The other day, I stopped in the drugstore on the way to meet a friend in order to pick up a little cold medicine. I stomped out in a huff, proclaiming that "this is not how people in a free society should live." In order to obtain a little Sudafed, I had to produce a photo ID and sign for it. Is shutting down one of many avenues of meth production really worth the price of treating every American citizen with a stuffy nose like a drug dealer?
Walter Olson points out that some lawsuit lunatics in Arkansas are trying to make it all worse still. Stop the world, I want to get off.
Did you stomp out in a huff after producing your ID and obtaining your drugs or empty-handed?
Agreed. If some moron uses some cold medicine in order to get high or blow himself up in his tool shed / meth lab, that's his problem. Why should his behavior in any way infringe upon my ability to purchase and use legal medicine in a legal fashion? Why should it be any business of the police whether or not I buy cold medicine? This zero-tolerance, legislate-through-politics-of-fear nonsense has to stop.
As for the lawsuits, that's easy--it's just another means of wealth transfer. State and local governments are desparate for cash. The real estate boom is over, the economy is slowing down, and the federal money faucet is slowly running dry. But the pols don't have the backbone to levy the taxes to pay for what they need. So what do they do? Find potential alternative funding streams, such as lotteries (it all goes to the schools, don't you know) and lawsuits, no matter how preposterous the case. They don't lose anything by trying. The fact that it's a clear indictment of how pathetic and broken our political system has become seems not to cross their minds.
It's amazing how much harm results from well-meaning paternalists who want to increase government power over our lives "for our own good." The Sudafed thing is just one small example. A more important example is the "war on drugs" that has increased violent crime and theft and made a mess out of scores of poor communities in the US, as well as a few countries in Latin America and elsewhere. Another example is the ban on prostitution, which has led to a greater spread of STD's and much more dangerous conditions for the women working in these jobs.
So I have one prayer to offer: Lord save us from those who would save us!
Even better: I don't even think they make Nyquil (the old, well-beloved nighttime sniffling sneezing coughing aching stuffy head fever so you can rest version of Nyquil) anymore because it had pseudoephedrine in it. Explain to me how you could use liquid Nyquil to make meth?
And, it should go without saying, this isn't actually going to stop people from being able to make meth.
The Drug War is the only proof one needs that this country's democratic process is broken.
The world doesn't have to stop for you to get off.
"The Drug War is the only proof one needs that this country's democratic process is broken."
I'd believe that if I actually believed most drug war policies were unpopular. Sadly, that seems not to be the case.
Matt - You can answer that question by Googling it, but you will end up on a DEA list somewhere.
Other sources (too lazy to cite - google that too) have pointed out the rise in Mexican meth imports as a result of this. So while the DEA and local cops are claiming victory because the number of domestic meth labs has ostensibly decreased, meth freaks are doing more pure and potent meth than ever before by importing it from Mexico, where they can presumably get the ingredients in bulk without too much of a hassle.
but wait! there's an even BETTER reason to be hacked off! [no pun intended?]
The amount of sudaphed needed to make meth is a LOT... cases and cases. So the whole thing about "you can't buy more than 2 boxes" or whatever has always been a line of BULL.
This is one of those rules that is used to make it APPEAR that something is being done, while nothing is actually done properly.
The upshot is that production has moved south to mexico, because the producers can get the ingredient needed in bulk and a liquid, no questions asked there.
The only good to come of that, is less PRODUCTION by small operations. That keeps the number of children involved down. The worst problem with the epidemic, was the number of neglected children that were located in the home labs, being exposed to the chemicals. Now those same children are just neglected by their parents, the regular way. It's sad that small amount of good seems good.
The down side is that now larger drug gangs have an interest, and they are bringing the violent habits with them...
all of which has nothing to do with getting some relief from a cold... esentially we are just caught in the blast area of a law that doesn't ACTUALLY apply to those it was meant to. Like a lot of laws that are meant to protect us...
I can tell you with absolute certainty that Nyquil is still being produced. I believe that you can get it in either pseudoephedrine HCL or phenylephedrine HCL flavors, but I won't claim to be certain on that.
While I certainly agree the War on Drugs is a comical failure (and I go back and forth on prostitution), making access to pseudophederine HCL slightly more cumbersome has yielded significant reduction in meth labs in Minnesota and Iowa, the former of which I call home. No, they haven't been stopped, but does that mean we shouldn't bother making or enforcing laws that won't be 100% effective?
