Restricting Cold Medicine Won't Curb Meth Use (from cato.org)

[OBIWAN]

I would respectfully submit that if meth use is down in your area it is do to law enforcement efforts

Not limiting people to 1 box of cold medicine per store per visit

Or putting it behind the counter

Notice...they put Pseudoephedbehind the counter and what happened

They suddenly needed to limit the amount of other medications simply because they contain the same ingredient

Anbody wonder how much Pseudoephedrine is coming in from Mexico?

 

[invention_45]

"Another thing, the medicines don't work anyway so why waste your money on them."

That is in error. I use Sudafed. Walgreen's has it behind the counter. If they give me any s**t I'll be screaming down their throats until I get my box of Sudafed.

I have sinus problems. So did my mom. She went and had various bones broken in her face to fix the problem. As long as I can raise enough hell to get Sudafed, I'm not having any of that.

Once in a while I'll awaken with a major headache. Forget about working. 9 out 10 times it's a sinus pressure headache. I can take Tylenol or aspirin all day and it just comes back every 4 hours. Two Sudafed, 20 minutes, and it's gone for good.

Anybody who thinks they're going to stop clandestine labs by eliminating availability of key ingredients of ONE PARTICULAR process is fooling themselves. In organic chemistry, there's a lot of ways to skin any given cat.

Almost any organic manufacturing process requires things that can explode or burn vigorously. You eliminate one process, another will spring up. Maybe it'll only use safe things like mineral oil and you will have made the world safer. Maybe it will use ether and carbon monoxide, and you will have made the world worse.

The real thing to do here is leave people who want to privately ingest drugs the hell alone and go after REAL crimes. The kind with VICTIMS.

 

[carbiner]

I have to disagree on education vs jail. Our education system has proven with out doubt to be a failure when it come to drugs,sex ed, and many other issues.

The welfare system in this country is pathetic and enables dope heads, and laziness.

With teachers like Jay Bennish in the class room kids will become more spiritually deprived and have nothing to believe in. Kids are being taught America is bad, to ignore morals, responsibility, family and religion, the less christianity in school, the more inmates we'll see in prison.
Just look at the results around our America.

 

[MicroBalrog]

My prediction:
Pseudoephedrine will become too expensive or difficult to get for mom-and-pop meth labs in most states. Within five to ten years, some "new" concoction that uses some slightly different base but is relatively easy to manufacture at home (and is likely equally or more damaging than meth on the user) will come to the forefront.

At which time, we'll go to the grocery store to buy Ibuprofin or mayonaise or something and be told "I'm sorry, due to anti-drug laws, you can't buy that much." People will keep getting high and killing themselves while politicians claim another victory against drugs, and the wheel will turn again.

Hear, hear. The urge of mankind to alter it's consciousness is eternal. In every culture. In every civilisation. From Vladivostok to San Fran to Pyongyang, people use drugs.

Tobacco, alcohol, heroin, marijuana, XTC.

They regulate and tax and ban them.

Meth, hagigat, ketamine, glue.

They regulate and tax and ban them.

Some youth here in Israel sniff air-conditioner coolant. Some die.

They are now moving to regulate and tax and ban this coolant.

And they will succeed.

And you know what? There are so many ways to screw with the human nervous system to induce a 'high' it takes only a creative brain to create a 'new drug' from basich chemicals. And if the person is not too smart, this may just turn out to be a dangerous drug again.

Home-cooked meth is an awful and extremely destructive drug when abused.Commercially produced meth (Pervitin) was distributed to troops on both sides during WWII. It is also commercially produced today by Ovation Pharma as Desoxyn.

And in the Gulf War.

 

[Al Norris]

There's one good thing about restricting cold medicines. Most people will stop buying them because of the hassle factor.

This would be true only if most people who now buy psuedafed don't really need it.

That means that these same people will stop going to work while sick and passing around the germs. Which makes others sick and is the first step towards the yearly flue epidemic.

Not really, Rob. What it means is that those people who don't have sick days as part of their job package, will simply go to work, sneezing, sniffling and coughing, because they can't afford to take time off and lose their pay.

Too, there are many employers who will simply fire you if you take days off because of a sinus problem... Doctors note or not. Right-to-Work states are like that.

