Steppin’ in da poo poo
Bob Krumm details a heart-wrenching interview of a child who lived in a meth house by a counselor. Read it all. Then come back. He ends with:
So let’s talk about drug legalization . . .
To which I said:
Ok, let’s. Did prohibition work?
Obviously, drugs are problematic. No one with any sense about it would claim otherwise. But is this supposed war on drugs worth it?
The drug war costs billions and billions and billions of dollars. Many innocent, peaceable citizens have been needlessly killed by a police force that has been essentially militarized and happens to no-knock on the wrong door. People are not secure in their homes because of no knock warrants and search warrants issued based on the frequently false testimony of criminals. Property is taken and lives are destroyed over a few minuscule amounts of drugs. Is it worth that price to confiscate an infinitesimally small fraction of a percent of the drug supply in this country?
People’s homes, cash, vehicles, etc. are taken without due process of law because someone might have a little weed. Seriously, that is frightening.
And yes, I’ve said that before.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Meth is the only thing that really makes me squirm in my opposition to the war on drugs. The war on pot is ludicrous, but some of the cops I talk to in the course of my work tell me that seizures on other piss ant type busts are up due to the lack of money and property found in meth labs/houses/trailers. Basically all that nasty shit needs to be cleaned up properly and soundly and that costs the taxpayers. Toothless meth addicts aren’t Pablo Escobar and you don’t find a wad of bills in their homes to help offset the decontamination. Seems kinda flimsy justification for the overbearing seizure crap but on some dumb law enforcement level it seems at least worth considering.
Call me 90% against the current war on drugs, with a 10% kick the shit out of the methheads minority viewpoint.
December 29th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
It should be obvious, to any one with moderate intelligence, that if there were no drug prohibition this woman would not have been cooking meth the residence. It seems reasonable that this should be counted as one more casualty due to the war on drugs.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Drake,
So a total ban on pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (Sudafed) or any other precursor would then tip the balance over to smuggling again.
Then there would be less freelancing and more pros.
Then the police could concentrate on Meth again because there would again be money in the deal that they could seize money and property from merely presumed smugglers in violation of the Fourth.
Then you would be outraged, and be 100% against the War on some Drugs.
Sounds like a plan to me.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Not sure that smuggling is quite the same in this context. If a drug is easier to get at home rather than imported from abroad a presumably lazy user needing a fix would go the path of least resistance. Meth is a relatively new phemonenon in that regard, compared with decades of movement of grass, coke, and the opiates.
I’m not happy with any of this, but the effects of meth are astoundingly worse on a community than many other drugs in my opinion. I have what some folks call a decided antagonistic view about the current state of law enforcement, but am more willing to cut them a mulligan on methheads than others.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Not sure what you mean my by “Meth is a relatively new phemonenon” but I can tell you it has been around as long as I have and I was born in the 50s. Usage and availability today is no different than when I was in high school. There is nothing new about meth except the fact that the MSM is on a bent to scare people about it.
December 29th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
New in the sense that it was not a widespread production phenomenon like today. If so, it would have thrived in the even more remote rural areas like moonshine back in your day. The media doesn’t have to scare me. The mug shots of people arrested multiple times over four or five years does that. The damage done to the land and property where it’s created does that.
Usage and availability no different? I take issue with that. Do you have some figures?
December 29th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Not to risk jumping off topic in terms of prohibition and the war on drugs but just a quick and cursory google search turned up this interesting study:
http://www.chestnut.org/LI/trends/Street%20Drugs/Methamphetamine.html#HISTORY
If you will scroll down you will see that while standard amphetimines were coveted in the 1950s, the first illicit methamphetimines didn’t appear until the 60’s, around the same time the AMA discounted widespread circulation. That number quickly jumps up then declines in the 1970’s(rehabbed users went on to other alternatives)
It further states that during the 1980’s the meth culture went underground and most labs were in Cali, Oregon, and Texas. Hardly the Bible Belt like today.
Around 1990(no surprise) more studies are altered to include lower grades of school children rather than the upperclassmen used in government studies from 1975 on. That’s when the results get truly interesting. From 91 to 94 emergency room visits attributed to meth increase over %200 and 1995 saw meth labs spread east to Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas. Those emergency room visits dip in 95, increase again in 96 and the table of meth use from 1975 to 1998 shows 1998 with the highest percentage of use in kids…with 1990 being the lowest. To me, that does appear to show a sharp upward trend in the last 15 years…certainly more so than the 1950s and 1960s.
Look, I hate to argue this point. I can’t stand it…but like I said, meth abuse is the chink in my usually stalwart anti-drug war armor.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
You sound like a very scared individual. What I can tell you about availability and usage is that meth was widely available in every high school in America during the 70s. Even in the small town (5,000) that I lived in. I guess I have trouble understanding why it was so widely available if it was not being used.
