Lawmaker wants to ban drugs like Sudafed

Spray all the marijuana crops with paraquat, and you will.

Gotta find it first. If they could do that, they'd just make the busts ... but they can't.

Pseudofed used to be prescription and there it should have stayed. It is not without serious potential side effects and it is not innocuous in its actions on the body.

I don't agree. I think that far closer to our current situation than the Dutch experiment is our own experiment with Prohibition. I'm sure the moral crusaders of that era never meant to create the mafia. However, when it was clear how profoundly the policy had failed, we showed more wisdom then than now in reversing well-intentioned but practically catastrophic policies.

Unfortunately, a quick examination of the Dutch experiment with drug legalization proves you wrong. The same thing can be said of the Berkeley area's policies. Of course, you might think that large areas of public land being taken over by junkies is a good thing.

The latest reliably sourced figures I could find show Holland with a much lower heroin addiction rate than the US, Singapore, and Iran:

Demand Reduction. The Netherlands has extensive demand reduction programs and lowthreshold medical services for addicts, who are also offered drug rehabilitation programs. Authorities believe such programs reach about 7080 percent of the country's 25,000 harddrug users (in a total population of 15.1 million). [about 0.17%]

--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html

Iran has the highest proportion of heroin addicts in the world and a growing Aids problem.

--news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3791889.stm

There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992. [about 0.34%]

--www.usdoj/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm

There are currently about 9,000 addicts undergoing rehabilitation in Singapore treatment centers, the same number as in 1995. [about 0.3%]

--http://www.state.gov/www/global/narcotics_law/1996_narc_report/index.html

I live in Oklahoma and was very opposed to this same type law when it was enacted here. However, I now hear report after report that meth labs in Oklahoma have decreased and I believe it must be true as I don't see HazMat on the news every evening cleaning out labs as was the case previously. I also see reports frequently of how effective this has been in eliminating meth labs.

I guess I was wrong and it's not the first time.

It was in the Norman Transcript editorial this morning and you are correct -- meth labs have decreased and they are now saying if states surrounding us had this same type of law, they would be cut even more. Like you, I was opposed at the beginning but all you have to do is sign for items like Sudafed and provide ID -- no big deal IMHO.

Aspirin can kill you ... should it be available by prescription only?

Most legislators couldn't change a light bulb without a PR man and an aide. They are incredibly stupid when it comes to any kind of technology. It is obvious that the meth makers will find another source for the chemicals they need. I've already heard of one very common, simple source that they've discovered (won't reveal it here).

The way I see it, is when we quit smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods and driving SUVs, we won't get colds.

Far as I'm concerned they can pull sudafed from the market, doesn't work at all for me.... Drixoral or nothing.

"A lot of the time, they just steal it off the shelves."

This is a problem for the owner of the store to solve, not a government agency. Install more security cameras. The consumer will pay for the increased security by paying a higher price for the product.

"Making it to where only pharmacies can sell it and only from behind the counter to people who sign for it would cut way down on the theft of psuedo and would reduce the availability of the precursor enough to make it too difficult for most to get enough to make meth cooking worth the trouble."

I understand your points...but what good is a signature unless there is a photo ID / drivers license to back it up? So now, the pharmacist will be checking drivers licenses for everyone who buys a cold medication. Next to the signature, will be a drivers license number. How many other legal substances will we have to show drivers licenses to purchase?

What good is a signature list if there isn't a database to check and cross-reference it to. So, state and federal LEO will next want and get access to the mandatory database of signatures and license numbers maintained by each pharmacist. Of course, the pharmacist / owner has to hire additional people and buy computers to maintain this database.

So, people will be paying for all this logistics, and lining up in long lines to make nonprescription routine purchases.

But it wont end there. There are lots of dangerous and precursor substances out there, or substances used in manufacture of illegal substances. How about drivers license and a signature to buy propane and other solvents at your local Home Depot?

And then there's guns...the ultimate prize.

With this established precedent, people will now have to show ID and sign for every purchase of ammo they buy. Each store will maintain its own database, and will be required to upload to the state weekly or quarterly. The state, and then ultimately the feds, will know each person who has purchased ammo, the types, and quantities, and their address. Chuck Schumer is salivating already.

This is what I mean by "slippery slope".

More sacrifices on the part of the average Joe, for a WoD that the govenrment doesn't even take seriously, and doesn't have the authority to pursue if it did.

"Presumed guilty and don't even think about trying to be proven innocent" is the way it goes now! Pretty ridiculous, in my opinion...

"We hope the general public will realize that a little inconvenience will go a long way," Estes, R-Wichita Falls, told the Scripps Howard Austin bureau in Monday's editions of the Abilene Reporter-News.

Yeah, riiiigggghhhhht...!

