View Full Version : Luke T: Drug Dealer or Cold Sufferer?
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 06:03 AM
The thing about having three toddlers is that somebody always has a cold, and often, the whole family. Currently, it is my and our girl twin's turn.
So I stopped at a pharmacy on my way in to work to get some Robitussin CF. That is the only medicine that works for me when I have a head cold.
The shelves were stocked with the umpteem varieties of Robitussin, but no CF. So I asked the pharmacist what's up with that.
Apparently, since the last time I had a head cold, the laws of my state have changed. Any medication which has the ingredient pseudophedrine is now a controlled substance. This is a key ingredient for meth, and our state has a serious meth lab problem. Hell, there was a meth lab just down the street from where I work, in a very nice neighborhood, in a town of less than 5,000.
I was worried I'd have to get a prescription for this cough syrup, but instead all that was required was that I show some ID, and the pharmacist had to log my personal information down.
I guess that means I'm going into some database now as a potential meth cook. I don't know what the limit is before the authorities start bugging my phone, but I wonder when my kids are old enough where I can give them CF, too, and I'm buying the stuff by the case, if I'm going to have to dodge a gauntlet of billy clubs on my way to the counter.
Charlie Monoxide
3rd November 2005, 06:15 AM
This is all part of our extremely successful "war on drugs". Who needs rights or privacy when we have this "war on drugs" that is ripping at the fabric of our society.
Charlie (along with gay marriage) Monoxide
Suddenly
3rd November 2005, 06:45 AM
Oh goody. My favorite subject. I know more than I ever wanted to know about meth.
It appears that possesion of ingredients used to make meth, along with "intent" are all that is needed to make one a felon in some states...
Many cold medicines, Heet, Coleman fuel, coffee filters, matchboxes... even a hot plate or empty soda botle or some rubber tubes...
Those are three ingredients/tools used to make meth, and under most state's meth laws all that is needed now is proof that you "intended" to make meth.
Now, since "intent" is a mental state and to date we lack the technology for a brain scan, "intent" is determined from other evidence. In practice this means if someone looks poor or a cop doesn't like this person, goodbye. Once the jury hears the words "methamphetamine" and sees a shred of evidence, hairs are not going to be split these days...
Meth is IMO the true moment of absurdity w/r/t the drug war. It can be made with common household items, so aggressive legislation intending to keep people from making plus public panic leads to criminalization of household items if the cops don't like you.
There are few people reading this for whom the only thing seperating them from being a felon is this hazy idea of "intent."
To me, aggressive prevention of meth labs is a question of which problem is worse, cleaning up the toxic labs or dealing with drug dealer turf wars. A lab crackdown reduces supply without touching demand. Price goes up and suppliers lessen to where import of the drug becomes profitible. Since those in this business can't go to the law or the courts to settle disputes...
Not to mention the increase in property crimes when the price of meth goes up...
Meth... the latest Evil That Must Be Stopped from those that brought you past hits like "Reefer Madness," "Crack," and that golden oldie, Prohibition....
ManfredVonRichthoffen
3rd November 2005, 07:00 AM
NyQuill is on the list too. I've also read that walmart has a cap on how many lithium batteries you can buy for the same reasons.
What can we expect in the future? Carded for such items as plastic baggies1, Honey Bears2, KY Jelly3. Sometimes I wish the libertarians would meet me half way. I'm not asking that they give up crazy completely, just meet me halfway for here to crazytown.
1. They transport drugs in those you know.
2. Those hippy kids make bongs out of those.
3. Ass-sex is still illegal in many a state.
Lisa Simpson
3rd November 2005, 07:08 AM
The great meth-war started with just limiting the number of packages of cold medicine one could buy at one time, at one drug store. Obviously, that didn't work, since even a meth-head could figure out "go to many stores." Then, the government ramped up the big brother act to "you must show ID and only buy two (2) packages at a time." Next, it will probably be, show ID, buy only 2 packages, get fingerprinted and supply a DNA swab.
BTW, Luke--Triaminic Nighttime Cough and Cold is pretty good for the little ones. Knocks 'em right out.
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 07:33 AM
BTW, Luke--Triaminic Nighttime Cough and Cold is pretty good for the little ones. Knocks 'em right out.
Is that a good thing? I worry about drugging my kids. If they have a runny nose, that's one thing. Ain't gonna drug 'em. But if they are suffering, I want to relieve their pain but not do any brain or other major organ damage.
I feel terrible inside when they are drugged and groggy laying motionless on the couch under a blanket, and not their usual home furnishing destroying selves.
