Barack Obama, Outsourcer of Good-Paying Meth Lab Cook Jobs to Mexico!

Nick Gillespie | February 6, 2007

Over at LeftIndependent, Pat Rogers points out that presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was one of the co-sponsors of The Combat Meth Act, whose chief effects have been to make it more difficult to buy cold medicines--and to juice up Mexican drug cartels:

On his "crime" issue page U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has this to say about the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005.

Crime
"Senator Obama cosponsored the Combat Meth Act, which provides more money for fighting methamphetamine (meth), tightens controls on the sale of meth ingredients, and provides assistance to the children of meth abusers."

I can just hear the fool thumping his chest in macho self-gratification for having supported that delusion.

Bridget Johnson, Los Angeles Daily News, in her opinion piece Pseudophedrine restrictions a boon to Mexican cartels reported on 02/03/2007 the government's own National Drug Intelligence Center's assessment of the "success" of Obama's Combat Meth Act

"According to the National Drug Intelligence Center's 2007 National Drug Threat Assessment, "Marked success in decreasing domestic methamphetamine production through law enforcement pressure and strong precursor chemical sales restrictions has enabled Mexican (drug trafficking organizations) to rapidly expand their control over methamphetamine distribution - even in eastern states - as users and distributors who previously produced the drug have sought new, consistent sources." (National Drug Threat Assessment 2007)

Emphasis and links in the original. Rogers notes that three other Democratic presidential candidates--Sens. Joe Biden (Del.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), and Christopher Dodd (Conn.)--are also proud co-sponsors of the Meth act.

Read more here.

Comments

|2.6.07 @ 4:36PM|#

For his next trick, Barack will ask to repeal the PATRIOT Act, withdrawing the troops from Iraq, and giving me a pony.

Because the liberaltarians say so.

|2.6.07 @ 4:47PM|#

It's like welfare for Mexican drug lords.

|2.6.07 @ 4:54PM|#

Well, that's one more reason not to vote for him. As if his memoir wasn't enough.

|2.6.07 @ 4:55PM|#

Nick,

You should have asked Weigel to post this to give some red meat to the Weigel-is-a-Democrat-fluffer crowd.

Warren|2.6.07 @ 5:00PM|#

As if there were presidential contenders that didn't thump their chest over the War On Some Drugs.

|2.6.07 @ 5:10PM|#

I just recovered from a nasty flu. I'm more pissed that people like Obama have slowed down my recovery, thanks to the fact that no cold and flu medication available at my supermarket works anymore. Even if a Democrat was the Lesser Evil in the upcoming election, this is reason enough to vote against said candidate.

|2.6.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Sadly, I must ask: Is there anyone with a serious chance of winning who's better on the WosD than Obama?

|2.6.07 @ 6:31PM|#

The Republicans are worse.

Paul|2.6.07 @ 6:43PM|#

The drug war is here to stay...

Hmm, I wonder how many times I have to type that in every "hey, another drug war outrage" thread before I get banned?

|2.6.07 @ 6:57PM|#

We're fighting the methlords over there, so we won't have to fight them over here!

They want to make our womenfolk wear headscarves and impose their jittery laws! Something must be done!

Pat|2.6.07 @ 7:32PM|#

TO: Paul | February 6, 2007, 6:43pm |

I don't think Libertarians are likely to ban you. Saying that just demonstrates your ignorance of the people you are talking AT.

You are too valuable as a vacuous counter-point. Nothing proves a drug policy reform argument better than having someone like you show up and offer your best. Thank you.

|2.6.07 @ 8:32PM|#

More likely, Obama hastened the inevitable. After all, the Mexican Drug cartels are making a higher quality product at a lower price. I'm just sorry I missed the Lee Iacocca If-you-can-find-a-better-meth-than-mine,-buy-it ad phase

|2.6.07 @ 8:48PM|#

N.A.F.T.A !!!!!

SpaceBass|2.6.07 @ 9:36PM|#

Lamar, you have shown us just how unintelligent America truly is. Stopping the inflow of a crucial ingredient in the most damaging drug going through the suburbs is smart. Personally, I'm tired of reading about meth labs blowing up in my city. Or yours, for that matter.

How this is 'welfare for mexican drug lords' seems to be lost on me. I see no subsidies for the cartels...I do for oil, despite several years of world record profits.

|2.6.07 @ 9:48PM|#

Personally, I'm tired of reading about meth labs blowing up in my city. Or yours, for that matter.

Hey, I agree with you. So let's address the root cause, the government's oulawing of amphetamines!

