Vent about limits on buying Sudafed

[disney1990]

Leave it to the lawmakers to mess things up. It's like the old saying, when guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

Well, law abiding citizens cannot purchase the medication that they need. But, I don't think it's stopping the Meth-heads.

 

[Northstar]

Wow. Didn't know about the new laws stateside... only a matter of time before we have problems up here in Nova Scotia, I guess.

Anybody read the Newsweek (May 20) article about the new recreational drug causing deaths in Texas... they call it "cheese" and it's heroin mixed with ground-up cold medicine ... I suppose that cold medicine would be pseudephedrine based? Who would have thought?

Maybe moving these meds to prescription-only wouldn't be such a bad idea. I feel bad for those of you with allergies who need quantities and used to get them without fuss, though.

 

[arminnie]

I guess what has surprised (maybe even shocked) me the most about the posts in this thread is that this stuff actually works for so many people.

I used to have terrible congestion problems and sinus infections in the past. I bought every single OTC drug I could find (8-9 years ago). None of them ever did one thing for me.

I really thought that these meds were sort of like the old cherry cough drops - not really any medical basis behind them. I guess it was just me.

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

I always did find it slightly funny that when I would go to pick up prescriptions for DW Lauri that picking up several narcotic scripts.. no problem, here ya go. Pick her up a box of 12 hour Sudafed during allergy season... hand over your ID and fill out this log.

Luckily one of her doctors started giving her samples of Nasonex and another spray to hold her over during allergy season since the Sudafed seemed to be raising her blood pressure a bit. Plus he said the last thing she needed to do was pay for yet another drug. Got to love doctors that look out for you!

As for the OTC being cheaper than buying by prescription - we haven't seen that yet. Lauri had a drug prescribed to her that was going OTC shortly so the insurance company stopped covering it. It was $40 for a month's supply through script. Once it went OTC, to get the equivalent of a months worth would cost us $65.

I know that the law is inconvenient at best but it's just something we will have to deal with. If it saves just a couple of lives of firefighters or police that could be lost in a meth lab explosion, then I'm happy to show my license and sign a log when I make a purchase.

 

[Tiffer]

Yes, eliminating meth labs does help society. Why? Because meth labs are dangerous, as someone pointed out earlier. The pose a major safety hazard to the neighborhood, police and firefighters as the stuff is highly explosive. Also, part of the problem with sudafed was that many addicts were stealing it, which, of course, was a financial and safety problem for the stores that kept getting robbed.

Much better for the addicts to buy the stuff already made from Mexico than to be producing it in the basement of the house next door to you after robbing the local Walgreen's at gunpoint to get the supplies.

And how exactly is meth made in Mexico? If it's as dangerous to make it there as it is here, then aren't we just moving the danger of meth labs from the US to Mexico? Is that morally right?

Wouldn't money be better spent on reducing the numbers of users, which would thereby reduce the number of meth producers?

As I said before, I think the law should allow for more than one package to be purchased at the same time, if the dosage for each is different (i.e., child, and adult).

I was thinking a similar thought when I read the above post. So let the MExicans blow up there houses, destroy their neighborhoods and increase their crime rate! As, long as it isn't in my backyard.

Leave it to the lawmakers to mess things up. It's like the old saying, when guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.

Well, law abiding citizens cannot purchase the medication that they need. But, I don't think it's stopping the Meth-heads.

This statement is uniformed on so many levels. Do you think criminals don't have guns when guns are legal? Not to mention when criminals use those gund on innocent people that those people usually have guns on their person to defend themselves? And in the rare instance that they do, shall they being firing upon one another in the middle of a public street or bank or convenient store?

 

[disneysteve]

I guess what has surprised (maybe even shocked) me the most about the posts in this thread is that this stuff actually works for so many people.

Pseudoephedrine is a very effective decongestant that has been on the market for many, many years. It has some potential side effects, like rapid heart beat, jitteriness, insomnia and elevated blood pressure, but it does work quite well for most people.

Unfortunately, as we've discussed, many OTC and Rx products that used to contain pseudoephedrine have substituted phenylephrine which does absolutely nothing for most people. The meds that kept their original formula are now stuck being sold behind the counter due to the new law.

 

[Tiffer]

I always did find it slightly funny that when I would go to pick up prescriptions for DW Lauri that picking up several narcotic scripts.. no problem, here ya go. Pick her up a box of 12 hour Sudafed during allergy season... hand over your ID and fill out this log.

Luckily one of her doctors started giving her samples of Nasonex and another spray to hold her over during allergy season since the Sudafed seemed to be raising her blood pressure a bit. Plus he said the last thing she needed to do was pay for yet another drug. Got to love doctors that look out for you!

