PDA

View Full Version : Don't get sick, Government taking away your Sudafed in the name of the War on Drugs


dmcowen674
04-08-2004, 12:56 PM
4-8-2004 Oklahoma Restricts Cold Pill Used for Illegal Drug (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20040408/hl_nm/methamphetamine_cold_dc)

Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry has signed a law that restricts sales of some popular over-the-counter cold medicines because they can be used as a key ingredient in home-cooked, illegal methamphetamine.

The law is the first of its kind in the United States and restricts the sales of cold tablets made primarily with pseudoephedrine, which is a widely used ingredient in decongestants such as Sudafed from Pfizer Inc.

We and others in the industry have been working closely with state and local officials across the country in a mutual battle to address this problem, without unduly restricting access to safe and effective medicines like Sudafed that millions of law-abiding consumers rely on," he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Law-abiding consumers have to suffer because of some losers that should just die anyway, natural population control.

We just had two children die in a trailer because the parents were cooking Meth on the stove, this Law will not stop that from happening.

gsaldivar
04-08-2004, 01:00 PM
oh wait... um, looks like you CAN STILL BUY SUDAFED:


"...People buying the pills have to show identification, sign a log book and are restricted to purchasing nine grams, or 300, 30-mg tablets, a month..."

"The Sky is Falling... The Sky is Falling..."

:beer::D

Red Dawn
04-08-2004, 01:01 PM
I'm for anything that will hamper the manufacturing of Meth. That is some nasty sh!t.

rahvin
04-08-2004, 01:11 PM
Isn't the first bill of it's kind. In utah you can't buy more than one box of a sudafed containing drug (at costco, I think it's 2 boxes elsewhere). They won't sell it to you.

cherrytwist
04-08-2004, 01:13 PM
In the city of St. Louis, they have been keeping stock of cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine behind the counter for a couple of years. Also, stores limit the amount you can buy.

I use Advil Cold and Sinus almost daily due to allergies and sinus headaches. It's a real lifesaver. But I couldn't imagine using 300 pills/month.


Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm for anything that will hamper the manufacturing of Meth. That is some nasty sh!t.

Amen to that.

CADsortaGUY
04-08-2004, 01:46 PM
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

dmcowen674
04-08-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

Yep, we need more Laws, more Laws! Like that has really helped i/expressions/rolleye.gif

LordMagnusKain
04-08-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm for anything that will hamper the manufacturing of Meth. That is some nasty sh!t.

Seriously, i think we can do without sudafed in order to hurt production of meth;

another great way to reduce drug-abuse would be to stop treating hallucinogenics like other drugs: something that causes a horrible disrespect for all drug laws.


Yep, we need more Laws, more Laws! Like that has really helped a lower supply means fewer exploding meth-labs and fewer familys and lives destroyed by this.

Geekbabe
04-08-2004, 04:13 PM
As a sufferer of massive allergies I use Sudafed when Claratin isn't available to me.I don't like the side effects of the drug (shaking,feeling dizzy and odd)but compared to what happens when I can't breath it needs to be readily available to me.

Spencer278
04-08-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

rahvin
04-08-2004, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
As a sufferer of massive allergies I use Sudafed when Claratin isn't available to me.I don't like the side effects of the drug (shaking,feeling dizzy and odd)but compared to what happens when I can't breath it needs to be readily available to me.

It will always be available, there are simply too many people that need it. They are just restricting how much you can purchase at a time. No person needs more than 300tabs a month, that's 10 per day. If you took that much you would probably poison yourself.

CADsortaGUY
04-08-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

WTF are you jabbering about? I fully support personal responsibility and these people who purchase these things in quantity to make meth are endangering others - just ask dave. dave keeps talking about 2 kids that died because their parents weren't responsible.

Also - I never said I supported the legislation either - I just fail to see where law abiding people "suffer" like dave says.

CkG

Spencer278
04-08-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

WTF are you jabbering about? I fully support personal responsibility and these people who purchase these things in quantity to make meth are endangering others - just ask dave. dave keeps talking about 2 kids that died because their parents weren't responsible.

Also - I never said I supported the legislation either - I just fail to see where law abiding people "suffer" like dave says.

CkG

Clearly you don't support personal responisbilty or you would be oppossed to the law.

CADsortaGUY
04-08-2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

WTF are you jabbering about? I fully support personal responsibility and these people who purchase these things in quantity to make meth are endangering others - just ask dave. dave keeps talking about 2 kids that died because their parents weren't responsible.

Also - I never said I supported the legislation either - I just fail to see where law abiding people "suffer" like dave says.

CkG

Clearly you don't support personal responisbilty or you would be oppossed to the law.

Get a fresh load of hay for your straw man business today? i/expressions/rolleye.gif
Maybe you should spend a little time actually reading my post instead of ASSuming things.;)

CkG

HeroOfPellinor
04-08-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

WTF are you jabbering about? I fully support personal responsibility and these people who purchase these things in quantity to make meth are endangering others - just ask dave. dave keeps talking about 2 kids that died because their parents weren't responsible.

Also - I never said I supported the legislation either - I just fail to see where law abiding people "suffer" like dave says.

CkG

Clearly you don't support personal responisbilty or you would be oppossed to the law.

Personal responsibility excludes activities which harm others.

















Idiot.

dmcowen674
04-08-2004, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

Been replaced with Dictatorship.

DanceMan
04-08-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
As a sufferer of massive allergies I use Sudafed when Claratin isn't available to me.I don't like the side effects of the drug (shaking,feeling dizzy and odd)but compared to what happens when I can't breath it needs to be readily available to me.

It will always be available, there are simply too many people that need it. They are just restricting how much you can purchase at a time. No person needs more than 300tabs a month, that's 10 per day. If you took that much you would probably poison yourself.

AFAIK, it's the only over-the-counter oral decongestant approved for use.

By the way, I think the normal dosage is 60 mg. every 4-6 hours, so that can be as many as 12 tablets per day, so 10 probably won't poison you. In fact, the prescription forms have 120 mg (although I think those are time-release).

gsaldivar
04-08-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Clearly you don't support personal responisbilty or you would be oppossed to the law.

i/expressions/rolleye.gif

You ought to spend a little more time READING what other people post, instead of trying to label people as either "with you" or "against you".


:beer::D

ElFenix
04-08-2004, 05:09 PM
woot amphetamines!

Spencer278
04-08-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

WTF are you jabbering about? I fully support personal responsibility and these people who purchase these things in quantity to make meth are endangering others - just ask dave. dave keeps talking about 2 kids that died because their parents weren't responsible.

Also - I never said I supported the legislation either - I just fail to see where law abiding people "suffer" like dave says.

CkG

Clearly you don't support personal responisbilty or you would be oppossed to the law.

Personal responsibility excludes activities which harm others.

















Idiot.


So who is harmed by purchasing more then 300 pills of Sudafed at one time?

CADsortaGUY
04-08-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

So who is harmed by purchasing more then 300 pills of Sudafed at one time?

Who do you know who purchases 300 pills of Sudafed at one time? Even at 10/day that is a month's worth. Don't mind that's probably more than dosage suggestions (http://www.allergy-cold.com/#Sudafed)

But again - nothing i've said so far is to be construed as support of the legislation. I'm just pointing out the fact that there really isn't anyone who doesn't have criminal intent that will "suffer."

CkG

fitzhue
04-08-2004, 11:25 PM
Well I don't really like the principle of it but I have to concede that meth is a huge problem and if i had to sign something and show some ID I really wouldn't care.

Spencer278
04-08-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

So who is harmed by purchasing more then 300 pills of Sudafed at one time?

Who do you know who purchases 300 pills of Sudafed at one time? Even at 10/day that is a month's worth. Don't mind that's probably more than dosage suggestions (http://www.allergy-cold.com/#Sudafed)

But again - nothing i've said so far is to be construed as support of the legislation. I'm just pointing out the fact that there really isn't anyone who doesn't have criminal intent that will "suffer."

