Local Grannie gets pinched buying drugs.

[Kirk Freeman]

Mike, perhaps a better alternative is to find out if she has an opponent in the primary or general election and give that person money?

 

[silentvoice71]

now here's something intresting also. A little town a used to live in a police officer was caught buying ephredine by the case.........we never heard a word on his punishment.......Now I thought you could only buy so much of that in a week because it is also used to make meth...am I wrong?

 

[indytechnerd]

How in the world did the LEO manage to figure out she was at a pharmacy in Rockville, then a week later in Clinton? Are they that bored out west there that they take the time to look at store tapes that much and that closely? And even if they do, they should have noticed she bought one box at each store in a week's time. Hardly the amount needed for production, I'd think.

I grew up in Rockville. Last I heard, before moving to the big city, was that the area around southern Parke and northern Vigo counties were heavy Meth manufacture areas. Hunting Meth labs are a full time job over there.

...Indiana State Police statistics ranked Parke County 5th in the state in manufacture and use of Meth...

 

[level.eleven]

I think the law should stand, but the verbage repealed and corrected to actually state what the intent is, which in this case would be the use of said drug to aid in the manufacture of Meth.

Thats the point though. The prosecutor came right out and said the verbage can't be changed to include intent because it woudln't nab enough people and in turn would likely not generate enough arrests to receive federal money. In this case, the prosecutor isn't bothered by intent.

If the law said “with intent to manufacture methamphetamine,” no one could be arrested until it was proven that the drug actually was used to make meth, the prosecutor said.

The state wants the law excatly how it is.

 

[XMil]

This is a classic example of the government causing a problem(meth) and then using it to validate the need for their drug-war machine, and whatever inconvenience caused to innocent bystanders (us) in the process is just an "unfortunate" but "necessary" evil.

 

[rambone]

I think LEO should hunt down meth labs the way they hunt down dealers: Get people to rat them out.... good old fashioned police work. I don't want the Government tracking anything. Big Brother has exhausted my faith and confidence in its ability.

Let pharmacists have the right to deny anyone who seems suspicious. Or rethink this expensive War on Drugs.

 

[public servant]

I think LEO should hunt down meth labs the way they hunt down dealers: Get people to rat them out.... good old fashioned police work. I don't want the Government tracking anything. Big Brother has exhausted my faith and confidence in its ability.

Let pharmacists have the right to deny anyone who seems suspicious. Or rethink this expensive War on Drugs.

So you're saying legalize meth?

 

[public servant]

This is a classic example of the government causing a problem(meth) and then using it to validate the need for their drug-war machine, and whatever inconvenience caused to innocent bystanders (us) in the process is just an "unfortunate" but "necessary" evil.

The government caused meth? I really wasn't sure of it's origin.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The prosecutor came right out and said the verbage can't be changed to include intent because it woudln't nab enough people and in turn would likely not generate enough arrests to receive federal money.

Yes, but I believe she was referencing "specific intent" (i.e. intent to do something like the statutes for Attempted Murder or Theft for example). The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that this statute does have a general intent element (pursuant to fair notice and mens rea requirement as specified in Lambert (1957) a United States Supreme Court decision).

Here's the Court of Appeals case that I referenced earlier (sorry about the hit and run post)=>

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09090901par.pdf

The Attorney General has until October 9th to seek transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The government caused meth? I really wasn't sure of it's origin

Well, if you say "German government" that that would be accurate.

(Meth was originated in the 1880s at the University of Berlin by a Romanian chemist. Later used extensively by the Third Reich--see, I do pay attention at IPDC seminars).

Sorry for the history lesson, but you probably never heard that from the people you deal with when you are involved with a meth case!

 

[BtownBlaster]

Rethink the war on drugs? But that would make sense! Surely you know, there is no place for that in government! I agree that something needs to be done about meth, I've seen what it can do. That being said, I suffer from allergies. And when I can''t get Sudafed because the pharmacy has closed, I am propelled into a new realm of pissed off that I can't begin to describe. I am sick of the government making things illegal to "protect" me.

 

[XMil]

The government caused meth? I really wasn't sure of it's origin.

Sure it did. As long as there have been people, they have been using drugs to modify their experiences. The fact that drug use is so prevalent tells me that no matter what, people will do drugs.

If they could go into a nice, well lit store, and buy something made by competent, well regulated company like like Pfizer, for not much money, they would.

What really happens though, that some puritanical knot heads in Washington decide for whatever reason, that using drugs is "evil". Since the penalty for "importing" substances is so harsh, it creates some problems.

It becomes very expensive, because anybody willing to risk it is going to make it worth their while and the simple law of supply and demand makes the cost go up.

Since the cost and risk are so high, and there are a lot of people that want something, enterprising people found a way to make something locally that is cheap and relatively simple.

One of the really sad parts is that instead of a nice, relatively harmless inexpensive drug made by a real drug company, people end up using nasty crap like meth that basically turns you into a psychotic zombie.

So we've created people that are irrational, extremely addicted, and needing a lot of money for a fix. That brings those people to my neighborhood in the middle night stealing my stuff so they can pawn it to get money for their next fix.