As for the OTC being cheaper than buying by prescription - we haven't seen that yet. Lauri had a drug prescribed to her that was going OTC shortly so the insurance company stopped covering it. It was $40 for a month's supply through script. Once it went OTC, to get the equivalent of a months worth would cost us $65.

I know that the law is inconvenient at best but it's just something we will have to deal with. If it saves just a couple of lives of firefighters or police that could be lost in a meth lab explosion, then I'm happy to show my license and sign a log when I make a purchase.

I have experienced this. DD has great insurance for government employees. Most of her perscriptions are $5-$15. When I have paid $5 for perscriptions, the OTC has been more expensive. But it doesn't happen often.

 

[disneysteve]

As for the OTC being cheaper than buying by prescription - we haven't seen that yet. Lauri had a drug prescribed to her that was going OTC shortly so the insurance company stopped covering it. It was $40 for a month's supply through script. Once it went OTC, to get the equivalent of a months worth would cost us $65.

When an Rx drug goes OTC, it is usually expensive at first. Once it is on the market for a little while, and especially once generics become available, it usually becomes dirt cheap. Claritin is a perfect example. Generic loratadine now is pennies per pill. I think we paid $17 for a bottle of 100 at Wal-Mart. When it was a prescription, a 30-day supply probably cost 4 times as much.

Prilosec OTC is another good example, without a generic. OTC it sells for about 50 cents/pill. As a prescription, it was about $3/pill.

 

[peachgirl]

I was thinking a similar thought when I read the above post. So let the MExicans blow up there houses, destroy their neighborhoods and increase their crime rate! As, long as it isn't in my backyard.

Mexico is perfectly capable of making similar laws if they care to. Are you suggesting we relax our drug laws so that it's just as easy to manufacture drugs here as it is in Mexico?

 

[Tiffer]

Mexico is perfectly capable of making similar laws if they care to. Are you suggesting we relax our drug laws so that it's just as easy to manufacture drugs here as it is in Mexico?

Of course not. Reading my post as a whole, including the statement I quoted, that is rather obvious.


We need to do something about the meth users as well. I am not familiar with the statistcs. I was referring to posts that people have made on this thread. We can't just simply say, I don't want the meth labs in my neighborhood, regardless of the effect it has on the number of meth users. Let them have explosions and crime in Mexico amd let the US meth usuers get the drugs from there. As long as I don't have to personally deal with it.

ETA: that is an irresponsible attitude and approach.

 

[disneysteve]

I was thinking a similar thought when I read the above post. So let the MExicans blow up there houses, destroy their neighborhoods and increase their crime rate! As, long as it isn't in my backyard.

The original question was, " Does eliminating meth labs help society?" My answer was that it does, because it lessens crime and improves safety in the areas where the labs are eliminated.

Does that just move the labs elsewhere? Unfortunately, yes, because you aren't going to eliminate drug abuse. It's been going on for thousands of years and will likely continue to go on for thousands more. Is it morally wrong to want to protect your own neighborhood and family? I don't think so. If the folks in Mexico have similar concerns, they can impose similar laws to protect their neighborhoods and families. The more people crack down on production, the more of an impact we might ultimately have on usage, though quite honestly, I think addicts will always find a way to get product to abuse, whether it is meth or crack or pot or whatever.

 

[fan_of_small_world]

I know that the law is inconvenient at best but it's just something we will have to deal with. If it saves just a couple of lives of firefighters or police that could be lost in a meth lab explosion, then I'm happy to show my license and sign a log when I make a purchase.

You are 100% right, and I hope my earlier posts did not imply that I mind the inconvenience if it means even just one life saved. I did not mean it that way at all, although I'm pretty sure that I came across that way.

What I really meant to say was...

1) The law is misguided, in that it does not address the critical issue of demand. I do not believe the law has reduced the number of users, which means people are still making meth because there is a demand for it. That puts a large number of people in danger, whether here in the US or some other country, or both.

2) The law as it is now has gone too far. I should be able to buy one package for myself and one for my child at the same time. I don't mind taking the few extra minutes to sign my name and show my ID, and I wouldn't even mind being limited to one package per dosage amount. I can go back to the store when we run out. But if we get sick at the same time (which WILL happen, if you've got kids ), I should be able to get meds for my family all at once.

 

[Tiffer]

The original question was, " Does eliminating meth labs help society?" My answer was that it does, because it lessens crime and improves safety in the areas where the labs are eliminated.

