You Can't Tell the Players Without a Program


PDA






BenW
July 31, 2005, 02:08 AM
I found the below story somewhat amusing in its analogy to our own favored political area. If the subject had been guns, the Democrat and Republican statements would have been exactly reversed. Being a Republican (or at least what used to be called Republican), I'm firmly in the Democrats court on this one.

--------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=4&u=/ap/20050731/ap_on_re_us/oregon_meth

Oregon Anti-Meth Bill Aimed at Cold Pills

By BRAD CAIN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 56 minutes ago

The Senate on Saturday approved a plan to make Oregon the first state in the nation to require a prescription for many cold and allergy medicines, an attempt by lawmakers to shut down methamphetamine labs.

The Senate voted 26-4 to approve the measure, which now returns to the House. Soon the bill is expected to reach the desk of Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who supports it.

The legislation would require prescriptions by mid-2006 for medicines containing pseudoephedrine and two similar substances, which are used in such popular medicines as Sudafed, Claritin and Theraflu.

The bill was endorsed despite complaints that it would unfairly burden law-abiding citizens who cannot afford doctor visits.

"Should we pass this legislation today, we are not going to be happy with ourselves down the road," Democratic Sen. Vicki Walker said.

But supporters called it a necessary step to curb methamphetamine production and safeguard children who are exposed to toxic chemicals in homes used as meth labs.

"It's a no-brainer," said Republican Sen. Jeff Kruse. "If we can save one meth baby, it will be worth it."

The governor said he was pleased with the Senate vote, saying it would "have a significant impact on our state by keeping pseudoephedrine out of the hands of meth cooks."

Oregon is among more than a dozen states that restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine tablets to pharmacies and require that the medications be kept behind the counter. Customers must also show identification.

If you enjoyed reading about "You Can't Tell the Players Without a Program" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Marshall
July 31, 2005, 02:12 AM
I dunno, there's about 1000 other cold and flu medicines available OTC. I guess it's only those in question that are preferred amoung meth cookers?

O.F.Fascist
July 31, 2005, 03:39 AM
More stupid useless laws to fight the failure that is the war on drugs.

You cannot stop the free market. The Soviet Union couldnt, and neither can we.

LiquidTension
July 31, 2005, 03:50 AM
I take Claritin on a fairly regular basis during the Spring and Fall due to allergies. Not having a job with health benefits means I have to pay a LOT for health insurance, so I only have major medical coverage. This means that to get my regular dose of an OTC drug I'd have to spend over $50 each time I went to the office. This bill is just more feel-good legislation that will have the consequence of causing people like me to be even more in the poorhouse.

You wanna crack down on meth-labs? That's what the DEA is for. Not enough man-power? BS - transfer some (or all) from the marijuana division.

c_yeager
July 31, 2005, 06:26 AM
The republican and democratic parties are more about *specific* social issues than they are about any kind of government philosophy. They will both support any amount of government controlls if it is favors one of their pet issues.

Democrats are all about civil liberties with the exception of gun ownership, employment, or taxes.

Republicans are all about civil liberties with the exception of druge use, abortion, or immigration.

The only real constant here is that they are *all* politicians and that means that they want to own you, and force you to do what they want you to do.

QuickDraw
July 31, 2005, 02:17 PM
"It's a no-brainer," said Republican Sen. Jeff Kruse. "If we can save one meth baby, it will be worth it." :what:
I can't believe he actually trotted out that tired old phrase!

QuickDraw

HankB
July 31, 2005, 03:12 PM
So the Oregon legislature is doing this?

Exactly WHAT will it accomplish other than encourage a bootlegging market with adjacent states?

Sindawe
July 31, 2005, 03:15 PM
"It's a no-brainer," said Republican Sen. Jeff Kruse. He got that part right. Seems to me that only those with no brain would support such folly.

Crosshair
July 31, 2005, 05:35 PM
Anyone who didn't fall asleep during HS chemestry will see the foolishness in this.

1. It is so easy to make meth that most of us on this fourm could be cooking our first batch in 12-24 hours if we really wanted to. Sad but true.

2. Smuggling cold pills is so easy as to not be a serious risk. Lets see them train drug dogs to sniff out my Alivert.

3. Most meth is made in "superlabs" anyway. Either that or smuggled in.

All you are going to see with this is a lot of pissed people with colds. The parents with sick kids are probably going to go insane.

