[radicalamericannationalist]

First you say that laws against drugs are beyond the state's authority. Now you admit that you were wrong but it's all the fault of a federal government conspiracy. Or do you really argue that in the absence of a federal ban on meth that the states would legalize it?

And as to your argument that folks will simply mail order a crate of the stuff. f this were possible, why aren;t they doing it now? One would think such bulk purchases would be cheaper than buying sudephedrine products retail?

[thoughtomator]

I did not say that. I was speaking of the larger context in which this story plays out.

I can see some states legalizing it, but that's beside the point. This Quixotic crusade to stop people from doing drugs backfires horribly because it is that very crusade itself which makes the drugs so attractive to a large portion of the users.

In the absence of such a policy, a certain number of people would still do it, but the number would be far fewer than today.

You ask why a meth lab wouldn't mail order Sudafed or other precursors even without a ban, and the probable reason why they don't is because it's more convenient to pick it up at a pharmacy or corner store. Ban the sale of Sudafed in town, and they'll get it elsewhere. Ban it from the entire state, and they'll smuggle it in at great profit.

The only way to fight the drug dealers is to take the money out of drugs. Most drugs that people get high on are dirt cheap to make, it's only prohibition that makes it a profitable business. While this state senator may fashion himself a rescuer, the fact is that he is the best of friends to the fiends in the labs. And so are all the holier-than-thou prohibitionists.