Guess I'm a Drug Dealer Too.
- Thread starter MatthewM
- Start date
Yeah, back in the good-old-days, maybe 10 years ago, you could get deep-discount generic Sudafed in the 100 count bottles for 2-3 bucks, vs ~ $50 for the blister-packed name brand. A bottle would last my family most of the hay-fever season. Well, you can forget that. About the only thing I hate worse than drug abuse is the War on Drugs.
*snort*
Local truck stop tells me that it's against State Law to sell more than two containers of Mini-Thins to customers.
It may well be, but I haven't found the law to yet, anyhoo, said local truck stop sells Mini-Thins in two sizes: two pill packets and 50 pill bottles.
You guessed it: They will sell you 100 pills, if they're in bottles, but they absolutely refuse (to the point of having kittens) to sell you six pills if they're in packets.
Must be a Federal thing.
LawDog
Local truck stop tells me that it's against State Law to sell more than two containers of Mini-Thins to customers.
It may well be, but I haven't found the law to yet, anyhoo, said local truck stop sells Mini-Thins in two sizes: two pill packets and 50 pill bottles.
You guessed it: They will sell you 100 pills, if they're in bottles, but they absolutely refuse (to the point of having kittens) to sell you six pills if they're in packets.
Must be a Federal thing.
LawDog
The Plainsman
New member
And the sad part of all this crap is this - they ain't even slowing down the folks (kids or otherwise) who are determined to mis-use the stuff. All they succeed in doing is inconveniencing lawful users and maybe making BG's out of GG's. BS 
Except for the stuff the US Government gives Air Force pilots, special forces groups, etc. Except for the stuff produced and used legally in medicine, etc. But that stuff is produced under a legal, regulated system that tends to minimize problems like the above.
For anyone who wants to read the story of how meth got to be so popular, read "How Speed Was Popularized" in the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/CU38.html
"This is your pilot speaking. I'll
be flying at an altitude of 45 thousand feet while the rest of you are at 30 thousand. You may experience a little turbulance as the co-pilot and myself wrestle over this last gram of crystal marching powder. Our destination is Denver and our ETA is 9:30 but I'm gonna firewall the throttles and see what this pig can really do. Prepare for barrel rolls.
be flying at an altitude of 45 thousand feet while the rest of you are at 30 thousand. You may experience a little turbulance as the co-pilot and myself wrestle over this last gram of crystal marching powder. Our destination is Denver and our ETA is 9:30 but I'm gonna firewall the throttles and see what this pig can really do. Prepare for barrel rolls.
MeekAndMild
New member
MatthewM
You bad boy! I bet you flush the toilet twice and don't save aluminum cans to recycle!
Wolfman,
for the record (I don't know about the present just the past up to the mid 80s) the Air force gave Dexadrine to pilots as Methadrine is too rough on the heart of a pilot flying at altitude. It was reserved for combat and high risk missions only, not routine use.
General comment:
If we ignored the drug trade then the druggies would kill themselves off and Darwin would solve the problem at much less taxpayer cost.
You bad boy! I bet you flush the toilet twice and don't save aluminum cans to recycle!
Wolfman,
for the record (I don't know about the present just the past up to the mid 80s) the Air force gave Dexadrine to pilots as Methadrine is too rough on the heart of a pilot flying at altitude. It was reserved for combat and high risk missions only, not routine use.
General comment:
If we ignored the drug trade then the druggies would kill themselves off and Darwin would solve the problem at much less taxpayer cost.
Tyme...
Meek... I've been trying to force myself to accept the pro-drug element of "Libertarian". I've been making progress. However, THANKS! for a great reason to go along with it. Now I'm just about there.
Meek... No, I'm an evironmentalist along the lines of PETA. I think animals have more rights than people. I therefore give up my irrational perceptions of beauty and throw all my cans out the car window. Such man-shaped rocks make great homes for bugs, lizards, etc. Ever see how many rats and sea gulls at a dump? I save my household garbage and toss it out the window as well. I want to give every animal a leg up on their hard life. (in jest..of course. I'm selfish and prefer beauty)
Meek... I've been trying to force myself to accept the pro-drug element of "Libertarian". I've been making progress. However, THANKS! for a great reason to go along with it. Now I'm just about there.