Does that just move the labs elsewhere? Unfortunately, yes, because you aren't going to eliminate drug abuse. It's been going on for thousands of years and will likely continue to go on for thousands more. Is it morally wrong to want to protect your own neighborhood and family? I don't think so. If the folks in Mexico have similar concerns, they can impose similar laws to protect their neighborhoods and families. The more people crack down on production, the more of an impact we might ultimately have on usage, though quite honestly, I think addicts will always find a way to get product to abuse, whether it is meth or crack or pot or whatever.

I understand your point. They way the post I quoted was worded seemed very "It doesn't matter to me as long as it's not in my back yard", which is an irresponisble attitude.

I do agree that addicts will always find a was to get it and people will always figure out a way to make money off of people's addictive personalities.

I do find it funny that I can't get through airport security with a fullsize bottle of shampoo in my carry on, but drug trafficers can get massive quantities of drugs into the US. (for all those ready to pounce, I am NOT saying airport security shouldn't be tight!)

 

[mrsltg]

I haven't read through all of the responses as this is now page 11. However, my dh used to work vice and knows how to make meth due to numerous trainings on the subject. Using sudafed in tablet form is virtually useless because of the tremendous amount needed to make even a small amount of meth. It's also the most difficult way to make the drug. I don't want to get banned so I am not going to post the 'recipe' but really, just google and you'll be able to find how it's actually done.

The law is worthless. Punishing law abiding citizens is not the way to go about winning the 'war on drugs.' How is that war going, by the way?

 

[Tiffer]

I haven't read through all of the responses as this is now page 11. However, my dh used to work vice and knows how to make meth due to numerous trainings on the subject. Using sudafed in tablet form is virtually useless because of the tremendous amount needed to make even a small amount of meth. It's also the most difficult way to make the drug. I don't want to get banned so I am not going to post the 'recipe' but really, just google and you'll be able to find how it's actually done.

The law is worthless. Punishing law abiding citizens is not the way to go about winning the 'war on drugs.' How is that war going, by the way?

About as well as our "other war". It is as effective as "just say no". No disrespect to our law enforcement. As much as my job can suck at times, I wouldn't want to trade with DEA or any others who have to deal with criminals, on that level.

 

[mrsltg]

About as well as our "other war". It is as effective as "just say no". No disrespect to our law enforcement. As much as my job can suck at times, I wouldn't want to trade with DEA or any others who have to deal with criminals, on that level.

I'd say worse. This one has been going on for over 25 years now. And no matter what, it will never end.

 

[peachgirl]

The law is worthless.

It's not worthless. The law in Oklahoma (one of the most restrictive in the country) has virtually eliminated home cooked meth production in this state.

I am incredibly grateful that they passed these laws. Having to make more frequent purchases now and then isn't much of a sacrifice when I consider the benefits of not having to wonder if the house down the road is going to blow up tomorrow.

 

[CJMickeyMouse]

Having to make more frequent purchases now and then isn't much of a sacrifice when I consider the benefits of not having to wonder if the house down the road is going to blow up tomorrow.

Very well said!!!

I am curious... all of the people that think this law is "stupid" and "does not address the problem" and such......

Do any of you have suggestions or laws that you think would make a difference?

 

[disneysteve]

Punishing law abiding citizens is not the way to go

As logical as this statement sounds at first, I have mixed feelings due to something I saw on one of the tv news talk shows last week. There was someone from the Libertarian party on and the topic was cell phone usage while driving. His argument was that we shouldn't have laws banning drivers from talking on the phone because many people can drive just fine while talking. We should only punish the ones who cause a problem. If someone gets in an accident because they were on the phone, just ban that person from using a cell phone. That means, however, that we should wait until after someone gets in a wreck and maybe injures or kills innocent people before acting. I have a problem with that theory.

Regarding the drug topic, same problem. If some people are buying/stealing OTC meds to make meth, how do we prevent that without inconveniencing everyone? I don't know. I just don't like how they are currently trying to do it.

 

[Tiffer]

Very well said!!!

I am curious... all of the people that think this law is "stupid" and "does not address the problem" and such......

Do any of you have suggestions or laws that you think would make a difference?

I don't think it is stupid or doesn't help. So I can't offer you any suggestions on a better law. Not to mention that I haven't research it well enough to make an educated suggestion. Most laws don't solve the problem, but they help.

I would like to see more police effort on getting drug dealers off the street, and less effort, meaning budget surplus money going revenue generators, such as the "click it or ticket" campaign. The police spend too much time on revenue generators and too little time on drug enforcement.

I live next to a city that you can drive down many streets and buy whatever drug you desire. Alomst everyone here knows where those streets are. Yet, all weekend long, there were more police officers givng seat belt tickets than reasonably necessary. (not that seat belts don't save lives, but drugs take many more in this city) Alot of police officers were given special over time pay at 1.5 to double pay, to participate in click it or ticket.