True Patriots Must Have Clogged Noses
It begins with a runny nose, always in early December when the weather gets colder and nature emits strange particles. I'm speaking of the eternal menace of the winter cold, which, experience suggests, can be prevented from turning to flu or other yucky infections by keeping symptoms at bay.
Thus should the company that invented pseudoephedrine — a drug made from "yeast fermentation of dextrose in the presence of benzaldehyde," says Wikipedia — be heralded by one and all. I'm happy for those who need far-flung laser surgeries that such technologies exist, but, speaking from the point of view of self interest, the company that can make a tiny pill to unclog my nose earns my deepest gratitude.
And how we have all taken it for granted. We stock up on those little red pills — red like Christmas — all season long, so that days are bright and nights are restful. Oh there's also the liquid form, which has a flavor you come to love as much as the finest liqueur made by French monks. Why aren't the pills sold in packages of 100, 1,000, or 5,000? Well, in any case they should be. They are our seasonal friend, as much a part of the calendar as Thanksgiving.
And yet this year, matters are different. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (36)
Welcome to Hell
Published: December 11, 2006 9:17 PM
Honest to God, how do these Congressmen live with themselves? Don't they fear being banished to hell for an eternity for the evil they commit against their fellow citizens? I don't understand, for the life of me, why anyone would pass such a stupid and heinous law.
Published: December 12, 2006 12:18 AM
Nice job, Jeffrey.
I'm all for the articles on Mises.org that point to grand issues such as the central bank, business cycles, wars, empire, inflation, etc.
But it's also great to read other articles like this one -- the little freedoms that people don't often bother to notice when they are gone. Somehow, the war on drugs and the Patriot Act have combined forces in a way that makes it very difficult for your average, law-abiding American to get the medicine that he or she needs.
Let's say that I'm a pastor of a church and run a small homeless shelter in one of the spare rooms of the church building. (And let's suppose that there aren't regulations that keep me from doing even this, which I suspect there are!). If I go to the pharmacy and request the medicine that I need, it is likely that I will get it? I would think not. . .but perhaps the homeless will take solace in the fact that they are fighting terrorism by remaining in ill health!
Published: December 12, 2006 8:24 AM
The most frightening thing happened to me as I read this article. I was amazed at some of the ingredients (acids and such) and was going to forward the recipe to a friend of mine to point out the crazy things that people put into their bodies. But I became afraid...
A friend of mine was jailed a number of years ago for 5 years for conspiracy to manufacture drugs. The act he performed was to write this same recipe down for a friend so that this person could manufacture the drugs.
I could be imprisoned for sending this recipe to anyone under those rules. What are we becoming?
Published: December 12, 2006 12:41 PM
I guess freedom is a state of mind. Laws like this pass effortlessly and routinely, yet people insist they are free. Smoking is dramatically curbed, trans-fats are outlawed, sin taxes on soda, seatbelt laws, car seats until 8 years old, advertising curbed, pseudoephedrine put behind counters with red tape described, copious information collected when accounts opened, abuse of eminent domain, the list goes on and on.
And as already been pointed out, many of these exist in the micro-infringement end of the pool, but that's precisely where freedom resides.
We have altogether too many laws based on the negative 2 standard deviations from the norm, making everyone a criminal in the effort to curb the behaviors of a few.
Published: December 12, 2006 12:55 PM
My wife began hoarding the stuff last spring for our family. For anyone with children of varying ages, they need various formulas. This asinine silliness that passes for "protection" effectively discriminates against larger families. I am usually a calm person, but when this stupidity became law I got indignant. My wife takes the more level-headed approach--when asking the pharmacist for the stuff she says "I know you didn't go to pharmacy school to be become a cop."
This is just political rent-seeking. Whoever voted for this gets my scorn and derision. The DEA and ONDCP have clearly stated that the bulk of methamphetamine consumed in the US comes from Mexico. But stories of busting meth labs makes good press just like stories of busting stills did in the '20s.
