Home > Uncategorized > Meth labs in Humboldt

Meth labs in Humboldt

The question of whether Humboldt County has a problem with meth labs erupted on a recent discussion thread here on the Humboldt Herald.  Most seemed skeptical that meth labs proliferate here.

But the most-viewed article on the Times-Standard website in the last couple days reports the recent bust of two meth labs in Arcata that appear to have been “manufacturing methamphetamine for an extended amount of time.”

“Hundreds of pot grows get busted every year,” Bill said during the discussion.  “On the other hand, to get your meth lab busted you have to be dumb enough to blow it up, literally.”

That doesn’t appear to be the case here but the report raises the question of how many other local labs are operating for an “extended” time.

This was not a remote operation — the lab was on Stromberg Ave. near Alliance Road.

  1. Big Al
    February 1, 2010 at 9:58 am

    years ago you could smell them from the street in Blue Lake

  2. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 10:04 am

    I think there’s a meth lab in a trailer at the Widow White Creek RV Park–there’s an odd-looking plastic barrel with a pipe that dumps right into the creek.

  3. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Meth labs should be easy to find. Follow tweakers and then their dealers on up through the “food chain.” Eventually they have to be resupplied. There aren’t many drugs as destructive as meth and it seems to be epidemic all over the country, responsible for a large percentage of crime from violence to theft.

  4. February 1, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Druggies in Humboldt? Oh my god! Say it isn’t so! I never imagined that!

  5. February 1, 2010 at 10:31 am

    The recipes for meth production have become so refined and simplified that almost anyone can cook the stuff up in the back seat or trunk of their car. These recipes are taught in the higher crime academies AKA the California State Prison system. These small portable labs exist they are already being busted.

    Meth is very destructive for the small percentage of people who get hooked on it but there are large numbers of people who chippy (Chippy = use occasionally without becoming addicted) meth, and they do it because they are working at physically demanding and boring jobs for 10-12 hours a day. They are taking “performance enhancing drugs” and they are no better or worse than Mark McGwire shooting steriods for the same reason, a cop using “roids” to keep up with the bad guys who have been pumping iron at the Academy, or some old guy taking a little blue viagra. We are in a performance enhancing culture.

    From the bosses point of view these meth users look like great employees, full of energy and upbeat. Their fellow employees who are not using enhancers find it hard to compete.

    It’s not a pretty picture but it is the truth.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  6. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Sounds like a serious case of denial, Highbolt. Meth has other “attributes” besides making the users work harder which makes it highly psychologically addicting, namely its enhancement of sexual pleasure. The occasional meth user may look like a great employee short term; but personality changes, rarely for the better, and lack of mental clarity from lack of sleep eventually take their toll and they become unemployable, homeless and a crime looking for a place to happen.

  7. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 10:46 am

    I don’t see why every meth lab could not be busted.

    Have drug-sniffing police dogs walk the sidewalks. Note which houses produce the distinctive odors of meth production. Get search warrants. Serve the warrants. Break up the meth labs and arrest everyone on the premises. Notify the District Attorney’s office so the law-breakers can be prosecuted.

    I can’t find a flaw in this plan. Can you?

  8. February 1, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Well, I tried calling the McKinleyville Sheriff substation and the District Attorney after reading 10:04. Both referred me to the drug task force. I left a message on the Drug Task Force answering machine.

    Attention to the meth lab at Widow White Creek. You’d better hurry and move by the end of the year, at the absolute latest.

  9. February 1, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Hello PJ,

    I am not a defender of methamphetamine, I am just telling everyone what the real world is like, where people who don’t use meth have to compete with those who do. I am telling you that the bosses like their meth using employees. They are “more productive” and since they are breaking the law they are more compliant employees (they are more vulnerable to coercion) as well. Sure the mental deterioration is a downside but these kinds of employers don’t give a shit, they can always hire someone else when it all falls apart.

    For the same reason these employers also often hire immigrants. They can exploit the immigrants because of their vulnerable legal status. Employers like employees that are vulnerable like immigrants or drug users because they work cheaper, they work harder, and they complain less than other employees.

    No, I’m not talking about mom n pop local businesses, so don’t get your Republican feelings hurt.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  10. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 11:10 am

    My “Republican feelings?” I am truly insulted now. Who are these employers who like tweaker employees?

  11. February 1, 2010 at 11:26 am

    I find one flaw in your idea Anonymous; the Fourth Amendment of the constitution.
    I don’t agree with the adage: “If your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” That’s one slippery slope. I’d much rather keep what little protections we have as law abiding citizens.
    My philosophy is: “Better a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent be punished unjustly.” I know some of you law and order types don’t agree with that.

  12. unanonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 11:30 am

    bud trimmers….

  13. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Bill makes some good points. Those hardworking meth users need their medicine to remain productive members of society.

    If all amphetamines were freed from the prescription limitation, the crimes and property damage now associated with meth would go away. Its just as much a victimless crime as pot if it were completely legal.

    Of course, the “very few” who might abuse meth need to be helped with medical/social treatment, but not be criminalized.

  14. February 1, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Can anyone tell me if this meth stuff is the same thing we used to call “crank” in the mid 70s around here?

    For about a year back around ’74ish, I was hanging with a few people to whom crank was quite popular. We’d go on binges for two or three days sometimes where we wouldn’t sleep but, once we’d crash and finally get some sleep we didn’t seem to be any worse for the wear.

    And I didn’t seem to have any problem stopping using it. That the same stuff?

  15. Jimmy
    February 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Google it Fred

  16. February 1, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Yes: meth, crank, speed. Fred, you were lucky. Unlike pot, meth is truly addictive, and it destroys lives.

    If the government had been honest about pot, people might listen to the warnings about meth.

  17. February 1, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Fred: yup, pretty much the same stuff. I think we’re about the same age and “crank” is what I remember people calling it back in the day. When they started talking about meth, I thought it was a new drug I’d never heard of! As someone referenced earlier, most people start using by “chipping,” or taking it on a casual basis. This is pretty similar to what you see with heroin addicts. Although the media and the local trolls like to play up the “I-did-it-once-and-turned-into-a-fiend” stories, the truth is that most people start out chipping and work their way up to full-blown addiction in the months and years that follow. This isn’t meant to discount anyone’s personal experience; some of us just have addictive personalities and could get hooked on Tootsie-pops without trying. But it’s an insidious drug and once people get into the habit of doing it, it’s an easy slide into becoming a Meth Monster.

  18. ornery
    February 1, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Why can’t KHoov go wandering around the meth labs, his looking in windows might take care of two problems.

  19. February 1, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Hello PJ,

    Don’t be insulted I know you are not a Republican, I was addressing the wider general readership here.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  20. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Becuz in Arcata we have more problems with pot growers screwing up homes and neighborhoods.

  21. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Well we have Fred who says meth isn’t that bad a drug and Mitch who says “unlike pot, meth is truly addictive”.

    The reality of Mitch’s denial argument is he has no basis for it except that he likes pot and doesn’t like meth. Thats just as screwed up as those who like alcohol but don’t like pot and so condemn it. If you want to justify the vice YOU like as good, it seems necessary to demonize everybody’s else’s vices or the whole deception goes up in smoke.

    Pot is a dangerous drug, but differently dangerous from meth, alcohol, or tobacco. People can live just fine without any of them. They are all vices that have a high potential to cause harm to their user’s health and lives, and they do.

  22. textual harassment
    February 1, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Classic Big AL, reading this piece I was reminded of the Blue Lake night aroma as well.

