Hey PinkMarabou and BCS -- Bring it here

The BBQ Pit
21

***** THE 1ST BCS POSTING WAS MINE. THE 2ND WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PINK, BUT I WAS STILL SIGNED IN. THIS POST AND ALL OTHERS WITH BITTERNESS COMES STANDARD WERE MINE*****

So can you specify what exactly, in any of my posts, makes me a condescending asshole?

If past posts are fair game, before you start correcting someone’s sentence structure, fix yours first. Not everybody can be perfect at writing and actually the second sentence in my post was far worse then misusing “nor”.

I don’t have very many posts because I “try” only to submit posts with some original content. Don’t take it as a slam to you or anyone, but if someone already said what I was thinking, then in a way my thoughts are in the board.

I didn’t sign up to attack people on the board and unfortunately you decided to attack me and because I wanted to post and only had a short period of time to do so. I didn’t have time to “research” your gender or any other posts you have made, except in that OP. You got the remark that in turn caused you to label me a gay basher, when no other posts of mine were anti-gay. Again I’m not anti-gay!

Plus it’s now obvious that Pink is my wife because she accidentally responded after I my earlier post without signing me out. So you took cheap shots at my significant other, and now I took one at yours. I apologize for thinking you might have been a female. Either way I have to remember my feisty wife can take care of herself and doesn’t need my protection. I knew what she was getting at and was just trying to help people put the away the “broad brush”. Her comments were misunderstood and she was pitted for it.

That doesn’t make it right, but it happened, and this board doesn’t allow me to edit my posts, or I would have removed my original response.

All I was saying before is what I said in the above thread. I “try” not to stereotype people or disagree with things based on not taking in consideration of both sides of the arguement. I will admit when I’m wrong and will even change my mind on a post I made after someone writes something that made me see the error of my way or after longer thought. I will always disagree with people who cannot see both sides. I find it ignorant. People can have their own opinions, we all do; all I ask people to do and not make things black and white. Even if you disagree with someone, that doesn’t mean you cannot see where he or she is coming from. I understand considering that this is not a real time chat that things written in the heat of the moment aren’t actually what the person meant to say. I understand that there are some people out there that think that if a person does drugs, whether constantly or very rarely, that they are scum. There are plenty of people who use many drugs that couldn’t find their ass if their head was stuck there. :slight_smile:

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a group of people that hide their drug use, that people would never imagine in a million years experiment every once in a while, because of the chance of having all the legitimate work they have accomplished in their life be ruined because of people passing judgment.

As far as us agreeing on some things…

I agreed with your OP about people changing the channel if they don’t like what’s on TV.

Anyway, the beauty of this board is reading opinions of all kinds of people. Sometimes it’s to see what I may be missing in my own opinion, other times it’s to reaffirm it. I’m not here to piss people off!

22

I just gotta love the way this all unfolded. I pit what appears to be two random posters and they turn out to be husband and wife. My comments about BCS taking a shot at my wife (SO) turn out to be foreshadowing in this little scuffle.

Ya gotta smile at the irony.

I’m still not sure where PinkMarabou and I have a past but I gotta tell you both, assholes or not, its entertaining.

23

Just to clear it up, this was the only thread that BCS and PM got logons mixed up.

I, Bitterness Comes Standard, wrote post #8, #21, and whatever number this ends up with.

Post #14 was supposed to be PM, but I was still logged in.

…And no I’m not a sock, but I do wear them.

24

Well, then what is your point? You appear to be coming to the defense of drug dealers and/or justifying their actions in some manner. I think that any attempt you could possibly make to justify the vilest type of antisocial behavior imaginable would fall on deaf ears. But why don’t you try singing it to this little girl?

25

Oh bullshit. How about child abusers? rapists? murderers? molesters? violent bank robbers? If you really think slinging drugs to willing adults is worse than these and countless other examples, you’re cracked.

Humans have been seeking out altered states of consciousness since the first caveman made himself a bucket full of beer. It’s certainly not something that’s going to change anytime in the forseeable future, despite your ridiculous demonizations.

26

You called drug dealing effortless. I told you why it wasn’t. That’s it. Anything else you read into it comes from your own fevered imagination.

27

Oh, and in case you hadn’t noticed, that’s another dangerous apartment meth lab that wouldn’t exist, and a dead girl that would still be alive, if the nasty crap was legal.

28

Just like Big Tabacco only sells to willing adults. :rolleyes:

29

Might be alive. Just because beer is legal doesn’t mean people don’t make it themselves. The girl died because stupid people made a really poor decision.

30

She’d almost definitely be alive, unless she happened to fall victim to some other freak occurrence, of which the odds are very low.

