A Plan to End Crystal Meth

[Zoot]

Here in New Zealand, crystal meth has only recently really become popular. Here, people call it "P". Due to some high-profile serial armed robberies and murders committed by people near-psychotic from using crystal meth, it has become a pretty high-profile issue here. It's called an epidemic.

I would like to hear feedback on this plan for ending it.

Make crystal meth legal to use. Start a state-owned enterprise (MethCorp!), which is the only licensed retailer of crystal meth. All profits from MethCorp go to studies into addiction and its origins, and into programmes for helping people quit. Some profits also go into law enforcement, cracking down on illegal suppliers. They shouldn't be too much of a problem, however, because MethCorp will be providing a product of guaranteed quality, legally, at a much lower price than that charged by drug dealers.

By undercutting independent drug dealers and taking the profit out of crystal meth, the market for independent crystal-meth dealing will disappear, just as there are no people making money from dealing independently in tobacco, alcohol or caffeine. The difference between these industries and MethCorp is that private businesses exist to perpetuate themselves, and thus to increase demand for their product, while MethCorp exists to destroy demand for its product, and thus put itself out of business.

While in business, it would provide jobs to people working in the various retailers for MethCorp around the country, and to the psychologists and doctors and therapists working for the daughter organisations.

It takes the money that currently is spent on drug dealers and perpetuating the problem, and directs that money to the state and diminishing the problem.

[beyelzu]

Here in New Zealand, crystal meth has only recently really become popular. Here, people call it "P". Due to some high-profile serial armed robberies and murders committed by people near-psychotic from using crystal meth, it has become a pretty high-profile issue here. It's called an epidemic.

I would like to hear feedback on this plan for ending it.

Make crystal meth legal to use. Start a state-owned enterprise (MethCorp!), which is the only licensed retailer of crystal meth. All profits from MethCorp go to studies into addiction and its origins, and into programmes for helping people quit. Some profits also go into law enforcement, cracking down on illegal suppliers. They shouldn't be too much of a problem, however, because MethCorp will be providing a product of guaranteed quality, legally, at a much lower price than that charged by drug dealers.

By undercutting independent drug dealers and taking the profit out of crystal meth, the market for independent crystal-meth dealing will disappear, just as there are no people making money from dealing independently in tobacco, alcohol or caffeine. The difference between these industries and MethCorp is that private businesses exist to perpetuate themselves, and thus to increase demand for their product, while MethCorp exists to destroy demand for its product, and thus put itself out of business.

While in business, it would provide jobs to people working in the various retailers for MethCorp around the country, and to the psychologists and doctors and therapists working for the daughter organisations.

It takes the money that currently is spent on drug dealers and perpetuating the problem, and directs that money to the state and diminishing the problem.



I think that its a great idea and almost completely unworkable because governments dont like to appear soft on crime which is just stupid.

[Corwin]

Actually it's much simpler to keep it illegal and crack down on the drug companies who are complicit in meth production....

[ApostateAbe]

You reckon that the profits could go to studies, programs and law enforcements, but there wouldn't seem to be any profits under such a system. In order to undercut the competition, you would need to sell the product low enough so that money is lost. The only other option would be to impose costly legal restrictions on the competitors and grant leeway to Methcorp, like what is happening with the United States Postal Service. But that is also likely to cost the tax-payers more than they get in return.

Besides, my libertarian sensibilities balk at the idea of a publicly owned drug enterprise. There is too much room for abuse, and it opens the door for further government expansion.

[beyelzu]

You reckon that the profits could go to studies, programs and law enforcements, but there wouldn't seem to be any profits under such a system. In order to undercut the competition, you would need to sell the product low enough so that money is lost. The only other option would be to impose costly legal restrictions on the competitors and grant leeway to Methcorp, like what is happening with the United States Postal Service. But that is also likely to cost the tax-payers more than they get in return.

Besides, my libertarian sensibilities balk at the idea of a publicly owned drug enterprise. There is too much room for abuse, and it opens the door for further government expansion.
illegal drugs are more expensive because they are illegal.

example pot

do you really think that it costs anymore to grow pot than it does cigarettes?

and yet a pack of joints would run 60 plus dollars instead of 3-6 depending on where you live and alot of that is taxes.

