August 9, 2005
This is your op-ed columnist on drugs.
Okay, commenters. You can take potshots at NYT columnist John Tierney, who adopts the libertarian position on drugs and seems to think that for most people who take meth the good outweighs the bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
No potshots here. I don't believe you've characterized the article quite accurately. Tierney doesn't state an opinion as to whether the good outweighs the bad for most meth users, although he mentions a couple of particular instances where it would. He does say that concerning the existence and enforcement of laws against meth, the bad greatly outweighs the good -- and quite convincingly, it seems to me. I'm embarrassed not to have already thought of one of his points -- that the increase in serious burn cases from home meth labs is a consequence of prohibition, not of the drug use per se.
We all need to be taxed at a much, much higher rate (40%?)in order to take care of these poor wretches who were abused as children. Some of them were most likely orphans to boot. Jurisprudence can't ever rectify social injustice, only serious sacrifice by concerned citizens can do the trick and put a smile back on the faces of some of our unfortunates.
I don't have much to add to a discussion on legalizing drugs. I just want to say that I loved Ann's headline (and those ads from the 80's).
Okay - I'll open up a rabbit trail. Our kids get all the anti-smoking messages at school. I don't think even they know any adults who smoke. Why do they pick up preztel sticks and pretend to smoke? I remember doing the same thing at their age. It's a perfectly legal drug that they know is bad for them. What's the attraction? Is it some kind of mild rebellion? Does prohibiting drugs make them more attractive to kids?
Thanks Ann,
Overall, I am libertarian, and, thus, are in favor of legalizing most drugs. If someone wants to sit around smoking pot, that is fine with me. Just don't ask me to litigate all your environmental sensitivities for you, or all those who are now after you (I am talking 30 year effects, not short term).
But meth is scary. Not so much for the meth labs, which, as apartment owners we have to keep our eyes open for. But the fact that meth users often become totally amoral.
I got somewhat involved about five years ago when my secretary's daughter was a tweaker. I talked to the local cops, and they indicated that at that time, they attributed somewhere around 90% of the crime in N.W. Phoenix (where I worked) to meth. And this daughter's friends fit right in. A couple of them were bragging about boosting a car to get home from when they were bailed out for joy-riding. She had a boyfriend for awhile who was a one man crime wave - forgery, credit cards, hot checks, meth labs, and, ultimately, what got him sent up, was kiddy porn and prostitution.
Since then, it has hit my girlfriend hard. Her (soon to be ex) son-in-law and her step daughter. The later a convicted felon at 27. The former, ditching his wife and two small boys. He allegedly burned their house down for the insurance money (which was declined). The girl is hopefully recovering. The guy isn't there yet, and may never get there. He has lost several jobs in the last year or so, and doesn't even try much anymore, preferring to scam for his money. Hopefully, will end up in jail for at least missing child support.
Back to my secretary's daughter. She has been on the street for most of the last five years. I let her live in my house when I was in SLC, until her friends trashed it. No felonies yet, but no job either.
If the drug only screwed up the person taking it, I would say, go for it. But this drug does a lot more, including causing a significant amount of crime.
As for meth and violent crime - not sure of that. It definately causes a lot of nonviolent crime, and we have been worried a lot about the father of my girlfriend's grandsons. Because of the way that he handled the kids physically, he hasn't been allowed unsuprevised visitation for several months now.
Because the drug seems to make its users quite a bit more unstable mentally, easier to anger, etc., I would not be surprised if there were a link between it and violent crime.
Tyler,
I really don't care that much if some of these meth users I have met are successfully treated or not. I just want them out of the community until they can break their habit, if ever - which is extremely hard.
I think that the criteria I would use in legalizing drugs is the amount of social damage they can be expected to cause if legalized, and I would use alcohol as the benchmark. It does have social costs, probably significantly above those of some of the currently illegal drugs.
