Where exactly did I imply that "Bush wanted to raise the heroin supply"? Actually I did no such thing, but it is easy to see why you are ducking the issue of Bush not finishing the job in Afghanistan and rushing into Iraq. Oh well, if you can't respond, evade.

Both the consequences of meth legislation and those ensuing from the lack of follow thru in Afghanistan are examples of the law of unintended consequences, something that has been repeated over and over in the realm of illegal drugs and the effort to control them

When Nixon essentially sealed the Mexican border against pot smuggling in the early 70s, the unintended consequence was the cocaine boom of the 70s.

You might want to do a bit more reading on this important subject instead of viewing it simply as a vehicle to move your own agenda forward.

Oh yea, the "amused" thing makes you sound like a bit of a stuffed shirt...

You are one of the most vitriolic commenters on OTB, so your complaints about name calling simply amuse me.

This suggests that you really don’t know much about how the manufacturing & distribution of illegal drugs works, you are just copy and pasting the meth story because it makes some prominent Democrats look bad. Your concern about drug abuse is touching…

As for Afghanistan, perhaps if Bush had FINISHED THE JOB there, instead of rushing headlong into Iraq, which was not, but is now, a terrorist state, this huge supply of opium could have been curtailed. Of course, you won’t cop to this, because it would make Bush look bad. Once again, your concern about drug abuse is touching.

This is just a load of Bravo Sierra. Your implication that Bush wants an increase in the supply of heroin doesn't even pass the giggle test.

With Obama and psuedoephedrine there was plenty of evidence/warnings suggesting that the Combat Meth Act would do damn little save accomplish the things I've already noted. So I repeat myself, the two situations are not analogous and thus not a valid criticism.

Do I want Barack Obama to look bad? Yes, yes I do. Not simply because he is a Democrat, but because he sponsors idiotic legislation like this.

Can you try replying to a post without name calling? The name calling thing is something that most of us outgrow by the time we are 20, so if you are going to post on a major blog, you might want to think about growing up a bit.

> I was vaguely aware of Afghanistan and the poppy farming there.

This suggests that you really don't know much about how the manufacturing & distribution of illegal drugs works, you are just copy and pasting the meth story because it makes some prominent Democrats look bad. Your concern about drug abuse is touching...

As for Afghanistan, perhaps if Bush had FINISHED THE JOB there, instead of rushing headlong into Iraq, which was not, but is now, a terrorist state, this huge supply of opium could have been curtailed. Of course, you won't cop to this, because it would make Bush look bad. Once again, your concern about drug abuse is touching.

Tell me, are you as outraged by the fact that Afghanistan is supplying the lion’s share of the world’s opium? Probably not, no political hay to be made from that information…

You know anjin-san that is just stupid. What, am I supposed to blog about everything every single time. I was vaguely aware of Afghanistan and the poppy farming there. The difference is I don't think Bush went into Afghanistan with the express purpose of increasing the amount of heroin available for consumption. He might have been aware of it, but my guess is he considered going after the Club Med for terrorists was more important. Definitely a trade off.

So I don't see the two situations as all that analogous. There were plenty of warnings that making ephedrine and psuedoephedrine harder to get legally would do little to the meth supply, would likely hand over more control of the meth market to large drug organizations which would improve both distribution and the quality of meth and make average U.S. citizens less able to treat their cold and allergies and in some cases turn them into criminals.

OK, so you’re voting for Ron Paul, right?

Probably...or Lyndon LaRouche for shits and giggles.

The other problem is our loss of even the simple liberties like taking medicine to heal ourselves. Rather than accept the fact that there are not cures to all the world's problems lawmakers took away an effective medicine popular with the public. Sure, it's back there behind the counter but the inconvenience results in fewer sales and a pharmacy that may choose not to carry it any longer since it doesn't sell very well.

In order to punish a few our leaders have punished many.

I was trying to get my kids plain Sudafed liquid last night, but no good -- all they had was the combo w/ antihistamine etc.

The administration and some law enforcement groups are at odds over whether the proposed federal bud...

Many of these laboratories--primarily operated by Mexican criminal groups--relocated to Mexico, where bulk quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are more available. However, some Mexican criminal groups have remained in the United States to produce methamphetamine in superlabs, particularly in California, that accounted for 30 of 35 reported superlab seizures in 2005.

NoZe,

Isn’t this true of the criminalization of any narcotic? Production and distribution comes under the control of criminal operations, potency increases, and drug supplies are unaffected?

That sounds about right, but you'd have to ask somebody like Mark Kleiman.