In the 1700s England had a major problem with ‘penny gin’. Brits could and did get drunk and stayed drunk for next to nothing, and it resulted in all of the social problems that go with widespread alcoholism. Their solution was the Gin Act, which required gin sellers to be licensed, and it made gin more expensive. It didn’t get rid of gin but gin consumption fell dramatically and so did the social problems that went with it. Meth has even less going for it than gin. It’s not a surprise to find crazy and violent behavior done by tweakers.
I’m not in favor of methamphetamine use beyond prescribed or military
Nor the amphetamines used for controlling hyperactive boys
It’s all the same thing except meth has one more carbon atom and two more hydrogen atoms
I did amphetamine pills a few times in early 70s.....dexamyl and bi methedrine...pink hearts and yellow jackets
Tried preludin once too ...same thing
Got one gram of meth my whole life in 1975...from some guys from Cambridge who were at Millsaps dealing....pure pure white crystalline....snorted it between about 5 of us over several rails each
Frankly...it was a very nice feeling.....far more euphoric than simple amphetamine pills which felt like uber coffee
But after about 20 hours and no sleep and teeth gritting I’d had enough
And that was it for me.....not much danger in being a meth addict for me but that first 4-6!hours felt great....like coke but smoother and sustained
I can see why it’s liked but that was early good precursor product
Today’s stuff ain’t Blue Sky I imagine
The easier it is to be a drug addict, the more likely it will happen.
Ask yourself this question, Is it proper to advocate bad policies to "fix" the natural affects of other bad policies?
We currently live in a cradle to grave welfare society where life choices often have very little impact on financial outcome and quality of life. If you are from a less affluent upbringing, you can bust your ass for 60 hours a week doing a low skilled job only to drive home at night in your 8 year old vehicle to a 1000 sq ft apartment in a not so nice area of town. --OR-- you can sit on your ass all day getting high in your 1000 sq ft apartment in a not so nice area of town collecting welfare and food stamps and WIC and section 8, and fuel assistance and Medicaid.
The quality of life in these two scenarios is not that different.
IF we were to put strict drug testing requirements on public assistance and IF we made it uncomfortable to live that way, more people would avoid it just like in your 1700's England example.
To sum up, our BAD POLICY of cradle to grave welfare has created a disconnect between the life choices you make and your comfort in life. This has lead to a drug epidemic. So this again prompts the question, Is it proper to advocate bad policies to "fix" the natural affects of other bad policies?
Do we want to create a police state and give the government the authority to monitor what people do with their money, what they keep in their houses, what they put in their bodies, who they associate with, where they go, etc... so that we can "fix" the natural affects of the original bad policy?