Would it help?
Tulsa shatters meth lab record
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/tulsa-shatters-meth-lab-record (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/tulsa-shatters-meth-lab-record)
Quote
TULSA - 2011 is proving to be a record year for meth in Tulsa. TPD has busted more than 400 meth labs so far. This is number concerns police, because back in 2007 they busted only 20 meth labs. Since the one pot meth labs started showing up in 2008, the problem has exploded.
"You might think that they are nice people and they have a lab in their house. You just don't know nowadays," says Bob Peterson. He and his wife Sharon live just yards from a home that went up in flames Wednesday night. Firefighters say it was started by several one pot meth labs.
The Peterson's have lived in this north Tulsa neighborhood for 16 years. They don't like what they are seeing.
"As far as the meth labs, it's 10 times worse than it was when we moved in," says Sharon. "In this neighborhood we've had meth labs busted all around us," adds Bob.
But it's not just this area of Tulsa that's seeing this trend. Police say one pot meth labs are being found across Tulsa, even in moving cars.
"It's just tragic that this situation has gotten where it's at," says Officer Leland Ashley.
He tells 2NEWS last year TPD saw a record 323 meth labs. So far this year they've seen 412. With three weeks left in 2011, Ashley expect to see at least a hundred more labs compared to 2010.
He warns that a spike in meth production leads to a spike in other crimes, such as burglary, robbery and identity theft.
"Drugs really fuel a lot of crime. A lot of times people say that doesn't affect me. But really it does," says Ashley. "It affects each and everyone of us."
That's exactly what has happened in Peterson's neighborhood. Sharon has been robbed twice her driveway. The couple's home has been burglarized twice.
Unfortunately, the Peterson's know the problem isn't going away. Sharon says, "I'm sick of it. I'm still of it all."
Officer Ashley says the worst maybe yet to come. "You can just imagine, if we are seeing 412 now, what are we going to see next year?"
While Tulsa County has more labs than any other county in the state, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics expects to see more than 900 meth labs busts state-wide by the end of 2011. Most of them are one pot meth labs and have been found in Northeast Oklahoma.
Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/tulsa-shatters-meth-lab-record#ixzz1g3lV1eJa
Geez, maybe that explains what happened when entire cultures disappeared from the earth. Someone found a way to make a drug that would devastate them economically, physically and mentally. And people lined up to try it.
Seriously, couldn't hurt. It slows them down anyway.
I like the way that they are now saying the one pot labs. Gone are the day's of the ol cook in a shed or barn out in the middle of a field doing a cook for over three hours. Once they found out how to make their small amount for themselves in a plastic bottle. Boom ! there ya have it. New records set all over the U.S. for what they call labs.
Just a side note. I thought Creek County was the Meth Capital of the State.
I don't like the idea. If me or my wife is having allergy problems, I don't want to have to make an appointment with a doctor, take time off from work, and pay a copay just to get a prescription. This is a slippery slope...
Quote from: Nik on December 09, 2011, 12:57:36 PM
I don't like the idea. If me or my wife is having allergy problems, I don't want to have to make an appointment with a doctor, take time off from work, and pay a copay just to get a prescription. This is a slippery slope...
It's all BS.
This covers it. Watch out for some "colorful" language! (Profanity.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJr_ggTeq64
Quote from: DolfanBob on December 09, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Boom ! there ya have it. New records set all over the U.S. for what they call labs.
Clever.
Wonder what the percentage is of pseudoephedrine used for the production of meth -vs- pseudoephedrine used to treat cold symptoms (or whetever its more mundane use is).
Do we really even need pseudoephedrine for its legal use anymore? Are there better options?
Quote from: carltonplace on December 09, 2011, 01:16:02 PM
Do we really even need pseudoephedrine for its legal use anymore? Are there better options?
Yes, we do. It has a place that no other covers quite as well. Usually working with another compound - just not acetone.
No thank you. Phenylepiphrine or whatever the hell it is doesn't do anything for me. I don't want to have to pay a doctor a hundred bucks to say "yep, you're sick." I thought we were trying to stop health care costs from increasing unnecessarily. Part of being a responsible health care consumer is treating yourself for the simple stuff as long as they stay simple.
This war on sick people smile is getting utterly stupid. Punish the vulnerable for the acts of others. Great solution.
When they get what they need with a forged script, not going to help much. That is one of the things the women caught making meth in walmart last night was being charged with
http://www.newson6.com/story/16224159/woman-arrested-for-making-meth-in-south-tulsa-walmart
Going to Walgreens, it seems like the majority of people buying pseudophedrine are not buying it for their allergies.
I'm always behind some methed-out looking weirdo who knows way too much about the product lines and quantities sold at Walgreens. Last winter I was waiting to get my prescription for something else and some fidgety woman got a jumbo box of pseudophedrine. The next day, her photo was in the paper for running from a meth lab explosion.
Between the meth-heads and the prescription drug addicts, I often wonder what percentage of walgreens pharmacy customers are not addicts.
Just go to Liqugels only they, cant extract psuedoephedrine from those...
Quote from: Breadburner on December 09, 2011, 04:09:22 PM
Just go to Liqugels only they, cant extract psuedoephedrine from those...
Seems a reasonable route. What's keeping them from doing it?
Quote from: Townsend on December 09, 2011, 04:18:08 PM
Seems a reasonable route. What's keeping them from doing it?
Same thing that keeps us from buying wine at Reasor's and cold microbrew at the liquor store.
Personally, I've not used Sudafed ever since they put it behind the pharmacy counter because it made me feel like a criminal to buy it. I'm fortunate my allergies are well-controlled with a neti-pot, Claritin, or Benadryl. Obviously there's a really deleterious societal effect from meth and if the only source of that precursor is products with pseudoephedrine, then it would be real simple to get rid of or at least make it a whole lot harder to manufacture- ban pseudoephedrene.
There's plenty of other options out there for allergy sufferers.
Sure, for allergy sufferers. For those of us with colds that fill our nasal cavities full of mucous, however, the only (known) relief is pseudoephedrine. I have found neti pots worthless, unfortunately.
And FWIW, pseudoephedrine is not necessary to make meth, it just makes it easier to do without a real lab.
Quote from: nathanm on December 09, 2011, 06:07:57 PM
Sure, for allergy sufferers. For those of us with colds that fill our nasal cavities full of mucous, however, the only (known) relief is pseudoephedrine. I have found neti pots worthless, unfortunately.
And FWIW, pseudoephedrine is not necessary to make meth, it just makes it easier to do without a real lab.
Considering the vast majority of tweakers don't have access to a real lab, I think it's safe to say that most domestic meth production requires pseudoephedrine.
Guaifenesen (sp?) works well on nasal congestion especially if you take it with some ibuprofen to ease swelling of the membranes, it's what I've used ever since they put Sudafed behind the counter. Give it a shot, it won't leave you feeling all jangled or affect sleep either. A neti-pot is good for flushing out allergens, but I've never found it to be a benefit for congestion other than temporarily thinning out thick mucous deposits.
Coricidin HBP works for me. I've gotten my BP under control with weight loss and diet changes, amongst other things, but it works well for colds.
Quote from: nathanm on December 09, 2011, 06:07:57 PM
For those of us with colds that fill our nasal cavities full of mucous,
That's it, blame the mucous.....
;D
Every couple of months, there's some "get tough solution" where one entity or another pushing new legislation that makes it harder to do something that was legal, or giving someone more power/money/etc. to eliminate the meth problem, and each time we fall for it hook. line and sinker.
Tell you what, lets set some quotas of our own: Set an expiration date on new legislation (like cold medicine bans) requiring a vote of the people to extend it. If it works, good. If it doesnt. we wont continue to be burdened with someone's failures.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 06:37:09 PM
Considering the vast majority of tweakers don't have access to a real lab, I think it's safe to say that most domestic meth production requires pseudoephedrine.
Guaifenesen (sp?) works well on nasal congestion especially if you take it with some ibuprofen to ease swelling of the membranes, it's what I've used ever since they put Sudafed behind the counter. Give it a shot, it won't leave you feeling all jangled or affect sleep either. A neti-pot is good for flushing out allergens, but I've never found it to be a benefit for congestion other than temporarily thinning out thick mucous deposits.
I actually do also use Guafenesin, but it only really works on chest congestion for me, not nasal, which I find to be far more difficult to deal with. It's the guafenesin and pseudoephedrine combo that makes it possible for me to engage my brain when I'm sick. Personally, I don't get jittery from Sudafed unless I have to take more than one at a time. It's a miracle drug, as far as I'm concerned. I don't even so much mind it being behind the counter or having my purchases tracked, although I think the limits are a little low. I would, however, mind very much if I had to go see a doctor, pay a bunch of money, and chance catching an even worse bug for a three day cold.
I'd really rather not be forced to smuggle enough Advil Cold & Sinus into the state from Arkansas or Florida to make sure I always have a decent stock.
Requiring a prescription only for pseudoephedrine-only pills might be a solution, but it screws the people who can't take NSAIDs and Tylenol. (a combination stomach and liver problems can leave you unable to take either) Luckily for me, I'm not in that situation.
Quote from: nathanm on December 10, 2011, 05:01:39 PM
Personally, I don't get jittery from Sudafed unless I have to take more than one at a time.
I used to use it since it is allowable to use and then fly. A few years ago it started to affect my pulse and blood pressure so I had to quit it. Fortunately, generic non-drowsy stuff and the nose flush usually work for me. If you are already stopped up, the nose flush cannot get through.
I'm all kinds of stuffed up. I decided to take one of the good allergy pills I have, not pseudoephedrine, to help out with it. I am not sneezing left and right, but that is about the only thing it did for me. Still can't breath. Pretty much what all of the other stuff does for me.
Quote from: nathanm on December 10, 2011, 05:01:39 PM
I actually do also use Guafenesin, but it only really works on chest congestion for me, not nasal, which I find to be far more difficult to deal with. It's the guafenesin and pseudoephedrine combo that makes it possible for me to engage my brain when I'm sick. Personally, I don't get jittery from Sudafed unless I have to take more than one at a time. It's a miracle drug, as far as I'm concerned. I don't even so much mind it being behind the counter or having my purchases tracked, although I think the limits are a little low. I would, however, mind very much if I had to go see a doctor, pay a bunch of money, and chance catching an even worse bug for a three day cold.
I'd really rather not be forced to smuggle enough Advil Cold & Sinus into the state from Arkansas or Florida to make sure I always have a decent stock.
Requiring a prescription only for pseudoephedrine-only pills might be a solution, but it screws the people who can't take NSAIDs and Tylenol. (a combination stomach and liver problems can leave you unable to take either) Luckily for me, I'm not in that situation.
Interesting how the chemistry in allergy and cold meds affects everyone differently. I know people who actually get hyped up on Benadryl and Sudafed makes them drowsy.
There are always going to be people who feel screwed with some sort of ban or restriction on a popular remedy. I think you simply have to weigh the benefit against the risk of nefarious uses. We never hear about people who are helped by pseudo ephedrine only those who are harmed by it so it's easier to have a reaction that it's bad.
Leave it to a few disgusting maggots to ruin something good for everyone.
Given the adverse effects on a significant number of people that will ensue due to the difficulties of obtaining pseudo-fed, add this to the list of reasons to make the penalties for cooking meth just that much harsher. Personally, I think making it a mandatory life in prison is in order - if we don't have the will to make it a capital offense.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 09, 2011, 06:37:09 PM
Considering the vast majority of tweakers don't have access to a real lab, I think it's safe to say that most domestic meth production requires pseudoephedrine.
Guaifenesen (sp?) works well on nasal congestion especially if you take it with some ibuprofen to ease swelling of the membranes, it's what I've used ever since they put Sudafed behind the counter. Give it a shot, it won't leave you feeling all jangled or affect sleep either. A neti-pot is good for flushing out allergens, but I've never found it to be a benefit for congestion other than temporarily thinning out thick mucous deposits.
Uh oh ! looks like there might be a draw back to using those tea pot booger flusher's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2074957/Deaths-brain-eating-amoeba-linked-sinus-remedy-colds.html#ixzz1gjVkWxk0
Quote from: DolfanBob on December 16, 2011, 05:20:53 PM
Uh oh ! looks like there might be a draw back to using those tea pot booger flusher's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2074957/Deaths-brain-eating-amoeba-linked-sinus-remedy-colds.html#ixzz1gjVkWxk0
Duh, follow directions.
QuoteIt follows two recent deaths - a 51-year-old woman and a 20-year-old man from the 'brain-eating amoeba' Naegleria fowleri.
It is thought the amoeba entered their brains when they used the devices.
Both victims are thought to have used tap water, instead of distilled or sterilised water as recommended by the manufacturers.
Dr Raoult Ratard, Louisiana State Epidemiologist, said: 'If you are irrigating, flushing, or rinsing your sinuses, for example, by using a neti pot, use distilled, sterile or previously boiled water to make up the irrigation solution.
'Tap water is safe for drinking, but not for irrigating your nose.'
He added that it is important to rinse the irrigation device after each use and leave open to air dry.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2074957/Deaths-brain-eating-amoeba-linked-sinus-remedy-colds.html#ixzz1glAQOWcg
Emphasis on the previously! It wouldn't surprise me if some dope pours boiling water in their nose sometime.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 16, 2011, 09:39:59 PM
Duh, follow directions.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2074957/Deaths-brain-eating-amoeba-linked-sinus-remedy-colds.html#ixzz1glAQOWcg
If the important stuff is not in the first paragraphs, it's poor reporting.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 16, 2011, 09:52:48 PM
If the important stuff is not in the first paragraphs, it's poor reporting.
So, you do read my posts.
Internet journalism doesn't always require a degree in journalism or anything else really. Nonetheless, the most important parts of that story were in the first few paragraphs. The details followed or were left out.
Speaking of poor journalism, does anyone know why the East Central coach resigned? Local Fox spent five minutes talking about how sad everyone was that he was stepping down without ever explaining why.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 17, 2011, 10:39:53 AM
So, you do read my posts.
I don't believe I said I wouldn't. I may not respond to them. I may not get out of them what you intended but I almost always read them.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 17, 2011, 10:39:53 AM
Speaking of poor journalism, does anyone know why the East Central coach resigned? Local Fox spent five minutes talking about how sad everyone was that he was stepping down without ever explaining why.
QuoteEast Central High Football Coach and Athletic Director Travis Hill has resigned.
Earlier this week hill was placed on paid suspension.
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/East-Central-High-Football-Coach-Resigns/mHompZH5-kGqXyeanVtQVg.cspx (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/East-Central-High-Football-Coach-Resigns/mHompZH5-kGqXyeanVtQVg.cspx)
http://www.ktul.com/story/16343834/east-central-coach-travis-hill-resigns (http://www.ktul.com/story/16343834/east-central-coach-travis-hill-resigns)
KTUL wins the journalism reward. Third sentence:
"Hill was suspended earlier this week, although KTUL does not yet have confirmation on what that suspension was for."
Its not that hard really. Five short words. The local FOX people are entertaining (I watch their news more than the others) but they often report like they've never heard the words, Who, What, Why, When and Where.
As far as Pseudo. Make it hard to get. At every step make it hard so they have to keep dancing around. Smart guys who can post in a literate manner can still get their nose medicine without too much difficulty.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 17, 2011, 02:14:13 PM
As far as Pseudo. Make it hard to get. At every step make it hard so they have to keep dancing around. Smart guys who can post in a literate manner can still get their nose medicine without too much difficulty.
I haven't been able to get any because my DL had expired and I hadn't been able to get it renewed. This also means that anyone who doesn't drive and hasn't had a need to get a state ID can't get any (they are out there). And they wouldn't except any of my other ID's, even the CCW (which is state issued).
Quote from: custosnox on December 17, 2011, 02:17:25 PM
I haven't been able to get any because my DL had expired and I hadn't been able to get it renewed. This also means that anyone who doesn't drive and hasn't had a need to get a state ID can't get any (they are out there). And they wouldn't except any of my other ID's, even the CCW (which is state issued).
If you want or need to drive, you go get a DL. If you want or need to get certain pharmaceuticals or vote you can also obtain some sort of ID. The state sells them to anyone who is willing to divulge certain information, just like DL's. You guys make too big a deal out of this.
Our country's biggest threat is from our relentless drive for release from reality through pharmaceuticals, entertainment and religion. (Wow! Three R's!) The one R with the most threat to us is pharmaceuticals, either illicit or corporate. We can endure the other two.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 18, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
If you want or need to drive, you go get a DL. If you want or need to get certain pharmaceuticals or vote you can also obtain some sort of ID. The state sells them to anyone who is willing to divulge certain information, just like DL's. You guys make too big a deal out of this.
Our country's biggest threat is from our relentless drive for release from reality through pharmaceuticals, entertainment and religion. (Wow! Three R's!) The one R with the most threat to us is pharmaceuticals, either illicit or corporate. We can endure the other two.
Not everyone drives, is my point. Without the need to drive, the need for an ID drops dramatically. Often is the case where the person no longer drives and doesn't bother to renew their license (or doesn't ever realize it has expired). In any case, this law has done absolutely nothing in the hinderence of meth labs. Instead, it has only made it more of a pain in the donkey for those who legitimately are trying to get it.
Quote from: custosnox on December 18, 2011, 11:35:54 AM
Not everyone drives, is my point. Without the need to drive, the need for an ID drops dramatically. Often is the case where the person no longer drives and doesn't bother to renew their license (or doesn't ever realize it has expired). In any case, this law has done absolutely nothing in the hinderence of meth labs. Instead, it has only made it more of a pain in the donkey for those who legitimately are trying to get it.
Bingo.
If you actually had a law that does what the re-electable say it would do, it would disrupt the industry that was created to fight the "war on drugs".
As far as Walgreens etc. not accepting expired DLs, you dont stop being you just because your DL is out of date, so that's just more showmanship.
Hey, thanks to our paranoid, conspiratorial legislators, the world is changing. Now, some sort of ID is practical. If I didn't drive I would still work hard to get some sort of identification if for no other reason than to allow my next of kin to be notified in case of tragedy. Charitable organizations should work hard to enable those who have difficulty in getting one.
As far as the success of efforts to make it hard to assemble the materials for meth, I thought they had shown some success until the new, simpler process emerged. If so, then its punch and counter punch til they move on or die. Some may find it inconvenient to fight them but the alternative is to do nothing.
How do you do nothing? Isn't that irresponsible as adults to ignore a disease as incurable, unwinnable, an infringement of rights or impolitic? What if it were your teenage daughter who was hit by someone in a mobile lab or was exposed to carcinogens after renting a former lab?
Quote from: AquaMan on December 18, 2011, 12:06:19 PM
Hey, thanks to our paranoid, conspiratorial legislators, the world is changing. Now, some sort of ID is practical. If I didn't drive I would still work hard to get some sort of identification if for no other reason than to allow my next of kin to be notified in case of tragedy. Charitable organizations should work hard to enable those who have difficulty in getting one.
As far as the success of efforts to make it hard to assemble the materials for meth, I thought they had shown some success until the new, simpler process emerged. If so, then its punch and counter punch til they move on or die. Some may find it inconvenient to fight them but the alternative is to do nothing.
How do you do nothing? Isn't that irresponsible as adults to ignore a disease as incurable, unwinnable, an infringement of rights or impolitic? What if it were your teenage daughter who was hit by someone in a mobile lab or was exposed to carcinogens after renting a former lab?
It's because of this same kind of reasoning that we get groped and exposed pictures taken of us every time we choose to fly commercially. We live in a society that is driven by it's fears, and those fears are causing the collective freedoms of the people to be given up one by one. "It's just a little inconvenience, but it's safer this way" becomes the mantra until we have no rights left, no freedoms, and become prisoners inside our own states of paranoia. Where, and when, do we draw the line before we loose it all? I'm sure this all seems like an over reaching of the situation, it's just a small amount, but each step we take places us one step closer.
Quote from: custosnox on December 18, 2011, 01:00:50 PM
It's because of this same kind of reasoning that we get groped and exposed pictures taken of us every time we choose to fly commercially. We live in a society that is driven by it's fears, and those fears are causing the collective freedoms of the people to be given up one by one. "It's just a little inconvenience, but it's safer this way" becomes the mantra until we have no rights left, no freedoms, and become prisoners inside our own states of paranoia. Where, and when, do we draw the line before we loose it all? I'm sure this all seems like an over reaching of the situation, it's just a small amount, but each step we take places us one step closer.
