Just think how wonderful if drugs were legal
Posted on 11/16/2010 9:00:05 PM PST by dr_who
You mean they all become residents of Wisconsin? On balance, that may not be such a bad thing if it eventually robs Minn, Ill, and Mich of congressional districts.
This whole argument about the availability of pseudoephdrine is quite stupid. The synthesis of Meth-Amphetamine is quite simple if you have the pseudoephdrine and somewhat more complex if you do not. At one time in our Organic Chem classes the synthesis was taught and pseudoephdrine was not part of the synthesis.
You mean if you go to lp.org and similar sites you’ll find ALL THAT STUFF? Wow!
In Cave Junction, Oregon, late one night, one cashier closed her till, went to the pharmacy, and came back with an armload of psuedoephedrine (Sudafed). Her friendly co-worker took her money, and checked her out.
Now what was that about keeping Sudafed out of the hands of Meth Producers?
Is that from impurities or pure meth?
In nice words, but yes.
No offense, but Reason mag is stupid. They are unrealistic babies, and they never take into account the dark side of man in any of their arguments. In the last month alone their writers have advocated the end of drunk driving laws, legalizing cocaine, and allowing felons to vote.
Waste the meth pushers. It’s either them or us. People who sell poison need to be hanged....after a fair trial of course.
And if you were an employer in New York in 1986 at the height of the crack epidemic would such a fear be entirely unfounded?
That’s libertarianism for you. Good in some respects but a demented philosophy when taken as a whole. Strictly for English major type intellectuals who grew up in nice neighborhoods. No one in the 3rd world is libertarian. It can only survive in a hothouse
Not sure it matters.
I’m not too keen about allowing felons to vote (except for cases where the criminal justice system was used to disenfranchise blacks in the Jim Crow era, etc). OTOH, I think drunk driving laws are often being used not to protect people but to enrich trial lawyers. That might depend on the state you live in, which takes us back to the blessings of federalism. There is a middle ground, but I don’t think you should simply write Reason off as “stupid”.
No, but it might be more of a problem if employment law and criminal law puts employers in a bind more so than actual usage of the drug by the employee.
I love how everyone is fine with a Govt. ban or restriction on something when it doesn’t affect them.
Big enormous taxes raise the price of cigarettes - No problem, they don’t smoke.
Treated like a suspected drug dealer when you buy cold or asthma medicine - No problem, they don’t need or buy those items.
What happens when Big Daddy Govt. regulates something they do use? Maybe Motrin, or Tylenol, or Soda Pop. Their heads will explode.
Even if these ephedrine buying restrictions don’t bother some, the slippery slope of Govt. intrusion into our lives should.
When you give the Govt. wiggle room to treat you like children, they will keep wiggling till they have total control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.