• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 days ago

      Because the restriction was never going to reduce drug use. It does nothing to address addiction or treatment or the import of drugs.

      Where it was effective was reducing the number of local meth cooks in states where restrictions have been the tightest. Some people still cross state lines to buy pseudoephedrine, but then why not just cook in a state where it’s available?

      Make no mistake, the purpose of these restrictions are not to protect addicts from addictive substances. It was to protect property values for neighbors who don’t want to live in a cloud of piss.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 days ago

        Make no mistake, the purpose of these restrictions are not to protect addicts from addictive substances. It was to protect property values for neighbors who don’t want to live in a cloud of piss.

        Legalizing and then restricting the manufacture to industrial-zoned property (just like other smelly stuff like paper mills and whatnot) would’ve accomplished the same thing.

    • DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      I keep hearing about a meth and fentanyl epidemic, but as far as I’m aware, I haven’t met one person in my entire life that uses either of them.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        Come here to Terre Haute, Indiana. You’ll meet a whole lot of people addicted to meth and various opioids.

        It’s always fun when they decide to direct traffic.