4 ms·

Except, rocket launchers are for shooting at other people. Meth is mostly about self destruction. Granted, tweakers tend to be dicks, but still, your analogy

Except, rocket launchers are for shooting at other people. Meth is mostly about self destruction. Granted, tweakers tend to be dicks, but still, your analogy is just a little bit hyperbolic. We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit. Also, wtf? You're telling me I can't have a rocket launcher now!?

tsally 17y ago
We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit. I definitely agree with you on this point, however exclusive self destruction is not possible in the vast majority of cases. Anyone that is financially or emotionally dependent on an addict experiences some destruction when they destroy themselves. If there is anyone that has no connections to family, friends, companies, or country, I agree, they should be allowed to do meth. I don't think there is anyone like this though. ;-)
- jrockway 17y ago
  Adults should be able to emotionally hurt whomever they want. If someone's parents are religious fundamentalists, by your logic, it should be illegal for the kid to become an atheist. Sorry, that is none of the State's business. That is a personal issue between three people. Similarly, using meth is a personal issue for the meth user. (The only reason people make it at home and blow up their buildings is because it's illegal to manufacture it safely. If you could go to Walgreens and buy your meth, you can bet that there would not be many exploding meth labs. This "problem" is caused by its "solution".)
  - tsally 17y ago
    I don't buy it. Adult's are not allowed to emotionally hurt their kids. Various child abuse laws cover this and our laws do indeed say that it is the State's business. You can't show me hard evidence that meth users usually act in emotionally (and financially) responsible ways; adults with dependents using meth is clearly wrong. As for kids, well, kids simply don't have a developed enough brain to make proper decisions about a substance as addictive as meth. The argument here is purely biological and doesn't really need a defense. I'll preempt the usual counter argument by saying that if we could quantify decision making ability, I'd be all for using that instead of age. But age is the best we've got right now. As I said before, if it doesn't affect anyone else I don't really care what you do. Parents can do whatever they want (drugs or otherwise) if it doesn't affect their kids or other dependents. In addition, anyone with a job needs to consider their responsibility to their company. But hey, if there's someone where none of these connections apply, s/he can do whatever they want. I certainly wont judge.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - Devilboy 17y ago
      Parents doing meth need help, not mandatory jail sentences.
      - tsally 17y ago
        I never claimed that the punishment was right, only that it should be illegal. I'm in favor of whatever punishment helps the addict and society at large the most.
        rizzn 17y ago
        ++1. Definitely agree. Judgment should stand. Sentencing should adapt.
        Devilboy 17y ago
        Would you then agree that alcohol (which destroys many families - way more than meth) should be illegal too?
        tsally 17y ago
        Interesting question. Alcohol shouldn't be illegal because it's a major part of our social fabric in America. Business deals, hacker meetups, weddings, reunions, all have alcohol at them. Hell, the writers of the constitution consumed a ton of alcohol to celebrate when they finished. All of these examples lead me to believe that in moderate amounts, alcohol serves a useful social function. I mean, when was the last time you were at a hacker meetup that didn't have booze at it? Another reason why alcohol shouldn't be illegal is that almost all users are functioning, contributing members of society. Meth isn't even close in that regard. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of regular meth users have a positive net effect. It's just too addictive and potent. That being said, I think the penalties for consuming too much alcohol should be on par with drug related offenses. Further, any crime committed while under heavy influence of alcohol (assault and rape come to mind) should have it's minimum sentence doubled. And as for parents who beat their spouses and children while drunk? I'd be fine with throwing them in jail for 20 to life depending on the damage done. A less extreme measure is to revoke a persons right to purchase alcohol after X number of alcohol induced crimes. People do make mistakes, and we don't need to throw the book at first time offenders. However, a repeated pattern of alcohol abuse is not something that should be tolerated any more than the use of meth.
rizzn 17y ago
Only slightly hyperbolic. As someone who's spent more time than he'd care to admit in East Texas (a major manufacturing and distribution center for illegal meth), people that make this stuff do it in their homes, and eventually tweak out and blow up the neighborhood. It happens a lot more than you'd think... ... not to mention, habitual usage doesn't exactly lead to safe behavior, which is inflicted on others. I'm not a drug regulation advocate, but it's important not to paint Meth as a victimless drug. The first target may be yourself when you use it, but the collateral damage is not insubstantial. A better analogy than a rocket launcher might be hand grenades, if we're sticking to small armaments as the analogy.

