I suspect that it’s moved from behind the counter over the counter to get to the consumer.
I’ve actually had an adverse reaction to pseudoephedrine. I have allergies bad enough that sometimes I go deaf because of mucus blocking up not just my sinuses but my ear canals as well.
I was given samples of the big 180 milligram extended release pseudoephedrine meds. I used them as directed, I did not over use them. It cleared my sinuses and eventually cleared out my ears but suddenly I was up all night ranting. If you’ve seen the old films of what Hitler looked like giving his speeches expressively I probably was doing the same thing but louder. I’m waking my wife an kids up at 2A.M with this crazy town stuff. I had all these insights and wanted to write 20 page papers comparing and contrasting different newsworthy phenomenon. I’m not in school but I had all these ideas that I had to commit to paper.
When an aunt started bugging me about some family business I just let fly and told her everything I hated about her and why she was being a horrible person. Don’t get me wrong she was being a horrible person and I’m so thankful I get much more distance and respect from her now but it was me who was totally out of control. She could have retaliated and made life very awful for me.
I realized this was crazy and manic behavior. My brain was making all these connections but I didn’t make a connection to a decongestant I was taking. I knew I couldn’t trust my own ability to reason and that’s very scary. I told my doctor what was happening to me. He said the pseudoephedrine was building up and my body was metabolizing it into something like meth. It was very eye opening in regards to how a little chemistry can totally change personality and destroy rationality.
Now if my allergies get so bad my ears stop working I will still get some behind the counter pseudoephedrine but I will use it very very carefully.
1 Like
I find it annoying now that I have to give my license etc to buy Sudafed. I really don’t care if people make meth with it. Prescription only is a horrible idea. Every try making doctors appointment? Hope you can wait 2 weeks.
Truly amazing how many responses here are pro-meth.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d think this forum was being astro-turfed by some hip social media consultant hired by Pharma.
The argument “Oh, they’ll just get it some other way” and “People will always abuse things” is completely bankrupt. So, just throw up your hands then, I guess.
Meth is singularly destructive in a way other drugs are not. Potheads do not rip copper out of buildings for their next hit.
Get your hand off it petzl. You’ve made nothing but pathetic strawman arguments and haven’t addressed any of the real debate here.
Pseudoephedrine is a highly effective, low-risk drug that works quite effectively at treating the symptoms of the common cold. It also happens to be a precursor to meth. The next best chemical to treat the symptoms of the common cold, Phenylephrine can’t be used as a meth precurser, but its not nearly as effective as Pseudoephedrine as a cold remedy for a considerable portion of the population.
Shake and bake production does cause problems, but the vast majority of “meth related” problems are caused by meth addiction and the societal problems that lead to meth addiction, not the production process. Yes, there is evidence that the tighter controls of Pseudoephedrine has led to less shake-and-bake production, I’m yet to see anything convincing there is less meth use. The bulk of meth will still be shipped across boarders, from larger producers.
As to finishing your argument by comparing meth to pot, well…
1 Like
FLuh here, too. And the stupid thing is, the people making the most noise about the pain clinics are the families of addicts who insisted on blaming the clinics for what their relative did because (hello!) they were addicts. Meanwhile, if you legitimately use Adderall, there’s a strong likelihood you will wind up getting piss-tested and treated like and addict. Or, if you should happen to arrive one day early to fill a prescription because you will be indisposed the following day, some Walgreen’s clerk is allowed to talk to you like you are a piece of trash. Because…why, again
It’s just bizarre.
Back when is was all about cocaine, meth swept the market because it was much cheaper and could be made domestically. And now that meth prices are soaring, coke is coming back in some places. Both things exist, no amount of drug war or DEA or prohibitive nonsense has changed that fact. People will choose between two items if two are available. Remember cocaine? So profitable and persuasive that even the US government was caught trading it for political gains while imprisoning those private citizens who used it?
It’s just plain naive to believe that governmental prohibitions are worth a hoot. Maybe a snort. Or a chuckle. But not a hoot.
they may be worth a good toot. hey-oh!
First, meth is not magic. There are lots of people who do bit of meth and then decide to leave their partying days behind them and go on with their lives. People who are “addicts” (only some of them are actually addicted) are people with social and emotional problems who need alternative supports or they will go to another drug (people huff gasoline and glue, for goodness sake, taking away the meth will get them off meth, it will not solve their problems).
Second, prohibition is completely stupid. It is a failed policy. Any plan to prevent access to drugs with criminal punishments is driven by either misinformation or a desire to punish rather than the help.
3 Likes
Perfecto!
I believe at this point it’s driven almost entirely by the desires of law enforcement to get money and justify its own existence.
The worst part is, it’s purely a cost center for the rest of us. Any addict who wants help can get it any number of places, and often entirely for free. Any addict who doesn’t want help is already doomed to far worse things than jail time. IOW - one way or another, it’s always a self-correcting problem, even if it doesn’t do so instantly.
If you use a lot of drugs, particularly socially unpopular drugs, you are more likely to be unhappy than someone who is “high on life”, right?
And if you are unhappy, you are less likely to want to preserve the status quo, and thus less likely to vote for incumbents than the average happy person.
And if you get caught self-medicating, your voting rights can be taken away. So incumbents stand to profit from criminalizing any form of happy pills.
My friend the political consultant claims this is the rationale that former drug users use to become “tough on drugs” politicians after election. I have no idea if it’s true! Just thought I’d throw it out there.
Edit: personally, though, I am a fan of beer, which is socially approved.
Then I propose an amendment to my original:
“Driven by law enforcement, supported by incumbents.”
Those laws that take away the voting rights of felons are pure politically-driven voter suppression. I wish people noticed how undemocratic they are.
I don’t mind not letting people who are in jail vote, that’s kind of the point of jail. You’ve proven that you’re not able to get along with society, so you get to sit out being a full citizen for awhile.
Once you’re out of jail though, you should be allowed to vote again. You’ve paid your debt to society, there’s no need to keep punishing you. There is a disturbing undercurrent of “former felons are only temporary out of jail, don’t trust them, they’re going to stab you in the back”. This of course makes life shitty (difficulty finding a job especially) for those people and basically pushes them back into a life of crime.
I think a lot of these ill conceived “tough on crime” measures would be more politically contentious if you had former felons on the voting rolls, especially people who were locked up for having a small amount of weed and a pipe.
1 Like
Personally I think that even not letting people in jail vote is a very bad move. They are still people, still citizens, and I still think that their voice counts. That’s not an argument I’d go to the wall about on an internet message board, though. For people who have been convicted and punished for crimes in the past and who are now free, the idea of not letting them vote strikes me as extremely offensive.
As you say, it’s counter-productive in the sense that we are basically pushing people to be career criminals for lack of other options. More than that, it strikes me as something that only a very sick society would do. Whatever criminals have done they are a product of the society they came from. The idea that they can somehow be cut off is treating them as dirt to be swept under a rug.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
