I am drugs.

February 9, 2005 9:00 PM

Crothersville, Indiana.John Neace forces himself to pass by the run-down apartment buildings every day. Inside, the police say, Mr. Neace's 10-year-old daughter stumbled on someone with methamphetamine last month. Her drowned body was found five days later at a nearby creek, small hands tied tightly behind her back.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket (48 comments total)

As a follow up to this thread on Oxycontin in Indiana, I must say I may have been wrong.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:01 PM on February 9, 2005

Interesting follow-up to this...
posted by docpops at 9:15 PM on February 9, 2005

If the penalties for making meth were minor, then there would have been no reason for these guys to kill her.
posted by delmoi at 9:35 PM on February 9, 2005

delmoi: if they guys making the meth were rational actors, weighing out consequences and weighing in empathy, they wouldn't have drowned a 5 year old in a creek.
posted by trinarian at 9:42 PM on February 9, 2005

Anyway, the only reason people turn to things like meth is because meth is easy to get ahold of, probably and always will be. If you could by safe recreational drugs at walmart along with your cigarettes and booze at market prices no one (or at least not many people) would take meth.

In it's pure form, even heroin isn't that harmful. extremely addictive, yes, but less addictive then cigarets.
posted by delmoi at 9:45 PM on February 9, 2005

delmoi: if they guys making the meth were rational actors, weighing out consequences and weighing in empathy, they wouldn't have drowned a 5 year old in a creek.

Well, obviously this guy was not too empathetic to do what he did, but don't tell me that someone would do the same thing to avoid a couple months probation that they would to avoid decades in prison.
posted by delmoi at 9:49 PM on February 9, 2005

Because obviously, addiction isn't harmful at all!
posted by Josh Zhixel at 9:49 PM on February 9, 2005

Addiction is obviously harmful. It is not obviously more harmful than the effects of failed prohibition. And make no mistake, our second (after alcohol) prohibition has most certainly failed. In fact, I believe the harmful effects of addiction are much, much less harmful than the terrible scourage that the "War on Drugs" has proved to be.
posted by Justinian at 9:53 PM on February 9, 2005

Because obviously, addiction isn't harmful at all!

What difference does it make if addiction is harmful or not? People who are desperately addicted to nicotine don't seem to have any problem living normal lives.

In any event, prohibition has no negative effect on the availability of addictive drugs, they only exacerbate the situation. There's nothing wrong with thinking the world would be a better place without drugs, but the fact is you can't just wish them away, and you can't get rid of them by banning them. I mean, drugs are no less available in south east asia where trafficking can result in a death penalty.
posted by delmoi at 9:56 PM on February 9, 2005

What difference does it make if addiction is harmful or not? People who are desperately addicted to nicotine don't seem to have any problem living normal lives.

Caffeine might have been a better example of your point. Smokers totally live normal lives! Well, aside from the ruined lungs, coughing fits, and CANCER.
posted by Josh Zhixel at 10:06 PM on February 9, 2005

>>If the penalties for making meth were minor, then there would have been no reason for these guys to kill her.

Delmoi: The reason penalties for meth are high is because it is incredibly destructive. Meth makes people really hideously violent

It destroys families and generally fucks with society...

If you cook meth, you should go to jail till you're too old to walk. Not cause it's going to rehabilitate you, not cause drugs are 'bad', but because it's the safest thing for society.

posted by login at 10:56 PM on February 9, 2005

small hands tied tightly behind her back

Oh man. Did you have to post such a horrible image right up there on the main page?

(This isn't a call-out. It's just that I was having a nice evening, and now I'm depressed.)
posted by painquale at 11:05 PM on February 9, 2005

According to an affidavit submitted by the F.B.I., Mr. Hickman told investigators that Katie saw people producing or using methamphetamine at the apartments, "so they decided to scare her with the hope that she would be intimidated enough to keep her observations to herself."

Rational actors or not, even meth-heads know that's there's no need to kill a ten year old who sees you smoking tobacco -- -- because tobacco is legal.

If meth were legalized -- and producing it were regulated, as production is dangerous --, these addicts could kill themselves without harming anyone else.

