 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Pharmacy / November 2004Sudafed becoming C-IV
I heard a news story that OK and MT I think it was have made pseudephedrine a schedule 5 drug, and 8 other states are considering doing the same. Oh boohoo, what will those poor speed freaks do? Petepenguin@webtv.net (P T) wrote in news:22136-419FC50B-21@storefull- 3133.bay.webtv.net: > I heard a news story that OK and MT I think it was have made > pseudephedrine a schedule 5 drug, and 8 other states are considering > doing the same. > > Oh boohoo, what will those poor speed freaks do? Rob from you, instead of buying it legally? Mmmm prohibition. >I heard a news story that OK and MT I think it was have made > pseudephedrine a schedule 5 drug, and 8 other states are considering > doing the same. > > Oh boohoo, what will those poor speed freaks do? Being a non-pharmacist myself, I must ask; what is the impact of making it "schedule 5"? Am I take it that makes a prescription-only medicine? It means that, now, in some states, one must show an ID and/or sign one's name and address at the pharmacy to purchase pseudoephedrine-containing remedies, and obviously this means that pseudoephedrine products can only be sold in pharmacies. The products themselves will not require a prescription for purchase, only ID. This arrangement is similar to the over-the-counter-but-signature status of other schedule V controlled drug products such as Robitussin-AC (contains 10 mg codeine per 5 ml syrup). In some states, however, these so-called "exempt" schedule V products are prescription-only. I suspect that this pseudoephedrine thing may end up as a federal requirement . > I heard a news story that OK and MT I think it was have made > pseudephedrine a schedule 5 drug, and 8 other states are considering > doing the same. > > Oh boohoo, what will those poor speed freaks do? Oh, forgot---in Oklahoma anyway, the pseudoephedrine law applies only to compressed tablets containing the drug, and not to gelcaps or liquid, since it is apparently impractical to use the latter two products in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. > I heard a news story that OK and MT I think it was have made > pseudephedrine a schedule 5 drug, and 8 other states are considering > doing the same. > > Oh boohoo, what will those poor speed freaks do? > I heard a news story that OK and MT I think it was have made > pseudephedrine a schedule 5 drug, and 8 other states are considering > doing the same. > > Oh boohoo, what will those poor speed freaks do? The speed freaks will get their meth no matter what the law does just like all the other junkies find a way to get their drug of choice. Heroin & coke have been illegal far longer than any of us have been around, yet plenty of heroin & coke addicts still exist. Has anyone failed to notice that the War On Drugs doesn't work? The War On Drugs is an unwinnable waste of taxpayer money and should be ended. Having to show ID and sign a log just to get nasal decongestants that are hidden behind the pharmacy counter is an absolute insult to the 99.99% of people who use these drugs legitimately. I've been known to purchase up to 18 grams of pseudoephedrine at a time at my local pharmacy. That's 3 bottles of 100 60mg tablets, a 75-day supply for those of us who suffer from chronic nasal congestion. I don't know how to turn it into methamphetamine and I don't want to. I just want a nasal decongestant without being treated like a criminal suspect. karl1973@my-deja.com stated >The speed freaks will get their meth >no matter what,,, That doesn't mean we are obliged to serve it to them on a silver platter. >...The War On Drugs >is an unwinnable waste... Boy, that's a whole other thread. I only want to deter the conversion of Sudafed to speed. >...Having to show ID and sign a log >just to get nasal decongestants >that are hidden behind the pharmacy >counter is an absolute insult... Is it an insult to show ID to buy beer, cash a check, buy an airplane ticket, and pickup will-call tickets at the game? Maybe you haven't heard about the PROBLEMS caused by converting Sudafed to speed. Your minor inconvenience and embarrassment are a small price to pay for the larger benefit to society. Petepenguin@webtv.net (P T) wrote in news:10476-41A0EF58-148@storefull- 3134.bay.webtv.net: > Maybe you haven't heard about the PROBLEMS caused by converting Sudafed > to speed. Your minor inconvenience and embarrassment are a small price > to pay for the larger benefit to society. > And what evidence do you have that the war or drugs is a benifit to society? Didn't people learn anything from alcohol prohibition? > Maybe you haven't heard about the PROBLEMS caused by converting Sudafed > to speed. Your minor inconvenience and embarrassment are a small price > to pay for the larger benefit to society. By what logic can I say it's wrong for you to use speed, but it's fine for you to drink unlimited amounts of alcohol? Both can destroy your life, so why the legal double standard? As for the problems of speed production, I hear about how folks blow up the neighborhood with their dangerous home drug labs. I can solve that problem: legalize speed so folks don't have to brew it at home and put their neighbors at risk of chemical explosions. As for the dangers of speed use, I'm a libertarian and feel that you should be able to do what you want with your body no matter how stupid I may think it is. If someone wants to abuse speed, that's unfortunate, but it's their choice. Just like someone can make the unfortunate