http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_story_246225916.html

A grandmother was arrested and is being charged for buying pseudoephedrine 2x in one week.

I know I generally prefer to jump through the (idiotic) hoops to get the pse-based medicines (the rare times they have the one I want) when I get sick. At least in california the laws havent affected meth production, it doesn't make sense to keep these laws on the books so the politicians can feign they are protecting the children or whatever it is they say.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs36/36407/index.htm

9/29/2009 1:07:14 PM

It would be a start.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : good to see moron on the side of personal responsibility.]

9/29/2009 1:09:04 PM

no

you know that pseudoephedrine is a precursor in the manufacture of methamphetamine, one of the most destructive drugs out there

making the acquisition easier is not the answer

you can just be a little fucking stuffy, ok

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2009 1:15:42 PM

^ Is that sarcasm....

for the children why don't we ban fertilizer, uv lights, and interior arrogation systems since these are all pieces of equipment used to grow MARIJUANA ZOMG

9/29/2009 1:21:54 PM

An ill conceived government ban, no real effect on the problem the ban is supposed to address, massive inconvenience on normal law abiding citizens, passed with little or no thought to the actual problem in the name of protecting the children, and it doesn't work.

Who would've thought?

9/29/2009 1:23:08 PM

Um. . .it's not illegal. The drug at issue is simply controlled and is stored behind the pharmacy counter.

9/29/2009 1:24:56 PM

Clearly this grandmother was planning on making crystal meth and should be jailed.

9/29/2009 1:28:51 PM

Quote :

"Um. . .it's not illegal. The drug at issue is simply controlled and is stored behind the pharmacy counter."

9/29/2009 1:40:42 PM

ahaha, hooksaw with a one post win.


But I think the point behind this post is perhaps that the present regulation of the drug is ineffective and asinine.

9/29/2009 1:41:45 PM

Not that I care about all the meth users and the criminals who blow themselves up trying to produce the stuff, but to play devil's advocate:

An alternate solution should be to remove pseudoephedrine from OTC and make it prescription only. It would probably be effective in reducing meth production in the United States. It's also a reasonable approach since the drug is still available to the public and generates a paper trail on sales of the drug while at the same time being in line with other controlled but legal drugs such as codeine and opiates.

9/29/2009 2:02:36 PM

^ good idea

and for the HUR fertilizer comment

go ahead and buy a shit ton of ammonium nitrate... see what happens...

9/29/2009 2:12:37 PM

^^ Aside from the fact that prescription only rarely stops people, what kind of moronic sense does it make to require every allergy/cold sufferer to have to go to their doctor just to get some congestion relief? If you think your medical expenses are high now wait until you need to see your doctor every time you need some sudafed.

^ One failure of government does not give justification for continued failures.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/29/2009 2:14:01 PM

Quote :

"ahaha, hooksaw with a one post win"

Uh, hurray for semantics?

9/29/2009 2:22:54 PM

meh, it wasn't petty semantics in this one, though he has his fair share. This was a legitimate point. I mean if you get nothing else right in a thread, the title should at least be right

9/29/2009 2:36:14 PM

Quote :

"An alternate solution should be to remove pseudoephedrine from OTC and make it prescription only. It would probably be effective in reducing meth production in the United States."

do that, and the cartels will just go back to making phenyl-2-propanone from commercially available solvents with almost no restriction. You can't stop the epidemic of a a drug with such a simple chemical structure by eliminating one precursor.

9/29/2009 2:48:30 PM

Quote :

"An alternate solution should be to remove pseudoephedrine from OTC and make it prescription only. It would probably be effective in reducing meth production in the United States."

The regulations have been somewhat effective in reducing meth production in the United States.
It has done nothing, however, to reduce the amount of meth that makes it's way to the streets in the United States.
Mexican drug cartels quickly picked up production as soon as it became profitable for them to do so. Distribution was easy using existing cocaine distribution routes.
So we have less money going to white trash folks who were cooking it in their trailers and motel rooms and more money going to actual murderous drug cartels.

gg Government! Excellent foresight!

FWIW, I guess at least it keeps the toxic waste on the other side of the river from the US though.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 3:31 PM. Reason : l]

9/29/2009 3:27:38 PM

Quote :

"ahaha, hooksaw with a one post win. But I think the point behind this post is perhaps that the present regulation of the drug is ineffective and asinine."

Actually, if you read the linked article, it's illegal to buy more than 3g in 1 week. ILLEGAL. She could go to JAIL for it.

I'm not 100% what NCs laws are, but i assume they're along the same lines.

