It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First arrest in nation for buying cold medicine

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
Meth is not an industry that is or will become 'regulated' per say by the government. It is illegal and will remain illegal.


Incorrect. It goes under Schedule II as a substance with the potential for abuse but also a medical purpose. Happy plant is under schedule I which is deemed to have no medical purpose. Clearly a mad law.

If the government topples, what the DEA says will be irrelevent.

link


If a person on meth kills someone because they are geeking or tweeking, it could have been avoided by the limit of access to manufacture meth.


Has this really limted access or do people really just not like it (if use has dropped)? Much evidence says that the market will drive the use and availability, not the legal status. In the case of alcohol prohibition in America, it was emphatically clear.


If a person dies because years of meth use has broken their body down, it is not just their fault, regulation and law should have protected them.


Incorrect. Regulation and law merely must protect our personal rights (and I'll extend that to the welfare of living things in general).

I would rather give them two options:
  1. Give them all the meth they want for free and they may stay in a designated place and smoke, at my cost, until they die or take option 2.
  2. Have treatment programs available and they can be treated at my cost.



Do you honestly think that the manufacture of meth should be a choice?


Yes. Uneqivocally, as with everything, absolutely everything that is simply a material thing. Your actions in relation to others must be the standard.


I am all for legalization of marijuana, but it is a natural herb, it IS something we should be allowed to choose to do or not do, but meth is a whole nother story.


It would be a proper step along with anything else that "just grows" (but, we cannot go into that too deeply around here).


To stop it's manufacture is not to take away your freedom. It is to protect the user and society.


If a raid kills even one pet dog or happens at the wrong house, the anti-chemical zeal is far too damaging already. There have been plenty of innocent people ensnared, killed and their lives destroyed in this silly war. The demonized chemical-du jour is updated periodically to bring about a new fear of an substance and justify funding and militarization of law enforcement.


[edit on 8/30/2010 by EnlightenUp]




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


So no matter how deadly something is, your point is that you should have the right to purchase it for manufacturing an even deadlier product, because you feel that otherwise it is infringing upon your freedom?

Maybe we should be able to purchase ricin as well? How about belladonna, it has medical benefits too, but it should be our right to paralyze our nervous systems right? The hell with children's safety, as long as it doesn't bother your right to buy it. Oh and there's rhubarb leaves, they aren't illegal at all, you do have the right to grow or purchase them, freedom intact, and you might want to cook up the leaves and eat them, still got your freedom but damn, your dead.

Freedom does not come without a price or rules. The reason behind that is to protect people.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


So no matter how deadly something is, your point is that you should have the right to purchase it for manufacturing an even deadlier product, because you feel that otherwise it is infringing upon your freedom?


Yes, since it's about choice. I have no personal interest in actually doing so. To wit, I defend the 2nd amendment even though I haven't much personal interest in weapons.


Maybe we should be able to purchase ricin as well? How about belladonna, it has medical benefits too, but it should be our right to paralyze our nervous systems right? The hell with children's safety, as long as it doesn't bother your right to buy it.

Oh and there's rhubarb leaves, they aren't illegal at all, you do have the right to grow or purchase them, freedom intact, and you might want to cook up the leaves and eat them, still got your freedom but damn, your dead.


Is this hyperbole necessary?

Belladonna, check, I have the right to paralyze my own nervous system.

My main concern with ricin would be another's handling of the material. If it plays a legitimate part in someon'es personal and peaceful research and invention, then I have no qualms on that account. It shouldn't be criminal in itself.


Freedom does not come without a price or rules. The reason behind that is to protect people.


What? Rules are tradoffs against freedom for safety. When the tradeoffs are dubious and have deleterious effects or exacerbate the problem, you're trading too much.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   


My main concern with ricin would be another's handling of the material. If it plays a legitimate part in someon'es personal and peaceful research and invention, then I have no qualms on that account. It shouldn't be criminal in itself.
reply to post by EnlightenUp
[more
Do you not see that manufacturing meth is 'another's handling of the materil'? Let me show you what can go wrong


www.wkrg.com...

You had the right to be in the same hotel

www.youtube.com...

Do you think they had the right to buy enough ephedrine to do that too? if this is the result of that right, that 'freedom', it is wrong.

Meth manufacturers are not in the middle of 'peaceful research', nor is it done in the name of 'invention'

The only people who should be in possesion of ricin are professionals and in a controlled setting, and by professionals I mean researchers who are trying to find a purposeful, beneficial use of the material.