I'm in my 40s and all my life our government has been telling me that I can't be trusted and/or I'm too stupid for this, that and the other. At this rate, my kids face a lifetime of condescending infantilism. All hail Fearless Leader!
Published: December 12, 2006 1:06 PM
Sorry to rain on your little libertarian parade, but the maximum recommended dosage for pseudoephedrine for an adult is 240 mg daily. This computes to be 7440 mg in a 31-day month. The regulation limits buyers to 7500 mg in the State of Illinois (where I am privy to this data). Anybody using more than 7440 mg of this drug for his or her own use in one month is overdosing. So please stop complaining, Mr. Tucker. The state is simply holding you to the dosage guidelines on the package. This regulation should affect you in no way unless you are operating a clandestine laboratory.
The implementation of the restrictions has probably contributed to a significant drop in production in the US:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13427769/
I’d like to add that most people would welcome this restriction given its success and no-impact to the individual (that is, if that individual is not already overdosing).
Unfortunately, most of it is made in Mexico. I guess you can start arguing about how important “free trade” is now.
Published: December 12, 2006 2:22 PM
My goodness, Anthony, maybe the state should also restrict how much fast food we can buy, or limit our grocery shopping to accord with the Recommended Daily Allowance too! Who could possibly complain about that, except those who are overeating?
Published: December 12, 2006 2:34 PM
Anthony, you wrote:
Anybody using more than 7440 mg of this drug for his or her own use in one month is overdosing.
"His or her own use" denotes purchasing the medicine, as this is the behavior that the State cracks down on.
So the person buying extra in a month is overdosing, or has a lab, or has children, or has grandchildren, or has a larger family, or lost half of the packet accidentally, or gives some to co-workers who otherwise wouldn't buy them, or who might give them to the sick and needy (see my example above), or is going away for a few months and would like a small stock to take with them, or doesn't like taking regular trips to the drugstore and would prefer the convenience of buying a winter supply, or is running a favor for someone else even though they've already bought their "fair share" for a month, or is doing a favor for several people at once since they're going out anyway, or wants to take advantage on a sale because money is tight, or knows that the medicine will jump in price in a few months, or left the packet at a friends house, or left the packet at work, or left the packet at a relatives' house, or can't figure out *where* they put that packet, or gave the packet to a really sick friend but then became sick a few days later and doesn't want to *ask for it back* from their still-sick friend, or is sending a care package to their child who is at college and very sick, or prefers the liquid syrup form, or prefers the liquid capsule form. . . .
What arrogance and blanket ignorance it takes to presume that anyone who wants to buy more than a State defined 'fair share' has some evil motive (i.e. "anyone who wants more is overdosing or has a lab").
Published: December 12, 2006 2:38 PM
If you are running a lab (and I work in one), you apply for a DEA liscence to purchase drugs. I regularly work with dozens of highly regulated drugs such as cocaine. Your lab argument is nonsene!
If your spouse or child needs some (and you are already at the maximum dose), then you can bring them in or have your spouse or just about anybody with an ID get some. If the child has an ID, they can probably obtain it with you.
However, your other examples are absurd. Give pseudoephedrine to the poor? Give me a break.
The restriction is there so that people do not set up clandestine labs (and it apparently works to a limited degree, a point you ignore completely). It is not some goverment rationing program like those in WWII.
I think going to the store once a month is not too draconian. Would you like the drug to be prescription? Are you willing to take a test to get a drivers liscence? Do your taxes once a year?
Published: December 12, 2006 3:31 PM
If you are running a lab (and I work in one), you apply for a DEA liscence to purchase drugs. I regularly work with dozens of highly regulated drugs such as cocaine. Your lab argument is nonsene!
If your spouse or child needs some (and you are already at the maximum dose), then you can bring them in or have your spouse or just about anybody with an ID get some. If the child has an ID, they can probably obtain it with you.
However, your other examples are absurd. Give pseudoephedrine to the poor? Give me a break.
The restriction is there so that people do not set up clandestine labs (and it apparently works to a limited degree, a point you ignore completely). It is not some goverment rationing program like those in WWII.