Those people that used it back then do not look any different then the pictures of people you see to day. As for the property damage you can thank the drug war for that. Before the drug war you did not need all these dangerous chemicals and reactions to make the stuff.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t like meth however I disagree that it is something new and/or the problem is any worst today then it has been in the past. It is however much more publicized today.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Don’t make assumptions about what I sound like, unless you want to get told to go fornicate yourself.
I provided you with a study(which obviously you didn’t even look at), and some figures that I believe back up my version of these events. If all you have is your anecdotal evidence then you are going to have to try harder.
Environmental damage as a part of the war on drugs? Did the chemical composition and manner of making it change with the stroke of a pen? That’s a big stretch.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
It used to be that most meth was made in big operations and smuggled.
I was nicknamed “crank” because it was frequently smuggled in motorcycle crankcases.
Then certain precursors were regulated.
Meth production shifted to other methods. One of them involved phenylpropanolamine.
Phenylpropanolamine was removed from OTC drugs due to (IMHO) bad science.
The state started cracking down on the huge buyers of pseudoephedrine HCL.
At that point, the business plan shifted to smaller scale production.
The state started hassling personal purchasers of pseudoephedrine HCL
At this point, personal home production was making better business sense. Only very small amounts of Sudafed can be purchased without notice.
Certain OTC drugs now require an adult signature to buy. The drugs are now hidden behind the counter.
“In late 2004, Pfizer started publicly disclosing its plans to make available a new OTC product, Sudafed PE, which does not include pseudoephedrine.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudafed
—
I’m just predicting that the inevitable outlawing of Sudafed won’t stop the trade in Meth, but perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way back to wholesale smuggling. The price will go up too, perhaps not as much a coke, but close. I’m pretty sure people will still buy it. Then we will be back to a business model that makes money for the state again.
I need to clean this up, do some fact checking and make it a blog post, but I’m probably pretty close to completely true.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Hmmm. I understand your point a little better mischief, so I think you cleaned it up just fine.
Thanks for making it without getting personal.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Well, it could be written a bit better, I’m just having a problem with concentration.
Perhaps I just need to go Doctor shopping for someone that will prescribe me some Ritlan or Dexedrine, then perhaps I can focus a bit better.
http://yarchive.net/med/add.html
December 29th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Drake,
Please feel free to tell me to go fornicate myself. I did go look at your post and it looks to me like meth has been a problem for a long time now. It was a problem back then, a problem now and will be a problem in the future. I still do not agree that this is something new or that the problem is any different today.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
I still do not agree that this is something new or that the problem is any different today.-me
My argument is that as a direct result of the War on (Some) Drugs, specifiably the War on Drug Precursors, methods of home production were perfected, and now we have a million little drug labs scattered about, instead of just a few smuggling groups.
The war on Drug Precursors have made the meth problem worse, not better. The Congress-critter response? More laws inconveniencing the normally attempting-to-be-law-abiding people.
Did you commit a felony when you moved that Sudafed across state lines? How ’bout when you gave some to your neighbor? OMG, he has Coleman fuel in his shed outside. And some pyrex cooking pans too! And a bunch of muffler pipe and a few files in the basement! And a book about the M3 Grease Gun! Obviously up to no good here!
December 29th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
I’m all in favor of legalizing weed, but I go back and forth on heroin, crack, meth, etc. If there was a drug that had a 50% chance of turning the user into a stealing, lying, selfish piece of shit, would he legalize it?
December 29th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
Should be “would we legalize it?”
December 29th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Interestingly, the response to increased DEA scrutiny of meth labs here in Utah has been surprisingly similar to other types of government regulation of legal industries: The small, Mom-n-Pop producers have been forced out of business, while the large, efficient Mexican and Californian producers have taken over the market.
As a result, the number of clandestine labs discovered here has dropped, while the number of Mexican nationals arrested for meth smuggling has increased.
But the drug itself hasn’t gone anywhere.
December 29th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
But, les, is that due to the drug or due to the overinflated prices that come with the black market?
December 29th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Uncle, that’s definitely one of the questions. But if someone is a hardcore addict, and there’s no legal repercussions for using the drug in the first place, is it possible that will inflate the number of addicts and increase the number of kids neglected to drug abuse, along with all the other attendant horrors?
I don’t know the answer.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
The Government needs more power to fight this kind of stuff? THIS Government? Legalize it.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
les, i here of people robbing liquor stores so that’s possible. But they usually take cash for drugs.
December 29th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
My argument is that as a direct result of the War on (Some) Drugs, specifiably the War on Drug Precursors, methods of home production were perfected, and now we have a million little drug labs scattered about, instead of just a few smuggling groups.
I agree that the war on drugs has made the situation worse. As the laws tighten, cooks turn to ever more ingenious and often dangerous methods. As supply goes down the number of labs will increase to meet the demand.
