P2P Meth Use Causes Mental Illness

[Rubashov]

The War on Drugs may be why homelessness is exploding.

Methamphetamine of the 1990’s and early 2000’s was ephedrine based. Ephedrine is an extract from the Ephedra plant. To stop the meth epidemic, law enforcement in the US and Mexico clamped down on all sources of ephedrine.

It turns out there is more than one way to make meth. The other way uses phenyl-2-propanone (P2P). It is much harder to stop P2P because it is made with easily obtained and inexpensive chemicals. The problem is that it destroys your brain. The psychosis, schizophrenia, mental illness, and brain damage that was caused by meth or crack cocaine use over years, happens in weeks with P2P meth.

P2P meth started to become common in 2009. By 2012 it was 96% of all meth being seized. P2P meth is by far the most common drug in the homeless tent cities. The Atlantic has a long article, super crazy-long article, about P2P meth that I’ll link below but here are some quotes:








Thanks ‘War on Drugs’!

‘I Don’t Know That I Would Even Call It Meth Anymore’

Different chemically than it was a decade ago, the drug is creating a wave of severe mental illness and worsening America’s homelessness problem.

www.theatlantic.com

We have the same problem here, Australians have always been big users of amphetamines, 2nd highest per head in the early 2000s around 2007, 2008, meth not speed started being used particularly by young people. I think the ritual of smoking it and passing a pipe around made it more acceptable that heroin.

Within a couple of years due to partly to the chemical supply issue but also the addictiveness and demand for meth, the old school truck driver speed more or less disappeared from the street and was replaced by meth.

It was a around this time (2008) I started working at the hospital, In my first year we did around 3000 violent incidents per annum. Probs 70 percent alcohol related 30 drugs. Within two years that had doubled and continued to grow until we topped out at around 10,000 per annum as a relatively stable number. However now its more like 70 to 80 percent drugs, mostly meth and now a re-emergence of heroin and the rest alcohol. Then there's all the other ****, the fried 20 year old kids criminal records, children in the custody of the state, lives over before they've started. Its a **** show.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So what percentage of this explosion is blamed on the individuals?

It's so easy and lazy to blame all the stupid things people do on Ronald Reagan or "the war on drugs".

I believe that responsibility is directly tied to empowerment. If you have ultimate power to do a thing then you have ultimate responsibility for the outcome of the actions, and if you have no power then you have no responsibility.

The implementations that prevents the easy access of pharmaceutical-grade stimulants like Adderall, and the emptying of the marketplace of plant-based ephedrine methamphetamine was not the doing of the casual user. The government has done that. The government had the power, they did it, and they deserve the responsibility for the unintended consequences of the void they created in the stimulant market subsequently filled with brain-destroying P2P meth.

I’m not saying the government with their ‘war on drugs’ effort is solely responsible for the existing situation, but we heavily prosecute the other responsible parties such as the manufacturers and distributors who filled the void the war on drugs created. My attack on the ‘war on drugs’ is because I don’t think the government is taking the share of responsibility that it has earned here.

I think even methheads if given an informed choice between “lesser” dangerous ephedrine meth, commercial Adderall, and brain-damage-in-weeks P2P meth, would choose the less destructive high. If they still went for P2P meth then they deserve all of the responsibility for that personal decision but that isn’t our world.

I'm not sure what you and some of the other posters full stance on things are, but I've been wondering this below.

Why is it ok to fight to keep automatic guns out of people's hands but not ok to fight to keep certain drugs out of people's hands?
If the argument is that drugs only hurt the person using them but guns don't, then you need to be a little more honest with yourself.
In my opinion it should be the same stance for both topics. Either let people have what they want and do what they want or don't, but stop using a freedom argument for one and not the other.

I may not be the best person to argue against your valid observation as my biggest issue with fully automatic weapons is that they’re wasteful with ammunition. The 3-round burst FCG is more effective. I do my best to be honest with myself and consistent with my freedom arguments, but recognize that no one, me included, is free from all hypocrisies.

 

[NAOS]

Here is a rant, not necessarily directed at you Al, but this comment let to me posting.

So what percentage of this explosion is blamed on the individuals?

It's so easy and lazy to blame all the stupid things people do on Ronald Reagan or "the war on drugs".

I'm not sure what you and some of the other posters full stance on things are, but I've been wondering this below.

Why is it ok to fight to keep automatic guns out of people's hands but not ok to fight to keep certain drugs out of people's hands?
If the argument is that drugs only hurt the person using them but guns don't, then you need to be a little more honest with yourself.
In my opinion it should be the same stance for both topics. Either let people have what they want and do what they want or don't, but stop using a freedom argument for one and not the other.

Let’s see you exercise some of the same intellectual honesty: what are the limitations of comparing restrictions on guns and prohibitions on drugs? You make that analogy so smoothly...