Hell, forget the meth, just hand out methadone to whomever wants it. If a junkie wants to quietly die in his own apartment (or abandoned rowhouse), let him. Sure addition's harmful -- but let it be harmful to the addict, not to innocent ten year olds.

A great chasm that separates conservative from liberal thought is that liberals tend to believe that every social problem can be solved, because humans are perfectible. Conservatives generally think certain social problems are intractable, and are much more willing to analyze cost and benefit ratios -- agreeing for instance that pollution is bad, but arguing no pollution is too costly, or that some unemployment is good for the economy.

So why is it that conservatives, who so often observe that tariffs and taxes -- not to mention outright prohibition -- are gotten around by black market entrepreneurs -- why can't they admit that drug use is a social ill that, no matter what we try, won't go away?

And why then not apply a cost-benefit analysis that brings us the least corruption of bad cops and deaths of good cops and drugs raids on the wrong houses and deaths of little girls at the hands of junkies scared of discovery?

How many lives must be flushed away in this futile war on drugs before we admit it has failed and we try something else?

How, law and order conservatives, is this not a fundamentally conservative argument?
posted by orthogonality at 11:07 PM on February 9, 2005

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make with this post. Yes, methamphetamines suck. Are you trying to say they cause people to kill little girls? Creepy guys were murdering little girls for centuries without the aid of meth.

Not to say that meth isn't a major problem. I live in Portland, Oregon and we're facing a meth-driven burglary wave. Should we throw non-violent drug users in jail on the grounds that they may commit a crime in the future? Research on successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Yes, illicit manufacturing is a problem. Building more prisons isn't a solution, it's a reaction.
posted by mullingitover at 11:08 PM on February 9, 2005

What's great is that so many people seem to have this assumption that, if we go ahead and just legalize all these drugs tomorrow, there will exist absolutely no social stigma about them.
posted by Josh Zhixel at 11:11 PM on February 9, 2005

What's great is that so many people seem to have this assumption that, if we go ahead and just legalize all these drugs tomorrow, there will exist absolutely no social stigma about them.

Did anyone say that?

The gist I got from MeFites was that "if we go ahead and just legalize all these drugs tomorrow, there will exist absolutely no" need to murder children who see them in the act of doing something drug-related.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:23 PM on February 9, 2005

I saw just tonight on the local news here in Vancouver that volunteers are being recruited to participate in a six month study wherein heroin addicts will be supplied with the drug for free. They interviewed a few people on the street, most of whose response was "oh this is wrong, you're just feeding their addiction" etc.. I was left wondering what the downside to this was: any of the participants would not be breaking into my car for the change in the glove compartment; from their point of view they wouldn't be shooting up in alleys and would (according to the professed aims of the study) have a chance to get off the drug if they were so motivated.

On the other hand, one might argue that drugs are bad and people who take them should go to jail, whatever the ensuing costs may be...
posted by Turtles all the way down at 11:28 PM on February 9, 2005

This isn't a call-out. It's just that I was having a nice evening, and now I'm depressed.

Ditto. The last 3 paras are heart wrenching.


"She apparently swung by the People's Bank to grab a lollipop, and stopped at the Penn Villa apartments to tell a resident that a dog had been hit by a train on the adjacent track.

She never came back."


She was trying to be a good citizen and all.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:30 PM on February 9, 2005

Drug legalization would not only save police and prison systems hundreds of millions per year, but increase government income from taxes. Illegal drug profits now go to fund organized crime, gangs and maybe even terrorism. Drug related violence and gang activity would fall sharply without drugs and drug selling terroritorial disputes. People who do choose to abuse drugs would have access to clean product, and we could focus on rehabilitation instead of incarceration.

Does anyone here strongly believe the drug war is justified and should continue? If so, why? Honest question.

1 out of 110 males are currently in jail in the US, the highest rate of incarceration of any country. About half of them are there for drug offenses.
posted by sophist at 11:34 PM on February 9, 2005

Research on successful drug policy shows that treatment should be increased, and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Isn't that sentence verbatim from a system of the down song?

