Posted on 01/04/2012 10:16:29 PM PST by MamaDearest
10 years ago we had labs in neighborhoods, vehicles and all over public and private rural property. The damage these clandestine labs caused was devastating to nature and destroyed property.
I am not fooled into thinking the meth use problem has been reduced at all, but at least it keeps the junk production labs away.
Although I commend the efforts to keep the production away, I will continue to laugh at the arguments that these efforts will at all diminish the demand of the end poison. Mexico is all to close and apparently we will never do anything real to stop their imports.
Law abiding will continue to be inconvenienced until the real problem that meth creates is addressed at the current source.
I couldn't believe they used this stuff to make meth... to smoke or drink!...whatever you do with meth.
Remember “Do whatcha oughter, add...”?
Well, that is completely reasonable of course, so long as we don't sell drain cleaner in polling places on the first Tuesday in November.
Cold medicine and drain-o is only the start. There is a bunch of other stuff which I won't name that goes into the process. If they don't blow up the space they are cooking, they pretty much contaminate the entire building including the dirt underneath.
Its really not a pretty process and if you ever have the pleasure of owning an unoccupied property or unimproved rural land, you will become aware of the dangers of these labs.
Whoever the chemist was that thought up this poison needs to be hanged ASAP! and his records burned.
Because, you see, IL is in such great shape that the government can spend time concentrating on this.
On our way to a completely regulated society.
The very restrictions you applaud have had NO effect on the actual production of the poisons you rightfully abhor, but they HAVE made your getting the medications YOU require/desire subject to government approval, under color of law, (the pharmacist has to approve your purchase).
Isn’t it wonderful, living under the ever watchful eye of our beloved BIG BROTHER?
Surely you cannot be ignorant of the fascism of which you seem to approve?
The very restrictions you applaud have had NO effect on the actual production of the poisons you rightfully abhor, but they HAVE made your getting the medications YOU require/desire subject to government approval, under color of law, (the pharmacist has to approve your purchase).
Isn’t it wonderful, living under the ever watchful eye of our beloved BIG BROTHER?
Surely you cannot be ignorant of the fascism of which you seem to approve?
I’m sorry for the double post. I’mnot exactly sure what happened...
There is a reason meth people look the way they do.
It’s a horrible drug. Once it gets it’s hooks into people, it rots them out from within, and it’s very, very difficult to stop. The leeches that produce this stuff should be executed for murder.
No way does Illinois have a photo ID law for voting. Does it? But you have to have photo ID to some Drano now?
Every time I have to sign for a box of pseudoephedrine, I always say to the pharmacist, “You know, it’s much easier to make meth out of Vick’s inhalers, and you don’t even have to cook it.” They always nod in agreement. But Vick’s inhalers do not require an ID check and signature to purchase.
Those meth labs just moved south of the border and is a major reason drug cartel violence has exploded around the border these last few. Years.
I was waiting for your response DonW and I feel like a hypocrite considering my response to this issue.
I don't by any means think that Big Bro overseeing our purchases of anything is the answer. I'm only conceding that the restrictions currently in place have had a direct, timely effect in the reduction of meth labs in my area.
Now, I have no idea if the supply of poison from Mexico or the restrictions on the cold pills resulted in the reduction of labs in Minnesota. Something resulted in moving the meth lab jobs out of here and I guess I'm glad for it.
I don't like Big Bro subjecting me to any approval of anything, I just don't like junkies rights to produce poison to overtake my property rights,
If you have ever had land located in the vicinity of a meth lab you could understand the loss of value in your investment that goes along with it.
Let the neighbors grow pot as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't cost me anything and as long as they don't bother my family ... I know nothing about it.
Meth is totally different
They want to die. They are stupid, and are life without value. They are going to go to great lengths to destroy themselves. It's eugenics in action.
You don't mind trashing the Constitution and the BoR to make it harder for some pee-off-the-porch white trailer trash to off themselves. These out of control law makers lower our standard of living, steal our freedom, steal our money, destroy our society. And you're good with this.
Anyone getting there hands on nitric acid is not going to waste it by pouring it on someone. They are going to mix it with glycerine or toluene instead to make powerful explosives and blow up their entire house.
I’m glad that meth is totally different. I guess it’s OK to ban anything that might be used to make meth or anything else that you don’t like just so long as nobody touches your guns. Very pro-freedom that.
Not so fast.
-- Hypochlorous acid, either free or combined, and any product with the same in a concentration that will yield 10 percent or more by weight of available chlorine.
Do you agree? In principle: I do (see my tag-line).
What needs to occur, however, for libertarian pie-in-the-sky utopia to have any reasonble chance for success: dismantle ALL and ANY social safety nets and legal prohibitions of citizenry personal protection.
While I'm absolutely certain most TEA "party" afficianadios would be absolutely fine with that: as long as you don't mind 3rd world type ghetto / slums in YOUR neighborhood; allow the libertarian's goal of eliminating the war against drugs. That will be the end result of libertarian policy.
Moreover, it would most plausibly result in an environment rich for the recreation of the late 19th century high-plains / frontier.
Society has a right to protect itself from known dangerous threats to its own cohesiveness. Because comes next: the anarchist. We all know what comes after that.
It can be argued that driving a 1969 Plymouth Interceptor at 100 MPH through the residential streets is no foul if no offence (despite being 0.30 BAC), society has decided to protect itself from such behavior.
Anybody advocating liberarian philosophies hasn't seen the carnage of meth.
Libertarians do not consider the social ramifications of personal failures with respect to their views on personal liberty. How many independantly wealthy libertarians would take in a [fill in the drug of choice]-head into their household based on sltruist principle? Me thinks such would be SEP (or NIMBY).
Give me a break here, I'm only conceding that the local restrictions have had a seemingly direct result in meth labs that are in production.
I'm not saying that I agree with the the tactics of restricted sales of otherwise OTC meds.
Sorry I offended you but I'm just trying to have a discussion here and meth has been a problem locally.
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.