Repeal the fucking law, and let those who want the buzz go and buy it at CVS instead of trying to cook a replacement product in their homes.

It's kind of comical how the govenrment bans something, creates a black market, tries to ban that, creating an even bigger black market, tries to fight that, creating an even bigger...

Of course, we libertarians are unintelligent for pointing out that history has repeatedly shown that prohibition is a bad idea.

Pat|2.6.07 @ 10:43PM|#

TO: SpaceBass | February 6, 2007, 9:36pm

"How this is 'welfare for mexican drug lords' seems to be lost on me. I see no subsidies for the cartels..."

If you had read the essay you would have the answer to that question.

Writing laws that give the cartels an entirely new product line, without any significant legal regulation and absolutely no taxes, is not a subsidy? A new product line in a $ 144 billion U.S. retail industry.

I too am tired of the dangers of meth labs andeven more so I am tired of the increasing and increasingly violent crime in my urban community because drugs are illegal and ever more lucrative.

I am also tired of the fact that literally dozens of stateless terrorist armies like al Qaida are skimming operating cash off of those billions.

The fact that bin Laden is also able to use Afghan heroin as an asymmetric weapon directed at the children of the west to destabilize western culture doesn't make me too happy about your drug warriors either.

And lets not forget the fact that bin Laden's mass media home-grown terrorist cook books advise people to operate independent of alQaida using drug profits and the other black market amenities like gun running to facilitate actions. That is the model they discovered in Madrid and that they suspect in the London bombs.

The Mexican cartels are actually the least of my national security and public safety worries about the disaster known as the drug war.

If the morals of your community, like mine, say that kids should not get access to drugs then stop giving these amoral addicts, gangsters and social predators the exclusive market to sell drugs. The dysfunctional drug market today reflects the level of regulation imposed on the market. No regulation amounts to total dysfunction.

This is the example that proves that over-regulation stifles profitable and growing markets. This market has no regulation and it is the most profitable in the nation. And its growing exponentially.

|2.6.07 @ 11:37PM|#

Forget the common cold.
Osama Obama has to be for something.
cHillary is watching out for the children.
Who's going to be against being against this?

If they would cure the common cold
then they could outlaw all cold meds.

Simple solutions are easy to conceive,
but not so easy to achieve.

|2.6.07 @ 11:51PM|#

Doesn't The Combat Meth Act sound like something you would pass to make sure that Our Fighting Forces had a good supply of methamphetamine to take into battle?

As an admitted former drug user, one would hope that Obama would realize the futility of the WoSD. Unfortunately, I presume he figures that supporting stupid laws like this will immunize him from accusations that he is "soft on drugs." He could also be a true believer in drug prohibition, a not unknown stance of "reformed sinners."

Kevin

|2.7.07 @ 12:55AM|#

I think you fail to recognize some of the other benefits of the Combat Meth Act. Even if demand for methamphetamine did not decline, clandestine labs (which is what it was meant to target) pose their own problems.

For every pound of meth produced, they produce around 7 pounds of toxic chemicals. These are often just poured down drains, polluting water supplies and killing wildlife. Furthermore, the proliferation of clandestine labs has a serious affect on public safety. In addition to the possibility of an explosion, these labs produce chemicals contaminate nearby areas (such as neighboring houses).

These chemicals have incredibly damaging affects on children, who are often in the houses where meth is made. And even when these labs shut down, the chemicals can remain in the carpets, walls, and air vents for years, affecting those who purchase the homes (often unknowingly).

Cleanup is also very expensive, with bare costs around a few thousand dollars per site.

So, does the Combat Meth Act completely solve the meth problem...no. Does it decrease demand for meth...maybe, maybe not. But does it propose a solution to a very real and costly problem...THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING YES.

Paul|2.7.07 @ 12:55AM|#

Saying that just demonstrates your ignorance of the people you are talking AT.

You are too valuable as a vacuous counter-point. Nothing proves a drug policy reform argument better than having someone like you show up and offer your best. Thank you.

How's your shrinkingexpanding drug war working out for you in light of your response?

I've got my libertarian bona fides locked in, so I'm not worried about that.

Perhaps, Pat, if you thought a little longer and harder about why I type that message, and what other subtle events are occurring which are seemingly unrelated to the Drug War(tm) as Libertarians (and libertarians) know it, you'd have that "moment of clarity" and realize that The Drug War now has tendrils in every aspect where the "public health" is concerned.