CkG

Maybe there is a hot deal and they want to go sell the pills on ebay. Or how about if your supply of Sudafed get destoryed or stolen you would be out of luck until next month.

nutxo
04-08-2004, 11:47 PM
It's been the same way here ( WA state) for a few years.

Damn democrats in this state! Commies!;)

CADsortaGUY
04-09-2004, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

So who is harmed by purchasing more then 300 pills of Sudafed at one time?

Who do you know who purchases 300 pills of Sudafed at one time? Even at 10/day that is a month's worth. Don't mind that's probably more than dosage suggestions (http://www.allergy-cold.com/#Sudafed)

But again - nothing i've said so far is to be construed as support of the legislation. I'm just pointing out the fact that there really isn't anyone who doesn't have criminal intent that will "suffer."

CkG

Maybe there is a hot deal and they want to go sell the pills on ebay. Or how about if your supply of Sudafed get destoryed or stolen you would be out of luck until next month.

who needs a 300 pill supply of Sudafed?

Oh, and FYI to everyone. There are other OTC drugs that can be used instead of cold medicines even though this is what the lawmakers seem to be targeting. So the druggies will have opportunity to buy mass quantities of the other drugs - just not sudafed and other cold medications. -figures-

CkG

n0cmonkey
04-09-2004, 12:12 AM
I don't think it's anyone's business if I have a stuffy nose. This is ridiculous.

EDIT: Limitting the amount you can buy at one time isn't a problem, and I don't use sudafed, so it won't affect me. I just think it is ridiculous money is getting wasted on legislation like this. Similar to why I don't use my credit card at the bookstore...

LordMagnusKain
04-09-2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

So who is harmed by purchasing more then 300 pills of Sudafed at one time?

Who do you know who purchases 300 pills of Sudafed at one time? Even at 10/day that is a month's worth. Don't mind that's probably more than dosage suggestions (http://www.allergy-cold.com/#Sudafed)

But again - nothing i've said so far is to be construed as support of the legislation. I'm just pointing out the fact that there really isn't anyone who doesn't have criminal intent that will "suffer."

CkG

Maybe there is a hot deal and they want to go sell the pills on ebay. Or how about if your supply of Sudafed get destoryed or stolen you would be out of luck until next month.
a small price to pay to reduce the availability of this permanently damaging drug.


Well I don't really like the principle of it but I have to concede that meth is a huge problem and if i had to sign something and show some ID I really wouldn't care. this is, I'm sure, the view of most people. Although it's not a good thing to have big-brother look at you closer, we also need to reduce the production of meth.

Hayabusa Rider
04-09-2004, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think it's anyone's business if I have a stuffy nose. This is ridiculous.

I agree.

Meth can be made by many methods. It isnt hard to do.

BTW Cad, there isn't a substitute for pseudoephedrine. There was, but it was removed from the market years ago.

Drift3r
04-09-2004, 12:29 AM
Funny thing is that people will just find another way to get high.....glue, paint thinner, spray can paint, etc........ Another funny thing is that the reason why they are going after cold-pills and cough syrup is because kids have been drinking whole bottles worth or taking massive amounts of pills to get high off them. A kid can get a meth type high by just downing a whole bottle of cough syrup.

Kerouactivist
04-09-2004, 12:30 AM
One question, Where is the war on Poverty?
now thats a war worth fighting for......

CADsortaGUY
04-09-2004, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think it's anyone's business if I have a stuffy nose. This is ridiculous.

I agree.

Meth can be made by many methods. It isnt hard to do.

BTW Cad, there isn't a substitute for pseudoephedrine. There was, but it was removed from the market years ago.

Yes - What I was saying by that is there are other OTC drugs that can be used to make meth - other than sudafed and cold medicines. They were yapping about it on the radio today because Iowa is thinking about doing the same thing and some stores have already put it behind the counter voluntarily.

CkG

Kerouactivist
04-09-2004, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Funny thing is that people will just find another way to get high.....glue, paint thinner, spray can paint, etc........

As long as people have pain their will be drugs, whether they are made from Miller,Wythe, or a shed in the woods.

Geekbabe
04-09-2004, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
As a sufferer of massive allergies I use Sudafed when Claratin isn't available to me.I don't like the side effects of the drug (shaking,feeling dizzy and odd)but compared to what happens when I can't breath it needs to be readily available to me.

It will always be available, there are simply too many people that need it. They are just restricting how much you can purchase at a time. No person needs more than 300tabs a month, that's 10 per day. If you took that much you would probably poison yourself.


Well I only use it when my allergies are unbearable,the stuff opens the airways but it makes me feel dreadful otherwise.I'd have no problem signing for my purchase.

Hayabusa Rider
04-09-2004, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think it's anyone's business if I have a stuffy nose. This is ridiculous.

I agree.

Meth can be made by many methods. It isnt hard to do.

BTW Cad, there isn't a substitute for pseudoephedrine. There was, but it was removed from the market years ago.

Yes - What I was saying by that is there are other OTC drugs that can be used to make meth - other than sudafed and cold medicines. They were yapping about it on the radio today because Iowa is thinking about doing the same thing and some stores have already put it behind the counter voluntarily.

CkG

Gotcha now.

wirelessenabled
04-09-2004, 12:57 AM
This is all simple economics. Make something illegal, puts it into the black market, raises the price until supply equals demand. The problem with mind altering drugs is that the demand is relatively inelastic (small change in quantity demanded as price changes) and the supply is relatively elastic (large change in quantity supplied as price changes). This is why the 40+ year "drug war" has had little effect. The junkies are going to get what they crave regardless of how many of our garages they burgle. The notion that we can stamp out drugs by making them illegal has been proven false. A much safer and economically sound way of approaching the problem is to have the government dispense the drugs. the individuals who want to wreck their lives are able to do so relatively inexpensively, while not impairing the life of those of us who choose not to do drugs. Currently we are making all the wrong choices.

MisterMe
04-09-2004, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278
What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

Oh it's still here - Just think of it this way.... "every member of anything greater than, or equal to the middle class will hereby be held personally responsible for every low life out there that can't pay his own bills"...

AEB
04-09-2004, 05:27 AM
Its not a tragedy, people dont need drugs, they tell themselves they do, i never, and i mean never, get sick or injured because i dont take drugs if i get clogged sinus or if i sneeze ( i think this has to do with my immune system getting stronger instead of relying on medicine, but its just a conjecture). People with bad alergies can still get perscriptions, so weather or not i agree with the law is a non-issue because noone is getting hurt.

LordMagnusKain
04-09-2004, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Another funny thing is that the reason why they are going after cold-pills and cough syrup
no, the problem isn't kids catching an OTC high! Although inhalants is a major problem, and much much more destructive than meth is, it's NOT the basis of this control layer.

The problem is that sudafed is used in the production of methamphetamines, which is 1.) made in very un-safe circumstances, and 2.) is highly addictive 3.) causes permanent brain damage to those who use it

If they where trying to keep people from catching an OTC buzz they'd also make Dramamine/antihistamines harder to get in bulk.

LordMagnusKain
04-09-2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Meth can be made by many methods. It isnt hard to do.
all of those methods require obtaining ephedrine, usually from de-buffering pseudo-ephedrine as ephedrine is controlled. If we make bulk-purchases of pseudo-ephedrine harder to get we'll hurt the mom-and-pop C10H15N-factories.

which is good for everybody.