Another thing, the medicines don't work anyway so why waste your money on them.

Are you a medical doctor and a pharmacologist that you know this for a fact?

Pseudoephederine HCL is a decongestant. For those that have a mild case of "cold" or influenza, it masks certain symptoms. The very symptoms that spread the contagion. In many cases, it allows people to continue to be productive without suffering the debilitating effects of the virus.

There are many more people that suffer from seasonal allergies or sinusitis. Neither of which are contagious.

Not everyone who has an allergy can take antihistamines. They tend to put you to sleep. Decongestants are the answer, in order to be productive during such attacks.

For those that suffer sinusitis, antihistamines don't do a thing. It is only decongestants that alleviate the symptoms.

In light of what you espouse, those that suffer from colds, influenza, allergies or sinusitis should just take time off from work. Household finances be damned? Are you willing to pass laws that would protect my job, just so that you aren't exposed to my germs?

What if what I suffer from is allergies? No germs involved. You can't catch it. But I should stay home, possibly lose my job, my house, etc., just so you can feel safer?

I find such attitudes to be entirely condescending.

Back when, the most effective decongestant was taken off the open market, ostensively because it had an adverse reaction in a small minority of patients. Coincidently, it was also the easiest to convert to meth. It is now a prescription drug, like it was when it first hit the market.

That drug was Ephedrine Sulfate and Ephedrine HCL.

Another drug that was a casualty of the drug wars was Actifed (Triprolidine), an antihistamine. Besides causing drowsiness, it was also easy to convert to meth.

So now we are taking pseudoephedrine off the market, solely to cambat illicit drug manufacture. This leaves Phenylephrine HCL (Sudafed PE), another decongestant that is much less effective and has serious side effects.

It too can be converted to meth, under a much more toxic and volatile process. How long before those backroom chemists decide to use this stuff? How long before that too is removed?

This war on drugs is leaving millions of people that suffer from allergies or sinusitis high and dry... All so you can feel safe.

Like many, if not most, gun laws, these "feel-good" drug laws do nothing to protect the average citizen, nor will they stem the flow of illicit drugs. Like anti-gun laws, it will harm the ordinary citizen who simply wants to feel better.

Feel-good legislation has never worked in the past. What makes anyone think it will work now? That's one definition of insanity.

 

[pipoman]

Home-cooked meth is an awful and extremely destructive drug when abused.Commercially produced meth (Pervitin) was distributed to troops on both sides during WWII. It is also commercially produced today by Ovation Pharma as Desoxyn.

And in the Gulf War.

I can not find any source for the claim Desoxyn has been used since WW2. Do you have a source for verification?

 

[MicroBalrog]

There's one good thing about restricting cold medicines. Most people will stop buying them because of the hassle factor.

Obviously, somehow it's legitimate for a government to regulate thnigs because "hey, you don't really need... [insert here]"

No, I don't really need to smoke weed (I don't).
No, I don't really need to smoke tobacco.
No, I don't really need to consume pseudoephedrine, and I could possibly get along if it were banned.
No, I don't really need a Sports-Utility Vehicle, and I currently get along without one.
No, I don't really need an AR15...

Do you see where this is going?

In a society based around individual liberty, the question "what do you need N for" should not be an argument to condemn N, or to ban it.

This very argument was used, in my presence, by a socialist student at Tel-Aviv University. She said "reducing the taxes on automobiles is wrong, because people who now don't really need a car will buy them." When I asked her who gave her the right to decide whether *I* needed a car, she started mumbling something about 'society..." . I cut her short and said "Look, honey, in this society, individual have rights. And my most basic right is to decide what the hell I need or don't. "

Sorry, but this argument REALLY gets to me.

 

[MicroBalrog]

I can not find any source for the claim Desoxyn has been used since WW2. Do you have a source for verification?

"During Vietnam both the Air Force and Navy made amphetamines available to aviators. Intermittently since Vietnam up through Desert Storm the Air Force has used both amphetamines and sedatives in selected aircraft for specific missions."