I understand that argument. It has power. The decision then rests in just how much specific freedom may be abridged without damaging the collective freedom. Another way to look at it is a balancing of the collective safety vs the collective freedoms.
It is the opposite reasoning of not allowing any flexibility in regulating collective freedoms (a society that is driven by its blind enforcement of its freedoms), that allows a guy to carelessly shoot his rifle into a public river and have the resulting miss travel through a nearby kitchen in a residential community. That actually happened and local authorities refused to even talk to the guy because it might possibly abridge his gun rights. Even though he was shooting from his own property it was a public area he was shooting into. His rights trumped the public's right to safety.
Balancing off the inconvenience of easy to buy nasal remedies vs. an effort to inconvenience portable meth labs seems to favor the public.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 18, 2011, 01:18:48 PM
I understand that argument. It has power. The decision then rests in just how much specific freedom may be abridged without damaging the collective freedom. Another way to look at it is a balancing of the collective safety vs the collective freedoms.
It is the opposite reasoning of not allowing any flexibility in regulating collective freedoms (a society that is driven by its blind enforcement of its freedoms), that allows a guy to carelessly shoot his rifle into a public river and have the resulting miss travel through a nearby kitchen in a residential community. That actually happened and local authorities refused to even talk to the guy because it might possibly abridge his gun rights. Even though he was shooting from his own property it was a public area he was shooting into. His rights trumped the public's right to safety.
Balancing off the inconvenience of easy to buy nasal remedies vs. an effort to inconvenience portable meth labs seems to favor the public.
It's a matter of when one persons rights step over the boundaries of another persons safety. However, the illusion of safety is not the same thing.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 18, 2011, 12:06:19 PM
Hey, thanks to our paranoid, conspiratorial legislators, the world is changing. Now, some sort of ID is practical. If I didn't drive I would still work hard to get some sort of identification if for no other reason than to allow my next of kin to be notified in case of tragedy. Charitable organizations should work hard to enable those who have difficulty in getting one.
As far as the success of efforts to make it hard to assemble the materials for meth, I thought they had shown some success until the new, simpler process emerged. If so, then its punch and counter punch til they move on or die. Some may find it inconvenient to fight them but the alternative is to do nothing.
How do you do nothing? Isn't that irresponsible as adults to ignore a disease as incurable, unwinnable, an infringement of rights or impolitic? What if it were your teenage daughter who was hit by someone in a mobile lab or was exposed to carcinogens after renting a former lab?
And if I ever get flattened on my bicycle, my wrist ID bracelet is perfectly acceptable ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on December 18, 2011, 05:05:42 PM
And if I ever get flattened on my bicycle, my wrist ID bracelet is perfectly acceptable ;)
True. But does it note whether you are an organ donor? And, can you vote with it?
Quote from: AquaMan on December 18, 2011, 07:02:01 PM
True. But does it note whether you are an organ donor? And, can you vote with it?
All I need is my voter's registration card (which is free) to vote, and if I don't have something that says I am an organ donor, and I don't want to be, then problem solved.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 18, 2011, 01:18:48 PM
Balancing off the inconvenience of easy to buy nasal remedies vs. an effort to inconvenience portable meth labs seems to favor the public.
I'd rather poor white folk make it here than give yet more money to the Mexican cartels that kidnap and murder people on a frighteningly regular basis. One of SWMBO's friends had an uncle in Mexico who was recently beheaded for having the gall to ask if they wanted ransom for his son or what after his son disappeared and was presumed kidnapped.
Our irrational fears are literally killing innocent people, but do we do anything about it other than escalate? Seems not.
What would you do then?
Quote from: AquaMan on December 19, 2011, 10:09:05 AM
What would you do then?
Accept the fact that we can't force people into smart decisions. Recognize the fact that the present cure is far worse than the disease. Legalize and tax. Use the taxes to fund treatment for when people finally realize that they need to get off the stuff.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 12:41:06 PM
Accept the fact that we can't force people into smart decisions. Recognize the fact that the present cure is far worse than the disease. Legalize and tax. Use the taxes to fund treatment for when people finally realize that they need to get off the stuff.
Too many people (on both sides of the law) depend on it staying illegal.
Quote from: patric on December 19, 2011, 12:52:13 PM
Too many people (on both sides of the law) depend on it staying illegal.
They need to be forced to acknowledge that their policy stance is literally killing people as surely as if they pointed a gun and pulled the trigger themselves. Giving power to corrupt organizations is tantamount to being part of a corrupt organization.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 12:41:06 PM
Accept the fact that we can't force people into smart decisions. Recognize the fact that the present cure is far worse than the disease. Legalize and tax. Use the taxes to fund treatment for when people finally realize that they need to get off the stuff.
I won't argue those remarks because they are more bumper sticker than real. Unfortunately that is what decisions are usually based on. I will agree funding treatment is our smartest move and decriminalizing is critical. Legalize? No. How losing the convenience of nasal medications over counter is far worse than rolling meth labs is ....uh...hard to swallow.
Ok, i will argue them. I could just as easily suggest that there is no reason for education if people cannot be influenced to make smart decisions. Save some money there and apply it to recovery of financial depressions when folks buy fraudulent securities. And, lets just take practicality to its final step: Legalize prostitution, bestiality, child porn, cocaine, laudenum, horizontal drilling, dumping pesticides in the river...AND TAX them to fund treatment and clean up! GENIUS! Tell Ron Paul quick he's close to winning in Iowa and this logic could put him over the top!! ;D
Quote from: AquaMan on December 19, 2011, 01:01:32 PM
I won't argue those remarks because they are more bumper sticker than real. Unfortunately that is what decisions are usually based on. I will agree funding treatment is our smartest move and decriminalizing is critical. Legalize? No. How losing the convenience of nasal medications over counter is far worse than rolling meth labs is ....uh...hard to swallow.
Yes, drug-related murders in Mexico are just bumper sticker platitudes. As long as it's illegal, you give the criminal element more power than they would otherwise have. Also, you may want to consult a dictionary regarding the difference between "educate" and "force". You can educate teenagers on the dangers of fornication, but that doesn't mean they won't do it. Similarly, you can teach kids the dangers of drugs, but you can't force them to make a particular decision.
People are already making the decision we don't want, and it's driving a war in Mexico and elsewhere.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 19, 2011, 01:01:32 PM
I won't argue those remarks because they are more bumper sticker than real. Unfortunately that is what decisions are usually based on. I will agree funding treatment is our smartest move and decriminalizing is critical. Legalize? No. How losing the convenience of nasal medications over counter is far worse than rolling meth labs is ....uh...hard to swallow.
Ok, i will argue them. I could just as easily suggest that there is no reason for education if people cannot be influenced to make smart decisions. Save some money there and apply it to recovery of financial depressions when folks buy fraudulent securities. And, lets just take practicality to its final step: Legalize prostitution, bestiality, child porn, cocaine, laudenum, horizontal drilling, dumping pesticides in the river...AND TAX them to fund treatment and clean up! GENIUS! Tell Ron Paul quick he's close to winning in Iowa and this logic could put him over the top!! ;D
Losing the "convenience" of a medication over the counter wouldn't be so bad if it actually did anything to help stop the problem. It's along the same stupidity of making me show ID when I buy a can of spray paint at the hardware store, it's all show and does nothing to get to the root of the problem. I don't have the answer to the problem, but I can see that this isn't it.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 01:58:07 PM
Yes, drug-related murders in Mexico are just bumper sticker platitudes. As long as it's illegal, you give the criminal element more power than they would otherwise have. Also, you may want to consult a dictionary regarding the difference between "educate" and "force". You can educate teenagers on the dangers of fornication, but that doesn't mean they won't do it. Similarly, you can teach kids the dangers of drugs, but you can't force them to make a particular decision.
People are already making the decision we don't want, and it's driving a war in Mexico and elsewhere.
Using this kind of logic is about the same as saying lets make extortion legal so we can take the power away from the mob. While yes, on one hand, criminalizing pot is rather stupid giving that it generally has less long term effects on people than alcohol, just saying we should legalize all drugs so that we can put the drug dealers out of business is absurd.
Quote from: custosnox on December 18, 2011, 01:00:50 PM
It's because of this same kind of reasoning that we get groped and exposed pictures taken of us every time we choose to fly commercially. We live in a society that is driven by it's fears, and those fears are causing the collective freedoms of the people to be given up one by one. "It's just a little inconvenience, but it's safer this way" becomes the mantra until we have no rights left, no freedoms, and become prisoners inside our own states of paranoia. Where, and when, do we draw the line before we loose it all? I'm sure this all seems like an over reaching of the situation, it's just a small amount, but each step we take places us one step closer.
So, I guess you don't have a bank account, either? Just cash your paycheck at WallyWorld and use cash?
It is tough living without an ID. I just use a passport every chance I get, so I don't have to show DL. Kind of weirds people out. You all probably figured I would like doing something like that...
Just started the renewal process for the DL this week. 4 months early, so can be sure to get the background check complete in time. All 10 fingerprints required! Taken digitally, and sent in over their "secure" internet connection. Yeah, right....
Quote from: custosnox on December 19, 2011, 02:58:21 PM
Using this kind of logic is about the same as saying lets make extortion legal so we can take the power away from the mob. While yes, on one hand, criminalizing pot is rather stupid giving that it generally has less long term effects on people than alcohol, just saying we should legalize all drugs so that we can put the drug dealers out of business is absurd.
It's nothing like legalizing extortion. Extortion is something that one person does to another. Ingesting drugs is something that one person does to themselves. Clearly it should be illegal to force-feed people drugs without their prior consent or their being declared incompetent to care for themselves by a court of law. We can keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, but we'll continue to be disappointed and we will continue to be complicit in, although not directly responsible for, the deaths of thousands of innocent people for no particular reason at all.
You might note that even with heroin the Netherlands has had fairly good luck with maintenance programs. Yes, heroin addicts are perfectly capable of holding down a good job when they have the necessary support structure behind them. Sometimes, they even get off the stuff entirely after a while. Whocouldanode?
Seriously, the prohibition often does more damage than the drug and only encourages people to turn to crime as their options become worse and worse as they get processed through the criminal justice system time and time again.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 05:20:05 PM
Seriously, the prohibition often does more damage than the drug and only encourages people to turn to crime as their options become worse and worse as they get processed through the criminal justice system time and time again.
Wrong!! The prohibition ALWAYS does more damage than the drug and creates subsidiary criminal activity!! We have found that out over and over and over and even over again for the last 100 years. And we continue our insanity!!
(That's agreeing with you, nathan, just thought it needed a little more emphasis.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 05:16:23 PM
Just started the renewal process for the DL this week. 4 months early, so can be sure to get the background check complete in time. All 10 fingerprints required! Taken digitally, and sent in over their "secure" internet connection. Yeah, right....
When did OK become a socialist state that you are required to supply fingerprints for a DL? That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard of.
And it is a secure connection, I've been involved in setting them up in AZ.
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 19, 2011, 05:31:14 PM
When did OK become a socialist state that you are required to supply fingerprints for a DL? That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard of.
And it is a secure connection, I've been involved in setting them up in AZ.
For the license with the yellow background. (Yours is probably a blue background.) It's because I'm special!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 05:44:37 PM
For the license with the yellow background. (Yours is probably a blue background.) It's because I'm special!!
In AZ we just buy them from a guy on the corner. ;)
Quote from: dbacks fan on December 19, 2011, 05:45:42 PM
In AZ we just buy them from a guy on the corner. ;)
That would be great! Save me some hassle.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 05:16:23 PM
So, I guess you don't have a bank account, either? Just cash your paycheck at WallyWorld and use cash?
It is tough living without an ID. I just use a passport every chance I get, so I don't have to show DL. Kind of weirds people out. You all probably figured I would like doing something like that...
Just started the renewal process for the DL this week. 4 months early, so can be sure to get the background check complete in time. All 10 fingerprints required! Taken digitally, and sent in over their "secure" internet connection. Yeah, right....
Actually, I don't have a bank account. And while I do have an ID (finally renewed it after the TNF lunch), there are plenty out there that don't.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 05:20:05 PM
It's nothing like legalizing extortion. Extortion is something that one person does to another. Ingesting drugs is something that one person does to themselves. Clearly it should be illegal to force-feed people drugs without their prior consent or their being declared incompetent to care for themselves by a court of law. We can keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, but we'll continue to be disappointed and we will continue to be complicit in, although not directly responsible for, the deaths of thousands of innocent people for no particular reason at all.
You might note that even with heroin the Netherlands has had fairly good luck with maintenance programs. Yes, heroin addicts are perfectly capable of holding down a good job when they have the necessary support structure behind them. Sometimes, they even get off the stuff entirely after a while. Whocouldanode?
Seriously, the prohibition often does more damage than the drug and only encourages people to turn to crime as their options become worse and worse as they get processed through the criminal justice system time and time again.
The logic you were trying to use was that it should be legal because by it being illegal it gives criminals power. That is seriously flawed, which is what I was pointing out. You don't make something legal just to keep the people who are involved from being considered outlaws. And the steps that are taken to get people really and truly hooked on drugs (it was done legally with tobacco, so making it legal won't stop it) are dangerous to those who are on them. My point is that you need to go for the source. I don't agree that throwing someone in jail for smoking a joint is going to do any good. At the same time, you can't act like the need to get the next fix has nothing to do with a number of crimes committed.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 01:58:07 PM
Yes, drug-related murders in Mexico are just bumper sticker platitudes. As long as it's illegal, you give the criminal element more power than they would otherwise have. Also, you may want to consult a dictionary regarding the difference between "educate" and "force". You can educate teenagers on the dangers of fornication, but that doesn't mean they won't do it. Similarly, you can teach kids the dangers of drugs, but you can't force them to make a particular decision.
People are already making the decision we don't want, and it's driving a war in Mexico and elsewhere.
Stop telling people you are a liberal. You are way too naive or you've fallen in love with the tactics of the right. Shuffling off my remarks to fit your ill thought out constructs is obnoxious to me. I didn't use the word "force" (like you did) because its the wrong word to use. No one is trying to force people to make smart decisions. The government is trying to keep non abusers safe, make it difficult to easily abuse a particular drug, and generally follow past history where those two policies have been successful. That is not force so I used the correct words. You're welcome.
You can educate teenagers on the dangers of fornication while trying to influence good decisionmaking, (and we do) AND it has shown success in keeping VD rates low since WWII where we also educated soldiers of the dangers of fornication. I suppose you think that is wrong too.
Also, are you so naive as to believe that Mexican cartels would disappear and go back to the woods should we suddenly stop prosecuting the war on drugs? And once again, since you ignored this before, where does that logic end?
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 05:20:05 PM
It's nothing like legalizing extortion. Extortion is something that one person does to another. Ingesting drugs is something that one person does to themselves. Clearly it should be illegal to force-feed people drugs without their prior consent or their being declared incompetent to care for themselves by a court of law. We can keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, but we'll continue to be disappointed and we will continue to be complicit in, although not directly responsible for, the deaths of thousands of innocent people for no particular reason at all.
You might note that even with heroin the Netherlands has had fairly good luck with maintenance programs. Yes, heroin addicts are perfectly capable of holding down a good job when they have the necessary support structure behind them. Sometimes, they even get off the stuff entirely after a while. Whocouldanode?
Seriously, the prohibition often does more damage than the drug and only encourages people to turn to crime as their options become worse and worse as they get processed through the criminal justice system time and time again.
I think you are seriously deluded. Please don't compare America with the Netherlands and I won't compare Detroit, Michigan with Toronto, Canada.
Blanket statements like you and H made about prohibitions are the same generalizations that fit bumper stickers quite well. I think less of you both for saying such bs. We prohibit the use of unpasteurized milk. That of course accounts for most of the crime in America because it turns out most criminals were actually weened on the stuff. Whowoodaknown?
We prohibit all kinds of products, processes, and activities to protect the public from dangers they aren't even aware of. Now it seems that is what is causing all the rampant crime. Go figure.
I feel strongly that a lot of drugs need to be de-criminalized so that the money the justice system spends on tracking down, prosecuting and incarcerating abusers can be re-dedicated to effective rehabilitation. Families can be spared the catastrophes that the current system pounds them with. Something better than your suggestion to just let them work and wait for enlightenment to bring them back around. Meanwhile we end up riding on trains, planes and automobiles that they are piloting.
You don't end crime by re-classifying it as freedom.
AM, that is fearmongering at its finest. Note that at no time did I say that people should be able to drive or fly stoned, drunk, or whatever else. Something not being illegal does not mean society approves of it, only that we recognize that it's not a place appropriate to criminal law.
You seriously think that people here are somehow deficient compared to the Dutch? If that's not what you mean by saying we can't learn from their experiences, please be more clear.
Maybe this isn't what you're saying, but you seem to think that we can force people off drugs. Don't you think that the stiff penalties we currently have would do the trick if it were that simple? Nobody's saying we should tell schoolkids that drugs are awesome and we should all be addicted to at least one. Legalization does not mean that we have to lie to them about the lack of risk involved. We can still tell them how it will affect their life in a bad way. However, we must be realistic about that. Even now, kids are told that all sorts of terrible things will happen to them if they try drugs. When they see their friends try them and not suddenly and immediately turn into some crazed maniac they see through the BS and presume that the whole spiel was a pack of lies.
Quote from: custosnox on December 19, 2011, 06:23:11 PM
Actually, I don't have a bank account. And while I do have an ID (finally renewed it after the TNF lunch), there are plenty out there that don't.
The logic you were trying to use was that it should be legal because by it being illegal it gives criminals power. That is seriously flawed, which is what I was pointing out. You don't make something legal just to keep the people who are involved from being considered outlaws. And the steps that are taken to get people really and truly hooked on drugs (it was done legally with tobacco, so making it legal won't stop it) are dangerous to those who are on them. My point is that you need to go for the source. I don't agree that throwing someone in jail for smoking a joint is going to do any good. At the same time, you can't act like the need to get the next fix has nothing to do with a number of crimes committed.
No ID makes life more difficult for me. I'm too old, so I just gave up and go along. Revolution is a young man's sport. But remember; rust never sleeps!
I know that second part was for nathan, but I just want to say that I feel grass should be legal just for its own sake - there need be no further justification than just if someone wants to use it, the government has no business butting in. I don't indulge, but it is just stupid that it is criminalized. Pretty much the same for psilocybin (magic mushrooms).
As for the other chemicals, well, I have made my thoughts known about manufacturing things like meth, crack, heroin (NOT to be confused with heiron!), and processed opiates outside of medical usage. At least mandatory life, no parole, if we don't have the guts to make it capital crime.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 19, 2011, 09:59:31 PM
No ID makes life more difficult for me. I'm too old, so I just gave up and go along. Revolution is a young man's sport. But remember; rust never sleeps!
I know that second part was for nathan, but I just want to say that I feel grass should be legal just for its own sake - there need be no further justification than just if someone wants to use it, the government has no business butting in. I don't indulge, but it is just stupid that it is criminalized. Pretty much the same for psilocybin (magic mushrooms).
As for the other chemicals, well, I have made my thoughts known about manufacturing things like meth, crack, heroin (NOT to be confused with heiron!), and processed opiates outside of medical usage. At least mandatory life, no parole, if we don't have the guts to make it capital crime.
These are things that we can pretty much agree on. I think that a degree of regulation is needed on MJ, but probably less than what we have in place for alcohol in this state. But I think we have a better chance of simply getting it decriminalized than full on legalizing it. The other, chemically engineered stuff, yeah, we need to aggressively go after the manufacturers and distributors (not to be confused with the guy that had a small stash that me might have been sharing with his buddies), not those who are hooked on it. However, we need to ramp up our recovery programs for such things.
As far as the ID goes, I don't have a problem with having an ID, it's just that there are a lot that don't have them, often because something has limited them from doing so. It took me so long to renew simply because I didn't have the $26 to do so, but I could, occasionally, come up with $5 for some allergy meds, if I could have gotten them.
Where are these tobacco smokers stealing anything other than tobacco for their next fix?