Spencer278
04-09-2004, 08:22 AM
who needs a 300 pill supply of Sudafed?
Remember that question next time the liberals try increasing taxes because who needs more then 20000 dollars a year, or when they want to ban SUV because who needs a gaint SUV that gets 5 mpg and would kill everyone in another car if it was involved in a accident, or who needs a gun, which of courses is criminals.


all of those methods require obtaining ephedrine, usually from de-buffering pseudo-ephedrine as ephedrine is controlled. If we make bulk-purchases of pseudo-ephedrine harder to get we'll hurt the mom-and-pop C10H15N-factories.

which is good for everybody.


If they can't buy pseudo-ephedrine they will just steal it either from the pharmice or from your home.

LordMagnusKain
04-09-2004, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

who needs a 300 pill supply of Sudafed?
Remember that question next time the liberals try increasing taxes because who needs more then 20000 dollars a year, or when they want to ban SUV because who needs a gaint SUV that gets 5 mpg and would kill everyone in another car if it was involved in a accident, or who needs a gun, which of courses is criminals.
all of those methods require obtaining ephedrine, usually from de-buffering pseudo-ephedrine as ephedrine is controlled. If we make bulk-purchases of pseudo-ephedrine harder to get we'll hurt the mom-and-pop C10H15N-factories.

which is good for everybody.If they can't buy pseudo-ephedrine they will just steal it either from the pharmacy or from your home.1.) no one is going to have enough in their home to make any viable quantity of ephedrine, so your second argument doesn't stand up

2.) if you are going to rob a pharmacy their are much more profitable and 'entertaining' drugs to rob!

your argument in no way indicates we shouldn't restrict some of the essential components used to make this awful drug.

Spencer278
04-09-2004, 08:51 AM
1.) The dealers would just require their meth heads bring back how ever many pills it takes to get high. I'm sure if they break into enough homes they can get it.

2.) Well this would just give them one more thing to take while their stealing the drugs and make break in more profitiable.

Do you honestly believe that this law will reduce the amount of meth used?

CADsortaGUY
04-09-2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

who needs a 300 pill supply of Sudafed?
Remember that question next time the liberals try increasing taxes because who needs more then 20000 dollars a year, or when they want to ban SUV because who needs a gaint SUV that gets 5 mpg and would kill everyone in another car if it was involved in a accident, or who needs a gun, which of courses is criminals.


No - now don't be an ass. It is a legitimate question - not a statement either way on this issue or some higher political or idealogical innuendo. It was just a plain question. Who needs 300 pills of Sudafed?

CkG

dmcowen674
04-09-2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think it's anyone's business if I have a stuffy nose. This is ridiculous.

EDIT: Limitting the amount you can buy at one time isn't a problem, and I don't use sudafed, so it won't affect me. I just think it is ridiculous money is getting wasted on legislation like this. Similar to why I don't use my credit card at the bookstore...

But CAD & Co are perfectly fine with tracking your every purchase and movement while the Criminal element is still unaffected.

CADsortaGUY
04-09-2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think it's anyone's business if I have a stuffy nose. This is ridiculous.

EDIT: Limitting the amount you can buy at one time isn't a problem, and I don't use sudafed, so it won't affect me. I just think it is ridiculous money is getting wasted on legislation like this. Similar to why I don't use my credit card at the bookstore...

But CAD & Co are perfectly fine with tracking your every purchase and movement while the Criminal element is still unaffected.

Here is yet another LIE by dave. Sure are racking up a list of lies dave...

CkG

dmcowen674
04-09-2004, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I don't think it's anyone's business if I have a stuffy nose. This is ridiculous.

EDIT: Limitting the amount you can buy at one time isn't a problem, and I don't use sudafed, so it won't affect me. I just think it is ridiculous money is getting wasted on legislation like this. Similar to why I don't use my credit card at the bookstore...

More Laws that only affect the honest Law abiding citizens as enforcement cannot possibly keep up with the Laws that are already on the books and more being added at an insane rate. We will reach a point where "Law abiding citizens" say WTF and will no longer be "Law abiding Citizens".

"You say you want a revolution, You say you got a real solution, You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know, We all want to change the world, We all want to change your head"

Spencer278
04-09-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

who needs a 300 pill supply of Sudafed?
Remember that question next time the liberals try increasing taxes because who needs more then 20000 dollars a year, or when they want to ban SUV because who needs a gaint SUV that gets 5 mpg and would kill everyone in another car if it was involved in a accident, or who needs a gun, which of courses is criminals.


No - now don't be an ass. It is a legitimate question - not a statement either way on this issue or some higher political or idealogical innuendo. It was just a plain question. Who needs 300 pills of Sudafed?

CkG

No one needs 300 pills of Sudafed. Just like no one needs an SUV or lots of money.

maluckey
04-09-2004, 10:50 AM
O.K., here goes.

I live in the "Meth Capitol of the World", Little Rock, AR. There is not a week that goes by when some idiot burns down his home making Meth. Since 2001, when Arkansas strictly regulated the transfer, possession and sale of Pseudoepedrine, epedrine, PPA (now pulled by the FDA), and all substances containing more than trace amounts of these products, along with all the precursor chemicals used in the manufacture thereof, the price on the street has dramatically risen, and the supply has dropped. Crack on the other hand has dropped in price, and the supply has increased. The measures worked, but as some of us know, the desire to get high is strong in some, and if you take away one drug, you will find that they switch to another.

It's like the childs "gopher" game. as soon as you smack down one drug, another pops up. Going after one drug then another, is mostly futile, and in the end, it all comes down to responsibility. The govt. has a responsibility to protect it citizens, even when sometimes it's from themselves. It may seem that the Pseudoephedrine regulation is worthless, but NOT regulating it would be reckless. To err on the side of caution is always preferable to trying to fix a problem after the fact.

Aren't most on this board screaming that 9/11 should have not happened, and that our Govt. should have done more before the fact? Now the same people say that we should do nothing until this problem blows out of control, then pick up the pieces....................?

dmcowen674
04-09-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by: maluckey
O.K., here goes.

I live in the "Meth Capitol of the World", Little Rock, AR. There is not a week that goes by when some idiot burns down his home making Meth. Since 2001, when Arkansas strictly regulated the transfer, possession and sale of Pseudoepedrine, epedrine, PPA (now pulled by the FDA), and all substances containing more than trace amounts of these products, along with all the precursor chemicals used in the manufacture thereof, the price on the street has dramatically risen, and the supply has dropped. Crack on the other hand has dropped in price, and the supply has increased. The measures worked, but as some of us know, the desire to get high is strong in some, and if you take away one drug, you will find that they switch to another.

It's like the childs "gopher" game. as soon as you smack down one drug, another pops up. Going after one drug then another, is mostly futile, and in the end, it all comes down to responsibility. The govt. has a responsibility to protect it citizens, even when sometimes it's from themselves. It may seem that the Pseudoephedrine regulation is worthless, but NOT regulating it would be reckless. To err on the side of caution is always preferable to trying to fix a problem after the fact.

Aren't most on this board screaming that 9/11 should have not happened, and that our Govt. should have done more before the fact? Now the same people say that we should do nothing until this problem blows out of control, then pick up the pieces....................?

Get a grip, that is not what anyone is saying.

The money can be spent much more wisely than useless paper with no real enforcement to back it up other than handstringing honest people.

Tom
04-09-2004, 01:09 PM
"Who needs 300 pills of Sudafed?"

I used to buy it that quantity, for convenience and cost savings. It isn't necessary, though, but one minor point that does bug me is that some retailers are using the issue of restrictions on pseudophrene to raise prices.

I used to buy packs of 96 store brand pseudophrene for less than $4. Now the largest size the same store sells is a 48 pack for about $3. That's a price increase of 50%.


Not the end of the world, but it's annoying and doesn't seem justified.

patrickj
04-09-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Iowa is doing the same thing. Meth is a huge problem. I'm not sure that will solve that but it sure will make it harder for people to make it themselves by buying OTC meds.