  23. drdetroilet
    February 1, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    After travaling across the country, I rented a spot in widow white creek for a month. I never was around tweekers before, so I though the drinking water was poisoned or something. There was some weired ass creatures in there.Its to bad ,it could be a nice park, but i left after 18 days. The managers there would bitch about my girl folding laundry on the picnic tables, but never said shit to the 4am daily partys. what a dump.

  24. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    We are in a performance enhancing culture.

    Except with pot use which promotes a performance reducing culture. As much as we all dislike meth, keep fooling yourself that pot is the wonder herb of the ages.

  25. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Hardly NAN. There are different levels of damage both personally and to the community related to different types of drugs and their propensity for addiction. Pretending that pot is as damaging or as addictive as meth is delusional.

  26. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Anonymous 2:38 should read Michael Pollan’s “The Botony of Desire.” One segment is devoted to pot, it’s effects and appeal. Explains why it is one of the oldest plants cultivated and why people carried it all around the world in their migrations.

  27. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    You didn’t read my posting thoroughly Jane. I said ther harms are different. Comparing the harms of pot and meth is futile and misleading. Both cause lots of harm to the lives and health of many people and their families/society. They are both dangerous and the risks aren’t easily predicted on an individual level.

    Fred did just fine with meth, and so do lots of other people Bill knows, using that example. Just because you like to use pot doesn’t make it safer than any other dangerous substance.

  28. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    I did read your post carefully, Nan, and you just reiterated it. There are vast difference between the level of risk and damage of different drugs. The fact none of them are risk-free, including alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, sugar and life saving prescription drugs doesn’t equate to them being equally dangerous. Your snipe “Just because you like to use pot” is noted. Whether or not I use any drugs doesn’t change the facts and is, in fact, a not so subtle and unsubstantiated ad hominem attack.

  29. February 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    Not A Native,

    My post was informative on the realities of meth use in the workplace. If you think that marijuana is as dangerous as methamphetamine you are grossly misinformed. People can use marijuana daily for decades with no noticeable health problems. Meth is an artificial chemical that was unknown in the natural world until NAZI scientists invented it during WWII.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  30. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Like I wrote Jane, you have no solid basis to compare the danger of these drugs in casual unsupervised use. And no one else has either. To claim, as you have, that one is much more dangerous is simply a bald assertion. So its not unreasonable for me to guess your claim is based on personal preference, for what ever reason.

    Often, people who claim pot is less harmful than some other vices are users who simply want to elevate the status of their vice preference. Not unlike cigarette smokers who claim their “brand” of choice is less harmful.

    But you’re correct that its not fair to assume you use pot, so I apologize for that. I don’t know whether or not you use pot. But I wouldn’t be surprised that you do.

  31. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Sorry Highboldtage, Nagayoshi Nagai, a Japanese man, invented methamphetamine in 1893. In 1919, crystallized methamphetamine was synthesized by Akira Ogata via reduction of ephedrine using red phosphorus and iodine.

    As for long term marijauna use, THC does produce very “noticeable” health problems. Some of which include mental health problems. Start checking your facts.

  32. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    Fair enough, Nan. So we can fairly assume that you are a meth user since you are so quick to deny the dangerous consequences of its use.

    Now back to the facts. Even a casual observer can see how much more damage meth does to users than pot. The worst thing that happens to pot smokers (aside from legal problems) is that they tend to get lazy and fat from the munchies. Their teeth don’t fall out, their faces don’t become pitted and lined in just a few years, pot induced psychosis is rare while meth is well known for it, and the last time I checked, people don’t get HIV or hepatitis from injecting pot.

  33. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    No, just brochitis and lung cancer from smoking it!

  34. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Whoops, Bronchitis

  35. February 1, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    NAN,

    Unfortunately, there is so much propaganda surrounding pot that we work from different sets of facts.

    You might be interested in this news item from the United Kingdom, a country whose people have not been as thoroughly brainwashed as ours.

    http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/new-uk-drug-adviser-said-marijuana-should-be-legal/01152010/

    I’ll summarize: the UK fired their chief drug advisor for saying pot is less of a hazard than tobacco and alcohol, then the interim replacement turned out to have said the same thing in 2003 (though, no fool, he has stepped back from the comments).

    As for meth, I’ve known people who have been addicted to meth. It seriously damaged their lives.

  36. February 1, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Oh, in case you think the mpp is a biased source, how’s The Telegraph, a conservative newspaper from the UK:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6981863/Replacement-for-Professor-David-Nutt-said-cannabis-should-be-legalised.html

  37. February 1, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    The NAZIs were early adopters of this drug methamphetamine, even if a Japanese scientist discovered it. That is my point. BTW meth is still issued and used by OUR troops in certain situations.

    And for anon @ 3:56 where is the evidence for marijuana causing mental health problems?

    From wikipedia:

    Second World War
    One of the earliest uses of methamphetamine was during World War II when it was used by various Allied and Axis forces.[6] The German military dispensed it under the trade name Pervitin. It was widely distributed across rank and division, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with many millions of tablets being distributed throughout the war.[7] From 1942 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler may have been given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician Theodor Morell. It is possible that it was used to treat Hitler’s speculated Parkinson’s disease, or that his Parkinson-like symptoms that developed from 1940 onwards resulted from using methamphetamine.[8]

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  38. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Now WTF would a pharmacology professor know about drugs, Mitch?

  39. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    He’s obviously a pot smoker! :P

  40. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Jane, like Bill has pointed out, many meth users are healthy and productive. Lets stipulate Fred as a sterling example. Your same bogus “casual observations” were used to mischaracterize heroin too until they were debunked scientifically. Simply put, both collateral effects and direct effects are significant in substance use. Both have to be well understood to compare drug harms. Your casual observations don’t do that.

    Your causual observer “proof” is as wrong as casually observing that incarceration rates are proof a link exists between ethnicity and criminality. Or thousands of other casual observations, like the sun travels around the earth. Its all simply BS. In short, the plural of anecdote isn’t data.

  41. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Bill didn’t say they stayed healthy, Nan. And apparently you ignored what the British pharmacology professor, current head of their drug advisory committee had to say. Your claims that you can’t measure the degree of damage between drugs is bogus. Did you damage your brain with all that meth use?

  42. Anonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Thanks for clearing that up Bill. BTW-I’m sure the myth about a 13th century Sunni king in the middle east giving young men hash as a potential reward for assasination of enemies isn’t true, right?

  43. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Well Jane, without refutation you’re left with what ifs and maybes. As far as long term effects, travel the highway and byways of SoHum, visit with the children and discover what a “casual observer” finds there regarding subculture denial. Thats about as much as you have so I’ll leave it at that.

  44. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    If you think the only drug consumed in SoHum is pot you are even more delusional than I previously thought, NAN. Again, you ignored Mitch’s post about what a PHARMACOLOGY PROFESSOR, HEAD OF THE BRITISH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DRUGS said. Do you think he based his believe that pot is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes on casual observations? Did you note that meth, heroin and cocaine were not mentioned as less harmful than tobacco and alcohol? That’s because any fool knows they are.

  45. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    aren’t.

  46. February 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    anon @ 4:32 yes the etymology of “assassin” has been debunked it has nothing to do with “hashish.” The hashish – assassin connection is a myth.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

    “Nevertheless, the most acceptable etymology of the word assassin is the simple one: it comes from Hassan (Hassan ibn al-Sabbah) and his followers, and so had it been for centuries. The noise around the hashish version was invented in 1809, in Paris, by the French orientalist Sylvestre de Sacy, whom on July the 7th of that year, presented a lecture at the Academy of Inscriptions and Fine Letters (Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres) – part of the Institute of France – in which he retook the Marco Polo chronicle concerning drugs and this sect of murderers, and associated it with the word. Curiously his theory had great success and apparently still has.”