I realize many here will have an absolute (or, at least, very strong) preference toward not having to surrender any personal information in making such purchases (I'm assuming this is the primary objection here, not the extra minute wait). I understand this concern, and would be inclined to share it incertain circumstances. However, in this particular example, it seems to me the benefits (making meth more difficult to make locally, presumably also driving up the price and making it more difficult to obtain) far outweight the very minor inconvenience. Especially when phenylepherine HCL is available without the extra work (though I will freely admit phenylepherine HCL doesn't work nearly as well for me).
The lawsuits, however, certainly seem like over-reaching to even this Minneapolis liberal.
Just would add that the most objectionable parts of the 'PatriotAct' and wiretapping mania now being justified as 'anti-terrorist' were previewed by anti-drug enforcement laws. The so-called 'war on drugs' is another one we've lost and should never have started. But it sounds like almost everyone here already knows that.
"I realize many here will have an absolute (or, at least, very strong) preference toward not having to surrender any personal information in making such purchases (I'm assuming this is the primary objection here, not the extra minute wait). I understand this concern, and would be inclined to share it incertain circumstances. However, in this particular example, it seems to me the benefits (making meth more difficult to make locally, presumably also driving up the price and making it more difficult to obtain) far outweight the very minor inconvenience."
It's not an inconvenience when the records are cross checked and you're busted for buying too much in a given period. No links, but Reason mag has been all over this...
Oy, too lazy to read all of the comments with all of the self righteous foot stomping going on, so I'll reply to a few of the early ones.
1) as a chemist, I can think of a number of ways to extract psuedophedrine from liquid cough syrup. What, do you think that mankind has yet to tackle the problem of impurities, or were you under the assumption that gasoline conveniently bubbled out of the ground in regular, plus, and ultra?
2) "Agreed. If some moron uses some cold medicine in order to get high or blow himself up in his tool shed / meth lab, that's his problem."
Well, if that person is involved in your life it's your problem. If that person is in the hotel room next door and his lab blows up it's your problem. If that person was the person to rent your hotel room before you and the chemical residues he left behind give you cancer (chemistry requires safety kids. Drug dealers aren't too keen on that.) Finally, it's also your problem if the drugs are sold to your children, about which I'm assuming you care.
For the life of me, I cannot rap my head around how you libertarians cannot realize that, like it or not, WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY. Our actions affect each other no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise.
Sigh.
"I cannot rap my head around how you libertarians cannot realize that, like it or not, WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY."-NoT
I suggest you read the following from Margaret Thatcher:
As Thatcher understood, the kind of rationale you are offering could be extended to almost any product. Coca-cola is bad for you in excess, and people who drink too much Coke get fat and become a burden on the medical system--so the government ought to regulate how much Coke we drink. And people who ride motorcycles and drive sports cars are more likley to have serious accidents, and their actions affect everyone else, so the government should ban motorcycles and sports cars. And so on...
There are some things the government must do, but micromanaging our lives to determine when we buy Sudafed and how much we buy is beyond the scope of a judicious government.
I think Meth is an example of a drug where the supply can be properly controlled. The main ingredient in meth must be made in a sophisticated laboratory, it can't be synthesized by drug lords. The best example is qualudes, which had to be synthesized in a lab as well. It was fairly easy to stop the supply in that case, and use of the drug. Where our current drug policy fails is with drugs where the supply has no chance to be controlled (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, heroin etc).
As far as meth is concerned it does cause problems the government must clean up. The chemical clean-up required for a meth lab is extremely expensive, so we do have an interest in stopping meth production in our country.
I actually had an even worse experience recently, when trying to get some Sudafed at Walgreen's. I saw the sign in the cough and cold sectiont hat said that pseudoephedrine products were available only at the pharmacy counter. I went over and waited in the Pharmacy line -- helping the three people in front of me took the Pharmacy clerks 20 minutes, BTW! -- and aked for a box of the Sudafed I could see sitting on the shelf directly behind her. She said that they don't sell pseudoephedrine products. I said, pointing, "No, it's right there on the shelf." "Yes, but we don't sell it. Our pharmacist chooses not to dispense pseudoephedrine products." "You mean you stock Sudafed, but don't sell it?" "Yup." That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Isoc, no kidding!
and this: "If that person is in the hotel room next door and his lab blows up it's your problem."
is beyond moronic, hint: "meth labs" are not odor-free.
And, to go with the Thatcher quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4&NR=1
Yes, there is no 'Society'.
The situation is even worse if you are unlucky enough, as I am, to have chronic allergy problems and are prescribed a medication containing pseudoephedrine. No more convenient monthly supplies! The most pills I can get is 15 in one visit to the pharmacy.
I wrote my representatives in Congress about what I consider to be a gross expansion and abuse of federal power. The only response I received from these supposed small-government conservatives was to "thank" me for my interest in preventing terrorism.