[ApostateAbe]

You reckon that the profits could go to studies, programs and law enforcements, but there wouldn't seem to be any profits under such a system. In order to undercut the competition, you would need to sell the product low enough so that money is lost. The only other option would be to impose costly legal restrictions on the competitors and grant leeway to Methcorp, like what is happening with the United States Postal Service. But that is also likely to cost the tax-payers more than they get in return.

Besides, my libertarian sensibilities balk at the idea of a publicly owned drug enterprise. There is too much room for abuse, and it opens the door for further government expansion. illegal drugs are more expensive because they are illegal.

example pot

do you really think that it costs anymore to grow pot than it does cigarettes?

and yet a pack of joints would run 60 plus dollars instead of 3-6 depending on where you live and alot of that is taxes. Well, I don't see what you are saying exactly, but I agree (I think), and I am all for the legalization of drugs.

[Corwin]

You reckon that the profits could go to studies, programs and law enforcements, but there wouldn't seem to be any profits under such a system. In order to undercut the competition, you would need to sell the product low enough so that money is lost. The only other option would be to impose costly legal restrictions on the competitors and grant leeway to Methcorp, like what is happening with the United States Postal Service. But that is also likely to cost the tax-payers more than they get in return.

Besides, my libertarian sensibilities balk at the idea of a publicly owned drug enterprise. There is too much room for abuse, and it opens the door for further government expansion. illegal drugs are more expensive because they are illegal.

example pot

do you really think that it costs anymore to grow pot than it does cigarettes?

and yet a pack of joints would run 60 plus dollars instead of 3-6 depending on where you live and alot of that is taxes. Well, I don't see what you are saying exactly, but I agree (I think), and I am all for the legalization of drugs.

I'm not so sure it's a legalization issue here.... or not in the usual sense. Meth is AMAZINGLY dangerous, and not just to the user.

Let's face it, do YOU want stoned amateur chemists working with that stuff in YOUR neighborhood?

Yeah.... didn't think so.

[viscousmemories]

You reckon that the profits could go to studies, programs and law enforcements, but there wouldn't seem to be any profits under such a system. In order to undercut the competition, you would need to sell the product low enough so that money is lost. The only other option would be to impose costly legal restrictions on the competitors and grant leeway to Methcorp, like what is happening with the United States Postal Service. But that is also likely to cost the tax-payers more than they get in return.
There wouldn't be any legal competitors, and some of the profits would be used to help combat the illegal competitors. Per Zoot:

Start a state-owned enterprise (MethCorp!), which is the only licensed retailer of crystal meth. All profits from MethCorp go to studies into addiction and its origins, and into programmes for helping people quit. Some profits also go into law enforcement, cracking down on illegal suppliers.

[ApostateAbe]

I'm not so sure it's a legalization issue here.... or not in the usual sense. Meth is AMAZINGLY dangerous, and not just to the user.

Let's face it, do YOU want stoned amateur chemists working with that stuff in YOUR neighborhood?

Yeah.... didn't think so. Well, you can start your own thread for why drugs should be kept illegal, and I would be happy to explain why I disagree, but for now, I would prefer to talk about Zoot's idea.

[ApostateAbe]

There wouldn't be any legal competitors, and some of the profits would be used to help combat the illegal competitors. OK, I missed the part about "the only licensed retailer." My objections are fewer.

[Corwin]

I'm not so sure it's a legalization issue here.... or not in the usual sense. Meth is AMAZINGLY dangerous, and not just to the user.

Let's face it, do YOU want stoned amateur chemists working with that stuff in YOUR neighborhood?

Yeah.... didn't think so. Well, you can start your own thread for why drugs should be kept illegal, and I would be happy to explain why I disagree, but for now, I would prefer to talk about Zoot's idea.

Read it again. Legalization isn't the issue here... because the reasons for legalizing various drugs don't apply to meth.

If pot became legal, and my neighbor started growing.... this doesn't impact me specifically. His crop isn't likely to blow up and take my house with it.