    – Jacques Boudet, Les mots de l’histoire, Ed. Larousse-Bordas, Paris, 1998

  47. Not a Native
    February 1, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    I’d say you’re the fool Jane. Certainly you’ve just used casusal observations in your cites. Read what Iverson recently 1/13/2010 said (my bolding):

    “Yesterday Professor Iverson played down any potential clashes with Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, by suggesting the debate had moved on – and that he had changed his mind since his speech at a dinner in 2003 hosted by the Beckley Foundation, a charity in favour of regulating rather than banning drug use.

    He said: “I don’t remember saying that, it’s certainly not my position now. That was a view I had in 2003 and a great deal has happened since then.

    “We have now to confront the more potent forms of cannabis. We have the new evidence that arose since 2003 linking cannabis to psychiatric illness.

    “I think it’s quite free for a scientist to change his mind when faced with new facts.”

  48. michael
    February 1, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    All drugs should be legal, even the ones I demonize. People can get anything they want as is, encouraging a lucrative black market. Sell anything in a regulated manner cheaply and you cut out the pushers. If one is unable to care for oneself, for any reason, there should a “conservation camp” to keep people clean and busy. Similarly, if one want a handout, they should test clean. I know yooooou are not going to buy yucky stuff just because you can (you can now and don’t), and I trust that you have good, open, mutually respectful, communication with your children.

  49. February 1, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    I for one was a drunken Alcoholic under several medications to combat high blood pressure , obesity , high tryclycerides , near diabetes ,
    knee & back pain from being overweight . I now take NO madications since i substituted Alcoholic beverages with a more sensible , healthier alternative to Alcohol known as Marijuana . ( true story ) When i was in the U.S. Navy you didn’t dare even mention
    Marijuana .

    The war on drugs has been waged long enough, and more lives have been destroyed and families torn apart by the prison system than by marijuana itself. Legalization of marijuana would save countless time and money from being wasted by law enforcement and by our courts. It would save national and state governments an estimated $7.7 billion on law enforcement and generate an additional $2.2 billion in tax revenue, according to a report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron and endorsed by 500 economists. This doesn’t include all the economic benefits of industrial hemp. Legalization also would have a “substitution” effect; some consumers would substitute marijuana for the more harmful legal drugs tobacco and alcohol, saving us money in health care costs. Drugs should be a public health issue, not a criminal justice issue. America demands action on this important issue NOW! No more lies and propaganda, let’s base our policies on reality and scientific findings.

  50. Walt
    February 1, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    THE OED sez: Assassin n.

    [French or medievil Latin assassinus from Arab hasisi-Hashish-eater]

    The OED said it, I believe it, that settles it. (bumper sticker, I think)

  51. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    As Mitch noted, NAN, his predecessor was fired for saying the same exact thing he said back in 2003. Do you really think pot has become more potent since 2003? Since the 60’s, sure. He had to change his tune or be fired just like the one before him. And again, this isn’t about whether pot is more or less harmful than meth. I dare you to find a single source to support your claim that all drugs are equally damaging or dangerous.

  52. February 1, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Since NAN has selectively quoted from the article I pointed out, I might as well add some stuff I didn’t mention. FIVE panel members resigned in protest when Nutt was forced out for stating the obvious. Four of them will work with Nutt on a new independent panel he’s formed. The Guardian suggests that this panel might be a bit of an embarrassment to the government.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/david-nutt-drugs-independent-committee

    If it isn’t obvious that governments are constrained by the tobacco and alcohol industries and their political contributions, not to mention those of the drug “treatment” and incarceration industries, I have a bridge to sell you.

  53. Not a Native
    February 1, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Ok Jane, first you cite a source and when the source actually doesn’t agree with you, you challenge its objectivity. Can’t have it both ways. Take your own medicine. You know nothing about Iverson’s motives and he’s either an expert to be cited or not. Which is it?

    My claim is that the relative harms of these substances aren’t well known, as Iverson alludes to, and therefore anyone advocating one over another on that basis is just masking their particular preference, prejudice, or economic interest.

    Its especially nonsense BS to claim that since a partcular harm is widespread, adopting another harm is justified out of “consistency”. Harms are harms.

  54. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    The fact that he didn’t change his mind until appointed to a post for which the previous occupant was fired for saying that pot was less harmful than tobacco or alcohol, (only a fool would make that argument about heroin, cocaine or meth) discredits his current claims, NAN. I know you know this but are just too stubborn to admit it when you are wrong.

  55. Not a Native
    February 1, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    Mitch, conspiracy theories are all well and good and often emerge from pipe dreams. As far as the advisory panel who resigned, who are they? Iverson says this:

    “I’m not the drug adviser to the government, I’m a spokesman for a large group of people on the advisory council, only a few of whom are scientists.”

    So if you cite an expert as definitive, its duplicitious to later claim the expert is coerced only when he disagrees with your predetermined position. But I guess it all makes sense if only you’re high on pot.

  56. Not a Native
    February 1, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Jane there you go with the “only a fool” rationale again. Guess that’s the best argument you got, but its pretty foolish.

  57. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    The former chief adviser was David Nutt, NAN. Fired for saying that pot wasn’t as harmful as alcohol or cigarettes and should be legalized. Iverson made the same claim back in 2003 but since being appointed to a position where he would be fired for making that claim, he recanted. Nutt has not recanted.

  58. High Finance
    February 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    People say I am wrong, wrong when I say that if pot is legalized the next thing will be meth & the other drugs.

    But read the posts above. It was only a few counter-culture types who were preaching pot should be legal a few years ago.

    Wake up and be afraid for our country.

  59. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Iverson, the expert, said “new scientific evidence has been obtained”. And he’s a scientist. Have a problem with that concept? Oh yeah, you have your “casual observations” which trump anything science can deliver.

    So I’d say its you who can’t admit you’re in error and just sing the same tune because you’ve made up your mind and any evidence to the contrary is relegated as a conspiracy. The odds have increased that you’re a pot user because you show signs of psychiatric illness and thats associated with pot use.

  60. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    Iverson the expert said that pot wasn’t harmful. Iverson the political appointee changed his mind. Nutt, another expert, sticks with his story. Mind you, NO EXPERT has said that pot is as harmful as meth. Not now, not then, not ever. This will be my last response to you NAN, ever.

  61. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    Iverson the scientist who’s continually looking at whatever scientific data exists, said he’s changed his opinion. I guess thats something you can’t do Jane, no matter how much new data is found.

    Hope you enjoy your leech and bleeding treatments and garlands of garlic to ward of illnesses. They were quite effective, but some of us have decided to use other remidies based on more recent scientific data. Enjoy!

  62. February 1, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Which, of course, has nothing to do with pot being more or less harmful than meth.

  63. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Exactly H., No one knows with high confidence the relative harms and anyone who claims one way or the other is expressing personal preference. One thing is certain, they both have harmful effects when taken regularly and without supervision.

  64. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    As I stated far above, Heraldo, all drugs, including nicotine, caffeine and sugar, have harmful side effects when used injudiciously. That there are different degrees of harm is something only a nutcase would deny.

  65. Mr. Nice
    February 1, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    Meth is already “legal” to prescribe. Called Desoxsyn or something like that. Used to be just “Methedrine” back in the day. Used to combat drowsiness and inattentiveness.

    Meth is a serious addiction. People’s teeth, hair, and faces fall off from the prolonged increased body temperature. In my opinion, illegal or not, the same tweakjobs would be mainlining the shit. Once someone is hooked, they don’t care if peanut butter is $40 or $60 or $120 an eighth. Could get jacked up to $300 and I bet those people would still use.

