*
The Irony Of It All
Brad Hollerbach

Prescription Sudafed??!!
Attempt by Local Legislators Derailed. This Time.

Posted Monday, March 9, 2009, at 9:23 PM

Comments

View 5 comments or respond
Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.
  • Thanks for the update, Brad. This whole situation irks me as well, it's already VERY difficult to obtain the cold medicine that actually WORKS. That system was created to try and alleviate the meth problem, work the kinks out of that, you have a paper trail now research it. don't create more absurd restrictions.

    Furthermore have u noticed some pharmacies treat u like a criminal which is fine, I guess, like u I agree that it's worth a lil' hardship on my behalf to help stop meth production but gee ****...I could tell u some horror stories just trying to get some MucinexD for me and my family with two prescriptions for it, it was nuts.

    -- Posted by Turnip on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 9:56 AM
  • It makes me wonder if any of these legislators -- either our local ones or the Senator from Oregon -- have actually spent any time in a doctor’s waiting room like the rest of us.

    If everyone has to go to the doctor before they can get Sudafed, MucinexD or the like, then not only will the waiting rooms be stuffed even more to the brim during flu season, the odds of you catching something that DOES require a visit to the doctor, increases exponentially. Those places are Petri dishes.

    I understand that cleaning up the toxic messes these meth-heads leave behind is expensive and hazardous for police officers, but the tracking system is what is flawed.

    Perhaps a better way of accurately tracking the purchases would be using a finger print scanner or some other biometric that can’t be faked.

    Thanks for reading.

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 10:25 AM
  • Good point. I wonder if psuedophedrine is covered by state plans such as MC+? Could we b providing ingredients for free? Medicaid does cover some OTC meds w/a prescription, not sure exactly which ones.

    -- Posted by Turnip on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 1:20 PM
  • Brad: Most of the time I agree with you but not here. Meth is costing you way more in tax dollars spent than a trip to the local doctor will ever cost you. Investigating, Dismantling, Disposal, Incarceration, and rehabilitation cost an average of $350,000 per meth lab. Since 2001 in Missouri over 17,000 reported lab incidents, 10,000 reported anhydrous ammonia thefts Those incidents have cost Missouri taxpayers over $2,000,000,000 yes thats with a B and that is the conservative estimate.

    I too am like you. The little red pills are what work for me when I get severe sinus head ache. I don't mind signing my name and I won't mind going to the doctor to be able to get mine if needed. It happens about once a year. Until you have witnessed first hand the horrors caused by harmless little (pseudoephedrine) broken down into meth you can only speculate.

    Pseudoephedrine found inside (some) cold pills is a dangerous drug and is used to make methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is one of the most highly addictive drugs used today and has the least success ratio for rehabilitation. Over 1100 children are burned, injured, and in some cases die in meth labs annually.

    Whatever you do, DO NOT FOREGET THIS FACT (prior to 1976 products containing pseudoephedrine required a prescription.)

    As far as Mexico is concerned. The President of Mexico has now banned the importation of pseudoephedrine into Mexico and Mexican Meth is now impure and unwanted by meth users.

    -- Posted by the_shadow_knows on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 4:31 PM
  • I don’t question the fact that the production of meth is a weight on society. While I’m far from being a drug expert, I can think of no other drug that generates toxic waste in its creation. Clean-up is expensive. The people who succumb to this drug are idiots. The before-and-after photos of meth-heads should be enough to scare most people straight.

    I feel that the laws we have in place our sufficient, but the implementation is defective.

    It appears to me as a casual observer that a trained monkey – and not a very well-trained one at that – could bypass some of these “controls” that we have in place. That's what needs fixed, not more restrictions.

    If these people don’t get their high from meth, they will get it from something else. Possibly legal – like alcohol – or possibly not – like pot or crack or whatever buzz-du-jour is sweeping the Internet. They all cost society in one way or another although perhaps not as much as meth. Cleanup certainly is a problem.

    By the way, I like your handle. Shall I call you “Lamont Cranston?”

    Thanks for reading.

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 5:40 PM