Anyway, I think the "research chemicals" thing we've seen over the last year is proof enough that we can never criminalize every dangerous drug. In that case, it seems that many of the alternatives are much worse for the user than the illegal drugs they're intended to replace.
custosnox, think about it the other way round. Why is it illegal? Remember that you can't fall back on the harms that come from interaction with the criminal justice system or otherwise result from its illegal nature. Overdoses, for example, are largely, although not entirely, attributable to the criminalization making it impossible to accurately dose.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 10:40:17 PM
Where are these tobacco smokers stealing anything other than tobacco for their next fix?
Anyway, I think the "research chemicals" thing we've seen over the last year is proof enough that we can never criminalize every dangerous drug. In that case, it seems that many of the alternatives are much worse for the user than the illegal drugs they're intended to replace.
custosnox, think about it the other way round. Why is it illegal? Remember that you can't fall back on the harms that come from interaction with the criminal justice system or otherwise result from its illegal nature. Overdoses, for example, are largely, although not entirely, attributable to the criminalization making it impossible to accurately dose.
Tell me, how many people have you known that have fallen victim to drugs? How many lives have you seen destroyed by them? And I'm not just talking about the person that is doing them, but the lives around them. tobacco, while very addicting, doesn't warp the mind like these things do. And what's worse is that once a person reaches a level with a drug, they start looking for the next, better point. Anyone who pushes for legalizing this kind of insanity obviously has not had first hand experience with the damage that is caused by them.
Actually, growing up in NW Arkansas during the height of the meth epidemic there, I know a lot more people than I'd care to count who ran into trouble with it. Some even died. And that's with it being a felony worthy of years of prison time for first offense possession. Clearly the prohibition doesn't help any of the people whose lives were destroyed, nor did it make it difficult to get. It does, however, end up killing a lot of innocent people in Mexico now that the local cooks are mostly out of business (shake 'n bake, problem that it is, isn't really large enough scale to supply all the demand). I can categorically say that I have never known someone who said "I would be all over that meth if it wasn't illegal."
Seriously, you think that people would do a lot more coke, meth, acid, or whatever else if it were legal? I might believe you if you were talking about pot or ecstasy or something like that.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 10:52:37 PM
Actually, growing up in NW Arkansas during the height of the meth epidemic there, I know a lot more people than I'd care to count who ran into trouble with it. Some even died. And that's with it being a felony worthy of years of prison time for first offense possession. Clearly the prohibition doesn't help any of the people whose lives were destroyed, nor did it make it difficult to get. It does, however, end up killing a lot of innocent people in Mexico now that the local cooks are mostly out of business (shake 'n bake, problem that it is, isn't really large enough scale to supply all the demand). I can categorically say that I have never known someone who said "I would be all over that meth if it wasn't illegal."
Seriously, you think that people would do a lot more coke, meth, acid, or whatever else if it were legal? I might believe you if you were talking about pot or ecstasy or something like that.
By making it legal you, one, make it a lot more available, and two, send the message that there is nothing wrong with it.
Unfortunately, we've gone at the drug problem from the wrong end since the early 1980's. Far too many end-users have been incarcerated, and apparently not enough on the distribution end.
Phew ! This topic got long winded.
Quote from: nathanm on December 19, 2011, 09:28:39 PM
AM, that is fearmongering at its finest. Note that at no time did I say that people should be able to drive or fly stoned, drunk, or whatever else. Something not being illegal does not mean society approves of it, only that we recognize that it's not a place appropriate to criminal law.No it is not fearmongering, its practical experience and logical consequences. You don't have to say that people should be able to drive meth'd up, they simply will be more likely to when you remove all regulation and education efforts and legalize it. We already have experience with people doing these things while they are illegal, why do you think making them common place would decrease that frequency? Isn't logical. All you'll do is boost up business for the clinics doing drug tests which will boost up the businesses making concoctions to hide the drug tests and on and on.
Decriminalizing drugs like MJ or other light weight drugs does what Conan suggests. Reduces the craziness associated with drug arrests that mostly punishes the family, results in a deepening financial crisis for the user that most cannot escape from. It is back assward and easily corrected. Legalizing? Not so much. Just opens up markets for low brow corporate citizens and tax hungry cities.
You seriously think that people here are somehow deficient compared to the Dutch? If that's not what you mean by saying we can't learn from their experiences, please be more clear.The discussion of the Dutch experiments is enough for a separate thread. First, you cannot draw much from their experience without understanding the massive differences in culture, size, employment, socio-political nature, education and religion of all the Scandinavian countries. Being married to a Norwegian I can tell you they are substantial. Thats why I mentioned Detroit and Toronto. They sit close to each other on opposite sides of Lake Ontario. Yet they may as well be Tulsa and Hong Kong. Detroit is the crime capital of the states and Toronto has low crime. Detroit is loaded with legal and illegal guns. Toronto has strong gun laws and acceptance of that by the population. Yet it would be a spurious correlation to assert guns were the difference between the two cities. Agreed?
Maybe this isn't what you're saying, but you seem to think that we can force people off drugs. Don't you think that the stiff penalties we currently have would do the trick if it were that simple? Nobody's saying we should tell schoolkids that drugs are awesome and we should all be addicted to at least one. Legalization does not mean that we have to lie to them about the lack of risk involved. We can still tell them how it will affect their life in a bad way. However, we must be realistic about that. Even now, kids are told that all sorts of terrible things will happen to them if they try drugs. When they see their friends try them and not suddenly and immediately turn into some crazed maniac they see through the BS and presume that the whole spiel was a pack of lies.I have become more of a realism junkie since I turned 40 two decades ago. It is hard to fight the cynicism when you see the same mistakes being made generation after generation and you know the solutions are often so simple. I don't mean to be rude, so accept my apologies if I am or have been. A couple cups of coffee, a pitcher of beer and we could probably come to some meaningful end to this thread and find more common ground. I do like Custo's perception and Conan seems to understand. You don't have kids do you? Have any of your family members been through the downward whirlpool spiral that drugs cause a human being and the resulting ripples through the entire family? If so and you still feel this way then we can pursue your last paragraph. Otherwise its just mental gymnastics. Suffice it to say that kids rely upon what we do, not what we say.
Kudo's AuqaMan. Well thought out and articulated.
Conan. I alway's liked the wording of end-user. They are usually the ones punished the worst in the hopes of having them roll over on their contacts. Prison is not a rehab. It is a learning ground for how to commit crimes better.
Quote from: custosnox on December 19, 2011, 11:07:23 PM
By making it legal you, one, make it a lot more available, and two, send the message that there is nothing wrong with it.
Like we did with alcohol?
...or gun ownership?
Just because something is legal doesn't absolve an owner/user of responsibilities.
Quote from: patric on December 20, 2011, 11:46:25 AM
Like we did with alcohol?
...or gun ownership?
Just because something is legal doesn't absolve an owner/user of responsibilities.
So, by this reasoning, those who get strung out on drugs, since it is illegal, should be spending all their time in prison, because it is their responsibility.
Alcohol can be addictive, can cause social and financial problems, and becomes all consuming in a person's live. However, those that reach this stage are a low percentage of the users. Drugs such as meth and heroin, on the other hand, have the same effect on a much, much higher percentage of their users. There are very few people who have had a few drinks, just to see what it's all about, and have become alcoholics. Can't say the same about many of the street drugs out there.
Guns are not chemicals that alter perception, thought, decision making and personality.
Quote from: custosnox on December 20, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
Guns are not chemicals that alter perception, thought, decision making and personality.
As big a fan as I am concerning the Second Amendment and everybody's RIGHT to own firearms, and to protect themselves, I would disagree with that last statement. I have seen a lot of people whose personality, decision making and thought processes did change when they picked up a gun. At the very least, one gets a little more self-confidence in certain situations. At worse, people can become Dark Score Crazy. Luckily, there are very few of those.
Quote from: custosnox on December 20, 2011, 12:06:23 PM
So, by this reasoning, those who get strung out on drugs, since it is illegal, should be spending all their time in prison, because it is their responsibility.
Not what I said at all.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 20, 2011, 12:20:28 PM
As big a fan as I am concerning the Second Amendment and everybody's RIGHT to own firearms, and to protect themselves, I would disagree with that last statement. I have seen a lot of people whose personality, decision making and thought processes did change when they picked up a gun. At the very least, one gets a little more self-confidence in certain situations. At worse, people can become Dark Score Crazy. Luckily, there are very few of those.
But it wasn't done chemically. Same thing would happen if you gave them a fake gun and made them believe it was real :D
Quote from: custosnox on December 20, 2011, 01:00:51 PM
But it wasn't done chemically. Same thing would happen if you gave them a fake gun and made them believe it was real :D
Probably just that internal endorphin pump everyone has built in.
Quote from: DolfanBob on December 20, 2011, 11:07:16 AM
Kudo's AuqaMan. Well thought out and articulated.
Conan. I alway's liked the wording of end-user. They are usually the ones punished the worst in the hopes of having them roll over on their contacts. Prison is not a rehab. It is a learning ground for how to commit crimes better.
Thank you, sir. :)
Quote from: AquaMan on December 20, 2011, 10:34:28 AM
AM, that is fearmongering at its finest. Note that at no time did I say that people should be able to drive or fly stoned, drunk, or whatever else. Something not being illegal does not mean society approves of it, only that we recognize that it's not a place appropriate to criminal law.
No it is not fearmongering, its practical experience and logical consequences. You don't have to say that people should be able to drive meth'd up, they simply will be more likely to when you remove all regulation and education efforts and legalize it. We already have experience with people doing these things while they are illegal, why do you think making them common place would decrease that frequency? Isn't logical. All you'll do is boost up business for the clinics doing drug tests which will boost up the businesses making concoctions to hide the drug tests and on and on.
Uh, who said it should be legal to drive while on drugs or that we shouldn't continue to attempt to reduce the incidence of use through education? Again, what evidence do you have that there are people out there who are dissuaded from using drugs by their legal status?
You're putting a bunch of words in my mouth. Legal does not mean approved. It means not criminal.
Quote from: nathanm on December 20, 2011, 09:31:48 PM
Uh, who said it should be legal to drive while on drugs or that we shouldn't continue to attempt to reduce the incidence of use through education? Again, what evidence do you have that there are people out there who are dissuaded from using drugs by their legal status?
You're putting a bunch of words in my mouth. Legal does not mean approved. It means not criminal.
I think it was you who denigrated education efforts in your post as being a waste of money and time.
Of course it will be illegal to drive while on drugs. It is now. It is illegal to text while driving, drink while driving and pass a school bus with its reds on. Once you totally remove the sanction for breaking those particular rules, do you see the populace increasing or decreasing its violation of them? I see them as disregarding the rule altogether and with increased disdain for authorities. "Yes, you can snort coke in your own backyard, but then you can't drive to work or to the QT for cigs" Yeah, that'll work. The evidence for that ranges from myself, who stopped smoking the herb back in the late seventies when it became apparent that the legal ramifications were real and outweighed the benefit. My friends were doing their jobs stoned, wrecking cars, losing relationships. In Tulsa, prosecution was real. Not so much on the coasts. I was not alone. The entire thinking part of my generation did the same thing. The ones who didn't moved to cocaine, heroin and pretty much fried themselves. Then it became too much of a burden to go after petty MJ smokers and the next generation of drug users, faced with misdemeanor fines at most, made my generation look like pikers. Almost all of my co workers in my last job were stoned. The company drug tested but to no avail. They didn't walk to work either.
It seems to me that you're putting a very fine line on just what "not criminal" , legal and illegal imply. Your view is like replacing Stop signs with Yield signs because people were running the Stop signs anyway. With a yield sign the drivers at least have plausible deniability and traffic can move smoother. Just like round-abouts, the idea is great when you have a well educated, updated driving population. We don't. We have drivers who were tested up to 50 years ago and never again. In the end people simply roll through Yield signs in neighborhoods and ignore them on freeway entrances.
Like I said, I'm a big believer in reality. I am 100% in favor of decriminalizing many drugs but with the stipulation that there would still be consequences that include increasing levels of rehabilitation combined with public service and/or suspensiion of driving privileges. When you tell a populace that a particular drug is dangerous to the non using public, toxic and technically illegal but not worthy of the state pursuing serious legal charges except in egregious circumstances, you effectively are telling them...Yield Sign.
Werent these the same arguments used to prop up Prohibition?
When it was repealed, those predisposed to abuse didn't change, but there also wasn't the predicted epidemic of drunk children wandering the streets, either.
Eliminating Prohibition also did away with a huge amount of corruption and mob violence.
Quote from: patric on December 21, 2011, 12:42:50 PM
Werent these the same arguments used to prop up Prohibition?
When it was repealed, those predisposed to abuse didn't change, but there also wasn't the predicted epidemic of drunk children wandering the streets, either.
Eliminating Prohibition also did away with a huge amount of corruption and mob violence.
the predisposition to abuse with many of the hard drugs is a much higher percentage of it's users than with Alcohol. I know of many well adjusted people who drink and manage not to abuse. However, I cannot say I know that many drug users that don't abuse, especially if they have been using for any significant amount of time. Apples and Oranges.
Quote from: custosnox on December 21, 2011, 12:49:32 PM
Apples and Oranges.
...or alcohol and "everything else". I dont think it's that black-and-white because not every non-alcohol drug is going to have the same effect as the other.
Quote from: patric on December 21, 2011, 12:56:48 PM
...or alcohol and "everything else". I dont think it's that black-and-white because not every non-alcohol drug is going to have the same effect as the other.
But to try and lump all illegal drugs into the same category as alcohol is even worst. I qualified my comment with the use of hard drugs because it's hard to consider things like pot and shrooms in the same category as meth, heroin and so forth. However, it seems to me that even the "natural" and "soft" drugs tend to be abused at a fairly high rate.
Quote from: custosnox on December 21, 2011, 01:08:45 PM
But to try and lump all illegal drugs into the same category as alcohol is even worst. I qualified my comment with the use of hard drugs because it's hard to consider things like pot and shrooms in the same category as meth, heroin and so forth. However, it seems to me that even the "natural" and "soft" drugs tend to be abused at a fairly high rate.
You are right - there are many more deaths and much more cost to society from alcohol than the 'hard drugs' - they should not be in the same category. And cigarettes would then require their own category too, since it is even higher than alcohol.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
You are right - there are many more deaths and much more cost to society from alcohol than the 'hard drugs' - they should not be in the same category. And cigarettes would then require their own category too, since it is even higher than alcohol.
Not sure of your stats for that. Whoa...no stats provided?!
Really, alcohol isn't classified as narcotic even though it is. They all do damage. YOu have to choose your battles though and prohibition was catastrophic. The battle against cigarettes though has shown success. Tobacco usage is down per capita (read that recently, no links, too old) Comparing todays hard drugs and the damage they do vs alcohol isn't the right comparison imo. One has depth, the other has breadth. Same thing with cigarettes.
You know I heard that most cigar smokers actually started on cigarettes. I am the exception.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 01:13:51 PM
You are right - there are many more deaths and much more cost to society from alcohol than the 'hard drugs' - they should not be in the same category. And cigarettes would then require their own category too, since it is even higher than alcohol.
Can you be sure those numbers aren't skewed by a few factors such as tracking (the fight against drunk driving requires shoving numbers into everyone's face, which means the numbers have to come from somewhere) and the fact that it is legal? Cigarettes are a completely different discussion, given the fact that they are mood altering (with a ton of other crap added in to make them more addictive), but not mind altering. Can't ever recall anyone saying that they did something stupid because they just smoked a few cigarettes. They do outline how dangerous something can become once a legal profit can be made from them, though. Next thing your going to to is bringing McDonald's into this conversation to try and use as a comparative.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 21, 2011, 01:30:57 PM
Not sure of your stats for that. Whoa...no stats provided?!
Really, alcohol isn't classified as narcotic even though it is. They all do damage. YOu have to choose your battles though and prohibition was catastrophic. The battle against cigarettes though has shown success. Tobacco usage is down per capita (read that recently, no links, too old) Comparing todays hard drugs and the damage they do vs alcohol isn't the right comparison imo. One has depth, the other has breadth. Same thing with cigarettes.
You know I heard that most cigar smokers actually started on cigarettes. I am the exception.
Half a million killed every year directly related to smoking issues. Been talked about for decades in the press (haven't you heard that?)
Half of auto accident fatalities each year due to alcohol use (down over the years to "only" 15,000 or so). Again, talked about for decades. Has shown up in government reports forever. Personally, I DON'T believe there has been a 60 year long conspiracy to pump the numbers for drunk driving deaths. It would mean "getting to" every officer that fills out an accident report with breathalyzer or blood test for a driving death, plus all the coroners who report alcohol in the bloodstream if the person causing the wreck died. Doesn't include non-fatality accidents for same reason, which is a much greater number. Safe bet that 50% of non-fatal would also be alcohol related with some +/- factor. Plus all the related 'lost time' issues to the economy - hangover Mondays, early beer bash Fridays (Three two flu).
Can't believe you haven't heard of all that stuff.
As for custosnox comment about no one saying they did something stupid by smoking a few cigarettes - well the stupid is self-evident just by the fact that one smokes. So, I guess you could say they are permanently mentally impaired...
The case could be made that McDonald's is addictive, I guess - I know that just every once in a while, I just gotta get a Happy Meal!! But no, that is indeed apples and oranges and saturated fat.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 02:44:02 PM
As for custosnox comment about no one saying they did something stupid by smoking a few cigarettes - well the stupid is self-evident just by the fact that one smokes. So, I guess you could say they are permanently mentally impaired...
The stupidity generally comes in the beginning, after that it's more of a willpower thing.
Quote
The case could be made that McDonald's is addictive, I guess - I know that just every once in a while, I just gotta get a Happy Meal!! But no, that is indeed apples and oranges and saturated fat.
You should watch supersize me, if you haven't yet. It really could be argued. But in any case, my point is, you can start putting all the legal stuff that is bad for us out there, but that doesn't make it the same as something that screws with your ability to think straight.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 02:44:02 PM
Half a million killed every year directly related to smoking issues. Been talked about for decades in the press (haven't you heard that?)
Half of auto accident fatalities each year due to alcohol use (down over the years to "only" 15,000 or so). Again, talked about for decades. Has shown up in government reports forever. Personally, I DON'T believe there has been a 60 year long conspiracy to pump the numbers for drunk driving deaths. It would mean "getting to" every officer that fills out an accident report with breathalyzer or blood test for a driving death, plus all the coroners who report alcohol in the bloodstream if the person causing the wreck died. Doesn't include non-fatality accidents for same reason, which is a much greater number. Safe bet that 50% of non-fatal would also be alcohol related with some +/- factor. Plus all the related 'lost time' issues to the economy - hangover Mondays, early beer bash Fridays (Three two flu).
Can't believe you haven't heard of all that stuff.
As for custosnox comment about no one saying they did something stupid by smoking a few cigarettes - well the stupid is self-evident just by the fact that one smokes. So, I guess you could say they are permanently mentally impaired...
The case could be made that McDonald's is addictive, I guess - I know that just every once in a while, I just gotta get a Happy Meal!! But no, that is indeed apples and oranges and saturated fat.
Your real name is Emily Luttila isn't it? ;) Google her name with SNL.
You said there were many more deaths associated with alcohol related abuse than usage of hard drugs. I am aware of course of alcohol abuse and the ever rising rate of alcoholism. However, neither of us have any idea of the real level of deaths related to hard drug usage in or out of the workplace, because it is difficult to track such things down, it being illegal and all. For instance, I had a friend who was self medicating with some pharma available through prescription, then illicit sources. It made him crazy and destroyed business relationships, then family relationships. He got so depressed from his plight that he shot himself. It was not recorded as a drug related death. Just suicide.
No one knew of his plight other than close family. A lot of people of his stature and sophistication think drugs are a street thing and that they personally are impervious to any legal ramifications, and if caught can usually hire enough lawyer to escape consequences. Employers often offer help but just as often merely fire them and refuse to divulge info to avoid law suits.
He was not a dumb guy who routinely made bad decisions. He was a college grad with his own business and very accomplished. He had a surgery and became addicted and couldn't find help fast enough. What I'm saying is the effects of drug usage are a lot greater than most people are aware.