    If we didn’t treat this problem with this ass-backwards cops-as-clinicians, jail-as-psychotherapy, and promising rehab drugs also banned shit, we might be better off. Instead, all the prohibitionist screw looses claim that if meth were legal people would use it. Well guess the fuck what, people already go to such lengths as to house toxic ass chemicals in residential neighborhoods over this shit. The time will come soon to rectify this situation.

  66. Big Al
    February 1, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    so HiFi
    are you arguing that legalization of pot a stepping stone to legalization of harder drugs?
    (the stepping stone thing is another pot myth fyi)

    my friend says that pot isn’t a stepping stone, it’s a big fluffy couch he want to sit in and not go anywhere

  67. Not A Native
    February 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Right on Mr. Nice. Pot users are also paying $400 an ounce and would pay more if they have to. Its easier to make pot than meth so its harder for suppliers to raise prices as much. If it was all legalized the prices would come down but the addictive attraction will still be there.

  68. February 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    No one knows with high confidence the relative harms and anyone who claims one way or the other is expressing personal preference.

    Personal experience would probably be a better term.

  69. February 1, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    And I don’t (necessarily) mean personal usage experience.

  70. February 1, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    As I stated far above, Heraldo, all drugs, including nicotine, caffeine and sugar, have harmful side effects when used injudiciously.

    I agree. But I’ll take my chances with sugar over meth any day.

  71. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    Caffeine is my drug of choice (sans sugar). I literally CAN’T go a day without it or get blinding headaches. Yes, I’m addicted.

  72. unanonymous
    February 1, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    white drugs are bad.

  73. ruark
    February 1, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    With all these comments nobody even tried to address if Humboldt County has a “meth lab problem”!

    It does not. Have a meth lab problem that is. There is a serious meth use and addiction problem. Meth labs are not the problem anymore, just the meth.

  74. February 1, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    I hope that’s true, and have believed it to be so, which is why the bust of this long-term lab in a residential area of Arcata is disconcerting.

  75. Smile
    February 1, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    HF–Be afraid of our country??? or the people running it??Come on people I’d rather deal with any addict other than a TWEEKER….TWEEKERS dont make sense most of the time….I’m not sure, but I think, when you dont sleep for days, you cant make any decissions…

  76. February 1, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    If meth labs are not a problem in Humboldt County then the Supervisors and the Sheriffs Dept. are defrauding the federal government because they accept hundreds of thousands of $ per year to “eradicate meth labs.”

    But that’s the point I was making in the last thread. This money is being used to bust pot growers, not meth labs, like Tad points out. He is right.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  77. Mr. Nice
    February 1, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Naw, no meth lab problem. That was all eliminated when they took ephedrine out of the hands of drug stores and into the hands of international drug smugglers. Since smugglers can’t possibly get through our supertight border security with precursor substances, there is no way to supply a meth lab anymore.

    I for one am glad that I have to wait in line behind some trailer park hoochie mamas and their pack of bey-bey kids just to get a goddamn pack of sudafed. It makes me feel safer since I know the ban is working so well and my inconvenience is not just about some bullshit government denial of civil liberties.

  78. February 1, 2010 at 9:07 pm

    “…, many meth users are healthy and productive.” no offense, but that statement is absolute bullshit.

  79. ruark
    February 1, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Meth healthy? No Meth makes people productive? Maybe they are/or appear to be for a very short while.

  80. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    A 2007 study published in Lancet, a peer reviewed medical journal lists the most dangerous drugs in this order:
    1. Heroin
    2. Cocaine
    3. Barbiturates
    4. Street methadone
    5. Alcohol
    6. Ketamine
    7. Benzodiazepines
    8. Amphetamine
    9. Tobacco
    10. Buprenorphine
    11. Cannabis
    12. Solvents
    13. 4-MTA
    14. LSD
    15. Methylphenidate
    16. Anabolic steroids
    17. GHB
    18. Ecstasy
    19. Alkyl nitrates
    20. Khat

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130

  81. michael
    February 1, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Anybody who has experienced solvent lovers might doubt Lancet, although “solvents” is a large category and I know a productive adult who claims to have huffed gasoline throughout highschool. Shapers burn is what we called it in Santa Cruz (as in surf board resin over exposure).

  82. Plain Jane
    February 1, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    What are the immediate (short-term)
    effects of methamphetamine abuse?

    As a powerful stimulant, methamphetamine, even in small doses, can increase wakefulness and physical activity and decrease appetite. Methamphetamine can also cause a variety of cardiovascular problems, including rapid heart rate, irregular heartbeat, and increased blood pressure. Hyperthermia (elevated body temperature) and convulsions may occur with methamphetamine overdose, and if not treated immediately, can result in death.

    Most of the pleasurable effects of methamphetamine are believed to result from the release of very high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. Dopamine is involved in motivation, the experience of pleasure, and motor function, and is a common mechanism of action for most drugs of abuse. The elevated release of dopamine produced by methamphetamine is also thought to contribute to the drug’s deleterious effects on nerve terminals in the brain.

    http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Methamph/methamph3.html#short

    Short-term effects of marijuana use include euphoria, distorted perceptions, memory impairment, and difficulty thinking and solving problems.

    (No long term effects are listed.

    http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugpages/marijuana.html

    But what do they know?

  83. Mr. Nice
    February 1, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Boo msnbc.

    Longer version of David Nutt’s words on this:

    http://crimeandjustice.org.uk/estimatingdrugharms.html

  84. Big Al
    February 1, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    I have had a couple of friends who have gone around the bend on meth, even when cleaned up they have lost their skills.
    talented artisans who’s work is now crap.
    steal from their best friend…
    I have seen the pattern over and over, first your job, then the ol’lady, car, house, teeth, pretty soon they are riding around on a bicycle all night.
    burnt brain cells are gone, just gone…
    dudes will never be the same.
    meth is the worst, only a few can get off the drug.
    damage done, it’s really really sad.

  85. February 1, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    “SCABS, HALLUCINATIONS AND BODY SORES. THEN THINGS REALLY START TO GO DOWNHILL” Montana Meth Project

    Meth is made from some of the nastiest stuff around. You don’t even want this stuff in your house, let alone put it in your body.

    The key ingredient in meth is a drug called pseudophedrine – that’s the chemical that makes store bought cold medicines like Sudafed work. When you have a cold, this may work by itself, but when you combine it with other chemicals, it’s a lethal mixture.

    Other ingredients may include:

    Iodine flakes or crystals (as found in some veterinary products); Its vapors can cause eye and skin irritation and breathing problems.

    Hydrochloric acid (one of the most acidic chemicals known to man); Breathing this junk can cause chemical burns to eyes, nose, skin, and severe respiratory problems.

    Acetone (from nail polish remover or camp stove fuel); Eating or breathing it can cause severe gastric irritation (the mother of all stomach aches), and coma.

    Lithium (usually taken out of household batteries); Skin contact of any kind can cause severe burns.

    Anhydrous ammonia (typically from fertilizer); Get a good whiff of this and you could experience severe respiratory problems, eye and mucous membrane damage.

    Red phosphorous (most likely sources: ground up matches or emergency road flares): Vapors can irritate your nose, throat, lungs and eyes.

    Sulfuric acid (that is drain cleaner): Skin contact of any kind can cause sever burns, breathing this in could result in sever lung damage.

    And you say many meth users are healthy and productive? You kidding me? Most of ’em can’t even chew their own food anymore.
    http://www.montanameth.org/

  86. Filibuster
    February 1, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    When we look at all these drugs — alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, pot, meth, heroin, cocaine etc — what users are doing primarily is self-medicating. Yes, there are addictive elements once they start, but it’s primarily self-medication to deal with their difficulties with life, whether it be performance, stress, anxiety, depression, pain, mental illness, etc. And many of these substances are notably physically and/or mentally destructive, some more than others.