Quote :

"Not that I care about all the meth users and the criminals who blow themselves up trying to produce the stuff, but to play devil's advocate: An alternate solution should be to remove pseudoephedrine from OTC and make it prescription only. It would probably be effective in reducing meth production in the United States. It's also a reasonable approach since the drug is still available to the public and generates a paper trail on sales of the drug while at the same time being in line with other controlled but legal drugs such as codeine and opiates."

This is a step back from how things are now.

^ an older article I read claimed that Pseudoephedrine was completely illegal in Mexico, being disallowed from medicine.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 3:32 PM. Reason : ]

9/29/2009 3:29:10 PM

Not being a chemist by trade, it still seems like the solution could be to simply add a denaturing agent to pseudophedrine-containing drugs, the way I understand they have successfully done with other meth precursors. (I could be wrong here.) It's certainly a lot less intrusive than keeping lists and arresting anyone who even accidentally goes over the arbitrary line. (Meanwhile, you better keep track yourself, or whoops! We think you're running a meth lab.)

But the fact remains; if all we've done is to shift meth production to industrial meth labs in Mexico, exactly what have we accomplished? Is it really that important that we go to such extreme lengths only to leave net production and consumption essentially unchanged?

9/29/2009 3:36:21 PM

Quote :

"^ an older article I read claimed that Pseudoephedrine was completely illegal in Mexico, being disallowed from medicine."

It is illegal there, however illegal in Mexico doesn't mean much. They can still acquire it in massive quantities from several countries in South America making the ban almost completely irrelevant.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : l]

9/29/2009 3:46:30 PM

Quote :

"for the children why don't we ban fertilizer, uv lights, and interior arrogation "

:carlface:

9/29/2009 3:57:27 PM

Interior arrogation SHOULD be banned

9/29/2009 4:12:28 PM

Semi-unrelated question. I have been turned down twice, saying that i have bought pseudoephedrine too recently, or have effectively used up my quota. I know in both cases this was not true. Are there people out there stealing pseudoephedrine identities, or is it likely something in the system fucked up? Fuck this nanny state bullshit, I don't want to have to buy the bullshit stuff that does't work.

9/29/2009 9:21:20 PM

^ wow that sucks.

I bet they looked at you like you were a meth head.

9/29/2009 9:25:41 PM

Quote :

"what kind of moronic sense does it make to require every allergy/cold sufferer to have to go to their doctor just to get some congestion relief? If you think your medical expenses are high now wait until you need to see your doctor every time you need some sudafed."

Sudafed isn't the only OTC drug out there for congestion, and especially if we get around to some sort of public option or better basic health care, people will probably go to the doctor more often for colds and whatnot anyways. Also, there are plenty of drugs out there that I wish I could buy without prescription from allergy medication to antibiotics to painkillers, so I don't think throwing on one more drug is going to create any new costs.

Quote :

"do that, and the cartels will just go back to making phenyl-2-propanone from commercially available solvents with almost no restriction. You can't stop the epidemic of a a drug with such a simple chemical structure by eliminating one precursor."

Of course not, and I wouldn't even try to argue that controlling pseudoephedrine is going to magically make crystal meth disappear. However, the purpose isn't to outright stop them but to make it more difficult for them. Its like nearly any other regulation or law: it won't stop them but it will make it more difficult without great inconvenience. I disagree that this is some sort of "extreme length."

Also, it reduces the number of toxic sites and exploding barns we have to deal with. Its not simply that crystal meth is "bad", but its production domestically creates a real public hazard. All else being equal, if we at least push production overseas, we eliminate one nuisance.

Quote :

"It is illegal there, however illegal in Mexico doesn't mean much. They can still acquire it in massive quantities from several countries in South America making the ban almost completely irrelevant."

If its so easy, then why don't they just do that instead of smurfing it from American pharmacies? I understand we can't stop crystal meth production, but why make it so easy that literally any mom and pop can open up their own operation? We're not creating some new onerous regulations; we're utilizing an existing system that's relatively effective in controlling other potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals. Yes, the system is abused by some, but its effective overall. Also, its not an issue of acquiring the drug but acquiring the drug en masse; prescriptions both control the acquisition of the ingredient on a massive scale while still making it relatively available to the public.

In terms of the broader debate, if you want to legalize it, then legalize it so its made safely on an industrial scale (as already done by drug companies). If you want to ban it, then do it right and make it difficult to produce domestically.

Again, I don't feel strongly about this either way, but I figured someone needed to at least try and make this thread more than an echo chamber.

