10 years ago we had labs in neighborhoods, vehicles and all over public and private rural property. The damage these clandestine labs caused was devastating to nature and destroyed property.
I am not fooled into thinking the meth use problem has been reduced at all, but at least it keeps the junk production labs away.
Although I commend the efforts to keep the production away, I will continue to laugh at the arguments that these efforts will at all diminish the demand of the end poison. Mexico is all to close and apparently we will never do anything real to stop their imports.
Law abiding will continue to be inconvenienced until the real problem that meth creates is addressed at the current source.
The very restrictions you applaud have had NO effect on the actual production of the poisons you rightfully abhor, but they HAVE made your getting the medications YOU require/desire subject to government approval, under color of law, (the pharmacist has to approve your purchase).
Isn’t it wonderful, living under the ever watchful eye of our beloved BIG BROTHER?
Surely you cannot be ignorant of the fascism of which you seem to approve?
The very restrictions you applaud have had NO effect on the actual production of the poisons you rightfully abhor, but they HAVE made your getting the medications YOU require/desire subject to government approval, under color of law, (the pharmacist has to approve your purchase).
Isn’t it wonderful, living under the ever watchful eye of our beloved BIG BROTHER?
Surely you cannot be ignorant of the fascism of which you seem to approve?
I’m sorry for the double post. I’mnot exactly sure what happened...
Do you agree? In principle: I do (see my tag-line).
What needs to occur, however, for libertarian pie-in-the-sky utopia to have any reasonble chance for success: dismantle ALL and ANY social safety nets and legal prohibitions of citizenry personal protection.
While I'm absolutely certain most TEA "party" afficianadios would be absolutely fine with that: as long as you don't mind 3rd world type ghetto / slums in YOUR neighborhood; allow the libertarian's goal of eliminating the war against drugs. That will be the end result of libertarian policy.
Moreover, it would most plausibly result in an environment rich for the recreation of the late 19th century high-plains / frontier.
Society has a right to protect itself from known dangerous threats to its own cohesiveness. Because comes next: the anarchist. We all know what comes after that.
It can be argued that driving a 1969 Plymouth Interceptor at 100 MPH through the residential streets is no foul if no offence (despite being 0.30 BAC), society has decided to protect itself from such behavior.
Anybody advocating liberarian philosophies hasn't seen the carnage of meth.
Libertarians do not consider the social ramifications of personal failures with respect to their views on personal liberty. How many independantly wealthy libertarians would take in a [fill in the drug of choice]-head into their household based on sltruist principle? Me thinks such would be SEP (or NIMBY).
Nonsense.
The OTC restrictions have only cut down on these small amateur backyard labs. This has boosted the demand for imported meth and meth produced in large US labs by gangsters.
In a way, this is a good thing. The “rot” you see in many users is a result of consuming the dirty backyard meth. Pure meth is clear while dirty meth is yellow or even black with toxins. It is much easier to treat and rehabilitate addicts that were not permanently damaged by toxins.
Besides the strong addictive properties, pure meth has very little side effects. It was fairly often used by doctors prior to 1950 as a cure for fatique. Methamphetamine can still be legally prescribed as a psychiatric medication, even for children.