tsally 17y ago

We should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit. I definitely agree with you on this point, however exclusive self destruction is not possible in the vast majority of cases. Anyone that is financially or emotionally dependent on an addict experiences some destruction when they destroy themselves. If there is anyone that has no connections to family, friends, companies, or country, I agree, they should be allowed to do meth. I don't think there is anyone like this though. ;-)

jrockway 17y ago
Adults should be able to emotionally hurt whomever they want. If someone's parents are religious fundamentalists, by your logic, it should be illegal for the kid to become an atheist. Sorry, that is none of the State's business. That is a personal issue between three people. Similarly, using meth is a personal issue for the meth user. (The only reason people make it at home and blow up their buildings is because it's illegal to manufacture it safely. If you could go to Walgreens and buy your meth, you can bet that there would not be many exploding meth labs. This "problem" is caused by its "solution".)
- tsally 17y ago
  I don't buy it. Adult's are not allowed to emotionally hurt their kids. Various child abuse laws cover this and our laws do indeed say that it is the State's business. You can't show me hard evidence that meth users usually act in emotionally (and financially) responsible ways; adults with dependents using meth is clearly wrong. As for kids, well, kids simply don't have a developed enough brain to make proper decisions about a substance as addictive as meth. The argument here is purely biological and doesn't really need a defense. I'll preempt the usual counter argument by saying that if we could quantify decision making ability, I'd be all for using that instead of age. But age is the best we've got right now. As I said before, if it doesn't affect anyone else I don't really care what you do. Parents can do whatever they want (drugs or otherwise) if it doesn't affect their kids or other dependents. In addition, anyone with a job needs to consider their responsibility to their company. But hey, if there's someone where none of these connections apply, s/he can do whatever they want. I certainly wont judge.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - Devilboy 17y ago
    Parents doing meth need help, not mandatory jail sentences.
    - tsally 17y ago
      I never claimed that the punishment was right, only that it should be illegal. I'm in favor of whatever punishment helps the addict and society at large the most.
      - rizzn 17y ago
        ++1. Definitely agree. Judgment should stand. Sentencing should adapt.
      - Devilboy 17y ago
        Would you then agree that alcohol (which destroys many families - way more than meth) should be illegal too?
        tsally 17y ago
        Interesting question. Alcohol shouldn't be illegal because it's a major part of our social fabric in America. Business deals, hacker meetups, weddings, reunions, all have alcohol at them. Hell, the writers of the constitution consumed a ton of alcohol to celebrate when they finished. All of these examples lead me to believe that in moderate amounts, alcohol serves a useful social function. I mean, when was the last time you were at a hacker meetup that didn't have booze at it? Another reason why alcohol shouldn't be illegal is that almost all users are functioning, contributing members of society. Meth isn't even close in that regard. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of regular meth users have a positive net effect. It's just too addictive and potent. That being said, I think the penalties for consuming too much alcohol should be on par with drug related offenses. Further, any crime committed while under heavy influence of alcohol (assault and rape come to mind) should have it's minimum sentence doubled. And as for parents who beat their spouses and children while drunk? I'd be fine with throwing them in jail for 20 to life depending on the damage done. A less extreme measure is to revoke a persons right to purchase alcohol after X number of alcohol induced crimes. People do make mistakes, and we don't need to throw the book at first time offenders. However, a repeated pattern of alcohol abuse is not something that should be tolerated any more than the use of meth.

rizzn 17y ago

Only slightly hyperbolic. As someone who's spent more time than he'd care to admit in East Texas (a major manufacturing and distribution center for illegal meth), people that make this stuff do it in their homes, and eventually tweak out and blow up the neighborhood. It happens a lot more than you'd think... ... not to mention, habitual usage doesn't exactly lead to safe behavior, which is inflicted on others. I'm not a drug regulation advocate, but it's important not to paint Meth as a victimless drug. The first target may be yourself when you use it, but the collateral damage is not insubstantial. A better analogy than a rocket launcher might be hand grenades, if we're sticking to small armaments as the analogy.