I fail to see where law abiding people "suffer". You go ask for Sudafed, you sign a book, and you pay for it. stretching this a bit far dave?

CkG

What ever happened to personal responiblity cad?

The attorneys and lawsuits....nobody wants to be responsible if they don't have to.

CADsortaGUY
04-09-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

who needs a 300 pill supply of Sudafed?
Remember that question next time the liberals try increasing taxes because who needs more then 20000 dollars a year, or when they want to ban SUV because who needs a gaint SUV that gets 5 mpg and would kill everyone in another car if it was involved in a accident, or who needs a gun, which of courses is criminals.


No - now don't be an ass. It is a legitimate question - not a statement either way on this issue or some higher political or idealogical innuendo. It was just a plain question. Who needs 300 pills of Sudafed?

CkG

No one needs 300 pills of Sudafed. Just like no one needs an SUV or lots of money.

Sudafed - a medicine is not the same as a SUV or money. It is supposed to allow people to recover from illness. Your attempt at making this an ideological issue is silly. All I asked is who needs 300 pills of Sudafed. Now that you finally answered(and then bleated your ideological BS behind it) I will once again return to my question - how does this cause people to "suffer" as dave suggests if no one needs 300 pills a month? The question here isn't health or safety "sufferage" - it's about whether dave wants to be inconvienenced because some asshat druggie wants to cook up some meth using OTC drugs.
So again - the real reason dave is here yapping about this is because he is anti-gov't and/or paraniod. Is it a slippery slope to limit the purchasing of certain items? Maybe it is to some....but some others see the problems that arise from not limiting these drugs that may put people's lives in danger.

Again - I'm not supporting the legislation - I really wish there wasn't a need to address this issue at all, but sadly society looks to mask their "problems" with pills and drugs - and not just "illegal" drugs either.
At this point I think stores should take the lead like Hy-Vee has done here - they put it behind the counter so all you have to do is ask for it. No book to sign - no "big brother tracking"i/expressions/rolleye.gif - just a minor inconvience of having to ask. But that doesn't solve the problem fully because Sudafed and the like are sold almost anywhere so it would take a mass movement of business owners to take that responsibility on willingly instead of just looking at the bottom line and the "hassle".

Just my $.02

CkG

Spencer278
04-09-2004, 01:42 PM
but some others see the problems that arise from not limiting these SUV's that may put people's lives in danger. --fixed that for you cad.

Just rember that you don't really care about personal responiblity next time a thread about SUV being a danger to others on the raod. You sure are quick to drop your ideological about person responiblity when ever it is convent.

gistech1978
04-09-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Who needs 300 pills of Sudafed?"

I used to buy it that quantity, for convenience and cost savings. It isn't necessary, though, but one minor point that does bug me is that some retailers are using the issue of restrictions on pseudophrene to raise prices.

I used to buy packs of 96 store brand pseudophrene for less than $4. Now the largest size the same store sells is a 48 pack for about $3. That's a price increase of 50%.


Not the end of the world, but it's annoying and doesn't seem justified.

i personally think one drug ought to be legalized, which in turn would free up resources to go after meth, crack, junk and all the other drugs that are exponentially more harmful. I live in OK and i personally have no problem at all with this law. Meth is the scourge of rural america, not just in OK, in arkansas, in iowa, in california, georgia, texas, missouri you name it. Meth labs have increased something like 1300% in OK the past decade.
they are dangerous and caustic, the homes are practically unliveable due to the amount of chemicals used in its production.
what precipitated this law is a man who was once a fireman for a city in southern oklahoma, got caught up in meth. he was operating a mobile methlab out of the trunk of his car, a highway patrolman pulled him over and ended up getting shot in the face and killed. they have apprehended the bastard who did this, thankfully.
meth has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. incarceration will not solve this problem at all, treatment has been shown to have a higher rate of success, but it is an extremely addictive drug. those who decry this law in order to save $2 probably dont have to worry about a meth lab being next door or have never met a person who has done meth and seen firsthand the harm it can cause.

CADsortaGUY
04-09-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

but some others see the problems that arise from not limiting these SUV's that may put people's lives in danger. --fixed that for you cad.

Just rember that you don't really care about personal responiblity next time a thread about SUV being a danger to others on the raod. You sure are quick to drop your ideological about person responiblity when ever it is convent.

i/expressions/rolleye.gif oh yeah you sure showed me i/expressions/rolleye.gif

:P you're a joke - this issue has nothing to do with what you are trying to equate it to. Now run along(take your straw man with you) and find somewhere else to obfuscate issues.

CkG

Tom
04-09-2004, 02:01 PM
Hey, I'm not decrying the law ! I'm decrying the practice of some retailers in taking advantage of the law to raise prices.

The example I gave, the same retailer still allows one to purchase 96 pills, you have to buy 2 48 packs instead of 1 96 pack. That doesn't have any effect on the meth issue, it just raises the price.


As far as the limit of 300, there are facotrs that haven't been addressed in this thread. One is that Sudafed is one of the better options for kids, so in the calculations of how many one person might need in a month, don't forget that for many families they would be buying them for several people.

Not saying that 300 wouldn't be enough, but it isn't such a high number that it makes concerns about it all that outlandish.

Furthermore, I doubt that this has ANY impact on meth production, which I agree is a huge problem. This law is more in the category of the 've a problem we can't really fix but we could do this so it looks like we're trying',kind of law.

Spencer278
04-09-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

but some others see the problems that arise from not limiting these SUV's that may put people's lives in danger. --fixed that for you cad.

Just rember that you don't really care about personal responiblity next time a thread about SUV being a danger to others on the raod. You sure are quick to drop your ideological about person responiblity when ever it is convent.

i/expressions/rolleye.gif oh yeah you sure showed me i/expressions/rolleye.gif

:P you're a joke - this issue has nothing to do with what you are trying to equate it to. Now run along(take your straw man with you) and find somewhere else to obfuscate issues.

CkG

It is the same both items can be used in a manor that would harm other people but you seem to want to limit one and claim that you can't limit the other because it conflicts with personal responiblity.

gistech1978
04-09-2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Hey, I'm not decrying the law ! I'm decrying the practice of some retailers in taking advantage of the law to raise prices.

The example I gave, the same retailer still allows one to purchase 96 pills, you have to buy 2 48 packs instead of 1 96 pack. That doesn't have any effect on the meth issue, it just raises the price.


As far as the limit of 300, there are facotrs that haven't been addressed in this thread. One is that Sudafed is one of the better options for kids, so in the calculations of how many one person might need in a month, don't forget that for many families they would be buying them for several people.

Not saying that 300 wouldn't be enough, but it isn't such a high number that it makes concerns about it all that outlandish.

Furthermore, I doubt that this has ANY impact on meth production, which I agree is a huge problem. This law is more in the category of the 've a problem we can't really fix but we could do this so it looks like we're trying',kind of law.

if your family is taking more than 300 sudafeds a month , there are probably other issues that need to be addressed that sudafed will not fix.
children? i dont have a box of sudafed in front of me to find out dosage recommendations, but as an adult i take two every few hours. im sure a child's dosage is one over a longer period of time.
of course its a 'we're trying' kind of law. all drug laws are 'were trying' the underlying causes of drug abuse and addiction are not going to be solved by enacting more laws or locking more people up.
however, before this law, if im working at a store and some scuzzy looking guy or some soccer mom comes in and buys out the lot of the sudafed in the store. you better believe, i would making a call to the sheriff not soon after that, and most would. so yes, this law probably wont solve the problem, but it can be argued that none of our drug laws do anyways.

CADsortaGUY
04-09-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Spencer278

but some others see the problems that arise from not limiting these SUV's that may put people's lives in danger. --fixed that for you cad.

