« Torture Prosecutor Appointment Is A Monumental Blunder By Obama | Main | Will Obamacare Cover Illegal Aliens? »

How "New Meth" Is Going To Impact You

If you're an allergy sufferer, you probably already know that law enforcement's efforts to stem the tide of crystal meth has already seriously invaded your privacy and lengthened the time required to buy the decongestant pseudoephedrine. Sales of all medicines containing pseudoephedrine are limited and logged, and generally are only available from behind the counter at pharmacies.

Apparently there's a new method to make meth that involves just a few pill, some chemicals, and an empty 2 litter soda bottle, that is essentially a shake and bake method that's all the rage among meth addicts. The method requires just a few Sudafed pills and some instant cold packs (for the ammonium nitrate in them) to make an individual size portion of meth.

I'm not sure how they're going to make it more inconvenient to get Sudafed (or the generic versions), but I have great faith in government bureaucrats come up with a more byzantine and invasive process for law abiding citizens to get what was, and still should be, and over the counter drug.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36588.

Comments (23)

Not to mention the cold pac... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Not to mention the cold packs. I ordered a case of those through Amazon awhile back for first aid/therapy purposes. They are very convenient.

It's not the pseudoephedrin... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

It's not the pseudoephedrine that's the problem, its the instant cold packs (ammonium nitrate). Just add fuel oil and you have the high explosive ANFO. Maybe the new recipe is a ruse by someone to see if they can get meth users to blow themselves up.

Here in Oklahoma, pseudoeph... (Below threshold)

Here in Oklahoma, pseudoephedrine in pill form has been classified as a Schedule V Controlled Dangerous Substance since 2004. Pseduoephedrine pills can only be dispensed to consumers by a pharmacist or licensed pharmacist's assistant, from behind the prescription counter. Also, you have to be registered with the pharmacy, you must show a valid photo ID in order to have your purchase approved, and you can only purchase 9 grams per month of pseudoephedrine in pill form. Liquids or gel-caps are not regulated under this law.

This is a royal pain (if we are both sick, my wife and I have to split purchases of MucinexD between the two of us) but authorities have reported that the number of meth lab busts in Oklahoma dropped by a staggering 80% within six months after the law went into affect.

One more thing -- our pharm... (Below threshold)

One more thing -- our pharmacy (Walgreens) allows me to only buy only about 60 pseudoephedrine pills per month, not 300 per month like the article claims. Perhaps I should check into this ...

Yeah, buying might be 'a pa... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Yeah, buying might be 'a pain in the butt'. Try cleaning up some methheads lab sight. For some reason, they are not eco-friendly.

...authorities hav... (Below threshold)
...authorities have reported that the number of meth lab busts in Oklahoma dropped by a staggering 80% within six months after the law went into affect.

That's because most of the meth is coming in from Mexico these days.

Hey maybe this is our gover... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Hey maybe this is our government dollars at work (courtesy of the NIH):

Study how methamphetamine, thought to produce an "insatiable need" for sex among users, "enhances the motivation for female rat sexual behavior." Some $28,000 has been awarded for the University of Maryland at Baltimore study.

Or maybe this study is responsible for the new development:

Evaluate "drug use as a sex enhancer" in an analysis of "high-risk community sex networks" at the University of Illinois, Chicago. That study will cost $123,000.

You know, single serving Me... (Below threshold)

You know, single serving Meth ain't a bad idea- no more exploding chemistry sets exploding and killing kids. Hell, cheap Meth will kill some of the Mexican Meth trade, won't it?
People will always find a way to stay one step ahead of the government and the laws, and you know what, I'm just sick of this war against drugs. You actually want to do something about meth-heads? take 'em out back and shoot them and be dobe with it, because right now we're just spinning our wheels.

"I'm just sick of this war ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"I'm just sick of this war against drugs."

Having seen the 'end results' of drug usage on many occasions, I really have no problem with the government legalizing anything you've a mind to put in your body. I just want one thing added to the legalization law. "You do anything to endanger, threaten or harm another while expanding your mind, someone else will have legal, lawful justification and authorization to blow your ass away'.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Legalize, control, and tax ... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

Legalize, control, and tax the hell out of drugs! Make or keep it a crime to produce or distribute these drugs without a license but people should be allowed to purchase and use Marijuana, Meth, Cocaine, Heroin and other drugs as long as they are willing to register and pay for them.

The Military would still have the right to keep you drug free but would have to prove that you actually used the drug, not just exposed to it (it sucks if your roommate smokes up and you get enough of the smoke to make you pop. No Tolerance means no trial just you pop your out)

We could quickly kill the drug trade this way by removing the incentives. It would as a side effect reduce drug related violence AND free up Police to perform other jobs protecting people.

I agree however, if you are high or whatever and you become a threat to others or your self, Someone who is not under the influence should have the right to put you down or arrest your ass and turn you over.

Alcohol is legal but if you get drunk and disorderly you are going to get busted. If you drink and drive you are going to get busted. It should be the same for the rest of the drugs.

leave people free to decide how to abuse their bodies, AND make money off of it to fund quitting programs or whatever they ostensibly use the money from Cigarette taxes to do...