So we can stick to the cute S.A. one-liners, or talk about how to really fix the problem. Militarizing the police and hounding decent people with laws and regulatory hoop-jumping is not working.

 

[CarmelHP]

Having a kid in school, germs are being brought home constantly. So, we all have colds now. I went to Kroger to get some cold pills and found that it's easier and faster to get a Form 4 approved that to buy a box of cold medicine.

 

[Clay]

There are only 2 pharmacies in Rockville, and my wife works for one of them, well, she rotates there on occasion, but she opened the store 3 years ago or so.

I asked here how this could happen and she said the biggest thing the police look out for is someone purchasing above the limit at multiple stores in different areas. Well, she got the lucky prize for doing just that.

 

[rambone]

I think LEO should hunt down meth labs the way they hunt down dealers: Get people to rat them out.... good old fashioned police work. I don't want the Government tracking anything. Big Brother has exhausted my faith and confidence in its ability.

Let pharmacists have the right to deny anyone who seems suspicious. Or rethink this expensive War on Drugs.

So you're saying legalize meth?

My first and most likely fix would be to legalize cold medicine, then hunt meth dealers like the rest of drug dealers.

But, alternately, if it meant I could keep the other half of my paycheck, I'd be willing to deal with legalizing quite a few things. I am already heavily taxed to have to subsidize people's welfare, food stamps, medicaid, WIC, housing, etc, etc... Those same people choose to poison themselves with drugs and I have to pay for teams of agents to follow them around.

Leave them alone and leave me alone. But like I said, my first solution is to back the Government out of the pharmacy.

 

[bigus_D]

My first and most likely fix would be to legalize cold medicine, then hunt meth dealers like the rest of drug dealers.

But, alternately, if it meant I could keep the other half of my paycheck, I'd be willing to deal with legalizing quite a few things. I am already heavily taxed to have to subsidize people's welfare, food stamps, medicaid, WIC, housing, etc, etc... Those same people choose to poison themselves with drugs and I have to pay for teams of agents to follow them around.

Leave them alone and leave me alone. But like I said, my first solution is to back the Government out of the pharmacy.

A HUGE +1. I don't often find myself agreeing with rambone. But, RIGHT ON to this quote.

 

[public servant]

My first and most likely fix would be to legalize cold medicine, then hunt meth dealers like the rest of drug dealers.

...Those same people choose to poison themselves with drugs and I have to pay for teams of agents to follow them around.

So do you want them hunted down or do you not want to pay for it? You cannot have it both ways. Unless I misunderstood what you want.

I really don't care that meth dealers and users kill themselves...but I don't want the meth lab next door to me blowing up or them poisoning the surrounding soil with the by-products of their hobby.

I guess just legalize it and they could purchase the finished product at Walgreen's? That's still a frightening thought...they still have to pay for it somehow. And if it's cheaper they will just use more and more. It's not like that just because it's legal that all the other problems associated with it disappear.

My solution is put them in prison and leave them there after their 3rd conviction (3 strike rule)...but that too is expensive and society generally complains about the costs.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Sure it did. As long as there have been people, they have been using drugs to modify their experiences. The fact that drug use is so prevalent tells me that no matter what, people will do drugs.

If they could go into a nice, well lit store, and buy something made by competent, well regulated company like like Pfizer, for not much money, they would.

What really happens though, that some puritanical knot heads in Washington decide for whatever reason, that using drugs is "evil". Since the penalty for "importing" substances is so harsh, it creates some problems.

It becomes very expensive, because anybody willing to risk it is going to make it worth their while and the simple law of supply and demand makes the cost go up.

Since the cost and risk are so high, and there are a lot of people that want something, enterprising people found a way to make something locally that is cheap and relatively simple.

One of the really sad parts is that instead of a nice, relatively harmless inexpensive drug made by a real drug company, people end up using nasty crap like meth that basically turns you into a psychotic zombie.

So we've created people that are irrational, extremely addicted, and needing a lot of money for a fix. That brings those people to my neighborhood in the middle night stealing my stuff so they can pawn it to get money for their next fix.

So we can stick to the cute S.A. one-liners, or talk about how to really fix the problem. Militarizing the police and hounding decent people with laws and regulatory hoop-jumping is not working.

Wow. The best post on here I have seen in a long time. Excellent and thought out. I'll get you some rep when I get the ability to rep back.

Did everyone miss this?

 

[public servant]

Wow. The best post on here I have seen in a long time. Excellent and thought out. I'll get you some rep when I get the ability to rep back.

Did everyone miss this?

Saw it...but it lost my interest when "we" (I) get blamed for creating meth heads.

So we've created people that are irrational, extremely addicted, and needing a lot of money for a fix.

I didn't create meth or meth heads. They did this one on their own.

And if you legalize it...again...most of the problems associated with it are still there. Because you build them a nice, well lit place to go get high...they still are addicted. They still are meth heads. It's cheaper so they just use more. The still have to rob and steal to pay for the habit.

