Re: [pf] Is there another side to meth labs?

At 10:59 9/7/2001 -0500, Diane wrote:
>Lately, our media has been talking about the dangers of meth labs.  They
are cheap and ubiquitous, it seems, especially in rural areas.  The drug is
easy to make and easy to become addicted to.  The chemicals are easily
available and very dangerous in the storage and manufacturing process.
Abusers become dangerously paranoid and are neglectful of their children.
>
>All in all, it's been classified as a serious health and public safety
threat.
>  The problem of substance abuse and addiction aside, I wondered if anyone
on p-f has heard a different view of meth use and manufacture.
>

· You're referring to methamphetamines, I think. I know virtually nothing
about it/them.

· But I would put them in the same general problem-area as all other
mood-altering drugs, doctor-prescribed or not.  (For some people, like me,
that includes alcohol - if I know I'm likely to get unreasonably angry,
I'll take a shot of vodka ~5 mins beforehand.)

· We've got a debate about the risks and benefits of cannabis/marijuana,
here. The Greens have a "harm minimisation" policy on that.

· IMO people who feel they don't have something to work for, like family,
continuing employment, a better future, are very likely to get depressed.
  Some will go to a doctor and be "put on medication", others (e.g. in
rural northern New Zealand) will cultivate cannabis sativa and smoke it to
pass their "useless" days. Others, here in cities generally, will buy
cannabis resin or leaf, or take the (much greater IMO) risk and get hooked
on "crack" or whatever's the current relatively-cheap mind-altering drug.

· Yes they can be blamed, but no, they are not in the same category as
dope-sellers and drug-lords, in it for the money and power. Criminals when
they seduce the naïve into getting drug-dependent. People who are a clear
danger to society.

· That's the line I draw.
  Laws do have a place, but "protecting the individual from being harmed by
their own tendencies" is not included.

· People should be free to take risks, even of serious harm, though all
citizens need knowledge of such harm.
  Those who climb rock faces, slip, fall and die, are in the same group as
others taking known risks, including drugs.

· If injured, physical risk-takers are treated as injured. So should drug
addicts, IMO.

· The borderline comes when the person has state-approved responsibilities
such as for partner and/or other family.

· A pre-programmed cell-phone, calling a help-line, is far better than the
"label-as-criminal, then forget" attitude that cracking-down hard on the
druggies, using the law as a bludgeon, is.

· Human nature is a continuum of traits; judging the point that is "too far
along _that_ line" is nowhere near as simple as legislators (and many other
simple-minded folk) would like to believe.

David. (Cc to Diane, in case Topica is still down.)
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
http://www.geocities.com/davd.geo/index.html#top
************************************************

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxifP.${encoded_sub_id}
Or send an email To: positive-futures-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
This email was sent to: archive+pfvs@csf.colorado.edu

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================