A great chasm that separates conservative from liberal thought is that liberals tend to believe that every social problem can be solved, because humans are perfectible. Conservatives generally think certain social problems are intractable, and are much more willing to analyze cost and benefit ratios

I think this is a rather strange view of what it means to be liberal or conservative. I certainly don't think humans are perfectible, but I defines do hate Bush.

The problem with the WOD has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. Howard Dean was big into the war on drugs before he ran for president and found out his base was mostly pot-smoking collage students¹, and there are plenty of old-school conservatives who support unrestricted capitalism2 who think the WOD is just bad economics, since it opposes the free market.

Personally, I just think we should do whatever's practical. It's pretty obvious that the war on drugs is completely impractical.

What's great is that so many people seem to have this assumption that, if we go ahead and just legalize all these drugs tomorrow, there will exist absolutely no social stigma about them.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? We should keep drugs illegal because of social stigma? Should we ban the gay, too? 20-year sentences for butt-fucking anyone?

<sub>1) I live in Iowa, and voted for dean in the Caucuses, before the election I asked the president of ISU students for dean what his position was on the WOD, the girl got all deflated and said “he's all for the war on drugs”. Later in the campaign he seemed more pro-pot legalization.

2) now, ironically unrestricted capitalism is a 'liberal' economy, as opposed to the kind of heavy government intervention in trade you saw before the 1700s. The terms are all very confused. These days, when someone says liberal, they usually are talking about social liberalism, which can mean everything from being pro-drugs, to being a hard-core PC zealot. There are lots of liberals who wholeheartedly support the war on drugs, it's all a mater of control. Authoritarian Conservatives want to control you in one way, and Authoritarian Liberals want to control you in another. *sigh*</sub>
posted by delmoi at 11:37 PM on February 9, 2005

Does anyone here strongly believe the drug war is justified and should continue? If so, why? Honest question.
I've linked this a few times here... you've forced me to link it again...

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.008.gif
posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:40 PM on February 9, 2005

How is legalizing meth going to fix the problem? Look at alcohol. It's legal and people get murdered, beaten, abused, commit suicide or commit other crimes while using the substance, people go to jail because of acts done while under the influence of alcohol and it's taxed and creates revenue for government.
posted by squeak at 12:26 AM on February 10, 2005

This is my local news. Everyone was hoping to find Katie before the ass who had abducted her could harm her. We all thought it had to be a stranger. We talked about how when we were kids it was safe to walk alone. We all felt the shock of finding Katie was dead. Then another shock that it was a local boy who had killed her. For no reason. She was not a threat. It was known that meth was in that building.

I honestly can't believe all the posturing I'm reading about addiction and the "war" on drugs.

The basic fact of the post: an adult murdered a ten year old.

It had nothing to do with legalizing or not legalizing drugs.

If you truly believe that then spend a few years working with addicts. Learn something about drugs, their addictive properties and their effects on the human mind.

If you don't want to spend the time I'll give it to you simply. When you are taking certain chemicals you find you are unable to think clearly, logically, or with empathy. This happens whether the drug was legal or illegal.

When you lose these basic abilities you do stupid harmful things. You do these stupid harmful things whether the drug was legal or illegal.

I'll remind you of the the basic fact of the post: an adult murdered a ten year old.
posted by ?! at 1:38 AM on February 10, 2005

It had nothing to do with legalizing or not legalizing drugs.

Says you. Plenty of people here have put forward interesting arguments which would not agree with that statement.



If you truly believe that then spend a few years working with addicts. Learn something about drugs, their addictive properties and their effects on the human mind.

Why addicts? What about people who take drugs occasionally and function well within society? And would addicts be addicts if certain drugs weren't illegal and "shameful" and couldn't be used and/or discussed in open company?



If you don't want to spend the time I'll give it to you simply. When you are taking certain chemicals you find you are unable to think clearly, logically, or with empathy. This happens whether the drug was legal or illegal.

And I'll give it to you simply: Some people taking certain chemicals DON'T find that they are unable to think clearly, logically, or with empathy.

What a hysterical post.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 2:46 AM on February 10, 2005

It had nothing to do with legalizing or not legalizing drugs.

It's worth discussing drug laws if you think drug laws, as much as or more than drug use, are to blame for deaths like this kid's, but it's impossible to know unless alternatives are tried. It would be better to stop the arguing and start experimenting with drug laws.

US states should be permitted to try different approaches and see what works. If one state legalized drugs and the results were positive, other states would be encouraged to try it. If the results were negative, other states would know better than to mess about with it. If the voters of Utah wanted to become a completely dry state (no cigarettes, alcohol, caffeine, marijuana, etc.), that would be up to them. If California decided to try a much more open approach, they could do it. Whether you were for or against legalization or decriminalization or prohibition or whatever, there would be a place for you to live, especially if more people like you moved there and kept the laws friendly to your beliefs. The right system would evolve.
posted by pracowity at 3:18 AM on February 10, 2005

Mr. Neace, whose $14.75-an-hour factory job barely covers the $400 monthly rent on his trailer

just a side nit-pick ... i don't think someone did their math very well or got all the details right
posted by pyramid termite at 4:40 AM on February 10, 2005

I'm normally an anti-death penalty, regulate drugs, rehab not prison sort of person, but with cases like this I sometimes wonder...

If I were on the jury (and I won't be unless they change venues to the other side of the state), I might actually be convinced to do to vote for death.

Does anybody who think that legalization and regulation will actually have a real impact on the average junkie? As a rational person, I can see the benefits of having a "safe" way to feed my habit. However, who would trust the government to take care of the users? Why wouldn't the "market" undercut the government's prices? If you want to give it to them free then you might want to think about that...who in their right mind is going to pay taxes so junkies can shoot up?

I propose a simpler solution: Regulate drugs, you're an addict you can get what you need if you check in to a clinic, where they'll monitor what you take and help you kick the habit. If you're convicted of a drug related offense...you're going to a secure rehab center (not prison, just someplace you can't walk out of). You'd be stuck in the rehab for several years, where you would not only get the chance to clean up, but also learn trade skill or distance education. If you're convicted of selling drugs illegally, all funds seized pay for your time in prison, and good luck getting out in less than 20 years and a lifetime of probation (you're caught around drugs again you go back for life).

Maybe that is a bit harsh, but I don't think that the average drug user is too much of the problem, but if they are destructive to others (as most that I know are), they need help in getting clean. If you're pushing, I have no sympathy for you, have fun in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison for a long, long time.
posted by Numenorian at 6:20 AM on February 10, 2005

Does anybody who think that legalization and regulation will actually have a real impact on the average junkie?

I do.

Bring the prices down to a level they can afford without burglary. Even make it free, as a better and cheaper alternative to prison or, until you catch them, lots of crime to support their expensive addiction. (How much would an LSD habit cost if the seller manufactured in quantity and sold at cost?)

Make addicts not so desperately afraid that they're going to be sent away for years and years with a lot of hard guys just because they do to themselves what drinkers do to themselves on government-sanctioned alcohol every day.

I think a lot of people get angry at the thought of paying taxes just to make things easy on addicts, so talk of leniency and rehabilitation bothers them, but then they pay huge taxes to house and feed these people in prison for half their lives.
posted by pracowity at 7:32 AM on February 10, 2005

pracowity, the thing is, prison is probably cheaper than rehabilitation. An official policy to rehabilitate drug addicts would be fantastically expensive. And the libertarian legalization argument doesn't apply because legalized drugs, like pollution and alcohol, would have many external costs that aren't carried by the sellers. Part of me thinks the WOD may in fact be the most economically viable means for dealing with the drug problem. I figure for most law enforcement types someone like Katie is written off as collateral damage.
posted by nixerman at 7:49 AM on February 10, 2005

nixerman: don't be such an obvious troll.
posted by delmoi at 8:00 AM on February 10, 2005

pracowity:

The market couldn't 'undercut' the government, the street price of drugs like coke and heroin are hundreds of times the actual production cost.
posted by delmoi at 8:01 AM on February 10, 2005

"When are taking certain chemicals you find you are unable to think clearly, logically, or with empathy. This happens whether the drug was legal or illegal."