Following Desert Storm an anonymous survey of deployed fighter pilots was completed. 464 surveys were returned (43%). For Desert Storm: 57% used stimulants at some time (17% routinely, 58% occasionally, 25% only once). Within individual units, usage varied from 3% to 96%, with higher usage in units tasked for sustained combat patrol (CAP) missions. Sixty one percent of those who used stimulants reported them essential to mission accomplishment."

Source: "Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations: A Guide For Flight Surgeons," NAVMED P-6410, Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center, Jan. 1, 2000, p. 11, available online through the Virtual Naval Hospital of the http://www.vnh.org/PerformMaint/

 

[Rob P.]

Not really, Rob. What it means is that those people who don't have sick days as part of their job package, will simply go to work, sneezing, sniffling and coughing, because they can't afford to take time off and lose their pay.

Oh c'mon Anti - they do this now anyway even if they have the sick time. Sick time is for those events that mean hospitalization or surgury. Not for a cold or the flu. Heck, kids are even sent to school sick and you KNOW that they won't get suspended for not being there. It's our culture - go anyway even if you're ill and mistake prone. Re-doing poorly executed man-hours is better than lost man-hours right?

As for the medicines not being effective:

There's an old saying about colds. If you take cold medicine for your cold, you'll get well in about 7 days. If you do nothing, it'll take a week. I find this to be true after many many many years of exposure and experience. Also, the bug that causes a cold is a virus. We have NOTHING in our pharmacoia that works on viruses. Ergo, the medications do nothing to help cure the cold. Rather, as you stated, they mask the symptoms so that the ill person can go be a modern-day equivalent of Typoid Mary.

No thank you. Please stay home if you are ill. I certainly don't want a cold or the flu and the thought of someone sneezing on my hamburger is repulsive.

 

[pipoman]

Following Desert Storm an anonymous survey of deployed fighter pilots was completed. 464 surveys were returned (43%). For Desert Storm: 57% used stimulants at some time (17% routinely, 58% occasionally, 25% only once). Within individual units, usage varied from 3% to 96%, with higher usage in units tasked for sustained combat patrol (CAP) missions. Sixty one percent of those who used stimulants reported them essential to mission accomplishment."

I don't doubt they used stimulants, that is a pretty broad group of drugs. Coffee is a stimulant, energy drinks are stimulants. Even if we are talking about amphetamines in general, this wouldn't surprise me (diet pills, truck driver pills, etc.).

Desoxyn/meth being handed out during the gulf war would surprise me. I would be interested to see any source which verifies this.

methamphetamine is an extremely addictive, powerful, and harmful drug.

 

[alan]

Antipitas:

Re some of the points you raised in a post, where you oopened with a quote from Rob P., some of the questions you asked could also be used as arguments AGAINST gun control, or so it seemed to me.

 

[pipoman]

Kansas enacted legislation controlling sale of ephedrine compounds, it seems to have curbed the rapid growth of meth news. I don't hear much about it.

In the 1980's pharmaceutical ephedrine HCL was available in the back of magazines, cheap. In fact it hasn't been 2 years since I received my last email solicitation to purchase eph. HCL. (in gallon size bottles)

The supply of these materials in meaningful amounts have been cut off.

There are less people making it than were. I don't know if the supply is meeting the demand in the user market or not (any High Times readers amongst us? They used to have market quotes in every issue.).

Getting rid of the cookers is getting rid of 3/4 of the problem, IMO. I am sure business on ephedrine is brisk in Mexico, SA, and the Caribbean.

We moved our lead battery production down there to get rid of the pollution here, why not do the same with this toxic manufacturing process.

 

[Al Norris]

Rob, you answered only a part of the points I made in my post.

Why are you so fixated on colds, in lieu of the other points I made? For the sake of the argument, I will agree with you on your point of actual communicable disease.

Now, can you address the remainder, and largest parts of my post?

1. Do most people who now use Sudafed really need it? If not, why not?
2. What to do with employers who will sack you for staying home with your cold or flu?
3. Does the fact that decongestants mask certain symptoms, alleviate contagion or is the contagion still present at the same levels as before the symptoms were masked?
4. Please address those who suffer from allergies but cannot take antihistamines.
5. Please address those who suffer from sinusitis attacks.
6. How do you distinguish those who have allergies and/or sinusitis from those that suffer from colds and/or flu? Remember, allergies and sinusitis are not communicable diseases.
7. So we take the effective drugs off the market, replacing them with less effective drugs that have worse side effects.
8. All decongestants and many antihistamines can be converted to meth.
9. How many drugs are we willing to ban, that have established therapeutic effects, in the name of the war on drugs? Some? Which ones? All? Why?
10. How much more feel-good legislation are we willing to put up with, to feel safe, when in fact we aren't any safer than before the legislation?

