E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, February 19, 2016

Counterproductive efforts at fighting meth

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

When the legislature passes a law, it needs to consider the implications of that law and whether passing that law will actually make things worse instead of making things better. Such is the case with the poorly thought out efforts to further restrict the liberty of law abiding citizens by making pseudoephedrine available only by prescription. This, of course, would also be corporate welfare for doctors, who will benefit from people being forced to see them for permission to buy a perfectly safe over-the-counter medicine.

Following up on my "instant message" response that we do not need more restrictions on pseudoephedrine, I pointed out in the comments that "80% of meth in Indiana comes from Mexico. Further restricting pseudoephedrine might reduce meth labs but will empower and enrich hyper-violent Mexican drug cartels. Is this really what the legislature wants?" In response, someone asked the following:

  • Why is it the responsibility of the Indiana Legislature to worry about the lack of effective government enforcement in Mexico?

The reason is simple: Since 80% of methamphetamine in Indiana comes from Mexico, the cartels are obviously active in transporting it here. There have been reports of absolutely horrific violence committed by the cartels, including slaughtering rivals and hanging the corpses from bridges, kidnapping and torturing students, and beheading their victims. Doing something that will increase the market share of the drug cartels will bring more of them into Indiana - and you better believe that horrific crimes, murder, torture and rape will follow.

Let's be honest here: The market for illegal drugs (specifically methamphetamine) is a real thing. People who cannot make it at home will not simply stop using it; they will try to get it from another source. That is where the cartels come in. Further empowering the cartels will also destabilize Mexico and encourage more atrocities there. Just from a moral standpoint, we should not be doing anything to cause chaos in another country. Those lives are every bit as valuable as Hoosier lives and we should not wantonly subject them to more violence.

So what is the solution? We need to stop treating drug abuse like a literal war and instead treat it like a public health problem. Drug addicts need treatment, not jail. It is far less expensive to help someone beat his addiction than to send him to jail, where he will only re-offend once he gets out. We need fewer addicts, not an expansion of the failed War on Drugs. Empowering drug cartels (like we empowered the Mafia with Prohibition) and restricting the liberty of law-abiding citizens is not the solution to drug abuse.


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.