choice to drink themselves to death. It's universally agreed that alcohol prohibition didn't work 75 years ago, yet so many people think the same tactic will somehow magically work on other drugs. Everytime we put a drug dealer in prison, we just create a new job opening for another drug dealer. karl1973 opined . . . >...I'm a libertarian and feel that >you should be able to do >what you want with your body >no matter how stupid I may think it is... Libertarianism sounds wonderful in theory, but the problem is that every action has consequences, and these consequence ripple out into the sea of humanity and affect other. I presume you believe that an individual can use all the drugs he wants, as long as no harm comes to another, but in many cases harm does come to others. While I appreciate that good Libertarians such as yourself will comport themselves in a manner that does not leave a wake of destruction in society, can I safely assume that all men will behave so honorably? - - - - - "No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manner of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee." by John Donne > Libertarianism sounds wonderful in theory, but the problem is that every > action has consequences, and these consequence ripple out into the sea [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > does not leave a wake of destruction in society, can I safely assume > that all men will behave so honorably? I sort of have to trust that people will basically behave honorably, as you call it. Right now you can go out and buy unlimited amounts of booze, get totally drunk, and you could then decide to drive your car. I have to assume you're not going to do that. You could go out and buy a gun and unlimited amounts of ammo and shoot up a shopping mall. I have to assume you're not going to do that either. Why do you assume that just because somebody could do something that they're going to do it and Western civilization will totally fall apart as a result? It's ridiculous to think that everyone is going to turn into a junkie if drugs are legalized, just as most people aren't alcoholics even thought there is no law stopping them. (I don't even drink.) Drug addicts will exist if drug laws exist or not. All the government can do is reduce the supply of drugs and drive up prices (just like they teach in Economics 101). Higher drug prices just mean more criminal activity & violence. More thefts, armed robberies, and burglaries to support a costly drug habit. If we catch them then we throw them in jail, where the taxpayers are robbed again at the rate of $30K a year to imprison them. We already have the highest incarceration rate of any nation, so I challenge you to tell me that our system is working well. The drug war is the longest running war in our history and we still haven't won, nor even come close. Have any idea on when we might win? My guess is never. I belive in the amazing power of capitalism. As long as there is a demand for drugs, somebody will surely provide them and all the law enforcement in the universe can't stop the power of capitalism. >> Libertarianism sounds wonderful in theory, but the problem is that >> every action has consequences, and these consequence ripple out into [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > as you call it. Right now you can go out and buy unlimited amounts of > booze, get totally drunk, and you could then decide to drive your car. Not that I'm necassarily disagreeing with you; but this example is often used as an arguement AGAINST your point of view. Back in the 40s and 50s, drink driving wasn't something people really cared about, everyone did it. I don't know how the case is in the US, but in New Zealand, the police are extremely stringent on drink driving, there are lots of road blocks and such where they test people. Now days, the number of people drink driving is massively down, and so are both traffic accidents involving drunk drivers, and total traffic accidents. >Is it an insult to show ID to buy beer, cash a check, buy an airplane >ticket, and pickup will-call tickets at the game? Your previous posts to this NG have been well thought out and valuable to their respective topics, but if you're going to make an argument by example, at least use ones that are related. Each one mentioned is a totally different situation with different purposes than the original statement, especially when that information is recorded and reviewed. And yes, IMHO it is an insult as previously indicated. I don't need someone else to protect me -- I protect myself. It's called personal responsibility. >Maybe you haven't heard about the PROBLEMS caused by converting Sudafed >to speed. Your minor inconvenience and embarrassment are a small price >to pay for the larger benefit to society. "Cost to society" arguments are greatly flawed. They usually include a premise that accepts nothing less than 100%, e.g. "if it only saves _one_ child..." That's why arguments for seat belts, helmet laws, gun control, the war on drugs, etc. don't hold up under scrutiny. They are based largely on emotion and rhetoric. "Those who would sacrifice Liberty for temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin DRWilliams, R.Ph. rx4spd@austin.rr.com Thanks to all who have posted their opinions to this thread. It has been largely polite and intelligent. My opinion on this issue remains unchanged, and it seems no one else has changed their opinions either. So it goes. Go easy on the turkey. Pete |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.