Let me drop any pretense of subtlety for you. I don't want to be right about my assertions about the drug war, but unfortunately there's no indication that I'm wrong. In fact, there's every indication that I may be more correct than I know.

|2.7.07 @ 1:38AM|#

Uhh...guys....It's for the children, OK?

Fred|2.7.07 @ 5:42AM|#

yeah, Dave...A-OK!

|2.7.07 @ 6:11AM|#

jacc:

We haven't "solved" any environmental problems with the Combat Meth Act. We've just dumped them on our less prosperous neighbors.

Kevin

|2.7.07 @ 7:53AM|#

jacc:

Legalizing it, putting regulation & control under the FDA, EPA, whomever, would also solve those problems.

Pat|2.7.07 @ 10:00AM|#

TO: Ironchef | February 7, 2007, 7:53am

Isn't it amazing. Most all of the regulatory institutions exist today to solve the problems that drug warriors attribute to drug use. Problems that are actually caused by the prohibitionists lack of confidence in the democratic institutions of regulation.

No regulation is perfect. But in a democracy regulation just that comfort zone or common ground between people like the prohibs who have not trust or confidence in basic freedom and liberty and those of us who have every respect for freedom and liberty. Regulation is, I believe, what makes democracy work.

|2.7.07 @ 10:27AM|#

I'm tired of hearing clandestine distilleries exploding around my neighborhood; I'm tired of the increasingly violent actions by criminal gangs funded through illicit alcohol sales. (shakes fist in righteous indignation and invokes "the children").

|2.7.07 @ 10:41AM|#

I'm from Iowa, the former meth capital of the US, and one of the first to restrict psudoephedrine, and almost overnight the meth production problem in this state decreased drastically. Personally, the replacement drug they use now is not as affective for me, but by simply going to the pharmacy counter, I can get good, old-fashioned psudoephedrine if I need it.

Now, don't get me wrong, I know full well that the War on Drugs has failed. I fully support legalization of most "narcotics," but Meth is different. Meth doesn't just destroy individuals, it destroys families, children, communities, and spoils the environment. What this law (and the Combat Meth Act) has done is take the burdon of policing from the state (already streched to the maximum) to the feds who have more money, time, and manpower. Is it an ideal solution? Of course not, but until our society wakes up and deals with the underlying cause of drug addiction (poverty, depression, etc), we who live in states that are plagued by meth have to get help any way we can.

|2.7.07 @ 10:50AM|#

I'm just tired of having to show my driver's license at the drug/grocery store to get pseudoephedrine. For 20 friggin' years we didn't think there was anything wrong with this drug until we found out kids were making meth in their garages and thus taking money away from well deserving drug companies.

Its also annoying that the stores are afraid to stock the pseudo-e (they always seem to be conveniently out when I have a sinus infection) since the FDA will slam them if they slip up once and fail to collect all the "required information".

In this next presidential election, can we just vote "no" and leave the White House vacant for 4 years? I'm tired of these jack-azzes.

|2.7.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Oh yeah, and is NOBODY going to mention how effective prohibition was at stopping the flow of alcohol from the Bahamas and Canada? You wouldn't know Al Capone's name if it wasn't for the "war on alchohol" that was so effective at the beginning of the last century.

FDR is my favorite president simply because in 1933 he signed the bill to allow the sale of beer.

And while I'm ranting like a barking dog, I STRONGLY believe that if you are old enough to die for your country in some foreign hell hole, by god you are old enough to drink a beer. And none of this 3.2 crap either.

|2.7.07 @ 11:53AM|#

I fully support legalization of most "narcotics," but Meth is different.

Gee, never heard that one before. Except in the 80s, except replace Meth with Crack.

Or prior to that, replace with Heroin

Or prior to that, replace with Opium

Or prior to that, replace with Marijuana

....

Yes, yes, the idea that all those other drugs that we used to think were completely evil has since been de-bunked, but this time we MEAN IT! Meth is the devil! It will destroy us all!

|2.7.07 @ 1:54PM|#

I think we should encourage the production of ever stronger meth, so the nitwits that use it will die more quickly and cease being a burden on the rest of us. I believe the police call it the "self-cleaning oven."

Chad Okere|2.8.07 @ 12:53AM|#

Man, drug-loving conservatives bashing Obama for cracking down on Meth? I'm so confused.

Obviously, people who oppose the war on drugs would prefer meth to be made in higher quality labs, in order to cut down on impurities, right? It seems like Mexican meth would be higher quality then stuff cookied up on trailer stoves by tweeking rednecks, right?

So you should be happy about this law.