Lisa Simpson
3rd November 2005, 07:36 AM
Well, I only give my kids cold medicine at night, so they (and I) can sleep. During the day, they have to suffer like everyone else here. Because I don't want them drugged up when all they have is a cold.
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 07:39 AM
Okay. I'll make a note about Triaminic. Thanks, Lisa.
I guess giving them meth is out of the question.
gethane
3rd November 2005, 07:42 AM
My opinion on the whole pseudoephedrine thing has changed. At first, I thought it was just another stupid increase in the drug war. But since then (about a year ago) I've read every article I happen to run across and my opinion has changed.
It's true, keeping the home labs from cooking up their own meth doesn't reduce supply. From what I understand, most meth is made in Mexico or in labs close to the Mexican border.
But what it does do is keep the children that are present in these home meth labs from getting exposed to the chemicals involved.
No, this isn't a "think of the children" type post. I was truly against these stupid restrictions. However, after reading articles in several different places, interviewing lots of people who are actually dealing with it, I do believe its at least a step to protect those who really don't have anyone to protect them. Their meth addict parents certainly aren't going to.
Lisa Simpson
3rd November 2005, 07:44 AM
Okay. I'll make a note about Triaminic. Thanks, Lisa.
I guess giving them meth is out of the question.
I'm guessing, yeah. Out of the question. But hooking them up to the McDonald's/Disney pipeline--perfectly acceptable.
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 07:56 AM
My opinion on the whole pseudoephedrine thing has changed. At first, I thought it was just another stupid increase in the drug war. But since then (about a year ago) I've read every article I happen to run across and my opinion has changed.
It's true, keeping the home labs from cooking up their own meth doesn't reduce supply. From what I understand, most meth is made in Mexico or in labs close to the Mexican border.
But what it does do is keep the children that are present in these home meth labs from getting exposed to the chemicals involved.
No, this isn't a "think of the children" type post. I was truly against these stupid restrictions. However, after reading articles in several different places, interviewing lots of people who are actually dealing with it, I do believe its at least a step to protect those who really don't have anyone to protect them. Their meth addict parents certainly aren't going to.
As a volunteer in prisons for the last ten years, I've come in contact with every kind of criminal there is, and the meth heads' thought processes scare me second only to the thought processes of child molestors.
There has been many a time I have had spiders crawling in my head for days after talking to a meth head in prison.
And boy do they like guns!
mumblethrax
3rd November 2005, 08:02 AM
But what it does do is keep the children that are present in these home meth labs from getting exposed to the chemicals involved.
Aren't we then simply "outsourcing" the social and environmental costs of meth production to other countries? Is that a morally tenable position?
gethane
3rd November 2005, 08:59 AM
Well, I don't think its being made in mexican HOMES though, I can't recall a specific article that talked about it. I know there are some bigger labs out west near the border (from what I've read).
It isn't the meth USE this legislation is trying to change, but keeping these dangerous small HOME labs (with children) from operating.
So, no, I don't think its outsourcing the risk in that way.
aerocontrols
3rd November 2005, 09:06 AM
Luke T: Drug Dealer or Cold Sufferer?
Both, obviously.
mumblethrax
3rd November 2005, 09:36 AM
Well, I don't think its being made in mexican HOMES though, I can't recall a specific article that talked about it. I know there are some bigger labs out west near the border (from what I've read).
It isn't the meth USE this legislation is trying to change, but keeping these dangerous small HOME labs (with children) from operating.
So, no, I don't think its outsourcing the risk in that way.
It's probably true that this particular problem won't travel with production, but I seriously doubt that Mexican meth labs will be responsibly disposing of toxic by-products, which means that children (and adults) are going to be coming into contact with them. Given Mexico's relatively lax environmental policy, it might happen to an even greater extent.
I understand that the legislation isn't targeting demand, and I'm arguing that maybe it should be.
Hutch
3rd November 2005, 09:59 AM
As a volunteer in prisons for the last ten years, I've come in contact with every kind of criminal there is, and the meth heads' thought processes scare me second only to the thought processes of child molestors.
Luke, if it's not to much trouble, could you expand on this? We've seen some coverage down South here on meth, but it's still 'under the radar' of many, but the more I read on it the more I think this is like crack cocaine, working away at the poor/underclass (and of course we don't see such things) until it surfaces--with a vengance--in all of society.
And this sounds particulary nasty-reasonably easy to make, distribute, and some rather nasty side effects, IIRC.