    We live in a society, or a time, where it is not easy to be happy or fulfilled, and where many folks experience a pronounced sense of disconnection.

    I think Robinson Jeffers summarized this disconnection well in his poem The Sirens:

    “Perhaps we desire Death: or why is poison so sweet?
    Why do the little Sirens
    Make kindlier music, for a man caught in the net of the world
    Between news-cast and work-desk —
    The little chirping Sirens, alcohol, amusement, opiates,
    And carefully sterilized lust —
    Than the angels of life? Really it is rather strange, for the angels
    Have all the power on their side,
    All the importance: — men turn away from them, preferring their own
    Vulgar inventions, the little
    Trivial Sirens. Here is another sign that the age needs renewal.

  87. February 2, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Big Al @ 10:38,

    Thank you for vouching for what you have PERSONALLY WITNESSED.

    NAN, if you re-read this thread as a whole, maybe you’ll consider the possibility that you might not be completely right. At least two people, Big Al and me, have described witnessing friends’ downward spirals on meth. No one is saying everyone gets destroyed — my first entry on this thread said “Fred was lucky.”

    And there appears to be a medical consensus that pot is not particularly hazardous when compared with legal drugs. You are right that some legitimate scientists are saying that the more potent strains have greater impact. But the consensus remains. And scotch is more potent than wine.

    One more article you might want to look at regarding the scientific legitimacy of the small amount of “pot is dangerous” research and the resulting spin:

    http://fray.slate.com/id/2093/

    And, no, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to think that a lot of the anti-pot propaganda put out by our government is somehow connected to profits somewhere. Don’t you believe in capitalism?

  88. TexaCali
    February 2, 2010 at 9:02 am

    This lab was in a middle class residential neighborhood with lots of children. Not a good sign. Get on these labs, APD.

  89. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 9:43 am

    I advocate legalizing crack too, just in case there was any confusion.

    It’s all liberty for me, all the same. If you don’t buy the liberty argument that we are naturally free to smoke all types of shit just like some Amazonian tribes, fine. At least listen to the pragmatic argument that the problems created by prohibition are the biggest problems with drugs. There would be no meth labs in college kid neighborhoods if you could buy the shit at 7-11.

  90. February 2, 2010 at 10:06 am

    The Muslims are right, we are a culture of death. The main religion is based on the execution and death of its progenitor. All one has to do is look at U.S. television to see just where the true heart of capitalism rests.
    If it did have a heart, the metaphor would work much better.

  91. February 2, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Mr. Nice,

    The argument about liberty gets more complicated when you’re talking about something that’s addictive, doesn’t it? Should people be free to make a mistake that they may never be able to recover from? How do you feel about motorcycle helmet laws?

  92. February 2, 2010 at 10:53 am

    It’s funny to see, now that pot is about to become legal, we suddenly have meth advocates. Unbelievable. You might as well advocate for ingesting gasoline.

  93. Big Al
    February 2, 2010 at 10:56 am

    ingesting gasoline gives me…. gas

  94. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 11:00 am

    The argument about liberty gets more complicated when you’re talking about something that’s addictive, doesn’t it?

    Not for me.

    Should people be free to make a mistake that they may never be able to recover from?

    Absolutely.

    How do you feel about motorcycle helmet laws?

    As far as liberty, I think helmets should not be required but society should also not be forced to pay for medical care of dumb people who don’t wear helmets/seatbelts. The problem with liberty is you need total liberty, not piecemeal. One civil rights issue (helmets) with cause problems with another (individual responsibility for health care). As long as my taxes go toward these people’s emergency care, they should wear helmets.

    As far as consequence, drugs and helmets can’t be correlated. There is no black market cartel violence created by dumb people not wearing helmets/seatbelts.

  95. Anony.Miss
    February 2, 2010 at 11:18 am

    How many health mistakes can we afford to pay for? In the government run health care setting where I work I see those who did not wear helmets, drug abusers, all sorts of health issues that could have been prevented. How far can we control it? Are our addictions and needs avoidable if we can’t control them? Can a diabetic person who can’t stay away from the foods that make them sick be entirely responsible??

    I vote for mandatory helmets. We have mandatory safety technology in cars, and helmets, in my view (and in my work experience-wish you could see it before you give your opinion) are a no-brainer. (Sorry)

  96. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Again some confusion. Advocating the legalization of something is not the same as advocating its use. You can support the concept of adults being allowed to make their own decisions without believing they should do things which are harmful to themselves.

  97. michael
    February 2, 2010 at 11:18 am

    I believe in a culture evolved enough to have socialized medicine (funded primarily by sin taxes and saving the economy from HMOs), that allows people who engage in certain, well defined behaviors, to die as a result of their actions. The price of a motorcycle (for example) should include 2 helmets and registration/fuel a fee (insurance) based at least partly on your driving record. If you are a poor rider, you get patched up or babysat, but no helmet, no social safety net. Of course since it would be mandatory, universal and non-profit it would need to be managed by the government. “The kids” need to be brought to the head trauma ward and fried drunk druggie cleanup crew for the educational value.

  98. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 11:27 am

    As an added note, Rose is usually complaining about the nanny state forcing people to comply with safety laws like seat belts, helmets and talking on cell phones while they are driving which all cost other people by way of increased health care costs, auto insurance premiums and taxes to support those disabled because they wanted their “freedom;” not to mention the loss of lives. Apparently she only supports freedom on those issues that she cares about.

  99. February 2, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Nah, Jane, I am entirely in favor of you using as much Meth as you want.

  100. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 11:52 am

    I don’t “advocate meth.”

    Stop shooting yourself in the foot. If you advocate prohibition, you advocate the bad things that affect us concerning meth. No pretending you want to help people, that is bullshit.

    Compare with alcohol:

    Do people run “alcohol labs” in your neighborhood? No.

    Does organized crime profit from smuggling hooch across our borders? No.

    Do street hustlers pitch white lightning downtown? No.

    Do people not get help for alcoholism because they fear going to jail? No.

    Do people slang vodka to afford vodka? No.

    Do gang members front teenagers 40 ounces to sell at school? No.

    Now, do people run meth labs, does organized crime profit from smuggling meth, do street hustlers pitch white downtown, do tweakers avoid help for fear of prosecution, do people slang meth to afford meth, and do gang members front teenagers bag of meth to sell at school? Yes, absolutely yes.

  101. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 11:54 am

    I was talking to nobody in particular above, but if you take offense, good.

  102. Anony.Miss
    February 2, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Well, you can say you don’t want to pay for someone who did something stupid, became badly hurt or sick and cost the taxpayers a fortune to babysit and attempt to rehab, or at least patch up- but the reality is when they are wheeled in the door, someone has to take care of them in a civilized society.

  103. February 2, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Everything today, since Reagan, has been a war on this or that because anything the government touches turns to a pile of shit- just look at anyone who works for it.
    If you could buy meth in stores these tweaks would make fortunes dumping waste into the groundwater around here. ( Had your well tested lately? )When the government starts making things a “crime” a black market happens.
    I say just make everything legal and don’t tax a fucking thing, because taxation is immoral and Americans should not be subjected to slavery.
    Legal meth would end meth labs that kill salmon in Klamath, and people who drink from wells.
    Meth, like Prozac, is a military drug, much like the LSD was that derailed the hippies and turned them into idiots for communism and false gods.

  104. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    You know, usually the racist bullshit you float doesn’t do a thing to me dude.

    But what the fuck man, how can you diss LSD like that?