I want the government's finger out of my nose!
"I realize many here will have an absolute (or, at least, very strong) preference toward not having to surrender any personal information in making such purchases (I'm assuming this is the primary objection here, not the extra minute wait)."
Privacy is certainly one issue, as is the time I spend at the counter (which is closer to 5 minutes than one). But my primary objection is the limit on purchases. If I have a bad cold, I want to buy enough medicine to last me a couple of weeks, plus some reserve medicine for the next cold. This is no longer an option. And I'm a single guy making purchases for myself; what if my whole family had colds?
in response to Christopher and more... The problem with the law, and it's application in this case, is that you are swatting a fly with a bulldozer. And no, Nyquil is no longer made with the pseudoeph. only the phenyleph.
It takes A LOT of sudaphed to make meth. A quantity that is not really buyable by one person. The locals were STEALING a lot of it. to the point that retailers were having a problem with shrinkage, and that's why they started locking it up or allowing you to only by 2 boxes.
This is normally how you would allow the situation to be handled. Retailers were responding, as they are now responding to having their pharmacies broken into when people steal oxycontin. They fortify their locked areas and change their security habits.
What happens when the govt gets involved, is wholly different. Sure they slowed down the local meth production a year early maybe, but it was already shifting to Mexico at that point. You can get the ingredient by the truckload there, and you don't have to waste time extracting it.
What DID get affected is that now you are keeping tabs on millions of regular people, and you are merely inconveniencing the makers of the meth. All the while feeling like your work is done.
This is a BAD trade. It is a law that is not applying to it's intended target directly, because it's target is simply using other means to their end. They don't want to be under watch this way, so they don't buy. Or in the worst case they use the identity they have stolen for the moeny, to also get around the ID requirement. Thus victimizing the object of identity theft twice.
This IS truly a libertarian issue, because liberty is compromised, when it didn't have to be.
This is happening an awefull lot in the war on drugs. It sets bad precedent.
Mr Hoffer,
Alright, take a deep breath. I have a VERY difficult task for you. Google a phrase such as "meth lab explosion" and see if you can't find an instance of people other than the maker being injured by meth labs. This task may take a daunting 5 to 10 minutes (if you're a slow typer) but it will inform you, so as to avoid speaking of things about which you know nothing.
In response to the Thatcher quote, of course we can't base every single decision on the idea of society. I never said that. I said it needs to be considered. Libertarians, however, base every single decision on the individual. This is called dogma. See, unfortunately, the world is kind of complex. You can't really sum up the correct action in every circumstance with simple statements. Hence, a doctrine whose mission can be summed up in a few sentences (which libertarianism can be) has about zero chance of actually making sense.
So, let's look at this situation. Yes, personally liberty is SLIGHTLY infringed by making pseudophedrine slightly harder to obtain. However, people are put in significantly less danger (hopefully). Now, if you want to argue efficacy, fine, I agree there's a good chance this does nothing to actually make us safer. If you want to argue freedom because you have to wait a little longer and produce an ID to get something, you're being dogmatic.
Also, there are other medications out there for congestion. They are also efficacious. If you're so damn upset about waiting in line, buy one of those. Seeing as they're very closely related to pseudophedrine chemically, they're prolly similarly efficacious.
I agree with Yankee, though, the law should not limit prescriptions. If a doctor says it's okie, you should be able to get as many pills as you want (assuming the doctor is saying it's okie for medical reasons of course). I've had similar problems with pain killers.
If methamphetamine was available over the counter, noone would bother to make their own. The people responsible for taking away properly manufactured methamphetamine should rise up and admit their share of responsiblity for meth lab explaosions.
sorry Nutella [which sadly I'm allergic to, I hear it's good...]
it isn't a SLIGHT infringement. A database is now bing kept with my data in it. It is under control of the fed govt due to the combat meth epidemic act. On the DEA website
notice that the logbook has to be kept for 2 years, and is surrenderable to the DOJ, DEA and local authorities at any time. Also notice that there is no establishment of how long the DEA or DOJ can keep the information, nor what they can do with it.
Also notice that unlie prescriptions, the penalty for losing my data isn't mentioned.
There isn't a penalty.
This isn't little, and it also is, in essence, not voluntary. The phenyleph, does not work for many people, to the point that the FDA was considering fraud charges about it's efficacy.
For those of us that suffer a lot with allergies, or sinus headaches we have the choice of being in a database we hope is never compromised or we can suffer in silence.
I have found that phenyleph and other substitutes don't work very well for me, either.
I went to the pharmacy one day and picked up some pseudophed and some prescription amphetamines. It was more difficult for me to get the pseudophed than the amphetamines.