Quote from: AquaMan on December 21, 2011, 03:34:13 PM
No one knew of his plight other than close family. A lot of people of his stature and sophistication think drugs are a street thing and that they personally are impervious to any legal ramifications, and if caught can usually hire enough lawyer to escape consequences. Employers often offer help but just as often merely fire them and refuse to divulge info to avoid law suits.
Seems I remember a couple of Coaches name Sutton that fits this statement.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 21, 2011, 02:44:02 PM
Personally, I DON'T believe there has been a 60 year long conspiracy to pump the numbers for drunk driving deaths.
Mostly right I would believe, but deep pockets can make those numbers whatever they want by spreading around grant money with strings attached (a "bounty" if you will).
Quote from: custosnox on December 21, 2011, 03:01:01 PM
You should watch supersize me, if you haven't yet. It really could be argued. But in any case, my point is, you can start putting all the legal stuff that is bad for us out there, but that doesn't make it the same as something that screws with your ability to think straight.
I wasn't being facetious - I believe it IS addictive. There is something in our physical makeup that causes us to crave fat/sweets. Probably from evolving in an environment where those things were relatively scarce and/or "expensive" in terms of acquisition for consumption.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 03, 2012, 10:42:51 AM
I wasn't being facetious - I believe it IS addictive. There is something in our physical makeup that causes us to crave fat/sweets. Probably from evolving in an environment where those things were relatively scarce and/or "expensive" in terms of acquisition for consumption.
+1
Every now and then primitive man found a bee hive. Back then you had to be brave and endure pain or death to get your sugar fix!
And in the southern climes, cane has been chewed on for thousands of years, if not longer. Corn is pretty sweet, too, even in the field corn varieties - dried and ground up, then cooked into tortillas - that is fairly sweet food. The reason it is 'savory' to our tastes is the massive sugar/sweet overdose we get every day from so many other sources.
Tulsa World FB post:
QuoteThree people were arrested after police found 26 one-pot methamphetamine labs Tuesday at house in north Tulsa...
Why are we not only allowing liquid capsules of pseudoephedrine?
We should be prohibiting 32oz plastic beverage bottles. Or requiring them to be over the counter only.
Townsend is making a valid point. But it's almost so obvious, it's no wonder the state and/or FDA is looking right past it. If liquid pseudo ephedrine is not a good precursor for meth, then there is the solution. Allergy sufferers can still get the compound which works for them and we help curb meth production.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2012, 11:23:04 AM
Townsend is making a valid point. But it's almost so obvious, it's no wonder the state and/or FDA is looking right past it. If liquid pseudo ephedrine is not a good precursor for meth, then there is the solution. Allergy sufferers can still get the compound which works for them and we help curb meth production.
and my temptations are out the window. (scratches neck and looks around with paranoia)
Quote from: Townsend on January 04, 2012, 11:24:27 AM
and my temptations are out the window. (scratches neck and looks around with paranoia)
Got spiders crawling over your forearms and forehead?
Quote from: AquaMan on January 04, 2012, 11:12:52 AM
We should be prohibiting 32oz plastic beverage bottles. Or requiring them to be over the counter only.
I love how every plastic bottle or pill container is now a "laboratory".
Kind of inflates the numbers for politicians to cite.
Quote from: patric on January 04, 2012, 01:13:19 PM
I love how every plastic bottle or pill container is now a "laboratory".
Kind of inflates the numbers for politicians to cite.
Maybe RM could champion that cause. Go Green-End Meth.
Needs a little refinement I guess.
Quote from: Townsend on January 04, 2012, 11:07:18 AM
Why are we not only allowing liquid capsules of pseudoephedrine?
Wouldn't the RWRE be crying foul for "unwarranted government intrusion" into the operation of the pharmaceutical industry?
Now this law has me even more pissed than ever. I've been feeling like crap for days because of allergies. Nothing is helping. It's bad enough that I'm having trouble sleeping, which is effecting me everywhere else. I go to break down and go to wal greens to get some pseudoephedrine, but you can't even look at the stuff to see if what your getting is what meets your needs, they don't even have the cards out with the info on it that you take to the pharmacy, so you have to hope they give you what you need. Well, this time they did not. I take it back because it's not what I was wanting, and even though I had bought it 15 minutes prior, they refuse to give me a refund, say they can't because of the law. So now not only is my money wasted on a product that I won't use, but I can't even go to another store to get the right stuff because I'm in the "system" now and can't buy any more for I don't know how long. Yet I bet I can go out and buy all the damn meth I want. Yep, this law is really frikkin great.
News in recent days is saying up to 1/3 of all burn center patients in problem meth areas across the nation are there as a result of a "shake-n-bake" explosion. It's high time we do something different. I suspect that allergy sufferers can live without pseudo ephedrine. Burn victims cannot live without burn centers. It's time to prioritize and push better alternatives for honest allergy sufferers.
QuoteST. LOUIS — A crude new method of making methamphetamine poses a risk even to Americans who never get anywhere near the drug: It is filling hospitals with thousands of uninsured burn patients requiring millions of dollars in advanced treatment — a burden so costly that it's contributing to the closure of some burn units.
So-called shake-and-bake meth is produced by combining raw, unstable ingredients in a 2-liter soda bottle. But if the person mixing the noxious brew makes the slightest error, such as removing the cap too soon or accidentally perforating the plastic, the concoction can explode, searing flesh and causing permanent disfigurement, blindness or even death.
An Associated Press survey of key hospitals in the nation's most active meth states showed that up to a third of patients in some burn units were hurt while making meth, and most were uninsured. The average treatment costs $6,000 per day. And the average meth patient's hospital stay costs $130,000 — 60 percent more than other burn patients, according to a study by doctors at a burn center in Kalamazoo, Mich.
The influx of patients is overwhelming hospitals and becoming a major factor in the closure of some burn wards. At least seven burn units across the nation have shut down over the past six years, partly due to consolidation but also because of the cost of treating uninsured patients, many of whom are connected to methamphetamine.
http://health.heraldtribune.com/2012/01/23/burn-injuries-from-meth-labs-overwhelm-some-hospitals/
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 12:27:37 AM
News in recent days is saying up to 1/3 of all burn center patients in problem meth areas across the nation are there as a result of a "shake-n-bake" explosion. It's high time we do something different. I suspect that allergy sufferers can live without pseudo ephedrine. Burn victims cannot live without burn centers. It's time to prioritize and push better alternatives for honest allergy sufferers.
There are many other ingredients that are necessary to do this, why not take those out of the equation? Muriatic acid is one such ingredient, people could find something else to balance their pools and clean their concrete. Or we could just outlaw acetone, I'm sure there is something else that can remove nail polish just as well.
Quote from: custosnox on January 25, 2012, 02:26:47 PM
Muriatic acid is one such ingredient, people could find something else to balance their pools and clean their concrete.
The Hell you say.
Quote from: Townsend on January 25, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
The Hell you say.
My thoughts on being told I can find something else when my allergies are out of control like they have been the last few weeks.
Quote from: custosnox on January 25, 2012, 02:26:47 PM
There are many other ingredients that are necessary to do this, why not take those out of the equation? Muriatic acid is one such ingredient, people could find something else to balance their pools and clean their concrete. Or we could just outlaw acetone, I'm sure there is something else that can remove nail polish just as well.
Too many other useful applications for both of those substances plus there are other ways to convert pseudo into meth. Get rid of the precursor.
I have bad nasal allergies as well which I've managed without the use of pseudo ephedrine ever since it went behind the counter.
Flonase changed my life!
I haven't had allergies in 3 or 4 years now. I used to be crippled in the spring and fall. Flonase takes about a month to start working, because it's a steroid, but after that point, you are raking leaves, sniffing flowers, and hugging kittys.
Long term steroid use is much worse for you than occasional pseudoephedrine use.
Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 03:43:14 PM
Long term steroid use is much worse for you than occasional pseudoephedrine use.
It's a very low-dose cortical with no real side effects for adults. Corticals in small children can stunt growth.
The effects of my frequent sinus infections and the corresponding antibiotics necessary when they became infected, along with lost work, pain and misery are far worse for me than Flonase could ever be.
Besides my alcohol abuse helps mask the side effects of any of my other therapeutic drugs.
Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 03:43:14 PM
Long term steroid use is much worse for you than occasional pseudoephedrine use.
Unfortunately, pseudoephedrine converted to meth represents a far worse social problem for all of us than cortical steroids.
That's definitely one substance which is not helping social mobility.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:13:03 PM
Unfortunately, pseudoephedrine converted to meth represents a far worse social problem for all of us than cortical steroids.
That's definitely one substance which is not helping social mobility.
even if we make it impossible to get ahold of pseudoephedrine, do you really think that is going to fix the problem? Looking around on the net to see what all it takes to make meth and I found a posting with the exact directions. While I'm not surprised at this, some of the comments made just makes it even scarier. But when you look at what all is used to make this crap, it's obvious that these people are willing to put together anything and everything to to get the desired result. They will find a way to screw themselves up, and they don't care who it takes out along the way, even if it's themselves. So do you really think that making this one product harder to get is really going to do anything more than cause an inconvenience for those of us using it properly?
Quote from: custosnox on January 25, 2012, 04:26:22 PM
even if we make it impossible to get ahold of pseudoephedrine, do you really think that is going to fix the problem? Looking around on the net to see what all it takes to make meth and I found a posting with the exact directions. While I'm not surprised at this, some of the comments made just makes it even scarier. But when you look at what all is used to make this crap, it's obvious that these people are willing to put together anything and everything to to get the desired result. They will find a way to screw themselves up, and they don't care who it takes out along the way, even if it's themselves. So do you really think that making this one product harder to get is really going to do anything more than cause an inconvenience for those of us using it properly?
I'm not saying make it harder to get, I'm saying ban it all together. We've already seen the failure in "make it harder to get".
You can't make pseudoephedrine-based meth without pseudoephedrine. If there is no base to make the substance, people will cease to make it and we will cease to have exploding meth labs and billions in unpaid medical bills from such explosions. This isn't simply a matter of tweakers harming themselves. Children and neighbors are routinely killed in meth lab explosions.
It's proven there are other successful treatments for nasal allergies out there and you probably should get used to them. It's only a matter of time before the FDA bans pseudo.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
It's proven there are other successful treatments for nasal allergies out there and you probably should get used to them. It's only a matter of time before the FDA bans pseudo.
I think of you next time my ears won't pop on the way down and I'm in excruciating pain for days because I can't go buy some bucking psuedoephedrine. Unless you're aware of another nonprescription drug that acts quickly to clear out one's passages, that is. Phenylephrine is not that drug, by the way. It does absolutely nothing for me. It may as well be a sugar pill.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
I'm not saying make it harder to get, I'm saying ban it all together. We've already seen the failure in "make it harder to get".
You can't make pseudoephedrine-based meth without pseudoephedrine. If there is no base to make the substance, people will cease to make it and we will cease to have exploding meth labs and billions in unpaid medical bills from such explosions. This isn't simply a matter of tweakers harming themselves. Children and neighbors are routinely killed in meth lab explosions.
It's proven there are other successful treatments for nasal allergies out there and you probably should get used to them. It's only a matter of time before the FDA bans pseudo.
My point still stands. It's not just a matter of keeping pseudoephedrine from them (which outlawing has done so much for other drugs), it's that these people will find something else, and will risk whatever they have to to get it, which means that they cycle continues. Find a way to break the cycle, not shift it to something else.
You still have to run a cost-benefits analysis of some sort with the issue. As Conan says, on balance the cost is greater to do nothing. You're sinuses are not as bad as the increase in burn unit populations. Unless you just assert that the problem will disappear through attrition. IOW, those who are stupid, abused, lacking in self esteem and discipline will eventually just burn themselves up.
Quote from: custosnox on January 25, 2012, 02:26:47 PM
Or we could just outlaw acetone, I'm sure there is something else that can remove nail polish just as well.
And remove adhesive residue, thin polyester paint and more.
Guys, don't get upset with me. I'm simply stating the reality that the days of pseudo is numbered. The next big winner in the pill pushing game would be the company who figures out another med with identical results which can't be synthesized into something else.
The social costs of meth are mounting.
Maybe what is needed is a new recipe that uses sodium cyanide as an ingredient. The issue will become self limiting.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 25, 2012, 06:15:46 PM
You still have to run a cost-benefits analysis of some sort with the issue. As Conan says, on balance the cost is greater to do nothing.
And we could stop the clandestine manufacture of meth tomorrow if we wanted to, but we'd rather spend money on prisons than drug treatment clinics.
Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 10:45:15 PM
And we could stop the clandestine manufacture of meth tomorrow if we wanted to, but we'd rather spend money on prisons than drug treatment clinics.
How would you stop it tomorrow without getting rid of the precursor? Drug and alcohol treatment is only effective on people who are truly ready to quit.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2012, 10:46:31 PM
How would you stop it tomorrow without getting rid of the precursor? Drug and alcohol treatment is only effective on people who are truly ready to quit.
Maintenance is also treatment. Give them the drugs they're addicted to and they'll function better until they're ready to finally kick the habit.
Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 10:51:47 PM
Maintenance is also treatment. Give them the drugs they're addicted to and they'll function better until they're ready to finally kick the habit.
Just give them their Meth and wait for them to get better? That's the self limiting option mentioned above.
Quote from: nathanm on January 25, 2012, 10:51:47 PM
Maintenance is also treatment. Give them the drugs they're addicted to and they'll function better until they're ready to finally kick the habit.
So your need for allergy relief trumps the need of someone needing life-saving burn treatment which may no longer be available near their home?
Quote from: AquaMan on January 26, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Just give them their Meth and wait for them to get better? That's the self limiting option mentioned above.
Yes. The pharma-made meth won't kill them or anyone else, at least in the short term.
Conan, punishing one set of people for something another set of people is doing isn't terribly effective. The only thing that will happen if you completely ban pseudo in the US is that they'll start buying it from Mexican drug cartels again.
Also, I'm not sure that your assertion about causation is correct. From 2007:
Quote
The exact number of burn beds in the U.S. is a matter of dispute, and may well be overstated, because hospitals do not always distinguish between specialized burn beds and beds that are used for various traumatic injuries, including burns.
Wolfson said one recent report to the federal government showed that only 520 beds were actually available for use. Dr. William B. Hughes, director of the Temple University Hospital Burn Center in Philadelphia, said that more commonly, only about 300 beds are available at any one time.
Hughes said the United States had easily more than 3,000 dedicated burn beds in the early 1970s. But there has been a steady decline since then.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-08-2713698343_x.htm
Sounds to me more like hospitals have come up with another excuse to use when they close burn units, given that the trend existed before "shake n bake".
So yeah, my need for sinus relief does indeed trump the need of someone to justify their unpopular decision by claiming it's all because of teh droogs. After all, how can you argue against the poor hospitals who have been trying so hard to keep these beds available that there were only 500 in 2007 but who just got bushwhacked by all the meth addicts burning themselves.
Edited to add: The best I've been able to find as far as a historical series goes is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18182929
According to the story in Huff-Po, Indiana only had 89 meth lab related injuries reported in a ten year period ending in 2009. In the last 23 months, they've had 70 incidents. This is largely due to the shake-n-bake method which has increased in popularity over the last 2-3 years. I know it seems like meth lab fire reports in the news seem much more frequent now than they used to. Certainly you aren't ignoring the crux of the problem for burn centers is net result is up to 1/3 of the patients in burn units are meth accidents and cannot pay for their treatment. The net number of beds is irrelevant. Burn treatment is expensive and if the beds are so limited in the range of 10 beds per state (that's highly suspect), then this makes the problem even worse.
I didn't bother to count, but here's a 26 page list of burn units affiliated with ABA (American Burn Association).
http://www.ameriburn.org/BCRDPublic.pdf
I notice that the Alexander Burn Center at Hillcrest is not on this list, so I'm assuming that not all burn centers in the US are affiliated with this association.
If tweakers want to get their meth from the Mexican cartels, fine. By your logic if they can get meth by other means until they are ready to quit, at least it would help cut the number of meth lab explosions we are seeing as a result of this new manufacturing method. Keep in mind, it's not just users who are being injured and killed in these explosions. Innocent neighbors and children of the cooks are also harmed.
QuoteThe director of the burn center at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, the state that led the nation in meth lab seizures in 2010, said meth injuries are doubly damaging because patients often suffer thermal burn from the explosion, as well as chemical burns. And the medical challenge is compounded by patients' addictions.
"You're not judgmental in this kind of work, but you see it day after day," said Vanderbilt's Dr. Jeffrey Guy. "We've had patients say, `I'm going out for a smoke,' and they come back all jacked up. It's clear they went out and did meth again."
Few people burned by meth will admit it.
"We get a lot of people who have strange stories," said Dr. David Greenhalgh, past president of the American Burn Association and director of the burn center at the University of California, Davis. "They'll say they were working on the carburetor at 2 or 3 in the morning and things blew up. So we don't know for sure, but 25 to 35 percent of our patients are meth-positive when we check them."
Guy cited a similar percentage at Vanderbilt, which operates the largest burn unit in Tennessee. He said the lies can come with a big price because the chemicals used in meth-making are often as dangerous as the burns themselves.
He recalled the case of a woman who arrived with facial burns that she said were caused by a toaster. As a result, she didn't tell doctors that meth-making chemicals got into her eyes, delaying treatment.
"Now she's probably going to be blind because she wasn't honest about it," Guy said.
In Indiana, about three-quarters of meth busts now involve shake-and-bake. And injuries are rising sharply, mostly because of burns, said Niki Crawford of the Indiana State Police Meth Suppression Team.
Indiana had 89 meth-related injuries during the 10-year period ending in 2009. The state has had 70 in the last 23 months, mostly from shake-and-bake labs, Crawford said.
What's more, meth-related burns often sear some of the body's most sensitive areas – the face and hands.
"I don't think a lot of these patients will be able to re-enter society, said Dr. Lucy Wibbenmeyer of the burn center at the University of Iowa. "They'll need rehab therapy, occupational therapy, which is very expensive."
Researchers at the University of Iowa found that people burned while making meth typically have longer hospital stays and more expensive bills than other burn patients – bills that are frequently absorbed by the hospital since a vast majority of the meth-makers lack insurance.
Medicaid provides reimbursement for many patients lacking private insurance, but experts say it amounts to pennies on the dollar.
Doctors at Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo, Mich., performed a five-year study of meth patients in the early 2000s, then a follow-up study in 2009-2010. Their investigation concurred with the Iowa findings. The Kalamazoo study also found that meth burn victims were more likely to suffer damage to the lungs and windpipe, spent more time on ventilators and needed surgery more often.
That report also found that only about 10 percent of meth patients had private insurance coverage, compared with 59 percent of other patients. And in many cases, their injuries leave them unable to work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/methamphetamine-burns_n_1222925.html
Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 03:10:45 PM
If tweakers want to get their meth from the Mexican cartels, fine. By your logic if they can get meth by other means until they are ready to quit, at least it would help cut the number of meth lab explosions we are seeing as a result of this new manufacturing method. Keep in mind, it's not just users who are being injured and killed in these explosions. Innocent neighbors and children of the cooks are also harmed.
I agree that clandestine manufacturing of meth is a problem. I just don't think that forcing the supply chain through drug cartels is any better. Better for us, perhaps, but certainly worse for the Mexicans who have to live with them. Give the users maintenance doses in a controlled way and they won't need to cook or buy from a cartel. Everybody wins, except those whose thirst for punishment outweighs their desire to solve the problem.
Quote from: nathanm on January 26, 2012, 03:50:04 PM
I agree that clandestine manufacturing of meth is a problem. I just don't think that forcing the supply chain through drug cartels is any better. Better for us, perhaps, but certainly worse for the Mexicans who have to live with them. Give the users maintenance doses in a controlled way and they won't need to cook or buy from a cartel. Everybody wins, except those whose thirst for punishment outweighs their desire to solve the problem.
That's also assuming you can get all users to go on the government program. Hell most of them are so paranoid, I'd suspect enrollment in such a program would be really slim. That is unless the black helicopters told them to. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 04:19:16 PM
That's also assuming you can get all users to go on the government program. Hell most of them are so paranoid, I'd suspect enrollment in such a program would be really slim. That is unless the black helicopters told them to. ;)
These are people willing to blow themselves up to get a fix, and you think if it's being handed to them they are going to worry that it's the government?