I think going to the store once a month is not too draconian. Would you like the drug to be prescription? Are you willing to take a test to get a drivers liscence? Do your taxes once a year?
Published: December 12, 2006 3:32 PM
Tucker's article is wonderful. I hate the Sudafed rationing. It was one of the few over-the-counter drugs that helps when I'm sick, and now it's being doled out like we're all babies.
The drug war gets more ridiculous each day.
Published: December 12, 2006 3:57 PM
Anthony,
My "lab argument" and overdose were granting you the "options" that you gave someone buying too much medicine for regular personal use. Everything that followed were possible--but not exhaustive--alternatives.
Your answers to each situation seem to be missing the point. I still stand by my critiques from consequence, but that is not the source of my contention. If it was, I might get into some sort of argument with you weighing the consequences of banning the substance versus the benefits of stopping amature drug manufacturers.
However, my main point is to use these examples to show the arrogance in the government assuming evil motives on the part of its own citizenry. By the same argument, we could ban *any* substance or thing that may potentially cause harm to someone out there. (Anything from lead paint to knives to trans-fats).
What you are saying is that, because this ban keeps some autonomous adults from doing something harmful to themselves, everyone else must abide by restrictions on their own liberty -- as long as we can see the law "working to a limited degree."
Now, even after saying that, there is one particular point from your post that I must address:
However, your other examples are absurd. Give pseudoephedrine to the poor? Give me a break.
Yes, I suppose it is absurd to think of a private citizen doing his utmost to help the needy around him. That's what the government is there for, right?
It's precisely laws of this nature that often keep the poor from receiving help that they would otherwise receive. My college threw away literally tons of food every semester; even if they had wanted to donate the food to local shelters Uncle Sam would have cracked down on it--hard.
Religious and charity groups have routinely been shut down by local, state, and federal governments in their efforts to help the poor. Building codes, zoning laws, housing restrictions (my college town had a law that made it illegal to house more than 4 non-related people under one roof, for example), food laws and restrictions, taxes, drug laws (especially). . .the list goes on and on. Each one crushes the efforts of honest citizens.
Absurd? Why is it so hard to imagine my example of a priest or a pastor running an informal homeless shelter and trying to buy medicine to give to the less fortunate? What is so absurd about charity without forms, permits, and the approval of the State?
I apologize for the rant, but I happen to think that my original point was worth considering beyond the label "absurd."
Published: December 12, 2006 4:07 PM
This Anthony R. G. guy has got to be a made up character, someone is channeling the spirit of Ellsworth Toohey. I can not believe that such a person actually exists. Oh no wait, they're everywhere. How depressing.
Published: December 12, 2006 4:56 PM
Anthony R G is just trying to get on Satin's good side.
Published: December 12, 2006 8:00 PM
Oh, let's give Anthony the benefit of doubt... and believe what he says. If he works with controlled substances as he claims, and claims that it is easy to get a license, it can only mean that he works for the government on a DEA-funded "research". Others have to spend years trying to get a license to work with something as innocious as marijuana.
Meaning he's one of those jerks who promulgate junk science and outright lies to "demonstrate" the dangers of illicit drugs.
Hey, Anthony, have you guys got past doctored fMRI scans and giving monkeys dozes of meth sufficient to kill a horse and claiming that was MDMA? Have anyone told you that the real molecular biologists and biochemists are snickering and make rude remarks behind your backs?
Published: December 12, 2006 10:15 PM
"Would you like the drug to be prescription? Are you willing to take a test to get a drivers liscence? Do your taxes once a year?"
Um, no.
Published: December 13, 2006 2:14 AM
Hey, if the government doesn't protect you, who will?? Certainly we can't expect people to take care of themselves, can we??
Just the other day I thought to myself, "I would feel much better if I went in and took 8000 mgs of pseudoephedrine." But when I tried to make the purchase, the pharmacist called the cops who explanined to me (as I sat in jail) that I could have over-cleared my nasal passages, and that would have led to chaos and complete social breakdown.