And you think people would still make their own beer if it the process made their whole apartment (and even adjoining ones) smell like cat piss, and carried a significant risk of blowing them to bits?

31

neutron, you have a point but consider this:

If meth were legal then it would undoubtedly be heavily regulated and taxed. So it’s likely that it would be made available in specific potencies and at a gov’t determined price. Therefore it seems to me that some folks would still want to get meth at a very high potency for a very low price – which would lead us again to illegal labs that are high risk for the community.

32

Sure, there will still be some people who insist on cooking their own meth. But the key, here, is that you outlaw the activity that is actually dangerous (making your own meth in a residential area) and not the activity that’s only dangerous to the person doing the activity (using meth).

Plus, the vast majority of meth users are just going to go with the store brand and buy a lot of it, rather than go through the hassel of setting up their own meth lab to cook up some stronger drugs, or finding someone who already has one and will sell to them. So even if decriminalization/legalization doesn’t eliminate the problem, it will still drastically reduce it.

33

Well, alcohol is taxed and regulated, but I’m not seeing too many reports of apartment stills exploding.

Methamphetamine is not an expensive drug to make. It’s already used in prescription medicines (Desoxyn).

34

Miller, you have a very good point. Without getting into a debate about whether the user is only causing damage to him or herself, I would agree that decriminalization would drastically reduce the potential danger to others in re: meth labs.

However, I do think there will still be more underground labs than you may have considered. I don’t think the gov’t would allow much range in potency, and so I would imagine that there will be a "consumer need’ for higher affects at the cheapest possible price. Am I wrong in thinking that meth users’ bodies (like other drug users) eventually grow immune to various levels and thus need either more of the drug or a higher potency?

Course, to be fair, it’s probably mostly the serious abusers that will always create some sort of danger – in their need to get the stuff cheap and powerful, and in their inability to hold down a job to get the funds to do so.

Anyway, as stated above, I certainly agree legalization would reduce the number of underground labs, thus reducing the threat to various communities. Still not sure about all the other affects of decriminalization, but that’s another debate for another day…

35

What, you’ve never been to the Blue Ridge Mountains…?

I keed, I keed…

36

Btw, here’s an interesting blog/article (?) discussing meth labs and their similarities to the old alcohol distilleries.

37

I call BS on the blog article in regards to

Moonshiners thrived well after prohibition ended. Now maybe they weren’t making “bathtub gin”, but to think that illegal distilleries were all but eradicated due to the end of prohibition is not correct.

Take Junior Johnson as just one of the more notable runners of moonshine decades after the end of prohibition.

I’ll not get into the debate of whether or not legalizing meth is a good idea, just to say that the blog cite is nothing but an opinion and conjecture.

38

Tolerance does build with meth, but addicts would likely just use a larger quantity of the less potent stuff. If they couldn’t afford larger quantities, they’d probably just steal them. Yeah, that’s bad, but it’s better than exploding apartments.

39

Just raising a point of technicality. Maybe a chemist could fight some ignorance here and clean up something for me. The way I understand it is that meth labs are processing the meth out of a product. They are not manufacturing meth.

So if it was legalized its quite possible that the bootleg method of creating a stronger dose would not require cooking cold medicine.

Is it the nature of meth that prompts the methshiner to use the dangerous methods or is it the nature of the rest of the cold ingredients?

I probably didn’t state this too well so I hope you get my point

40

Hey BubbaDog,

I don’t have too much time to go into it at this moment, but there are four common ways that meth is cooked up in a clandestine lab here in Australia, and they all start with drugs very similar to methamphetamine, not with methamphetamine itself. It’s probably easier for them to grab a box of pseudoephedrine-containing cold tablets off the shelf at the chemist than to get a prescription for a drug that contains methamphetamine, and then extract it from the drug. Plus, I imagine you’d get fairly low meth yields from a 30-day supply of a prescription drug - I don’t have any figures for methamphetamine handy, but I know that most pharmaceutical preparations of amphetamine have 5 - 100mg amphetamine in it, and the rest is just filler. It’s also harder to forge a prescription than it is to grab a couple boxes of Sudafed from each chemist in the city.

Many ingredients that are used in these four common methods are restricted, and their purchase is monitored. Clan labs still manage to find ways to get the stuff, because other reagents that could be used to manufacture meth are even harder to come by.

If methamphetamine was available over-the-counter or by prescription for recreational use, and someone just wanted to make it stronger, they’d have to either double their dose, or extract all the meth from the pills they have & repress it into fewer pills with greater meth content, or get additional methamphetamine from another source.

Sorry to be so brief, but I’m quite busy at the moment.