CADsortaGUY
Lifer
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"
Just my $.02
CkG
--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 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
Lifer
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
oh yeah you sure showed me
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.
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
Lifer
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
oh yeah you sure showed me
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
Yep, right on the mark, DPS. and of course supported by your friendly Dictatorship heros of CAD & Co.
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.
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.
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.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,910
- 238
- 106
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?
start a new thread, because your perpetual distractions on this in this thread are doing no one any good.
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.
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.
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.
or , insted of listening to someone lie to your face as dmcowen is,you could go back and read what this conservative thinks:Originally posted by: dmcowen674
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.
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.
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.
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
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
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
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,910
- 238
- 106
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
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!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter