Actually, this article exposes just what is wrong with the majority of people who address any issue. They start from a conclusion and work backwards to justify it.

The government does, in fact, NOT "have the right". Government has powers derived from the people, who for one reason or another have decided that no, they don't want drug use and traffic unfettered, and you might notice that the people have the right to be secure in their houses.

From this, the entire premise that the government is wrong to interfere in drug trade is flatly wrong.

By the way, "we don't need messages from government" is also completely wrong. There are a number of activities which put the general public at risk at which private entities have demonstrated an unwillingness to even consider public safety.

I find this lie - and it is a lie - especially entertaining: "I will not force others to live by my assessments of dangers." Apparently, this person has never voted, or otherwise sought to preserve his neighbors from a hazardous situation in the process of protecting himself.

Once again: the average citizen has neither the time nor the expertise to assess the risk to her person by common public transactions. That someone should object to the system that provides public safety as an intrusion on rights demonstrates this conclusively.

Radwaste +1000

Easy one for me, I just have to not be a hypocrite. They can pry my cigarettes from my cold, dead fingers.

The problem I have with this argument is that, unlike many of the items mentioned, the production of meth can be very dangerous, a process that could endanger one's neighbors (good lord, can you imagine the shitstorm that would occur if Amy's neighbor was running a meth lab and she caught a whiff of that smell?).

And, the process can ruin the property (my state requires a disclosure if meth production has occurred in a house).

So, what is the solution? Regulate production? Considering the addictive and destructive nature of meth, its production would have to go right back underground because, strictly from a products liability stand-point, lawsuits are almost guaranteed.

So, I could answer yes to every question posed in that article and still be against meth.

-Jut

There is also the efficacy argument. We have had prohibition on meth for decades and if anything the consumption has increased. Why spend money trying to stop something you can't stop?

Jut,

Many products are dangerous to produce. There was a fertilizer factory explosion in Texas a few years ago. Are you opposed to fertilizer? Sugar factories can explode and burn due to sugar dust. Are you going to give up cookies? The reality is if meth was legal it would be manufactured in a factory with higher safety standards and away from neighborhoods. Instead you have amateur chemists engaging in dangerous industrial manufacture in neighborhoods.

Once again: the average citizen has neither the time nor the expertise to assess the risk to her person by common public transactions.

And that's precisely the rationale of those who would ban cheeseburgers, fries, and a super-sized soda.

The slow march to the gulags has begun. Because once you use that justification, then every transaction can and must be regulated.

For the children!

A different tack would be to say that as long as other people require me to pay taxes to protect them from the consequences of their choices, I get a voice in what they get to do. And in that case, I would argue that meth has no socially redeeming value. Certainly not to those who become addicted - their health will be wrecked.

"Government has powers derived from the people, who for one reason or another have decided that no, they don't want drug use and traffic unfettered,..."

A couple of points. First, I'm not convinced that the people have actually decided that. To me, a whole lot of drug enforcement looks like a top-down imposition that the people have never agreed to. Second, there are principles established in our governance that some things cannot be changed without a rather substantial super-majority. Right now, there are a majoriity of people in favor of the idea that speech that they don't like should be restricted. However, our Constitution sets a very high barrier for that sort of thing; an inflamed passion of the moment is not sufficient to implement that change (at least not in a manner that is Constitutional). Admittedly, the Constitution says nothing about the right to use meth. However, it has always been understood (at least up until the 1960s) that the fact that the Constitution enumerates certain rights does not imply that the government has power over everything else. The Tenth Amendment (now widely ignored, sadly) says in plain language that the federal government has only the powers enumerated in the Constitution; all else is reserved. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the authority to regulate drugs. The pretense for that whole enterprise is the horribly bastardized interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the government has adopted over the past half century.

"Once again: the average citizen has neither the time nor the expertise to assess the risk to her person by common public transactions. That someone should object to the system that provides public safety as an intrusion on rights demonstrates this conclusively."

There's a bridge that has been crossed there that should not be crossed gratuitiously. It's the bridge between harm to oneself (where, IMO, the government should have very little power) and the harm to others (where the government should have some power). Raddy and I have had this discussion previously: if drugs are legalized, how do you police and prevent driving under the influence? There aren't breathlyzers for meth. But I think we could all agree that driving in a substantially mind-altered state on account of drug use is something we want to keep a lid on.

