Replies

"Am I correct in assuming that you would support the strict regulation of any substance that is a large component in the making of an illegal, intoxicating drug? Regardless of the value of the substance? How far are you willing to go?"

No, it would not be correct to assume that I would support strict regulation of any substance that is a large component in the making of an illegal intoxicating drug. Look, if it was up to me, marijuana would be legal, no one would get a felony conviction for simple possession of any drug, and we'd focus a lot more on trying to get people off of drugs instead of putting all of these low level offenders in prison over and over again.

Meth is a serious problem in my community though. I'm on the front lines as a public defender and I see the problems it causes everyday. Cooking dope is a problem here as well. Our of gets several new clients a week charged with manufacturing or possession of paraphernalia with intent to manufacture. I've handled so many of these cases that I've had to learn pretty much how to cook the stuff, and I certainly know how process of collecting the supplies necessary for cooking dope generally works. The only real "ingredient" in meth is psuedoephedrine. All of the other chemicals are just used to convert the psuedo into the final product, regardless of the particular "recipe" or methods used to get to the end result. Meth is not a "chemical coctail" as some like to call it. The stuff coming from the little kitchen labs is psuedo converted into meth.

Making a drastic cut in the number of little kitchen meth labs would not stop the flow of meth. From what I've read and learned from dealing with these people is that something like 85% of the meth on the streets is coming from big labs producing huge quantities of the stuff. Most of the stuff produced in these little labs is used by the cooks and the people that help them gather supplies, and there are almost always several little helpers out buying or stealing the psuedo and other supplies. They do this for free or super cheap dope. Those that do this who aren't already hardcore addicts, will in most cases probably become hardcore addicts after they do this for a while. I really believe this is creating a lot of meth addicts because most of these people wouldn't be able to afford to do nearly as much dope if they had to pay full retail price for it. And in a small community like mine where there are probably dozens and dozens of little meth labs operating there are probably hundreds of people helping the process along in some way and getting cheap or free dope out of the deal. A lot of these people who aren't already hardcore addicts are going to become hardcore addicts and then a substantial number of those are going to end up being frequent flyers in our court system, and our jail and state prisons. They are going to cause us a lot of problems and cost us a lot of money.

Oklahoma's laws appear to have caused a drastic reduction in the number of little meth labs in that state. I'd like to see the same thing happen in my state. I know we'd have a lot fewer meth manufacturing clients and see a lot less people sentenced to prison for years and years and years for cooking the stuff. That would save the county and the state a lot of money. It would save landlords and motel owners and insurance companies money now paid out to fix the damage caused by the meth making process. It would reduce the risk to innocent people of dying in fires caused by accidents in meth labs, that in many cases although a small percentage of the total are set up in motels and multi family dwelling units. It would also reduce the damage done to small children who now are living in homes where their parents cook dope. It would do a lot of good, and the cost for all of this would be nothing but a small inconvenience to legitimate psuedoephedrine consumers. I can't imagine why so many here find this so objectionable.

"You do realize that meth is simply a response to other intoxicants being cracked down on, right?"

That's bull$hit. I'm no fan of the war on drugs as it's being fought either but that is one lame argument against it. Drugs like meth and heroin came around not because amphetamines and opium were controlled or made illegal, but because scientists working for drug companies discovered them. People preferred those drugs for "recreatrional purposes" over plain old opium and amphetamines because they are more powerful and the high is better. If you made amphetamines legal people would just convert them into meth because it's a heck of a lot easier to convert amphetamines into meth than it is psuedoephedrine. Others would just abuse the heck out of straight amphetamines and become addicted and be just as much a problem for us as meth addicts.

"Bathroom chemists will find something else to cook into fake speed or fake cocaine."

If it was that easy they'd be doing it right now on a large scale. Look, these people are not "chemists." I know, I represent an awful lot of them. Some of them are illiterate, and most aren't exactly what you would call bright. Meth easy to make. You can pretty much get whatever you need to cook it at WalMart. Psuedo is sold everywhere at every grocery store and convenience store. It's easy for these guys to get enough to cook up a batch. Make it a lot harder to get enough to make a cook worthwhile, and a lot less people will be cooking it.

"You must understand that this does nothing to reduce the demand for intoxicating substances, legal or illegal."

I think it would help reduce demand because I think we'd have less new meth addicts created everyday if so many weren't getting it free or dirt cheap cooking their own or helping others cook it. No, it wouldn't stop the flow of meth or get rid of all the demand. But it would help with demand some, and it would cut way down on the number of little kitchen meth labs which would be a good thing whether demand is reduced or not.