  105. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Only the terminally clueless could read this thread and think that I think anyone should use meth, especially myself or anyone I care about. Another example of black / white thinking. If you believe that adults should be in control of what they do with or to their bodies, you must be doing it or wanting people to. Has anyone else noticed how often the right uses the same sort of circular logic as religious fundamentalists?

  106. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Plain Jane, that’s not a “right wing” argument, that’s a prohibitionist argument. There are plenty of Obama-lovers who are also prohibitionists. The man himself won’t even answer questions in his supposedly people-powered forums about prohibition.

    The “left” has some stupid ideas on how to resolve these problems. Like “reduce demand.” Seriously, what the hell does that mean? Spend a bunch of money on useless drug education programs? Also, “tax and regulate.” Right. Like placing some ludicrous tax on an item is going to eliminate the black market. Decriminalize… so what… we don’t punish users but continue to punish sellers? That’s like raiding burger joints for causing heart disease.

    If anything, it’s the left who uses the circular logic. The religious right and neo-cons are losing ground. You’ll have to quit using those labels to describe what constitutes the opposition in American politics these days. The opposition has become way more radicalized. If you don’t believe me, watch this next election cycle and see how many Democrats are left standing.

  107. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Read it again, Mr. Nice. I didn’t say that prohibition was right wing. I wouldn’t consider Libertarians left by any definition. Social libertarians may be right or left. Prohibitionists may be right or left. Circular logic, however, seems to be a mental disorder of right and Xtian fundies regardless of what flavor they like their Kool-Aid.

  108. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    As to the people who constitute the “opposition,” I can quite figure out WTF they want. They want jobs but they don’t want them to cost anything, same for health care. They want lower taxes, higher spending and lower deficit. Frankly, they seem pretty schizophrenic to me. As for the leadership on the right, they’ll say anything their base wants to hear, tell any lie for political gain and flip their talking points on a dime in the name of obstruction. McConnell (and lots of GOP) on the commission to cut the waste from the budget is a fine example. They were for it until Obama was. No congressman is going to vote to cut a dime of spending from his district or state or from any of his campaign contributors. They passed unfunded tax cuts and started 2 unfunded wars and now they are screaming about the deficit. The neocon agenda has always been about forcing cuts in social programs and privatization of government functions. Insuring there are no funds was a pretty smart way to do it. Blaming Obama for it is just plain old fashioned lying.

  109. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Circular logic is just easier for the average person Plain Jane.

    Let’s try:

    Why is meth illegal?
    Meth is illegal because it is bad.

    Why is it bad?
    Because meth is bad for children.

    What justification does drug effect have regarding legality?
    Meth will make your teeth fall out.

    What about the thousands of people who die every year due to expensive, fruitless eradication efforts?
    Meth makes kids stupid.

    What about the terrible pollution caused by clandestine meth labs?
    Meth causes pollution.

    What about the profits made by criminal organizations?
    Meth users give money to criminals because meth is bad.

    See how easy it is? You don’t even have to consider deductive reasoning when you use circular logic.

    I have no love for meth users, but I seriously doubt these raids will clean the streets of tweakers. Maybe it will jack up the price slightly.

  110. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    The neocons are going down Plain Jane. They don’t even get nominated to run anymore, let alone win. The GOP is done losing. In the 2000s, neocon logic ruled, but now that the country is broke conservatives are having a change of heart. There is definitely a movement.

  111. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    So they are going to reverse the Bush tax cuts and increase taxes on those who benefited so greatly from them, Mr. Nice? That would show a change of heart. All I see is more dishonesty, blaming Obama for the mess he inherited and screaming fascist-commie-socialist-Hitler every time anyone suggests we might just have to raise taxes a few percent on the top wage earners if our country is to survive as a first world nation.

  112. February 2, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Mr. Nice wrote:

    What about the thousands of people who die every year due to expensive, fruitless eradication efforts?

    Beg pardon?

  113. High Finance
    February 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Pot hasn’t even been legalized yet, and already the slippery slope is claiming victims.

    I hope you guys speak up loud & often during the coming campaign. We who are opposed, are counting on people like you to let people know what they are doing.

  114. McKinleyvilleKris
    February 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    Has anyone ever heard of a case where someone traded sex with their very young child for pot? Because I work in mental health and have never heard that, but have knowledge of children whose parents traded them for meth.

  115. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Oh come on High. The only people who are saying all drugs should be legalized have always said that. The reason that legalization of pot is inevitable is the people who were so opposed are dying off and the majority have tried it or use it and know it just isn’t that big a deal. Certainly not worth imprisoning people at the price of $40,000+ a year on the tax payer’s tab.

  116. michael
    February 2, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    Yes AnnoyMiss, a civilized society allows people to die. Fetishizing the living is not the same, to me, as nurturing life.

  117. Anony.Miss
    February 2, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Well, without trying to make something rude out of your name, I will say, we respect and treat kindly all the people who enter our Center even though they have done the most ridiculous things to themselves. Our society does take care and of and nurture life in all its forms.

  118. Anonymous
    February 2, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    michael the asshole

  119. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    Oh come on High. The only people who are saying all drugs should be legalized have always said that.

    The first drug I thought should be legalized was crack cocaine. I admit that I had this idea before I had ever had a set political ideology or had ever tried any mood-altering substances (except caffeine and refined sugar). I formed this idea independently just seeing how ridiculous it was that folks (including peers) were walking around with crack in their mouth, hiding thousands of dollars from their mom in old shoe boxes, and stashing guns in the neighborhood.

    The fact struck me doubly bad that every immigrant or poor country family that found themselves around this became involved in the crack scheme. From Ethiopia or Birmingham, all got drawn in somehow. Families became addicted. There’d be junior in the bathroom trying to hide his smoking while mom would just pretend like nothing is happening while she waits her turn. Thugs shot first and asked questions later, so you end up with people injured or killed due to a wrong address in stereotypical crazy dense, crack slang apartments that all look the same.

    Then, just when you think that sums up the misery, here come the cops. Houses raided, people questioned, innocent folks afraid to say anything. Addicted people who need medical help thrown in jail.

    Less potent drugs just fit in with this ideology, so I started thinking those should be legal too.

  120. Not a Native
    February 2, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    Well from personal experience I’ve known people who lost their jobs, homes, and families rather than stop regular pot use. People in HumCo I know would rather use pot than pass a piss test to get a job. One person I know lost his job in a mill because he couldn’t do the work while stoned. As chronic pot users become better studied scientifically, more is being learned. I’d say the long term effect of chronic pot use is very variable but some effects are:

    The untoward mental effects of cannabis may be classified:

    Psychological responses such as panic, anxiety, depression or psychosis. These effects may be described as ‘toxic’ in that they generally relate to excess consumption of the drug.

    Effects of cannabis on pre-existing mental illness and cannabis as a risk-factor for mental illness.

    Dependency or withdrawal effects.

  121. High Finance
    February 2, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    Good point Native. I’ll bet we all know somebody who has lost at least their jobs because they are unable to stop pot use.

    Twenty years ago, one of my co-workers at the time knew a drug test was coming & he still couldn’t stop. He was fired & lost a very good job.

    Friends of my brother were so unable to stop, they eventually even went to jail because of it. My cousin couldn’t stop even after his wife left him & took their son with her.

  122. February 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    We the People have the inalienable Right to use whatever plants grow upon the Earth, in whatever fashion we choose to. These rights devolve to us through 100,000 years use of the Commons and cannot be taken away by any government.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  123. Plain Jane
    February 2, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    And we all know people who lost their jobs because they couldn’t quit drinking and some who lost their own lives and / or the lives of others. We all know people who lost their jobs because of addictions of all sorts. Some people have more addictive personalities and some are more sensitive to drugs, legal and illegal. There are people who quit their jobs because they aren’t allowed to smoke cigarettes. There are prescription drugs you could take that would kill someone else because of their sensitivities. I know people who lost their jobs because they were just lazy and didn’t show up to work. What any of this has to do with whether or not meth is worse than pot is beyond me. I can’t believe anyone who actually knows someone who got strung out on meth and had their mind destroyed would even try to make that argument.