Surely just because you legalize it...you don't see the meth and crack heads or heroine users going out and getting a 9 to 5 job and becoming productive members of society? They are still meth and crack heads...they just buy it cheaper now and more of it.

I just don't see legalization of highly addictive drugs as a viable answer.

 

[homeless]

Fortunately The Clintonian isn't exactly reputable so she really doesn't have to worry about any real defamation. However the principle stands that this is ridiculous. I have a bottle of sudefed and a bottle of advil cold and sinus in my med bag, both of them have warning labels and usage directions. So does the owners manual on my sig, and the pack of my camels. Part of being a grown up is knowing what you are doing and taking responsibility for that. Rationing the ingredients of a drug is worthless. It bothers me that a bottle of cleaning stuff under my sink has a label that says usage other than directed is a Federal offense.

I know that many of you think that the war or drugs is a good thing and that drugs are bad, mkay. I certainly think that most drug usage is stupid, that users are annoying, and the addicts are worthless. However grown ups get to decide what they are going to do with their lives. Not letting them do that negates their personal responsibility and all concepts off accountability. I have seen what happens when people do meth, coke, heroine, pcp, pot, lsd, X, booze, hydros, etc. I would rather they make the choice to strew up their lives and waste away on a **** stained mattress without worry of being caught, than me having to space out my desire to have a well stocked aid kit so I don't have to hear what ever girl I am with whine about a head ache or cold.

I also see a problem when a LAW isn't black and white. In my opinion Gray Laws are Bad Laws. If every citizen is expected to obey the laws than we can assume that they should know the laws, if they are to know the laws than they must be objective and not subjective. If personal experience or thought point of view has to come into play then we cannot assume that every one will read this the same way. Remember "Shall not be infringed" is hard for some people to understand. How can we expect a cop to know when its ok to let the law slide for granny and not for Heisenberg the Meth Cook.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Sure it did. As long as there have been people, they have been using drugs to modify their experiences. The fact that drug use is so prevalent tells me that no matter what, people will do drugs. This is true.

If they could go into a nice, well lit store, and buy something made by competent, well regulated company like like Pfizer, for not much money, they would.

What really happens though, that some puritanical knot heads in Washington decide for whatever reason, that using drugs is "evil". Since the penalty for "importing" substances is so harsh, it creates some problems.

It becomes very expensive, because anybody willing to risk it is going to make it worth their while and the simple law of supply and demand makes the cost go up.

Since the cost and risk are so high, and there are a lot of people that want something, enterprising people found a way to make something locally that is cheap and relatively simple.

One of the really sad parts is that instead of a nice, relatively harmless inexpensive drug made by a real drug company, people end up using nasty crap like meth that basically turns you into a psychotic zombie.

So we've created people that are irrational, extremely addicted, and needing a lot of money for a fix. That brings those people to my neighborhood in the middle night stealing my stuff so they can pawn it to get money for their next fix.

So we can stick to the cute S.A. one-liners, or talk about how to really fix the problem. Militarizing the police and hounding decent people with laws and regulatory hoop-jumping is not working.

Saw it...but it lost my interest when "we" (I) get blamed for creating meth heads. If you look back the American government created the mob. Without prohibition they would have had no power. And that is what we have now. A prohibition.

I didn't create meth or meth heads. They did this one on their own.

And if you legalize it...again...most of the problems associated with it are still there. Because you build them a nice, well lit place to go get high...they still are addicted. They still are meth heads. It's cheaper so they just use more. The still have to rob and steal to pay for the habit. They may, but I'd rather let them have their drugs and take the money away from the drug dealers. Take the money away from the drug lords. Take the money away from the gangs. Let police officers pursue REAL crime (murder, child molestation, rape, etc. etc.) This will reduce the size of our prison population as well.

Surely just because you legalize it...you don't see the meth and crack heads or heroine users going out and getting a 9 to 5 job and becoming productive members of society? They are still meth and crack heads...they just buy it cheaper now and more of it. No they probibly won't go out and get productive jobs. There are plenty of other types of people that are a drain to society even though they don't do drugs. And don't call me Shirley



I just don't see legalization of highly addictive drugs as a viable answer. Excellent post BTW. [/quote]

Alright this will be intresting but here it goes.

My case for legalizing drugs.

This "war on drugs" has been a quagmire from the start. Over the years all it has done is brought more powerful and potent drugs with the use of household items. And money. Lots and lots of money. Where would we be if pot has always been legal? If Joe Shmo could grow it in his yard.

This would also lay the burden on parents instead of the government. They would have to teach *gasp* their kids the dangers.

Ultimately my position comes down to less government. It's someone's body, what does the government have a say so in that? What do I have a say so in that? None. Last time I bought cold medicine I had to put my name and address in a book. That is such an invasion of privacy.

Really, where has the war on drugs gotten us? Pot got outlawed how many years ago? Still a problem?

Sure meth is addictive, so are cigarettes. Sure meth can impair your function, so does alchohol. Meth can give other people cancer, so can cigarettes.

When do we let people make thier own choices?