Medical benefits from methamphetamine contianing drugs are not produced in the same manner. They are produced in a controlled enviroment, by professionals who are making a beneficial drug.

People who smurf or even shoplift ephedrine, are going to either manufacture or sell it to a manufacturer so they can make meth.

Like this:

www.youtube.com...

Still think they have the right to get all they want of it? Enough to take care of a cold and then some is still legal to purchase. But you think it should be your right, and freedom, to do whatever you want with it:

www.youtube.com...


I am trying to get through to you that meth is as dangerous as ricin. Why do you defend the rights of tweekers to make all they want of this dangerous volatile chemical mix, yet you don't think ricin should be in the wrong hands? That is what the regulation is about. Trying to get ephedrine out of the wrong hands.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Correction on the person who insinuated belladonna is illegal to posses.. It's not. Just like any of the other plants from the tropane family and many of the plants grow wild all over the US. One of the most common in the US being Datura, better known as jimson weed which is toxic but in small doses can cause delirium and in even smaller doses can be used for allergies, induce sleep and so on.
In fact drugs that contain diphenhydramine and dimenhydrinate are derived from such plants. Those two drugs can cause delirium, hallucinations, and even death when abused but I don't see anyone trying to regulate them.

There are so many dangerous and deadly plants that are legal to grow and keep for personal use it seems moronic to make other much less harmful drugs like marijuana for example illegal but most of us know why and it doesn't have anything to do with it's safety but rather the governments vested interest.

So using the mindset that a drug should be regulated or illegal to possess just because some people use it illicitly is like saying we should ban guns because some people use them to kill people, and others sell them on black markets and they are used in robberies and so on.

My feeling on this whole topic is that it has been beat to death, and this isn't the first thread on ATS to do so about ephedrine and legalities surrounding it.

The general consensus seems to be that regulating the drug is a good idea to prevent it being used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine but however a line must be drawn at how much to regulate it so not to interfere with people using it for legitimate purposes.

If I recall there was a thread on ATS a year or so back where a Grandmother was arrested because she purchased one box over the limit in the allotted time period w/o knowing there was a law against it. She ended up going to jail, paying a large fine and court fees and now has a criminal record all because she bought some cold medicine for her husband...
tribstar.com...

So there you go. This is not the first arrest for someone purchasing this drug. However I question why the person in the OPs post was buying that much over the limit.
As others have said there is only one reason the guy would purchase that much, either he was cooking meth, selling it to a cook, or had one heck of a cold!
Can't say the same for the grandmother in the story I linked above though!

What I feel it comes down to is don't let the stores sell the drugs if the shopper is over their limit if we are to keep such an intrusive law. Since they are already keeping records of purchases in the first place may as well go one step further and keep a national database of cold medicine purchases just refuse selling it to someone over their limit.
This always opens the can of worms though over privacy issues and there being databases keeping such information on someones purchases.
But hey can't have it both ways.
I still think money would be better spent educating the public on the facts of drug use instead of propaganda, dangers of manufacturing said drugs, instead of fighting the "war on drugs" like we currently are.

[edit on 8/30/2010 by darklife]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   


Correction on the person who insinuated belladonna is illegal to posses.. It's not. Just like any of the other plants from the tropane family and many of the plants grow wild all over the US. One of the most common in the US being Datura, better known as jimson weed which is toxic but in small doses can cause delirium and in even smaller doses can be used for allergies, induce sleep and so on.
reply to post by darklife
 


I was using belladonna as an example of a product that is legal, but misused it is deadly.

Also there is not an epedemic of belladonna use, or Jimson weed. There IS an epedemic of meth abuse, meth lab explosions, neglected, abused, and abandoned children out of meth homes, poisining of streams, creeks and rivers with waste from meth production, meth related theft and robbery, molestation by meth induced adults, the list can keep going on and on.

The day america starts reporting people are taking belladonna to get high and instead they are dying or having to be placed into institutions for full paralysis in epedimic proportions, I will go along with regulation of that too.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I am glad there was a crackdown. I remember a few years back in my city there were these construction trailers for an apartment complex. After some time one of them had exploded... turns out there was a meth lab inside one of them!!

So yeah, no more exploding trailers yes?? I am okay with the regular of amount of this chemical that is allowed. xD



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by space cadet
 


You're putting words in my mouth quite assiduously. What they actually did in disregard, to harm others, was not, nor is, in their right. To simply possess materials, is in their, my and your natural right. To use them to harm others, is not.