Beyond stuff like that, though, it gets more complicated. You can point to the status for crimes committed by drug users. But how much of that is due to drug use being illegal? A lot of people are in jail for "trafficking" (and the definition of "trafficking" keeps getting ratcheted down). And other crimes are committed in order to get money to buy drugs. If drugs were legal, they doubtless would be a lot less expensive.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: law is not and cannot be a vehicle for the propagation or enforcement of morality. All it can do is set a minimum standard to prevent social disorder. When law tries to be morality, the results are nearly always bad. (And we see that in current drug enforcement, which has accomplished the singular achievement of hugely intruding on civil rights while completely failing to put a dent in drug use.) The legal rationale for current drug enforcement could just as easily be used to restrict anything that people consume -- alcohol, caffeine, sugar, salt, chocolate, bacon, you name it. I think it's a mistake to let our policy be determined by the actions of the relatively small population of hard-core addicts, who are going to roll the way they roll regardless of legal or moral hectoring. If we really want to do something about the harm they cause to society, there's only one thing to do: institutionalize them.

Ben hits on an interesting position: commercially manufactured meth would be a safe meth.

That's true. I suspect that the companies most capable of doing so are also the least likely to engage in the production of the product even if it were legalized. They wouldn't want the product liability lawsuits that would inevitably follow from a product that is inherently dangerous.

But because of the health issues involved, the politicians would tax the hell out of it. Because, Think of the Children!

And in doing so, create the perfect opportunity for a grey market to spring up: amateur chemists cooking a dangerous mix of chemicals where the can find the space for it. Because they only need to be a bit less expensive than what the commercial product + taxes are.

The efficacy argument is exactly right. Also, if meth is legalized, it will be regulated, and you will no longer have the equivalent of the backyard stills of Prohibition in people's basements.

And Cousin Dave is exactly right on this:

However, it has always been understood (at least up until the 1960s) that the fact that the Constitution enumerates certain rights does not imply that the government has power over everything else. The Tenth Amendment (now widely ignored, sadly) says in plain language that the federal government has only the powers enumerated in the Constitution; all else is reserved.

Ben,
No, I understand. In regulating it, it would have to be subject to zoning laws to get it out of the residential areas. But, as I suggested, the regulation might just drive it back underground.

A good example: if marijuana got legalized, you can say that they can tax it all they want, but many people would likely still just grow their own because it is cheaper.

-Jut

Sullum: "Everything You've Heard About Crack And Meth Is Wrong"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/11/04/everything-youve-heard-about-crack-and-meth-is-wrong/

Ben,
No, I understand. In regulating it, it would have to be subject to zoning laws to get it out of the residential areas. But, as I suggested, the regulation might just drive it back underground.

A good example: if marijuana got legalized, you can say that they can tax it all they want, but many people would likely still just grow their own because it is cheaper.

-Jut

Posted by: JutGory at October 29, 2015 7:49 AM

Yes, well there are people brewing their own beer too, and in the name of freedom, distilling your own alcohol and making your own wine and beer should be legal too.

Meth used to be both legal and widely available, until it was captured by the Pharma industry as a dangerous drug they should *control*

Now you can buy it on the street or get it from your doctor in the form of Ritalin or Adderal

Just out of curiosity I wonder how many deaths can be ascribed not to overdoses of meth, or addition, but to tired people falling asleep while driving an 18 wheeler, or on patrol in Afghanistan? (The military handed it out like candy, as did your average hospital ER to the overworked interns)

I wouldn't call it safe meth IRA. Maybe safer. But it might move it out of the residential areas.

And I agree Jut. Even the places with legal pot have to struggle with illegal pot because the taxes and regulations are so onerous. Of course that is true for a wide variety of legal products today ranging from cigarettes to pizza. Garner died in NY over tax issues.

The reality is if meth was legal it would be manufactured in a factory with higher safety standards and away from neighborhoods. ~ Posted by: Ben at October 29, 2015 6:54 AM

It would still be manufactured in neighborhoods. Because it can be. By people who don't want to pay the taxes to get their fix. Just ask any moonshiner.

...making your own wine and beer should be legal too. ~ Posted by: Isab at October 29, 2015 8:43 AM

Those things are. Thanks to the Carter Administration.

http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2010/08/how-jimmy-carter-saved-craft-beer/19195/

I read your Forbes article Amy. My only quibble with it is crack is desirable less for recreation but more for it's stimulant properties. It is heavily abused by those trying to work superhuman hours or people with highly irregular hours. A classic example is bartenders. A number of people like to buy the bartender a drink. So some bartenders balance the alcohol with cocaine so they can keep working.