All of these ideas also ignore the fact that it's much simpler and cheaper to just crack down on the drug companies who sell pseudoephedrine to anybody who fronts the cash for it by the literal truckload, without any sort of verification that these buyers have any legitimate USE for this drug. Crack down on those companies, and the meth supply dries up. Of course the drug companies are making a bloody fortune on the sale of pseudoephedrine.... and the Bush administration is in bed with them.... so don't look for this simple solution to be implemented any time soon.

[ApostateAbe]

I'm not so sure it's a legalization issue here.... or not in the usual sense. Meth is AMAZINGLY dangerous, and not just to the user.

Let's face it, do YOU want stoned amateur chemists working with that stuff in YOUR neighborhood?

Yeah.... didn't think so. Well, you can start your own thread for why drugs should be kept illegal, and I would be happy to explain why I disagree, but for now, I would prefer to talk about Zoot's idea.
Read it again. Legalization isn't the issue here... because the reasons for legalizing various drugs don't apply to meth.

If pot became legal, and my neighbor started growing.... this doesn't impact me specifically. His crop isn't likely to blow up and take my house with it.

All of these ideas also ignore the fact that it's much simpler and cheaper to just crack down on the drug companies who sell pseudoephedrine to anybody who fronts the cash for it by the literal truckload, without any sort of verification that these buyers have any legitimate USE for this drug. Crack down on those companies, and the meth supply dries up. Of course the drug companies are making a bloody fortune on the sale of pseudoephedrine.... and the Bush administration is in bed with them.... so don't look for this simple solution to be implemented any time soon. OK, start your own thread for it and we can talk all about it.

[Corwin]

Start my own thread for what exactly?

This thread is titled 'A Plan to End Crystal Meth.'

Crystal meth can be ended by controlling the sale of pseudoephedrine. This is a trivial task. Regulate the producers of pseudoephedrine, (which does have legitimate uses) and you cut off the supply to meth producers.

Simple. Effective. Inexpensive.

[ApostateAbe]

Start my own thread for what exactly?

This thread is titled 'A Plan to End Crystal Meth.'

Crystal meth can be ended by controlling the sale of pseudoephedrine. This is a trivial task. Regulate the producers of pseudoephedrine, (which does have legitimate uses) and you cut off the supply to meth producers.

Simple. Effective. Inexpensive. That sounds good to me. It may only make meth more expensive, but that would be a step in the right direction.

[Corwin]

Start my own thread for what exactly?

This thread is titled 'A Plan to End Crystal Meth.'

Crystal meth can be ended by controlling the sale of pseudoephedrine. This is a trivial task. Regulate the producers of pseudoephedrine, (which does have legitimate uses) and you cut off the supply to meth producers.

Simple. Effective. Inexpensive. That sounds good to me. It may only make meth more expensive, but that would be a step in the right direction.

It does make it more expensive, and less pure. (And therefore less addictive.)

Hell we've already done exactly this with ephedrine. The DEA tried to do it with pseudoephedrine.... until the drug companies bitched to congress about it. (They didn't like what it was doing to their profits.)

[Adora]

Eh, I heard a thing about this a while ago. Apparently its becoming big in Australia too, and they still haven't figured out why. We never really had the cocaine/crack epidemic here that the US does, mainly because we don't have the level of large-scale poverty (and therefore no market). Mostly around here it's called Ice or I've heard it called Shabu Shabu, and I was warned against it a few years ago by a nursing friend of mine who had seen kids coming in on the stuff.

Meth, is dangerous shit, especially on the street. I do agree that internalising it with the state is a good idea, but I can't see it happening. Most parlimentarians would oppose the move (for any drug really), and undoubtably use most of the horror stories hospital staff will tell you about it against such a move (and if anyone brings up the masturbation story, it would never ever get through).

[Sycophant]

In New Zealand, the sale of pseudoephidrene (or however that's spelt) is quite heavily controlled - I don't believe there are any ways a non-licensed person could obtain a pure source from a chemical or pharmacutical supplier, and all people purchasing pseudephidrene-based medicine must present photo id.

However, there are still large buying rings (every couple of months someone is found to be literally driving up and down the country stopping at every pharmacy on the way and buying cold medicine. Also, there are quite a lot of burglaries of chemist shops. In this country the manufacture of Crystal Meth ("P") is almost entirely controlled by gangs (of the Hell's Angels variety, not the Bloods variety).