I've noticed that the DEA tends to brag about the number of arrests and the like but doesn't much about the number of drug users out there or the size of the drug industry.
EI
FWIW: I had to do all that and pay separately for my sudafed this morning.
D and Iconclast,
Yes, those are good arguments for how perhaps the law was written poorly, but not for a "OMG I get to do whatever I want and if the government tries to stop me in order to prevent explosions I'll throw a hissy."
In essence, the problem here is in the details of the legislation, not the idea of reducing the proliferation of meth labs.
I don't know how many of you are from the midwest. I'm currently doing my first stint of residency here and find it remarkable how meth has affected things here. I'm a graduate student, and I hang out with graduate students. It's a factor in their lives despite the fact that none of us run in the circles of the meth lab runners. It's as bad (or worse) as the crack epidemic was in the cities out east. Something needs to be done about it. Making it hard to get the basic ingredients needed in bulk seems like a damn good idea to me. Again, the details of the law may be wrong (READ THAT AGAIN) but the idea itself is sound and does not represent an infringement on your personal freedoms.
If you think that the something that should be done is the full legalization of methamphetamine, you're wrong. If people were running around getting the crap all of the time we would be worse off. People would get hooked on the crap during momentary lapses in judgment, or when they were too young to know any better, and they'd be screwed. The same as with crack. It's an inescapable fact of life that people make mistakes. The problem with highly addictive substances like crack and meth is that those mistakes become permanent so we can't just let people make them.
BTW, I happen to have the worst head cold I've had in years right now and I'm finding PE effective, but I haven't read the details on it vs pseudophedrine so I don't know what the broader stats look like.
Nut-ella,
with this: " Now, if you want to argue efficacy, fine, I agree there's a good chance this does nothing to actually make us safer. If you want to argue freedom because you have to wait a little longer and produce an ID to get something..."
I'll argue Both, thank you.
And, "As part of Arson Awareness Week May 7-12, the State Fire Marshal’s Office will hold open houses at its regional offices and distribute information to the public about how to spot key indicators of meth activity.
Strong chemical odors such as ether, ammonia (smell similar to cat urine) and acetone (smells similar to fingernail polish remover)
Evidence of chemical waste or dumping
Unusually active human traffic and activity in and out of property or home at odd times of day and night including frequent visitors
The frequent burning of “trash” on a property
Curtains always drawn or windows blackened or covered with aluminum foil. "
from: http://www.fldfs.com/fightmeth/meth_press_release9.htm
seems that the 'War on Meth', surprise, is turning into a big buiness.
D & EI,
No doubt, and No kidding!~
Well... prohibition is demonstrably NOT preventing drug use. It may be reducing it but at the cost of increases in other crimes, violence, and incarceration rates. In a vacuum, legalizing meth or crack may be a bad idea, but in the large context of the War on Drugs, maybe not.
You say that Meth is still a big problem in the Midwest... has Meth usage dropped significantly since the law took effect?
EI
I frequent a site whose operators call Megan "stupid" a lot of the time. I'm usually skeptical of applying that word.
Man, is this stupid.
Is this how the author thinks drug dealers are treated? They're asked for ID, allowed to sign for what they want, and are then free to go about their business?
Of all the ways we're lied to, manipulated, exploited, and conned; of all the ways in which idiocy and mendacity are daily pumped into the air supply and the culture; of all the things worth being incensed about--and THIS makes the writer say "this is not how people in a free society should live"?
Fuck your "stuffy nose." Grow up.
Not sure what I think about this in particular, but having a family member who has succumbed to meth addiction (to the point of he's basically a paranoid schizophrenic), I'm more inclined to ban meth than marijuana. I have plenty of pothead friends who don't, say, set motels on fire like previously mentioned family member. (I'm generally an ardent foe of the War on Drugs.)
One thing that should be noted is that meth labs are hazardous waste sites that are not easily cleaned up. The house must usually be destroyed, and the cost of both the destruction and cleanup is often more than the total value of the house pre-meth lab. And makers of meth don't usually own the house, so it's a property rights issue as well.
In most cases the house goes into default and the lien holder is stuck with property they can't even auction for pennies on the dollar because it's a hazardous waste site.
The interesting thing I am seeing here is that if you want to protect your personal rights, you must be in favor of meth labs... we aren't
that seems to presuppose that the meth law is the ONLY or even the best way of doing this.
THAT is the issue. This is by far not the best way of cutting meth labs, because the COST is too high. You have all the reporting costs, the data gathering cost, AND the large cost in individual liberty. To fix something that was being fixed by changes at the retail end, that simply weren't allowed to progress.
