Congress may restrict the sale of cold medicines

fruitfly

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
8,071
The days of buying some cold remedies off the shelf in drug stores soon may be gone, a casualty of the methamphetamine epidemic.

Already more than a dozen states have laws that require retailers to sell Sudafed, Nyquil and other medicines only from behind the pharmacy counter.

Now Congress is working on legislation intended to make it tougher for people to get the ingredients needed to manufacture the highly addictive drug.

Retailers once resisted the idea, saying it would inconvenience consumers. Today, stores seem ready to go along with a federal law in hopes of avoiding a tangle of state regulations.

This month, a Senate committee plans hearings on a bill that sharply restricts the sale of cold and allergy pills containing pseudoephedrine. This ingredient is used to "cook" meth in makeshift labs across the country.

"There's a lot of public pressure to do something," said Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo. He has joined with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on a bill to limit the sale of cold medicines.

"I think retailers _ most of them _ do not want to sell their products to meth cooks and they know they have to do something," Talent said.

The pharmaceutical industry has not raised major objections.

Pfizer Inc., which makes Sudafed, supports a national standard that would put pseudoephedrine behind the counter, said a company spokesman, Jay Kosminsky.

"I do think there really is an opportunity for a national consensus on this issue and I don't think there was a year ago," Kosminsky said.

The meth problem is particularly severe in the Midwest, where rural areas provide cover for the pungent chemical odor from meth labs. In Missouri, law enforcement officers seized more than 2,700 meth labs last year _ more than any other state.

The Senate bill is modeled on an Oklahoma law that took effect in April. The proposal would require the sale of medicines with pseudoephedrine only by a pharmacist or pharmacy personnel.

Customers would have to show a photo ID, sign a log and be limited to 9 grams _ or about 300 30-milligram pills _ in a 30-day period. The government can make exceptions in areas where pharmacies are not easily accessible.

Kmart, Walgreens, Target, Wal-Mart and other leading retailers have put in place guidelines to move cold products behind pharmacy counters or limit their sales.

Last month, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores endorsed a set of principles that includes limiting access to the drugs.

"We do think it's time for a federal solution," said Mary Ann Wagner, the association's vice president of pharmacy regulatory affairs. "It's just becoming so complicated when you look at a map across the country and no two laws are anything alike."

She said that store employees _ not just those in the pharmacy _ should be able to sell the medication as long as they are under a pharmacist's supervision.

The Bush administration has not taken a public position on the Senate bill. But John Horton, associate deputy director for state and local affairs for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said early signs show that state laws are having a positive effect.

A report by the drug office last month found a 50 percent drop in the number of meth labs in Oklahoma and Oregon, two of the first states to enact laws restricting the purchase of pseudoephedrine-containing products.

"We know that when we prevent the methamphetamine cooks from getting the ingredients they need to make the meth, that the problem becomes smaller," Horton said.

Horton estimates about one-third of the meth comes from small labs in the United States, while two-thirds is smuggled in bulk from big labs outside the country, mainly Mexico.

Lt. Steve Dalton, supervisor of the Combined Ozarks Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement Team, an anti-drug police task force in Branson, Mo., said the meth trade is the worst drug problem he has seen.

"A federal law is not going to wipe it out, but if we can get away from the cleanup of these meth labs, it's going to free up a lot of our time and we can target those that are bringing it in from across the border," Dalton said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold Drug Curbs Considered in Meth Fight
By SAM HANANEL, The Associated Press
Sunday, June 5, 2005


Link
 
Now, if they can just convince Mexico (where 80% of the methamphetamine in the United States comes from) to do this, then they may see a temporary decline.

Of course, all that this does is put the illegal drug chemists hard at work to creating other pathways to producing the drug.

I swear, with just a few more fingers we'll have the dike all leak free! 8(
 
fruitfly said:
A report by the drug office last month found a 50 percent drop in the number of meth labs in Oklahoma and Oregon, two of the first states to enact laws restricting the purchase of pseudoephedrine-containing products.
A drop in illegal methamphetamine labs is definitely a good thing. They are a major public health hazard.

But, note the lack of figures describing the availability of methamphetamine. :)

Their glass is half full. :D
 
Invalid Usename

Originally posted by fruitfly
A report by the drug office last month found a 50 percent drop in the number of meth labs in Oklahoma and Oregon, two of the first states to enact laws restricting the purchase of pseudoephedrine-containing products.


A drop in illegal methamphetamine labs is definitely a good thing. They are a major public health hazard.