Published: December 13, 2006 12:52 PM
This drug was available by prescription only when I was a child. It worked marvelously. It became over the counter around the time I was a teenager, which greatly reduced its cost.
You used to be able to buy a stereo-isomer, ephedrine, in 1000 dose bottles, for about $10, just by going up to the pharmacy window and asking for it. That made each dose about $0.01. I found that the ephedrine worked much better for me than the pseudo-ephedrine.
In the mid-1990s, it became obvious to me that there was a war on ephedrine, and ephedra, the herbal form which contains all four stereo-isomers. I stocked up. My cost went from $0.01/dose to more than $0.065/dose, a 550% increase. Thanks for nothing, theiving government.
It the early 2000s, it became obvious to me that the herbal form, ephedra, was going to become unavailable. This would cause the much better stereo-isomer, ephedrine, to be unavailable at any price. I stocked up on the herbal form. I hope I bought enough to last for my entire lifetime. My cost went from about $0.35/dose to $Infinite. Thanks for nothing, theiving government.
This drug has a more than 6000 year record of safety in Chinese and Indian medicine. If you already have heart disease, ephedrine can exacerbate the problem. That's why in the 1960s, pseudo-ephedrine came to be favored over ephedrine. But for many people, including me, the ephedrine stereo-isomer works much better. Sometimes, for me, it seems that the pseudo-ephedrine doesn't work at all. In any case, if you already have heart disease, you can just not use it, and/or use the pseudo-ephedrine form instead. But soon, it appears that even the pseudo-ephedrine will become unavailable. This war has been going on for more than a decade.
Published: December 14, 2006 7:57 AM
Previous post was cut off prematurely.
So in my lifetime, the drug was greatly reduced in cost when I was a teenager, because the power of the medical lobbyists was reduced as the drug became over-the-counter. You no longer had to go to a government subsidized high-priest of medicine to obtain it.
Then, government started doing what it always does: hurting people. A few are benefited (those who receive wages to fight the war on some drugs) at the expense of the many (those who have asthma, hay fever, allergies, etc.)
Now, this very useful drug is almost unavailable. I have to go to the southwest (Arizona, New Mexico) and harvest the scrubby plant which is the source of the herbal form of the drug myself, in order to obtain the ephedrine stereo-isomer, which works far better for me. This involves a 1-2 week vacation, a long drive, hotel costs, etc. This is much more expensive, all due to government interference in innocent people's lives. Others, who can't or won't pay this high cost, just suffer. Some asthmatics die.
For those for whom the pseudo-ephedrine stereo-isomer works, their cost has also radically been driven up. There are extra costs from the packaging, and extra costs for the waiting in line to present your papers to the government licensed and subsidized high-priest of medicine distribution, otherwise known as pharmacists.
Government has not ever helped me. All they have ever done is hurt. They increase my costs of living dramatically. They reduce my standard of living. And for some asthmatics who can no longer get the one drug with a greater than 6000 year record of safety and efficacy that really works --- they pay with their lives.
Everytime government tries to help some people (the drug addicts), they hurt other people --- many more people --- far more. It is time for the government to get out of our lives. It is time for the war on some drugs to stop, before more people die, and even if there were no deaths at all, to reduce the costs that we must pay for this insanity.
Please stop the madness!!
Published: December 14, 2006 8:05 AM
Dr. Phil did a show on a related topic (cough syrup).
Published: December 14, 2006 9:04 AM
"Everytime government tries to help some people (the drug addicts),"
When has this PoS "Christian" Marxist-to-the-core gov`t ever tried to "help" drug-addicts(unless your idea of "help" is yo imprison them in anal rape-camps for long periods of time)?
Published: December 14, 2006 6:05 PM
The ingredient list you quoted was incomplete - the key ingredient left out was anhydrous ammonia, which is used by farmers for fertilizing crops (the method referred to by this list is called a "Birch Reduction", also called the "Nazi" method).