Standing Wolf
July 31, 2005, 11:24 PM
Some people break the law. Punish everyone!

Stalinism is a long, long way from dead.

pax
July 31, 2005, 11:28 PM
"It's a no-brainer," said Republican Sen. Jeff Kruse. "If we can save one meth baby, it will be worth it."
I wonder how many children in working-class households are going to end up going deaf from ruptured ear drums following inadequately treated colds as a result of this legislation.

pax

Leatherneck
August 1, 2005, 10:52 AM
As a chronic sufferer with sinusitis, my flying career would have been terminated early without Sudafed. I still remember the flight surgeon's note in my health record: "may fly while using Sudafed." I'm still a one-a-day man.

TC

benEzra
August 1, 2005, 11:07 AM
I dunno, there's about 1000 other cold and flu medicines available OTC. I guess it's only those in question that are preferred amoung meth cookers?
But the only one that works for ME for sinus congestion and sinus headaches (which I get at least one or two of per week) is Sudafed. My wife also depends on Sudafed to mitigate sinus troubles (she has very, very small nasal passages and really has fits sometimes).

Most meth is cooked in superlabs that don't even NEED pseudoephedrine HCl to make meth, if I understand correctly. The pseudoephedrine ban is just an attempt to get the small-time makers to switch to the non-pseudoephedrine recipe.

Technosavant
August 1, 2005, 11:07 AM
In MO our elected reps recently passed this law. Every tablet with pseudoephedrine has to be kept inside the pharmacy, and purchasers must show ID and be entered into a log.

I don't know why OR wants to lock up the Claritin; loratadine is NOT and CAN NOT be used in meth. Claritin-D, which includes pseudoephedrine, is included in this sort of thing, but not the regular stuff (my guess is the reported punted the facts). Around here, Claritin (10mg loratadine) is still the easy to purchase OTC stuff, and our laws are the most restrictive in the nation.

My fiancee is a pharmacist, and this new system is a real PITA. Customers don't seem to make the connection between these laws and the real world; they applaud the "steps to crack down on meth" but they gripe, moan, and complain when purchasing the stuff is more difficult. Will it cut down on meth? No telling. They aren't doing this with the other ingredients of meth-making (like car batteries).

Henry Bowman
August 1, 2005, 11:14 AM
The fed.gov has pretty much preempted drug regulation. So, if you will need a Rx to buy this stuff in OR, wil you need one to possess it? That is, if I go to visit relatives in OR, can I take along a pack of allergy medicine with me? Can I take 50 packs? Will I have to get a Rx and then buy it there? Will they search my car at the border?

How will this law have any of its intended effects? We know it will have many expensive unintended consequences that will be hardest on rural the poor (of which there are many in OR).

Yowza
August 1, 2005, 12:35 PM
Well I simply cannot wait to see what the druggies cook up next. I'm sure it won't take them long to come up with some new super-easy-to-make intoxicant that will get the legislators all in a tizzy. Who knows, maybe it will be even MORE dangerous than meth! Won't that be fun?

Rick

TallPine
August 1, 2005, 01:26 PM
:fire: :cuss: :banghead:

:barf: :rolleyes: :uhoh:

that's all I can say about this nonsense...


Democratic Socialist Party vs Socialist Republican Party :confused:

DelayedReaction
August 1, 2005, 03:00 PM
"It's a no-brainer," said Republican Sen. Jeff Kruse. "If we can save one meth baby, it will be worth it."

Not from an economic standpoint. If I recall correctly, a human life is worth somewhere in the woods of a million dollars. So if this decision causes a loss of over 1 million dollars (easily done depending on how you look at it, probably the tax losses alone would do it), then saving the life of a meth baby isn't worth it.

c_yeager
August 3, 2005, 04:25 AM
All this whole thing really does is create a very easy to believe excuse for purchasing massive quantities of sudafed; "im stocking up cause its gonna be illegal any day now".

QuickDraw
August 8, 2005, 01:14 AM
Henry Bowman wrote:

The fed.gov has pretty much preempted drug regulation. So, if you will need a Rx to buy this stuff in OR, wil you need one to possess it? That is, if I go to visit relatives in OR, can I take along a pack of allergy medicine with me? Can I take 50 packs? Will I have to get a Rx and then buy it there? Will they search my car at the border?

Just don't keep it in a coffee can and you'll be O.K. :D

QuickDraw

If you enjoyed reading about "You Can't Tell the Players Without a Program" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!