But, note the lack of figures describing the availability of methamphetamine.

Their glass is half full.

All busting/slowing the cooks that use pseudoephedrine will do is concentrate the supply of meth to the medium/large scale cooks that use more professional and harder to trace methods of production or of course importation into the country.

So, you take it out of "mom and pop" cooks and onto organized crime. That's an improvement?

Wake me up when any *one* of the states successfully prohibits an illegal drug.
 
That's the whole thing. Legislators mess their pants all over how big and bad they will appear. And they can quote stats like those and claim to have done something.

But what it really comes down to is that the American public is gullable enough to buy it.

TV Commercial:

Senator Joe Baloney

Tough on Crime!
- in 2004 Senator Joe Baloney increased the penalties for drug running from 2 life terms to 4. Now, drug runners can expect to wait 4 life times before getting back out on the street!

Senator Joe Baloney is tough on crime!

There's just too many morons who watch that and think it means something. :D
 
at least the pigs can say they're doing something 8)


anyhow, they should just let people do meth...this being a "free" country and all.
 
It seems like legalizing it would solve all of the problems, and if the tweakers could be given drugs to sleep, the problems of meth would diminish. This will help the environment, but not the meth problem.
 
I live in Oklahoma. I don't mind having to show my ID if I have to buy a cold product. Of course legalization, regulation and education would be MY first choice in dealing with any drug problem. However this is probably not going to happen any time soon (unfortunately).

In the mean time, My family and I have a 50% lesser chance of being exposed to these toxic chemicals, or being blown up while innocently walking by someones house, who chose to cook meth on their kitchen stove.

I'm not sure that this law was enacted to actually "stop" meth use. It was my understanding that the law was enacted to put a stop to the dangerously toxic meth labs here in Oklahoma. For the purpose of driving out the meth labs in my community, the law has been very successful here, and I sleep much better knowing this fact.
 
Another spectacular waste of time, but I guess the government has got to make itself look somehow progressive in the war on drugs/terror/freedom/porkchops in order to justify the money that the taxpayers toss into it.

And I guess less meth labs is a good thing, too. May as well leave it to the mexicans as we do coke to the colombians.
 
That is the major reason to make meth labs illegal. The risk of death or injury from a poor meth cook.

There has been numerous reports of deaths and injuries over the years here in Queensland, Australia, since it is where most of the countries amphetamine is produced.. it's everywhere here. I understand if they smell the lab or get any reports of explosions and what-not, they can check it out without warrant, and then stick a big notice on the garage or house saying This house is an illegal clandestine drug lab. It is very dangerous blah blah....

Then they follow with arrests.
 
PurrrinInOk said:
I live in Oklahoma. I don't mind having to show my ID if I have to buy a cold product. Of course legalization, regulation and education would be MY first choice in dealing with any drug problem. However this is probably not going to happen any time soon (unfortunately).

In the mean time, My family and I have a 50% lesser chance of being exposed to these toxic chemicals, or being blown up while innocently walking by someones house, who chose to cook meth on their kitchen stove.

I'm not sure that this law was enacted to actually "stop" meth use. It was my understanding that the law was enacted to put a stop to the dangerously toxic meth labs here in Oklahoma. For the purpose of driving out the meth labs in my community, the law has been very successful here, and I sleep much better knowing this fact.


Thank you for your perspective. Maybe these aren't such bad laws afterall :\

I certainly wouldn't want some dangerous meth cook living next to me
 
Yes, I think these laws are very good for reducing the number of meth labs. Whether or not it reduces use of these/any drugs is up for debate but I don't think it's a big deal to have to show your ID to buy sudafed. I agree with Invalid Username, it ticks me off when people use these bills to show how they are "winning the war on drugs" though. Cheers...
 
The idea of "the dangerous meth lab" capable of destroying houses next to it is quite funny. It isnt TNT they're cooking, and the fumes are no more danger than driving to work on the freeway every morning. The hysteria generated by the government's propaganda campaign shows how gullible people are.
I'm also surprised by the attitudes of people on this board. Every drug except cannabis/shrooms/cactus requires someone to synthesise it, so where would you like your drugs to come from? I'd much rather some "kitchen chemist" with no criminal links was making it, right next to my house, than a large organisation with ties to prostitution and gun crime.
 
