Dummocrats.com - BAN BANANAS!

# May 20th, 2005 8:44 AM kris

This is a travesty! This is a racist attempt to make sure that minorities suffer disproportionately from the effects of the common cold.

# May 20th, 2005 9:54 AM james

pseudoephedrine is a precursor drug to meth. search on the internet for a meth recipe, theyre not that hard to find. i've even pulled them out of law review articles.

contrary to this article's bold assertion, most domestic meth is made in the US, particularly in the central states. NOT in mexico.

most meth is made using cold pills. becasue of this, there are already federal laws regulating the bulk sale of such pills. these laws are so far reaching that they cover sales that a person "should have known" were being used for illegal purchases. for instance, i recall one case where the feds locked up a distributor b/c he sent lots of lots of the legal drug to one person at a private address over a multi year period. the ruling was that he "should have known" that the cold pills were being used to make meth, and he got a multi-year jail sentence as a result. ( i have cites, just not on me.

)

oklahoma has a law restricting solid pseudoephedrine-containing drug sales. kentucky, iowa, illinois, missouri, arkansas and other states have registration laws as well. a very important thing to note is,

1) it only applies to the solid form, not to liquid forms of these drugs

the meth problem is really, really bad, and is only getting worse. you may not realize this, but many stores, i.e. walmart, will not sell you multiple packs of sudafed at a time, no matter where you live. also, most stores make a habit of calling the cops when they see you buying lots of pills.

some states, such as kansas, have adopted the federal "meth-watch" program that teaches store personal to spot "precursor purchases," i.e. someone buying lots of sudafed and heet gasoline additive together. they report these purchases to the cops.

sykes' article is much ado about nothing. he screams out "don't restrict grandma's cold medicine!!!" give me a break.

i doubt he even checked the text of the bill (pdf) in question, which provides:

This bill classifies pseudoephedrine hydrochloride as a Schedule V controlled substance. The bill also prohibits a person from purchasing more than nine grams of pseudoephedrine hydrochloride within a 30-day period and requires the purchaser to provide the pharmacist selling it with a photo ID.

But the classification and the resulting restrictions on sale do not apply if:

1) the pseudoephedrine hydrochloride is in a product that contains therapeutically significant quantities of another active medicinal ingredient;

2) the pseudoephedrine hydrochloride is in a liquid or a soft gelatin capsule; or

3) the Controlled Substances Board has determined that the pseudoephedrine hydrochloride involved cannot be used readily in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

as you can see, first, this only applies to SOLID pills. not gelcaps. not liquids.

second, it takes about 80 pills to hit the 9 g limit. no one needs 80 solid sudafed pills in a 30 day period.

the wisconsin legislature acted by adopting laws that neighboring states already have - iowa's similar law has been in effect for about a year. other states in the US have had their programs in effect for many years. the laws have, in effect, been "tested out" and have been proven an effective tool in combating the meth problem.

it's ironic that sykes calls the legislature's deliberate action an overreaction, when the only one overreacting here is sykes himself.

# May 20th, 2005 10:02 AM kris

Obviously, I know that you have done some research on this. And I agree with your points. I posted it because it's just another example of things that we manage to require IDs for without "discriminating" against people.

# May 20th, 2005 10:29 AM james

i know, i got that point. sykes didnt make it though - he focused his article on overreaching.

sykes is presumably pro-id voting, but anti-id sudafed.

dems say that granny doesnt have an ID, so she won't be able to vote, but that granny does have an ID so she can still buy sold form sudafed.

that's what the topic should have been.

# November 1st, 2005 12:44 PM SudafedUser

James, you are incorrect. You are clearly making assumptions about what you think sounds right, but which in fact have no basis in reality. There are people who need 80 or more Sudafed pills per month. An 80 pill supply will last me only 20 days. If I do not have an adequate amount of Sudafed I cannot walk straight, because my eustation tubes become blocked, which severely throws off my equilibrium.

Now I have to choose which 10 days out of each month I will be required to walk into walls and drive unsafely. Would you want one of your loved ones driving on the same road as me during one of those 10 days? Now I have to choose between being safe and healthy, or going to jail because of needing more Sudafed than the law allows.

I guarantee you that the main meth cooks will not be hindered even slightly by the new law. They will not be going to jail.

Have you considered what happens when a family has more than one person who requires the regular use of Sudafed? My daughter does not need as much Sudafed as me, but when she does, I have no choice but to go more than the usual 10 days without the medicine I need.

My daughter has asthma, which makes it extremely important to keep her respiratory system working well and properly. She has unfortunately inherited my sinus and allergy problems. A chronic stuffy nose for her could ultimately lead to pneumonia. A chronic stuffy nose for her (and me) easily turns into a sinus infection, which leads to bronchitis, which leads to bronchial pneumonia, which leads to pneumonia. Throw asthma on top of that and my daughter's very life could now be in jeopardy.

I guarantee you that the main meth cooks are not in jeopardy of losing anything by the new law. They are only going to become bigger, stronger and richer, because small time meth cooks are now going to be out of business. The supplies they would have been using will now become available to the main meth producers.

The New York Times and The Washington Post can confirm for you that 80 percent of the meth supply comes from Mexican and Californian "super labs" (main meth producers). You are incorrect in asserting that the central United States provides the majority of the meth in this country.

link

link

Wal-Mart, incidentally, has it posted that by law they can only sell 3 boxes of Sudafed to any one customer in any one month period. That means only 60 pills per month for a family that needs more than 120!

The price of Sudafed is going to go up drastically, while the supply is also going to go down. It is predicted that many manufacturers will stop making their generic Sudafed brands altogether. I go to Wal-Mart, because their brand is half the price of name brand Sudafed. Wal-Mart already has a severe and chronic shortage of their brand. I now have to buy name brand, because it's the only one in stock most of the time. I cannot afford name brand. I am now forced to reduce even further the amount of medicine I take.

My quality of life has been severely affected and greatly reduced by the new law. This is not simply an inconvenience to many regular law abiding citizens. This is a daily struggle for many of us. That struggle is only made worse by the fact that it’s all for nothing. Prohibition did not stop alcohol production or use. It actually created many new problems that we continue to suffer with even now, such as organized crime. Cracking down on Sudafed sales to the average person is similarly not going to stop the manufacture or use of meth.

# November 1st, 2005 1:04 PM james

holy crap that's a long winded comment. you could have saved yourself an hour of typing if you would have just read the portion of my above comment that is already in bold.

1) the law only applies to solid tablets. liquid gelcaps are not affected. you can buy as many liquid gelcaps of sudafed as you want. i.e. you have no problem.

2) you say " Wal-Mart, incidentally, has it posted that by law they can only sell 3 boxes of Sudafed to any one customer in any one month period. That means only 60 pills per month for a family that needs more than 120! " umm, no. one person can buy 60. a "family," by definition, consists of more than one person. 60 x NUMBER OF MEMBER IN FAMILY = number of pills a family can buy.