Frankly, it worries me--both the drug and the response, such as you show in your OP, to date.
We shall see.
geni
3rd November 2005, 10:00 AM
The problem with Methamphetamine is that it is such a simple molecule that you could make it difficult to get pretty much any precusor and a chemist would still be able to make it up via a different rout.
CBL4
3rd November 2005, 10:11 AM
Think of the children. Won't someone think of (Luke T's sniffing, sneezing) children?
BTW, be happy you don't llive in Oregon. To get pseudofed in Oregon, you need to get a prescription from a doctor. In other words, to get relief you will need to take half a day off, spend $90 on a doctor's visit and sit next to dozen of sneezing, sniffling people. Or you can drive to Washington and be considered a drug dealer when you try to by 5 packages to ensure you have enough for the winter.
Also, there is a movement to ban pseudofed altogether. The claim is that there are alternative so there is no reason for anyone to use it. No reason except that it is the only cold medicine I can take and still have a clear head.
99.9% of the people who buy pseudofed have a cold. But f*** 'em. A few people want to feel better in another way. F*** 'em, to.
CBL
Tricky
3rd November 2005, 10:13 AM
Luke T: Drug Dealer or Cold Sufferer?
Both, obviously.
I wast thinking that with a topic title like that, there ought to be a poll.
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 10:14 AM
Think of the children. Won't someone think of (Luke T's sniffing, sneezing) children?
BTW, be happy you don't llive in Oregon. To get pseudofed in Oregon, you need to get a prescription from a doctor. In other words, to get relief you will need to take half a day off, spend $90 on a doctor's visit and sit next to dozen of sneezing, sniffling people. Or you can drive to Washington and be considered a drug dealer when you try to by 5 packages to ensure you have enough for the winter.
Not true. I live in Oregon. I just bought Robitussin CF this morning as I described in my OP. I just had to show my driver's license and the pharmacist had to log the information on it.
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 10:20 AM
Luke, if it's not to much trouble, could you expand on this? We've seen some coverage down South here on meth, but it's still 'under the radar' of many, but the more I read on it the more I think this is like crack cocaine, working away at the poor/underclass (and of course we don't see such things) until it surfaces--with a vengance--in all of society.
Meth heads suffer from paranoia in the extreme. So they collect guns. I would hate to be a cop who raided a meth lab that had forewarning.
One meth head told me he used to point his gun at passersby on the street from his window. The passersby were completely unaware they were in his sights. Coulda been me or you.
One addict used to rob banks to support his habit. In his mind, the money in the bank was his and god help anyone who got between him and his money. He said when he went into a bank to rob it, he was worked up to a very angry level before he walked through the door. He was ready to shoot anyone who would deny him for even a second to getting that money. Even as he was telling me this, he got himself all worked up.
I've told my wife, if someone holds her up, just give them the money, jewelry, whatever they want. Do not hesitate. To an addict, that is his jewelry.
CBL4
3rd November 2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Luke T
Not true. I live in Oregon. I just bought Robitussin CF this morning as I described in my OP. I just had to show my driver's license and the pharmacist had to log the information on it.I happened to be Oregon the day Kulongoski signed the bill. I thought it had already taken place but according to this it will be next year.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski called on Oregonians on Tuesday to share the burden of attacking the methamphetamine epidemic, signing legislation that will require prescriptions for decongestants containing an ingredient often diverted into the illegal meth trade.
The big question now is how quickly state regulators will implement the new restrictions -- which will be the toughest in the nation -- on medications containing pseudoephedrine.
The new law says the prescription requirements must be in place no later than next July 1, but officials say they may be able to implement the new restrictions months before that. Kulongoski said he wants the state to act as quickly as possible. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1124272897320390.xml&coll=7
This year you are a drug suspect. Next year, you are screwed.
CBL
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 10:26 AM
I happened to be Oregon the day Kulongoski signed the bill. I thought it had already taken place but according to this it will be next year.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1124272897320390.xml&coll=7
This year you are a drug suspect. Next year, you are screwed.
CBL
Heh. My first impulse was that I better stock up before the prescription requirement goes into effect. But if I bought a bunch to stock up with, that would probably alert the authorities.
varwoche
3rd November 2005, 10:38 AM
Apparently, since the last time I had a head cold, the laws of my state have changed. WA state?
I have been consuming sudafed almost around the clock for the past 2 months and am wondering at what point I become a suspect.
A store employee told me that before sudafed was locked down, it was a weekly occurence that they would find numerous empty packages discarded inside the store.