Dynorphin said:
The idea of "the dangerous meth lab" capable of destroying houses next to it is quite funny. It isnt TNT they're cooking, and the fumes are no more danger than driving to work on the freeway every morning. The hysteria generated by the government's propaganda campaign shows how gullible people are.
I'm also surprised by the attitudes of people on this board. Every drug except cannabis/shrooms/cactus requires someone to synthesise it, so where would you like your drugs to come from? I'd much rather some "kitchen chemist" with no criminal links was making it, right next to my house, than a large organisation with ties to prostitution and gun crime.



(I'm sorry) but when I read this, I really had to laugh...;)

Do you really believe this statement?

THESE are some of the chemicals that they use to manufacture meth.

There is NO DOUBT that there are some dangerous chemicals involved in methamphetamine production. Here are a few:

- Anhydrous ammonia: caustic (that means it can eat through just about anything it touches); fumes can cause eyes to swell shut, permanently reduce lung capacity, cause chemical pneumonia. Source: www.nsc.org/library/chemical

- Lye: Think of the kiss on the hand scene in "Fight Club." It burns. And water just makes it worse. Dust can irritate lungs and eyes. Source: Ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk

- Hydriodic acid: Fumes are eye and skin irritant. A high concentration of fumes can cause "unendurable pain." Source: www.iodine.com.

- Ethyl ether: Extremely flammable liquid and vapor. Once used as an anesthetic. It'll knock you out if you get too much of a whiff. But if you pass out and are still in the presence of the fumes, it can cause respiratory failure. That's a death sentence. Contact with the skin will dry you out like a cracker. Source: http://www.jtbaker.com

- Diluted hydrochloric acid: this is the stuff you keep pools clear of germs with. It'll irritate the skin and eyes. Source: inchem.com

- Toluene: effects are similar to that of ether. It also will make you go temporarily deaf and lose your color vision. Source: CDC.

Uhhh I SURE as hell don't want my neighbor fucking with these deadly chemicals anywhere near me, nor my child......would you??????

Someone who grows pot in their backyard (or a coca plant) does not pose a potential threat to the enviornment or people...... unlike someone who makes meth on their kitchen stove or in hotel rooms, or apartment complexes. The chemicals are TOXIC and deadly....period.

Edit: Oh, I had to add this as well. I've personally seen a meth lab clean up. Let me ask you this, exactly what are the HASMAT suits that they wear for? Is this a fashion statement? =D
 
Dynorphin said:
The idea of "the dangerous meth lab" capable of destroying houses next to it is quite funny. It isnt TNT they're cooking, and the fumes are no more danger than driving to work on the freeway every morning. The hysteria generated by the government's propaganda campaign shows how gullible people are.
I'm also surprised by the attitudes of people on this board. Every drug except cannabis/shrooms/cactus requires someone to synthesise it, so where would you like your drugs to come from? I'd much rather some "kitchen chemist" with no criminal links was making it, right next to my house, than a large organisation with ties to prostitution and gun crime.

a good point, but when some "kitchen chemist" finishes a product, how good is it? the chances that its fucked up are nearly 100% imo.

the large crime organizations with the money have the tools so people dont die and keep coming back.
 
I did not say the chemicals they use arent dangerous if deliberately ingested. I said that the hazards that the labs pose to people near them are hugely exaggerated by the government to garner public opinion against them, and in support of their war on drugs. Hazmat suits are worn because any sensible person would take precautions on dealing with an unknown chemical reaction.

Having intimate knowledge of the procedures involved in various chemical syntheses, I can say that the batch produced by the kitchen chemist will have been made pretty much the same way as that produced by the larger criminal suppliers, with the difference that the kitchen chemist is less likely to be involved with organised crime.

So PurrrrInOk, you must have some sort of interest in illicit substances, that is after all why we post on this board. Where would you say it is acceptable to make these? In Colombia where people involved in the coke supply chain are pretty much indiscriminately killed? Anywhere as long as it isnt your problem, and you cant see the harm that buying them does?

Of course it would be nicer if all drugs we use were made and packaged and sold in pharmacies, but that isnt the case. I would prefer it if the drug scene wasnt as seedy as it is. But when people are so obviously brainwashed by propaganda, it makes me laugh. Could you describe to me, PurrrInOk, why MDMA labs etc are safer? More acceptable?
 
Yes, I think these laws are very good for reducing the number of meth labs.

To get rid of hazardous drug labs you need to legalize and regulate. All these laws will do is move the labs to Mexico, Columbia or elsewhere. Or they will lead to new synth techniques that are even more hazardous.
 
Top