Ont thing I wanted to know was: have these laws curtailed anything or has the supply chain just shifted? I think I have an hint of an answer below.

The amounts of pseudoephedrine I used to purchase at Costco merely for my and my family's convenience and value, would now be considered criminal. I never made meth in my life nor ever intended to do so. Now I have to sign a government register to get any amount of pseudoephedrine? A crock. If I do something wrong by mistake, I could very well be branded a criminal, investigated and with a typical jury of dolts, convicted and thrown in prison for years to rot. It happens with alarming frequency.

Now, I suppose it's not that inconvenient, but it's a road that's been proven ultimately ineffective, costly and detrimental to basic freedom.

Before pseudoephedrine, it was acetone. I had some fiberglass projects I was working on and suddenly I had to sign a register for that too. I suppose that wasn't good enough. At least the quantities weren't terribly restricted since I needed a fair amount to do the boat restoration.

Pseudoephedrine isn't even necessary to make it despite the claims of proponents and sponsors of the Combat Meth Act. I've probably been flagged already just looking into that and I believe it's against the T&C to link to that sort of info.

Ricin is apparently not very difficult to do either.

Just a quick search and it looks like this idiocity isn't ultimately going suppress a market:
Meth labs on rise in Kentucky
Note how they declare any cost to everybody as being "win-win".

I suppose you don't mind the increasing encroachment and miltarization in the name of "protecting the children". There's no evidence it's doing any such thing. Look at the conditions at the U.S.-Mexican border. It's a farce used to justify funding this increased executive power. Also, reducing the demand would have a real effect since noone will make the stuff if noone wants it, legal or not and would render the rest moot.

Sorry, but my values are set for a more evolved human consciousness where government and its use to preempt behavior would serve no useful purpose. The simple truth of the matter is that you live in a sort of fear that I do not and perhaps harbor some personal sense of guilt in relation to some unfortunate personal circumstances.

[edit on 8/30/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Where I worked, there was someone with an addiction to drugs. There are limits in the UK to how many painkillers you can buy at any one time, but he used to buy from every pharmacy in the area to get round it. Now part of me says we should all be able to live the way we want and it's our business whether we want to drug ourselves to death. But the other bit of me recognises that those of us around such people often end up paying the price. So on the fence on this one.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by starchild10]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


You do know the definition of 'assiduously'? You just stated that I am putting words into your mouth quite assiduously, that would mean I am doing so using care and persistance.

I used your own words about ricin, and then applied the same statement as if we were discussing ephedrine instead, you don't want ricin in the wrong hands, you understand why it is not. But you continue to think your freedom is lost if you can only buy enough ephedrine contianing products to last you a month.

Kentucky's problem may not be due in total to the regulation of ephedrine, other scenarios may apply. One example would be the sheer ablilty to access locations in the mountianous range, police corruotion could also be a factor.

I know that in my town, busting smurfers is making a difference. Fewer labs mean less products.

And you are absolutely correct in your assumption that I have a personal interest in the matter. My brother blew himself up in a meth lab. There were children in the home. He bought the ephedrine himself, going store to store purchasing the limit per location.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by space cadet]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
You know what enlighten? This is not a matter of one of us getting to say 'touche', it is real life and real death, that being said, I maintain my opinion that it is regulated because IT IS in the wrong hands and that we are still free and capable of purchasing all we could possibly medically need, and that the regulation is needed.

I just think a meth lab is much scarier than not being able to buy insane amounts of cold medicine at Costco.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


You do know the definition of 'assiduously'? You just stated that I am putting words into your mouth quite assiduously, that would mean I am doing so using care and persistance.


I do. It was properly chosen.

The sort of thing I'm referring to:

The hell with children's safety, as long as it doesn't bother your right to buy it.


But you think it should be your right, and freedom, to do whatever you want with it.

(Emphasis added)

Which implies that I condone irresponsible or malicious use of any particular thing when I made the opposite position clear (or thought so) regarding unfettered freedom. Nothing is about "to hell" with anyone, but the justfiable concern it's really having the opposite effect for everyone and their real safety. Your defamatory remarks were intended to visit upon me a form of character assassination, to "negativize" others' perceptions of me personally.


I used your own words about ricin, and then applied the same statement as if we were discussing ephedrine instead, you don't want ricin in the wrong hands, you understand why it is not. But you continue to think your freedom is lost if you can only buy enough ephedrine contianing products to last you a month.