Out of the 10 points I made, you addressed perhaps 1.

 

[Crosshair]

Getting rid of the cookers is getting rid of 3/4 of the problem, IMO. I am sure business on ephedrine is brisk in Mexico, SA, and the Caribbean.

OK, so we are rid of the cooks and their time bombs. Now we have smugglers bringing the stuff into the US. Probably bribing a few cops at some point in time. Killing each other over turf and probably killing a few people in the crossfire. We now have higher drug prices that will result in an increase in crime for drugies to feed their habbit. Very few drugies (as I was several years ago) will simply roll over and quit when prices start going up. (I quit for other reasons too) They will simply do whatever it takes to get their fix. Then we get stuck with jailing them and paying for all the stuff that goes along with that.

We clamped down on the "Cocaine problem" and now we have a "Meth problem". At least with Cocaine you don't have toxic waste dumps and exploding houses. We have, essencialy, made the problem worse by getting "tough on drugs". To add insult to injury, It is now easier for me to go on a bender when I am sick, rather than go get the sudafed. I can go buy 2 gallons of Vodka and the only thing I have to do is show that I am 21 and that I can pay for it. I can then go home and drink so I at least don't remember being sick. (Get a little alcohol in me when I am sick and I can actualy sleep, rather than be awake all night.) I go to get some cold pills and I can only buy 2 little packages that I will be through in two days, have to fill out anoying paperwork that acomplishes nothing, then have to do the same thing two days later when I run out.

 

[invention_45]

"Oh c'mon Anti - they do this now anyway even if they have the sick time. Sick time is for those events that mean hospitalization or surgury. Not for a cold or the flu. Heck, kids are even sent to school sick and you KNOW that they won't get suspended for not being there. It's our culture - go anyway even if you're ill and mistake prone. Re-doing poorly executed man-hours is better than lost man-hours right?

As for the medicines not being effective:

There's an old saying about colds. If you take cold medicine for your cold, you'll get well in about 7 days. If you do nothing, it'll take a week. I find this to be true after many many many years of exposure and experience. Also, the bug that causes a cold is a virus. We have NOTHING in our pharmacoia that works on viruses. Ergo, the medications do nothing to help cure the cold. Rather, as you stated, they mask the symptoms so that the ill person can go be a modern-day equivalent of Typoid Mary.

No thank you. Please stay home if you are ill. I certainly don't want a cold or the flu and the thought of someone sneezing on my hamburger is repulsive."


Wow. So many errors. So little time.

I don't know where YOU work, but MY sick days are for being sick. I was even told that if I wanted a "mental health" day to say so and not say I was sick. When I call in sick with the flu, no questions are asked. And no, I don't work for a huge rich corporation with 3 weeks vacation the first year. I just work for and with reasonable people.

Have you ever had the actual flu? The one where you cannot move from the bed for one or two days? You are not going to work with that. If I had a job and was told I could use sick days only for surgery, I'd find another job QUICK. I might even walk out the door with my finger in the air. Not just for the sick day problem, but any employer who's stupid enough to make such a rule is too idiotic for me to work for.

Reality doesn't work by old sayings. You may find it true that nothing shortens the flu, but the manufacturers of Tamiflu and Relenza disagree, and make a killing doing so. In addition, the older medicine, amantadine, is still effective against most strains of flu. Amantadine has been around for at least 20 years, maybe longer.

Finally, the argument that medicines like Sudafed do nothing to cure a cold is not exactly accurate. OTC medicines have effects on your body. In the case of Sudafed, it opens certain closed passages. This allows you to clear infectious fluids easier. Leaving those fluids pooled increases the chance that a bacterial secondary infection could set itself up. Doctors call this a "complication" of the cold or flu. Sudafed could be what stands between a simple cold and two weeks on antibiotics (drugs that SHOULD be more regulated than they are) unnecessarily.