Just rember that you don't really care about personal responiblity next time a thread about SUV being a danger to others on the raod. You sure are quick to drop your ideological about person responiblity when ever it is convent.

i/expressions/rolleye.gif oh yeah you sure showed me i/expressions/rolleye.gif

:P you're a joke - this issue has nothing to do with what you are trying to equate it to. Now run along(take your straw man with you) and find somewhere else to obfuscate issues.

CkG

It is the same both items can be used in a manor that would harm other people but you seem to want to limit one and claim that you can't limit the other because it conflicts with personal responiblity.

Hey mr.strawman-stuffer - please point out where I said I supported this legislation? That's what I thought...you got nuthin. Please take your BS elsewhere - your straw is littering the floor.

CkG

dmcowen674
04-09-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Hey, I'm not decrying the law ! I'm decrying the practice of some retailers in taking advantage of the law to raise prices.

The example I gave, the same retailer still allows one to purchase 96 pills, you have to buy 2 48 packs instead of 1 96 pack. That doesn't have any effect on the meth issue, it just raises the price.


As far as the limit of 300, there are facotrs that haven't been addressed in this thread. One is that Sudafed is one of the better options for kids, so in the calculations of how many one person might need in a month, don't forget that for many families they would be buying them for several people.

Not saying that 300 wouldn't be enough, but it isn't such a high number that it makes concerns about it all that outlandish.

Furthermore, I doubt that this has ANY impact on meth production, which I agree is a huge problem. This law is more in the category of the 've a problem we can't really fix but we could do this so it looks like we're trying',kind of law.

Yep, right on the mark, DPS. and of course supported by your friendly Dictatorship heros of CAD & Co.

LordMagnusKain
04-10-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278
1.) The dealers would just require their meth heads bring back how ever many pills it takes to get high. I'm sure if they break into enough homes they can get it.

2.) Well this would just give them one more thing to take while their stealing the drugs and make break in more profitiable.

Do you honestly believe that this law will reduce the amount of meth used?

1.) the quantity required to make meth is much higher than you'll find robing homes;
a.) those robing homes would get caught
b.) you don't have a home-cooking kit! the either tends to be quite explosive, not something you want tweekers near
c.) it's much essayer to get it like coke: via Mexican import.

2.) I honestly think if you reduce the availability, and thus increase costs, the highly addictive use will spread to fewer people.


Yep, right on the mark, DPS. and of course supported by your friendly Dictatorship heroes of CAD & Co.

none of us are happy about expanding governments view on what people do; but sometimes the consequences of minor monitoring of substances is more important.

Or do you just want to a enable more meth-addiction because of some half-connection to SUVs? If not then your making completely pointless arguments and should start a thread about perceived hypocrisy in the conservative view.

Spencer278
04-10-2004, 01:31 AM
2.) I honestly think if you reduce the availability, and thus increase costs, the highly addictive use will spread to fewer people.

Yeah it has worked so well on the other banned drugs, no one smokes pot because it cost to much. Increasing price is the stupidest way to combate drug use. When price increase the drug dealers make more money and the users will look towards a cheaper alternitive which will be more dangouros then the drug that you just eleminated. Just like how alcohol prohibition was great at eleminating beer, instead everyone drank hard liqour.

dmcowen674
04-10-2004, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Spencer278
1.) The dealers would just require their meth heads bring back how ever many pills it takes to get high. I'm sure if they break into enough homes they can get it.

2.) Well this would just give them one more thing to take while their stealing the drugs and make break in more profitiable.

Do you honestly believe that this law will reduce the amount of meth used?

1.) the quantity required to make meth is much higher than you'll find robing homes;
a.) those robing homes would get caught
b.) you don't have a home-cooking kit! the either tends to be quite explosive, not something you want tweekers near
c.) it's much essayer to get it like coke: via Mexican import.

2.) I honestly think if you reduce the availability, and thus increase costs, the highly addictive use will spread to fewer people.


Yep, right on the mark, DPS. and of course supported by your friendly Dictatorship heroes of CAD & Co.

none of us are happy about expanding governments view on what people do; but sometimes the consequences of minor monitoring of substances is more important.

Or do you just want to a enable more meth-addiction because of some half-connection to SUVs? If not then your making completely pointless arguments and should start a thread about perceived hypocrisy in the conservative view.

Maybe a few years ago it could've been viewed as a "perceived hypocrisy", now it's just fact.

MadRat
04-10-2004, 01:32 AM
The are doing the right thing to limit Sudafed. If you had a family member hit by the meth addiction then you'd understand their concerns. 300 pills is probably more than plenty for any entire family for an entire year. The stoners that are buying stacks of these pills are up to no good and its been nothing but a nightmare fighting them in this part of the country. When probably 50% of the dirtbags out there are drug addicts hooked on meth then how is law enforcement supposed to fight the problem?

LordMagnusKain
04-10-2004, 01:46 AM
Maybe a few years ago it could've been viewed as a "perceived hypocrisy", now it's just fact start a new thread, because your perpetual distractions on this in this thread are doing no one any good.

Originally posted by: Spencer278

2.) I honestly think if you reduce the availability, and thus increase costs, the highly addictive use will spread to fewer people.

When price increase the drug dealers make more money and the users will look toward a cheaper alternative which will be more dangerous then the drug that you just eliminated. No amphetamine is more physically destructive than meth, people can't start taking PCP or huffing inhalants for addiction satisfaction because the don't have meth. Although if it costs an arm-and-leg for a fix you'll find people much less willing to share.


Yeah it has worked so well on the other banned drugs, no one smokes pot because it cost to much. Increasing price is the stupidest way to combat drug use. Marijuana and other hallucinogens are a completely different issue, an issue I've already made comment on, an issue that has no influence on the need to reduce availability of meth.

dmcowen674
04-10-2004, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

2.) I honestly think if you reduce the availability, and thus increase costs, the highly addictive use will spread to fewer people.

Yeah it has worked so well on the other banned drugs, no one smokes pot because it cost to much. Increasing price is the stupidest way to combate drug use. When price increase the drug dealers make more money and the users will look towards a cheaper alternitive which will be more dangouros then the drug that you just eleminated. Just like how alcohol prohibition was great at eleminating beer, instead everyone drank hard liqour.

They "honestly" don't have a clue Spencer, next thing you'll know is we have full scale prohibition on ordinary things like OTC Cold Medicine and these "Clueless" ones will wonder how did it happen. i/expressions/rolleye.gif

MadRat
04-10-2004, 02:10 AM
Hey, if we just go ahead and jack the price up on these "Sin Medicines", could we reduce the costs of other medicines across the board? ;)

LordMagnusKain
04-10-2004, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Spencer278

2.) I honestly think if you reduce the availability, and thus increase costs, the highly addictive use will spread to fewer people.Yeah it has worked so well on the other banned drugs, no one smokes pot because it cost to much. Increasing price is the stupidest way to combate drug use. When price increase the drug dealers make more money and the users will look towards a cheaper alternitive which will be more dangouros then the drug that you just eleminated. Just like how alcohol prohibition was great at eleminating beer, instead everyone drank hard liqour.hey "honestly" don't have a clue Spencer, next thing you'll know is we have full scale prohibition on ordinary things like OTC Cold Medicine and these "Clueless" ones will wonder how did it happen. i/expressions/rolleye.gifor , insted of listening to someone lie to your face as dmcowen is,you could go back and read what this conservative thinks:
another great way to reduce drug-abuse would be to stop treating hallucinogenics like other drugs: something that causes a horrible disrespect for all drug laws. anyway Spencer, i understand that you want to do what's best. I also understand a want to keep government out of our lives. But some things, like surface-to-air missiles and meth, have no good use and only cause destruction, thus illegalizing and curtailing these things isn't outside the purview of the government.