I don't really like Zoot's idea for two reasons -
1) Unlike many other drugs (marijuana, e, speed etc) Crystal Meth seems far more likely to spark serious physical and mental reactions that will result in injury to the users and others - it is a significant factor in quite a few crimes. I don't think it should be available, and while legalising it would remove some of the criminal element from it's sale and production, I don't think it would make a difference in the outcomes from it's use.
2) I don't like the idea of the government becoming involved in this sort of thing. Just as I would be very unhappy with the idea of government operated cigarette or alchohol producion. I really don't think itis the governments place to contribute to substance abuse of any sort.

However, I don't have another idea, beyond repeatedly smacking users around a bit until they stop fucking themselves up with that vile shit.

[Sycophant]

(and if anyone brings up the masturbation story, it would never ever get through)

It's like a car accident, I know I shouldn't look, but I can't help myself.

What is the masturbation story?
(regretting it already)

[wildernesse]

The idea of meth "companies" is a strange idea for me--mostly because most of the stories locally are about people in their trailers mixing up crap and then blowing themselves up.

Random comment, I know.

[wade-w]

Just a couple of quick comments here. One, Ice specifically refers to the smokable form. Second, crack is generally associated with poverty, while cocaine is generally a rich man's drug. Last, Meth IS speed.

[Corwin]

The idea of meth "companies" is a strange idea for me--mostly because most of the stories locally are about people in their trailers mixing up crap and then blowing themselves up.

Random comment, I know.

And those stories are quite the minority. The upswing in methamphetamine is due largely to a few large scale mexican organized crime syndicates working out of southern california. They produce most of it. They also have the resources to buy enormous amounts of pseudoephedrine from the source.

The source isn't that difficult to control, (there ARE only nine companies in the world that produce it) but it takes the will to do it.

[wade-w]

Corwin, in that case, why don't you address Sycophant's claim that the sale of this ingrediant is already tightly controlled in New Zealand? Your proposed solution doesn't appear to be doing much good there, or do you think all of the Meth they are using is imported from the US?

[Corwin]

Corwin, in that case, why don't you address Sycophant's claim that the sale of this ingrediant is already tightly controlled in New Zealand? Your proposed solution doesn't appear to be doing much good there, or do you think all of the Meth they are using is imported from the US?

An enormous amount of it is. (These cartels make literally millions of doses at a pop.) And controlling the sale in one country is only part of the story. You have to do like we did with ephedrine and work with all the producers, including the ones in eastern europe.

[Zoot]

Okay, a few things here. Firstly, what the hell is Sycophant doing here? I think I was drunk when I invited him.

I don't really like Zoot's idea for two reasons -
1) Unlike many other drugs (marijuana, e, speed etc) Crystal Meth seems far more likely to spark serious physical and mental reactions that will result in injury to the users and others - it is a significant factor in quite a few crimes. I don't think it should be available, and while legalising it would remove some of the criminal element from it's sale and production, I don't think it would make a difference in the outcomes from it's use.

I agree. But a few things:

1. Many of those violent crimes are violent robberies, inspired by people requiring large amounts of money to maintain their addiction. There would be far less of this by removing the enormous mark-up added by illegal dealers.

2. The psychotics are going to go psychotic anyway, whether they get their meth from the store or Dodgy Dave down the road. It's not a choice between allowing or disallowing dangerous people from purchasing meth; it's a choice between vendors.


2) I don't like the idea of the government becoming involved in this sort of thing. Just as I would be very unhappy with the idea of government operated cigarette or alchohol producion. I really don't think itis the governments place to contribute to substance abuse of any sort.

Well, obviously it's not a contribution to substance abuse. The company exists to end substance abuse. It's just recognising that while the addiction exists, there's a demand, there's a buck to be made, and someone will make it.

What would concern me far more about a state-owned enterprise existing to put itself out of business is that it's nice in theory, but if people were doing their jobs right, ultimately they'd be putting themselves out of a job. Assurances would need to be made to employees that they'll be looked after once MethCorp has ended meth addiction/demand for its own product.

Travers informs me that there are Australian government departments who exist to supply welfare money to aboriginal communities, and that prominent figures in those departments prevent dryzones being implemented in those communities. The result: those aborigines stay drunk, stay unemployed, stay on welfare, and the department keeps its job.