9/29/2009 9:48:42 PM

Quote :

" Also, its not an issue of acquiring the drug but acquiring the drug en masse; "

This is not really true. You can’t get the Nyquil liquicaps with PSE anymore. And even if you want the bottle, it is hardly in stock anywhere.

Plus, you have issues like ^^^ where it falsely flags him as being over the limit. If the system were more in the background, where perhaps the person at the register just typed your ID # in and kept the drugs on the normal aisles, as opposed to having to know exactly which product you want, then wait for someone to bring out that arcane logbook, I could be in support of it.

9/29/2009 9:55:07 PM

Quote :

"If its so easy, then why don't they just do that instead of smurfing it from American pharmacies? I understand we can't stop crystal meth production, but why make it so easy that literally any mom and pop can open up their own operation?"

The point that I intended to make was that it is easy for the Mexican drug cartels to get it. And they can get it in bulk quantities that most American producers can only dream of. Hence why we have put a lot of small time operations here in the US out of business only to be replaced by much worse drug cartels in Mexico. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

But since you brought it up, there is no way it would be easier for meth heads to take a trip to Mexico, buy chemicals which would be illegal for them to possess in the US, and smuggle them across the border than it is to just rob a pharmacy. Even if they sold pseudo ephedrine on shelves in Mexico there is still the issue of getting it across the border. No easy task.

[Edited on September 29, 2009 at 10:23 PM. Reason : l]

9/29/2009 10:22:04 PM

I think you ought to be able to go to GNC and buy regular ephedrine, too (i.e., ECA stacks).

9/29/2009 10:32:48 PM

I can't get ephedrine fast enough to use it as a weight loss drug because of the limit. I have to stock up on it when I don't plan on using it so that I'll have enough for when I want to cut weight with it.

Quote :

"Of course not, and I wouldn't even try to argue that controlling pseudoephedrine is going to magically make crystal meth disappear. However, the purpose isn't to outright stop them but to make it more difficult for them. Its like nearly any other regulation or law: it won't stop them but it will make it more difficult without great inconvenience."

That's not what the ban is doing. The ban is to prevent the microlab operations that are so difficult to make arrests on yet so prevalent at the community level. A few years back the state of Arkansas had something along the lines of 2300 manufacturing busts in one year, a state with a population of 2 million. When 0.1% of the population of one state are getting caught manufacturing a controlled substance, and no telling how many others not getting caught, politicians panic and create emergency legislation that isn't well thought out. Law enforcement agencies are scared by how they can tie up so many resources trying to get warrants and make busts on labs that are potentially hazardous for them to be in yet may only be supplying a dozen or less users. State prison systems and politicians are scared of what they're going to do with the influx of criminals that are facing a mandatory minimum 10 year prison sentence. At least when they bust the cartels, they get to use civil forfeiture to take away all their homes, cars, and money. Most of these microlab cooks were in poverty to begin with and spend all their money on supporting their own habit.

Now, we've made it so that all the mexican and international cartels have regained control of the market through their superlabs in Canada, California, and Mexico. Their supply chains are cheaper and more consistent, which enables people to more easily fuel their addiction without breaks in supply. Not only that, but there is a retarded amount of money leaving the country over a drug that could just as easily be made here. Some of these international cartels are ruthless terrorists. There were several Middle Eastern groups discovered to be at the top of the food chain when the DEA's Operation Mountain Express that busted up several psuedoephedrine supply chains and suplerlabs several years ago. Even their runners that smuggled in tons of pseudoephedrine were mostly from Jordan and Iraq. Some of their money laundering operations were found to be sending funds to Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. Even more scary is the thought that the top Arabs were able to easily leave the country and evade arrest even with the DEA actively looking for them.

9/29/2009 10:39:44 PM

riddle me this

Quote :

"Actually, if you read the linked article, it's illegal to buy more than 3g in 1 week. ILLEGAL. She could go to JAIL for it."

Why shouldn't the pharmacy be punished for selling more than 3g in 1 week to this individual. Especially if they keep records. That's like a bartender over serving someone, they are held liable if something happens. A convenient store worker can't sell you beer if you are intoxicated. Why does the pharmacy come off clean on this one? Seems like the regulation should be coming from the source of the drug rather than the consumer. Oh wait, we don't want to punish big business here, just the common man



[Edited on September 30, 2009 at 3:36 AM. Reason : ...]

9/30/2009 3:29:17 AM

^She went to 2 different pharmacies. They would have had no way of knowing she'd already purchased that week.

However, every time I buy Sudafed, I have to sign a little form that says I know I can't buy over a certain amount. Is that not standard anymore?

9/30/2009 8:59:47 AM