BugsBunny1078
04-10-2004, 04:36 AM
Sudafed itself is a pretty harmful drug. You will be sicker the longer you take it. You actually can get pretty high off it if you overdose on it too.The effect is exactly the same as crystal meth but with a whole lot of nausea. With plain old ephedrine the effect is the same as crystal meth but not as long lasting and no nausea. Seriously though a small amount of crystal meth would do better at relieving the symptoms that Pseudoephedrine does, with less side effects. The only reason sudafed is legal is because of the nauseating side effects keep people from abusing it too badly.Without the side effects they would have to keep it illegal.

Spencer278
04-10-2004, 10:02 AM
No amphetamine is more physically destructive than meth, people can't start taking PCP or huffing inhalants for addiction satisfaction because the don't have meth. Although if it costs an arm-and-leg for a fix you'll find people much less willing to share.

It is simple econimics there are to many underemployed people out there with knowledge of organic chemistry to not be able to find a fix that is like meth but would now be cheaper do to a shortage of Sudafed. Most likely what ever new drug gets invented will be more toxic then meth because the igredients are no longer pharamicy grade.

Vic
04-10-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by: MadRat
The are doing the right thing to limit Sudafed. If you had a family member hit by the meth addiction then you'd understand their concerns. 300 pills is probably more than plenty for any entire family for an entire year. The stoners that are buying stacks of these pills are up to no good and its been nothing but a nightmare fighting them in this part of the country. When probably 50% of the dirtbags out there are drug addicts hooked on meth then how is law enforcement supposed to fight the problem?BS. Any major allergy sufferer (like myself) can easily do more than 150 pills a month. All I can say is thank God for the miracle drug, Allegra.

And law enforcement will NEVER successfully fight the drug problem. NEVER. You people need to get that through your thick skulls for once. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time, and that is exactly how we have been fighting the drug war.

dmcowen674
04-10-2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MadRat
The are doing the right thing to limit Sudafed. If you had a family member hit by the meth addiction then you'd understand their concerns. 300 pills is probably more than plenty for any entire family for an entire year. The stoners that are buying stacks of these pills are up to no good and its been nothing but a nightmare fighting them in this part of the country. When probably 50% of the dirtbags out there are drug addicts hooked on meth then how is law enforcement supposed to fight the problem?BS. Any major allergy sufferer (like myself) can easily do more than 150 pills a month. All I can say is thank God for the miracle drug, Allegra.

And law enforcement will NEVER successfully fight the drug problem. NEVER. You people need to get that through your thick skulls for once. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time, and that is exactly how we have been fighting the drug war.

Good Post Vic,

Thank goodness for Claritin, it is the only one that works for my system. So far, knock on wood, I have not needed it this Allergy Spring Season.

MadRat
04-10-2004, 09:53 PM
150 pills in a month comes out to 5 per day in a 30 day month. If you need that many pills then you better consider something a little better than Sudafed. The argument that 300 pills/month per family is too limited is total garbage. The argument that the war on drugs in impossible is nonsense. If you want to rebuff an argument than at least come up with some sensical crap to spew out of your keyboard.

VIGILANCE

MisterMe
04-10-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by: MadRatThe argument that the war on drugs in impossible is nonsense. If you want to rebuff an argument than at least come up with some sensical crap to spew out of your keyboard. VIGILANCE
The notion that the drug war can somehow be won is easily rebuffed by simply asking you how long this war has been going on. Seems to me that we aren't getting anywhere except to find our law enforcement overworked in a futile battle where resources would be better served someplace else - like real crimes with real victims. We're keep on incarcerating and more non violent drug offenders thinking this will have some positive effect...and somehow, someday we will magically all live in some drug free panacea...

Think of it this way...If we're still in Iraq 20 years from now, would you say that the war is still win-able? Get a clue!

MadRat
04-10-2004, 11:20 PM
No ideal is attainable. FREEDOM. LIBERTY. HAPPINESS.

But they are the American Way of Life.

Spencer278
04-10-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by: MadRat
No ideal is attainable. FREEDOM. LIBERTY. HAPPINESS.

But they are the American Way of Life.

And Ironicly enought all are destoryed by the war one drugs.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: MadRat
No ideal is attainable. FREEDOM. LIBERTY. HAPPINESS.

But they are the American Way of Life.

And Ironicly enought all are destoryed by the war one drugs.
I'm not arguing for 'the drug war' but I am arguing for limiting availability of this highly destructive substance.


Most likely what ever new drug gets invented will be more toxic then meth because the ingredients are no longer pharmacy grade. designer drugs tend to be more on the hallucinogenic or GHB level, not amphetamines. Having sudafed more available only makes meth more available which only helps make more tweekers.

It's wrong to incarcerate people for being stupid with their own body, but it's also wrong to help make available what is purely destructive, such as meth.

The question isn't "the war on drugs" you want a thread on that make one, the question put forth is should law-abiding consumers 'suffer' a slight limitation on the amount of sudafed they can purchase in order to reduce availability of a purely destructive substance.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 02:18 AM
The problem is that limiting the sale of sudafed will not reduce supply of meth in any meaning full way. I google "making meth," ( I hope the police don't come knock down my door ) and the first site to come up states that 78% of meth is made in super factors, one of which was making up 100 pounds of meth a day that would require 1 088 000 60 mg sudafed pillsm so it is safe to assume they didn't get the drugs from wal-mart.

Even if the law does work the only people effected would be the low level produces which are less likely to be involved in heavy dealing and gang violence.


designer drugs tend to be more on the hallucinogenic or GHB level, not amphetamines. Having sudafed more available only makes meth more available which only helps make more tweekers.

It appears that in making meth the precursors to P2P synthesis was firsted used then when that was outlawed the producers switched to Ephedrine and when that was outlawed they switched to sudfad. Do you really believe that the producers can't come up with something new?

MadRat
04-11-2004, 04:04 AM
The idea is not to limit the use of the drug, the idea is to track those buying it in abundance. Having large quantities of Sudafed or ephedrine in my state, while also carrying a known catalyst to make meth, is a misdemeanor. Then again, roving meth labs are a huge problem in Nebraska, especially in the metro area that extends from Omaha to Lincoln.

BugsBunny1078
04-11-2004, 07:44 AM
One thing that is not really mentioned here is that like marijuana and cocaine and heroine it all starts with a plant and that is ma-huang.THis plant naturally contains ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine. You used to be able to buy pills of this plant at health food stores and they did outlaw them in florida quite a few years ago.This plant when taken is good at relieving cold symptoms but also has the same effects as all the aforementioned, pseudo-ephedrine, ephedrine, crank, crystal meth. Yes you do need alot of chemicals to make crystal meth but this actually is just a derivative of this plant. People envision the chemicals and think its a chemical, which it is. But it is also based ont his natural plant which itself is the building block of all these products and pcp.
Today it may be possible to synthetically produce some of thse other drugs but the point is that these chemicals are natural and have been used for thousands of years. Many people can use crystal meth without becoming addicted and ruining their lives over it. Some people want to use it and accept that their lives will be ruined, that is their choice. Pseudo ephedrine is the lowest quality, mahuang itself is better because it has a mixture of pseudo ephedrine and ephedrine, ephedrine is a potent drug all on it's own,then crystal meth is a more purified and potent form with less side effects. Pseudo ephedrine is actually worse for you than crystal meth. I do think they should all be legal though.

dmcowen674
04-11-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: MadRat
No ideal is attainable. FREEDOM. LIBERTY. HAPPINESS.

But they are the American Way of Life.

And Ironicly enought all are destoryed by the war one drugs.