Gosh! I'm "high" on Sudafed right now! Don't know what would happen if they banned sales...I might have to go into decongestant rehab! /sarcasm

The only people this law would hurt are the average Joe.....the meth makers will simply find another way to make their drugs....and the person with the sniffles will have to give personal info that goes into a database just to get a decongestant. Pretty soon, it will be illegal to buy aleve & motrin too.

If the police respond to a home and find any one of these items in plain view, then the cops can and will conduct a sweep of the house. If they find more than one item, there is a good likelihood that an arrest will be made.

Great. A combination of two legal products is license to violate your home. I hope they start dragging more corpses of dead cops out of homes.

Like the tag line says: Freedom Lite is almost, but not quite, worth defending.

"Am I correct in assuming that you would support the strict regulation of any substance that is a large component in the making of an illegal, intoxicating drug? Regardless of the value of the substance? How far are you willing to go?"

No, it would not be correct to assume that I would support strict regulation of any substance that is a large component in the making of an illegal intoxicating drug. Look, if it was up to me, marijuana would be legal, no one would get a felony conviction for simple possession of any drug, and we'd focus a lot more on trying to get people off of drugs instead of putting all of these low level offenders in prison over and over again.

Meth is a serious problem in my community though. I'm on the front lines as a public defender and I see the problems it causes everyday. Cooking dope is a problem here as well. Our of gets several new clients a week charged with manufacturing or possession of paraphernalia with intent to manufacture. I've handled so many of these cases that I've had to learn pretty much how to cook the stuff, and I certainly know how process of collecting the supplies necessary for cooking dope generally works. The only real "ingredient" in meth is psuedoephedrine. All of the other chemicals are just used to convert the psuedo into the final product, regardless of the particular "recipe" or methods used to get to the end result. Meth is not a "chemical coctail" as some like to call it. The stuff coming from the little kitchen labs is psuedo converted into meth.

Making a drastic cut in the number of little kitchen meth labs would not stop the flow of meth. From what I've read and learned from dealing with these people is that something like 85% of the meth on the streets is coming from big labs producing huge quantities of the stuff. Most of the stuff produced in these little labs is used by the cooks and the people that help them gather supplies, and there are almost always several little helpers out buying or stealing the psuedo and other supplies. They do this for free or super cheap dope. Those that do this who aren't already hardcore addicts, will in most cases probably become hardcore addicts after they do this for a while. I really believe this is creating a lot of meth addicts because most of these people wouldn't be able to afford to do nearly as much dope if they had to pay full retail price for it. And in a small community like mine where there are probably dozens and dozens of little meth labs operating there are probably hundreds of people helping the process along in some way and getting cheap or free dope out of the deal. A lot of these people who aren't already hardcore addicts are going to become hardcore addicts and then a substantial number of those are going to end up being frequent flyers in our court system, and our jail and state prisons. They are going to cause us a lot of problems and cost us a lot of money.

Oklahoma's laws appear to have caused a drastic reduction in the number of little meth labs in that state. I'd like to see the same thing happen in my state. I know we'd have a lot fewer meth manufacturing clients and see a lot less people sentenced to prison for years and years and years for cooking the stuff. That would save the county and the state a lot of money. It would save landlords and motel owners and insurance companies money now paid out to fix the damage caused by the meth making process. It would reduce the risk to innocent people of dying in fires caused by accidents in meth labs, that in many cases although a small percentage of the total are set up in motels and multi family dwelling units. It would also reduce the damage done to small children who now are living in homes where their parents cook dope. It would do a lot of good, and the cost for all of this would be nothing but a small inconvenience to legitimate psuedoephedrine consumers. I can't imagine why so many here find this so objectionable.

"You do realize that meth is simply a response to other intoxicants being cracked down on, right?"

That's bull$hit. I'm no fan of the war on drugs as it's being fought either but that is one lame argument against it. Drugs like meth and heroin came around not because amphetamines and opium were controlled or made illegal, but because scientists working for drug companies discovered them. People preferred those drugs for "recreatrional purposes" over plain old opium and amphetamines because they are more powerful and the high is better. If you made amphetamines legal people would just convert them into meth because it's a heck of a lot easier to convert amphetamines into meth than it is psuedoephedrine. Others would just abuse the heck out of straight amphetamines and become addicted and be just as much a problem for us as meth addicts.

"Bathroom chemists will find something else to cook into fake speed or fake cocaine."

If it was that easy they'd be doing it right now on a large scale. Look, these people are not "chemists." I know, I represent an awful lot of them. Some of them are illiterate, and most aren't exactly what you would call bright. Meth easy to make. You can pretty much get whatever you need to cook it at WalMart. Psuedo is sold everywhere at every grocery store and convenience store. It's easy for these guys to get enough to cook up a batch. Make it a lot harder to get enough to make a cook worthwhile, and a lot less people will be cooking it.