CBL4
3rd November 2005, 10:52 AM
My experience in Washington is that I needed to ask the pharmacist. He did not ask for ID and agreed that it was a ridiculous waste of our time. But that was last winter and things may have change.
CBL
fsol
3rd November 2005, 10:56 AM
Next time you should ask for J Collis Browne's mixture, apparently that can help with coughs. I wonder if you can actually get that any more. Ooh, you can.
http://www.expresschemist.co.uk/product_2181_j-collis-browne-s-mixture-45ml.html
What about Kaolin and Morphine?
http://www.spservices.co.uk/product_info.php/products_id/2618
Seems so, I particualy like the "customers who bought this also bought...Hypodermic Needles box of 100."
TragicMonkey
3rd November 2005, 10:57 AM
Hmmm. I did just notice that they installed a CCTV camera in the medicine aisle in my supermarket.
Doesn't meth production yield chemicals that are not just "bad for the environment" but highly explosive? I'd have thought that would be a pretty big concern on top of the whole drug thing.
Grammatron
3rd November 2005, 11:00 AM
Heh. My first impulse was that I better stock up before the prescription requirement goes into effect. But if I bought a bunch to stock up with, that would probably alert the authorities.
I know! Travel to a different state and stock up there! That can't be worse if someone find you with that much cold medicine from another state, right?
AmateurScientist
3rd November 2005, 11:10 AM
Luke, if it's not to much trouble, could you expand on this? We've seen some coverage down South here on meth, but it's still 'under the radar' of many, but the more I read on it the more I think this is like crack cocaine, working away at the poor/underclass (and of course we don't see such things) until it surfaces--with a vengance--in all of society.
We already have the same type of "precursor chemicals" legislation here, Hutch, and we have the same kind of enforcement, too. If you try to buy too many packs of cold meds, the nice people at CVS or Rite-Aid will call the cops on you.
Josef K would fit right in a modern American drug store checkout line.
AS
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 11:14 AM
I know! Travel to a different state and stock up there! That can't be worse if someone find you with that much cold medicine from another state, right?
Luke T: All Points Bulletin for crossing state lines with mass quantities of cough syrup. Desperate felon. Use of unneccessary violence in apprehending this man has been approved. Last seen in the company of a small redhead with a runny nose.
Hutch
3rd November 2005, 12:12 PM
We already have the same type of "precursor chemicals" legislation here, Hutch, and we have the same kind of enforcement, too. If you try to buy too many packs of cold meds, the nice people at CVS or Rite-Aid will call the cops on you.
AS
Ah, thanks, perhaps it is me that's not paying attention.
And I haven't had anything more severe than a 24-hour cold in the last 9 years, so buying the stuff hasn't been an issue (yes, I'm bragging)
Luke, thanks for the portraits of the methheads above--chilling as they may be...:boxedin:
Luke T.
3rd November 2005, 12:42 PM
Luke, thanks for the portraits of the methheads above--chilling as they may be...:boxedin:
When the one meth head started telling me how much he loved guns, guns, guns, and how he would point them at passersby on the street outside, the other meth heads in the room started giggling and nodding their heads like they knew exactly what he was talking about. :eek:
Charles Livingston
3rd November 2005, 02:18 PM
Drug Dealer.
Wasnt this a poll?
President Bush
3rd November 2005, 06:59 PM
I guess that means I'm going into some database now as a potential meth cook. I don't know what the limit is before the authorities start bugging my phone, but I wonder when my kids are old enough where I can give them CF, too, and I'm buying the stuff by the case, if I'm going to have to dodge a gauntlet of billy clubs on my way to the counter.
http://www.stern.de/_content/50/52/505272/bush500.jpg
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
luchog
3rd November 2005, 07:04 PM
I know! Travel to a different state and stock up there! That can't be worse if someone find you with that much cold medicine from another state, right?
Not anymore. While this has been state law for a while, it is now federal law. All states in the Union will soon have to implement similar restrictions on "methamphetamine precursors".
epepke
3rd November 2005, 08:29 PM
Anyone remember the "Sudafed, aisle 5" commercials of not too long ago?
Freakshow
3rd November 2005, 08:41 PM
Meth heads suffer from paranoia in the extreme. So they collect guns. I would hate to be a cop who raided a meth lab that had forewarning.
One meth head told me he used to point his gun at passersby on the street from his window. The passersby were completely unaware they were in his sights. Coulda been me or you.