The problem I have is the media and others spreading fear by trying to make us believe this is something new like a Bird flu – if we don’t do something now we are all going to die! This is nothing new. I personally have witnessed the so-called “New Meth Epidemic” for well over thirty years as an adult. The only thing that is new is that it is all over the media. I have seen drug labs at least as far back as 1974. I’m sure the ones today are much more dangerous but there have been home labs for quite some time now.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Les, “If there was a drug that had a 50% chance of turning the user into a stealing, lying, selfish piece of shit, would we legalize it?” Whatever it is it was legal when it first appeared on the scene, it had to be “made” illegal before we could think of legalizing it. Besides it seems like most of the politicians are already taking it.
What if keeping it illegal allowed a whole new criminal enterprise to flourish along with the violence and corruption and destruction of civil liberties that comes with it? I’ll take civil liberties please. Along with keeping my civil liberties I’ll be denying a new set of criminals a profit center which they might have felt the need to defend. If it saves one life from a mistaken “no knock” warrant I’m all for it. The life you save might be your child’s.
December 30th, 2005 at 12:10 am
Drug use during prohibition. I seem to recall that during Prohibition drug (alcohol) use increased. I suspect that if currently illegal drugs had the prohibitions removed that drug use would spike, temporarily, and then recede to a level lower than today’s.
December 30th, 2005 at 1:06 am
Captain Holly Says: Interestingly, the response to increased DEA scrutiny of meth labs here in Utah has been surprisingly similar to other types of government regulation of legal industries: The small, Mom-n-Pop producers have been forced out of business, while the large, efficient Mexican and Californian producers have taken over the market.
As a result, the number of clandestine labs discovered here has dropped, while the number of Mexican nationals arrested for meth smuggling has increased.
But the drug itself hasn’t gone anywhere.
So we have gone full circle? From the smugglers, to the homebrew, back then to the smugglers? Meanwhile I’ve lost my rights to keep and bear pseudoephedrine HCL, but the crank is still around?
One more of my unenumerated inalienable rights, dead because of the bogus “for the children” BS.
December 30th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Marc, that may well be true.
The rationale you give applies to all drugs.
There’s another set of rationales that apply to something like marijuana. As Clayton Cramer says, when the government outlaws something that’s popular and not clearly dangerous, it creates contempt for the law. Furthermore, it makes criminals out of people who aren’t hurting anybody. That’s why I’m all for legalizing marijuana.
I do think that some of the folks who are rah rah for legalizing the hard stuff don’t have any experience with people who are on the hard stuff. Crack, meth, etc. isn’t just weed times 3. It doesn’t just get people higher. They’re addictive substances that fuck up the the user’s life as well as the people around them. The question is whether making them legal would cause more or less disruption, i.e., would the kid in that story be better off if his parents were still addicted to meth, but meth was legal. Would more or fewer kids have meth-addicted parents if the stuff was legal? Would it be harder or easier to get help for the kids and the parents in that situation if meth was legal?
Those are serious questions, and they’re questions we should take much seriously than blanket declarations about the role of government.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but we’re talking two slightly different forms of the same drug here. “Meth” as it’s named today is the crack form of “methamphetamine” as “crack” is the high-voltage version of cocaine. Methamphetamines have been around for many, many decades. The military used to give it to soldiers during WWII or Korea, IIRC. Meth came about in the late 80’s and early 90’s in Hawaii and California, where it was called “ice.” It scared the hell out of law enforcement in those areas and they warned it was coming East.
Unc and others are right that the War on Some Drugs is the root of the meth explosion. Cocaine crackdowns were making importation expensive and dangerous. Meth could be produced domestically at a fraction of the cost of crack, with less worry. So, the switch from one to the other.
Meth is freaky scary stuff, and I say that as someone who worked in a drug treatment center for nearly ten years, and currently lives in a neighborhood where I see these folks daily. It literally does suck the life out of you.
Law enforcement is not the answer. They only add to the profit motive. Making it a public health concern is the way to go. Yes, it will be very expensive in the short term as addicts get pulled from jails and sent to hospitals and treatment centers. But the “glamor” of thug life disappears as they become “patients.” Police are freed to go after dangerous criminals, instead of bringing overkill to pick off small fry. In the long run — say, a generation or so — we get restored sanity and balance.
Drug abuse is nothing new in America. In Colonial times, it was applejack, grog and rum. In Civil War times, it was morphine and laudanum. In the Twenties, it was hooch. The faces change, the problems remain. Deal with the problem.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:05 pm
[…] A few days ago, Bob said let’s talk about drug legalization. I said, OK let’s talk about it. Then Bob didn’t talk about it. Given his political aspirations, not talking about it is a good thing. It’s one of those topics politicians simply do not address in any serious way. In fact, it’s one of the banned topics at presidential debates. […]