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Let’s see you exercise some of the same intellectual honesty: what are the limitations of comparing restrictions on guns and prohibitions on drugs? You make that analogy so smoothly...

No, you. Your dumb gui.

See, I can do it too.

There's my last non answer response to a non answer post. Your holier than thou / smartest person in the room responses combined with your condescension really bring the best out in a person.

 

[NAOS]

No, you. Your dumb gui.

See, I can do it too.

There's my last non answer response to a non answer post. Your holier than thou / smartest person in the room responses combined with your condescension really bring the best out in a person.

It was a fair question. Nobody could look at the data on gun regulations and compare it to the data on drug prohibition. The former has shown it can work. The latter has shown that it cannot. Very dramatically, in fact.

Your comparison was purely theoretical. It falls apart immediately when the real world is allowed into the frame.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I believe that responsibility is directly tied to empowerment. If you have ultimate power to do a thing then you have ultimate responsibility for the outcome of the actions, and if you have no power then you have no responsibility.

The implementations that prevents the easy access of pharmaceutical-grade stimulants like Adderall, and the emptying of the marketplace of plant-based ephedrine methamphetamine was not the doing of the casual user. The government has done that. The government had the power, they did it, and they deserve the responsibility for the unintended consequences of the void they created in the stimulant market subsequently filled with brain-destroying P2P meth.

I’m not saying the government with their ‘war on drugs’ effort is solely responsible for the existing situation, but we heavily prosecute the other responsible parties such as the manufacturers and distributors who filled the void the war on drugs created. My attack on the ‘war on drugs’ is because I don’t think the government is taking the share of responsibility that it has earned here.

I think even methheads if given an informed choice between “lesser” dangerous ephedrine meth, commercial Adderall, and brain-damage-in-weeks P2P meth, would choose the less destructive high. If they still went for P2P meth then they deserve all of the responsibility for that personal decision but that isn’t our world.


I may not be the best person to argue against your valid observation as my biggest issue with fully automatic weapons is that they’re wasteful with ammunition. The 3-round burst FCG is more effective. I do my best to be honest with myself and consistent with my freedom arguments, but recognize that no one, me included, is free from all hypocrisies.

Thanks for the response. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the meth issues and the government having responsibility there.

I do know it's more complicated than the one angle I brought up comparing viewpoints on drug vs gun regulation, but at its core I don't think the 2 are that different.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

It was a fair question. Nobody could look at the data on gun regulations and compare it to the data on drug prohibition. The former has shown it can work. The latter has shown that it cannot. Very dramatically, in fact.

Your comparison was purely theoretical. It falls apart immediately when the real world is allowed into the frame.

Thanks for a real response.
Without getting into a point by point and comparing data, I'd say we have different views on what "working" means.
We also don't agree on what falls apart immediately in the real world.

Tomato, Tomahto
Potato, Potahto
Let's call the whole thing off!

I'd probably read some link if you had one about the data you see, and read something to back up why you think it falls apart.
I may disagree and interpret things in a different way, but I'd still like to understand your view and why you see it that way.

 

[NAOS]

Thanks for a real response.
Without getting into a point by point and comparing data, I'd say we have different views on what "working" means.
We also don't agree on what falls apart immediately in the real world.

Tomato, Tomahto
Potato, Potahto
Let's call the whole thing off!

I'd probably read some link if you had one about the data you see, and read something to back up why you think it falls apart.
I may disagree and interpret things in a different way, but I'd still like to understand your view and why you see it that way.

This stuff isn’t hard to find.

I think it would be cool if you just admit that you were pontificating... and, in the midst of doing so, grabbed at a comparison that felt right... but without doing any of the legwork to see if it was a valid comparison.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This stuff isn’t hard to find.

I think it would be cool if you just admit that you were pontificating... and, in the midst of doing so, grabbed at a comparison that felt right... but without doing any of the legwork to see if it was a valid comparison.

Or... I'll just admit I am fine with the data I've found and admit you have crappy data and just like to attempt to bring people down because it makes you feel better about yourself and your faulty reasoning.
Wow we are like twins. It's amazing we never got together to hang out.
Have a nice weekend. Go Jazz.

 

[NAOS]

Or... I'll just admit I am fine with the data I've found and admit you have crappy data and just like to attempt to bring people down because it makes you feel better about yourself and your faulty reasoning.
Wow we are like twins. It's amazing we never got together to hang out.
Have a nice weekend. Go Jazz.

I’m very well-informed about the history of drug prohibition. I taught a class at a R1 university on this subject for 5 years.

Toootalloo, m’dear

 

[Gameface]

The wart on drugs, a war the united states fought against itself. Who won? *Nobody. Who lost? The United States.

*okay, just kidding, racists won.

 

[LogGrad98]

The wart on drugs, a war the united states fought against itself. Who won? *Nobody. Who lost? The United States.

*okay, just kidding, racists won.

Glad you are back bro.