One addict used to rob banks to support his habit. In his mind, the money in the bank was his and god help anyone who got between him and his money. He said when he went into a bank to rob it, he was worked up to a very angry level before he walked through the door. He was ready to shoot anyone who would deny him for even a second to getting that money. Even as he was telling me this, he got himself all worked up.
I've told my wife, if someone holds her up, just give them the money, jewelry, whatever they want. Do not hesitate. To an addict, that is his jewelry.
It varies. I have a few friends that are addicted to meth, and one that has gotten off of it. You would NEVER know, if someone didn't tell you. They look, talk, and act like normal people.
I wonder what the percentages are. Seriously, I don't know the rates of paranoia and psychosis with meth addicts. But I know I wouldn't trust the stats that came from any government agency. There's too much money for them in the war on drugs for them to bother being honest.
luchog
4th November 2005, 05:49 PM
I wonder what the percentages are. Seriously, I don't know the rates of paranoia and psychosis with meth addicts. But I know I wouldn't trust the stats that came from any government agency. There's too much money for them in the war on drugs for them to bother being honest.
As you said, it varies. Widely. I've known quite a few people who use meth, but only a few I could say are hardcore addicts. I've only seen extreme behaviour in addicts. The psychosis penomenon is fairly common among serious addicts; but the intensity and nature vary from person to person. Externally violent psychosis is uncommon. More common is delusions of persecution, tactile hallucinations, and paranoia; as well a delusions of grandeur and extreme egomania. Somewhat similar to the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics. When off the meth, they tend to be lethargic and unfocused.
The individuals more likely to be externally violent are heroin addicts, when they're "strung out" and desperate for money to purchase their drugs.
Freakshow
5th November 2005, 10:52 AM
As you said, it varies. Widely. I've known quite a few people who use meth, but only a few I could say are hardcore addicts. I've only seen extreme behaviour in addicts. The psychosis penomenon is fairly common among serious addicts; but the intensity and nature vary from person to person. Externally violent psychosis is uncommon. More common is delusions of persecution, tactile hallucinations, and paranoia; as well a delusions of grandeur and extreme egomania. Somewhat similar to the delusions of paranoid schizophrenics. When off the meth, they tend to be lethargic and unfocused.
The individuals more likely to be externally violent are heroin addicts, when they're "strung out" and desperate for money to purchase their drugs. Its the dopamine that causes certain to cause psychosis. Opiates (which meth is not) and stimulants (which meth is) increase the activity of dopamine in the brain. That is what gives the euphoric feeling. It is also what can cause someone to have a psychotic episode.
The drugs (such as atypical-antipsychotics) that are used to treat schizophrenia and the mania that comes with bipolar disorder work by reducing the activity of dopamine.
I was once on a dopamine reuptake inhibitor (Wellbutrin). The only drug of its kind on the market here in the US. It was extremely effective in treating debilitating depression (not as in "sad", but as in a complete and total lack of energy, desire, drive, motivation, concentration, sense of enjoyment, etc.; but NOT "sadness).
However...after being on it a couple of months, I started having some side-effects that can be encountered with drugs that increase dopamine activity. Like hearing voices, for example. (Could never make out what they were saying; it sounded like people having a conversation at the other end of the house, or outside, if my window was open). And bad paranoia. Not as in "Everyone is out to get me", but more like being afraid to turn out the lights at night and go to sleep, because I was horribly worried that someone was going to come into the house while I was sleeping. Or maybe they were already there. I'd have to search the house multiple times before going to sleep. Or I'd be in the shower, eyes closed (washing my hair or face) and go into an absolute panic, with this intense feeling that someone has come into the house, and has come into the bathroom to attack me. I'd have to rush to clean the soap/shampoo off from around my eyes, so I could look and see that no one was there. This would repeat for the duration of the shower.
I of course got off of the drug at that point, and was back to normal within a week or two.
I have, on rare occasions, experienced similar effects on other dopamine-altering drugs (not meth; even my meth-addicted friends tell me to stay away from it). But it has only happened once or twice in my entire life. And when it happened, I knew exactly what was going on and why.
So I can sympathize with people that have had psychotic episodes induced by drugs. I've been there. But not NEARLY as bad as Luke described. I was even aware that what I was experiencing was simply due to chemicals, which is why I was able to say "Umm...I need to stop taking this and try something else."
ETA: Despite my experiences, I am still opposed to the war on drugs, and think that all drugs should be legalized. But that is an entirely different conversation. There's more to the debate than saying "Some bad things happen to some people that use them."
The Central Scrutinizer
5th November 2005, 11:26 AM
Drugs are bad, mmmmm-kay?
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.