Besides, my libertarian sensibilities balk at the idea of a publicly owned drug enterprise. There is too much room for abuse, and it opens the door for further government expansion.

Yeah, I have to swallow kind of hard when I say "state-owned enterprise" in this idea. Ideally, my libertarian answer would be to abolish the capitalist system entirely, taking the profit out of meth addiction by removing the notion of profit altogether, and then forming community support for those who are addicted. That's less of an idea, however, and more of a revolution.

Besides, I think the notion of a state-run organisation that exists to put itself out of business could be an interesting precedent for libertarianism.

[Corona688]

Besides, I think the notion of a state-run organisation that exists to put itself out of business could be an interesting precedent for libertarianism. I don't think this is a good idea, but for different reasons than Corwin.

Take gambling, for instance. An enterprise that's very closely controlled by the government. Does the government want to abolish it? Hell no! It makes them lots of money, and I'd estimate that a lot of it goes directly to the government, and not to programs on fighting gambling.

The same goes for ciggarettes; they can plaster all sorts of warnings on exorbatantly-priced packages of dried wrapped leaves, and know people will still buy. They make tons of money selling a lethal product to the addicted, and get to claim the moral high-ground for "discouraging use" via high prices. Same for alchohol.

Drugs is a business where you can make a hell of a lot of money by cashing in your morality. Is this something we really want the government in charge of?

[Adora]

The Masturbation Story: Guy is admitted to hospital obviously suffering from a Meth overdose. Staff get him back to conscious stage, put him in the observation ward recently created for Meth patients. Guy then proceeds to masturbate for 24 hours straight. A very very nasty cleanup of the room then proceeds. *shudders*

Compared to other stories I've heard about Meth patients, this is a rather lighthearted one. Most of the others involve some pretty serious violence, which hospitals are having a hard time dealing with. Apparently they're not allowed to lock the observation rooms, so dealing with Meth patients is a big risk a lot of the time. And mostly it's the nurses who end up getting hurt, since they're the ones who have to spend the most time with the patients.

[Zoot]

Drugs is a business where you can make a hell of a lot of money by cashing in your morality. Is this something we really want the government in charge of?

Honestly, no. But the alternative is private enterprise, and at least government is susceptible to some manner of public scrutiny and transparency. I mean, law enforcement is a business where you can make a hell of a lot of money by cashing in your morality. But would you rather have unregulated private security looking after you? At least the police have internal affairs and stuff. Neither are ideal, but I'd take a democratic state over the mafia any day.

That's why I called it a precedent. If it could be pulled off - a government organisation truly succeeding in doing itself out of business by ending an ill in society - that could provide a model for other similar ventures.

As it stands, the money spent on meth goes directly into the hands of people who want meth addiction to continue and to increase. The current response is to spend public money on police resources in trying to snuff out a market without seriously addressing the demand. Even if they were seriously addressing the demand, they'd still be competing with well-funded people who would seriously address the threat to demand.

Half the attraction of the idea, to me, is putting the dealers out of business, not by locking up the dealers, but by undermining the business.

[wade-w]

The Masturbation Story: Guy is admitted to hospital obviously suffering from a Meth overdose. Staff get him back to conscious stage, put him in the observation ward recently created for Meth patients. Guy then proceeds to masturbate for 24 hours straight. A very very nasty cleanup of the room then proceeds. *shudders*


Sounds like an urban legend to me. Do you have anything to back this up?

[Godfather]

The theory is sound, and I think it would be a workable model for governments of the benevolent dictator variety. In any real-world system in which the government operates with even some level of popular consent, it would be too radical to implement. If you think meth-related violent crimes get a lot of media coverage now, imagine the outcry when some old lady is beaten to death by someone on government-supplied meth.

The fact is that when faced with a choice between allowing major harm to occur through inaction, or actively causing smaller harm to prevent the major harm, the vast majority of people will instinctively opt for the former, unless the stakes are very low.

[Zoot]

Yeah. People need a slap.

[Julie]

Yeah. People need a slap.

*please over look my spelling errors*


Slapping them silly repeadly will do nothing to convince a meth addict they need to stop.