"You must understand that this does nothing to reduce the demand for intoxicating substances, legal or illegal."

I think it would help reduce demand because I think we'd have less new meth addicts created everyday if so many weren't getting it free or dirt cheap cooking their own or helping others cook it. No, it wouldn't stop the flow of meth or get rid of all the demand. But it would help with demand some, and it would cut way down on the number of little kitchen meth labs which would be a good thing whether demand is reduced or not.

"This is a problem for the owner of the store to solve, not a government agency. Install more security cameras. The consumer will pay for the increased security by paying a higher price for the product."

It's not just a problem for the owner of the store. It's a problem for everyone in the community where meth labs are operating. You aren't making a lot of sense. It's okay for consumers to have to pay a higher price, but it's not okay for them to have to buy the psuedo from behind the counter at pharmacies. What's the big deal about having to buy psuedoephedrine from pharmacies? If it was something like milk or something we all use all the time the having to buy it only from pharmacies would be too much of an inconvenience. But we're talking about something most people only use every once in a while if they use it at all. I can't understand why this is such a problem for you and some of the others on this thread.

"I understand your points...but what good is a signature unless there is a photo ID / drivers license to back it up? So now, the pharmacist will be checking drivers licenses for everyone who buys a cold medication. Next to the signature, will be a drivers license number. How many other legal substances will we have to show drivers licenses to purchase?

What good is a signature list if there isn't a database to check and cross-reference it to. So, state and federal LEO will next want and get access to the mandatory database of signatures and license numbers maintained by each pharmacist."

I don't really care about the signature part or the ID's. Even just selling it from behind the counter in pharmacies and stopping sales in convenience stores and grocery stores would make it much harder for people to buy or steal enough to cook dope. The signatures and ID's just make it a little scarier for people who would hit every pharmacy in town.

"So, people will be paying for all this logistics, and lining up in long lines to make nonprescription routine purchases."

I'm not hearing from the folks in Oklahoma that this has been a problem for them. I'm in Oklahoma all the time. I have property there. What I am hearing are good reports about huge reductions in the number of meth labs, and that it's no problem for law abiding citizens to get psuedoephdrine if they need it.

"But it wont end there. There are lots of dangerous and precursor substances out there, or substances used in manufacture of illegal substances. How about drivers license and a signature to buy propane and other solvents at your local Home Depot?"

I'm not really worried about all this slippery slope nonsense. I have a little more faith in people than that. Cops and prosecutors I don't have a lot of faith in. I wouldn't be surprised to see them asking for crazy stuff like that but people wouldn't stand for that. It's not going to happen. Only selling psuedoephedrine from behind the pharmacy counter makes sense and it's not much of an inconvenience.

By the way, propane is not a "precursor" to methamphetamine or any other drug that I know of. A precursor is a substance from which another substance is formed. Psuedoephedrine is not the only substance from which meth can be formed, but it is the only one that is cheap and readily available. You could convert amphetamines into meth, for instance, but amphetamines are an expensive controlled substance. People couldn't get enough of those at a low enough price to make cooking meth worth the trouble.

A lot of people are under the misconception that there are several ingredients used in making meth. That's not exactly correct. It's not like a casserole where everything you use to make it stays in it. The chemicals used are all used to convert the psuedoephedrine into methamphetamine. The cooks try to filter, siphon, scoop and evaporate all of the other stuff off in the process. Psuedoephedrine is the base that is transformed into meth. Without it we wouldn't have all of these little kitchen meth labs. There would be no need to control things like matches where cooks get their red phosphorous, or Drano they use for the sodium hydroxide, Heat, muriatic acid, iodine, coffee filters, and all of the other chemicals and other supplies commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Psuedoephedrine is the base, regardless of the "recipe" or manufacturing process used. If we make it harder for people to get in large enough quantities to cook dope, we'll reduce the number of kitchen meth labs.

I think the slippery slope argument you are using is just a touch on the paranoid side.

"I'm not really worried about all this slippery slope nonsense. I have a little more faith in people than that. Cops and prosecutors I don't have a lot of faith in. I wouldn't be surprised to see them asking for crazy stuff like that but people wouldn't stand for that. It's not going to happen."

"I think the slippery slope argument you are using is just a touch on the paranoid side."

Those are both your quotes. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if they are logically consistent.

You are a public defender? Then you should know first hand what this idiotic war on drugs has done to the Bill of Rights. How in the world could you defend any escalation of it? The WOD has failed miserably, and most of the costs you outlined in your post could be eliminated by not prosecuting addicts.

No "inconvenience" is to great for the public to bear as long as it gets you reelected.

And that would make a fine tagline.