That is why it never left the ghetto. Better job opportunities removes the value from crack. In comparison classic recreational drugs (pot, shrooms, e, lsd, ...) all are firmly embedded in suburban neighborhoods.

And yes Conan. There would still be a few meth shiners. But the majority of production would move to factories. Just how large a percentage of the alcohol market is moonshine and craft beer? Not that much.

"They wouldn't want the product liability lawsuits that would inevitably follow from a product that is inherently dangerous."

I suspect what would happen is that manufacturers would spring up offshore, some place that's out of the reach of the U.S. tort system. Drugs are a small, high-value cargo, easy to transport. I'm not sure how distribution would work -- maybe order over the Internet and direct ship for a lot of people. There'd probably be local gray markets too: head shops, businesses with no assets and therefore lawsuit-proof. There's also the possibility that a court would grant a recreational drug industry some of the same protections that the alcohol industry has now.

"And in doing so, create the perfect opportunity for a grey market to spring up: amateur chemists cooking a dangerous mix of chemicals where the can find the space for it. Because they only need to be a bit less expensive than what the commercial product + taxes are."

I don't know. Some people are going to continue to cook just because that's how they roll. But I live in the part of the country where moonshining was once big business, and I can tell you that it's inconsequential now. Why? Because legal liquor has put most of it out of business. Yes, legal costs more, due to taxes. But it's also a far higher quality product, much larger variety, much easier and less risky to obtain, and it has respectibility. Shiners now are pretty much confined to the bottom of the barrel in the customer base. Even most of the homeless drink legal. There's a somewhat larger market for bootlegging, but there it's still product that was produced legally; it just bypassed the retail taxation system.

The palatability factor would be even bigger for meth. Given the choice between some cooked-up smelly, nasty concoction that has to be injected, and a neat and clean product in pill form, few people are going to choose the former even if it costs less. (And it's not clear to me that it would... legal manufacturing can make it so much cheaper that it might offset the cost of taxation.)

...making your own wine and beer should be legal too. ~ Posted by: Isab at October 29, 2015 8:43 AM
Those things are. Thanks to the Carter Administration.

http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2010/08/how-jimmy-carter-saved-craft-beer/19195/

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at October 29, 2015 9:50 AM

I knew that, but it misses the point, particularly when talking about distillation, is that the distillation process should never have been made illegal, anymore than butchering your own beef.

The safety arguments get taken into account when you are producing a commercial product, for sale to the general public,

That should be subject to regulation, especially when you are selling your products across state lines. Until then, in my opinion, it isn't the business of the Feds at all.

"The efficacy argument is exactly right. Also, if meth is legalized, it will be regulated, and you will no longer have the equivalent of the backyard stills of Prohibition in people's basements."

Consistency alert!
Based on your arguments for raw milk, you should be saying that the consumer can tell when the product is dangerous, not supporting the idea of regulation.

Given the choice between some cooked-up smelly, nasty concoction that has to be injected, and a neat and clean product in pill form, few people are going to choose the former even if it costs less.

You're aware that the kids these days smoke meth? and that's were "meth mouth" comes from?

I really should have changed my handle to Heisenberg for this thread.

The illegality premium for these drugs makes them hugely profitable. It funds cartels, corrupts law enforcement, threatens nations. It destroys neighborhoods.
Make it legal and that goes away. You'll recall the stories about the Baptists and the moonshiners making common cause to ban legal sales of liquor. How do you think the cartels feel about legalization?
Drug crime generally hurts those not choosing to be involved in drugs--robbery, mugging, etc. Taking drugs hurts those who choose to take them. So even an increase in the latter, say, getting OD'd would reduce the impact of drugs on those of us who haven['t volunteered for the life.

"It destroys neighborhoods. Make it legal and that goes away."

Oh, cool! So, all we have to do is make {name the substance or activity} legal and our neighborhoods are saved?

I'm a my home is my castle man myself. It should be legal for me to do whatever I want in my home, as long as it harms no one else. If I want to do meth in my home, that should be legal. If I leave my home while under the influence of meth to cause a public menace, I should be subject to legal sanctions. This applies across the board. I'll take responsibility for the stuff I choose to ingest without regulation like Amy will with her cottage foods.

"You're aware that the kids these days smoke meth?"

Yeah, but for the purpose of making that particular point, that's so far off the edge of the table that I figured it wasn't worth mentioning. Somebody who just wants an upper isn't going to go look for the crack pipe and the ether.