Skip to comments.
WHAT MAKES METH SO BAD
Pioneer Press ^
| February 22, 2004
| Amy Becker
Posted on 02/22/2004 4:54:03 AM PST by sarcasm
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-174 next last
To: eno_
Execute the meth makers and dealers. That's how you take care of it. I am not a libertarian so I don't go for dopey legalization schemes. Remove the temptation by killing the dealers. Same as person on Atkins keeps no ice cream or cookies in the house.
My house is the United States of America, so off the dealers who tempt the weak.
41
posted on
02/22/2004 7:52:44 AM PST
by
dennisw
(“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”)
To: AlbertWang
Meth (for white folks) and Crack (for the brothers) aren't like weed, or even smack. Weed makes people stupid, but other than a loss of brain cells (most burners I have known were Democrats), Dopers are largely harmless. Tweakers, conversely, are a real danger to others in society.
That's all true, but the real question is whether legalizing these poisons would cause more people to take them. Would you start up a habit because it was legal?
And even if there were a slightly increased usage rate by free adults, don't you think that the added societal costs of these users would be more than offset by the benefits to our liberties and pocketbooks by ending the War On (some) Drugs?
42
posted on
02/22/2004 7:52:55 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
To: Fresh Wind
The doctors say he doesn't have Parkinsons. Doctors also argue that gun control will save lives. ;^)
43
posted on
02/22/2004 7:56:02 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(Dangerously is the Sahara dust.)
To: Fresh Wind
I have a friend of many years who was a heavy meth user. The drug virtually destroyed his brain and nervous system. Eventually, he got involved with a strong willed woman who got him to stop, but the damage was too profound to ever recover from. For as long as he lives (which won't be much longer), the taxpayers will be paying for his upkeep and care. Anyone who would claim that meth is a harmless recreational drug, to be equated with pot, or is OK because "doctors prescribe it", is full of ****.
How un libertarian and statist of you to post such trash!!! </sarc>
44
posted on
02/22/2004 8:01:19 AM PST
by
dennisw
(“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”)
To: dennisw
Same as person on Atkins keeps no ice cream or cookies in the house. So when someone massacres the crew at the local Dunkin Donuts the cops should go looking for a Drug Warrior named dennisw who can't button his pants?
45
posted on
02/22/2004 8:06:56 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: eno_
If there's a joke or point to make there, I don't get it.
46
posted on
02/22/2004 8:08:09 AM PST
by
dennisw
(“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”)
To: dennisw
Execute the meth makers and dealers. Remove the temptation by killing the dealers.Well, we do have a surplus population, what with all the illegals unceremoniously invited by Jorge Arbusto.
My house is the United States of America, so off the dealers who tempt the weak.
Ah. Very good. Your property tax is ....(printing calculator sounds)...... $57,283,284,399.28.
Please remit this amount by no later than Feb 28, 2004.
47
posted on
02/22/2004 8:10:36 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(Dangerously is the Sahara dust.)
To: Lazamataz
With meth it comes down to two choices. Who do you want dead? The dealers or the idiots, so weak they use it? Execute the dealers and cookers and the users will decline in numbers.
Kill off the supply and the suppliers.
48
posted on
02/22/2004 8:17:55 AM PST
by
dennisw
(“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”)
To: martin_fierro
That photo sequence could do a lot more to steer people away from drugs than the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on propaganda, and the billions spent on enforcement and incarceration of users. And it's a lot cheaper too. You want to end up like her? Become a meth addict. You don't? Don't. It beats destroying the Bill of Rights, which is what we have now.
49
posted on
02/22/2004 8:20:00 AM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: dennisw
Authoritarian statists tempt the weak people who can't think for themselves or accept responsibility for their own actions. Off them too, while you're at it.
50
posted on
02/22/2004 8:22:16 AM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: dennisw
Supply and demand with addictive drugs can be misleading. It sounds easy to say eliminate the demand and the supply will go away --- but with addiction, the supply has to exist first --- there is no demand when people haven't first become addicted.
51
posted on
02/22/2004 8:22:54 AM PST
by
FITZ
To: dennisw
Hey I'm on Atkins and eat plenty of ice cream. There are many low carb ice creams that taste great. And yes I'm still losing weight (although I don't want to lose anymore, but that is a different story)
52
posted on
02/22/2004 8:25:01 AM PST
by
JosephW
To: dennisw
If there's a joke or point to make there, I don't get it. Thank you for removing any doubt.
53
posted on
02/22/2004 8:25:53 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: sarcasm
Another reason to own a gun.
54
posted on
02/22/2004 8:30:57 AM PST
by
txzman
(Jer 23:29)
To: Lazamataz
The rest sounds like massive, untreated depression. Correct. There are plenty of people on track to the same outcome that were teatotal their whole lives. But all that means to the control freaks is that Krispey Kreme is the next tobacco.
55
posted on
02/22/2004 8:36:22 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: dennisw
Kill off the supply and the suppliers.Sumary executions, or billion dollar investments in death row facilities and maintenance?
56
posted on
02/22/2004 8:41:32 AM PST
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: Swiss; Fresh Wind
It isn't a simple problem and I never claimed to have all the answers, but a few things seem obvious:
1. The current course of action is a hideously expensive and anti-constitutional failure.
2. When we had medical privacy and indemnity insurance instead of managed care we had lower costs and less abuse.
Loosen drug laws, legalize the least harmful intoxicants, and stop turning doctors into snitches. That's got to lead to a better outcome than what we have today.
57
posted on
02/22/2004 8:41:56 AM PST
by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
To: Physicist
You'd think from this article that there are no legitimate uses for amphetamines. Narcolepsy, ADD, and USAF pilots - that's about it
58
posted on
02/22/2004 8:42:51 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
("But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise . . ." (I Cor. 1:27))
To: coloradan; martin_fierro
You're right. One can always watch the E! stories on Whitney Houston and know drugs can be a bad thing.
59
posted on
02/22/2004 8:44:23 AM PST
by
cyborg
To: Vigilantcitizen
It still was a lot less dangerous when made in labs legally than it is now, and there were a lot less addicts. It was never "less dangerous" but rather distribution was controlled - people didn't know they could make it at home with supplies from the local drug and hardware store.
60
posted on
02/22/2004 8:44:52 AM PST
by
realpatriot71
("But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise . . ." (I Cor. 1:27))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-174 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson