3 ms·

> I’m not a chemist, but as I understand it, meth isn’t too often made with PE anymore, yet, it sits behind the counter forever now. Sadly, far too many laws,

by pwg 3y ago

> I’m not a chemist, but as I understand it, meth isn’t too often made with PE anymore, yet, it sits behind the counter forever now. Sadly, far too many laws, once on the books, are never considered for removal, even when the original reason for their enactment no longer applies. Unless enough of us voters badger our congress critters to repeal the "hide the PE" law, it will continue to sit behind the counter.

ltbarcly3 3y ago
Sigh. If they put it back out where smurfs could gather it they would start using it again. Its interesting how Americans are so trained to interpret everything as a failure of government we will find a way to think that the law that prevents meth makers from using sudafed is outdated because meth makers are prevented from using sudafed.
- Zak 3y ago
  Nobody should care whether meth makers are prevented from using sudafed; we should (maybe) care if they're prevented from making meth. They switched methods, and the new method seems to be more cost-effective so it's unlikely they'd switch back even without the restrictions. https://dynomight.net/p2p-meth/ https://dynomight.net/p2p-meth/
- jaywalk 3y ago
  They've already come up with better, cheaper, more efficient methods. They don't need Sudafed anymore, so removing the stupid restriction won't affect meth production at all.
  - chowells 3y ago
    Do you actually believe this? It seems completely ignorant of human behavior to me. You see, it's not about dealing with large-scale operations. It's about keeping that one neighbor you have who always makes poor choices from grabbing 1000 boxes of Sudafed and blowing up their house. They don't care what the industrial process is, they care what they can get away with in their living room. Throttle access to pseudoephedrine sufficiently and they will look elsewhere. Make it easy to get and they'll DIY. You know, I even admire the DIY spirit involved. I just don't admire the externalities.
    - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      The subtext of your argument is that you think you can legislate away human behavior. There is a cheap process to make meth, and there’s another process that involves Sudafed. Banning Sudafed does not stop meth production. But here you are still supporting a ban on Sudafed - because of what some theoretical person might do with it ignoring that they’re doing it now without it. I don’t believe this is a logical failure, I believe whatever culture you grew up in imparted this way of thinking.
      - chowells 3y ago
        The culture I grew up in is one where this happened about once a month. Well, before Sudafed became hard to get. Then the rate of it occuring dropped precipitously. It's almost like people in fact do base their choices on what's easily available.

by pwg 3y ago

ltbarcly3 3y ago

Sigh. If they put it back out where smurfs could gather it they would start using it again. Its interesting how Americans are so trained to interpret everything as a failure of government we will find a way to think that the law that prevents meth makers from using sudafed is outdated because meth makers are prevented from using sudafed.

Zak 3y ago
Nobody should care whether meth makers are prevented from using sudafed; we should (maybe) care if they're prevented from making meth. They switched methods, and the new method seems to be more cost-effective so it's unlikely they'd switch back even without the restrictions. https://dynomight.net/p2p-meth/ https://dynomight.net/p2p-meth/
jaywalk 3y ago
They've already come up with better, cheaper, more efficient methods. They don't need Sudafed anymore, so removing the stupid restriction won't affect meth production at all.
- chowells 3y ago
  Do you actually believe this? It seems completely ignorant of human behavior to me. You see, it's not about dealing with large-scale operations. It's about keeping that one neighbor you have who always makes poor choices from grabbing 1000 boxes of Sudafed and blowing up their house. They don't care what the industrial process is, they care what they can get away with in their living room. Throttle access to pseudoephedrine sufficiently and they will look elsewhere. Make it easy to get and they'll DIY. You know, I even admire the DIY spirit involved. I just don't admire the externalities.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    The subtext of your argument is that you think you can legislate away human behavior. There is a cheap process to make meth, and there’s another process that involves Sudafed. Banning Sudafed does not stop meth production. But here you are still supporting a ban on Sudafed - because of what some theoretical person might do with it ignoring that they’re doing it now without it. I don’t believe this is a logical failure, I believe whatever culture you grew up in imparted this way of thinking.
    - chowells 3y ago
      The culture I grew up in is one where this happened about once a month. Well, before Sudafed became hard to get. Then the rate of it occuring dropped precipitously. It's almost like people in fact do base their choices on what's easily available.