Bottom line Custo, I just don't want you and Nate to get your Sudafed.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 26, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
Bottom line Custo, I just don't want you and Nate to get your Sudafed.
oh, we already knew this, your just a big ole meany.
In any case, it's about more than just taking away my Sudafed (I rarely actually take it, this "winter" excluded), it's about this really being the wrong way to go about it. While I don't know if giving them the drugs they are seeking is going to be the answer, we already know trying to keep it away by cutting of various supply routes isn't going to work. I don't have the answer, but then, it's not my job to come up with the answers, it does seem though that those who's job it is, is coming up with the wrong answers.
Its been awhile since I checked. Just how effective are the methadone programs?
Quote from: AquaMan on January 26, 2012, 06:08:02 PM
Its been awhile since I checked. Just how effective are the methadone programs?
Effective at what? There are all kinds of measures of effectiveness, from crime prevention to full on recovery and all points in between.
If you think keeping addicts from stealing to support their habit is a success, even if not the entirety of what we'd like, you'll look to different metrics than someone who thinks that anything short of getting them off drugs entirely is an abject failure. Personally, I think the small steps are worthwhile in their own right, and it's OK with me if not everyone makes it all the way to full recovery even if that is what I'd most like to see.
Quote from: nathanm on January 26, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
Effective at what? There are all kinds of measures of effectiveness, from crime prevention to full on recovery and all points in between.
If you think keeping addicts from stealing to support their habit is a success, even if not the entirety of what we'd like, you'll look to different metrics than someone who thinks that anything short of getting them off drugs entirely is an abject failure. Personally, I think the small steps are worthwhile in their own right, and it's OK with me if not everyone makes it all the way to full recovery even if that is what I'd most like to see.
You're wasting a shotgun shell to kill a fly and he's still only getting powder burns.
Any effort to summarize what I think is a waste of your obvious intellect. I simply am inquiring as to the general effectiveness of methadone programs (based on what their missions were) and whether they might be useful in constructing a similar program for meth abusers.
I open to the idea I just don't think your logic works. Small steps are great but alcoholics and other addicts don't live like those with nicotine habits. I can pick up a cigar occasionally with a shot of whiskey and do just fine. When an alcoholic or a coke head takes a drink and a snort he may be out for weeks. Meth heads lose all sense of propriety just from that one step.
Whatever. As long as you get your sudafed hit and your freedoms are not impinged at all.....
Quote from: AquaMan on January 27, 2012, 09:50:47 AM
I open to the idea I just don't think your logic works. Small steps are great but alcoholics and other addicts don't live like those with nicotine habits. I can pick up a cigar occasionally with a shot of whiskey and do just fine. When an alcoholic or a coke head takes a drink and a snort he may be out for weeks. Meth heads lose all sense of propriety just from that one step.
That's where the treatment and counseling come in. First you get them to the point where they aren't staying up for two weeks straight. Then, after several intermediate steps, you get them to the point where they can hold a job as long as they get their twice daily fix. Only then, once they have something to care about in their life, are they going to realize that getting off the stuff completely is the way to go. The end goal is always complete abstinence from the problem substance, but it's perfectly OK if people don't make it there immediately. Buying meth by the truckload from a pharmaceutical company is far cheaper than imprisoning meth users and far better for the Mexicans than forcing addicts to buy from the cartels.
Better someone have a lost decade than a lost half century or worse after being through the grist mill that is prison.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2000/03/5047/methadone-maintenance-found-be-more-effective-treating-heroin-addicti
Quote from: nathanm on January 27, 2012, 02:37:47 PM
That's where the treatment and counseling come in. First you get them to the point where they aren't staying up for two weeks straight. Then, after several intermediate steps, you get them to the point where they can hold a job as long as they get their twice daily fix. Only then, once they have something to care about in their life, are they going to realize that getting off the stuff completely is the way to go. The end goal is always complete abstinence from the problem substance, but it's perfectly OK if people don't make it there immediately. Buying meth by the truckload from a pharmaceutical company is far cheaper than imprisoning meth users and far better for the Mexicans than forcing addicts to buy from the cartels.
Better someone have a lost decade than a lost half century or worse after being through the grist mill that is prison.
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2000/03/5047/methadone-maintenance-found-be-more-effective-treating-heroin-addicti
How many meth addicts have you ever known personally?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 27, 2012, 03:11:09 PM
How many meth addicts have you ever known personally?
More than I care to admit on a public forum.
Quote from: nathanm on January 27, 2012, 03:16:46 PM
More than I care to admit on a public forum.
So you are aware personally then, what an insidious drug this is and how hard it is to get a tweaker off meth and into a productive life.
My personal knowledge of it is it's a difficult recovery and the relapse rate is relatively high.
QuoteThough not impossible, meth addiction is a difficult disorder to treat, according to Anglin. "There's not severe physical withdrawal with methamphetamine, but rather a feeling of anhedonia, an inability to experience pleasure, that can last for months and which leads to a lot of relapse at six months," he said. The anhedonia appears to correspond with the period when the brain is recovering and producing abnormally low levels of dopamine.
"When you think of treatment of drugs like methamphetamine, you have to think of it like fixing a broken leg — treatment provides a structure to allow their brain chemistry to return to normal. Their brain is out of tune, it's not working very well, and it takes a while to recover," Rawson said.
Unlike heroin addicts, who can be weaned off the substance with methadone, there are no pharmacological treatments for meth. The only currently available treatment is behavioral therapy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076519/ns/us_news-only_on_msnbc_com/t/beating-addiction-meth/#.TyMb-WCUfr8
http://www.newson6.com/story/16952673/anti-meth-bill-killed-by-oklahoma-senate-panel?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.newson6.com/story/16952673/anti-meth-bill-killed-by-oklahoma-senate-panel?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)
Anti-Meth Bill Killed By Oklahoma State Senate Panel
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY - Over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain a key ingredient used to make meth will continue after Oklahoma lawmakers killed a bill to require a prescription to buy them.
A state Senate committee late Wednesday narrowly voted down the bill by Wagoner Republican Senator Kim David that would have required a prescription to purchase any medicines containing pseudoephedrine.
Prosecutors and police say Senate Bill 1276 is necessary to curb a growing meth problem, but drug companies and their lobbyists have been working to kill the measure and keep pills like Claritin-D and Advil Cold and Sinus on store shelves.
Opponents of the bill also have been taking to the airwaves with ads against the measure, and this week organizations representing physicians, pharmacists and grocers announced their opposition.
I heard the ad on the radio and it pissed me off. "Think about lost productivity from people having to leave their jobs to go to the doctor to get a prescription."
That's a weak argument. In terms of meth, think of the costs of productivity, the costs to the families of the addicts, and the overall costs to society including theft and destruction of personal property, as well as the cost to imprison all these tweakers.
Any maintenance prescriptions I've ever used, I've managed to get a 12 month prescription from my doctor with 30 day renewals without calling in. That's perfectly legal and practical.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 02:48:21 PM
I heard the ad on the radio and it pissed me off. "Think about lost productivity from people having to leave their jobs to go to the doctor to get a prescription."
That's a weak argument. In terms of meth, think of the costs of productivity, the costs to the families of the addicts, and the overall costs to society including theft and destruction of personal property, as well as the cost to imprison all these tweakers.
Any maintenance prescriptions I've ever used, I've managed to get a 12 month prescription from my doctor with 30 day renewals without calling in. That's perfectly legal and practical.
Think of all the sales to meth makers lost.
Think of all the money lost by the drug producers.
For God's sake, think of the lobbyist's children. Do you want them to have to drive a domestic?
Quote from: Townsend on February 16, 2012, 02:52:32 PM
Do you want them to have to drive a domestic?
I was doing just fine until you got to that final point. Certainly can't have their kids drinking or driving domestics. How selfish of me.
Here is a shopping list I need from Atwoods.
1. Two packs of four lithium batteries.
2. A four pack of Heet gas treatment.
3. A good strong drain cleaner.
4. One pair of rubber gloves.
5. One pack of filter paper masks.
6. A couple of two litre pepsi's
Oh and here is a paper tag for the bumper and can you stop at Walgreens and pick me up a couple packs of Sudafed ? Thanks hon. See ya in a bit.
Quote from: DolfanBob on February 16, 2012, 03:28:20 PM
Here is a shopping list I need from Atwoods.
1. Two packs of four lithium batteries.
2. A four pack of Heet gas treatment.
3. A good strong drain cleaner.
4. One pair of rubber gloves.
5. One pack of filter paper masks.
6. A couple of two litre pepsi's
Oh and here is a paper tag for the bumper and can you stop at Walgreens and pick me up a couple packs of Sudafed ? Thanks hon. See ya in a bit.
And people ingest that smile and somehow manage to survive?
Just my little parody of how insane it is.
OKLAHOMA CITY - Three major state medical groups have come out against a proposed restriction on the sale of the allergy medicine that is a key ingredient in most Oklahoma methamphetamine labs.
The Oklahoma State Medical Association, the Oklahoma Osteopathic Association and the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians all have taken stances against proposals to make pseudoephedrine a prescription-only drug.
Advocates for the idea argue that it will reduce the number of meth labs in the state, but the physician groups say it will fill physicians' offices with people who don't need to see doctors and it will keep others from using a drug that the federal government has determined is effective and safe for over-the-counter sales.
"We agree that methamphetamines are a huge problem for the state, we just think this is the wrong way to go about fixing it," said Dr. Russell Kohl, legislative co-chairman for the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians.
"We don't think that the reason for the methamphetamine problem is the availability of pseudoephedrine," Kohl said. "There's just not good evidence that this is effective and it's going to be a huge inconvenience to the law-abiding citizens who are using it correctly."
Quote from: patric on February 16, 2012, 03:37:27 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY - Three major state medical groups have come out against a proposed restriction on the sale of the allergy medicine that is a key ingredient in most Oklahoma methamphetamine labs.
The Oklahoma State Medical Association, the Oklahoma Osteopathic Association and the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians all have taken stances against proposals to make pseudoephedrine a prescription-only drug.
Advocates for the idea argue that it will reduce the number of meth labs in the state, but the physician groups say it will fill physicians' offices with people who don't need to see doctors and it will keep others from using a drug that the federal government has determined is effective and safe for over-the-counter sales.
"We agree that methamphetamines are a huge problem for the state, we just think this is the wrong way to go about fixing it," said Dr. Russell Kohl, legislative co-chairman for the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians.
"We don't think that the reason for the methamphetamine problem is the availability of pseudoephedrine," Kohl said. "There's just not good evidence that this is effective and it's going to be a huge inconvenience to the law-abiding citizens who are using it correctly."
Yet leave it to Oklahoma lawmakers to make it a big deal, like eating fetuses and Sharia Law. ::)
Quote from: patric on February 16, 2012, 03:37:27 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY - Three major state medical groups have come out against a proposed restriction on the sale of the allergy medicine that is a key ingredient in most Oklahoma methamphetamine labs.
The Oklahoma State Medical Association, the Oklahoma Osteopathic Association and the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians all have taken stances against proposals to make pseudoephedrine a prescription-only drug.
Advocates for the idea argue that it will reduce the number of meth labs in the state, but the physician groups say it will fill physicians' offices with people who don't need to see doctors and it will keep others from using a drug that the federal government has determined is effective and safe for over-the-counter sales.
"We agree that methamphetamines are a huge problem for the state, we just think this is the wrong way to go about fixing it," said Dr. Russell Kohl, legislative co-chairman for the Oklahoma Academy of Family Physicians.
"We don't think that the reason for the methamphetamine problem is the availability of pseudoephedrine," Kohl said. "There's just not good evidence that this is effective and it's going to be a huge inconvenience to the law-abiding citizens who are using it correctly."
Awesome! What is the good doctor's idea on the proper way to curb this scourge? Again, the idea of clogging doctor's offices is complete hyperbole. People who have chronic allergies can get a prescription once a year on their annual check up.
Quote from: Hoss on February 16, 2012, 03:41:11 PM
Yet leave it to Oklahoma lawmakers to make it a big deal, like eating fetuses and Sharia Law. ::)
Well they have to stay relative. Geez !
Quote from: Townsend on December 09, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
Should pseudoephedrine be by prescription only in Oklahoma?
No it shouldn't be prescription only.It cost money to go to a doctor. What they should do is make you sign for two worth of pills and that info is kept in the database which all the pharmacies keep track of and if you try to get some more before the two weeks is up then they should require a prescription from a doctor.Just to alleviate any privacy concerns the information in the database should only be kept for three months from the date of the last purchase of pseudo-ephedrine drugs.
Quote from: jamesrage on February 20, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
No it shouldn't be prescription only.It cost money to go to a doctor. What they should do is make you sign for two worth of pills and that info is kept in the database which all the pharmacies keep track of and if you try to get some more before the two weeks is up then they should require a prescription from a doctor.Just to alleviate any privacy concerns the information in the database should only be kept for three months from the date of the last purchase of pseudo-ephedrine drugs.
James, do you have the slightest clue how much of your tax money is going to clean up meth labs, to house meth cooks in prison, and to pay for uninsured visits to the burn ward?
Uh, other than the prescription part, that's how it's done now, only it's a 30 day supply I believe. It's a failing proposition. If you have a legit allergy issue, your doctor can issue 12 month prescriptions to be dispensed 30 days at a time. Everyone should have a once a year check up anyhow.
This is hardly the hardship everyone is making this out to be.
Another alternative is they could eliminate it in tablet form since apparently the gel cap form is not a good precursor.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 06:13:26 PM
James, do you have the slightest clue how much of your tax money is going to clean up meth labs, to house meth cooks in prison, and to pay for uninsured visits to the burn ward?
Uh, other than the prescription part, that's how it's done now, only it's a 30 day supply I believe. It's a failing proposition. If you have a legit allergy issue, your doctor can issue 12 month prescriptions to be dispensed 30 days at a time. Everyone should have a once a year check up anyhow.
This is hardly the hardship everyone is making this out to be.
Another alternative is they could eliminate it in tablet form since apparently the gel cap form is not a good precursor.
There's no way this passes anyway; the lobby from physicians and pharmacists right now is pretty heavy against it.
If eliminating the tablet form makes people happy, and keeps us from forcing us to go to the physician just to get a damned decongestant, I'm all for it.
It sure surprises me how many people whine and complain about the gubmint all up in their business, but then when it comes to stuff like this, they'll allow it. Baffling.
Quote from: Hoss on February 20, 2012, 06:24:40 PM
There's no way this passes anyway; the lobby from physicians and pharmacists right now is pretty heavy against it.
If eliminating the tablet form makes people happy, and keeps us from forcing us to go to the physician just to get a damned decongestant, I'm all for it.
It sure surprises me how many people whine and complain about the gubmint all up in their business, but then when it comes to stuff like this, they'll allow it. Baffling.
The other side of that coin is people who want the government to protect them and place restrictions on certain things until it's something which affects them. It's kind of like I like to say: "Everyone's a fiscal conservative until the government threatens to cut
their program."
If you need antibiotics, pain meds, sleeping meds, BP meds, heart meds, etc. you have to make a doctor's visit. I don't hear people throwing an uproar over antibiotics not being available over the counter. I know what AB meds work for me and I also know when I do and when I don't need them without a doctor's visit yet that is required every time you need them. I think not only should they make pseudo by prescription only, I think they should require a piss test to get a script for it. If you test positive for meth, you don't get a script.
Would it really be such a hardship for you to get an annual prescription once a year on your normal check-up?
No one is complete anti-government restriction other than anarchists. There's a place for government and government restrictions that are for the betterment of society or where it provides a manner of protection. This law wouldn't end addiction nor demand for meth. There's a huge problem with meth labs. Get rid of easy to obtain quantities of the precursor and people will quit cooking this crap state-side and blowing themselves and innocent bystanders up.
Or, quite simply, the feds should ban the manufacture of it in tablet form if the gel cap is really not a good precursor.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 07:21:20 PM
The other side of that coin is people who want the government to protect them and place restrictions on certain things until it's something which affects them. It's kind of like I like to say: "Everyone's a fiscal conservative until the government threatens to cut their program."
If you need antibiotics, pain meds, sleeping meds, BP meds, heart meds, etc. you have to make a doctor's visit. I don't hear people throwing an uproar over antibiotics not being available over the counter. I know what AB meds work for me and I also know when I do and when I don't need them without a doctor's visit yet that is required every time you need them. I think not only should they make pseudo by prescription only, I think they should require a piss test to get a script for it. If you test positive for meth, you don't get a script.
Would it really be such a hardship for you to get an annual prescription once a year on your normal check-up?
No one is complete anti-government restriction other than anarchists. There's a place for government and government restrictions that are for the betterment of society or where it provides a manner of protection. This law wouldn't end addiction nor demand for meth. There's a huge problem with meth labs. Get rid of easy to obtain quantities of the precursor and people will quit cooking this crap state-side and blowing themselves and innocent bystanders up.
Or, quite simply, the feds should ban the manufacture of it in tablet form if the gel cap is really not a good precursor.
I just think it's a fallacy to believe that banning a substance will preclude people from getting said substance with other measures. We all saw how incredibly well prohibition did....
Quote from: Hoss on February 20, 2012, 08:31:54 PM
I just think it's a fallacy to believe that banning a substance will preclude people from getting said substance with other measures. We all saw how incredibly well prohibition did....
I really don't give two shits about them getting ahold of the end product of meth. I'm sick and tired of my tax dollars paying to clean up meth labs, being used on turd hunts to track down meth labs, and tired of reading about five year old children burned in a lab fire or a 75 year old neighbor killed by a lab fire. It's gotten crazy enough now that someone thought it was a great idea to cook it in a freaking Wal-Mart.
Why do you think pain meds are prescription-only? They represent a danger to the public. For those who can manage them, how is it fair they have to get a prescription? FMC was cleaning out my bathroom and found a bottle with about 25 oxycodones with an expiration date of 2010. She asked if I needed them, I said "of course not". I had a shoulder surgery two years ago. I took five the first day or two and changed over to Advil post-surgery and gutted out the rest of the pain. I know how to manage pain meds. Others don't. That's why opiates are by prescription only. Pain meds scare me. Hell, pharmaceuticals in general scare me.
Point is, you
use your Sudafed as intended. Unfortunately the
abuse of it represents a bigger danger to bystanders and society as a whole.
It's a public safety issue, Hoss and I think I've touched on something else that's really pissing me off: it's the blatant unholy influence the drug manufacturers have over our government on the state and national levels.
The drug companies don't give a smile about the obvious harms. For those on here that rail about greedy corporatists, big pharma, and unconscionable profiteers: all the pseudo manufacturers and marketers know is if you restrict sales of their product for nefarious purposes, their sales will plummet by a large margin. Damn right they don't want to impede the flow.
I no longer partake, but I can say first hand there are really great therapeutic benefits to pot, yet it is still heavily banned. It's a great anti-psychotic, appetite stimulator, muscle relaxer, pain killer, stress reliever, and has many other benefits. It's as much a wonder drug as aspirin, but the best part is it's not even synthesized. Ever hear of a pot lab fire? Ever hear of someone hallucinating and smothering a child after staying up for five days straight on weed? The after-effects are even less benign than alcohol. You don't hear of people calling in sick because they have a pot hangover. Most people just want to chill after they smoke it. Granted, there is a danger of emotional addiction and over-use can lead to health issues but there is no physical addiction like crank or many stimulants and commonly-abused pain killers. The cost to society as a whole is far less than government-sanctioned substances like alcohol, pain meds, and meth. Yes, meth is government sanctioned as long as they allow a version of its precursor to exist.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 10:05:41 PM
I really don't give two shits about them getting ahold of the end product of meth. I'm sick and tired of my tax dollars paying to clean up meth labs, being used on turd hunts to track down meth labs, and tired of reading about five year old children burned in a lab fire or a 75 year old neighbor killed by a lab fire. It's gotten crazy enough now that someone thought it was a great idea to cook it in a freaking Wal-Mart.