Steve "Uncle Fester" Preisler is the premiere clandestine drug manufacture chemist, and has over many years outlined the techniques for manufacturing meth (among other drugs) in a series of relatively successful books on drug manufacture;
http://www.unclefesterbooks.com/
Because these techniques are based on organic chemistry methods already in the scientific literature, the First Amendment still protects him, as long as he doesn't get caught doing 'pilot studies'. In fact, his books are used by law enforcement to study the techniques for clues as to how to bust and clean up the labs safely. So you can't be put in jail for sharing meth recipies - yet.
Long before the current Drug War mania over meth, biker gangs were manufacturing it in huge quantities, with only sporadic attention from the law. Nowadays, most of the labs getting busted are small-time entrepreneurs who get into the business to make enough money or meth to feed their own habits. The large manufacturers, known colloqially as "Mexican National Labs" are either too fast for the cops, or across the border, out of reach. Essentially, the drug warriors are eliminating competition for the large producers - exactly the same function they serve for the "legitimate" drug industry.
Listen, meth is bad stuff. Taken for any length of time, it amounts to slow suicide. But it should be up to the individual to decide what to put into his or her own body, not the government.
Lest you accuse me of not caring about the health and safety of these people, let me remind you that Vioxx, a legal drug approved by the FDA may have killed as many as 27,000 deaths;
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html
Published: December 14, 2006 10:14 PM
Well, it sounds like most of you are from the east coast, because you all sound pretty ignorant about meth. It's not some "stupid kids" playing around with an EZ Bake oven! These are irresponsible people, many of which have children, that cook this in homemade labs that emit poisonous gas throughout and outside the home. Maybe you didn't know, but the gas is also highy flamable. Police don't enter those homes without a full haz-mat suit. I'd rather have the sniffles rather than living next to a powder keg. It used to be primarily in rural areas, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a meth house on every other block where I live.
You just say that pseudoephedrine is just "such-n-such," but it can only be made in large facilities, which only pharmaceutical companies have. Similar to how quaaludes were originally made until the pharmaceutical companies decided to add some restrictions, thus quaaludes are not difficult to find.
I'm all for individual freedom and the legalization of pot, but the damage caused by meth on society totally outweighs you being able to overdose on cough medicine. Tucker, do you seriously do any research before writing an article? In that last 6 months, it was reported that the damage caused by METH IS MORE THAN COCAIN, POT AND HEROINE COMBINED! Everyone in the Northwest is either a victim of identity theft, or has a close friend that was a victim. Do you think that potheads are going through all this trouble for a dime bag? 10 years ago, the shady person that stole stuff was a crackhead, now they are methheads.
So, do you really need to take above the recommended dosage for more than one month at a time? Why don't you do a little research and write an article about how people overmedicate themselves.
And while all of you on the east coast are bracing for the cold winter, there is no way to brace yourselves for the 'poop' storm that will hit you in the next year, when meth finally spreads to your coast.
Published: December 15, 2006 11:22 AM
I have four kids, two of which are _supposed_ take Sudafed daily to stave off migraines associated with sinus headaches. Not to mention it's the best decongestant on the market for my own sinus problems.
Unfortunately I'm no longer allowed to buy the medicines my children need. I must choose one of them to not receive enough pills. As it is, my wife and I _both_ go to the pharmacy counter and _both_ buy one package (can't buy both at once.) And of course I have to get there during pharmacy hours because it won't be anywhere else.
It's one of the few things that makes me want to riot or get violent.
