Crash, I really like you, but on this subject you are wrong. I mean if you feel safer with "feel safe" legislation, that's fine. But the facts simply do not correspond to your argument.
And that's really the point, I think - not that the 3 limit rule prevents meth labs, or that ammo registration prevents murders. But it raises flags and increases the chance of police interdiction. it increases the chance that a meth labber or a murderer will do something a cop will notice.
I agree with you that this is the point (regarding meth that is). It gives police more "reasons" to suspect someone and begin an investigation.
Unfortunately it is a shortlived affair, and then we have to make something ELSE illegal. The police are better served looking for the source of drugs as they come into a community, rather than tracking precursors (you will see why shortly).
And your argument fails for bullets. Why is a guy with 10,000 rounds in his car more likely a murderer than the guy with only 5 in a clip?
I want to see something tangible on this. I get where amount comes in handy for meth production, I don't for murderer production.
I suppose we could try to look up how long you've been able to buy pseudoephedrine over the counter, but I'm pretty sure it's been available for decades. So I'm fairly sure there's nothing "they were using before."
You missed my point. Amphetamines and Methamphetamines have been in existence for longer than sudafed was going over counters. They used other methods before and can use them again. The existence of mass quantities of ephedrine/p-ephedrine changed how meth labs operated, but they can change again just as quickly.
If for some reason we clamped down on e/p-e so tight that no one could possibly be legally decongested, the meth labs will still be churning. The precursors will simply have changed and the price will have gone up.
Since it appears you are NOT going to simply look it up yourself, here is a nice link that I can only assume you would trust.{Fixed link (was a " in front of the http) - AM}
(added in: for some reason the link does not work right thru the evcpage for some, here is the actual address:
http://www.methamphetamineaddiction.com/...etamine_hist.html)
Read it very carefully. In it you will see my own points being made...
1) Meth existed before e/p-e.
2) Meth can be made in MANY other ways, and the e/p-e method is a temporary one of choice... convenience.
3) If e/p-e is stepped on, alternate methods will simply raise the price.
I would also add...
4) That Meth began to become popular with the advent of Prohibition. Drug wars only shift drug use of choice, sometimes to harder substances.
Well, unless I'm mistaken, neither of us have chemistry degrees.
You are mistaken... well technically anyway. It's a long story but I changed majors out of a Chemistry masters program, before completion. My undergrad was NOT chem, but to get into the masters program I completed an entire chem undergrad coursework. So knowledge wise I am just shy of a master's in Chem.
But you are right that creating chemicals in bulk requires reagents and equipment. Equipment is pretty easy. I made my own specialized equipment in the master's program... more specialized than is necessary for meth.
Reagents are the question. But I have already said, and the link explains that reagents are merely cost issues. If one becomes too high priced (or cut off) then you switch to another. Distillation and synthesis are really not that hard and allow one to make pretty much any organic or inorganic compound from another set of compounds.
Ok, well, I guess I'd like to hear from the drug authorities on that.
I hope narconon counts. I'll get more if you want.
If they don't have a farm, yeah it is.
Well I am for limiting sales of ammo to people with valid gun licenses, and maybe even have limits based on what a person is able to safely store (so some sort of check on proper storage areas).
But this says nothing about the argument that the more bought the more dangerous or nefarious the purpose of the purchaser.
To this I would like to point out a major difference between sudafed and bullets. You were correct to point out that buying 30 boxes of sudafed, one may reasonably ask "how bad a cold do you have, and how long do you expect it to last?" There is only so much sudafed one can take personally in any space of time.
This does not hold true with bullets. There is no "maximum dosage" limit to create a "reasonable expectation" of what a single person might buy. A single person can burn through quite a bit of ammo in a very short period of time.
a position that suggests greater scrutiny on greater threats and dangerous items.
No, your position is greater scrutiny of things that IMPLY to YOU greater threats. Until you or Rrhain provide some sort of evidence that purchasing more bullets is associated with more nefarious use of those bullets, there is no "greater threat" from someone theoretically buying out a store of ammo.
On the dangerous items part... I will agree that bullets are dangerous in and of themselves (they explode on impact and in heat). Thus I think purchasers should be licensed, and for large purchases, perhaps a proof of storage capability. I would be for making improper storage of ammo illegal and storage in general open for inspection.
That would go along with any other safety regulation we have for buildings (including homes).
"since it's more or less impossible to prevent crimes, we should never try when the trying might restrict an American's rights to buy 100 packages of Sudafed for any reason whatsoever."
I'm uncertain where I see black and white or hyperbolic thinking in that statement. There is no right/wrong or demonizing. Only exaggeration.
Thankfully this was not my argument.
My argument was that the specific methods suggested would require a greater bureacracy than needed and shift law enforcement resources to less worthwhile pursuits. In short I am condemning the specific solutions as being inefficient and in some cases contrary to solving or helping solve the problem being faced.
And this points up part of the b/w and hyperbolic thinking from your side. If people like me criticize specific mechanisms, and even point out the flaws, we get labelled as wanting to throw our hands up in the air.
I abhor violence, am ashamed of the level of violence in the US and the world. And I am also very concerned about people using firearms and explosives to kill others. I can even say that while I am against the Drug War, I think drug use is generally unhealthy and there are needs to help people escape addiction.
What I don't see are realistic solutions. PROHIBITION HAS BEEN TRIED AND FAILED. VIOLENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN NOT TO BE TIED TO GUN OWNERSHIP. Now let's stop trying to fight wars (as if anything will ever be ended completely) and scapegoating, and actually look for reasonable ways to solve our problems.
I think this is a much more realistic and nuanced position.
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-13-2004 07:22 AM
This message has been edited by holmes, 07-13-2004 08:25 AM
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-13-2004 10:13 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