Why do you think pain meds are prescription-only? They represent a danger to the public. For those who can manage them, how is it fair they have to get a prescription? FMC was cleaning out my bathroom and found a bottle with about 25 oxycodones with an expiration date of 2010. She asked if I needed them, I said "of course not". I had a shoulder surgery two years ago. I took five the first day or two and changed over to Advil post-surgery and gutted out the rest of the pain. I know how to manage pain meds. Others don't. That's why opiates are by prescription only. Pain meds scare me. Hell, pharmaceuticals in general scare me.
Point is, you use your Sudafed as intended. Unfortunately the abuse of it represents a bigger danger to bystanders and society as a whole.
It's a public safety issue, Hoss and I think I've touched on something else that's really pissing me off: it's the blatant unholy influence the drug manufacturers have over our government on the state and national levels.
The drug companies don't give a smile about the obvious harms. For those on here that rail about greedy corporatists, big pharma, and unconscionable profiteers: all the pseudo manufacturers and marketers know is if you restrict sales of their product for nefarious purposes, their sales will plummet by a large margin. Damn right they don't want to impede the flow.
I no longer partake, but I can say first hand there are really great therapeutic benefits to pot, yet it is still heavily banned. It's a great anti-psychotic, appetite stimulator, muscle relaxer, pain killer, stress reliever, and has many other benefits. It's as much a wonder drug as aspirin, but the best part is it's not even synthesized. Ever hear of a pot lab fire? Ever hear of someone hallucinating and smothering a child after staying up for five days straight on weed? The after-effects are even less benign than alcohol. You don't hear of people calling in sick because they have a pot hangover. Most people just want to chill after they smoke it. Granted, there is a danger of emotional addiction and over-use can lead to health issues but there is no physical addiction like crank or many stimulants and commonly-abused pain killers. The cost to society as a whole is far less than government-sanctioned substances like alcohol, pain meds, and meth. Yes, meth is government sanctioned as long as they allow a version of its precursor to exist.
C, I understand your anger, but it seems too vitriolic to me.
We'll agree to disagree and leave it there. I think outright banning, or requiring it to be prescription-only is almost throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What's next? The next superdrug will contain acetyl-salicylic acid (also known as aspirin). Do we start banning it. How about the next superdrug contains ibuprofen, which once was prescription only but now isn't. Do we ban that too? Do we keep banning or requiring prescriptions until it breaks the average person.
You do know that many co-pay for insurance are high enough to wonder why the hell you would want a someone to go to their physician to get something the FDA has deemed safe for normal users. Most physicians think this is insane.
Not everyone has the means, even with insurance, to afford to go to the doctor to get a prescription every 90 days for something they have been getting LEGALLY now for 25 years. I have a hard enough time helping my mother who has osteoporosis medicine to try and get a 90-day supply through medicare. What makes people think a doctor is going to write up a 1 year prescription without trying to mandate they can't do it except every 30-60-90 days. Because if they have to be forced to do something, they might as well make money off the office visit...
I don't hear diabetes or blood pressure sufferers bitching about more regular doctor visits to make sure they get the drugs which make their maladies more manageable or keep them alive.
Unless there's a 90 day limit mandate in the legislation that I've not read, you aren't making a valid argument by making the claim about a visit to the doc every 90 days. As I've mentioned several times on the topic, most every PCP will give you an annual prescription for maintenance meds which are not as critical as heart or BP meds. I can get 12 month prescriptions for albuterol (occasional asthma), and nasal steroids. I really don't use either one very often any more since I became a whole lot more conscientious about food additives and exercise. There's a lot to be said for preventative medicine starting with one's lifestyle. I find it laughable that spray nasal steroids are still a prescription drug. Far less potential side-effects and nefarious uses than Claritin D, but it is what it is and I don't sit around a grumble about needing to see my doc once a year to get it.
I used to be heavily-dependent on Sudafed to manage my hay fever and I was certain I could not live without it. I've never bought it since it went behind the counter. Instead I use a netti pot, nasal steroids when it gets too bad, and benadryl at night.
If aspirin or ibuprofen became precursors for another drug scourge, then you ban them and make drug companies spend their obscene profits and move money from their massive lobbying and marketing budgets to find another chemical compound to do the same job with less potential dangers. The government has done that for years to so many different industries, like the automotive industry for one. This isn't breaking new ground, only getting pseudoephedrine users to see it in a light of safety they recognize for other areas they may approve of.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 11:12:43 PM
I don't hear diabetes or blood pressure sufferers bitching about more regular doctor visits to make sure they get the drugs which make their maladies more manageable or keep them alive.
Unless there's a 90 day limit mandate in the legislation that I've not read, you aren't making a valid argument by making the claim about a visit to the doc every 90 days. As I've mentioned several times on the topic, most every PCP will give you an annual prescription for maintenance meds which are not as critical as heart or BP meds. I can get 12 month prescriptions for albuterol (occasional asthma), and nasal steroids. I really don't use either one very often any more since I became a whole lot more conscientious about food additives and exercise. There's a lot to be said for preventative medicine starting with one's lifestyle. I find it laughable that spray nasal steroids are still a prescription drug. Far less potential side-effects and nefarious uses than Claritin D, but it is what it is and I don't sit around a grumble about needing to see my doc once a year to get it.
I used to be heavily-dependent on Sudafed to manage my hay fever and I was certain I could not live without it. I've never bought it since it went behind the counter. Instead I use a netti pot, nasal steroids when it gets too bad, and benadryl at night.
If aspirin or ibuprofen became precursors for another drug scourge, then you ban them and make drug companies spend their obscene profits and move money from their massive lobbying and marketing budgets to find another chemical compound to do the same job with less potential dangers. The government has done that for years to so many different industries, like the automotive industry for one. This isn't breaking new ground, only getting pseudoephedrine users to see it in a light of safety they recognize for other areas they may approve of.
As I said, you and I are on opposite sides on this one. I disagree vehemently.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 11:12:43 PM
If aspirin or ibuprofen became precursors for another drug scourge, then you ban them and make drug companies spend their obscene profits and move money from their massive lobbying and marketing budgets to find another chemical compound to do the same job with less potential dangers.
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with banning pseudoephedrine until such time as they do come up with something that works better than placebo in double-blind studies, which they have not.
The fact of meth addicts doesn't make forcing sick people to suffer OK.
Manufacture of meth as capital crime.
Becomes a self-limiting issue.
Does anyone remember that Claritin D was prescription-only until 2003?
Nathan makes a valid point. To expand on that: the FDA could motivate the hell out of drug manufacturers by giving them a deadline to develop the next generation of decongestants without pseudoephedrine.
Quote from: Hoss on February 21, 2012, 12:17:05 AM
As I said, you and I are on opposite sides on this one. I disagree vehemently.
Which part do you vehemently disagree with?
-You don't think drug companies could better spend money on research to find a better decongestant rather than spending it lobbying to defend an obviously abused product?
-You think it's too much to ask to go to the doctor once a year for a metered, full year supply of Claritin? That's how I used to do it.
-Do you realize that most people with prescription plans would pay
less for generic versions of decongestants than they do without a prescription?
Quote"A few years ago, Wellpoint Health Networks petitioned the FDA to switch Claritin and other allergy medicines (like Allergra and Zyrtec) to OTC status. What was their motivation? Well, insurance companies spend a lot of money paying for allergy medications for people who have prescription benefits, where they just pay a copay to get a medicine that has been prescribed to them. If allergy medicines were available over-the-counter, the insurance companies would save a lot of money since they wouldn't have to pay for these prescriptions. Schering-Plough, the company that makes Claritin, opposed the OTC switch of Claritin at that time. For them, they likely figured they might lose money if Claritin was over-the-counter and doctors didn't prescribe it anymore.
However , last year, Schering-Plough changed their mind and got the FDA to change Claritin to over-the-counter status. Why? Most likely because the patent for Claritin expired (December 2002) and generic versions would soon be available. These generic versions would likely be less expensive than brand name Claritin and provide a lot of competition for Schering.
It was also likely that the makers of these generic versions would push to get Claritin changed to an OTC medicine. So, by getting their own version of Claritin available without a prescription now, they would hopefully get a jump on their competition
Also, Schering-Plough had introduced Clarinex, a newer version of Claritin. By moving Claritin to OTC status, there may be less confusing among doctors prescribing Clarinex.
Neither the drug companies or insurance companies likely had the best interests of people with allergies in mind (unless they are also shareholders of these companies) when they pursued the switch to over-the-counter Claritin.
Some allergy suffers will benefit though. Most allergy medications are fairly expensive, and if you didn't have any health insurance or prescription benefits, you might pay $60-80 for a month's supply of Claritin. Plus you would have to pay for a doctor's office visit to get your initial prescription. With OTC Claritin, you could just go to the pharmacy and pay about $30 for a month's supply of regular Claritin. Other versions, will be more expensive, for example $39 for a month's supply of Claritin Reditabs or Claritin D.
Other allergy suffers will also suffer as they are faced with higher costs. Many people with prescription benefits only pay about $10-20 for their prescriptions, as their insurance company pays for the rest. Now, instead of a copay, they will have to pay full price.
The people who will lose out the most are those with a low copay. For example, many people on Medicaid only pay $1-$5 for a prescription. Now they will have to pay a lot more, as they pay full price for OTC Claritin.
So if the cost of a month's supply of OTC Claritin is more than your current copay for prescription Claritin, then treating your allergies will cost you more each month. Prices will likely come down though once generic versions of OTC Claritin, like Alavert, become available early next year.
Those people on other forms of allergy medicines, like Allergra and Zyrtec, will also likely not benefit from Claritin being over-the-counter. Insurance companies will likely raise their copays or refuse to pay for these allergy medicines, as they try to push patients to take OTC allergy medications. And Claritin users who ask their doctor's to switch them to another antihistamine so that their insurance will continue to pay for the prescription might not save money either, as the copay for these medicines go up.
The other big question is will patients know when to take OTC Claritin without first consulting a doctor. For people with year round allergies and true seasonal allergies, the answer will likely be yes. However, it can often be difficult to know when someone has true allergies. A runny nose can also be caused by other things, including the common cold. Instead of reaching for a cold medicine in the pharmacy, many people may now buy Claritin instead. And if they have a cold, they will be wasting their money. To prevent this, even though you can buy Claritin without a prescription, you should first consult with your doctor, especially if you haven't been diagnosed with allergies before.
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/weeklyquestion/a/120902_ask.htm
Quote from: Conan71 on February 21, 2012, 04:26:02 PM
Does anyone remember that Claritin D was prescription-only until 2003?
Nathan makes a valid point. To expand on that: the FDA could motivate the hell out of drug manufacturers by giving them a deadline to develop the next generation of decongestants without pseudoephedrine.
Which part do you vehemently disagree with?
-You don't think drug companies could better spend money on research to find a better decongestant rather than spending it lobbying to defend an obviously abused product?
-You think it's too much to ask to go to the doctor once a year for a metered, full year supply of Claritin? That's how I used to do it.
-Do you realize that most people with prescription plans would pay less for generic versions of decongestants than they do without a prescription?
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/weeklyquestion/a/120902_ask.htm
Looks like it failed again:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120221_336_0_OKLAHO988864
For those behind the paywall...
QuoteBy WAYNE GREENE World Senior Writer
Published: 2/21/2012 4:09 PM
Last Modified: 2/21/2012 4:21 PM
OKLAHOMA CITY - The House Public Health Committee rejected a plan to restrict access to pseudoephedrine, the popular allergy medicine that is a key ingredient in most Oklahoma meth labs.
The measure, supported by police and prosecutors, would have required a prescription to purchase the drug.
After an hour of heated questioning and debate, the measure failed 6-7 in front of an overflow audience of police, doctors and lobbyists.
"This is blood money for the pharmaceutical industry," Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove told lawmakers before the vote was taken, but Rep. David Derby, R-Owasso, argued the measure punishes people who use the drug legally, but won't stop meth addictions.
"I do not agree that Oklahoma Legislature needs to pass a law to castigate individuals who are using this for legitimate purposes," Derby said.
Advocates of the measure say it would reduce the number of drug labs in the state, but opponents say it would inconvenience legitimate buyers, but wouldn't deal with the problem of methamphetamine addiction.
The same committee approved an alternative measure pushed by over-the-counter drug manufacturers. The measure would link the state to a multistate electronic registry that would track and block the sales of the drug. It also would reduce the legal limit Oklahomans could buy.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 21, 2012, 04:26:02 PM
Does anyone remember that Claritin D was prescription-only until 2003?
Nathan makes a valid point. To expand on that: the FDA could motivate the hell out of drug manufacturers by giving them a deadline to develop the next generation of decongestants without pseudoephedrine.
Which part do you vehemently disagree with?
-You don't think drug companies could better spend money on research to find a better decongestant rather than spending it lobbying to defend an obviously abused product?
-You think it's too much to ask to go to the doctor once a year for a metered, full year supply of Claritin? That's how I used to do it.
-Do you realize that most people with prescription plans would pay less for generic versions of decongestants than they do without a prescription?
http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/weeklyquestion/a/120902_ask.htm
OK, point by point...
1. Yes, I do think they could likely find a drug that MAY work better than PE for allergy sufferers. Problem is, not ALL allergy sufferers react to different drugs the same. I know that certain 'antihistamines' I used didn't work as well as others. The only one that consistently did for me is Drixoral (yes, it has PE).
2. That's not the point Conan. People shouldn't have to make that choice after a drug is made available for OTC use. See my baby/bathwater comment.
3. But they'd still have to pay for a doctor visit. I know you say 'they need to go to the doctor once a year anyway', but the fact of the matter is, not everyone can afford that. So whatever cost you'd save in getting a generic form of the drug is immediately neutered with the office visit cost.
If the states are going to cave, I'm curious if the FDA can pull it's head out and force big pharma to find better alternatives?
Believe it or not, even ibuprofen can give moderate swelling relief in the sinuses and nasal passages.
Enjoy your PE and i'll continue to piss and moan about exploding meth labs, thieving tweakers who continue to rip off the company I work for, and the known and unknown dangers of ingesting PE in the first place.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 21, 2012, 05:09:51 PM
If the states are going to cave, I'm curious if the FDA can pull it's head out and force big pharma to find better alternatives?
You're asking if the government can make pharma do something? Not likely...
Oh, wait, I see what you did there....
;D
Why not just sell the geltab form? It can't be used for meth making, right?
Quote from: LocalGirl on February 21, 2012, 05:17:28 PM
Why not just sell the geltab form? It can't be used for meth making, right?
Too simple a solution. We have to make everything difficult in Oklahoma.
Quote from: LocalGirl on February 21, 2012, 05:17:28 PM
Why not just sell the geltab form? It can't be used for meth making, right?
Bein' from Oklahoma we get the gel all over our hands.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 21, 2012, 04:26:02 PM
-Do you realize that most people with prescription plans would pay less for generic versions of decongestants than they do without a prescription?
I won't disagree with "most" but my prescriptions cost less for generics at WalMart paying cash, specifically excluding the insurance company which requires
all maintenance drugs to go through Aetna RX mail order after the first month to have insurance pay anything. The $10/ 3month supply from Walmart costs anywhere between $13 and $18 for the same quantity going through Aetna RX prescription mail order. Both places are for generics.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 21, 2012, 04:26:02 PM
-Do you realize that most people with prescription plans would pay less for generic versions of decongestants than they do without a prescription?
It costs about $3 for the largest box of Wal-Phed they can legally sell. It would cost a lot more than that to go to the doctor, not to mention the follow-on effects of driving up the cost and wait times for everybody else who needs to see that doctor and all the other doctors who will be wasting time writing prescriptions for pseudoephedrine.
Quote from: nathanm on February 21, 2012, 07:17:55 PM
It costs about $3 for the largest box of Wal-Phed they can legally sell. It would cost a lot more than that to go to the doctor, not to mention the follow-on effects of driving up the cost and wait times for everybody else who needs to see that doctor and all the other doctors who will be wasting time writing prescriptions for pseudoephedrine.
So your convenience and need for cheap allergy meds, when there are viable alternatives, trumps the societal costs to everyone else?
Quote from: Townsend on February 21, 2012, 05:28:22 PM
Bein' from Oklahoma we get the gel all over our hands.
Well quit using Donnie's Rejuve and you won't have that problem. ;D
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2012, 01:19:03 AM
Well quit using Donnie's Rejuve and you won't have that problem. ;D
That boy runs through the saran wrap....!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 12:30:51 AM
So your convenience and need for cheap allergy meds, when there are viable alternatives, trumps the societal costs to everyone else?
So what you're saying is that we should all stop driving cars? They're incredibly convenient, but the externalized costs are ridiculously high. Lot more folks killed and maimed by cars than any (or all) drug(s). Not to mention the billions of dollars every year in property damage.
Even if you discount my hyperbole, you haven't really even thought about the costs inherent in making pseudoephedrine prescription-only.
Quote from: dbacks fan on February 22, 2012, 01:19:03 AM
Well quit using Donnie's Rejuve and you won't have that problem. ;D
Oklahomans. We've got gel on our hands.
Ok. No TANF or Food Stamps or drivers license for a year if you test positive for sudafed or pseudoephedrine without a prescription. However, you can have a third party buy the sudafed for you and of course if your kids need the sudafed they can have it administered by the third party. Cars are dangerous and will henceforth be gradually eliminated through attrition while being replaced with electric trolleys.
To even attempt the use of cars as comparison with drug laws is worthy of Oklahoma legislature awards.
We make decisions every day about which dangerous things we will allow, which ones we will regulate and what we will outlaw. In this case you have medical professionals who abhor yet another complication of their business on one side, and a group of law enforcement and judicial types on the other side who see these changes as a tool to protect the public.
Everyone who is against the change should be allowed to visit families and their loved ones who have been affected by drug abuse. Everyone who is in favor of the changes should have to spend the day with allergy sufferers in a doctors waiting room.
How's that for legislative thinking?
Quote from: nathanm on February 22, 2012, 09:21:53 AM
So what you're saying is that we should all stop driving cars? They're incredibly convenient, but the externalized costs are ridiculously high. Lot more folks killed and maimed by cars than any (or all) drug(s). Not to mention the billions of dollars every year in property damage.
Even if you discount my hyperbole, you haven't really even thought about the costs inherent in making pseudoephedrine prescription-only.
Of course I have. I'm simply not buying that it's a major hardship. What do you do when you need antibiotics? You cannot get those without a doctor's visit. Is it unfair you can't get those OTC?
There are countless other meds you cannot get without regular visits to the doctor. Is that a horrible inconvenience that needs to be mitigated as well?
To a certain extent, I agree that doctor's visits are nothing but a money-grubbing PITA for them, however, there are cases where it really is necessary to check things like BP and liver function prior to or during medication.
Aqua, our legislature is totally screwed. All this bunch cares to do is make statement legislation like pushing back how long someone has to wait (by 24 hours) to have their first legal drink or making Oklahoma officially a pro-life state. When they get approached by a big lobby like pharma or liquor, they buckle like a teen girl getting felt up for the first time.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 10:11:12 AM
Of course I have. I'm simply not buying that it's a major hardship. What do you do when you need antibiotics? You cannot get those without a doctor's visit. Is it unfair you can't get those OTC?
There are countless other meds you cannot get without regular visits to the doctor. Is that a horrible inconvenience that needs to be mitigated as well?
To a certain extent, I agree that doctor's visits are nothing but a money-grubbing PITA for them, however, there are cases where it really is necessary to check things like BP and liver function prior to or during medication.
Aqua, our legislature is totally screwed. All this bunch cares to do is make statement legislation like pushing back how long someone has to wait (by 24 hours) to have their first legal drink or making Oklahoma officially a pro-life state. When they get approached by a big lobby like pharma or liquor, they buckle like a teen girl getting felt up for the first time.
I love that last comparison, spot on.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 10:11:12 AM
Of course I have. I'm simply not buying that it's a major hardship. What do you do when you need antibiotics? You cannot get those without a doctor's visit. Is it unfair you can't get those OTC?
When I think I need antibiotics, I go to the doctor, even though I can get them for next to nothing in the Dominican Republic. (most antibiotics are over the counter there) Why? Because antibiotic resistant drugs are a real thing and using them when they're not necessary or using the wrong kind for a given infection promotes that. MRSA isn't just a scare story sold to us by the media.