This really ain't such a ba... (Below threshold)
Meiji_man:

This really ain't such a bad idea. You're increasing the availability of the drug to the consumer. In such a way where they don't need to go to the pushers anymore. Pushers loose money because their market disappears. Which in the long run means less money for the crime gangs. You could do the same if you allowed individuals to grow their own pot.

We have a constitutional ri... (Below threshold)
WorldCitizen:

We have a constitutional right to a free market. No regulations now! The Obaninator is killing our freedoms. Get the government out of our lives once and for all!

It's not the pseudoephed... (Below threshold)
Tim:

It's not the pseudoephedrine that's the problem, its the instant cold packs (ammonium nitrate). Just add fuel oil and you have the high explosive ANFO. Maybe the new recipe is a ruse by someone to see if they can get meth users to blow themselves up.

Now just throw in some Mentos, and you're good to go!

Legalizing drug use sure so... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Legalizing drug use sure sounds like the good way to win this "war" on drugs. I'm all for it, after someone can explain how we "legalize" away all the bad side affects of drug usage. How do we legalize away the shattered families? How do we legalize away the ruined lives of users and the people they damage while high? How do we legalize away the healt costs, legal costs, violence perpetrated by users etc? How do we legalize away the babies born to addicted mothers? How do we legalize away the increases in emergency room usage, hazmat cleanups etc? How?

Unfortuantely the side affects of drug usage are much more than getting high, and can be much more severe than simply a hang-over or DUI charge. The negative affects to communities by drug usage isn't just because the drugs are illegal.

Sure the easy answer is shoot them all, or arrest the ones that commit crimes etc. Neither is entirely practical, Ammo is expensive and hard to find, and treatment programs are expensive. Are we willing to expand the government enough to take care of the additional people that could wind up addicted?

Not saying legalization is the wrong answer, it's probably not, just saying it needs more discussion.

Thomas Szasz has been for l... (Below threshold)
epador:

Thomas Szasz has been for legalization for decades, and his arguments, as well as those of his opponents, are worth studying if you want to look at the legalization arguments.

Certainly, by criminalizing use of certain drugs, while condoning others just as destructive (tobacco and alcohol) our economy and society is subject to a doubling not dissimilar to that described by Lifton in "The Nazi Doctors." No, I'm not trying to call folks Nazi's. But the psychological process and the degredation to society does have its parallels.

The "new" method is much more dangerous to us in that the toxic wastes are now scattered everywhere and can leach into our water and food supply. The discarded 2L bottles could be a death knell for millions contaminated with the nasty detruis from these addicts.

Only problem with the 'tax'... (Below threshold)
Garandfan:

Only problem with the 'tax' is that you already have an established underground economy that pays no taxes and has a customer base.

Why should they suddenly want to become legal in order to pay taxes? Hell, there's a whole economy based on stealing entire tractor-trailer rigs carrying cigarettes and selling them without state or federal taxes being paid.

Sounds like a great idea, until reality kicks you in the balls.

One big difference with alc... (Below threshold)
engineer:

One big difference with alcohol and marijuana is as follows:

I go over to my buddy's house and watch the big game with my friends. They all sit around watching the game and quaffing the brew, but I don't. After the game I drive home sober.

I go over to my buddy's house the next week and watch the big game with my friends. They all sit around watching the game and smoking a couple of joints. After the game I drive home stoned.

Others drinking doesn't directly affect me. Others smoking a joint can. That's a big difference.

Statements from the Right (... (Below threshold)
Jake:

Statements from the Right (you know, the side that claims to own God and morality):

"You actually want to do something about meth-heads? take 'em out back and shoot them and be dobe with it, because right now we're just spinning our wheels."

"You do anything to endanger, threaten or harm another while expanding your mind, someone else will have legal, lawful justification and authorization to blow your ass away'.

"Someone who is not under the influence should have the right to put you down or arrest your ass and turn you over."

Wow, the Wizbangers have taken a strange turn of supporting government control and taxation (never thought I'd hear that!).

Personally, I'm a big supporter of legalizing pot, and I've never smoked it (or done any drugs). Far far far too many people, especially minorities are being busted for minor pot offenses and being churned into hardened criminals through the prison system. When pot effects are only marginally more problematic than alcohol and alcohol related deaths make up a huge amount of yearly deaths in the country, it's hard for me to believe one is good and one is bad; one should be legal the other shouldn't be.

That said, I am not a supporter of legalizing other hard drugs. The way we're fighting the "war on drugs" is ridiculous, certainly and I'd like to see us change tactics in a substantial way. But we won't. Because changing to tactics that would actually reduce usage would mean that we'd need to treat addicts like humans, not targets. And considering the quotes I captured above, there's little chance of that happening any time soon.

Just remember those quotes when someone YOU know gets addicted. Will you take them out in the back and shoot them in the head, all in the name of God and country?