As a result, I would probably legalize marijuana, and maybe even heroin. Cocaine? Not sure. LSD? Maybe - but don't want trippers driving, but, then, would they be that worse than DUIs? But by that metric, I would continue to keep meth illegal, as I would some other drugs, such as PCP, Date Rape Drugs (Ralphies?).
When it comes to drugs, some of my ideas are ultra-libertarian (if such a thing is possible)
Full legalization of anything anyone is foolish enough to put in their bodies.
No prescriptions for any drug of any kind (again anyone who wants to abuse medicines will find a way, doctors involved or not).
Ending the drug war (and taxing the drugs) would both free up vasts resources and create new revenue streams, it simply makes too much sense for politicians ever to endorse such a move on a widescale basis (sorta like a National sales tax replacing income tax).
Well, he mentioned but did not stress - as I think he should have - that methamphetamine is not the same as amphetamine, as morphine is not the same as heroin is not the same as hashish.
Amphetamine, while they can certainly be abused, are (relatively) safe and don't provide much of a "high" - meth, on the other hand, is really only used to get that high.
As to the legalization thing, no, I don't think all should be legal. But I do think that marijuana, for one, should be moved from outlaw status to controlled-substance status(no, probably not just entirely re-graded to about the status of ibuprofen).
Let me add that I had a prescription for dexedrine throughout law school. Never got me high, just kept me from running off the roads as I commuted 70 miles each way to school. Amphetamines do have a place in medicine. But as far as I know, meth does not.
Bruce Hayden makes some good observations about meth users. I happen to live in North Phoenix, and my block sees its share of tweakers, and what the drug does is frightening in terms of behavior and appearance; a very physically taxing drug.
Bruce: I deleted that post because it revealed embarrassing facts about noncelebrity individuals. If you can redo that so that it isn't specific, you're welcome to recomment.
Yeah, Leroy, that makes sense. I trust my 80 year old grandfather to go down to the local drugstore and pick out his own blood pressure medication and pick out his own dosage. Who needs prescriptions! Also, way to put both physicians and pharmacists out of the job with one inane idea! You're my hero! :>
I have a quandry, do I respond to ploopusgirl, or not?
Given the tone of her post (and most of the other comments attributed to that poster) she/he is quick to make a cheap theatrical point without engaging in ideas.
Does the above paragraph bring me to his/her level? Or am I just ruminating on what good netiquitte is regarding amplifying on ideas in previous posts by me that may have been mischaracterized by subsequent posters.
I don't believe ploopusgirl honestly believes that doctors and or pharmacies only function as pill dispensaries who would vanish without their government mandated role. Instead her hyperbole must be intended to denigrate my position, which is her right to do, but it is my responsibility to challenge.
I know myself, and most that I know regardless of age, would still feel compelled to consult a physician with or without an Rx pad.
Anyone looking to abuse prescription drugs now can find ways to do so, even with the gatekeeping function provided by doctors and pharmacies.
I probably didn't need to clarify my position to the vast majority of other readers, but nevertheless, the purpose of having a comment section would seem to be to engender the free flow of ideas so that people from all sides of an issue can think outloud and test their theories in the marketplace of ideas.
If anyone has a more rational defense and approach to why prescriptions are necessary given the vast amount of information now available to every consumer I'd like to hear it, cause I've never found the practice truly and rationally defensible.
Leroy, while I don't know if I entirely agree with you, what you wrote seems at least reasonable. As an analogy, I would offer that while we are all perfectly free to replace the brakes in our cars and then hurtle down the freeway, endangering not only ourselves but everyone else on the road, most of us are not skilled mechanics, and, recognizing this, we choose to outsource the work to experts.
I'm glad to see that there are some posters here who have real-world experience with meth addicts. Unlike pot, it is a morally corruptive drug, driving people to a state in which only two things are certain: every word out of their mouths is a lie, and they are going to steal your stuff. Alcoholism is no fun either, but at least most alcoholics can semi-function for quite a number of years. Perhaps there are some "casual" meth users, who have it under control, but I've yet to encounter one: it drags people down very fast, leaving them unrecognizable.
Post a Comment