I understand why care must be exercised when working with dangerous substances or combinations thereof. My concern isn't necessarily the substance itself. I wouldn't store a personal stash of plutonium in a paper bag and irradiate myself and my neighbors, neither would I allow fuel vapors to accumulate in my garage and then light a match while inside.

I do feel my freedom is lost if that byproduct of castor beans is unavailable and I have an interest in researching something, outside of corporate sponsorship, yes. It's actually not very harmful unless ingested or weaponized in some way.


Kentucky's problem may not be due in total to the regulation of ephedrine, other scenarios may apply. One example would be the sheer ablilty to access locations in the mountianous range, police corruotion could also be a factor.


Could be but it was not the only one I noticed. Oklahoma and Michigan also show up. Another factor might be a newer, simpler method of preparation, leading to fewer detections.


I know that in my town, busting smurfers is making a difference. Fewer labs mean less products.


The beast will morph and adapt if the market exists.


And you are absolutely correct in your assumption that I have a personal interest in the matter. My brother blew himself up in a meth lab. There were children in the home. He bought the ephedrine himself, going store to store purchasing the limit per location.


That's unfortunate and I do have some understanding in relation to my own circumstances, thus feel sadness myself. Unfortunately, things will only escalate until another tack is taken.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I read most of what you would want in the way of deregulating the amounts of drug ingredient.

I am proud to live in a country that sets limits and prevents mass buying of such ingredients. Cold medicine expires, so why would you NEED 1,500 doses?

Ricen is way off this topic.

I know a guy who went to Walmart and bought 10 tanks of propane and 10 bags of manure. He didn't even make it home. Stopped by police, due to a tip from Walmart. There was a Meth lab discovered at his residence.

I met a women in her 80s that had 5 people with the flu living in her house. Upon her third trip to Rite-Aid within a week she was sighted and released for buying over the maximum Cold/Flu pills limit within an allotted time.

So maybe the regulations are too strict, but with Meth use tied to over 50% of crime here in N. California, these measures are necessary.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by Tribble]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Tribble
 


Conversely, I'm saddened to live in a country where lessons are never learned.

I don't need 1500 but I can only legally purchase 60 adult doses in one month.

Secondly, if the government has it out for a substance, they'll not hesitate to propagandize. When it was the chronic, they swore up and down it would be the end of civilization. The next thing that comes, you'll hear similar diatribes.

Will these measures really ultimately curtail anything? I've see no precedent for that.

Will they be responsible for increased intrusion and unfortunate incidents with draconian law enforcement actions? I'll bank on that. You certainly provided your own personal example, one that it seems, fortunately, to have not turn out as badly as it could have.

So, with restritions, it's tied to half the rate of crime in Northern California? Hmmm. What was it before? Maybe the particular place of which you speak is one where little crime occurs in general? It's difficult to address that figure meaningfully without more information.

Meth use appears to a have been on the decline before the regulation in 2006.

Also showing a slight downward trend before PE regulation.

Also here.

What's notable is how little effect there is, if any, as a tradeoff.

Noone should confuse correct action with personal crusades. The most sensible action is to dissociate it from dangerous criminal activity. Why anyone expects different results from the same sorts of measures, time and time again, I cannot fathom. It defies rationality, unless analyzing it on the basis of fear psychology or perhaps even outright malicious intent in some cases.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I can't find the article from 2 weeks ago that stated the meth related crime statistics around here. However I found the SDIC site you quoted and that info was not as current as the one I was remembering. I need to find the current data!

I know the correctional system just kicks them back out in the world. Rehab or drug diversion has no significant change in their success rate.

Drug diversion vs jail, I guess I would choose drug diversion too.
That sounds like a viable cause for the high statistics (that I will find), therefore implementing more restrictions by laws.

If they link insulin to manufacturing any street drugs, thus limiting it- you will be correct in that there will be a huge problem. Uprising!

They will not reverse the law on Cold medicine restrictions. Nobody has the absolute answer to stopping meth production. And that poor old lady I mentioned, is on a statewide watch list.

I'm out of gas, unless the new universal heath care restricts all medications!



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


The law is to limit cookers from producing meth. The synthetic route from OTC cold medicine is simple and, depending on the cooker, can produce some potent amphetamine. It can also produce total garbage that might not be so good to ingest. Consider it a public safety law.
While the law inhibits some low-end amateurs, it doesn't really affect operations of those who hijack truckloads of cold pills or buy key ingredients internationally. It also doesn't affect those that have chemists skilled in organic synthesis and with the proper equipment for turning out thousands of pounds of amphetamines.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join