  124. Anony.Miss
    February 2, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    Totally agree. Anyone who knows this firsthand, knows it for sure.

  125. Anony.Miss
    February 2, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    But have to agree that pot use will get you fired for being lazy and laid back.

  126. Anonymous
    February 2, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    You may have the inalienable right (in your own mind at least), Bill, but we have the same right to can your ass for showing up stoned, drunk, or all geetered out on meth.

  127. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    I think y’all have this picture in your head of some lazy, jobless, stoned hippies madly grubbing down at Angelo’s Pizza and are trying to project that onto cannabis users in general. How do you suppose that you know these things? It ain’t like you are going to walk into the hospital and get a show of hands of who smokes blunts on the weekend.

  128. Anony.Miss
    February 2, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    Jus’ walkin’ around the Plaza. And at work I see it. And my kids’ friends. And my college experience. And every day of my life I see it. That’s all.

  129. February 2, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Anon @ 825,

    Alcohol appears in nature only in small quantities when an apricot falls into a puddle and ferments, for instance, and there are no meth trees, so both those products are man made. Humans do have a right to all the herbs that the earth has provided us. It is an ancient right.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  130. Mr. Nice
    February 2, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Jus’ walkin’ around the Plaza. And at work I see it. And my kids’ friends. And my college experience. And every day of my life I see it. That’s all.

    But you get what I mean when I say the average person isn’t about to reveal if they are a moderate cannabis user due to the stigma. Actors, maybe, but the rest of us would just assume not give the squares any ammo.

    I’ve noticed in Humboldt professional type people are fairly guarded about that information. In California cities it is more of a joke where only little old church ladies would possibly care a damn. Well, not Sac-town, but people there are a bit weird anyway.

  131. Anonymous
    February 2, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    And we still have the right to fire your ass, bill, if you show up to work stoned.

  132. February 2, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Jane. METH is worse than POT. Pot, it can be argued, is a natural substance, like mushrooms.

    No one can argue – no INTELLIGENT person – can argue that METH is anything but bad for you.

    You can argue about whether or not there ought to be laws against things that are bad for you. Most people like you have no problem with trans-fat laws, and no sodas in school vending machines laws, but METH is ok?

    Did you read that list of what goes into it? Up until this thread, the only meth-advocate I had ever seen was Ellen Taylor. “Like marijuana, also a medicine, meth is a multibillion-dollar criminal industry…. The law enforcement vendetta against meth, and media use of such slogans as “meth kills,” linking it to deviance, disease and violence, provides a hostile setting, and amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy…. Demonization of meth cripples democracy. A minority of our citizens even votes, let alone takes an active role in policy decisions which will affect their and their childrens’ lives…. “…she says

  133. High Finance
    February 2, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Plain Jane is being dishonest when she claims anybody is debating that Pot is worse than Meth.

  134. One in a million
    February 2, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Back when I worked a the car stereo shop I would get stoned before work, (every day and at lunch time too) go in and kick some ass, getting all the high end cars, Vettes, BMWs, Jags, and brand new cars and trucks from the dealships.
    The nicest of the nice with picky customers, complex systems and really custom installs.
    Customers would ask that I worked on their cars because they wanted it done right and I had a great reputation for good high quality work, with an attitude.
    I had the lowest come back ratio of anybody in the shop.
    Can every stoner do that…. nope, but I am special.
    Pot isn’t for everybody but it sure is for me!

  135. Plain Jane
    February 3, 2010 at 4:21 am

    What is it with some of these people? You try to explain WHY some people don’t believe drugs should be illegal or some less or more illegal than others and you get accused of being a druggie. Do their brains short circuit when their hear the word drugs and stop functioning entirely? Nan argued all through this thread that there is no difference between meth and pot and now High claims I am lying. My point throughout the thread has been that meth is an extremely dangerous, mind destroying drug that no one should use. Maybe they are too stoned and lazy to actually read the thread before they jump in with their asinine posts?

  136. Plain Jane
    February 3, 2010 at 4:31 am

    One In A Million, as Michael Pollan explained in his book, “The Botony of Desire,” pot narrows the mind’s focus and intensifies what it is focused on. That’s why food tastes better, sex…etc. The “short term memory loss” associated with being stoned is actually because the stoned mind just disregards that which it isn’t focused on.

  137. Plain Jane
    February 3, 2010 at 4:36 am

    And poor Rose….still trying to convince me that I am wrong, that meth is worse than pot….. Oh well. Some people don’t have properly functioning brains to begin with.

  138. February 3, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Jane, you jump to your own conclusions:

    As an added note, Rose is usually complaining about the nanny state forcing people to comply with safety laws like seat belts, helmets and talking on cell phones while they are driving which all cost other people by way of increased health care costs, auto insurance premiums and taxes to support those disabled because they wanted their “freedom;” not to mention the loss of lives. Apparently she only supports freedom on those issues that she cares about.

    Where did I say anything about whether or not Meth should be regulated? All I did was post a link to the Montana Meth Project, and a list of the crap that goes into making Meth.

    Maybe you ought to re-read your own statement – Maybe (you) are too stoned and lazy to actually read the thread before they jump in with their asinine posts?

  139. Plain Jane
    February 3, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Rose Says:
    February 2, 2010 at 10:53 am

    It’s funny to see, now that pot is about to become legal, we suddenly have meth advocates. Unbelievable. You might as well advocate for ingesting gasoline.

  140. Plain Jane
    February 3, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Short term memory loss there Rose? Or was that your clone stalker?

  141. Plain Jane
    February 3, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Additionally, Rose, maybe you can find even a SINGLE post in this thread where anyone was advocating meth usage?

  142. Mr. Nice
    February 4, 2010 at 10:21 am

    The “short term memory loss” associated with being stoned is actually because the stoned mind just disregards that which it isn’t focused on.

    There is recent research about this, maybe you have not read about it.

    Fortunately for potheads, experiments on mice with cannabinoid receptor genes knocked out suggest that there is a short-term protein buildup that causes short-term memory loss. The mice in these experiments were dosed as if they smoked a joint every five minutes, but it would have been hard to detect any difference if they didn’t get heavily dosed like this, so I think the dose is valid. The conclusion was that medical marijuana patients should not be concerned over memory loss as it is not permanent… although all of the news articles about this research in regions which do not allow medical marijuana cut out this conclusion.

    This protein thing is considered with PTSD patients where it is thought that high enough cannabis doses can knock out recurring bad memories. Unfortunately for PTSD patients, a couple weeks after lab mice stop getting blunted, short term memory returns to full capacity.

    There are so many articles on this I won’t even start to list them. You can google them out if you search for anandamide, CB1, G-protein, FAAH, THC, etc. Much research is concerned with how the brain naturally creates anandamide as a possible stress-response mechanism and how some brains are short in the capacity to do so. I’ve long suspected it is drug companies who fund this particular research in order to get momentum together for their pro-cannabinoid and de-cannabinoid drugs to either deactivate short term memories or activate them in people who are heavy on the anandamide-receptor thing (people who are high off their own brains, basically). I can see how de-cannabis drugs will be very useful for people who naturally have no memory. Also, the research in this regard to Alzheimer’s and dementia being lessened by knocking down overactive short-term memory for the benefit of long-term memory systems is interesting even though this research is in its infancy.