AND IMPORTANTLY, it isn't helping by the admission of the DOJ:
DOJ drug threat assessment 2006
So. The imposition of the law DOESN'T stop the sale of meth, it only cuts local manufacture. Something that was being done by retail controls that had nothing to do with ID's or databases or the patriot act.
does it still sound like a way of fixing this? It ISN'T WORKING, any better than the drug war in columbia has stopped the flow of coca...
You guys have all got to be kidding me.
Wow - Megan had to show her photo to buy a drug which has contributed to a not immeasurable impact on many families and many towns.
Sorry - but it seems to me this is a minor inconvenience worth it to counter the deleterious effects of meth in America today. I understand personal liberty is an issue, but she was not banned from getting it, and she her life was not impact in any measurable way.
I understand libertarians like to throw out the who “slippery slope” theory. But luckily for all of us humans, we have something called “common sense”. Families are not being destroyed nor are addicts robbing and stealing in order to get their next supply of Coke or Pepsi (as someone noted in another post).
Just thank your lucky stars you're not living in Sweden where you need a doctor's prescription just to get Panadol.
"I went to the pharmacy one day and picked up some pseudophed and some prescription amphetamines. It was more difficult for me to get the pseudophed than the amphetamines." Note that "meth" is just a home-cooked variety of those prescription amphetamines, some of which are often prescribed for elementary school children.
The entire meth trade is a result of the federal regulation of drugs - as hinheckle jones posted, if people could buy quality-controlled amphetamines produced by major drug companies without a prescription, no one would even think of making their own, and very few would be interested in getting the same stuff from Mexico through the black-market.
This is exactly why I never used those medical marijuana shops in SF! I would happily prove that I am over, say, 18 but not more...
markm, that was my point. I took home actual bona fide medical grade amphetamines more easily than I could get pseudophed, which is only a precursor to making street grade methamphetamines which aren't as good. Irony.
EI
Mr Wonderful in blockquotes
I suppose this saves them the work of providing useful information..
Could you explain what you are trying to say here? It has no relation to what was said in the post
.
The drug war has more databases and dredges for more personal information then the patriot act. It has a far greater negative impact on peoples lives then the patriot act ever will. Your response to this is ??????
.
You are acing like a kid throwing a temper tantrum in the supermarket. Which makes the spectacle of you telling other people to grow up pretty amusing.
Could be all a conspiracy by the drug industry? make consumers anxious and paranoid and then sell them even more drugs against the symptoms?
Speaking of which - like with all drugs - there are pros and cons to the equation. Sudafed eases your symptoms but prolongs the recovery?
We have put up with this foolish law in Texas for a couple of years. I, like Megan, walked out in a huff the first time I was presented with; "I need your driver's license, now your phone number, now sign here." and no I did not buy at that point. I told the clerk I knew it wasn't her fault but it was effing stupid to go through all of this for a legal product. The pharmacists I know hate it too, because they have to keep records on a legal OTC product. It is quicker to get a prescription filled than to buy sudephederine.
It has had no apparent impact on the use of meth in Texas, which is considerable. Nutella makes the statement that so often leads to useless law- "Something should be done". That often results in "something" that has no effect but makes everyone feel better because it appears to do "something". Unfortunately all this law does is irritate the proper users of the product.
And, no, nothing else works nearly as well for my allergy related congestion and sinus pressure.
I have two sons with seasonal allergies (a pretty common thing here in central Texas). They both use Claritin D because it works for them. They used to have prescriptions for it until it became available OTC. My oldest son went off to college last year, 300 miles away. When he went to buy Claritin D, they scanned his drivers license and told him he couldn't have any because "his household" had already bought it. WTF? I am here buying it for my son who lives at home, so my son who is at college can't get it!!! My state senator's office received a call from me. Their response? "Oh, it's an unintended consequence". Ya think?
I complained to our doctor and she gave him a prescription for Allegra. Now he can get some relief, and it's cheaper for me because we are lucky enough to have insurance (which doesn't cover OTCs anyway).
If it's such a big deal, just put all the "bad" OTC medicines back under prescription, okay? Or else put it back on the damn shelves.
Actually, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine occur naturally in the plant Ma huang (Ephedra sinica) at concentrations sufficient to make simple, physiologically active preparations from it. This could extracted and used as a precursor as morphine is extracted from poppies in the production of heroin.
And a complex synthesis is less of a barrier than one might think. MDMA and LSD, for example, both require fairly complicated syntheses without an easy to get ahold of precusor. Quaaludes aren't a good example because they have similar effects to a wide range of other CNS depressants and the usage of CNS depressants persists.
buy canada in viagra where
weight ephedra
weight ephedra