Replies

"The obvious reasons are legal, and against the rules of FreeRepublic. I find it interesting that you have to resort to ridicule when you can't support your view."

I don't think there is anything illegal or against FreeRepublic rules about backing up your assertions with examples, even in this specific case where we are talking about possible substitutes for psuedoephedrine in the manufacture of methamphetamine. I didn't ask you to provide recipes. I'm not trying to ridicule you either, I just don't want you to get away with using some "if I told you I'd have to kill you excuse" for not backing up your assertion. I mean really, if there were adequate substitutes for psuedoephedrine that the average guy on the street could easily obtain in sufficient quantities for use in methamphetamine production it would be all over the web already. There are tons of websites out there giving detailed instructions for manufacturing methamphetamine using virtually every method known to man. I've looked at an awful lot of them doing research for cases of mine in which people were charged with possession of "paraphernalia" with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. It is my understanding that there really aren't any viable alternatives for kitchen meth cooks for psuedoephedrine, and it seems a little on the hokey side that you would argue there are such substances but you can't name them for "obvious reasons." I could be wrong though.

I tell you what Mugs, I don't believe you know of any substances that could easily replace psuedoephedrine in small batch kitchen meth labs. If you know of any and truly feel uncomfortable publishing them on an open forum, tell me about it via private message. If you can show me there is any merit to your assertions, I'll come right back to this thread and issue a public apology. Not only that, I'd probably change my mind about adopting Oklahoma's laws, write my politicians, and join you in arguing against similar laws in other states.