Quote
There are countless other meds you cannot get without regular visits to the doctor. Is that a horrible inconvenience that needs to be mitigated as well?
If the FDA has decided that a drug is safely sold over the counter but politics prevents it, then yes, it is a horrible inconvenience and waste of money that needs to be mitigated. That goes for Plan B just as much as pseudoephedrine.
Quote from: nathanm on February 22, 2012, 10:46:47 AM
When I think I need antibiotics, I go to the doctor, even though I can get them for next to nothing in the Dominican Republic. (most antibiotics are over the counter there) Why? Because antibiotic resistant drugs are a real thing and using them when they're not necessary or using the wrong kind for a given infection promotes that. MRSA isn't just a scare story sold to us by the media.
If the FDA has decided that a drug is safely sold over the counter but politics prevents it, then yes, it is a horrible inconvenience and waste of money that needs to be mitigated. That goes for Plan B just as much as pseudoephedrine.
I posted a link to a story yesterday that said Claritin D would never have gone OTC had the manufacturer been close to patent expiration. That's where I get confused. You'd think, as a drug company, that OTC would translate to much higher sales volume. If a compound is approved by the FDA for OTC, I'd think that would be a boon for a particular med.
Oh well, I'm climbing off this dead horse. Enjoy your
meth er decongestant.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
I posted a link to a story yesterday that said Claritin D would never have gone OTC had the manufacturer been close to patent expiration. That's where I get confused. You'd think, as a drug company, that OTC would translate to much higher sales volume. If a compound is approved by the FDA for OTC, I'd think that would be a boon for a particular med.
Oh well, I'm climbing off this dead horse. Enjoy your meth er decongestant.
I think Claritin-D was the derivative of it that had PE; the new OTC version does NOT (the OTC version contains all loratadine; dash D was a combo of that and pseudoephedrine).
Interesting, one representative on one side of the issue is a physician (Ritze) another is on the no side is also a physician:
The house committee defeated the proposal for at least another year by a vote of 7-6. You and Nate can breathe easy.
Quote
Oklahoma House committee rejects plan to restrict pseudoephedrine access
From left, Rep. David Derby, R-Owasso and Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove.
By WAYNE GREENE World Senior Writer
Published: 2/22/2012 2:22 AM
Last Modified: 2/22/2012 7:32 AM
Read the Tulsa World's continuing coverage of the meth epidemic.
Keep up with all the news from the legislative session.
OKLAHOMA CITY - The House Public Health Committee rejected a plan to restrict access to pseudoephedrine, the popular allergy medicine that is a key ingredient in most Oklahoma meth labs.
The 7-6 vote against the proposal to require a prescription for pseudoephedrine purchases essentially kills the issue for the year, a leading proponent said.
"I'm devastated," said Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Chouteau. "These legislators have chosen money over good policy."
Sherrer said the way he interprets legislative rules, all other measures that would do the same thing - including a bill he wrote last year - are dead for the year in the House. A Senate Committee rejected a similar proposal earlier this month, essentially killing the idea there.
At Tuesday's hearing, a legislative aide said there was still a way for the idea to be heard by the House, but even if that is correct, the committee's negative vote and past hesitancy by legislative leaders to bring the issue to the floor make it difficult to believe the issue is likely to rise successfully this year.
The panel voted 13-0 to approve an alternative pushed by the pharmaceutical industry that would connect Oklahoma to a multistate electronic tracking and blocking registry. That measure, offered by Rep. David Derby, R-Owasso, would also reduce the amount of pseudoephedrine that an Oklahoman could purchase in one month to 7.2 grams, about 30 days worth of medicine for allergy sufferers.
Derby's measure goes to the full House for consideration.
"This is the most responsible approach to controlling the access to pseudoephedrine without impeding access to people with legitimate needs," Derby said.
Derby said that if his measure isn't effective in getting control over the state's meth lab problem in four years, he will personally bring back a measure to require a prescription to purchase the drug.
The prescription restriction issue brought heated debate and an overflow crowd of doctors, police officers and lobbyists to a House meeting room.
"This is blood money for the pharmaceutical industry," Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove, told lawmakers before the vote was taken.
After the vote, Cox, a physician, said he didn't know how he would be able to look police officers, social workers or prosecutors in the eye and tell them that the Legislature works for the public good.
Rep. Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa, said she was also "deeply disappointed" in the committee vote.
She said meth labs are a huge problem in the Tulsa area. Four years ago, when she led an interim study on the issue, McDaniel said the pharmaceutical industry promised to deal with the problem through tracking.
"That has not happened to date," she said.
But Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, said restricting access to legitimate drug buyers in the hope of stopping drug cooks is the wrong approach.
As a physician, Ritze said bill would have drummed up business for him, but it was still the wrong policy, so he voted against it.
Original Print Headline: Meth-drug curb rejected
Quote from: Conan71 on February 22, 2012, 04:33:01 PM
You and Nate can breathe easy.
I see what you did there. ;D
Right now I would feel a bit queasy if I found myself in agreement with anything that came out of Oklahoma House.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 06:13:26 PM
James, do you have the slightest clue how much of your tax money is going to clean up meth labs, to house meth cooks in prison, and to pay for uninsured visits to the burn ward?
Uh, other than the prescription part, that's how it's done now, only it's a 30 day supply I believe. It's a failing proposition. If you have a legit allergy issue, your doctor can issue 12 month prescriptions to be dispensed 30 days at a time. Everyone should have a once a year check up anyhow.
This is hardly the hardship everyone is making this out to be.
Another alternative is they could eliminate it in tablet form since apparently the gel cap form is not a good precursor.
I don't care about the cost.Law abiding citizens should not be forced to pay for an additional cost just because of some junkies. If they want to keep it out of the hands of meth cooks then making people present a state issued ID or driver's license, sign for it and keeping their info temporarily in a database will make so that someone can not just go to a walgreens at pine and sheridan and get some pills and then go to a walgreens at 31st and Harvard or a med-x at 3rd and lewis to get more pills.This is a simple solution that doesn't add the cost of having to go to a doctor for simple cold medicine.
Quote from: jamesrage on February 22, 2012, 10:41:17 PM
I don't care about the cost.Law abiding citizens should not be forced to pay for an additional cost just because of some junkies. If they want to keep it out of the hands of meth cooks then making people present a state issued ID or driver's license, sign for it and keeping their info temporarily in a database will make so that someone can not just go to a walgreens at pine and sheridan and get some pills and then go to a walgreens at 31st and Harvard or a med-x at 3rd and lewis to get more pills.This is a simple solution that doesn't add the cost of having to go to a doctor for simple cold medicine.
It's not occurred to you that as a taxpayer, you pay an additional cost for all the clean up of abandoned labs, unpaid medical bills from medical issues caused by PE abuse, response of firefighters to meth labs, and housing users, dealers, and cooks in prisons all across the state?
You do realize that database already exists and it's a FAIL, right? Or no, I guess you don't. Tweakers get straw purchasers to go in and buy more for them once they've gotten their allotment. If this program were successful, we would not be talking about stepping up the enforcement even more.
Looks like you
methheads allergy sufferers might face a bigger cluster*ck to get your meds after all. Just wait till the database jacks you and you don't get your "service charge" back. Might not have been such a bad idea to have a 12 month scrip for it after all, eh?
Looks like the doctors successfully put the onus on the back of the poor clerk at WalMart Pharmacy.
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY - The state House rejected a proposal Tuesday night to require pharmacists to determine that everyone they allow to buy pseudoephedrine has a legitimate medical need for the allergy medicine - but then turned around and approved essentially the same requirement as an amendment to another bill, which passed.
Pseudoephedrine is a popular cold and allergy medicine, but it also is a key ingredient in Oklahoma meth labs.
Amid nearly three hours of debate and a blizzard of parliamentary procedures and votes on two competing pseudoephedrine bills, the House ended up passing Rep. David Derby's proposal to link Oklahoma to a multistate pseudoephedrine tracking system after Derby promised to eventually undo his own amendment that encompassed the heart of the pharmacist proposal.
While much of the evening's debate centered on the pharmacist proposals, the House also approved amendments that would lower the maximum amount of pseudoephedrine that Oklahomans can purchase and allow pharmacists to charge people who attempt to buy the drug but are rejected because they are over the state limit.
The first proposal considered by the House was House Bill 2808 by Rep. Sean Roberts, R-Hominy. That bill would require pharmacists to determine a legitimate medical need for anyone buying pseudoephedrine.
Roberts and his allies argued that his bill would reduce the number of meth labs in the state and save lives.
"I'll take (saving) lives over runny noses and watery eyes any day," said Rep. Ben Sherrer, D-Chouteau.
But opponents of the measure argued that it was an unwarranted government intrusion.
"How far down this road of government intrusion are you willing to go?" asked Rep. Fred Jordan, R-Jenks. "How much of your liberty are you willing to give up in hope that somebody doesn't have a meth lab?"
Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa, said there are times government must intrude in people's lives to protect the public.
"When a problem gets big enough, you have to use a big stick," McCullough said.
But Rep. Don Armes, R-Faxon, author of the state's first pseudoephedrine limitation law in 2004, said he doubts that the Roberts bill would be effective.
"This cow will not stay milked," Armes said.
The bill failed 44-48.
The House then took up Derby's bill to allow Oklahoma to track pseudoephedrine sales in 19 states and make sure Oklahomans don't avoid purchasing limits by going to those other states.
Although Derby had led opposition to Roberts' bill, he offered an amendment that essentially duplicated it, requiring pharmacists to make a determination of medical need before selling the drug.
The amendment passed. Derby later conceded to lawmakers that he thought he had changed the amendment's language to make the medical determination optional for pharmacists.
Derby realized the mistake after it was too late to change it Tuesday, but he promised House members that the issue would be altered in the Senate.
The House passed an amendment to Derby's bill, offered by Rep. Doug Cox, R-Grove, that would limit pseudoephedrine purchasers to 3.4 grams per day and 7.2 grams per month. The current limit is 9 grams per month. A 10-tablet package of 24-hour Sudafed contains a total of 2.4 grams of the drug.
The House also passed an amendment by Rep. Jadine Nollan, R-Sand Springs, that would allow pharmacists to charge a service charge of up to the package price of pseudoephedrine prior to the sale. If the purchaser is OK'd for the drug purchase by the electronic tracking system, all of the service charge would be applied to the drug's cost, but the pharmacist would keep the service charge if the tracking system showed that the buyer wasn't eligible to make the purchase.
Nollan said some pharmacies are already using service charges as way of discouraging illegal pseudoephedrine buyers from even attempting to make the purchases.
Derby's bill goes to the state Senate for consideration.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the state Capitol, the Senate voted 45-1 to pass a measure to link Oklahoma to the multistate tracking system and limit pseudoephedrine sales to 3.6 grams per day, 7.2 grams per month and 60 grams a year.
Senate Bill 1634, by Sen. Rick Brinkley, R-Owasso, passed 45-1 and heads to the House for consideration.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=683&articleid=20120314_16_A1_OLHMIY581488
Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 02:31:21 PM
Looks like you methheads allergy sufferers might face a bigger cluster*ck to get your meds after all. Just wait till the database jacks you and you don't get your "service charge" back. Might not have been such a bad idea to have a 12 month scrip for it after all, eh?
Looks like the doctors successfully put the onus on the back of the poor clerk at WalMart Pharmacy.
Dude, let it go already!
;)
Quote from: Hoss on March 14, 2012, 02:38:59 PM
Dude, let it go already!
;)
Everyone has to have their "patric" issue. His is lights & cops. Mine is decongestants. 8)
Hey, I'm just seriously thankful I can control my allergies without the asspain you are going to eventually end up with one way or the other with PE.
I simply find it hilarious the doctors successfully sloughed this off, making people think it would have been a much bigger mess to simply do what I do once a year for Nasonex and my asthma inhaler- get the annual check up I should have and get 12 month maintenance prescriptions.
Just wait until cross-checking on the database over 19 states ends up preventing you from a purchase due to someone who shares your name or an ID number gets transposed by a digit.
I'm simply pointing out what we wound up with may be worse than what was originally proposed in terms of cost and inconvenience.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 03:37:24 PM
Everyone has to have their "patric" issue. His is lights & cops. Mine is decongestants. 8)
Hey, I'm just seriously thankful I can control my allergies without the asspain you are going to eventually end up with one way or the other with PE.
I simply find it hilarious the doctors successfully sloughed this off, making people think it would have been a much bigger mess to simply do what I do once a year for Nasonex and my asthma inhaler- get the annual check up I should have and get 12 month maintenance prescriptions.
Just wait until cross-checking on the database over 19 states ends up preventing you from a purchase due to someone who shares your name or an ID number gets transposed by a digit.
I'm simply pointing out what we wound up with may be worse than what was originally proposed in terms of cost and inconvenience.
I'm just jabbin' at ya also, chlor-trimetron or whatever that stuff is has always worked better for me than PE has.
;D
Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 03:37:24 PM
Everyone has to have their "patric" issue. His is lights & cops. Mine is decongestants. 8)
Hey, I'm just seriously thankful I can control my allergies without the asspain you are going to eventually end up with one way or the other with PE.
I simply find it hilarious the doctors successfully sloughed this off, making people think it would have been a much bigger mess to simply do what I do once a year for Nasonex and my asthma inhaler- get the annual check up I should have and get 12 month maintenance prescriptions.
Just wait until cross-checking on the database over 19 states ends up preventing you from a purchase due to someone who shares your name or an ID number gets transposed by a digit.
I'm simply pointing out what we wound up with may be worse than what was originally proposed in terms of cost and inconvenience.
Just to point out, there are a lot of us out there that doesn't have insurance and that yearly checkup doesn't happen (I don't think I've been in at least 6 or 7 years). It also really isn't the same as getting antibiotics either. How many people need antibiotics on a regular basis as compared to allergy sufferers? Same with many other prescription only meds. It would be closer to try and compare it to making Tylenol to script only. It is something widely used for a common ailment. I would like to know more about PE in gel tabs. Not finding anything really helpful on the google.
Quote from: custosnox on March 14, 2012, 06:33:09 PM
I would like to know more about PE in gel tabs.
The only one I've seen is Advil Cold and Sinus. It's not great to take ibuprofen unnecessarily, though.
I had occasion to buy a box of 96 tabs yesterday at Walgreen's. Wasn't too big a deal - had to show ID and they scanned it. Probably would put up a flag if tried to get more anytime soon.
Had a nephew (age 28) who tried to buy some at Wally World in Owasso just after Christmas. They called the cops, who came to investigate. Put him in handcuffs for "everyone's safety" until they were done and decided he had no record or warrants and probably wasn't cooking meth (no chemical smell on him or his clothes). Took a little over an hour.
He told them to keep their PE.
Maybe I will have to try to stock up over the next few months before we get even more ignorant in this state. 50 to 60,000 tabs ought to last me the rest of my life...
Geez. What a mess.
Quote from: custosnox on March 14, 2012, 06:33:09 PM
Just to point out, there are a lot of us out there that doesn't have insurance and that yearly checkup doesn't happen (I don't think I've been in at least 6 or 7 years). It also really isn't the same as getting antibiotics either. How many people need antibiotics on a regular basis as compared to allergy sufferers? Same with many other prescription only meds. It would be closer to try and compare it to making Tylenol to script only. It is something widely used for a common ailment. I would like to know more about PE in gel tabs. Not finding anything really helpful on the google.
You are a self-supporting college student at the moment, right? I'm pretty certain in this town there are plenty of free and low cost options for an annual check up. If you ever had a sinus infection, doesn't TCC maintain some sort of infirmary? Otherwise a cash visit to the PCP should be not much more than $100. I'm pretty sure there are some who do lower rates for people in the same income situation.
I'm not scolding, just saying do the research and get your annual checks, man! Nothing worse than figuring out you have something which may have not been such a big issue if diagnosed a lot sooner. Just sayin'.
Quote from: nathanm on March 14, 2012, 06:43:17 PM
It's not great to take ibuprofen unnecessarily, though.
Better alternative than Tylenol for those who like their wine or beer. Ibu seems to have digestive tract issues. Too much Tylenol cooks the liver.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 08:16:58 PM
You are a self-supporting college student at the moment, right? I'm pretty certain in this town there are plenty of free and low cost options for an annual check up. If you ever had a sinus infection, doesn't TCC maintain some sort of infirmary? Otherwise a cash visit to the PCP should be not much more than $100. I'm pretty sure there are some who do lower rates for people in the same income situation.
I'm not scolding, just saying do the research and get your annual checks, man! Nothing worse than figuring out you have something which may have not been such a big issue if diagnosed a lot sooner. Just sayin'.
Of course, there is also that whole I don't like doctors thing to go along with it. But honestly, I'm having a hard time making rent, so even the $100 is too much to ask. It's the situation that a lot of people are in. Also why I don't complain too often about the issue with getting the meds, can't afford em more than a couple of times a year.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 14, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
Too much Tylenol cooks the liver.
For sure, but it takes more than 4 grams in a day for most people to have trouble. Obviously that's less for heavy drinkers whose liver is already taking enough abuse. Cumulative exposure seems not to be an issue as long as the daily dose is below your magic threshold.
Ibuprofen's damage is more of a cumulative thing. If you only take it once in a while you won't have a problem even if you have 3 or 4 at once unless you have preexisting GI problems.
Quote from: custosnox on March 14, 2012, 08:24:34 PM
Of course, there is also that whole I don't like doctors thing to go along with it. But honestly, I'm having a hard time making rent, so even the $100 is too much to ask. It's the situation that a lot of people are in. Also why I don't complain too often about the issue with getting the meds, can't afford em more than a couple of times a year.
Last I'll badger you- you
might qualify for SoonerCare with your present situation. Worth looking into. IIRC, Family & Children's Services can help you determine if you do qualify and they will help enroll you if you do. My ex's sister moved back here from England after getting divorced and had absolutely nothing when she arrived. The program saved her butt until she could land a regular job with benefits (and a stable income).
Quote from: Conan71 on March 15, 2012, 09:20:15 AM
Last I'll badger you- you might qualify for SoonerCare with your present situation. Worth looking into. IIRC, Family & Children's Services can help you determine if you do qualify and they will help enroll you if you do. My ex's sister moved back here from England after getting divorced and had absolutely nothing when she arrived. The program saved her butt until she could land a regular job with benefits (and a stable income).
To be honest, I prefer to suck on the government teat as little as possible. I feel I've been taking more than my fair share as it is with government grants for school. But I'm still in good health, and improving my lifestyle, so I might be able to hold out a couple more years until I can manage to get into something with benefits.
Quote from: custosnox on March 15, 2012, 11:33:14 AM
To be honest, I prefer to suck on the government teat as little as possible. I feel I've been taking more than my fair share as it is with government grants for school. But I'm still in good health, and improving my lifestyle, so I might be able to hold out a couple more years until I can manage to get into something with benefits.
Atta boy. Plan for the future. Who wants to grow old and broke. You wind up in a urn instead of a nice pricey pine box.
Quote from: custosnox on March 15, 2012, 11:33:14 AM
To be honest, I prefer to suck on the government teat as little as possible. I feel I've been taking more than my fair share as it is with government grants for school. But I'm still in good health, and improving my lifestyle, so I might be able to hold out a couple more years until I can manage to get into something with benefits.
And nothing wrong with that either, custo.
Quote from: custosnox on March 15, 2012, 11:33:14 AM
I feel I've been taking more than my fair share as it is with government grants for school.
That is one thing I wish everyone would and could use.
Quote from: DolfanBob on March 15, 2012, 12:23:42 PM
Atta boy. Plan for the future. Who wants to grow old and broke. You wind up in a urn instead of a nice pricey pine box.
Urn? Pine box? I've already given instructions I'm to be disposed of in an active volcano.
Quote from: custosnox on March 15, 2012, 02:16:36 PM
Urn? Pine box? I've already given instructions I'm to be disposed of in an active volcano.
Hmm. Your name isnt Joe is it ?
Quote from: DolfanBob on March 15, 2012, 02:20:31 PM
Hmm. Your name isnt Joe is it ?
Nope, and I don't think I'll win either. Great movie though :D
So this limits you to 240 pills of Sudafed Congestion a month? Am I reading it right?