Amen

maluckey
04-11-2004, 11:25 AM
The enforcement of the Pseudoephedrine laws is targeted at the stores that sell it, not the end user/cookers. In this state, the store owners have been charged with conspiracy to manufacture Methamphetamine. The local DEA and State Police officers make house calls to suspected stores to pass ot informational brochures on the laws of the state, as well as how to avoid selling to suspected cookers. The have to sign for it, and thus giving a wirtten record that they have the laws, and tools to prevent felonies occurring at their stores. Some have been charged with reckless endangerment, or gross negligence after admitting that they never read or distributed the material given to them. No matter how you look at it, they got slammed. Most store owners passed out the literature, and got signatures for it. That way they could burn the salesperson and keep themselves clean. It still works wonders no matter how you look at it.

I do agree that the legal price of Pseudoephedrine has also risen, but not to the levels of the "street" prices. It's unfortunate that this drug was abused by so many, but that's the lot we have so have to make do. Recently, most stores in this state have pulled the drug from the floors, and keep it behing glass cases, or behind the counter. The sales have dropped off almost 70 percent at some locations. Go figure..................That leaves only those that really use the drug still buying it, since they need I.D. to buy it, just like beer.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 11:39 AM
78% of meth is made in super factors 22% reduction in availability sounds good to me!


Even if the law does work the only people effected would be the low level produces which are less likely to be involved in heavy dealing and gang violence. the dangerous home-cooking meth-labs are the most important to target.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

78% of meth is made in super factors 22% reduction in availability sounds good to me!

No it just means the factors need to increase production and that is assuming no one that makes meth can't pay he 4 or 5 people to get 7 or 8 fake IDs and go clean out a few pharmices.


Even if the law does work the only people effected would be the low level produces which are less likely to be involved in heavy dealing and gang violence. the dangerous home-cooking meth-labs are the most important to target.

Ok just don't be surprised when gangs take over your street coner because you just gave them increased market share.

MadRat
04-11-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: MadRat
No ideal is attainable. FREEDOM. LIBERTY. HAPPINESS.
But they are the American Way of Life.
And Ironicly enought all are destoryed by the war one drugs.
Amen

If you continue to support the likes of the leadership as it is now then the American Way of Life becomes a harder course to choose. If you use your own prudence and trust none of the politicians to fix subjective problems then you stand a good deal of chance to live your ideals. Its the people that sit idle, as government goes around changing all the rules year in and year out for their own agendas, that causes many of our current social ills. If nature had been allowed to run its course, and welfare did not exist as it does today - rewarding the losing attitudes in society - then perhaps we'd be more vigilant on the grass roots level. The people that can fix the problems - the people with the problems - are pacified by welfare to leave well enough alone.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

78% of meth is made in super factors 22% reduction in availability sounds good to me!

No it just means the factors need to increase production and that is assuming no one that makes meth can't pay he 4 or 5 people to get 7 or 8 fake IDs and go clean out a few pharmices.


Even if the law does work the only people effected would be the low level produces which are less likely to be involved in heavy dealing and gang violence. the dangerous home-cooking meth-labs are the most important to target.

Ok just don't be surprised when gangs take over your street coner because you just gave them increased market share. as long as you won't be surprised when the progression of suicides, house explosions, paranoid schizophrenia, and random drudged-up shootings start to fall.

The fact that the drug war causes negative black-market conditions is a fine reason to change our drug policy; but that's all the more reason to do what we can to reduce availability and thus addicts;

If people in suburban and rural America could see what kind of messed up situation the 'drug war' is creating they may well pressure their own political party to change how we deal with the problem of intoxicant abuse.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

78% of meth is made in super factors 22% reduction in availability sounds good to me!

No it just means the factors need to increase production and that is assuming no one that makes meth can't pay he 4 or 5 people to get 7 or 8 fake IDs and go clean out a few pharmices.


Even if the law does work the only people effected would be the low level produces which are less likely to be involved in heavy dealing and gang violence. the dangerous home-cooking meth-labs are the most important to target.

Ok just don't be surprised when gangs take over your street coner because you just gave them increased market share. as long as you won't be surprised when the progression of suicides, house explosions, paranoid schizophrenia, and random drudged-up shootings start to fall.


But the only thing listed that would go down would be house explosions, and the decrease would be instead of 20 minor house explusions you will get a few massive explosions as the production and there for the amount of chemicals is concentered. The menital effects would increase because the meth would be less pure because with a limited number of sellers the sellers will have less compition so they can add more cutting agents. Overall meth use would remain the same so the effects of meth use would remain the same with the addition of increased gang activity.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 03:41 PM
But the only thing listed that would go down would be house explosions, and the decrease would be instead of 20 minor house explusions you will get a few massive explosions as the production and there for the amount of chemicals is concentered. Actually the large-scale production facilities have much less of a problem, as they are much more professional about the cooking.


The menital effects would increase because the meth would be less pure because with a limited number of sellers the sellers will have less compition so they can add more cutting agents. the damage from meth isn't cut, but the methamphetamine itself.


Overall meth use would remain the same so the effects of meth use would remain the same with the addition of increased gang activity. the distribution chain for meth going through biker gangs will discourage people from starting in on it. I doubt that addiction will stay the same, i think it will continue to rise, just not at the same rate as when their was more ready access the components.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 03:48 PM
the distribution chain for meth going through biker gangs will discourage people from starting in on it. I doubt that addiction will stay the same, i think it will continue to rise, just not at the same rate as when their was more ready access the components.

Lol i can just imagin a guy about to buy meth think I better not do meth because that would give money to biker gangs.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

the distribution chain for meth going through biker gangs will discourage people from starting in on it. I doubt that addiction will stay the same, i think it will continue to rise, just not at the same rate as when their was more ready access the components.

Lol i can just imagin a guy about to buy meth think I better not do meth because that would give money to biker gangs.

I can just imagine a guy who's thinking about buying meth just sticking with weed because he's got to go into a seedy bar and talk to a scary ass biker dude to get the meth. I can just imagine a tweaker not sharing with his 'friend' because it costs to much to share.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Spencer278

the distribution chain for meth going through biker gangs will discourage people from starting in on it. I doubt that addiction will stay the same, i think it will continue to rise, just not at the same rate as when their was more ready access the components.

Lol i can just imagin a guy about to buy meth think I better not do meth because that would give money to biker gangs.

I can just imagine a guy who's thinking about buying meth just sticking with weed because he's got to go into a seedy bar and talk to a scary ass biker dude to get the meth.

So which drugs have been eliminated because the supply is control by gangs.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Spencer278

the distribution chain for meth going through biker gangs will discourage people from starting in on it. I doubt that addiction will stay the same, i think it will continue to rise, just not at the same rate as when their was more ready access the components.

Lol i can just imagin a guy about to buy meth think I better not do meth because that would give money to biker gangs.

I can just imagine a guy who's thinking about buying meth just sticking with weed because he's got to go into a seedy bar and talk to a scary ass biker dude to get the meth.

So which drugs have been eliminated because the supply is control by gangs.

i didn't say eliminated, i just indicated a reduction in proliferation of addiction.

if we want to eliminate the drug problem we should put pot users in the same category as tobacco users, and anything harder the same as an oxycoton addict.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Spencer278

the distribution chain for meth going through biker gangs will discourage people from starting in on it. I doubt that addiction will stay the same, i think it will continue to rise, just not at the same rate as when their was more ready access the components.

Lol i can just imagin a guy about to buy meth think I better not do meth because that would give money to biker gangs.

I can just imagine a guy who's thinking about buying meth just sticking with weed because he's got to go into a seedy bar and talk to a scary ass biker dude to get the meth.

So which drugs have been eliminated because the supply is control by gangs.

i didn't say eliminated, i just indicated a reduction in proliferation of addiction.

if we want to eliminate the drug problem we should treat pot like tobacco, and anything harder like oxycoton.


Fine for what drugs have had reduction in proliferation of addiction (w/o simply moving to a worses drug) by forcing the distrubution into the hands of a gang?

