Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 12/23/2006 1:37:38 PM PST by neverdem
Last month, President Bush declared Nov. 30 "National Methamphetamine Awareness Day."
The official statement from the White House implored, "I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs and activities."
There's no question that meth is a particularly nasty, vicious drug, both in how it's manufactured and in what it does to the people who use it. I think some skeptics have raised legitimate questions about the accuracy of some of the more hysterical media proclaiming we're in the midst of an "epidemic," but there's no question that the drug is widely available, and that it has some pretty terrible effects on users.
That said, the approaches the government is taking toward attacking meth don't make much sense.
As is often the case with policies aimed at curbing the drug supply, civil liberties were one of the first casualties of the meth hysteria. Several cities and states, for example, quickly made it illegal for businesses to sell customers combinations of ingredients that together, are used to make meth, but that are perfectly legal if bought separately.
Sell bhutane, cold medicine, and matches to the same customer, and an unknowing store clerk could well be arrested. These laws effectively deputized private business to begin policing the shopping habits of their customers – never a good idea.
The idea has led to some horrific outcomes.
In Northwest Georgia, for example, a meth sting ended with the arrest of 49 convenience store clerks for violating the odd new law. The problem is that 47 of the clerks were of Indian decent, and spoke only broken English. When undercover police officers tossed out drug lingo like "cooking up a hit," the clerks had no idea what they were talking about.
More troubling,...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
I had the exact same experience in the pharmacy!
After having a wisdom tooth extracted, I was given a very powerful RX for the pain (vicodin). My husband had been suffering with pretty severe sinus congestion, so I picked up a box of the real Sudafed.
For the powerful and addictive vicodin, I signed nothing. For the utterly harmless Sudafed, I had to provide picture ID and a signature.
It is utter insanity, and needs to be repealed ASAP.
BTW...what in the name of All That's Holy does Sudafed have to do with the War on Terror? Why is this legislation attached to the Patriot Act (the rest of which I support)??
Regards,
Do you think stores should still be selling ephedra?
So you're in favor of Sudafed by prescription so you don't have to provide a picture ID and a signature?
This is America, dammit!
Now that's just funny.
Isn't it crazy? The worst is when the stupid checkers (here in CA they are skilled labor earning almost $20/hr, right), can't figure out which medicines fall under the rules. With a sick child, you might buy Triaminic, Children's Benadryl, and a cough suppressant, for example -- only one of which contains any pseudoephedrine. But they'll tell you (in blanket, dismissive fashion) that you can "only buy one of these."
It's maddening, and idiotic, and a complete waste of everyone's time.
"Please keep your address hidden, there are those who would kill for that drug."
yes, they're called the government,and they're here to help.
"Bizarre" is an excellent descriptor.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
It's actually becoming truly scary.
Of course. The whole scare over that was one of the most MSM overhyped pieces of nonsense I've ever seen. Have you ever really researched ephedra?
Earth's Climate Changes in Tune with Eccentric Orbital Rhythms
Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah & Happy New Year! FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Obviously you haven't.
Actually, if you want to kill someone, MY vote goes to killing anyone who has anything to do with passing, enforcing or encouraging the passage or enforcement of any law which attempts to prohibit what a grown individual can put into his or her own body, whether that substance be heroin, speed, pot or transfats. Of course, the person who chooses to ingest such things should have NO CALL on anyone else to pick him or her up out of the gutter when they DO ingest. I had family members (in-laws) who did drugs and I refused to allow them around me unless they were (and stayed) stone-sober. But I would have cut my own tongue out before I would call a cop on them. Eventually they either sobered up or they went all the way under. Either way, their choice and nothing I could do to prevent anything.
"Do you think stores should still be selling ephedra?"
YES. And you should have a nice long bath in a vat of boiling oil. Get your nose OUT of other folks' business, bobby. If you have a child that does drugs (though with a father like you, probably would drive ANY kid to drinking or other drugs), you feel free to kick his ass if you think you're capable. For those OUTSIDE your immediate family, it's none of your damned business WHAT they put into their bodies. I swear, you've got the longest damned nose of any THOUSAND people I know. One sweet day, it's gonna get cut off and I will dance in the streets when I read of it happening.
Sooner or later, they'll figure out that gasoline cures everything, and ban that as well.
Congratulations on being a good citizen and willing accomplice.
I just drive over to Mexico, where the only form of ID necessary is a bad portrait of some dead President on a piece of paper issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
I like the idea of a "Freedom Awareness Day" (date yet to be determined).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.