Anti-meth bill passes Oklahoma Senate
http://www.ktul.com/story/17524952/anti-meth-bill-passes-oklahoma-senate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/story/17524952/anti-meth-bill-passes-oklahoma-senate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A bill targeting the manufacture of methamphetamine by limiting the sales of an ingredient in the drug and creating an online system of monitoring the sales in Oklahoma and other states has passed the state Senate.
Pseudoephedrine is found in many common cold and allergy medications and is a key ingredient in meth. The bill limits the amount of pseudoephedrine that a person is allowed to purchase monthly to the recommended monthly dosage - about 2.5 boxes.
It also requires pharmacies to have an online system connected with systems in other states to track sales of the drug and prevent individuals from purchasing more than the allowed amount.
It now goes back to the House for final consideration before being sent to the governor.
Quote from: Townsend on April 18, 2012, 01:04:38 PM
So this limits you to 240 pills of Sudafed Congestion a month? Am I reading it right?
Anti-meth bill passes Oklahoma Senate
http://www.ktul.com/story/17524952/anti-meth-bill-passes-oklahoma-senate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/story/17524952/anti-meth-bill-passes-oklahoma-senate?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
What? I can only use eight 12 hour tablets a day?
Outrage!
What if I'm really really stuffed up?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 18, 2012, 01:27:39 PM
What? I can only use eight 12 hour tablets a day?
Outrage!
What if I'm really really stuffed up?
I think the most in a 12 hour is 20 so you could get 50 tabs a month.
(http://meowcheese.com/files/lolpics/2009/10/tweak-cat-is-tweaking.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on April 18, 2012, 01:27:39 PM
What? I can only use eight 12 hour tablets a day?
I thought you had a family. Surely you understand the concept of buying medicine for other people when they're sick.
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2012, 04:33:27 PM
I thought you had a family. Surely you understand the concept of buying medicine for other people when they're sick.
You are correct. If I had a family of 8, and pseudoephedrine was the only decongestant on the market, this would present a problem.
I don't, and it's not.
You overestimate the amount of Sudafed you're allowed to buy. It would help if the manufacturers would package it such that each box divided evenly into one's monthly limit. As it is, two boxes and you're done a week early.
Quote from: nathanm on April 18, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
You overestimate the amount of Sudafed you're allowed to buy. It would help if the manufacturers would package it such that each box divided evenly into one's monthly limit. As it is, two boxes and you're done a week early.
Is the 96 tab box not available here?
Quote from: Townsend on April 18, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
Is the 96 tab box not available here?
Not at Walgreen's, at least any time I've gone.
Quote from: Townsend on April 18, 2012, 05:04:02 PM
Is the 96 tab box not available here?
I've never seen it. And I think that would exceed the monthly recommended dosage, which is what this is based on. The 2.5 boxes is a figure intended to reflect that, not an amount that obviously exceeds that.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 18, 2012, 01:51:58 PM
(http://meowcheese.com/files/lolpics/2009/10/tweak-cat-is-tweaking.jpg)
Tweaking on cilantro. One of my favorite herbs for seasoning, and a key ingrident in my brisket marinade, and pico de gallo.
Gee, you know what? Those that want to make meth, will just do what they are doing now, and would continue to do in the future. They will use straw buyers to circumvent the laws to get the precursor, and continue to manufacture meth. As for making it prescription only, sorry that genie has been out of the bottle for at least 30 years. I doubt that the FDA will reverse it. It's trying to change the gun laws to prevent another "Fast and Furious" and the previous version of it, it's going to happen. And any changes that are proposed will be met by the manufacturers of the product and the retailers claiming that their right to do business is being infringened upon.
Prohibition and legalization aren't our only choices when it comes to drugs. Proven programs can greatly reduce the harm caused by hard-core users—and reduce our prison population, too.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303425504577353754196169014.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Current drug policies do much more damage than they need to and much less good than they might, argues UCLA Prof. of Public Policy Mark Kleiman. "For every complex problem," H.L. Mencken wrote, "there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."
That is especially true of drug abuse and addiction. Indeed, the problem is so complex that it has produced not just one clear, simple, wrong solution but two: the "drug war" (prohibition plus massive, undifferentiated enforcement) and proposals for wholesale drug legalization.
Fortunately, these two bad ideas are not our only choices. We could instead take advantage of proven new approaches that can make us safer while greatly reducing the number of Americans behind bars for drug offenses.
Our current drug policies do far more harm than they need to do and far less good than they might, largely because they ignore some basic facts. Treating all "drug abusers" as a single group flies in the face of what is known as Pareto's Law: that for any given activity, 20% of the participants typically account for 80% of the action.
Most users of addictive drugs are not addicts, but a few consume very heavily, and they account for most of the traffic and revenue and most of the drug-related violence and other collateral social damage. If subjected to the right kinds of pressure, however, even most heavy users can and do stop using drugs.
Why Oklahoma's law doesn't matter --
3 tons of key methamphetamine ingredient seized at LAX
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016765fa72e6970b-640wi)
Quote from: Vashta Narada on May 02, 2012, 07:57:05 PM
Why Oklahoma's law doesn't matter --
3 tons of key methamphetamine ingredient seized at LAX
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016765fa72e6970b-640wi)
Seized in Los Angeles?
How does that relate to Oklahoma?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 02, 2012, 10:21:39 PM
Seized in Los Angeles?
How does that relate to Oklahoma?
Mail order. Only another day or two to Oklahoma by truck.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 02, 2012, 10:21:39 PM
Seized in Los Angeles?
How does that relate to Oklahoma?
Breaking Bad is shown in both LA and here?
I love cop staged photos. Are those pictures for the criminals or citizens?
Which bag do you think they did the cut and taste test on?
Looks like a bunch of stolen Tide detergent to me.
Quote from: DolfanBob on May 03, 2012, 09:26:34 AM
I love cop staged photos. Are those pictures for the criminals or citizens?
Which bag do you think they did the cut and taste test on?
Looks like a bunch of stolen Tide detergent to me.
You mean you question the integrity of the border patrol? Like those danged staged NASA moonwalks.....
Quote from: AquaMan on May 03, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
You mean you question the integrity of the border patrol? Like those danged staged NASA moonwalks.....
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The Oklahoma House of Representatives has approved a bill that would limit how much non-prescription cold and allergy medication containing a key methamphetamine ingredient a consumer could purchase.
The measure by Rep. David Derby of Owasso limits not only the powder form but liquid and gel cap forms, which the Drug Enforcement Administration officials say also can be used to manufacture methamphetamines. Is this the same DEA bureaucracy that forgot they had someone locked in a cell for 5 days?
How do you not hear someone gagging on their own urine?
Quote from: DolfanBob on May 03, 2012, 11:14:39 AM
How do you not hear someone gagging on their own urine?
I turn up my iPod.
Fine. But what if you're one of the impoverished masses who don't have an IPod!! We have to listen to that stuff and its distracting as hell. Am I on the right forum....
Quote from: AquaMan on May 03, 2012, 11:55:04 AM
Fine. But what if you're one of the impoverished masses who don't have an IPod!! We have to listen to that stuff and its distracting as hell. Am I on the right forum....
How about a WalkMan?
Quote from: Hoss on May 03, 2012, 12:14:31 PM
How about a WalkMan?
Ooo, with a Men At Work tape.
WalkMan. Back when dependable technology ruled. Hell, I never had one of those either. Guess I'll have to do what my teachers did. Act like its not just a dream.
Where do you guys buy pseudophedrine in Tulsa? I go to Walgreens. They have it in stock maybe 1 out of every 5 trips. Always bought up by the meth cooks before I get there.
When you have to make so many trips just to buy one box, the pitfalls of requiring a prescription (where presumably they'd call you when it's ready to pick up) would be lessened.
So is there a place in Tulsa that regularly has it in stock?
Quote from: TheTed on July 07, 2012, 04:33:16 PM
Where do you guys buy pseudophedrine in Tulsa? I go to Walgreens. They have it in stock maybe 1 out of every 5 trips. Always bought up by the meth cooks before I get there.
When you have to make so many trips just to buy one box, the pitfalls of requiring a prescription (where presumably they'd call you when it's ready to pick up) would be lessened.
So is there a place in Tulsa that regularly has it in stock?
Owasso WalMart. But beware - when you do, they will try to slow you down while they call the police. And then you will be detained and questioned for 2 to 3 hours. (True story.)
Just fidget, grind your teeth while looking side to side. You'll be fine.
Federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske told a congressional panel Tuesday that pseudoephedrine sales restrictions and electronic monitoring - the path chosen by the Oklahoma Legislature this year - are showing diminishing effectiveness and have been unable to stop the rise of small methamphetamine labs.
Max Dorsey, a narcotics lieutenant from South Carolina, told lawmakers that the restrictions on the amount of pseudoephedrine that can be bought and a national real-time sales tracking system have been ineffective in battling meth labs in his state.
Earlier this year Oklahoma lawmakers chose just that solution rather than a prescription requirement during an often-heated debate over how to battle meth labs.
The Supreme Court tackled part of the mess:
In 2010, the state created the registry to prevent people with meth convictions from purchasing pseudoephedrine products. While the law provided for district court clerks to notify the state of new convictions that would make people subject to the registry's rules, it did not provide for listing people with previous convictions who would also be subject to the law.
It also didn't provide for notifying people who were subject to the law that they would be breaking the law if they purchased pseudoephedrine products.
The Court of Criminal Appeals decision found that people who are subject to the meth registry can't be prosecuted for purchasing pseudoephedrine if they don't know that they would be violating the law.
Wolf had pleaded guilty to five counts of unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine while subject to the Methamphetamine Registry law, but asked to withdraw her plea, arguing that she didn't know she was breaking the law when she made her purchase. The Oklahoma court sided with her and ordered her conviction dismissed.
"The mere purchase of pseudoephedrine is not a crime, unless one is subject to (the registry law). The wrongdoing was created by Wolf's status as a person subject to the statute. The uncontested record shows Wolf was completely unaware that she was subject to (the law)." Because she didn't know about the law, the conviction was as violation of her due process rights, the Oklahoma court found.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/US_Supreme_Court_upholds_decision_preventing_prosecution/20130610_14_0_TheUSS678959?subj=11
Doesn't stop straw purchasing which happens now anyhow due to registering quantities purchased. This is an example of a product which could be removed from the shelves and the problem of domestically-crafted meth would virtually disappear overnight. Instead the pharma lobby continues to keep this from happening.
Quote from: DolfanBob on May 03, 2012, 11:14:39 AM
How do you not hear someone gagging on their own urine?
A follow-up to the story:
A college student mistakenly left in a Drug Enforcement Administration interrogation room for five days will receive $4.1 million from the government in a settlement in advance of a lawsuit.
The bizarre event in April 2012 began when Daniel Chong, an engineering student at UC San Diego, went to a house near campus to smoke marijuana with friends and found himself swept up in a DEA raid.
After being questioned briefly at the DEA facility in San Diego, he was told he would be released. But, for reasons that remain unclear, he was left for five days in a 5-by-10-foot windowless room without food, water or toilet facilities.
He suffered hallucinations and was forced to drink his urine to survive. He screamed for help.
Fearing he would die, he broke his glasses and scrawled the message, "Sorry, mom" on his arm.
When he was discovered by DEA employees, he was covered in his own feces and severely dehydrated. He was rushed to a hospital, close to kidney failure and breathing with difficulty. He spent five days in the hospital.
Days later, a top DEA official apologized to Chong and ordered an "extensive view" of DEA procedures.
Quote from: patric on July 30, 2013, 03:02:14 PM
A follow-up to the story:
A college student mistakenly left in a Drug Enforcement Administration interrogation room for five days will receive $4.1 million from the government in a settlement in advance of a lawsuit.
The bizarre event in April 2012 began when Daniel Chong, an engineering student at UC San Diego, went to a house near campus to smoke marijuana with friends and found himself swept up in a DEA raid.
After being questioned briefly at the DEA facility in San Diego, he was told he would be released. But, for reasons that remain unclear, he was left for five days in a 5-by-10-foot windowless room without food, water or toilet facilities.
He suffered hallucinations and was forced to drink his urine to survive. He screamed for help.
Fearing he would die, he broke his glasses and scrawled the message, "Sorry, mom" on his arm.
When he was discovered by DEA employees, he was covered in his own feces and severely dehydrated. He was rushed to a hospital, close to kidney failure and breathing with difficulty. He spent five days in the hospital.
Days later, a top DEA official apologized to Chong and ordered an "extensive view" of DEA procedures.
Above the law...
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be...DEA without end...Amen
Big pharma's role in meth productionhttp://news.yahoo.com/big-pharma-s-role-in-meth-production-151900012.html (http://news.yahoo.com/big-pharma-s-role-in-meth-production-151900012.html)
QuoteThe U.S. has seen a proliferation of meth labs since the early 2000s, and pharmaceutical companies are partly to blame, Mother Jones reports.
According to the magazine, the number of meth sites busted by police has increased 63 percent nationwide since 2007. In Kentucky alone, the number of sites discovered has more than tripled in the same time frame.
The steep rise in production is mostly a result of the "shake-and-bake" or "one-pot" method of cooking meth that gained popularity in the mid-2000s. This simplification of the way that meth is synthesized from pseudoephedrine — a decongestant in popular cold and allergy medicines like Sudafed — meant that meth cookers had all the ingredients they needed with just a handful of cheap, over-the-counter ingredients. Complicated chemistry sets gave way to basic kitchenware, while production shifted to poor, rural America.
While lawmakers in 25 states have attempted to make pseudoephedrine a prescription drug, the efforts have proved successful in just two: Oregon and Mississippi. The reason why so few of these bills have become laws? Big pharma, the magazine said.
Across the country, drug manufacturers and retailers have mounted a powerful lobbying effort to maintain easy access to the decongestant. According to Mother Jones, big pharma makes an estimated $605 million on pseudoephedrine-based products a year.
"It frustrates me to see how an industry and corporate dollars affect commonsense legislation," Kentucky state attorney Jackie Steele told Mother Jones.
In 2004, the drug industry fought a long and costly battle against a bill to put pseudoephedrine behind the counter in Oregon, claiming the proposed legislation would do little to curb the proliferation of meth labs in the Beaver State around that time.
According to Rob Bovett, a lawyer for the drug task force in Oregon's Lincoln County, drug companies and retailers "flooded our Capitol building with lobbyists from out of state."
The bill became a law in 2006, and the number of meth lab busts in Oregon has dropped 96 percent since then. Meanwhile, drug companies have doubled their lobbying efforts in states such as Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and Indiana — the top four states for meth lab busts in the country.
Since 2009, 23 states have attempted to pass bills to make pseudoephedrine a prescription drug and only one — Mississippi —has succeeded. According to the Magnolia State's narcotics bureau, the number of drug-endangered children dropped 81 percent within a year of the bill's passage.
Quote from: Townsend on August 14, 2013, 01:03:42 PM
Big pharma's role in meth production
http://news.yahoo.com/big-pharma-s-role-in-meth-production-151900012.html (http://news.yahoo.com/big-pharma-s-role-in-meth-production-151900012.html)
And CVS is getting into the performance art by making people register when they buy fingernail polish remover.
Quote from: patric on August 14, 2013, 04:42:35 PM
And CVS is getting into the performance art by making people register when they buy fingernail polish remover.
CVS is big pharma, they own the largest prescription benefits management company in the US. CVS Caremark.
QuoteDuring Fall 2006, Caremark Rx, a pharmacy benefits management [PBM] company, was facing fierce acquisition from Express Scripts, an opposing PBM. CVS/Pharmacy entered into the sale, offering a cash/stock mix, board seats, and a merge with CVS's existing Pharmacare PBM. Though touted as a merger, CVS acquired Caremark Rx on March 22, 2007 renaming the company CVS Caremark Corp. and the corporate headquarters remained in Woonsocket, RI.[17] The pharmacy services business, including the combined pharmacy benefits management (PBM), specialty pharmacy, and disease management businesses, is headquartered in Nashville, TN. Tom Ryan, the Chairman & CEO of CVS remained president and CEO of CVS Caremark Corporation, while Caremark's Edwin Crawford became the Chairman of the Board.[17] On November 7, 2007 Edwin Crawford quit his position, and Tom Ryan was again named Chairman of the Board.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS_Caremark#Caremark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS_Caremark#Caremark)
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on August 15, 2013, 12:34:16 AM
CVS is big pharma, they own the largest prescription benefits management company in the US. CVS Caremark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS_Caremark#Caremark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS_Caremark#Caremark)
And from first hand experience it has been a cluster ever since. Talk about price fixing, collusion, anti-trust...you name it, they are indulging. But since we have gutted all regulatory entities in this country since Reagan...well, that's just too bad.
I just took a Sudafed 12 hour. I feel so criminal. :o
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 15, 2013, 09:07:36 AM
Talk about price fixing, collusion, anti-trust...you name it, they are indulging.
My SO's insurance just went to this new thing where they will only pay for drugs purchased from CVS and whatever mail order house they are associated with. Well, that's not precisely true. If it's not a recurring thing you can get it anywhere, but you always have to pay (up to) the copay that applies to brand name non-preferred drugs even if you actually get a generic that's on their preferred list. So basically no benefit on most drugs at most pharmacies.
Seems collusive to me...
CVS has second thoughts:
After thoroughly reviewing our policies for the sale of products that contain acetone, in most states we will no longer require customers to present an ID to purchase these products, including nail polish remover. Our stores will be notified about this change by the end of the day today and it will take effect beginning tomorrow.
To comply with certain regulations requiring retailers to record sales of products containing ingredients used in the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine, we will continue to require ID for the purchase of acetone products in Hawaii and the purchase of iodine products in California, Hawaii and West Virginia.
Quote from: nathanm on August 15, 2013, 01:48:58 PM
My SO's insurance just went to this new thing where they will only pay for drugs purchased from CVS and whatever mail order house they are associated with. Well, that's not precisely true. If it's not a recurring thing you can get it anywhere, but you always have to pay (up to) the copay that applies to brand name non-preferred drugs even if you actually get a generic that's on their preferred list. So basically no benefit on most drugs at most pharmacies.
Seems collusive to me...
It is. Sounds like AT&T...that's what those clowns have done.
I think a much bigger question has emerged that should concern us all, not just in Oklahoma, but apparently nationwide....
Should Twinkies be by prescription only??
I just bought my first box of new Twinkies over the weekend and they are all gone now!! Box of 10....well, there were 5 people helping to eat them, but this could turn into the next badly addictive substance to overrun our schools!! Serious discussion should be made and a well thought out decision of whether to allow these things to just creep throughout society and do their nefarious worst!!
And the air conditioner broke this afternoon, so one must console oneself with the tools at hand!!
Four agencies in Cherokee County: the Sheriff's Office, The Tahlequah Police Department, District 27 District Attorney's Drugs and Violent Crimes Task Force and Cherokee Nation marshals teamed up to catch people buying more pseudoephedrine than the state law allows.
The truck was pulled over after undercover agents saw the people inside buying items in Walmart used to make meth such as Claritin, batteries and a light bulb.
http://www.fox23.com/content/crime/story/Law-enforcement-cracks-down-on-meth/aDQED-sbc0yE8aFOiMNCGQ.cspx
What tipped them off, a light bulb? ;D
Staking out Walmarts with four police agencies has to be a bit crowded, and where does the money come from to do that?
The war on cold medicine still doesnt seem to be working:
"The suspects had bought 150 boxes of pseudoephedrine last year and 15 boxes just last month"
Led by the Sheriff Office's Thug Task Force, authorities had been tracking activity at the ranch for the last six months.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/authorities-dozen-arrested-in-rogers-county-meth-investigation/article_acbbd17a-cb04-11e3-beb7-001a4bcf6878.html
Thug Task Force?
Patric. I heard that last night too. Thug Task Force. That's a new term for me also.
Crank will sure put the age on you. That one old crone is only a year or so older than I am and looks 20 years older.
Quote from: DolfanBob on April 23, 2014, 12:04:33 PM
Patric. I heard that last night too. Thug Task Force. That's a new term for me also.
I heard it in a soundbite, and almost forgot about it after Scott Walton wailed on camera about the parents for not having industrial eye washes in their mobile home for the kids to use. Unreal.