More meth cooks making own ammonia

Southeast Missourian ^ | May 06, 2003 | The Associated Press

[Mamzelle]

Who plans to become an addict? Mostly addicts plan to get high. What a silly question you asked...maybe I shouldn't take the issue or the pro-legalization posters with any seriousness in the future.

[robertpaulsen]

"When drugs were previously legal in this country, there was not a huge class of addicts."

Who are you kidding?

"Unrestricted distribution by physicians and pharmacies created an enormous drug abuse problem; in 1924 federal narcotics officials estimated that there were 200,000 addicts in the United States, and the deputy police commissioner of New York reported that 94 percent of all drug addicts arrested for various crimes were heroin users. The growing dimensions of heroin addiction finally convinced authorities that heroin's liabilities outweighed its medical merits, and in 1924 both houses of Congress unanimously passed legislation outlawing the import or manufacture of heroin."
--drugtext.org

Heroin was distributed so freely because we had a major morphine addiction problem following the Civil War. It was thought that substituting heroin (supposedly non-addicting) for morphine (highly addicting) would solve the problem.

[xrp]

You're quite right, I certainly should not take the pro-WoD/pro-government force/pro-destruction of the US Constitution/pro-execution of American citizens posters with any seriousness in the future.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Unrestricted distribution by physicians and pharmacies created an enormous drug abuse problem; in 1924 federal narcotics officials estimated that there were 200,000 addicts in the United States

Wow, 200,000 addicts in a country of 114,109,000. That's "enormous."

[FITZ]

Maybe we should legalize the stuff but let the addicts sue their suppliers for any bad side effects they might have ---treat them like all other American business ---let the lawsuits put them out of business.

[Trailerpark Badass]

let the addicts sue their suppliers for any bad side effects they might have ---treat them like all other American business ---let the lawsuits put them out of business.

Yeah, like gun makers. Though I would hope that the courts would rule that the product performed exactly as advertised.

[Mamzelle]

This is the obvious progression. It is not a safe product, so what would be the point of legalizing it, as it would quickly be sued out of legitimate business? Back on the streets it'd go...right back where we started.

But the argument that legalizing would deprive the criminal of product and income is an appealing one.

[Trailerpark Badass]

It is not a safe product, so what would be the point of legalizing it, as it would quickly be sued out of legitimate business? Back on the streets it'd go...right back where we started

First up: Anheuser-Busch. Deep pockets and all that.

[FITZ]

But what if you could sue your dealer for ruining your health? Or if you could sue them that you lost your job? You could get the dealers out of business just like what happens to legitimate businesses. It would be better to have the addicts go after their dealers' money instead of mine ----let the dealers pay the hospitalizations and lost wages.

[Drew68]

Its harder than flipping burgers on the grill.

The difference between cooking meth and flipping burgers is that additional "0" on the end of your paycheck.

[Wolfie]

Good ol' American know-how. Makes me proud.

[MrLeRoy]

"When drugs were previously legal in this country, there was not a huge class of addicts."

Who are you kidding?

"Unrestricted distribution by physicians and pharmacies created an enormous drug abuse problem; in 1924 federal narcotics officials estimated that there were 200,000 addicts in the United States

200,000 is not "enormous."

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, decades ago I saw some in college. Easily ignored and irrelevent spinning gossamer dreams of fanatasy, no one took them seriously. Little has changed in the interval.

But I don't think you have time for my autobiography.

[robertpaulsen]

"200,000 is not "enormous."

You're right. It's only "huge", which is enough to dispute your statement. And Congress agreed, unanimously.

You want to play semantics, I'll play semantics.

[MrLeRoy]

"200,000 is not "enormous."

You're right. It's only "huge"

No, it's not that either.

And Congress agreed, unanimously.

Rubbish. And irrelevant even if true.

[robertpaulsen]

"No, it's not that either. Rubbish. And irrelevant even if true."

I can picture you with your hands over your ears going, "na na na na, I can't hear you, na na na na".

[MrLeRoy]

I can picture you

Stop fantasizing about me.

[Myrnick]

the drug market is federally controlled. If your drug does not meet federal guidelines, you do not get permission to distribute it.

You're absolutely right, that is scary stuff. And by extrapolating from that, the automotive industry is "propped up" because cars have to meet certain federal guidelines, the securities industry is "propped up" because investment products have to meet certain guidelines, and the candy manufacturers of this country are being "propped up" because they have to meet guidelines too.

It's all a gub'mint conspiracy to "prop up" every industry to the detriment of the little guy. Wow! Thanks for pulling my head out of the sand, now pull your head out of the place it is buried.

[MrLeRoy]

Pfizer and Merck are propped up by the government the drug market is federally controlled. If your drug does not meet federal guidelines, you do not get permission to distribute it.

And that restriction "props them up"?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

What a moron.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Huh? It was not my claim that the drug makers were federally propped up. Federally pulled down is more like it.

I was arguing against CinFla not agreeing with him.