    But, what you say about the short-term memory being a result of focusing is likely false. I know that it sounds right, but there is nothing to back that up. There is recent research that does suggest lab mice being highly focused on tasks after heavy cannabis doses, but this effect is not understood as far as brain chemistry and is most likely completely separate from the short-term memory effect which is somewhat understood. The focusing aspect is also thought to be related to the endogenous effect of anandamide/CB1 interaction. It might be that people who are easily distracted and multitask their lives away without getting anything finished are short on anandamide. Science will tell us someday. All of this does underscore the importance of cannabis research as much of the results have nothing to do with cannabis use at all and everything to do how mammalian brains work.

  143. Mr. Nice
    February 4, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Also, the focusing effect only lasts a few hours while the short-term memory loss can last days, so it would be difficult to conclude that one caused the other given the time difference.

    This is fairly important research with regards to ADHD as well. Someday, drug companies may find a phytocannabinoid drug combination that does not get ADHD patients completely blazed but which does help them to be less distracted.

  144. Plain Jane
    February 4, 2010 at 10:36 am

    I can only recommend that you read Michael Pollan’s “The Botony of Desire.” He explains it much better than I can and it has been several years since I read it. The book is worthwhile even aside from its section discussing pot and why humans love it so much.

  145. February 4, 2010 at 11:14 am

    This is a somewhat late response, but Rose quotes Ellen Taylor badly out of context. In case anyone doesn’t already know about Rose’s behavior, I thought it deserved a mention.

    Ellen’s point was that one reason some people use drugs is that poverty makes their lives difficult; she suggests that our society needs to treat the poverty, rather than further harm the drug users by imprisoning them and taking away their right to vote. Given her selective quotation, Rose has ensured that no one who reads Rose’s quote will see Ellen’s actual point.

    This only matters if you believe in honesty.

  146. February 9, 2010 at 9:37 am

    here you go, Mitch – and Jane:
    War on Drugs is war on our own people
    Ellen Taylor
    Article Launched: 03/11/2007 10:38:14 AM PDT

    Mike Goldsby, a highly-respected local expert in drug addiction, declared in last week’s My Word opinion, “I have nothing good to say about methamphetamines.”

    The estimated 1.4 million users in the U.S. would disagree. Productivity-oriented professionals with demanding careers praise the increased alertness afforded by meth. Timber fallers, mill workers, truck drivers, and others in dangerous occupations extol the stamina it provides. The military has always depended upon meth as a source of courage and quick reaction time. Poor people, trapped in multiple low-paying jobs or the exhausting paperwork demands of public assistance, emphasize its empowering and antidepressant effect.

    These people agree that, like other drugs, meth can be fatal. But its high morbidity and mortality, they would add, rest in the fact that its use is illegal.

    Like marijuana, also a medicine, meth is a multibillion-dollar criminal industry. There is naturally violence where such huge profits are to be made.

    As revealed by Gary Webb in his San Jose Mercury News articles on crack cocaine, successful drug networks involve protection and exploitation by government agencies, including law enforcement. Police departments flourish on grants for drug interdiction. The domestic cost of the War on Drugs was $51 billion in 2006.

    The penal system, increasingly privatized, prospers as well. The public pays an annual $27,000 for each of 2.5 million prisoners. As a society, we are invested in this industry: Some cities are almost exclusively supported by their prisons.

    I recently attended a conference, “Methamphetamine, Hepatitis and HIV,” in Salt Lake City, where drug policy analysts described “set and setting” as determinants of how a drug or medicine will affect an individual.

    The law enforcement vendetta against meth, and media use of such slogans as “meth kills,” linking it to deviance, disease and violence, provides a hostile setting, and amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Public opinion as reflected in Times-Standard op-eds echo the official contempt. One guest opinion praised the policies of MaoTse-tung for summarily executing drug offenders. Another called it “terrorism,” and suggested soliciting Homeland Security money.

    The recent killings by the Eureka police were attributed to the victims’ use of meth, which is rapidly becoming a license to kill. Even Mike Goldsby, in saluting law enforcement’s “vital role in holding addicts accountable,” regretted that “there are not enough police or jails to arrest, convict and incarcerate every addict.”

    A declaration of war is an open invitation to ignore the rights of individuals in the name of a more urgent destiny. The War on Drugs is no exception.

    Harsher sentences than for murder, illegal searches and seizures, intrusive urine testing, property forfeitures, disenfranchisement, ineligibility for public support, housing, school loans or food stamps, loss of children: Fourth, fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendment protections are widely denied meth users.

    Demonization of meth cripples democracy. A minority of our citizens even votes, let alone takes an active role in policy decisions which will affect their and their childrens’ lives.

    Involvement in illegal and socially-condemned activities has estranged large segments of the population from political life. Paranoia prevents users from exercising their first amendment rights to express their opinions. Thus, in a democracy already handicapped by apathy, a stigmatized class is prevented from defending their own interests.

    This has powerful implications. One op-ed reported that 70 percent of children in some Humboldt County schools come from “meth homes.” Urine tests at local clinics confirm wide use.

    Paul Gahlinger, M.D., commander of the Davis County Jail in Utah, observed that his inmates, 65 percent meth convicts and one-third female, attribute their incarceration not to meth but to the chaotic problems of poverty. They have no plan to stop using.

    It is evident that meth is endemic, a street medicine used to treat endemic conditions of life in the American culture of speed, performance, achievement, self-absorption, alienation, waste and neglect.

    The War on Drugs amounts to a war on our own people. It is contrary to the precepts of Christianity and all other religions, and destructive to the foundations of democracy.

    We must treat the human conditions which cause suffering, instead of demonizing the medicine that relieves the symptoms, if we wish to restore family and human values to our communities.

    Ellen Taylor lives in Petrolia.

    This Op-Ed was originally posted at http://www.times-standard.com/fastsearchresults/ci_5418494
    ***

    There was a LETTER TO THE EDITOR in response:

    Meth victim’s mom: Help stop this killer

    Author: My Word by Suzi Fregeau
    Date: March 18, 2007
    Publication: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA)
    I read, with amazement, the recent opinion of Ellen Taylor, “War on Drugs is a war on our own people.” I cannot for one minute understand why any sensible individual would support, in any way, the use of this drug. To imply that this drug is helpful for productivity-oriented professionals with demanding careers, that it is necessary to increase the alertness of truck drivers, timber fallers, mill workers and others in dangerous occupations is ludicrous at best.

    Since… (truncated, available from Times Standard paid archives)

  147. Anonymous
    February 20, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Unfortunately, they seem no higher priority than pot farms. I ran into Gallegos in 2007, and asked him why he’d had as the same ratio of Pot:meth prosecutions as his predessessor, despite his campaign promises, he said those were the cases he was given. Why did he promise it in his campaign when he didn’t or couldn’t deliver. It takes a fair amount of intellegence for to pass the bar exam, he should have known what he could and couldn’t do. Both pot and meth investigations and prosecutions drain limited resources, while meth causes many more problems. Law Enforcement, and probably Gallegos too, is responcable for this misallocation of funds. Seem like they’re using pot laws, and taxpayer money to fund their culture wars, too. Billionaires use “other peoples money” to fight against the “other people” all the time.

  148. Plain Jane
    February 20, 2010 at 11:40 am

    What is the illegal pot growing to meth possession ratio in H.C., 11:26?

  149. Plain Jane
    February 20, 2010 at 11:42 am

    And how many of those prosecutions were for simple possession of pot compared with simple possession of meth?

  150. 9:13
    February 20, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Badly out of context Mitch? Not.

  151. February 22, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Meth Addict Vs. Pot Head

    Winner: Pot Head

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s