Right! Therefore we should ban alcohol, prescription drugs that have brain/mental effects or side-effects (such as antidepressants, opiate painkillers, sedatives and tranquilizers, antiepileptics, etc.), nonprescription drugs that have brain/mental effects or side-effects (like caffeine, decongestants, antihistamines, cough medicines, and many herbal preparations). In fact, any time any substance is known to have such an effect on the mind or brain it must be outlawed, including but not limited to fertilizers, solvents, vapors from plastics factories, diesel exhaust, and rubber cement.

Anyone making, trafficking, using or possessing a double mocha latte should be sentenced to life without parole!
posted by davy at 9:02 AM on February 10, 2005

Bring the prices down to a level they can afford without burglary. Even make it free, as a better and cheaper alternative to prison or, until you catch them, lots of crime to support their expensive addiction. (How much would an LSD habit cost if the seller manufactured in quantity and sold at cost?)

Ok, so we get average joe taxpayer to agree to this. You still have problems with what happens after the trip and the need for more to deal with.

Bottom line for me is responsibility: If you want to be reasonably responsible with some sort of drug/alcohol/coffee addiction that's fine. When you are irresponsible that is when trouble happens.

There are 2 kinds of crazy: The kind of fella who runs out in the woods with his clothes off and barks at the moon and the guy who does it in your living room. I don't care much about the first guy, the second, you sort of have to deal with.

I think that sort of sentiment works well for your average 'merican.
posted by Numenorian at 10:19 AM on February 10, 2005

uncanny hengeman: The post was about a man who murdered a child. I thought the conversation had forgotten that point. I still do.

Addiction isn't always about what you take, when you take it, or how much you take. It's about how you handle your life taking the drug. If you know anything about addicts you know there are addicts to completely "legal, non-shameful" drugs. I'll stand by that legality does not premit or forbid addiction.

You said "Some people taking certain chemicals DON'T find that they are unable...." And one of those people committed this murder? It was the act of a rational, logical, empathic person? The mere fact I said "some" showed I understood all chemicals and all people did not figure into the sentence.

hysterical: "marked by excessive or uncontrollable emotion" I'll buy excessive. You at least got that one right. Discussions about murdered children tends to bring out the excessive in me.
posted by ?! at 10:58 AM on February 10, 2005

pracowity: "It's worth discussing drug laws if you think drug laws, as much as or more than drug use, are to blame for deaths like this kid's, but it's impossible to know unless alternatives are tried. It would be better to stop the arguing and start experimenting with drug laws."

Hear. Hear.

I would say it is time to remove all laws concerning all recreational drugs. It's time to concentrate on finding alternatives for the vast majority who are unable to handle drug use.

Let's face it. Some people can drink a beer or two and stop. Others can't. The same is true for people who smoke cigarettes or pot. There are those who will do a line of coke and not take another. (OK, they're pretty rare.) But there are also those who will squeeze sterno through a loaf of bread to get a high.

Drug laws are about money and control. Not about people. Filling prisons with addicts, those who are grabbing for a quick buck, and the occasional innocent is killing the USA.

The US War on Drugs is lost. Let's bring the boys home.
posted by ?! at 11:08 AM on February 10, 2005

davy: "Anyone making, trafficking, using or possessing a double mocha latte should be sentenced to life without parole!"

Reductio ad absurdum couched as sarcasm. And, you missed the point.
posted by ?! at 11:19 AM on February 10, 2005

Best of the web?
posted by Luther Blissett at 11:58 AM on February 10, 2005

davy: "Anyone making, trafficking, using or possessing a double mocha latte should be sentenced to life without parole!"

Reductio ad absurdum couched as sarcasm. And, you missed the point.
posted by ?!

No, Punctuation Person, I did not miss the point. The point was that "illegal drugs" ought to be illegal because they negatively affect people's minds; I pointed out that LOTS of things do that.
posted by davy at 1:05 PM on February 10, 2005

I demand medicinal methamphetamine for children.

Oh, wait, we already have that.
posted by telstar at 2:19 PM on February 10, 2005

Part of me thinks the WOD may in fact be the most economically viable means for dealing with the drug problem.