I can see going legal with Pot and taxing the shit out of it like Tobacco and alcohol. I can even see E being sold legally (which is actually a REALLY REALLY good idea cause most E is now either cut with Meth or pure Meth)

I can not agree that having Meth sold by a gov't as being a good idea. It is just to dangerous. The effects of being high from meth...and the effects of withdrawl from meth are worse than just about any other street drug. Meth can make you psycotic. Withdrawl from Meth can as well.

Long term (and some times short) effects from Meth are serious
Prolonged use may occasionally cause blurred vision, dizziness, and loss of coordination.
• Users may occasionally experience chemically induced schizophrenia, and toxic psychosis.
• Users may occasionally experience brain toxicity, kidney, liver and lung failure, heart disease.
• Users may occasionally experience permanent brain damage - even with minimal use.
• Prolonged chronic use may in rare cases lead to death, generally due to a sudden "failure" of
a vital organ, heart attack, or stroke (a rupture or an obstruction of an artery in the brain).

The withdrawl symptoms are just as bad
Insomnia , depression, suicidal feelings.
• Recurring hallucinations, and delusions.
• Disorganized lifestyle, poor coping abilities, decreased social skills.
• Permanent psychological problems.
• Disturbance of normal personality development.
• Ongoing violent and aggressive behavior.
• Weight loss, malnutrition, body image fixations.
• Lowered resistance to illnesses.
• Physical complications, such as: kidney and lung disorders, liver damage.
• Possible brain damage due to the destruction (loss) of nerve cells.
• Behavior resembling paranoid schizophrenia.

Because of the higly addictive nature of this drug Making it legal in any way shape or form is a bad idea.

Controling the production isn't going to work either (cause 100 bikers can hop on thie bikes and hit every pharmacy and grocery store from here to neverneverland and they will get enough psyudoephedrine (or how ever its spelt) to keep on produceing it.

THe only way that anyone is going to get Meth off the streets is to stop all production of psyudoephedrine. The only way thats going to happen is by Big Gov't giving the drug companies the incentive to find a safe alternative. THe only way drug companies are going to do that is probably through their pocketbooks.....

*Yes I do know a lot about Meth and Meth addicts, I live in BC Canada...Pot capital of the world, where the herion is cheap and pleantiful blow is amazingly previlent still the only place in the first world nations with a GROWING HIV/AIDS population...and where the quickest cheapest high to buy is Meth... and I still know more than most... more than I ever wanted to know but my BIL is in a recovery house for his meth addiction right now and I'm the only one that can talk him thru his withdrawls it seems. But it's also because of my experences that I can say emphatically that legalizing it in any way shape or form is WRONG.

Other drugs...eh I'm not so strong about I do see making them legal and regulated as being workable, just not with the Meth.

Oh and just so we have a working defination of Meth... There are two different types...All Speed is Meth but not all Meth is speed...

D-type Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth, Crystal, JIB, Sister, GIB, Ice)

• Clear shiny crystals varying in size from sugar crystals on up.
• Smoked in one chamber glass pipes “bongs”, broken light bulbs, etc.
• Drug activated with lighters or micro-torches.
• When heated the crystals form a liquid “puddle” before turning into a vapor.
• Onset of Action: 3 - 5 seconds when smoked - may last 8 to 24 hours.


L-type Amphetamine (Speed, Crank, Grit, Smack, Yellow)

• Powder can vary from clear to white, to yellowish, or pinkish.
• Inhaled up the nose - Snorted -“bumped”.
• Injected (more common in BC, the USA, among older addicts,
or addicts who have previously injected cocaine or heroin.
• Onset of Action: 15 - 30 seconds if injected - lasts 4 to 6 hours.
• Ingested, taken orally via pressed tablet pills, or powder caplets.
• Often mixed with other drugs or mislabeled as Ecstasy. More than 58% of Ecstasy-like pills contain methamphetamine. (as per RCMP) Ecstasy is also considered physiologically harmful.
• Onset of Action: 15 - 20 minutes if ingested - lasts up to 24 hours.

[Zoot]

Julie, you're right. Best we keep it illegal so that nobody uses it.

And the people who need a slap are the people would rather meth be illegal than non-existent.