Published: December 15, 2006 12:32 PM
I offer a dissenting opion from that of the author. The legislation that "rations" certain cold medicines is valuable and important. Do you really think the ingredient in question works better than the alternatives? How many even know what the alternatives are? Before everyone starts to panic and riot over a chemical most of us cannot pronouce, I suggest a pepsi-coke challenge. Ill bet you cannot tell the difference from one to the other. On the other hand, the benefits from the law are plentiful. Living in Arizona, I know about the meth fight. I know a few people who've been locked up for meth. One of my childhood friends was arrested for possesion with intent to disribute. From what I can piece together he hadnt yet paid for the meth he was caught with (on the front is the street term.) Rather than deal with his debtor, he commited suicide in his holding cell (James Cross). This type of bevavior is consistent with the meth trade. Meth is one drug still mass produced inside the united states. Virtually every meth lab discovered contains the chemical in cold medicine mentioned. So maybe the drug wont kill you, but the production of the drug might. Meth labs blow up quite often, injuring people not associated with the lab. The ecological damage done by meth labs ruins houses and apartments. So it is essentially better to have the drug manufactured in Mexico and sent here. I am an opponent of the war on drugs. I smoke cannibus, and thats it. What people do is their own business, but even myself, an illegal drug "abuser" approves of the law limiting cold medicine sales. I would much rather be a little more misserable for a couple of days than continue hearing about innocent people getting hurt in meth lab explosions, or hearing about landlords who rent out property previously used as a lab, making the next tennants sick for at least 1 year.
Published: December 15, 2006 2:07 PM
This article does manage to glaze over some of the awfulness of methamphetamine, aka "crystal meth". It's highly addictive and destructive to the body. I'm not advocating this stupid ban on pseudoephedrine, but I don't think that meth should lightly be passed over as "something once given to soldiers".
Go meet a meth-head - being from the mid-west I've met plenty of them, where the drug is particularly popular in small towns due to ease of manufacture and availability of ingredients. Meth addicts are sad and sick creatures.
This isn't just a few "stupid kids". This is a LOT of stupid, misguided people across the nation. This author did a terrible job researching the substance, and is distorting and ignoring many facts to benefit their own agenda. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the pseudoephedrine ban (I certainly don't), it is unconscionable and unethical (at best) to argue in such a fashion. Shame to the author of this article.
Here are some side effects of chronic use, from Wikipedia's entry on methamphetamine. You may also add to the list many of the standard compulsive behaviors of the addict, ones that often result in theft or violence to get drugs, money for drugs, or ingredients to manufacture. Oh, and meth babies are one of the most tragic, depressing sights in your life - at least on par with fetal alcohol children.
Side effects associated with overdose:
Published: December 15, 2006 5:40 PM
Meth may be bad, but nobody is forcing other people to ingest the drug. If naturally criminally acts involve force or fraud against other people, then taking any poison yourself, being fully informed about it, is not a natural crime. It is only a crime because the government has defined it as such.
The government, in their zeal to enforce their laws, both those moral and immoral, does even more than law enforcement. They pass laws like the law against pseudo-ephedrine --- a drug with a 6000 year record of safety and efficacy --- and prevent everybody from getting it and/or using it. This hurts people. In some cases --- asthmatics --- it kills people. This is all because pseudo-ephedrine is a precursor for one of the drugs that the government has declared illegal.
Not only is the war on drugs wrong, it is immoral. And it is blatantly anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. The first book of the Bible indicates that everything is good. God created this, and it was good. God created that, and it was good. God created humans, and it was very good. Physical stuff is good. Sure, drugs and alcohol can be abused, but they can also be used for beneficial purposes. All stuff is good. God has declared it so. If you say otherwise, you call God a liar!
The immoral US government has declared some stuff bad. They say that some stuff is so bad that you cannot own it, sell it, buy it, transport it, possess it, etc. God has declared that all stuff is good, and our government has called God a liar. Our government's position on illegal substances (gold from 1933-1975, alcohol in the 1920s, drugs now, etc.) is therefore blatantly anti-Christian and anti-Jewish.
Even if you are not religious, you should agree that the government should not hurt people. The laws of a country should not make people worse off than they would otherwise be without those laws. But that is what happens with almost all government laws. There are innocent bystanders who are harmed by the laws. In this case, it is hay fever sufferers, people allergic to various grasses and trees, and asthma sufferers. They can no longer get the one drug with a greater than 6000 year history of safety and efficacy in Indian and Chinese medicine. Some asthmatics even die.
If there is a God (and I believe there is), I certainly hope that justice will eventually be dispensed for the pain and suffering caused by the governments of the world upon their citizens.