Meek... No, I'm an evironmentalist along the lines of PETA. I think animals have more rights than people. I therefore give up my irrational perceptions of beauty and throw all my cans out the car window. Such man-shaped rocks make great homes for bugs, lizards, etc. Ever see how many rats and sea gulls at a dump? I save my household garbage and toss it out the window as well. I want to give every animal a leg up on their hard life. (in jest..of course. I'm selfish and prefer beauty)
There was a time when we did that. Drugs were sold over the counter without any age or even any labeling restrictions. People were buying and taking stuff when they really didn't know what it was, and some of the stuff was 50 percent morphine. Even under those conditions, we didn't have the problems we have today. You can read about it in the first few chapters of the Consumers Union Report at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
But not many of them die. Tobacco kills about 400,000 a year in the US. Alcohol kills about 100,000. Prescription drugs kill another 100,000. All the illegal drugs combined typically kill fewer than 10,000, and a good number of those deaths are due to conditions that are products of prohibition.
Pro-drug? Shucks, and all this time I thought they were just pro-freedom of choice, and anti- War On Drugs.
pax
There will not be any violations to speak of. -- Supervising Revenue Agent Colonel Daniel Porter, 16 January 1920, as the US Congress passes the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages.
While you are on the way, let's get the terms straight. It isn't "pro-drug". It is "pro-reform". You know, you don't have to be "pro-alcohol" to recognize that alcohol prohibition was a disaster. If you are against alcohol prohibition, does that mean you are "pro-alcohol"?
In fact, alcohol causes more crime and other problems in society than all the illegal drugs combined, by several orders of magnitude. That doesn't mean that alcohol prohibition was a good idea. It wasn't. It was a disaster that only made things worse. One of the things it did was give us the biggest teen drinking epidemic in US history. That was one of the major reasons it was repealed. And today, kids report that it is easier to get illegal drugs than legal ones. Historically speaking, the biggest single cause of drug epidemics among children is anti-drug campaigns.
I know lots of people who have never touched an illegal drug in their lives, and have no intention of doing so, who support reform of the laws. One of them is a judge who used to be a Federal prosecutor and once held the record for prosecuting the largest heroin case in US history. Another is a Federal judge who was Nixon's chief of drug enforcement in the southwest and, as a judge, presided over the largest cocaine bust in US history. (20 tons in one warehouse).
As one part of his learning experience on the subject, when he got the cocaine case, he asked the police what effect the bust had on the local cocaine market. The cops reported that the price on the streets had gone down after the bust -- indicating there was still a surplus of cocaine in the city. You can read about his experience as Nixon's man at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/open_letter2.htm
Another was the head of the pharmacology department at the University of Texas. They gave him the task of finding the lethal dose of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana). He found that, no matter how much they gave to mouse, they simply couldn't kill them with THC. (In fact, another experiment showed that mice who received long-term, very heavy doses of THC outlived every member of the control group.) He said that when he learned that from his own research, he knew that the government was lying about something.
Lying on the issue is, in fact, official government policy, and has been for almost seventy years. If you happen to catch the History Channel Special "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That way" you will see a very interesting segment by Dr. David Musto. He recalls a story that Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, told him. He said Anslinger went out to a bridge on the Potomac one day, looked out, and saw a field of hemp (cannabis, mj) stretching out as far as the eye could see. (Naturally, because it was a major crop in the area for a couple hundred years.) He knew that he would never be able to enforce the drug laws with his then million-dollar budget, so he figured the only way he could make any impact at all was with the Big Lie. And that's what he did.
I also recommend that you read the short history of the marijuana laws at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
and
The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
Both of these are "must-reads" for anyone with any interest in the subject. They will both surprise you.