Hydroponics, anyone? Interesting raid on home of "growers"

[LightningCrash]

Just like alchohol. We should criminalize the use of alchohol and strictly regulate the ingredients used to make this devil water.

There's nothing wrong with that, that's a great idea. Why haven't they tried that already?

 

[Hawgman]

Aren't there several ingredients in meth? Why not restrict one, some or all of those and leave the pseudoephedrine alone?

 

[bettingpython]

Aren't there several ingredients in meth? Why not restrict one, some or all of those and leave the pseudoephedrine alone?

They tried, you can no longer buy iodine crystals or red phosphorus without special permits. Then ammonia thefts went through the roof as the tweakers switched over to a different recipe. Finally the information age came along and delivered the one pot small batch method that any tweaker could do at home. You would have to get rid of chemical hot/cold packs (ammonium nitrate) and Lithium Batteries to stop the one pot cooks.

Theres a new pseudoephedrine that's supposed to meet the regulation exceptions because it won't convert to a methamphetamine. It'd be nice if they would get it to market.

 

[bettingpython]

Who equated it to the 2nd? The standard party line yuuuup them laws have made a difference, now you have a violent Mexican cartel moving in to fill the void we have directly increased the funding and brutal violence done by cartels. It's never going away and now you have people trying "designer" chemicals that skirt the legal prohibitions and cause even more harm. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Glocktogo]

Your logic is flawed soonersfan. No one (not even those you listed) argued for legalizing meth production or usage. All they did was point out that the delivery method was the same. "Let's do it for the children." "Who needs ___?" "It's a matter of public safety."

The nanny state do-gooders will always find a way to demonize guns, pseudoephederine, whatever in their ultimate quest for safety control. Meth usage is bad in the way that irresponsible firearms usage is bad. Restricting OTC allergy meds on that premise is no different than restricting availability of firearms to the law abiding. Regardless of what your narc presenter (or Michael Bloomberg) say, it will do nothing to stop someone with bad intent.

 

[AKguy1985]

I wonder if they were killer CIA tomatoes?

 

[Poke78]

Your logic is flawed soonersfan. No one (not even those you listed) argued for legalizing meth production or usage. All they did was point out that the delivery method was the same. "Let's do it for the children." "Who needs ___?" "It's a matter of public safety."

The nanny state do-gooders will always find a way to demonize guns, pseudoephederine, whatever in their ultimate quest for safety control. Meth usage is bad in the way that irresponsible firearms usage is bad. Restricting OTC allergy meds on that premise is no different than restricting availability of firearms to the law abiding. Regardless of what your narc presenter (or Michael Bloomberg) say, it will do nothing to stop someone with bad intent.

QFT and Well Said!!! BOLD part should be everybody's central understanding. If that isn't absolutely and universally clear, especially in the gun rights community, you really ought to check your logic circuits, IMO.

 

[Hobbes]

So my flawed logic is probably wrong to assume that traffic laws, drivers' licenses, building codes and the FAA are necessary? After all, they are laws that regulate how and if you can drive, how you build or remodel a building and how and if you fly. They are all in the interest of "the children and public safety" and were undoubtedly sold that way.

Driving is a privilege not a right. I think the comparison of speed limits to narcotic use is a far better correlation than gun laws and narcotic use. I agree that a junkie will find their preferred fix or an alternative and there is no way to eliminate that. I am not on the side of legalized drug use but some of you make compelling arguments. I also do not favor a nanny state and we should be thoughtful and cautious about being duped into new legislation for the safety of the children. Frankly, the solution is not so clear on either side. The best scenario may be somewhere in the middle.

My issue is not with you making the argument. I just think you should make your arguments on their own merit without drawing a direct link to any of our natural rights because they are not the same. Protecting the "children" and the public are valid reasons to pass some legislation and make some laws. I get that public safety is behind many bad laws and some necessary laws. Dismissing any law based on public safety and comparing it to the infringement on our natural rights is disingenuous. That is the only point I am trying to make. Carry on.

Fine then.

We will compare restricting allergy medications as prescription only to Bloomberg's large soda drink ban.
They're both restrictions of personal freedom by the state for the sake of the children.

Happy Now?

 

[caojyn]

I wonder if they were killer CIA tomatoes?

 

[LightningCrash]

You don't need a drivers license to drive a car in Oklahoma.

The US Supreme Court recognized that a drivers license is more than a simple privilege.
see Bell v Burson 402 U.S. 535 (1971)

The argument for the regulation of PSE is that 99% of the use is lawful but somewhere under 1% is used to make meth. The dangers of the meth are significant enough that we place regulations on the whole citizenry to protect the innocent from the abuses of the 1%.
The argument for gun control is that 99% of gun use is lawful but somewhere under 1% are used illegally. The dangers of illegal gun use are significant enough that they want to place regulations on the whole citizenry to protect the innocent from the abuses of the 1%.