It looks to me like the problem you have with drugs of all sorts is that you don't know a thing about them. Or at least you only know the propaganda that the Partnership for a Drug Free America wants you to know. That makes them the boogeyman to you.

 

[Rob P.]

Oh man this is gonna be a long one :

1. Do most people who now use Sudafed really need it? If not, why not?

I don't know if most people who use the meds need them or not. I believe that most people use meds to ease symptoms/pain (with the exception of antibiotics). Whether that use is an equal tradeoff for the risks involved only the person taking the drugs can say.

2. What to do with employers who will sack you for staying home with your cold or flu?

Eventually these employers will run out of employees. Think about it. Any employer who is so cheap as to not allow his employees to be sick deserves to be put out of business. Employees who let their employer treat them like this DESERVE whatever they get and if that means they get treated like dirt, then.....

3. Does the fact that decongestants mask certain symptoms, alleviate contagion or is the contagion still present at the same levels as before the symptoms were masked?

This I had to ask my spouse (B.S. in Pharamcology and Biochemistry) about. She says that the contaigion is still present at it's unmasked levels since the drugs do not operate to reduce or eliminate the bug. So using the meds only makes YOU feel good while you spread it around.

4. Please address those who suffer from allergies but cannot take antihistamines.

My point was that casual users will be put off enough that they will not buy the stuff. People who rely on the meds will still need them and the resulting extra steps are just part of the process. The fact that OTC meds of this type will eventually go away won't change the fact that there will be people who will need these meds. For them, prescription meds will be available.

5. Please address those who suffer from sinusitis attacks.

See above.

6. How do you distinguish those who have allergies and/or sinusitis from those that suffer from colds and/or flu? Remember, allergies and sinusitis are not communicable diseases.

Again, those who need these meds for symptoms which are not cold/flu related will still have access to them but will have to do the same dance as those who are getting prescription meds.

7. So we take the effective drugs off the market, replacing them with less effective drugs that have worse side effects.

I don't know about that. Modern medicine is really changing fast and the side effects issues are in constant flux. New meds may have almost no side effects and may not be able to be used for unlawful drug mfg. I don't know and neither do you.

8. All decongestants and many antihistamines can be converted to meth.

Even more reason to get rid of them.

9. How many drugs are we willing to ban, that have established therapeutic effects, in the name of the war on drugs? Some? Which ones? All? Why?

There are tons of drugs that are banned even though they have proven threaputic benefits. Heroin for example. Nice pain reducer. Highly effective. Unfortunately, also highly addictive. Not interested in discussing that sort of drug? How about mention of something a little less "damaging" than "H"? Try Absynth. Banned in the U.S. yet it's just an alcohol.

10. How much more feel-good legislation are we willing to put up with, to feel safe, when in fact we aren't any safer than before the legislation?

Safety isn't the issue I raised. My point was that casual use of OTC meds tends to raise infection rates because these people aren't isolating themselves. For every person who walks around, goes to work, shops, etc with an active influenza virus infection there's an equally frail young or old person who can catch it. And die from it. Nyquil won't prevent that but isolation will. Are those potential needless deaths OK just so some SOB employer can get a few hrs of semi-productive work done? Not in my book but then I'm not king of the world either.

I don't know where YOU work, but MY sick days are for being sick...

Have you ever had the actual flu?...

Reality doesn't work by old sayings...

Finally, the argument that medicines like Sudafed do nothing to cure a cold is not exactly accurate...

It looks to me like the problem you have with drugs of all sorts is that you don't know a thing about them. Or at least you only know the propaganda that the Partnership for a Drug Free America wants you to know. That makes them the boogeyman to you.

Wow, where the heck did THIS come from? Utter nonsense. I'm 46 yrs old and have had my share of infections, illnesses, and other ailments. My spouse is a Pharamcologist (this is a drug compounding chemist specialist and not the pill guy behind the counter at the pharmacy) and a Biochemist (double major) and she lets me pick her brain if I need to. I'm also not stupid and I know that Sudafed doesn't do squat to cure a viral infection. Neither do antibiotics. Saying that they do shows a distinct lack of knowledge about medicine.