And before you say that your friends and family are smart enough to stay away from drugs, look at the stats. There's a good chance that you already know someone who is an addict.

Well that my my inner Liber... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

Well that my my inner Libertarian speaking out. I also see the other view points. The current way we handle the "War" is just crap.

Problem is there is no way to stop illegal usage, by making it legal and controlled you will cut into a large portion of the problem. After all just because cheap stolen cigarretes are available doesn't mean that everyone smokes stolen cigarettes.

As for going to a party where your friends are all smoking weed? If you know that your friends are going to be smoking then don't go. It's simple really. Not because its illegal, but because you don't want to participate. If you know there is going to be an orgy at some college frat party and you don't want to be a part of that scene, you just won't go no matter which of your friends are going to be there.

Personally when I talked about shooting someone, it was the meth or crack head who got violent and belligerent in the middle of the street, or started beating his wife/kids. It happens with drunks as well, and I think you should have the right to protect other people by putting that person on the ground in whatever way possible until authorities arrive. If you kill them it would be sad.

Our first step in the other direction is to control our damn borders. Where is my freaking fence? I'm supposed to see a shore-to-shore fence on the southern border but Noooo, Bush played pussy foot with the idea rather than actually enforcing our laws.

We need one with Canada as well but they are less of a problem for the moment, especially where drugs are involved. Once we control our borders and know what goes in and out then we can figure out where the supply is making its way into the US. Then we can target those supplies rather than fighting Guerilla's in some South American country.

And YES I KNOW, I'm talking about Government Control! OMG You bastard! Free Market!

If you consider the war on drugs to be like any other war it falls into protecting the country and the constitution from enemies foreign or domestic. National Defense is something the Govt SHOULD be in control off. Its in the freaking Constitution after all.

The last time I had severe ... (Below threshold)
Robin Goodfellow:

The last time I had severe nasal congestion and went to buy sudafed I had to fill out more paperwork than when I got my concealed carry permit. Funnier yet, they only let you buy one box per day, as it happened they were out of the larger box and wouldn't let me get 2 of the smaller boxes (totaling the same exact count as the larger box). It is very reminiscent of the TSA's security theater.

Also, in response to Matt above (who would be in "favor" of legalizing drugs only after we've figured out a way to ameliorate all possible bad side effects of their use), the purpose of the law is not to maximize goodness or maximize individual well-being. That is a puritanical, moralist's view, the idea that the group can decide for each and every individual the right choices to maximize their happiness. That is tyranny, statism, totalitarianism. In a free, open society the purpose of the law is not primarily moral (a purpose always doomed to failure), rather it is practical, to provide a framework of security and safety from the worst excesses of our fellow citizens in infringing each of our rights to be secure in our lives, property, and liberty. It is to give each of us the chance to make our own decisions on how best to live our own lives, and this very much includes (indeed, must include) the ability to make mistakes and to make the "wrong" choices.

We've seen what happens when the government is put in the role of preventing people from ever making the "wrong" choice. The result is a perversion and destruction of society, culture, liberty, and, indeed, of personal safety and individual happiness. The machinery necessary to prevent individuals from doing any "harm" to themselves also necessarily destroys safety and happiness. The result is statist tyranny and orders of magnitude more suffering and human tragedy than any of the problems set out to be fixed.

So, with this new method, w... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

So, with this new method, will I still need ice cubes and a blender to make a Jack Daniels/Crystal Meth Slurpee?

I'm all for it, af... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
I'm all for it, after someone can explain how we "legalize" away all the bad side affects of drug usage. How do we legalize away the shattered families? How do we legalize away the ruined lives of users and the people they damage while high? How do we legalize away the healt costs, legal costs, violence perpetrated by users etc? How do we legalize away the babies born to addicted mothers? How do we legalize away the increases in emergency room usage, hazmat cleanups etc? How?

Making it illegal has stopped the above from occurring ?

By making it legal you remo... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

By making it legal you remove the stigma of getting help. By making it legal you control dosages, quality, and manufacturing to keep bad drugs and overdoses from hurting people.

There will always be stupid self-destructive people, there are even now side-effects of alcohol and nicotene, hell even caffiene to an unborn child. Do you recommend we legislate those out of legal use as well?

They tried it with prohibition and it didn't work. You simply cannot force people to make the right choice using the law. You can only spell out consequences for abusing the privelage of living in a free society.

As for the OT at least single use 2-liter bottles won't blowup houses. But if there were legal manufacturers of the stuff it would likely cut down on much of manufacture and associated problems.

Legalizing all of these will not remove anything you mentioned above but will allow for easier minimizing of the problems.

I am not saying you give the government control. Stop putting words in my mouth. I am saying let the free market create and distribute these drugs and impose only FDA style guidlines for manufacture and use.

And just as with any other drug, if it is harmful enough it will still not be legal. There are many beneficial drugs that had minor side effects which led to a ban.

I give up on this topic as I am not an expert and will never convince you. But I would not be opposed to lifting restrictions on certain drugs and you won't convince me otherwise either.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy