooms) and working hard to seperate hard drug users from soft (while at the same time lowering penalties etc. for hard drug users) has actually seen a reduction in use of both hard and soft drug use. They've also seen a significant increase in the average age of thei hard drug user population (the implication being that less and less young folks are getting addicted to "hard" drugs).

I've followed the Netherlands. I agree their approach is interesting. Especially because they've taken it from the perspective that all drugs are not equal. Dividing drugs into hard and soft drugs is smart. Still, this is NOT a blanket legalization. This is a much smarter approach to the situation in my opinion.

However, the US is a MUCH bigger country than the Netherlands. This model might work on a smaller scale, but when are dealing with a population around 350 million people like the US, then you are talking about many more people. (Let's pretend this is a mandate from the Federal level, because when you factor in reality, it will most likely be a state by state situation with their own flavors on the approach). Does this still work when you're dealing with a much larger number?

Depends on the drug in question, and the amount in question.

For hard drugs I'd like something like the UK model of providing it basically by prescription and under a physicians monitoring (monitoring of general health and addiction, not monitoring each time they use).

For drugs which hold significantly lower health risks (mj, most hallucinogens, etc.) - the Netherlands coffee shop model works for me.



I don't think there is any, single, correct answer - there are many ways you could go about it, but not many ways would be as counterproductive, expensive, and ineffectual as what we currently do.

We've proven - repeatedly in this country - that prohibition doesn't work. Alcohol prohibition didn't in any appreciable way lower the number of people drinking alcohol but did increase the number of people dying from binge drinking and tainted alcohol, and made organized crime (and the Kennedys) what they are today.

I agree with you. But alcohol is a different drug. It has to be treated differently than meth. We're not that far off in what we're talking about though.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

As I understand the situation, pot technically is not actually legal in the Netherlands. But it is permitted in controlled circumstances, like in coffeeshops. The coffeeshops are regulated in a number of ways, such as how much each can keep in stock.

 

[aborgman]

However, the US is a MUCH bigger country than the Netherlands. This model might work on a smaller scale, but when are dealing with a population around 350 million people like the US, then you are talking about many more people. (Let's pretend this is a mandate from the Federal level, because when you factor in reality, it will most likely be a state by state situation with their own flavors on the approach). Does this still work when you're dealing with a much larger number?

I think it does - but like anything else, if you're waiting for certainty before you try it... you'll never try anything.

I agree with you. But alcohol is a different drug. It has to be treated differently than meth. We're not that far off in what we're talking about though.

I'm not sure alcohol is really that much safer... and I'm not at all convinced that they don't hold a lot of aspects in common as far as their regulation should go.

 

[aborgman]

As I understand the situation, pot technically is not actually legal in the Netherlands. But it is permitted in controlled circumstances, like in coffeeshops. The coffeeshops are regulated in a number of ways, such as how much each can keep in stock.

Yeah - it's not "legal" it's "decriminalized".

The law still says it's illegal, they just don't ever enforce the laws. It's a very interesting sort of cognitive dissonance type situation.

 

[MatticusMania]

Yeah - it's not "legal" it's "decriminalized".

The law still says it's illegal, they just don't ever enforce the laws. It's a very interesting sort of cognitive dissonance type situation.

This is what I've been pushing for in my area. No need to legalize herb and let the government start interfering with our product, just decriminalize.

However, I dont feel the same about meth.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

This is what I've been pushing for in my area. No need to legalize herb and let the government start interfering with our product, just decriminalize.

However, I dont feel the same about meth.

Marijuana IS decriminalized. If you get caught with less than an ounce it is still a misdemeanor. In fact, small amount of possession is actually an infraction. Neither one of these are often enforced. Still with that said, and ounce is a huge amount be carrying around on person. You can't walk around with an open container of alcohol either.

 

[aborgman]

Marijuana IS decriminalized. If you get caught with less than an ounce it is still a misdemeanor. In fact, small amount of possession is actually an infraction. Neither one of these are often enforced.

Where you are.

Here in Michigan a 1/4 oz. qualifies you as "intent to deliver"

Still with that said, and ounce is a huge amount be carrying around on person. You can't walk around with an open container of alcohol either.

Doesn't seem like a huge amount to me... and there ARE many places in the US where open containers are legal.

 

[MatticusMania]

Marijuana IS decriminalized. If you get caught with less than an ounce it is still a misdemeanor. In fact, small amount of possession is actually an infraction. Neither one of these are often enforced. Still with that said, and ounce is a huge amount be carrying around on person. You can't walk around with an open container of alcohol either.

True, for the most part. Ive been let go with under a gram on me, and Ive also been cited for possesion with the same amount, which I had to go take an 8 hour drug & alcohol awareness class to have it defered. That shouldnt have to happen!