"Have I ever had the flu?" OMG! Lame, lame, lame.

Attempting to bring my personal problems into the discussion nominates you for the "Clownie Award" IMO. As Rich would say, "Grow up".

BTW, congrats on the good boss. Wouldn't it be wunnerful if everyone had a boss who'd let them stay home if they were sick so that they don't have to go to work and spread it around? Too bad that reality isn't so nice so lots of folks go to work sick and spread their diseases around. The fact that nyquil, dayquil and all the other "quil's" exist only makes it easier.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Whether that use is an equal tradeoff for the risks involved only the person taking the drugs can say.

Thank you. Even that alone would imply that we should let those people alone. Yes, they alone can say if that is an equal tradeoff let. Them do it.

My point was that casual users will be put off enough that they will not buy the stuff. People who rely on the meds will still need them and the resulting extra steps are just part of the process. The fact that OTC meds of this type will eventually go away won't change the fact that there will be people who will need these meds. For them, prescription meds will be available.

So, who defines “who really needs” it? You? The DEA? The FDA? Shouldn't this really be my decision, upon consultation with my doctor.

. New meds may have almost no side effects and may not be able to be used for unlawful drug mfg.

Gasoline can also be used as a narcotic. Shall we ban that? Shall we indeed ban every common item that can be used as a drug?

There are tons of drugs that are banned even though they have proven threaputic benefits. Heroin for example. Nice pain reducer. Highly effective. Unfortunately, also highly addictive. Not interested in discussing that sort of drug?

I am. How about this: All drugs should be available, over the counter, in pharmaceutical-grade form, to any adult that wants to by some?

How about mention of something a little less "damaging" than "H"? Try Absynth. Banned in the U.S. yet it's just an alcohol.

a. First, please provide proof absynth is less damaging then pharmaceutical-grade heroin.
b. Second, provide proof that absynth is banned in the United States.
c. Third, provide proof that banning absynth is a good idea.

 

[invention_45]

"Wow, where the heck did THIS come from? Utter nonsense. I'm 46 yrs old and have had my share of infections, illnesses, and other ailments. My spouse is a Pharamcologist (this is a drug compounding chemist specialist and not the pill guy behind the counter at the pharmacy) and a Biochemist (double major) and she lets me pick her brain if I need to. I'm also not stupid and I know that Sudafed doesn't do squat to cure a viral infection. Neither do antibiotics. Saying that they do shows a distinct lack of knowledge about medicine.

"Have I ever had the flu?" OMG! Lame, lame, lame.

Attempting to bring my personal problems into the discussion nominates you for the "Clownie Award" IMO. As Rich would say, "Grow up". "




My, my, we don't like seeing the truth in print, do we?

I don't recall saying Sudafed cured anything. And if your wife doesn't agree about it possibly mitigating secondary infections, let her argue with doctors who've told me that, not me. I'll tell you right now, she's wrong if she says otherwise.

I DID mention three (that's 3) separate drugs that DO actually cure the flu. you conveniently forgot about those. Tamiflu, Relenza, amantadine.

Your "personal" stuff was dragged into this by you. You pretty much stated that having the flu wasn't being sick enough to warrant a sick day from work. This suggests you have never had the flu.

Now that that's done, not only do you want to deny Sudafed users its benefits, but you got your eyes on Sudafed PE as well.

Only goes to show the rabidity that Prohibition II has caused.

As to your attempt to beat me over the head with your wife's credentials, I answer that with the following phrase about my past: Abbott Laboratories.

 

[Rob P.]

a. First, please provide proof absynth is less damaging then pharmaceutical-grade heroin.
b. Second, provide proof that absynth is banned in the United States.
c. Third, provide proof that banning absynth is a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe

Answers all your requirements. Oops about the original misspelling of Absinthe.

Invention45: I stand by my original reply Grow up.

 

[Ben Swenson]

provide proof that absynth is banned in the United States.

The active ingredient (thujone, generally derived from Artemisia absinthium) is - for the most part - prohibited for human consumption in the US by the FDA.

Try Absynth. Banned in the U.S. yet it's just an alcohol.

Absinthe is not just alcohol. It is an alcoholic beverage containing thujone. Thujone is banned for human consumption in the US.