On methamphetamine, and why my opinion matters

[skids]

This here flamefest got me thinking:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x602466

I'm in a position to maybe help this guy out. See, I've been a decriminalization/legalization activist for a good long time. Heck, I'm the author of one of the early Internet tomes on the matter (the Alt.hemp FAQ.) I co-founded the longest-running college marijuana law reform organization in the country, and damn near let running it ruin my academic career.

So listen up.

Methamphetamine is not marijuana. It's not acid. It's not cocaine. It's not heroin. It's not a prescription opiate. It's not esctasy. It's not psylocibine. It's not mescaline. It's not ketamine. It's not alcohol. It's not nicotine. It's not caffeine, and it sure as heck isn't a food suppliment.

Meth is different.

Meth is the "hardest" drug we have out there in large quantities, hands down. Yes, hands down even over heroin and crack. But that's not what makes it so different.

Meth, unlike most of the above, can be manufactured in a day or two and then the lab site abandoned. But that's not what makes it so different.

Meth, unlike most of the above, is prescribable by a physician (in time-release form.) But that's not what makes it so different.

What makes meth different is it's practically the only drug that the DEA has actually managed to do anything efective at all to control, and they did it without the usual goose-stepping. Yes, they did the goose stepping too because that's in their nature, but that's not the tactic that worked. The tactic that actually worked -- tightening the feedstock chemical supply -- is arguably a whole lot better than home invasions and didn't even require killing peasants with pesticides.

Now I don't like it very much that my choices and convenience as a consumer has been infringed upon by that policy. I aso know that in a reasonable drug policy, the demand for meth would be much lower due to the availability of lower-grade amphetamines/stimulants for those trying to "cut back" under the supervision of a doctor. Heck, even a clean, dose-controlled meth prescription would be preferrable to the roller coaster street potency that keeps users in the binge cycle.

I know all the arguments for everything from mild decriminalization to full-out legalization. There is no way I would be considered anything but a radical legalizer to most squares.

Those arguments do not apply to methamphetamine in the current context. We are so far right now from a rational drug policy that by the time a harm reduction strategy could be put in place for this particular drug the epidemic would have done huge amounts of additional damage.

So when someone says they are really concerned with meth, and supports restrictions on feedstock for the meth labs, and border interdiction for imports, you don't have to give up your principles in opposing the War on Some Drugs to also be considerate enough to think about what the best policy is for now. That is, what do we do about meth in the intervening time between now and whenever we might someday get the asshats to get out of the way and install a reasonable drug policy in this country.

Hence, ergo, vis-a-vis, and whatnot: Methamphetamine is not a good topic of conversation in which to advocate for decriminalization or legalization. It's perhaps the only example of prohibition working, if imperfectly. It's also an emotionally charged issue for those who's neighborhoods have been negatively affected. So lay off, and try to be constructive.