If you are a politician, stop calling God a liar. Stop slapping God in the face. Stop declaring the opposite of what God has declared. (All stuff is good.) Stop passing laws that harm the people you supposedly represent. Work to repeal bad laws. Stop the war on some drugs, that is causing innocent people (asthmatics) to die! Stop the madness!!
Give us back our ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine. Repeal this bad law.
If you are ever on a jury, please inform yourself about your right to judge the law itself, in addition to judging the accused criminal. If a law is a bad law, you can vote to acquit, and you can never be punished in any way for that vote. You are part of the checks and balances on our government. If a law is a bad law, and if just 8% of the population agrees, then with informed juries who refuse to convict an alleged violator of that bad law, it can never be enforced. Our government is out of control, and needs some checks and balances. Please inform yourself, so that you can help.
The current law goes too far. It prevents hay fever sufferers, allergy sufferers, and asthmatics from getting the one drug with a more than 6000 year record of safety and efficacy that really works. Some asthmatics die! This is unacceptable!! This law needs to be repealed. It needs to be fought against. If Congress won't repeal it, then the juries in jury boxes across America must do it. Please help.
Some asthmatics are dying! Many more will die in the future due to this law. And these deaths are preventable. Please help.
Repeal this bad law, any way possible.
Published: December 15, 2006 7:54 PM
And yet we seem to have missed the point that it is now easier to buy methamphetamines than cold medicine. Thank you, Congress.
Published: December 17, 2006 6:00 PM
Do methamphetamies work just as well, or better, than ephedrine, for asthma attacks and hay fever and allergy suppression?
I don't really want the stimulant effects. I want asthma and allergy relief. But if the only way I can get it ...
Published: December 18, 2006 7:31 AM
Anonymous - the only active ingredient in the Vick's vapor inhaler (which is an off the shelf decongestant sold in stores like Walgreens) is levmethamfetamine (which is, basically, the levrotatory enantiomer; as opposed to racemic mix of lev and dex molecules found in the street crystal meth; in lev chirality meth has little psychoactivity but still works as a great decongestant).
Published: December 18, 2006 11:41 AM
I don't really want methamphetamine, but since I cannot any longer buy ephedrine, can I with an easy and cheap chemical process convert methamphetamine back into ephedrine? How do I do this? How much would it cost per dose?
Published: December 18, 2006 10:17 PM
Nice Site
Published: January 26, 2007 9:39 AM
What all you are neglecting is the fact that liquid cold medicine with pseudoephedrine cannot be used to make meth (this includes gelcaps). ONLY PILL FORM CAN BE USED IN METH PRODUCTION!
Even worse, because of the ban, the only pseudo still available is in PILL form. How wrongheaded! However, it must be noted that early laws did focus on the pills.
If the ban only covered the pill form and only put it behind the counter (meaning no limit and no ID requirement), I would support it. LIQUID (including gelcaps) WOULD STILL BE OVER THE COUNTER!!!
Published: February 17, 2007 5:16 PM
Jeffrey,
To emphasize the Orwellian nature of this latest government atrocity (not that it needs emphasizing), let me remind everyone that the USA PATRIOT Act (the abomination out of which which this abominable amendment arose) is an acronym that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."
Let's face it, there are some things you just can't make up, as nobody would believe them.
P.S. Dan Coleman, no apologies necessary for your wonderful reply to Anthony R G (not to be confused, of course, with Anthony Gregory). I do but quote Jefferson once again: "Sometimes it is said that man is not capable of the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?"
Published: February 17, 2007 6:00 PM
I never used to like honey, actually it made me sick, but over the last year i think my taste-buds must have changed and now and then i would have a honey butty. Not very exciting i know, however i started to like it.
Not thinking it had done me any good, i just eate it because it was ok. That was until i noticed that for the first time in my life, in early July 2006, I had no hey-fever, which i have had every year since i was about 10(now 54). Now is it the honey, or just my age. I dont know, but i am still eating it!
Published: March 18, 2007 2:54 PM