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 05:32 PM
Fine for what drugs have had reduction in proliferation of addiction (w/o simply moving to a worses drug) by forcing the distrubution into the hands of a gang? a reduction in supply leads to an increase in price which leads to a reduction in demand. I defy you to find an amphetamine that's more destructive than crystal meth. As i said before you can't go to pcp or inhalants to feed the amphetamine demon.

i don't like gangs, or money in the hands of biker gangs, but it's better than having a higher supply of this uniquely destructive drug available.

Of course, as I'm sure your trying to stand up for Spencer, fixing the 'war on drugs' by turning it into a 'war on addiction' is the best thing America could do.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 06:08 PM
a reduction in supply leads to an increase in price which leads to a reduction in demand. I defy you to find an amphetamine that's more destructive than crystal meth. As i said before you can't go to pcp or inhalants to feed the amphetamine demon.

Give one example where increasing the price of an addicitve substance has resulted in a reduction in demand for the drug other then the user switching to a harder drug.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 06:54 PM
other then the user switching to a harder drug. I'm telling you, no harder substitute for meth exists.

Spencer278
04-11-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

other then the user switching to a harder drug. I'm telling you, no harder substitute for meth exists.

Like I said give one example where increasing the price had the effect of decreasing demand. The reason I included the and not shifting towards a harder drug because the tends to happen and shows that there wasn't really a decrease in demand just a shift.

Your theory is that increasing the price will decrease usage, show an example where that is true for an addictive substance and didn't result in the users moving on to harder substance.

MadRat
04-11-2004, 10:31 PM
People that do meth tend to try harder drugs (which should really be considered softer, since meth is such an endurance high for the users and abusers) and get caught up in a viscious criminal cycle. Two things tend to stop the use of meth - 1. they become scared of it and consciously quit, or 2. they become ensnarled in a cycle that kills the user. Since death is such a long drawn out process for the meth user they tend to succumb to #1 after many years (or cycles) of on-and-off-again dependency. Meth is not a recent "problem" - its existed for the better part of forty years now in one form or another. The internet made the information of how to synthesize it into a cottage industry.

LordMagnusKain
04-11-2004, 11:25 PM
Your theory is that increasing the price will decrease usage, show an example where that is true for an addictive substance and didn't result in the users moving on to harder substance. I didn't say people would stop, i said the proliferation of use would slow. I don't need to sight a case-study to prove a basic economic principle: increased price yields reduced demand, if this wasn't true the meth-dealers could charge 10k a gram and expect the increase in user base year-over-year. Substitution with a harder drug is impossible as their is no more damaging drug than meth, less methadone, PCP, and inhalants.

If this was slowing down the availability of on-line marijuana seeds then you could say they might move on to coke. But it's crystal meth and almost any substitute drug would be preferable.

MadRat
04-12-2004, 12:10 AM
LMK has one thing right, meth is far more powerful than most of the traditional hard drugs.

Meth has been described to me as the purest cocaine's high with a 3-day marathon run before the crash. When people get dysfunctional then they turn to the harder versions, with the shorter highs and lows like cocaine, to satisfy the urges and to try to regain some grip on reality. I cannot imagine being unable to eat or sleep for 3 days.

Spencer278
04-12-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Your theory is that increasing the price will decrease usage, show an example where that is true for an addictive substance and didn't result in the users moving on to harder substance. I didn't say people would stop, i said the proliferation of use would slow. I don't need to sight a case-study to prove a basic economic principle: increased price yields reduced demand, if this wasn't true the meth-dealers could charge 10k a gram and expect the increase in user base year-over-year. Substitution with a harder drug is impossible as their is no more damaging drug than meth, less methadone, PCP, and inhalants.

If this was slowing down the availability of on-line marijuana seeds then you could say they might move on to coke. But it's crystal meth and almost any substitute drug would be preferable.

Find one drug where price increase did what ever you claim would happen with meth usage. I'm asking for one example where increased price could be counted as a win in the war on drugs. For it to be counted as a win the use of drug most decrease and the decrease can not be contributed to an increase use of harder drugs.

LordMagnusKain
04-12-2004, 03:08 PM
Find one drug where price increase did what ever you claim would happen with meth usage. The fact of any market including the drug black-market is that as prices go up quantity demanded will slow. Show me one market ware you increase prices and quantity demanded speeds up.
For it to be counted as a win win? you can't 'win', you can just reduce the number of new addicts;
he use of drug most decrease no, for an impact to occur you need to reduce the number of new people who become addicts.
and the decrease can not be contributed to an increase use of harder drugs. no harder substitute for crystal-meth exists, you don't go smoke PCP or huff paint fumes because you can't do your hot rounds.

the drug war can never 'win' you can't declare war on a market! the only thing the drug 'war' could ever do is make things less available, thus increasing price: a crap deal for the addict, but a definite way to reduce the number of new addicts.

Tom
04-12-2004, 04:40 PM
"Your theory is that increasing the price will decrease usage, show an example where that is true for an addictive substance and didn't result in the users moving on to harder substance. "


coffee.

glugglug
04-12-2004, 04:57 PM
When I lived in FL I'd estimate I averaged about 150-200 sudafed pills a month in addition to other allergy meds.

For a family where the parent is purchasing this for themselves and some children I could easily see it being too limiting.

The other available decongestants are all drowsiness-inducing.

Spencer278
04-12-2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Find one drug where price increase did what ever you claim would happen with meth usage. The fact of any market including the drug black-market is that as prices go up quantity demanded will slow. Show me one market ware you increase prices and quantity demanded speeds up.

I'm not claiming the demand will increase if you increase price. I'm claim that anything short of a 1000% increase would have no effect on quantity demanded.



For it to be counted as a win win? you can't 'win', you can just reduce the number of new addicts;
he use of drug most decrease no, for an impact to occur you need to reduce the number of new people who become addicts.


And that would be a win right. You can define win how ever you want in show that your market BS has worked



and the decrease can not be contributed to an increase use of harder drugs. no harder substitute for crystal-meth exists, you don't go smoke PCP or huff paint fumes because you can't do your hot rounds.


I'm assuming that the example you give will not be meth which you claim is the hardest drug therefor in your example you most show that you didn't get people to stop smoking and start doing meth. If you choose to use meth as your example then you don't need to demonstrat that it didn't simply cause a subsition to a harder. Anyways I hope that is clear now what is your example?


the drug war can never 'win' you can't declare war on a market! the only thing the drug 'war' could ever do is make things less available, thus increasing price: a crap deal for the addict, but a definite way to reduce the number of new addicts.

Fine define succese how ever the #### you want and show one time your market theory has worked on a highly addicitive drug.

Edit: I'm sure you will get confused again and come up with another way to avoid say that raising drug prices has no effects, so if your going to complain that their can not be "succese" on the war on drugs then just STFU. Also why is it that you break down a pharagraph and qoute signal words are you really that confused by the question.

DivideBYZero
04-12-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
oh wait... um, looks like you CAN STILL BUY SUDAFED:


"...People buying the pills have to show identification, sign a log book and are restricted to purchasing nine grams, or 300, 30-mg tablets, a month..."

"The Sky is Falling... The Sky is Falling..."

:beer::D

And you are suprised by this.

VOTE FOR A NAME CHANGE FOR DMC TO 'Chicken Little'. Who's with me?

I'll put a request in at FI if we get enough!

LordMagnusKain
04-12-2004, 09:00 PM
so if your going to complain that their can not be "succese" on the war on drugs then just STFU i will not shut the &*#% up; as i've said numerous times this isn't an argu ment about the 'war on drugs', it's a debate on reducing avalability of sudafed inorder to make meth less avalable. If you spent time reading the thread you'd know i have a diferent opinon on other things and your trying to pick a fight that doesn't exist.
Also why is it that you break down a pharagraph and qoute signal words are you really that confused by the question. yes, because i'm stupid, just look at my spelling. as in any war: only love can win!