John Tierney On Meth

For perspective you must read Mark Kleiman, who responds to John Tierney's piece about methamphetamine.  Mark Kleiman, as many know, is an expert in this area [his book, and a hostile libertarian review]; for additional perspective you ought to read TBogg, who apparently has acquired an informal expertise.

UPDATE:  John Cole has thoughts, and points us to Jack Shafer; lots of reaction to Tierney at Memeorandum; Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune on meth as the crisis drug du jour.

Comments

[kim]

Speed kills.
==============

[TM]

Folks who remember "The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test" will remember that, although LSD was the featured drug, speed was used everywhere in that story.

[kim]

Oops, I'm just aping Kleiman. Well I could do worse. I particularly like his point that idiots like Tierney are blocking constructive reform.
=================================================

[kim]

Hey, Ann, idiot alert. Tierney's a complete idiot from start to finish. His article ignores widespread experience and falters on theory, too. Hawg Wash.
==============================================

[hm]

jeez, the current lame meth craze in the media is about as bad as the Aruba stuff. summer is a slow news month.

[Marianne]

A drug does not need to be addictive to be a problem for its user or the public. An occasional user can do deplorable things, just as an occasional drinker who is not an alcoholic can become an uncontrollable drunk. Mr. Tierney takes a libertarian approach to meth as well as oxycontin. His ideas are not shared by victims and law enforcement officials who must deal with the consequences of crimes resulting from the widespread use of these drugs.

[kim]

Mariyana: Our agreement is widespread.
======================================

[Geek, Esq.]

I think it was PJ O'Rourke who commented that crack was especially evil because every bad thing ever claimed about drugs was true about crack.

Same goes for meth.

[kim]

They are two peas in a pod. Far worse than purple berries.
===========================

[kim]

Their neurotoxicity is much worse than the hallucinogens.
=================================

[kim]

Uh, more permanent.
====================

[kim]

Uh, more likely to be permanent. Such morning imprecision.
================================

[spongeworthy]

You only have to rail a fat line of it up your schnozz once to know this shit is really really bad for you long-term. Only an idiot would think it was remotely safe to play with.

[kim]

There are people who like to inject it in a carotid artery because they like the echo effect they get in the contralateral cerebral hemisphere a circulation time later. These are not healthy people.
=======================================

[Shahid]

It's funny. Tierney is talking about the drug war in general and amphetamines in particular (using meth as an example of it), while Mark Kleiman and everyone here seems to prefer to talk about meth, and prefers to believe that Tierney is only talking about meth.

It's like talking about the prohibition and alcohol use and abuse by focussing on moonshine. Sure, it shuts out debate, but it still doesn't make for a good approach to policy.

Tom, you are generally an insightful read because you probe about the nooks and crannies of the things you cover. But, this post is pretty far afield.

[Andre3000]

Who's Url?

Anyway, the day before Tierney's column appeared, Steve Chapman wrote essentially the same argument in the Chicago Tribune.

I'd like to see someone argue that more people are better off with prohibition than they would be without it.

If you could include a bit on how it benefits prostitutes to arrest them, please do.

[kim]

Better question is how it benefits society to arrest prostitutes. So far as I know prostitutes didn't pass the laws.
==========================================

[Andre3000]

And your answer to that revised question, Kim?

[Andre3000]

Or to the original question?

As long a list of real measureable benefits as you could manage would be appreciated.

I'm still waiting to see an coherent argument for prohibition.

[kim]

1. More reliable access to personal and public health.

Well that's about the full list.
=================================================

[Andre3000]

"1. More reliable access to personal and public health.

Well that's about the full list."

Please expand on your argument. You think that prohibition is bringing society "More reliable access to personal and public health"?

How?

[kim]

Your off on that toot, I'm still stuck arresting prostitutes.
=================================================

[Andre3000]

That makes even less sense.

[kim]

and stamping out AIDs, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, hepatitis and Lyme.
================================================

[Andre3000]

Considering your average prostitute in an average city to the average prostitute in the parts of Nevada where the trade is legal, how do the rates of STDs compare, Kim?

[Andre3000]

So are you curing scurvy, too?

[kim]

Oh, c'mon, the full list of benefits to prostitutes of arresting them is more reliable acces to personal and public health. Can I make it more clear. It's an unhealthy business.
==================================================

[Andre3000]

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend it as a career choice. But there's a demand and a supply. Regardless whether it's regulated or criminalized, it goes on.

So how does arresting those women get them medical care? Typically, they aren't held long and are usually back at their trade shortly after being released.

Did you think the cops were taking whores to clinics to get shots? Or did you think they were getting treated in lock-up?

[kim]

You're trying to drag me into an apples vs oranges argument. The business is regulated in Nevada. I happen to agree that would probably be the happiest choice elsewhere. But that doesn't change my list of benefits to prostitutes of arrest elsewhere. I expect they are subject to arrest in Nevada also for certain violations of the regulations.
=============================================

[kim]

Just get your Vit C regularly. You don't synthesisze it, you know.
==========================================

[Andre3000]

This thread was originally going on about Tierney's column, which dealt with the "drug war".

You picked up on the prostitution bit at the end of my original argument instead of answering to the benefits of drug prohibition.

So now you agree that regulated prostitution is better than criminalized prostitution. Excellent. Now let's get to the meat of this thread.

[kim]

You aren't listening very carefully. I agree with you.
=================================================

[Andre3000]

Kim, I'll check back in a bit to see if you had more to say on drug prohibition than you did on prostitution. Perhaps you're composing right now...

[kim]

We are making many errors in our policies towards drugs, the illegal ones as well as alcohol, tobacco, and the OTC and prescription drugs, but one of the greatest present harms is the societal havoc caused by the fact that tetrahydrocannibinol is lipophilic and persists in the body for far longer than marijuana impairs.
===============================================

[M. Simon]

Drug prohibition is Republican Socialism.

A price support system for criminals.

But I am encouraged, if the police can fix meth addiction perhaps they might want to do something about alcohol addicts next.

[M. Simon]

I do have a novel theory about drugs. I believe people take pain relievers to relieve pain. A novel idea to be sure.

Addiction or Self Medication?
Heroin
Genetic Discrimination
A test for PTSD