Would that part be the ass you're talking out of? Because nothing is more expensive than the "war on drugs" except maybe the "war on terror," another unwinnable "war."

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has a lots of interesting statistics on drug charges. In the US, something like 25 percent of all federal prison inmates and 40 percent of all state prison inmates are there on drug-related crimes. That's expensive.

Break the criminal link -- make drugs legal and cheap -- and you no longer have the connection between drugs and bad guys fighting for illegal profits and you no longer have inflated prices that drive addicts to commit robbery.

Convert those unnecessary prison costs -- 40 percent of state prison beds and 25 percent of federal prison beds -- to rehab programs. Meanwhile, if drugs legal and cheap, if an addict can get heroin for less than you can get a cup of coffee, a lot of mafia types will have lost a major source of money.
posted by pracowity at 2:27 PM on February 10, 2005

The Economist on the case for legalization.
posted by jcruelty at 3:14 PM on February 10, 2005

Speaking of heroin, the City of Vancouver (BC) ran a program which provided injection drug users a place to shoot up, with free hygenic needles and nurses on-staff to assist.

It was a smashing success: a lot of addicts became comfortable enough with the nurses to ask for help in beating their addiction.

It's not like very many people want to be hopelessly drug-addicted. It's that they don't know how to get their shit together enough to take the first steps in beating it. Given the chance, they'll do it... but we have to carefully design an environment that gives them that chance.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:29 PM on February 10, 2005

In the same issue of the Economist in which jcruelty's linked article was published, there was a longer survey of illegal drugs and the associated industry.
posted by Gyan at 4:45 PM on February 10, 2005

fff: "we have to carefully design an environment that gives them that chance." Very good point. We had needle programs in the 80s that didn't go far enough, but seemed promising. It often seems Canadian's are more willing to try to help rather than punish. How long ago was that program?


davy: You quoted a sentence of mine: "When (you) are taking certain chemicals you find you are unable to think clearly, logically, or with empathy. This happens whether the drug was legal or illegal."

You explained: "The point was that "illegal drugs" ought to be illegal because they negatively affect people's minds."

Look closer: "This happens whether the drug was legal or illegal." Obviously, this does not say anything should be illegal. This states that the legality of the drug does not factor into its effect on the person.

So, yes, Letter Person, you missed the point. You're welcome to try again.
posted by ?! at 6:42 PM on February 10, 2005

needle exchange in 1989.

safe injection opened in September 2003. It remains open.

It works.

It really works.

It's catching on.

As a nation, Canada often has it's shit together really well when it comes for making the country provide the best potential good for everyone.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:09 PM on February 10, 2005

?!: This states that the legality of the drug does not factor into its effect on the person.

Sounds obviously true, but it's not.

MDMA has been linked to serotonergic neurotoxicity, primarily on the basis of animal studies, via proxy indicators like levels of 5-HIAA and the like. Some other metrics like GFAP don't indicate neurotoxicity. Anyway, in studies with rhesus monkeys, who during an 18-month period, were allowed to voluntarily self-administer MDMA (and other drugs) showed no signs of neurotoxicity. It is generally mentioned only with regard to psychedelics, but set & setting, apply to all agents that interact with, and modulate consciousness. Because such agents are illegal, their consumption occurs within a (deviant) subculture. A subculture which isn't totally, or necessarily even predominantly, defined only by the effects of the intoxicant, but also by the prevailing attitudes toward it, its 'forbidden fruit' allure, its symbolism as a tool of rebellion..etc. Environment plays a huge role in the gross lifestyle and even acute effects of drug consumption, even among rodents.
posted by Gyan at 7:39 PM on February 10, 2005

http://www.psyweb.com/Drughtm/jsp/desoxyn.jsp

Methamphetamine ( Desoxyn ) an amphetamine used to treat narcolepsy and attention-deficit-disorder in children. In some cases but rare this drug is used to treat depression.

wow
posted by delmoi at 10:02 PM on February 10, 2005

Desoxyn rarely gets prescribed now, not because it isn't effective in certain settings, but because of the stigma accociated with 'meth' itself. Moral panic?
posted by Thoth at 3:50 AM on February 11, 2005